Starmer probably regarded the US/Israeli attack on Iran as totally misguided, unwise, and not in the interest of the UK, or even the US. However the US is now led by a capricious, thin-skinned president, who not only does not value the views of a constructive friend, but positively briddles at them. And yet UK trade and security is so intertwinned with that of the US that to play the role of a constructive friend to Trump is impossible. Hence Starmer's falling back on the concept of international law.
The problem for Starmer is most British voters don't see it that way. Iraq has left an indelible imprint on the UK behaving as a vassal state of the US. Moreover the situation isn't helped by the official opposition revelling in the discomfort of Starmer, while Blair and his supporters in the MSM like Rentoul throw petrol on the fire.
Part of Starmer's problem is that he is out there on his own, with the collective protection of the EU. There will not be much of a Labour Party after the next election.
I presume you mean WITHOUT, in which case I fully agree, though there is something of a storm in Germany by Merz's failure to publicly defend Sánchez against Trump's attack on Spain. The German Foreign Minister had to step in to reassure Spain that Trump's threats of trade sanctions against Spain won't be ignored.
The opening sentence reminds me of Lord Melbourne: "I wish I was as confident of any one thing as Tom Macaulay is if every thing".
For my own part, I try to base assessment on 3 main principles:
- the inalienable human rights of individual human beings;
- the collective right to self-determination of peoples & nations;
- the rights & obligations of states.
Not one of the protagonists in the Iran/Israel/USA conflict comes out well on that basis, but using those principles we can still say with some confidence that this specific war is A Bad Thing. I also suspect that it will end up in the Napoleonic French category of "It is worse than a crime; it is a mistake!"
At the same time, I am aware that in believing in these principles I am a child of my time. The Roman Senate, Song emperors, Inca judges or mediaeval Popes would probably have found them incomprehensible, heretical and/or seditious. But those principles have given the common people a better deal than those Ancient Worthies ever would have, and I will be sorry to see the back of them if the Trumps, Thiels, Musks, and Putins of this world have their way.
Garret
You make good points in your comments. These are things I will come back to in future comments.
Starmer probably regarded the US/Israeli attack on Iran as totally misguided, unwise, and not in the interest of the UK, or even the US. However the US is now led by a capricious, thin-skinned president, who not only does not value the views of a constructive friend, but positively briddles at them. And yet UK trade and security is so intertwinned with that of the US that to play the role of a constructive friend to Trump is impossible. Hence Starmer's falling back on the concept of international law.
The problem for Starmer is most British voters don't see it that way. Iraq has left an indelible imprint on the UK behaving as a vassal state of the US. Moreover the situation isn't helped by the official opposition revelling in the discomfort of Starmer, while Blair and his supporters in the MSM like Rentoul throw petrol on the fire.
Yes, my mistake. Of course, I mean "WITHOUT. Sanchez is a man of political courage.
Part of Starmer's problem is that he is out there on his own, with the collective protection of the EU. There will not be much of a Labour Party after the next election.
I presume you mean WITHOUT, in which case I fully agree, though there is something of a storm in Germany by Merz's failure to publicly defend Sánchez against Trump's attack on Spain. The German Foreign Minister had to step in to reassure Spain that Trump's threats of trade sanctions against Spain won't be ignored.
The opening sentence reminds me of Lord Melbourne: "I wish I was as confident of any one thing as Tom Macaulay is if every thing".
For my own part, I try to base assessment on 3 main principles:
- the inalienable human rights of individual human beings;
- the collective right to self-determination of peoples & nations;
- the rights & obligations of states.
Not one of the protagonists in the Iran/Israel/USA conflict comes out well on that basis, but using those principles we can still say with some confidence that this specific war is A Bad Thing. I also suspect that it will end up in the Napoleonic French category of "It is worse than a crime; it is a mistake!"
At the same time, I am aware that in believing in these principles I am a child of my time. The Roman Senate, Song emperors, Inca judges or mediaeval Popes would probably have found them incomprehensible, heretical and/or seditious. But those principles have given the common people a better deal than those Ancient Worthies ever would have, and I will be sorry to see the back of them if the Trumps, Thiels, Musks, and Putins of this world have their way.
Not great on facts are you, old chum?