Last I heard Hezbollah attached a UK RAF base in Cyprus.
Have the UK stopped sitting on the fence?
We are allowing the US to use bases on UK soil now.
That seems to have happened today. The UK agreed to allow the US to use our air-space - albeit in a 'limited' and 'defensive' way, whatever that means, yesterday.
So my guess would be that Hezbollah are retaliating against that decision rather than the UK deciding to 'come down off the fence' in response to a drone attack on a British base.
As ever, get your facts right before you get on your high horse.
The US used bases in the U.K for attacks on Libya in the 1980’s and the operations to depose Gaddafi in 2012 (I think ).
The US has been using RAF Akrotiri since 1974, so that’s hardly anything new, except we have precious little left to defend ourselves with thereabouts.
I've wondered before on other threads what it would take to get the US public not to support their current President, and I would have thought US military deaths might be it. For those based in the US: is there any shift of mood?
Most Americans, according to just about every poll I’m aware of, already do not support our current president, and haven’t for some time.
I've wondered before on other threads what it would take to get the US public not to support their current President, and I would have thought US military deaths might be it. For those based in the US: is there any shift of mood?
Most Americans, according to just about every poll I’m aware of, already do not support our current president, and haven’t for some time.
Apologies - I should probably have asked something along the lines will this change the opinion of "enough of the US public and/or the people with the power to change things" to make things actually change.
I've wondered before on other threads what it would take to get the US public not to support their current President, and I would have thought US military deaths might be it. For those based in the US: is there any shift of mood?
Most Americans, according to just about every poll I’m aware of, already do not support our current president, and haven’t for some time.
Apologies - I should probably have asked something along the lines will this change the opinion of "enough of the US public and/or the people with the power to change things" to make things actually change.
Public opinion really doesn’t matter at this stage of things, at least not to Trump and the current crop of Republicans leadership in his thrall. While there are occasional signs that enough Republican members of the US House might be starting to push back, meaningful pushback doesn’t materialize.
I think realistically, little is likely to change before the election in November. Hopefully, there will be change after that, assuming we survive Republican efforts to cling to power—gerrymandering, undermining confidence in elections, etc.
I doubt that has changed much. About the only way it would swing the other way is if we had indeed been attacked first. t But there is no evidence of a pending attack by Iran on American forces prior to Trump ordering the bombing.
NBC carried a report on what broke the camel's Trump's back when it came to making the final decision. Basically, on Thursday, in negotiations with Iran the US delegation proposed Iran stop enriching uranium for 10 years. The Iranians started shouting at the US delegation Kind of got messy. The clock started ticking. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-decided-strike-iran-rcna261205
Just a small point. As I scrolled through the messages from last night, a number of people were making accusations about what was happening, none of which had any lings. When I tried to find links this morning I found some things that were a little different.
A new Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted February 28 – March 1, finds that 43% of Americans disapprove of U.S. military strikes against Iran, while 27% approve; about three-in-ten say they are unsure. {Source: Ipsos.}
This stands in stark contrast to American opinion in the run-up to the Iraq war:
Americans were inclined to believe the worst about Hussein’s regime. In a survey conducted a few weeks prior to the State of the Union, 73% favored military action in Iraq to end Hussein’s rule; just 16% were opposed. More than half (56%) said the U.S. should take action against Iraq “even if it meant U.S. forces might suffer thousands of casualties.” {Source: Pew Research}
The difference IMO stems from:
1) Trump hasn't bothered to spin an elaborate web of lies the way Bush did because he doesn't take this seriously. In a Medal of Honor ceremony today where he was supposed to be honoring soldiers killed in Vietnam and Afghanistan, he started blathering about the curtains in his new ballroom. We're dropping bombs and killing civilians, American service members have been killed, he's honoring people killed in previous stupid wars -- and he's talking about his hideous decor.
2) There has been no recent 9/11-type event here.
3) We didn't get out of Afghanistan till 2021, and people are tired of this shit.
4) A lot of us -- not just crazy lefties like me, but moderates and people not addicted to the news -- have noticed that the Epstein files haven't been on the front page of every news website for the last few days and have put 2 and 2 together.
Edit: But yeah, what @Nick Tamen said about opinion -- it doesn't matter that much right now. In part because Trump is an authoritarian who doesn't care and doesn't think he has to care about public opinion.
Whose law? The UN's? Completely ineffective institution. All words. Little action.
Evidence, please.
The repeated condemnation of Israel with Gaza and genocide springs to mind. The UN has not acted to stop it.
The genocides in Rwanda, Sudan, civil war in Syria (action vetoed by Russia and China, climate change stuff and any another local war in the world that was not stopped, presumably.
I believe it is hamstrung for action based on vetos and its constitution.
The question of the "effectiveness" of the UN depends on what you think it's supposed to do. If you think it's supposed to prevent all wars and most forms of preventable human suffering, then yes, it's not very effective. On the other hand if you take the historical view that the purpose of the UN is to prevent open war between the Great Powers (however defined), which was more or less how it was designed, then the UN has been incredibly effective.
...
However, Trump says that Iran is willing to talk: ...
Is there any other source for this claim other than the words of the man uttering it?
That is only authority for his having claimed that, not for its being true.
I can't find it now, but I think I read it in the UK Guardian earlier today - apologies for not having provided a link at the time. I may have been mistaken, or misread something...
...but, from the latest Guardian news, a White House official says:
“President Trump said new potential leadership in Iran has indicated they want to talk and eventually he will talk. For now, Operation Epic Fury continues unabated,” the official said.
