Great post Omegastrat.Originally Posted by Omegstrat6
From the POTUS who sought to belittle Zelensky in the Oval Office and brought us such eloquent responses as "you're a stupid person" and "quiet piggy" to female reporters asking him questions he didn't like, the Toddler in Chief now mocks Starmer as being "no Churchill" simply because our tool makers son had the temerity to disagree with him on his attack on Iran and refused to brown nose him. It's a typical Trump reaction.
It was Churchill, of course, who first coined the term "special relationship" between the UK and the US, but if this is breaking down, it is not so much because the UK has changed as America has under Trump and his gang of sycophants. Starmer is certainly no Churchill but Trump is definitely no FDR.
The Iranian regime is hateful and repressive and allowed terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah to operate within its borders but there seems to be no evidence at all that Iran was planning any "imminent" attacks on either the US or Israel as Trump has claimed as justification for his actions. In fact, intelligence reports suggest quite the reverse. Some also state that it would be at least a decade before Iran would have the military capacity to pose any real threat while other reports felt that headway could still be made on negotiations over Iran's development of nuclear power.
Contradictory statements continue to come out of the White House regarding the decision to attack Iran, but at this stage it seems increasingly likely that Israel may have been the driver. Netanyahu has already publicly stated that he has waited decades to attack Iran and it is well known that in his several meetings with Trump, he has tried to persuade the US President to support such an attack. Clearly, Trump was no longer able to say no to Bibi.
Few will mourn the Iranian regime if it does collapse (as Al points out, it won't just be the West and Israel either as Ukrainians certainly won't ) but I personally would still argue that the concepts of international law or rules of engagement are not ones that should be so easily swept aside as Trump & co are doing (and that Putin, for example, has long done). They were born out of the harsh lessons to be leant from WW2. IMHO, we reject them at our peril.
Trump, winner of the first coveted Fifa Peace Prize, has made no bones about his desire to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of him "ending 8 wars" and only recently stated that he wanted to be remembered as the great US President who stood for "peace and unity". But having threatened Greenland, attacked Venezuela and kidnapped its president and having launched strikes on Iran's nuclear development facilities only two months ago, he has now ignited further conflict in the Middle East, the consequences of which he cannot predict or control. Is Starmer really so wrong to disagree with Trump on this one?
Question for you as Al didn?t answer and never will when you go into detail. Who tore up that non proliferation agreement? and which country in the middle east actually has nuclear weapons and is actually developing them?
Reply With Quote