ListNook

theweirdball Mar 28, 2026 +352

Trump should have considered the consequences of alienating all of our allies.

352

MagicBoyUK Mar 28, 2026 +169

Not sure we're Allies anymore. Even if you get shot of him, the relationships are not getting anywhere recovered for a generation, even with massive changes to your political system to prevent this happening again.

169

NC16inthehouse Mar 28, 2026 +1

It's just short of hostile nation status equal to Russia. Denmark was even willing to bomb a runway in Greenland so that the US won't be able to use it. That's how serious it was.

1

MagicBoyUK Mar 28, 2026 +1

If this was Putin's plan it was f\*\*king genius.

1

TtotheC81 Mar 28, 2026 +1

All Putin had to do was sit back and allow the corruption and greed to build. If you look at both American and Russian oligarchs, there's very little difference in how they act. They just took different journeys to get to the same end result.

1

Chillers Mar 28, 2026 +1

If America is attacked UK would absolutely defend them. We just don't defend demented pedophiles waging wars.

1

MagicBoyUK Mar 28, 2026 +1

Probably, if Trump doesn't leave NATO. Which is unlikely at the moment as he needs a 2/3rds majority in Congress.

1

Chillers Mar 28, 2026 +1

He doesn't really need to leave NATO he just needs to not honour the treaty.

1

MagicBoyUK Mar 28, 2026 +1

In which case when they need NATO, help will not be forthcoming. Karma's a b****. Just like now. Turns out if you threaten to invade two of your allies and tariff the rest while calling their armed forces toys and their governments cowards, help will not be forthcoming. Who knew!

1

Chillers Mar 28, 2026 +1

I think it's more the case that America was the aggressor more so than the name calling. Whilst Trump is an A grade piece of shit, allegiances go beyond a singular person but yes he's caused serious long term damage I don't think America will ever be seen in the same light again after this if it ever ends.

1

MagicBoyUK Mar 28, 2026 +1

Undoubtedly. NATO help wouldn't kick in unless US territory got attacked. The only time they invoked Article 5 was after September 11th.

1

BigBananaBerries Mar 28, 2026 +1

The fact there was no plan or legal basis to kick things off is why people are stepping back. Trumps been sniffing his own farts for so long, surrounding himself with idiots telling him he can do whatever he wants (as we've heard him say so many times), that he doesn't understand these things are a requirement.

1

SHITBLAST3000 Mar 28, 2026 +1

The U.S. doesn’t have the political leverage here. Yes, NATO has to spend more in this current geopolitical climate but what NATO offers to the U.S. is unparalleled logistics. The airfields, ports and bases all allow the U.S. to have the rapid response it does all over the world. Now if the U.S. was to lose that it would hurt U.S. interests more than the rest of the alliance. A lot of voices in the military close to Trump will be telling him how catastrophic it would be if the U.S. pulled out. The U.S. would no longer be able to force project like it would, the U.S. navy would be incredibly limited because of the loss port access. NATO is nothing but a benefit to the U.S., it’s what allows it to be the military superpower it is. The U.S. complaining about NATO is a train complaining about the tracks it’s on.

1

Chillers Mar 28, 2026 +1

I completely agree with your comment. US is only a global superpower because of the strategic logistical locations their allies provide.

1

asdhjasdhlkjashdhgf Mar 28, 2026 +1

He can't leave NATO on his own, that would need congress to abolish membership. They might like complacency but they are aware what that would mean for the dollar. (Nato is also an economic net.) Therefor it needs a doctor, and thats not even a sarcastic joke.

1

DKDamian Mar 28, 2026 +1

Attacked by who? What is this weird fantasy? America is the aggressor nation over and over and over again

1

Chillers Mar 28, 2026 +1

Why can't people read and understand my comment. IF America is attacked. Not by Iran by another separate nation not related to this war.

1

DGSmith2 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Who? Which country is a threat to America right now from an eminent attack?

1

Chillers Mar 28, 2026 +1

F*** sake it's theoretical. Do I really have to explain my comment.