Whose law? The UN's? Completely ineffective institution. All words. Little action.
Evidence, please.
The repeated condemnation of Israel with Gaza and genocide springs to mind. The UN has not acted to stop it.
The genocides in Rwanda, Sudan, civil war in Syria (action vetoed by Russia and China, climate change stuff and any another local war in the world that was not stopped, presumably.
I believe it is hamstrung for action based on vetos and its constitution.
The question of the "effectiveness" of the UN depends on what you think it's supposed to do. If you think it's supposed to prevent all wars and most forms of preventable human suffering, then yes, it's not very effective. On the other hand if you take the historical view that the purpose of the UN is to prevent open war between the Great Powers (however defined), which was more or less how it was designed, then the UN has been incredibly effective.
That's slightly revisionist.
The original charter of 1945 had a stated purpose:
--to maintain international peace and security and to achieve cooperation among nations on economic, social, and humanitarian problems.
Its predecessor was the League of Nations, an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I. Of course we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
Similarly, the United Nations has been unable to deliver and many Americans believe it has outlived it's shelf life. "What it is supposed to do" is what it states to be it's purpose. Has it done this? Your measure of 'incredibly effective,' must be much different than mine.
...
However, Trump says that Iran is willing to talk: ...
Is there any other source for this claim other than the words of the man uttering it?
That is only authority for his having claimed that, not for its being true.
The thing is, they were talking before he started all this shit.
Again, on whose word is there authority for this statement?
I can't find it now, but I think I read it in the UK Guardian earlier today - apologies for not having provided a link at the time. I may have been mistaken, or misread something...
...but, from the latest Guardian news, a White House official says:
“President Trump said new potential leadership in Iran has indicated they want to talk and eventually he will talk. For now, Operation Epic Fury continues unabated,” the official said.
Again is there any independent authority for this being any more than words, or being any more than the equivalent of the lawyer's phrases 'that is what my client says' or 'these are my instructions'.
Far be it from me to impugn the credibility of one who stands in the shoes of George Washington, he of the cherry tree and all that, but ... ?
This man is not my President and so, on credibility, I do not recognise any patriotic obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Well, I take your point, but I can only quote what I read in what is, I think, a reliable news source. Whether or not Trump's words are to be relied on is another matter altogether.
This (reported as being said by Trump the Statesman) may, or may not, be reliable:
We’re knocking the crap out of them … The big wave hasn’t even happened. The big one is coming soon.
Whose law? The UN's? Completely ineffective institution. All words. Little action.
Evidence, please.
The repeated condemnation of Israel with Gaza and genocide springs to mind. The UN has not acted to stop it.
The genocides in Rwanda, Sudan, civil war in Syria (action vetoed by Russia and China, climate change stuff and any another local war in the world that was not stopped, presumably.
I believe it is hamstrung for action based on vetos and its constitution.
The question of the "effectiveness" of the UN depends on what you think it's supposed to do. If you think it's supposed to prevent all wars and most forms of preventable human suffering, then yes, it's not very effective. On the other hand if you take the historical view that the purpose of the UN is to prevent open war between the Great Powers (however defined), which was more or less how it was designed, then the UN has been incredibly effective.
That's slightly revisionist.
The original charter of 1945 had a stated purpose:
--to maintain international peace and security and to achieve cooperation among nations on economic, social, and humanitarian problems.
Its predecessor was the League of Nations, an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I. Of course we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
Similarly, the United Nations has been unable to deliver and many Americans believe it has outlived it's shelf life. "What it is supposed to do" is what it states to be it's purpose. Has it done this? Your measure of 'incredibly effective,' must be much different than mine.
We all know that many Americans have a dim view of the UN - and sadly, the UN is hardly 'united'.
But what are they suggesting be put in its place?
A despotic US Presidency to sit alongside a despotic Kremlin and despotic China?
Whose law? The UN's? Completely ineffective institution. All words. Little action.
Evidence, please.
The repeated condemnation of Israel with Gaza and genocide springs to mind. The UN has not acted to stop it.
The genocides in Rwanda, Sudan, civil war in Syria (action vetoed by Russia and China, climate change stuff and any another local war in the world that was not stopped, presumably.
I believe it is hamstrung for action based on vetos and its constitution.
The question of the "effectiveness" of the UN depends on what you think it's supposed to do. If you think it's supposed to prevent all wars and most forms of preventable human suffering, then yes, it's not very effective. On the other hand if you take the historical view that the purpose of the UN is to prevent open war between the Great Powers (however defined), which was more or less how it was designed, then the UN has been incredibly effective.
That's slightly revisionist.
The original charter of 1945 had a stated purpose:
--to maintain international peace and security and to achieve cooperation among nations on economic, social, and humanitarian problems.
That is part of the UN's stated purpose, but from the institutional structures put in place the obvious emphasis was on preventing another world war. It's the first thing stated in the preamble of the UN Charter:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, . . .
The emphasis here is not on ending all wars (though that does fall within the UN's remit) but especially to prevent recurrences of things like the First World War and the Second World War. By specifying "twice in our lifetime" the drafters of the UN Charter were very clearly signalling which kinds of war would be the priority of the new organization to prevent.
Well, I take your point, but I can only quote what I read in what is, I think, a reliable news source. Whether or not Trump's words are to be relied on is another matter altogether.
This (reported as being said by Trump the Statesman) may, or may not, be reliable:
We’re knocking the crap out of them … The big wave hasn’t even happened. The big one is coming soon.
