Cable Forum
Page 28 of 30 « First 1824252627 28 2930
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   President Trump 2.0 (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33712850)

noel43 13-03-2026 16:48
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36212341)
I don't like being at the feet of an enemy just so I don't feel economic pain. Irans a threat to the middle east itself shown in abundance thus far. Irans war with America is something else.
You mean isreal aint a threat. Lead by wartcrim and a maglomaniac

Sephiroth 14-03-2026 07:34
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by noel43 (Post 36212369)
You mean isreal aint a threat. Lead by wartcrim and a maglomaniac
To whom is Israel a threat other than to the murderers trying to murder them?

1andrew1 14-03-2026 08:50
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212389)
To whom is Israel a threat other than to the murderers trying to murder them?
Anyone in the West Bank going about their lawful business who's not an illegal settler. 1000 people killed there since Oct 2023.

Hugh 14-03-2026 11:33
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...t-in-my-bones/

Quote:
President Trump on Friday said he knows the U.S. military operation in Iran will come to an end when he can “feel it in my bones,” a remark that comes almost two weeks after joint U.S. and Israeli strikes on the Middle Eastern country began.

Trump spoke with Fox News host Brian Kilmeade on his podcast “The Brian Kilmeade Show” and told him, “When it’s over –– and I don’t think it’s going to be long –– when it’s over, this is going to bounce back so fast.”

“When are you going to know when it’s over?” Kilmeade asked.

“When I feel it,” Trump said. “When I feel it in my bones.”
So he started it with “feeling based on fact”, and he’ll end it when he feels it in his bones…

ffs

thenry 14-03-2026 11:36
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
I wonder if he'll leave Iran on its arse , how he would have withdrawn from Afghanistan, not the embarrassment that occured by Kamala Harris endorsed fools.

Hugh 14-03-2026 11:42
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36212407)
I wonder if he'll leave Iran on its arse , how he would have withdrawn from Afghanistan, not the embarrassment that occured by Kamala Harris endorsed fools.
After obtaining the releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners, and as part of the United States–Taliban deal, the Trump administration agreed to an initial reduction of US forces from 13,000 to 8,600 troops by July 2020, followed by a complete withdrawal by 1 May 2021…

papa smurf 14-03-2026 11:43
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36212406)
https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...t-in-my-bones/



So he started it with “feeling based on fact”, and he’ll end it when he feels it in his bones…

ffs
There's nothing like a brilliant military strategy


and this is nothing like one:nutter:

papa smurf 14-03-2026 14:26
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
now the war is won and our navy isn't needed



Trump calls on UK, China and others to send warships to crucial oil shipping lane - as Iran threatens UAE ports:dunce:

https://news.sky.com/story/iran-late...-news-13509565

Hugh 14-03-2026 15:22
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36212410)
There's nothing like a brilliant military strategy


and this is nothing like one:nutter:
It gets better (and by better, I mean "much worse")

https://archive.ph/20260314014905/ht...trump-f96bdd53

Quote:
Before the U.S. went to war, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told President Trump that an American attack could prompt Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz.

Caine said in several briefings that U.S. officials had long believed Iran would deploy mines, drones and missiles to close the world’s most vital shipping lane, according to people with knowledge of the discussions.

Trump acknowledged the risk, these people said, but moved forward with the most consequential foreign-policy decision of his two presidencies. He told his team that Tehran would likely capitulate before closing the strait—and even if Iran tried, the U.S. military could handle it.

Now, two weeks into the war, Iran’s leaders have refused to back down, and the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as Tehran’s most potent leverage point.

thenry 14-03-2026 15:27
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Can Iran be declared a terrorist state?

Carth 14-03-2026 16:29
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36212423)
Can Iran be declared a terrorist state?
Can America?

thenry 14-03-2026 16:40
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36212427)
Can America?
Kamala Harris isn't President :D

Hugh 14-03-2026 17:46
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36212428)
Kamala Harris isn't President :D
You OK, hun?