1

SnooOwls4409 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Reading comprehension truly is terrible these days isn't it? Embarrassing for them.

1

Chillers Mar 28, 2026 +1

It's incredibly frustrating that people can't make sense out of "The UK would defend US if attacked". I don't know how much more simple it could be.

1

Maplecook Mar 28, 2026 +1

Iran did not attack the USA.

1

Chillers Mar 28, 2026 +1

Did you even read my comment.

1

SouthTippBass Mar 28, 2026 +1

Not yet.

1

eminusx Mar 28, 2026 +31

There is clearly an enormous divide in the U.S, most of whom are on the same side as us, they think like us and want the same things as us, so i'd definitely still call them allies. Current Gov tho can go f*** itself into oblivion...I'd be delighted if they all died horrifically in a plane crash, the world would 100% be a better place.

31

Z3B0 Mar 28, 2026 +1

The problem is that the former US allies cannot plan for that alliance if you can turn hostile on a coin toss every 4 years. How can we try using the same military communications, a NATO standard, when we might have to fight off a marines landing in Nuuk? How can Japan and Korea supposed to rely on a country that will maybe relocate all the anti ballistic missile protection, that you paid a heavy diplomatic price for, without even telling you ? Yes trump took the 6 THAADs in south Korea, and transferred them to the middle east in the middle of the night, after it really angered China in 2016, when they got installed. The trust in US stability has been broken, and until a lot of constitutional reforms are carried out to prevent another trump, the US will stay as a potential danger to everyone. No treaty can be trusted when the potus can ignore them like he ignores the constitution.

1

Feligris Mar 28, 2026 +1

>The trust in US stability has been broken, and until a lot of constitutional reforms are carried out to prevent another trump, the US will stay as a potential danger to everyone. No treaty can be trusted when the potus can ignore them like he ignores the constitution. Exactly, while the worst part is how it the in many cases irreparable damage which Trump is doing will not become evident to the Americans until long after he's gone, when the destruction of US soft power abroad and the destruction of civil rights, education, and social order within the US comes to head after years of inertia. But given how Trump has just been allowed to blatantly ignore the laws and the constitution since every institution which could stop him, is compromised and complicit, I don't even know what kind of reforms could be done to "repair" the situation in a way which would be palatable to the rest of the world when they've seen how even the current rules are just blatantly ignored in the US because the people in charge are actively working to turn it into a dictatorship where the POTUS has absolute power. There's nothing you can reform to prevent that, since in the end if nobody enforces the reforms they still mean nothing.

1

TtotheC81 Mar 28, 2026 +1

There can't be reforms without addressing the corruption, religious fundamentalism, and lack of education and critical thinking that is driving this madness. It would require societal deprogramming on a scale never witnessed in human history. Sadly, I think the far-right of America has realised this and is going to take the easier, more brutal path with the American left. There are too many concentration camps being constructed in the U.S for them all to be used on immigrants...

1

headphones1 Mar 28, 2026 +1

While there are many in the US who may see what is happening as an absolute shit show, the fact remains that the country has allowed itself to become what it is now. Without systemic change, it can happen again. Other countries should assume it will happen again unless systemic change happens. Trump was elected not once, but twice. The first time can be forgiven as a major protest vote, or a temporary lapse in judgement. The second time? Nah, you guys are messed up. We need to diverge from the US.

1

eminusx Mar 28, 2026 +1

Yeah, agree! I personally think the corporate Dems are as much to blame as the GOP. Many of them are up to their necks in corporate donors, their voting records are often diabolical and when genuinely progressive Politicians do present a viable alternative, like Sanders, the Dems like Schumer, Pelosi etc wage war against them because they know Bernie et al want to get money out of Politics, and the current crop of democratic shithouses simply cant have that. Unfortunately it feels like U.S voters are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and thats incredibly sad, theyve been let down by both sides. Obviously the Dems draw the line where the GOP are happy to support kidnapping, murder, paedophilia, endless war...but I dont think many of the Dems are too far behind, they simply want to ensure the mask stays put and their donors keep paying.