Precisely. I'm not impugning the Guardian. I'm sure he said it. It's that I don't believe anything he says.
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I. Of course we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
Sorry, WHAT was disbanded after the outbreak of WWI?
@Gramps, I very much doubt an Iranian drone could reach Cyprus. Hezbollah are a proxy and much closer.
And why would British Shipmates post about the US using bases in the UK if that hadn't been authorised?
I already linked to a news report that said an Iranian drone hit the RAF base in Cyprus. In addition, I believe the report also said British forces have shot two other Iranian drones over Cyprus.
Cyprus is between 1,000km -1,500 km away from Iran. The Shahed drone, which is in the Iranian arsenal, has a range of up to 2,500 km. If you look at the picture of the drone over the RAF base in Cyprus, you can see it is a Shahed type drone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136
Why would British shipmates post about US using bases in the UK? I did not doubt it. I just said I could not find a link about it. Someone has posted a link since.
Again, if a person has new information to pass on, it is a good idea to post the link to that information too.
@Gramps, I very much doubt an Iranian drone could reach Cyprus. Hezbollah are a proxy and much closer.
And why would British Shipmates post about the US using bases in the UK if that hadn't been authorised?
I already linked to a news report that said an Iranian drone hit the RAF base in Cyprus. In addition, I believe the report also said British forces have shot two other Iranian drones over Cyprus.
Cyprus is between 1,000km -1,500 km away from Iran. The Shahed drone, which is in the Iranian arsenal, has a range of up to 2,500 km. If you look at the picture of the drone over the RAF base in Cyprus, you can see it is a Shahed type drone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136
Why would British shipmates post about US using bases in the UK? I did not doubt it. I just said I could not find a link about it. Someone has posted a link since.
Again, if a person has new information to pass on, it is a good idea to post the link to that information too.
The League of Nations wasn't formerly disbanded until April 1946.
I meant just what I said, and unless you split hairs to add words like "formally" (which I didn't say) what I said was spot on.
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I.
The League of Nations headquarters was the Palace of Nations, which sat unoccupied from 1936 until that "formal" disbanding in 1946. That isn't what I was referencing, rather that it had become ineffectual after the break out of WWI, which it was formulated to prevent.
It didn't. WWII was just another example of that ineffectiveness.
The League of Nations headquarters was the Palace of Nations, which sat unoccupied from 1936 until that "formal" disbanding in 1946. That isn't what I was referencing, rather that it had become ineffectual after the break out of WWI, which it was formulated to prevent.
So the League Of Nations was founded before World War I? What year did that happen?
...
However, Trump says that Iran is willing to talk: ...
Is there any other source for this claim other than the words of the man uttering it?
That is only authority for his having claimed that, not for its being true.
The thing is, they were talking before he started all this shit.
Again, on whose word is there authority for this statement?
Oh, I don't believe him any more than you do! I'm just pointing out one of Trump's many inconsistencies that show the incoherence of what passes for his thought -- he's talking like bombing has brought Iraq to the negotiation table as if they weren't there before, more than once.
This man is not my President and so, on credibility, I do not recognise any patriotic obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I don't think Americans have an obligation to give any president the benefit of the doubt, least of all this one. He's been doing stupid, mean shit for decades -- it just didn't used to have geopolitical consequences.
Something to think about. The fuse that started this war was lit on November 4, 1979. I remember that day well because the day after I was called to active duty. It continued through October 1983 when the US Marines in Lebanon was bombed. There were many times since when Iran was responsible for the killing of American military and civilian personnel. Each time, we tried to limit our response, but it can be argued the time ran out.
It is my understanding the Israelis had hacked into the Tehran traffic cameras and had tracked the movement of the Supreme leader and other Iranian government officials for years. Along with American intelligence, they knew of the meeting the SL was having on Saturday. And they decided to strike. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603027711
Now, I have to say that explanation is the most reasonable answer than I have heard over the past couple of weeks. Really cannot dispute that.
Whether or not we should have gone to war now, the point is we are at war now. The fuse was lit three generations ago. If Rubio is to be believed, we had to go in. Now the task is to exit the engagement ASAP.
The fuse that started this war was lit on November 4, 1979. I remember that day well because the day after I was called to active duty. It continued through October 1983 when the US Marines in Lebanon was bombed. There were many times since when Iran was responsible for the killing of American military and civilian personnel. Each time, we tried to limit our response, but it can be argued the time ran out.
Oh, come on. Like the 1979 events just happened in a vacuum? There wasn't a US-backed coup in 1953? And then an autocratic shah that the US supported? They weren't killing Americans just because it was fun or something.
I don't think the US has the faintest idea of what they have unleashed.
First, I think they assumed that wiping out Khameini would cause at least some disruption - not so. It is obvious that the Iranians had planned for this, with an interim council in place within hours of the Supreme Leader's death.
Now, Hegseth has reiterated his lunatic bombast of last September about ignoring rules of engagement.
Words fail me.
<snip>Its predecessor was the League of Nations, an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I. Of course we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
<snip>
Since the League of Nations was formed after World War One, its disbandment must also have been “after the outbreak of World War I”, but not, as you appear to imply, as a consequence of the outbreak of World War I. The USA never joined the League of Nations. Japan and Germany left in 1933, Italy left in 1937, and Spain left in 1939. The Soviet Union only joined in 1934 and was expelled in 1939. The League was formally dissolved in 1946. (Source)
Trouble is, @Gramps49 whether we think there is a just reason for the current US/Israeli action or not, even if the bombing stopped tomorrow this wouldn't be the end of it.
