Starmer is useless and stands for nothing but cowardice.
Hey now, he’s a firm ally of British Royalty and Middle Eastern oil producing fascist regimes.
So apparently the U.S. now recognizes the right of one nation to kidnap another nation’s head of state and their spouse. Maybe someone should put that bug in his ear.
Weak and cowardly.
The current UK labor party doesn’t seem to have any concrete values or plans beyond censoring internet pornography.
Mu view of UK politics since stammer took over
I trust con to do what they say o just dont like it
I dont trust what lab will do what they say even if I like it
Excited to see how many Brits get arrested for illegally protesting
Waffle some more, why don’t you?
I am so sick of this guy.
Starmer just keeps his tongue deep in American ass.
Jesus Christ what happened to the men that ran up the beaches with my grandfather? What happened to Keep Calm and Carry On? What happened to the men, women and children that suffered the Blitz?
The best thing Starmer can say is he’s the Chamberlain of our time. Chamberlain was trying to avoid another war, which was a sincere effort, but that’s the best comparison.
The less charitable conclusion is that the Brits don’t have the minerals. In 39 they took on a gorilla because they were honoring an agreement with Poland. Today they can’t even say a disparaging word about a paedophile conman violating international law and threatening their erstwhile allies.
What I don’t understand is how anyone could listen to Trump complain about a Putin made claim that Ukraine attacked his residence and Trump was “mad” about it. Then Trump can turn around and say he attacked/abducted 2 leaders from another country and think it should be fine.
What he actually just did is mark Mar-A-Lago and his other properties as being eligible targets in any retaliation that comes in the future.
We can all hope, right?
I, personally, would drive to the wreckage and take a huge dump on it before going on the celebration bender of a lifetime if another country had the balls to wipe Mar A Lago off the map.
I stopped long ago thinking like that - in terms of consistency - about Trump & posse. But yeah, let’s.
Leaders have always been legitimate military targets regardless of where they are or what they’re doing. But traditionally, any attack would be targeted to minimize civilian casualties, especially to women and children and cultural buildings like churches, schools, museums, and of course hospitals and medical personnel.
Just read a German article where Merz said pretty much the same:
"Nicolás Maduro led his country to ruin. The last election was falsified. We - like many other states in the world - therefore did not recognize the presidency. Maduro played a problematic role in the region, with unfortunate alliances worldwide and through Venezuela’s involvement in the drug business. The legal classification of the US operation is complex. We are taking our time on this. Basically, the principles of international law must apply in dealings between states. Now there must be no political instability in Venezuela It is important to ensure an orderly transition to a government legitimized by elections.”
United States of America, Great Britain, and Northern Ireland
Paedo Don believes himself a king and he’s treated as if he is in all but name so you’re close but it’s The United Kingdom of America, Great Britain, and Northern Ireland
Herr Schtarmer
Because he is also an imperialist with similar monetary interest Macron and others are the same as well.
Whatever else you can say about Thatcher – and it’s a lot – she could at least speak her mind and stand her ground.
considers
Ehhh…The closest analog to the US removing Maduro actually probably happened when Thatcher was in office, Grenada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Grenada
The United States and a coalition of Caribbean countries[a] invaded the island nation of Grenada at dawn on 25 October 1983. Codenamed Operation Urgent Fury by the U.S. military, it resulted in military occupation within a few days.[9] It was triggered by strife within the People’s Revolutionary Government, which led to the house arrest and execution of the previous leader and second Prime Minister of Grenada, Maurice Bishop, and to the establishment of the Revolutionary Military Council, with Hudson Austin as chairman. Following the invasion there was an interim government appointed, and then general elections held in December 1984.
The invasion drew criticism from many countries. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher privately disapproved of the mission, in part because she was not consulted in advance and was given very short notice of the military operation, but she supported it in public.[10] On October 28, 1983, three days after the invasion, the U.N. Security Council by a vote of 11 to one failed to pass a resolution “deeply deploring” the invasion, calling it a “flagrant violation of international law” (the United States vetoed the resolution).[11]
Grenada is part of the Commonwealth of Nations and the intervention was opposed by several Commonwealth members including the United Kingdom, Trinidad and Tobago, and Canada.[1]: 50 British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a close ally of Reagan on other matters, personally opposed it. Reagan had forewarned her it might happen; she did not know for sure that it was coming until three hours before. Although she publicly supported the action, she sent the following message to Reagan at 12:30 on the morning of the invasion:
This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime. I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East/West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siting of Cruise missiles in this country. I must ask you to think most carefully about these points. I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication. You asked for my advice. I have set it out and hope that even at this late stage you will take it into account before events are irrevocable.[87][88] (the full text remains classified).
Her complaints were not heeded, and the invasion continued as planned. While the fighting was still going on, Reagan phoned Thatcher to apologize for any miscommunication between them,[89] and their long-term friendly relationship endured.[90][91]
That being said, it very much sounds to me like Starmer wasn’t notified in advance, and I can’t imagine that he’d make any strong statements without consulting with the Foreign Office, the US, and probably some other countries as well. Probably put together some kind of British position over the next several days, if I were to guess. He also said something more-or-less to that effect, that he’d need to communicate with the US and some other countries on the matter.
Finny thing is, I have a hunch Russia and China were notified in advance…
Nah, you are all right thanks. I’d rather have someone who takes a bit of time to make a decision than Margaret fucking Thatcher. What the fuck?