1

Inevitable_Butthole Mar 28, 2026 +47

70% of their population allowed for trumps second term by either voting for him or not voting at all. Remember that

47

MagicBoyUK Mar 28, 2026 +1

Yep, and the rest of the world will remember that. Even if you do course correct, and he fails to throw the mid-terms and undo the two term limits .... we're only 4 years away from possible demented fascism again.

1

fafatzy Mar 28, 2026 +1

That is the scary part. They like it

1

eminusx Mar 28, 2026 +1

I’m not so sure about that personally. For a start, Trump never won anything fairly in his entire life so we can be sure he would cheat in the election. Then all the stuff with Musk, his ‘knowledge’ of voting machines, visits to voting offices by officials and clandestine visits by ‘techies’ in the weeks leading up… I also think this was the actual role of DOGE in the aftermath, clear away any digital traces…hence why so many offices were gutted and officials removed… Finally, there has been a huge amount of data and analysis done since the election and the last 3-4 months have shown significant anomalies that indicate there was clearly manipulation happening at a grand scale. Until we see rock solid evidence this is speculation of course, but I’m pretty certain he didn’t win and it was manipulated to quite some degree

1

IAmBoring_AMA Mar 28, 2026 +1

This is not true. Also voting in the US isn’t an easy task; it’s not a holiday, you get one hour off to vote (but that means driving to and from a polling place, which may not be possible), and the registration system makes it so you have to sign up to be eligible to vote instead of just…f****** voting. And that’s not even considering the electoral college, which is used to intentionally limit the voices of minorities and poor people.

1

EkstraOst Mar 28, 2026 +1

Oh.. the hardship you must endure as you try to muster the will to vote once every 2/4 years. Never mind the suffering you’re shoving onto entire nations _as we speak_ - it’s just too inconvenient to do the bare minimum.

1

SlipperyWidget Mar 28, 2026 +1

Even if that is true. The systems of government in the USA enabled this to happen and keep happening. The USA needs to fix itself before they can be trusted again.

1

eminusx Mar 28, 2026 +1

totally agree. I think we could argue we're there for them 'in spirit', but a lot of reparations need to be made, bridges built, trust re-established before we even consider alliances like weve had in the past.

1

emarvil Mar 28, 2026 +1

What everyone with a brain fears now is that there is currently no way to make sure another Trump-like deranged autocrat doesn't come to power in the future. Whatever 48 manages to fix in terms of international trust, 49 or 50 can undo again. In terms of having the world's trust, the US is cooked.

1

bwoah07_gp2 Mar 28, 2026 +1

The US & UK are definitely allies. It may not seem that way right now, but they have a longtime relationship. Trump is a blip in this relationship. The UK is simply gonna wait it out.

1

ShadowKraftwerk Mar 28, 2026 +1

>recovered for a generation Of what? Galapagos turtles? Those Greenland sharks? Blue whales?

1

havertzatit Mar 28, 2026 +1

Even if the allies were not alienated, it would have been a war that no one wants to join. It will guarantee loss of lives, increase in immigration to Europe that leaders at this stage are battling and immense unpopularity with the polls.

1

suvlub Mar 28, 2026 +1

Some might still follow out of perceived obligation to the US. "If we tell them 'no' now, they might be reluctant to help us when we need it, even though their 'need' is frivolous war they themselves started". But US crossed the line first, so none of such sentiment remains

1

DeusPrime Mar 28, 2026 +1

Consequences? Hahahaha why would he? He hasn't faced any so far... americans seem content to let this fat, orange, child f****** psychopath do whatever the f*** he wants.

1

theweirdball Mar 28, 2026 +1

Trump is like a fishermen, the republican voters are the fish, christian nationalist policies are the bait, and fascism is the hook.

1

Imaginary-Ad-7919 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Trump has been very active in undermining NATO. NATO is a defense alliance, not some private service that Trump can order whenever he runs into trouble, like with Iran.

