David Herdson

Well, it's got you a follow! (That and your interesting bio line and post feed. And handle name)

They love the 35th parallel, don't they?

True.

By the way, lovely prose of yours describing Death up-thread.

No, but it got him through with diamond-class healthcare. Many other fat septuagenarians in the same position would have died.

Money and power made a difference when he got COVID.

American military operation names, like their legislation, do increasingly tend towards the cringingly embarrassing under Trump, don't they?

I do think there's a lot to be said for low-key British functionalism on both respects.

Lib Dem Leader Ed Davey:

"Tax exiles like Isabel Oakeshott and washed up old footballers who mock ordinary people who stay in the UK and pay our taxes... As we protect them, it's only right for tax exiles to start paying taxes to fund our armed forces, just like the rest of us".

I'm not sure I do expect our armed forces to protect tax exiles who've chosen to live abroad in dangerous regions.

Or that is their job, the exiles can find a place at the back of the queue, after travellers innocently caught up in transit and others there short-term.

Rwanda?

True. It still feels different coming from a Labour leader in power rather than a Leader of the Opposition.

Also a clear implication that Starmer thinks the 2003 Iraq War was neither lawful nor thought through either.

Obviously, quite a lot of people would agree with one or both assertions there but it's still striking coming from a Labour PM.

All four freedoms are good things in their own right, given adequate regulation.

Keep hearing commentators/Hegseth saying a version of "this is not Iraq, we are not doing nation-building, it's a decapitation, the people will handle it."

That's what Iraq 2003 was supposed to be! Nation-building, de-Baathification, disbanding of Iraqi army, it all came *after* things went wrong.

Somewhat ironic coming from Farage, whose strongest support by age group comes from pensioners.

The Greens', by contrast, is among 18-49 year-olds (and especially at the young end of that group).

Trump's purposes and Netanyahu's purposes probably don't align.

Obviously, Trump could still call time anyway but has probably been persuaded to get done what Obama and Biden couldn't get done, and end Iran's nuclear programme permanently. He'd like to out-do them.

Yes, it does sound like it. This is not a bad thing.

Trump, however, has kept 'winning' over the last ten years (bar 2020), and has become increasingly comfortable placing larger and larger stakes. It's strengthening his own self-belief (which wasn't in short supply to begin with), to the point where he believes he can act with impunity.

Yes, Germany in WW2 definitely fits that bill. Israel could well now, too.

The US is, as you say, different though you don't need stakes as big for the eventual failure to bring down an administration or even model of government, as you would for an entire country.

The gambler's curse hasn't done the US any favours either after Iraq.

Points 2-5 are all entirely fair.

On point 1, attacking when Iran was not in a position to fight back seems eminently sensible. Despite its limited state capacity, Iran retains its nuclear ambitions, sponsors deadly proxies and calls for the destruction of the US and Israel. The case is there.

Yes, in the early stages their thinking was different (with a degree of justification). But once the war started properly and as Ukraine's own capacity to strike deep into Russia has built, the balance of risks has changed.

Yes, in this case, and after the attack on the base in Cyprus, it's fair enough for the UK to adopt the policy it has - particularly, as you say, in conjunction with European allies.

There will be times we should work with the US. But that decision must be based on circumstances, not fear.

Nah. She's just the press officer.

Pretty sure Putin isn't that fussed about international law, beyond occasional using it to complain about the actions of others.

The main reason Russia hasn't taken out Zelensky is probably fear of like-for-like retaliation. Ukraine may well have the capacity to take out him.

Self-defence (and support of allies in their self-defence) is a legitimate reason though.

Whether it applies here is far from certain but I'd suggest that it's also far from certain that it doesn't. There is a case to be made, even if it's quite shaky.

The good answer is: disengage.

Obviously, that's not a seamless process and there are critical dependencies that cannot be replaced quickly, which means disengagement is a process that needs careful handling. Still, Trump's leverage over the UK should be reduced as far and as fast as possible.

Time to dig out this ever useful post on what a war crime actually is bsky.app/profile/opin...

Because?

I can see that there'd be an issue with timing - why now? - but against an existential and permanent threat (one whose intent, if not capability, was redemonstrated only recently), I'm not sure that imminence is that meaningful a concept.

the Geneva convention is not a set of abstract moral principles. it's a set of rules that are designed so that you can still fight a war following them and win. because otherwise no one would ever follow them.

Wouldn't the legal case be:

1) Self-defence due to the extent of Iranian breaches of nuclear development combined with calls for destruction of Israel (which Iran doesn't recognise as a state) and the US.

2) Extensive Iranian proxy support for direct and deadly attacks against Israel over decades.