I may be naive, but I honestly didn’t think UK would allow this, when Starmer clearly stated the war on Iran is illegal. Especially not after USA has been caught in several war crimes.
Yeah but that’s because you’re using logic, reasoning, and commonly understood meanings of words. In Kid Starver’s authoritarian mind none of those things matter.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre.
Absolutely, the idea that “preemptive” strikes are defensive is Orwellian.
Also how does UK know what target they will hit? Will it be a kindergarten killing innocent children? Will it be a refinery constituting chemical warfare on civilians? There is no plausible reason to believe these strikes are purely defensive.
Imagine the number of attacks the world could “morally” do on USA, if preemptive strikes were considered self defense.
How many countries even allies has Trump threatened? Panama, Cuba, Denmark/Greenland, Canada. Are some that I remember for sure. Besides actually attacking Venezuela and now Iran.
All these countries could legally perform strikes against USA by the logic of the current American Government. And then they wonder why so many people hate USA.
Yes but that’s not really what I’m saying. My point is that Starmer has been very clear (in his slimy lizard way) that the UK would be helping America.
I could be wrong but I think the way foreign litany bases work is that they are in the thinnest legal sense “sovereign foreign territory.” To which I mean, the activities conducted on these bases are outside the control of the country who’s land they occupy.
Edit: I was wrong, amd the US are just tennants on the land which makes this a very questionable thing that they are doing.
This is a common misconception (it doesn’t actually apply to embassies either, from which the myth arose). Every military base of a nation within another nation’s territory is governed by a status of forces agreement (SOF); usually a large general SOF for all locations in the territory and also a narrower SOF that applies to that site specifically.
These munitions could be just being moved from one site to another, not destined for a site supplying the Iranian theater. They could be being sent for decommissioning. They could be loaded just for regular evaluation, loaded test flights. They could be going to the Iranian theater, but the UK government gave special exception for this case. Or it could be what we all thought right when we saw the headline and these are going directly ti theater to be used on Iranian targets.
Without more information, it’s impossible to know. Brits should be demanding more information for sure; I just told my partner and she is emailing her MP right now about this.
That does not sound like a good idea. I would expect a country would want to maintain sovereignty of their own territory.
Of course embassies have something similar to what you describe, but if an embassy is breaking the law, the diplomats can be expelled.
What a surprise… No one could have seen this coming.
I feel like we’re slowly discovering that the UK is still in fact run by Tony Blair.
I may be naive, but I honestly didn’t think UK would allow this, when Starmer clearly stated the war on Iran is illegal. Especially not after USA has been caught in several war crimes.
Didn’t he literally say he’d allow their use for “defensive” strikes? He’s never really been hiding it.
How is a bunker buster on a bomber defensive?
Defensive is to scramble planes to shoot down missiles. An attack is not defensive in my book.
Edit: A word.
Yeah but that’s because you’re using logic, reasoning, and commonly understood meanings of words. In Kid Starver’s authoritarian mind none of those things matter.
Absolutely, the idea that “preemptive” strikes are defensive is Orwellian.
Also how does UK know what target they will hit? Will it be a kindergarten killing innocent children? Will it be a refinery constituting chemical warfare on civilians? There is no plausible reason to believe these strikes are purely defensive.
The idea that preemptive strikes are defensive is Roman.
Imagine the number of attacks the world could “morally” do on USA, if preemptive strikes were considered self defense.
How many countries even allies has Trump threatened? Panama, Cuba, Denmark/Greenland, Canada. Are some that I remember for sure. Besides actually attacking Venezuela and now Iran.
All these countries could legally perform strikes against USA by the logic of the current American Government. And then they wonder why so many people hate USA.
IMO defensive would involve them not leaving the USA.
Yes, that’s a good way to define it.
Yeha that’s why “defensive” is in quotes, but the idea is that America is only allowed to use UK bases to bomb Iran’s offensive capabilities.
That’s still going too far IMO. USA had the option to stay out, we should not aid them in their illegal wars.
Yes but that’s not really what I’m saying. My point is that Starmer has been very clear (in his slimy lizard way) that the UK would be helping America.
Every strike is a defensive strike
No it’s not.
It is in kid starvers twisted mind
The best defense is a good offense…
Wasn’t that also when he was admitting that the UK was helping do the preemptive strikes?
Yall are naive as shit. The fucking pedophiles are against their buddy pedophiles they’ve been fucking kids with? Do you really believe that shit?
I
could be wrong but I think the way foreign litany bases work is that they are in the thinnest legal sense “sovereign foreign territory.” To which I mean, the activities conducted on these bases are outside the control of the country who’s land they occupy.Edit: I was wrong, amd the US are just tennants on the land which makes this a very questionable thing that they are doing.
Nnnnope. They are RAF bases, with a nominal RAF CO. The USAF are tenants.
This is a common misconception (it doesn’t actually apply to embassies either, from which the myth arose). Every military base of a nation within another nation’s territory is governed by a status of forces agreement (SOF); usually a large general SOF for all locations in the territory and also a narrower SOF that applies to that site specifically.
Thank you for the correction! That makes what they’re doing against the SOF rules/law, then?
That really depends tbh.
These munitions could be just being moved from one site to another, not destined for a site supplying the Iranian theater. They could be being sent for decommissioning. They could be loaded just for regular evaluation, loaded test flights. They could be going to the Iranian theater, but the UK government gave special exception for this case. Or it could be what we all thought right when we saw the headline and these are going directly ti theater to be used on Iranian targets.
Without more information, it’s impossible to know. Brits should be demanding more information for sure; I just told my partner and she is emailing her MP right now about this.
That does not sound like a good idea. I would expect a country would want to maintain sovereignty of their own territory.
Of course embassies have something similar to what you describe, but if an embassy is breaking the law, the diplomats can be expelled.
Starmer the flim flam man. He stands for nothing and will go with anything, he has no morals.
Probably in the Epstein files. (The UK leaders).