1

Bulletloader Mar 28, 2026 +1

Not 100% sure this is down to Flump alienating the allies, maybe we should give the Europeans some credit, they will have got wise to the fact that he’s a c*** and starting this war was a stupid f****** idea.

1

gpowerf Mar 28, 2026 +1

The U.S. and traditional European allies are no longer allies. The U.S. alienated us, insulted us repeatedly. F*** the Trump regime.

1

Flaky-Gear-1370 Mar 28, 2026 +1

The only ally he cares about it is Putin

1

SpagBolForLife Mar 28, 2026 +1

100%. Starmer should ask for a sweet deal from Trump to join. Then turn the deal down

1

BaneOfMyLife Mar 28, 2026 +1

He did. It was the plan. Divide and conquer from the inside is exactly what Russia said it would do decades ago, and now it is.

1

Odd-Professor-5309 Mar 28, 2026 +1

If he hadn't, would you then have supported the UK joining the Iran war ?

1

skibbin Mar 28, 2026 +199

No pressure, he said our aircraft carriers were toys and that he didn't want the UK joining the war he's already won.

199

TtotheC81 Mar 28, 2026 +55

Not to mention disparaging the sacrifices of NATO troops in Afghanistan and coalition troops in Iraq, paving over the historical fact that America has been the only country to enact Clause 5 of the NATO treaty. But, at this point, it's no surprise. Trump has hated on NATO ever since his first 'business' trip to Russia in the late 80s. He's taken every opportunity to poison the well, prepping MAGA to turn on their former allies. At this point, it's safe to assume that there's an alliance between the Russian and American oligarchs, given how the U.S has openly stated its aim to break apart the EU, and how they're blocking Europe from 'peace' talks with themselves and Russia.

55

Gentle_Snail Mar 28, 2026 +1

After Trump made that comment Starmer opened parliament with a reading of all British soldiers who had died fighting in US wars from just that date in history.

1

MagicBoyUK Mar 28, 2026 +52

Then 3 minutes later he contradicted himself. My Nan made more sense when she had Alzheimer's 😂

52

Gentle_Snail Mar 28, 2026 +1

Trumps been absolutely obsessed, almost every speech he’s given in the last two weeks has included a hateful rant about Starmer.

1

MagicBoyUK Mar 28, 2026 +1

It's great, isn't it. Proof Starmer is correct.

1

TheChutneyFerret Mar 28, 2026 +1

I know another world leader who has the UK living rent free in his head, and he speaks with a russian accent! Its like Trump is trying to copy his playbook

1

mildlyopinionatedpom Mar 28, 2026 +13

I think Starmer should withdraw all military assets and withdraw permission to use bases given Trump's statements. When he can engage with the UK as an Ally and not $hit on them in public, then maybe reconsider.

13

Chillers Mar 28, 2026 +1

Easier said than done. UK really alienated themselves with Brexit to the point they need the US ties.

1

MagicBoyUK Mar 28, 2026 +1

UK is still waiting on that trade deal, like the USA is still waiting on Trump's healthcare plan. Both due in 2017 IIRC...

1

kmontreux Mar 28, 2026 +1

Hey now! We definitely probably most likely got Trump's concepts of a healthcare plan in 2017.

1

MagicBoyUK Mar 28, 2026 +1

Was it "two more weeks"? 🤣

1

dotBombAU Mar 28, 2026 +58

Good lad.

58

Jackadullboy99 Mar 28, 2026 +53

This is the advantage of a system that allows easy ousting of a leader… they actually have to be somewhat accountable.

53

Gentle_Snail Mar 28, 2026 +45

When Boris Jonson and Lis Truss were forced out it looks embarrassing, but ultimately it was the system working as intended. The UK Parliamentary system is engineered so removing a failing PM is as easy as possible, and designed to encourage a party to turn on their own leader if they start doing badly. Hell Boris Johnson was even forced to resign as an MP, because he was caught lying to parliament and so resigned to avoid the humiliation of being kicked out by a recall election.