Even if the action only lasts 4 weeks as the Trump administration claims - and we all know how reliable they are in what they say - it still wouldn't be over.
All this nonsense Hegseth spouted yesterday about no rules of engagement or no 'politically correct wars' and so on may play to a particular section of US society but it won't cut any ice with those with any sense of history.
Without wishing to escalate things Hellward some US posters here appear to have a very hazy notion of historical facts.
Just as I have a very hazy notion about contemporary munitions and drones.
If the regime collapses and is replaced by a warm and cuddly democratic one then that would be cool.
But history shows that things are never that simple.
To take an example from British and Irish history, the Easter Rising of 1916 had comparatively little popular support. When the British executed the ring-leaders that changed.
We could see a hardening of support for the Iranian regime as well as those within the country and across the diaspora who want to see it overthrown.
It's early days of course. A lot of pundits are saying that Tehran has made a major tactical error by attacking targets in the Gulf States beyond US bases.
But there's no immediate guarantee that all the Gulf States will gang up on Iran. Some were opposed to the US/Israeli action and were trying to broker peace.
There are innumerable implications not just regionally buy across the world.
Here in the UK a pro-Tehran group are planning a protest march in London. There are calls for it to be banned as there could be violent clashes between protestors and counter-protestors.
The Home Secretary and Metropolitan Police are going to have to make a decision on that and whatever they decide they'll come in for some stick. How dare they allow the march to go ahead and risk violent clashes on the streets? How dare they ban the march and curb the right to freedom of speech?
There have been dire warnings of attacks on US civilians in at least 14 countries across the Middle-East. Iranian agents and their proxies will see them as legitimate targets, the more so as US/Israeli bombings intensify and the hooting and hollering from the Trump administration follows suit.
Things are very serious indeed .
Anyone who believes this can be resolved in 4 weeks and then the US can move on to tackle Cuba and anywhere else it has a mind to - Greenland, Mexico, Canada ... is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
We've got the worst of all possible worlds. Rampant jihadism, autocratic regimes in Russia and China and a loose-cannon White House with no apparent plan other than to throw its weight around regardless of the consequences for innocent civilians, its allies and even its own citizens.
Gunboat diplomacy didn't work for the Victorians. It won't work for Donald Trump.
To take an example from British and Irish history, the Easter Rising of 1916 had comparatively little popular support. When the British executed the ring-leaders that changed.
Gunboat diplomacy didn't work for the Victorians. It won't work for Donald Trump.
A couple of instructive examples. Britain, or more accurately the ruling classes in England have never had a clue about Ireland. They never had, don’t now and they never will.
As for “Gunboat Diplomacy”, pre-1914 it consisted of gunboats and a few troops (battalion strength?) now we have carrier tasks forces, strategic bombers and smart stand off missiles. The action is of a different degree
As for “Gunboat Diplomacy”, pre-1914 it consisted of gunboats and a few troops (battalion strength?) now we have carrier tasks forces, strategic bombers and smart stand off missiles. The action is of a different degree
Gunboat diplomacy is no longer dealing with people armed with dangerously sharp slices of mango, for one thing.
Of course you don't all want a despotic Presidency @Ruth.
Mr E said 'many Americans' not all Americans.
Trump's popularity appears to have dipped and I'm hearing that only around 25% of Americans support this war.
If true, that won't stop it of course.
I'm sure not all US Republicans are keen on what's happening but a vote for them seems to have been a vote for a despotic Presidency whether they wanted that or not.
Will the USA +allies be able to keep the Strait of Hormuz open for commercial shipping?
Almost certainly not, assuming the U.S. restricts itself to an airpower only campaign.
An airpower only campaign by the US means two or three aircraft carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf/Gulf of Oman area. Each aircraft carrier strike group will include one or two guided missile cruisers, two or three guided missile destroyers, and one or two attack submarines as well as the aircraft carrier itself, its air wing, and any support/logistics ships. Those ship numbers may even be inflated given the current situation.
That level of naval power is (or certainly should be) more than enough to keep the Strait open against any threat that Iran is able to pose. Whether shipping companies (or more pertinently, their insurers) are comfortable with those conditions is, of course, a different thing.
Akrotiri hosted fighters doing drone/cruise interception during the 2024 conflict as well as unspecified surveillance flights over the region.
RAF fighter aircraft are based at Akrotiri and they have intercepted drones since the one that attacked the airfield on Saturday. I believe our fighter aircraft have been there continuously since 2024, and possibly before.
We are told that Trump decided to attack Iran because he didn't want that country to have any nuclear capabilities. My concern is that Trump is perfectly happy for his own country, the USA, to have nuclear weapons and capacity and would use them if he wished. How come, then, that other countries need his permission to have similar weapons and capabilities?
We are allowing the US to use bases on UK soil now.
One in the UK (RAF Fairford, in Gloucestershire), and Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands (the one that was at the root of all the controversy about the UK giving the Islands to Mauritius). As far as I'm aware, Fairford is being used because it's the only base that has a long enough runway (3 kilometres) for B52H Stratofortress bombers to use and is also close enough to Iran that they can do so without having to refuel en route.
Starmer says their use is restricted to bombing runs against missile sites that pose an immediate threat to US forces in the region, which he says means it's purely defensive, but that feels to me like the sort of legal hairsplitting he's known for - ISTM that any reasonable observer would regard bombing sorties against Iranian military sites as offensive, and I'm damn sure Iran will view them that way.