(you seem to have an obsession with someone who wasn’t actually elected, instead of focusing on reality)

jem 14-03-2026 20:10
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36212433)
You OK, hun?

(you seem to have an obsession with someone who wasn’t actually elected, instead of focusing on reality)
I believe that ‘thenry’ is referring to the idea that were Harris be elected, then she would involve the US in a number of foreign military actions resulting in the death of US personnel for vague reasons and little idea of how to disengage.

Whereas, Trump would....... oh no wait!

Hugh 14-03-2026 20:44
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jem (Post 36212446)
I believe that ‘thenry’ is referring to the idea that were Harris be elected, then she would involve the US in a number of foreign military actions resulting in the death of US personnel for vague reasons and little idea of how to disengage.

Whereas, Trump would....... oh no wait!
I know…

If Kamala had been elected, after a year in office she would have bombed Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Nigeria, Venezuela, Yemen, and boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific, spent sixteen and a half years billion dollars on a war based on her feelings, and raised the price of a barrel of oil by 150%, potentially causing a world-wide economic depression…

Oh, no - wait….

spiderplant 14-03-2026 21:52
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Can someone explain to me...
In Trump's first term, things weren't great but nothing particularly bad happened.
This time around, every day it's WTF.
What has changed?

Today I saw a car sticker which looked genuine: "Kennedy for President"

Hugh 14-03-2026 22:42
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
1 Attachment(s)
I broke it, now you fix it!

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...6&d=1773531690

Monday: We have won

Tuesday: Iran is about to surrender

Wednesday: High oil prices are good

Thursday: There is nothing left to hit

Friday: They have no army, navy or missiles left

Saturday: I know I said you were a bunch of losers, and I’m going to screw your economies by raising oil prices slapping tariffs on anything you want sell to us, but HELP!

TheDaddy 14-03-2026 23:36
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36212452)
Can someone explain to me...
In Trump's first term, things weren't great but nothing particularly bad happened.
This time around, every day it's WTF.
What has changed?

Today I saw a car sticker which looked genuine: "Kennedy for President"
First time around he had adults in his team who had morals, principles and respect for the law, they put their oath of office on a higher pedestal than him, so this time around he only chose bootlickers and sycophants, January 6th would've turned out very differently under this lot

Anyone see donnies interview the other day, where he said very presidentially that no other president could do the shit I'm doing like what exactly, start illegal wars, abandon their allies, be so corrupt your wealth grows by over a billion bucks, cover up a child paedo ring, there's a reason why none of them would do it, they're not stupid crooks

Paul 15-03-2026 01:03
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36212452)
What has changed?
He wasnt (as) senile then.

Sephiroth 15-03-2026 15:07
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
very interesting article from the telegraph. Well worth the read.

Quote:
trump’s plan makes perfect sense, and it’s working

the us president is not just picking off chinese allies for sport – he’s working up to a deal with economic rival

there’s a strong misconception in europe that president donald trump prefers dictators and authoritarian powers over democratic allies. The fact is that he has just taken out a major chinese ally (venezuela), is in the process of taking out another (iran), and is threatening to take out a third (cuba).

As we think about the problem set that confronted the united states when he came into office, we see that he inherited a dwindling heavy-industry sector and a rigid us ideology about offering the world free markets, despite extremely unfavourable terms (us tariffs on eu cars were 2 per cent while eu tariffs on us autos were 11 per cent). He also inherited a rising rival in china, which seemed to be eating us manufacturing share every year while gaining dominance in global shipping and energy markets.

But unlike so many previous american presidents, trump looks at these problems differently. He sees different problems – inherited from his years as a businessman – and he responds differently.

In the art of the deal, he advocates boldness against one’s adversaries, recommends aggression towards perceived unfair treatment and promotes maximum flexibility by pursuing multiple “deals” at once. He is a new york real estate mogul, perfectly attuned to a competitive system and thinks of the international rules-based system as red tape and regulation put in place to hold him down.