45

stonkfrobinhood Mar 28, 2026 +1

I love that. We need that. I'm not sure we'll ever get it

1

Anaptyso Mar 28, 2026 +1

Also, the combination of easy to remove PMs and no term limits means that there's no "lame duck" period for PMs, unless they announce they are stepping down. They almost always have an incentive to try and win votes, and always face the possibility of removal if they mess up. In the US presidents in their second term have little motivation to care about the electorate, especially if they aren't bothered about messing things up for their own party.

1

Every-Pollution413 Mar 28, 2026 +1

A simple yet brilliant feature of British politics. A party can remove its own leader and the party itself remains in power. An amazingly effective dictator reterrent.

1

Gentle_Snail Mar 28, 2026 +1

I remember when Lis Truss was kicked out people were angry it didn’t trigger an automatic election - but thing is you *want* to encourage a party to turn on any bad leaders. It sounds counter intuitive but this is part of the system because it leads to better democracy and governance. If turning on Lis Truss meant the Tories would lose power, she likely would have served out the rest of her term.

1

TemporarySun314 Mar 28, 2026 +1

I mean that is not uniquely British. In Germany that can happen too. The Parliament can replace the chancellor at every time for whatever reason they want, they just need a simple majority for a new candidate. And in principle the government coalition that elected the original chancellor can just install a new one, which they want without any reelection. Historically it's more likely that the coalition breaks up, and then no majority is found, so that reelections are a way to mix the cards again.

1

TataHexagone2020 Mar 28, 2026 +1

As it turns out, a parliamentary form of government where you can elect the party you like instead of being forced to choose between two individuals belonging to the same old 2 parties is better

1

LostInAPortal Mar 28, 2026 +1

Parliamentary systems are not immune to duopolies. It’s a drawback of the FPTP voting method rather than the structure of the political system. Check every major country with FPTP, they end up having two major parties which swing back n forth every election. Examples - UK (Labor vs Tories), US (Dems vs GOP), India (BJP vs INC), Canada (LPC vs CPC).

1

Gentle_Snail Mar 28, 2026 +1

Duopolies in Europe mean something else. There are two dominant parties in UK politics, but there are lots of other mainstream options you can vote for like the Lib Dems, Greens etc. While the US you essentially just have two options and thats literally it.

1

amytee252 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Eh.... it is a w***** takes all system in the UK though. Much rather the German system.

1

Gentle_Snail Mar 28, 2026 +1

They’re saying that in the UK you vote for parties, while in the US you vote for individuals.

1

MagicBoyUK Mar 28, 2026 +61

The US can apply as much pressure as they like. Starmer joins the war and there will be millions on the streets protesting. Including me. The orange painted demented shitgibbon can go f*** himself and shove his illegal war where the sun doesn't shine.

61

Gentle_Snail Mar 28, 2026 +1

Starmer was a major human rights lawyer and massively against the Iraq war, theres no way he’d join the war as it currently stands. In fact to quote him himself: >”We all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learned those lessons. Any U.K. actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable thought-through plan”

1

MagicBoyUK Mar 28, 2026 +1

Indeed. Worth noting Starmer wasn't a politician, he was a barrister at that time. Starmer as PM can't do a Trump and unilaterally join action anyway. He first needs support of Cabinet and then of Parliament.

1

___xXx__xXx__xXx__ Mar 28, 2026 +1

The "lawful basis" one is just stupid. You should never go to war except in the most dire circumstances dictate that you *must*. And if you must, you should whether it's legal or not.

1

Zizimz Mar 28, 2026 +1

The largest demonstrations in history did not succeed in preventing the UK from joining Bush's war against Iraq.

1

MagicBoyUK Mar 28, 2026 +1

... and we learned from that. Hence Trump throwing tantrums in public.

1

SadSeiko Mar 28, 2026 +1

He wants us to mop up his mess to make himself look better. If we volunteer to help the next thing will be we need to e***** ships through the strait or lead the ground invasion. He’s despicable

1

MagicBoyUK Mar 28, 2026 +1

That he thinks he can bully a former human rights barrister is hilarious in itself. "Art of the Deal." 🤣

1

SuddenSquib Mar 28, 2026 +13

Why would we join? Trump won weeks ago.