As far as I'm aware, the strike on the UK base in Cyprus came before we allowed US bombers to use our airfields. Though that may be an academic point now that we've been pulled into things.
<snip>Its predecessor was the League of Nations, an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I. Of course we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
<snip>
Since the League of Nations was formed after World War One, its disbandment must also have been “after the outbreak of World War I”, but not, as you appear to imply, as a consequence of the outbreak of World War I. The USA never joined the League of Nations. Japan and Germany left in 1933, Italy left in 1937, and Spain left in 1939. The Soviet Union only joined in 1934 and was expelled in 1939. The League was formally dissolved in 1946. (Source)
Mr E has stated that the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI. Until he clarifies his understanding of the chronology, there's probably not much point in engaging him.
Akrotiri hosted fighters doing drone/cruise interception during the 2024 conflict as well as unspecified surveillance flights over the region.
RAF fighter aircraft are based at Akrotiri and they have intercepted drones since the one that attacked the airfield on Saturday. I believe our fighter aircraft have been there continuously since 2024, and possibly before.
Yes, RAF aircraft have been present at Akrotiri for some time, I was calling attention specifically to its role in the previous conflict with Iran
Akrotiri hosted fighters doing drone/cruise interception during the 2024 conflict as well as unspecified surveillance flights over the region.
RAF fighter aircraft are based at Akrotiri and they have intercepted drones since the one that attacked the airfield on Saturday. I believe our fighter aircraft have been there continuously since 2024, and possibly before.
Yes, RAF aircraft have been present at Akrotiri for some time, I was calling attention specifically to its role in the previous conflict with Iran
Latest news on the Guardian live blog is that the UK is now thinking of sending a destroyer to Cyprus, presumably to increase defence capability if Akrotiri is attacked again.
<snip>Its predecessor was the League of Nations, an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I. Of course we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
<snip>
Since the League of Nations was formed after World War One, its disbandment must also have been “after the outbreak of World War I”, but not, as you appear to imply, as a consequence of the outbreak of World War I. The USA never joined the League of Nations. Japan and Germany left in 1933, Italy left in 1937, and Spain left in 1939. The Soviet Union only joined in 1934 and was expelled in 1939. The League was formally dissolved in 1946. (Source)
Mr E has stated that the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI. Until he clarifies his understanding of the chronology, there's probably not much point in engaging him.
Since you have engaged, I'm happy to respond. As a quick aside @BroJames when you insist that a member "stated" something, you really should quote what it is that you are insisting. Poor form. One might think you are prone to intellectual dishonesty. Since you engaged...
For the record, I did not state that
the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI.
What I actually said was:
a) The League of Nations was
an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
b)
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I
c)
we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
Any questions? Please go hang your hat on someone else's peg. I'm always happy to pleasantly engage with anyone, particularly if they are pleasant. You seem intent on going some other direction. I'm not your huckleberry.
Akrotiri hosted fighters doing drone/cruise interception during the 2024 conflict as well as unspecified surveillance flights over the region.
RAF fighter aircraft are based at Akrotiri and they have intercepted drones since the one that attacked the airfield on Saturday. I believe our fighter aircraft have been there continuously since 2024, and possibly before.
Yes, RAF aircraft have been present at Akrotiri for some time, I was calling attention specifically to its role in the previous conflict with Iran
Latest news on the Guardian live blog is that the UK is now thinking of sending a destroyer to Cyprus, presumably to increase defence capability if Akrotiri is attacked again.
The Daring class destroyers are pretty much the only effective anti-air capability we have right now (without borrowing capability from others), so that seems a fairly safe bet.
<snip>Its predecessor was the League of Nations, an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I. Of course we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
<snip>
Since the League of Nations was formed after World War One, its disbandment must also have been “after the outbreak of World War I”, but not, as you appear to imply, as a consequence of the outbreak of World War I. The USA never joined the League of Nations. Japan and Germany left in 1933, Italy left in 1937, and Spain left in 1939. The Soviet Union only joined in 1934 and was expelled in 1939. The League was formally dissolved in 1946. (Source)
Mr E has stated that the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI. Until he clarifies his understanding of the chronology, there's probably not much point in engaging him.
Since you have engaged, I'm happy to respond. As a quick aside @BroJames when you insist that a member "stated" something, you really should quote what it is that you are insisting. Poor form. One might think you are prone to intellectual dishonesty. Since you engaged...
For the record, I did not state that
the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI.
What I actually said was:
a) The League of Nations was
an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
b)
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I
c)
we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
Mate, WW1 started in 1914 and ended in 1918. Any organisation formed in 1919 cannot possibly have been disbanded as a result of its outbreak. Your point (b) is factually incorrect. You made a mistake. Admit it and move on.
<snip>Its predecessor was the League of Nations, an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I. Of course we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
<snip>
Since the League of Nations was formed after World War One, its disbandment must also have been “after the outbreak of World War I”, but not, as you appear to imply, as a consequence of the outbreak of World War I. The USA never joined the League of Nations. Japan and Germany left in 1933, Italy left in 1937, and Spain left in 1939. The Soviet Union only joined in 1934 and was expelled in 1939. The League was formally dissolved in 1946. (Source)
Mr E has stated that the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI. Until he clarifies his understanding of the chronology, there's probably not much point in engaging him.
Since you have engaged, I'm happy to respond. As a quick aside @BroJames when you insist that a member "stated" something, you really should quote what it is that you are insisting. Poor form. One might think you are prone to intellectual dishonesty. Since you engaged...
For the record, I did not state that
the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI.
What I actually said was:
a) The League of Nations was
an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
b)
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I
c)
we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
Any questions? Please go hang your hat on someone else's peg. I'm always happy to pleasantly engage with anyone, particularly if they are pleasant. You seem intent on going some other direction. I'm not your huckleberry.
At some point you are actually going to read what you've written. And realise how long you've been defending a comedy typo.
Akrotiri hosted fighters doing drone/cruise interception during the 2024 conflict as well as unspecified surveillance flights over the region.
RAF fighter aircraft are based at Akrotiri and they have intercepted drones since the one that attacked the airfield on Saturday. I believe our fighter aircraft have been there continuously since 2024, and possibly before.
Yes, RAF aircraft have been present at Akrotiri for some time, I was calling attention specifically to its role in the previous conflict with Iran
Latest news on the Guardian live blog is that the UK is now thinking of sending a destroyer to Cyprus, presumably to increase defence capability if Akrotiri is attacked again.
The Daring class destroyers are pretty much the only effective anti-air capability we have right now (without borrowing capability from others), so that seems a fairly safe bet.
Thanks. One specific ship was named, but there are apparently others of the class which could be deployed.
It does look as though the UK is, however unwillingly, being drawn further into Trump's folly. I don't for a moment doubt the Navy's competence and skill, but a drone or a missile could result in casualties on the ship, or on the base.
Comments
The US used bases in the U.K for attacks on Libya in the 1980’s and the operations to depose Gaddafi in 2012 (I think ).
The US has been using RAF Akrotiri since 1974, so that’s hardly anything new, except we have precious little left to defend ourselves with thereabouts.
Apologies - I should probably have asked something along the lines will this change the opinion of "enough of the US public and/or the people with the power to change things" to make things actually change.
I think realistically, little is likely to change before the election in November. Hopefully, there will be change after that, assuming we survive Republican efforts to cling to power—gerrymandering, undermining confidence in elections, etc.
I doubt that has changed much. About the only way it would swing the other way is if we had indeed been attacked first. t But there is no evidence of a pending attack by Iran on American forces prior to Trump ordering the bombing.
NBC carried a report on what broke the camel's Trump's back when it came to making the final decision. Basically, on Thursday, in negotiations with Iran the US delegation proposed Iran stop enriching uranium for 10 years. The Iranians started shouting at the US delegation Kind of got messy. The clock started ticking. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-decided-strike-iran-rcna261205
Just a small point. As I scrolled through the messages from last night, a number of people were making accusations about what was happening, none of which had any lings. When I tried to find links this morning I found some things that were a little different.
To the accusation Hezbollah attacked an RAF base in Cyprus, I found information that said an Iranian drone attacked the RAF base. https://time.com/7382076/british-base-hit-iran-war-drones-united-kingdom-terror-threat/
To the accusation Americans were shooting down their own planes, I found Kuwait had mistakenly shoot down three American F15s https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/3-us-f-15s-mistakenly-shot-down-by-kuwait-but-all-crew-safe/ar-AA1XmvIi?ocid=BingNewsSerp
I have yet to find any link saying Britian is allowing Americans to use their bases.
I know I am at fault for this many a time. But, in the case of, wars and rumors of war, it would be nice to see some links people may have.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqj9g11p1ezo
This stands in stark contrast to American opinion in the run-up to the Iraq war:
The difference IMO stems from:
1) Trump hasn't bothered to spin an elaborate web of lies the way Bush did because he doesn't take this seriously. In a Medal of Honor ceremony today where he was supposed to be honoring soldiers killed in Vietnam and Afghanistan, he started blathering about the curtains in his new ballroom. We're dropping bombs and killing civilians, American service members have been killed, he's honoring people killed in previous stupid wars -- and he's talking about his hideous decor.
2) There has been no recent 9/11-type event here.
3) We didn't get out of Afghanistan till 2021, and people are tired of this shit.
4) A lot of us -- not just crazy lefties like me, but moderates and people not addicted to the news -- have noticed that the Epstein files haven't been on the front page of every news website for the last few days and have put 2 and 2 together.
Edit: But yeah, what @Nick Tamen said about opinion -- it doesn't matter that much right now. In part because Trump is an authoritarian who doesn't care and doesn't think he has to care about public opinion.
@Gramps, I very much doubt an Iranian drone could reach Cyprus. Hezbollah are a proxy and much closer.
And why would British Shipmates post about the US using bases in the UK if that hadn't been authorised?
That is only authority for his having claimed that, not for its being true.
The thing is, they were talking before he started all this shit.
The question of the "effectiveness" of the UN depends on what you think it's supposed to do. If you think it's supposed to prevent all wars and most forms of preventable human suffering, then yes, it's not very effective. On the other hand if you take the historical view that the purpose of the UN is to prevent open war between the Great Powers (however defined), which was more or less how it was designed, then the UN has been incredibly effective.
I can't find it now, but I think I read it in the UK Guardian earlier today - apologies for not having provided a link at the time. I may have been mistaken, or misread something...
...but, from the latest Guardian news, a White House official says:
“President Trump said new potential leadership in Iran has indicated they want to talk and eventually he will talk. For now, Operation Epic Fury continues unabated,” the official said.
That's slightly revisionist.
The original charter of 1945 had a stated purpose:
--to maintain international peace and security and to achieve cooperation among nations on economic, social, and humanitarian problems.