13

eminusx Mar 28, 2026 +52

sensible, responsible, rational decision, best decision for the people of the UK!! Bear in mind, if this was the hypocritical, manipulative cunts the Tories or brown nosed Farage we'd be in deep from day one to please Galactic Emperor Trump, then complaining later how we're being bombed by angry brown people. . .

52

MagicBoyUK Mar 28, 2026 +18

The reverse Ferret from the Tories was hilarious, after they belatedly checked in with public opinion. 😂

18

BeeKayDubya Mar 28, 2026 +14

Let the Americans suffer alone. They’re constantly shitting on their allies. Elect stupid, reap stupid.

14

TehLordAdmiral Mar 28, 2026 +1

They're a laughing stock of a country now. Used to have a semblance of power, now everyone sees them for what they are. Weak, failing and stupid. The sooner the orange baboon is out of power. The sooner they have a chance of electing someone who isn't a stupid c***.

1

FingerGungHo Mar 28, 2026 +7

Someone should just come out and call out Trump for being an attention seeking narcissist, like he is. I don’t see how that would do any more damage, but could lend a reasoning why he isn’t taken all that seriously or replied to. Some honesty, please.

7

Sphism Mar 28, 2026 +13

Good on him. Always saw him as blair 2.0 but clearly not quite such a POS

13

snower88 Mar 28, 2026 +7

Good job. Let’s not help in war crimes. Anyway as trump said, our crafts are all paper

7

OnePilotDrone Mar 28, 2026 +5

Illegal war, it's in every countries best interest to not join it at all. Unless you want to be proven to be a vassal state of the U.S.

5

Z3B0 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Well... 2003 Irak was also illegal, and a lot of us allies still went.

1

Gentle_Snail Mar 28, 2026 +1

Iraq is actually fundamental to the UKs position, to quote Starmer: >”We all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learned those lessons. Any U.K. actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable thought-through plan.”

1

OnePilotDrone Mar 28, 2026 +1

Yes and alot of "allies" learned from it. Which is why they're not joining this illegal war that Trump started on behalf of the war criminal Netanyahu

1

skeleton949 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Then don't complain when the Iranian Regime kills more civilians and starts more wars.

1

OnePilotDrone Mar 28, 2026 +1

Whos complaining? Seems to be just you. And you seem to be mad quiet about what Israel is doing in Gaza to the civilian population. Pick a lane my guy.

1

skeleton949 Mar 28, 2026 +1

You care about war crimes, but don't care that the Iranian regime has been doing that kind of thing for decades. You want to leave them alone and let them continue it. Edit because you edited your comment after sending it to put a different message: Gaza wasn't part of this conversation, but as long as you bring it up, the Iranian Regime is responsible for that too.

1

OnePilotDrone Mar 28, 2026 +1

You care about civilians dying, yet you stay silent at what Israel is doing to Gaza and Iran? Pick a side lol. And Netanyahu literally has an arrest warrant from the ICC related to the war crimes hes committing. So what are you even saying? What about USA bombing and killing 200 school children? Please quit contradicting yourself. It makes your argument look weak and hypocritical.

1

skeleton949 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Gaza is literally the Iranian Regime's fault. Without their funding and support, Hamas wouldn't have been able to start the war to begin with. The IRGC (a integral part of the Iranian Regime) is literally a terrorist organization.

1

OnePilotDrone Mar 28, 2026 +1

God damn, listen to yourself. Next you're going to say the holocaust was the Jews fault. Your victim blaming is just absurd at this point. When I say pick a side, you really don't have a clue what you're even talking about, do you?

1

skeleton949 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Victim blaming? The Iranian Regime has never been a "victim". They've been attacking the US and their allies for decades, and that's a fact. The Gaza War, the Lebanon conflicts, the Houthi conflicts, all trace back to that group of terrorists.