Its predecessor was the League of Nations, an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I. Of course we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
Similarly, the United Nations has been unable to deliver and many Americans believe it has outlived it's shelf life. "What it is supposed to do" is what it states to be it's purpose. Has it done this? Your measure of 'incredibly effective,' must be much different than mine.
Originally posted by @Bishops Finger Again is there any independent authority for this being any more than words, or being any more than the equivalent of the lawyer's phrases 'that is what my client says' or 'these are my instructions'.
Far be it from me to impugn the credibility of one who stands in the shoes of George Washington, he of the cherry tree and all that, but ... ?
This man is not my President and so, on credibility, I do not recognise any patriotic obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt.
This (reported as being said by Trump the Statesman) may, or may not, be reliable:
We’re knocking the crap out of them … The big wave hasn’t even happened. The big one is coming soon.
We all know that many Americans have a dim view of the UN - and sadly, the UN is hardly 'united'.
But what are they suggesting be put in its place?
A despotic US Presidency to sit alongside a despotic Kremlin and despotic China?
Great. Thanks guys.
That is part of the UN's stated purpose, but from the institutional structures put in place the obvious emphasis was on preventing another world war. It's the first thing stated in the preamble of the UN Charter:
The emphasis here is not on ending all wars (though that does fall within the UN's remit) but especially to prevent recurrences of things like the First World War and the Second World War. By specifying "twice in our lifetime" the drafters of the UN Charter were very clearly signalling which kinds of war would be the priority of the new organization to prevent.
Sorry, WHAT was disbanded after the outbreak of WWI?
The League of Nations wasn't formerly disbanded until April 1946.
I already linked to a news report that said an Iranian drone hit the RAF base in Cyprus. In addition, I believe the report also said British forces have shot two other Iranian drones over Cyprus.
Cyprus is between 1,000km -1,500 km away from Iran. The Shahed drone, which is in the Iranian arsenal, has a range of up to 2,500 km. If you look at the picture of the drone over the RAF base in Cyprus, you can see it is a Shahed type drone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136
Why would British shipmates post about US using bases in the UK? I did not doubt it. I just said I could not find a link about it. Someone has posted a link since.
Again, if a person has new information to pass on, it is a good idea to post the link to that information too.
Damn. The picture of the shahed drone over the RAF base is behind a paywall. Best information I can provide is https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2026/uk-military-base-in-cyprus-struck-by-suspected-iranian-shahed-136-drone
I meant just what I said, and unless you split hairs to add words like "formally" (which I didn't say) what I said was spot on.
The League of Nations headquarters was the Palace of Nations, which sat unoccupied from 1936 until that "formal" disbanding in 1946. That isn't what I was referencing, rather that it had become ineffectual after the break out of WWI, which it was formulated to prevent.
It didn't. WWII was just another example of that ineffectiveness.
So the League Of Nations was founded before World War I? What year did that happen?
Oh, I don't believe him any more than you do! I'm just pointing out one of Trump's many inconsistencies that show the incoherence of what passes for his thought -- he's talking like bombing has brought Iraq to the negotiation table as if they weren't there before, more than once.
I don't think Americans have an obligation to give any president the benefit of the doubt, least of all this one. He's been doing stupid, mean shit for decades -- it just didn't used to have geopolitical consequences.
Yes, that's exactly what we all want. Glad you were able to piece this together.
It is my understanding the Israelis had hacked into the Tehran traffic cameras and had tracked the movement of the Supreme leader and other Iranian government officials for years. Along with American intelligence, they knew of the meeting the SL was having on Saturday. And they decided to strike. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603027711
Marco Rubio told reporters today the US knew of the planned Israeli strike and believed American bases and personnel would be attacked in response, so we had no choice but to join into the attack, https://abcnews.com/Politics/rubio-us-struck-iran-fearing-retaliate-israeli-attack/story?id=130694505
Now, I have to say that explanation is the most reasonable answer than I have heard over the past couple of weeks. Really cannot dispute that.
Whether or not we should have gone to war now, the point is we are at war now. The fuse was lit three generations ago. If Rubio is to be believed, we had to go in. Now the task is to exit the engagement ASAP.
Oh, come on. Like the 1979 events just happened in a vacuum? There wasn't a US-backed coup in 1953? And then an autocratic shah that the US supported? They weren't killing Americans just because it was fun or something.
First, I think they assumed that wiping out Khameini would cause at least some disruption - not so. It is obvious that the Iranians had planned for this, with an interim council in place within hours of the Supreme Leader's death.
Now, Hegseth has reiterated his lunatic bombast of last September about ignoring rules of engagement.
Words fail me.
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Even if the action only lasts 4 weeks as the Trump administration claims - and we all know how reliable they are in what they say - it still wouldn't be over.
All this nonsense Hegseth spouted yesterday about no rules of engagement or no 'politically correct wars' and so on may play to a particular section of US society but it won't cut any ice with those with any sense of history.
Without wishing to escalate things Hellward some US posters here appear to have a very hazy notion of historical facts.
Just as I have a very hazy notion about contemporary munitions and drones.
If the regime collapses and is replaced by a warm and cuddly democratic one then that would be cool.
But history shows that things are never that simple.
To take an example from British and Irish history, the Easter Rising of 1916 had comparatively little popular support. When the British executed the ring-leaders that changed.
We could see a hardening of support for the Iranian regime as well as those within the country and across the diaspora who want to see it overthrown.
It's early days of course. A lot of pundits are saying that Tehran has made a major tactical error by attacking targets in the Gulf States beyond US bases.