1

OnePilotDrone Mar 28, 2026 +1

My guy, your takes are getting worse and worse. **Pick a side.**

1

Gentle_Snail Mar 28, 2026 +1

>"I have been clear I'm not going to join the war.” > >’My own view is that a lot of what is said and done has been to put pressure on me to change my mind, but I'm not going to do so’

1

studio_bob Mar 28, 2026 +1

When is the last time the UK declined to tag along on a US military adventure? Then again, they are still letting US bombers fly from their territory, so, yeah, they're not *all the way* out.

1

Ancient_Ship2980 Mar 28, 2026 +8

Starmer, stand tall and don't let the bully in the White House intimidate you! Go, Starmer, go! Go, UK, go!

8

Ellusive1 Mar 28, 2026 +9

Stop letting them use uk air bases

9

Z3B0 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Why do you want to take back Air Stripe One from the US ? They really like their bases in the north sea !

1

Feeling-Parking-7866 Mar 28, 2026 +2

That's fair.

2

ImpressiveGift9921 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Don't need our toy carriers and troops that hang back anyway.

1

Imaginary_Toe8982 Mar 28, 2026 +1

but if you give your bases for military use is technically participating in the war no?

1

Wolfeehx Mar 28, 2026 +1

good. Asda Manager has many faults but I hope he stands strong on this one. NOT OUR WAR.

1

Blind_Warthog Mar 28, 2026 +1

Good lad

1

Slimfictiv Mar 28, 2026 +1

The funny part is even if and after helping, the us administration would start saying stupid shit about the UK again disregarding all the help they got, not sure it will be acknowledged later either.

1

___xXx__xXx__xXx__ Mar 28, 2026 +1

Every time Starmer says this he gets good headlines. He should just keep saying it over and over, because it might just be keeping him in a job.

1

AioliNo8873 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Gute Entscheidung. Dennoch solltet Ihr Eure Armee auf Vordermann bringen.

1

Pslun Mar 28, 2026 +1

If Europe were to join this war and invading Iran is the death trap everyone says it we would lose people, resources, money for nothing. Leaving us more vulnerable to attacks and blackmail. If Europe were to join and be very successful Iran could go scorched earth on middle east oil production facilities, crippling our economy. We can only hurt ourselves by joining.

1

Blank3k Mar 28, 2026 +1

With how trump is talking & behaving regarding the UK & NATO we should not only "not be joining" the war we should be applying counter pressure and revoking USA's welcome permits to use our bases until the orange nonce grows up or moves to his jail cell.

1

knight714 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Obviously a good stance, but he has allowed the US to use our bases to bomb Iran, so technically we are involved

1

bwoah07_gp2 Mar 28, 2026 +1

>Starmer reaffirms UK will not join Iran war despite US pressure But he let's them use their bases in the region....

1

Artyparis Mar 28, 2026 +1

Nato is now more about supporting US madness than defend each other. What is the point for Europe ?

1

CalamariAce Mar 28, 2026 -2

Had to do a double take. At first I wondered which streamer would be influential enough to make such a statement.

-2

Delicious_Door_3421 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Let's be honest, even if the war was justified, the UK's navy is shit

1

Natural-Strategy5023 Mar 28, 2026 -20

He’ll join when his oil is choked off

-20

Gentle_Snail Mar 28, 2026 +9

doubt

9

CombatRedRover Mar 28, 2026 +1

I mean, what help does the UK have to send, anyway? The HMS Drag On didn't arrive off Cyprus until... yesterday? The day before? That's 2 1/2 weeks into this, more or less. After Drag On, what does the RN have to send? Brittania rules the se... errrrr... Mediterrane... errrrr... maybe the Channel? For sure the Thames, right? Right?

1

CombatRedRover Mar 28, 2026 +1

I appreciate all the downvotes, but I'll also note that so far, no one has detailed what help the UK would be sending.

1

return-free-risk Mar 28, 2026 +1

The UK has a sovereign airbase on Cyprus - Literally a giant aircraft carrier in the middle of the med. That would be extremely helpful.

1

Starmer reaffirms UK will not join Iran war despite US pressure

💬 Send a Message

130 Comments