But there's no immediate guarantee that all the Gulf States will gang up on Iran. Some were opposed to the US/Israeli action and were trying to broker peace.
There are innumerable implications not just regionally buy across the world.
Here in the UK a pro-Tehran group are planning a protest march in London. There are calls for it to be banned as there could be violent clashes between protestors and counter-protestors.
The Home Secretary and Metropolitan Police are going to have to make a decision on that and whatever they decide they'll come in for some stick. How dare they allow the march to go ahead and risk violent clashes on the streets? How dare they ban the march and curb the right to freedom of speech?
There have been dire warnings of attacks on US civilians in at least 14 countries across the Middle-East. Iranian agents and their proxies will see them as legitimate targets, the more so as US/Israeli bombings intensify and the hooting and hollering from the Trump administration follows suit.
Things are very serious indeed .
Anyone who believes this can be resolved in 4 weeks and then the US can move on to tackle Cuba and anywhere else it has a mind to - Greenland, Mexico, Canada ... is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
We've got the worst of all possible worlds. Rampant jihadism, autocratic regimes in Russia and China and a loose-cannon White House with no apparent plan other than to throw its weight around regardless of the consequences for innocent civilians, its allies and even its own citizens.
Gunboat diplomacy didn't work for the Victorians. It won't work for Donald Trump.
A couple of instructive examples. Britain, or more accurately the ruling classes in England have never had a clue about Ireland. They never had, don’t now and they never will.
As for “Gunboat Diplomacy”, pre-1914 it consisted of gunboats and a few troops (battalion strength?) now we have carrier tasks forces, strategic bombers and smart stand off missiles. The action is of a different degree
Why there?
And the British response is apparently to withdraw troops.
Huh?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/02/uk-airbase-raf-akrotiri-cyprus-suspected-drone-strike
AFAICT, no military personnel have been withdrawn, but their families have been moved elsewhere as a precautionary measure.
It's not safe now.
It won't be any safer in future.
Even if the Iranian regime collapsed tomorrow there's no guarantee that things would stabilise any time soon.
Vance is insisting this won't be another Iraq. Why should we believe him?
Mr E said 'many Americans' not all Americans.
Trump's popularity appears to have dipped and I'm hearing that only around 25% of Americans support this war.
If true, that won't stop it of course.
I'm sure not all US Republicans are keen on what's happening but a vote for them seems to have been a vote for a despotic Presidency whether they wanted that or not.
An airpower only campaign by the US means two or three aircraft carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf/Gulf of Oman area. Each aircraft carrier strike group will include one or two guided missile cruisers, two or three guided missile destroyers, and one or two attack submarines as well as the aircraft carrier itself, its air wing, and any support/logistics ships. Those ship numbers may even be inflated given the current situation.
That level of naval power is (or certainly should be) more than enough to keep the Strait open against any threat that Iran is able to pose. Whether shipping companies (or more pertinently, their insurers) are comfortable with those conditions is, of course, a different thing.
RAF fighter aircraft are based at Akrotiri and they have intercepted drones since the one that attacked the airfield on Saturday. I believe our fighter aircraft have been there continuously since 2024, and possibly before.
One in the UK (RAF Fairford, in Gloucestershire), and Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands (the one that was at the root of all the controversy about the UK giving the Islands to Mauritius). As far as I'm aware, Fairford is being used because it's the only base that has a long enough runway (3 kilometres) for B52H Stratofortress bombers to use and is also close enough to Iran that they can do so without having to refuel en route.
Starmer says their use is restricted to bombing runs against missile sites that pose an immediate threat to US forces in the region, which he says means it's purely defensive, but that feels to me like the sort of legal hairsplitting he's known for - ISTM that any reasonable observer would regard bombing sorties against Iranian military sites as offensive, and I'm damn sure Iran will view them that way.
As far as I'm aware, the strike on the UK base in Cyprus came before we allowed US bombers to use our airfields. Though that may be an academic point now that we've been pulled into things.
Mr E has stated that the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI. Until he clarifies his understanding of the chronology, there's probably not much point in engaging him.
Yes, RAF aircraft have been present at Akrotiri for some time, I was calling attention specifically to its role in the previous conflict with Iran
Latest news on the Guardian live blog is that the UK is now thinking of sending a destroyer to Cyprus, presumably to increase defence capability if Akrotiri is attacked again.
Since you have engaged, I'm happy to respond. As a quick aside @BroJames when you insist that a member "stated" something, you really should quote what it is that you are insisting. Poor form. One might think you are prone to intellectual dishonesty. Since you engaged...
For the record, I did not state that
What I actually said was:
a) The League of Nations was
b)
c)
Any questions? Please go hang your hat on someone else's peg. I'm always happy to pleasantly engage with anyone, particularly if they are pleasant. You seem intent on going some other direction. I'm not your huckleberry.
The Daring class destroyers are pretty much the only effective anti-air capability we have right now (without borrowing capability from others), so that seems a fairly safe bet.
Mate, WW1 started in 1914 and ended in 1918. Any organisation formed in 1919 cannot possibly have been disbanded as a result of its outbreak. Your point (b) is factually incorrect. You made a mistake. Admit it and move on.
At some point you are actually going to read what you've written. And realise how long you've been defending a comedy typo.
Thanks. One specific ship was named, but there are apparently others of the class which could be deployed.
It does look as though the UK is, however unwillingly, being drawn further into Trump's folly. I don't for a moment doubt the Navy's competence and skill, but a drone or a missile could result in casualties on the ship, or on the base.