They’re screwing us over with unfair tariffs? Hit them with huge tariffs and then leverage their response to your advantage. Europeans “screwing us” over defence spending? Ok, just threaten to leave natountil they agree to pay more.
China is building a coalition of partners willing to side with it against america? Fine, take them out one by one. The pace of news is almost too much for us to register the systemic changes that he is effecting by his unorthodox style and communications strategy. Everyone is constantly guessing, and he is literally taking his opponents to pieces.

Take venezuela: It has the largest proven oil reserves in the world. It accounts for up to 18 per cent of global reserves, surpassing saudi arabia and iran. When trump came into office, the relationship was non-existent between the united states and nicolas maduro’s regime. On the day that us special forces went in to get the venezuelan president, they knew he’d be in caracas because of a visiting chinese delegation which had brought him a $5bn (£3.8bn) cheque designed to boost his economy.

Trump got the cheque first. And he’s cashed it “indefinitely”. Maduro sits in an american jail cell, while the us is now importing venezuelan crude. The first 50 million barrels will be worth an estimated $300m. On jan 29, the us treasury formally authorised us oil companies to lift, refine, and sell venezuelan oil. As of march 2026, exports have surged to a seven-year high of 848,000 barrels a day. The revenue from that oil goes to the transition government but remains in us-controlled accounts. Leverage.

And guess who’s not getting venezuelan oil at favourable prices any more? China.

Now reconsider iran. Look past tehran’s long-running nuclear programme, past the long-range missile systems that have terrorised a region, or the proxy terror groups that receive iranian funding and training. Look at iran’s place in the chinese energy empire.

As with venezuela, iran has been a major player in a chinese oil trade system separated from the global market. As a result of being a sole buyer, beijing has been getting the best prices – about 10 to 20 per cent below global benchmarks like brent.

As a result, it’s estimated that china has been making annual savings of about $10bn and has been able to build up strategic reserves of 1.3 billion barrels, worth up to $112bn. By comparison, the us only maintains a strategic petroleum reserve of 415 million barrels of crude oil. Until now.

Now china is, like the rest of the world, trying to figure out the future of its oil supply. While some chinese tankers have managed to pick up oil and head home, the example of venezuela has got to be on xi jinping’s mind. It’s no wonder beijing is adamant that it wants the us-china summit to go ahead. Trump has xi over a barrel – if you’ll pardon the expression.

Unlike his predecessors, trump doesn’t care about the post-regime government. He wants it to be reasonably stable – shown by his insistence that the iranian civilian population guide the process – but at the end of the day, trump wants it to be on the side of america.

The us president is not just picking chinese allies off for sport. He knows that xi is obsessed with “rejuvenation of the chinese nation”, a legacy that sees all its lost territories reunited with the mainland – including taiwan.
For trump, knowing what your adversary wants makes him predictable and also provides you with an outline of his strategy – and leverage points to apply. If china is building an alternate anti-western coalition which also happens to control huge swathes of the international oil supply, take them out.

But don’t talk about taking them out in some grand-strategy way because that tips your opponent off to what you’re doing. So make it about the nuclear weapons programme, make it about the ballistic missiles, make it about the estimated 30,000 iranian protesters who were killed – but don’t tip your hand.
And then when your opponent realises that you’re carefully deconstructing his system, his architecture, go and meet him and see whether he offers you a deal. Because at the end of the day, that’s the art form that the donald loves most.

Hugh 15-03-2026 16:05
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Sounds a lot like the Reformygraph is indulging in some impressive post-hoc rationalisation there, implying Trump is playing 5D chess, when reality, he has the attention span of a hyperactive five year old who has just eaten a family size bag of Haribo Fangtastics...

Pretty sure Countries don’t provide loans by cheque, and even if they did, all the donor country would have to do is cancel the cheque in the case quoted above…

jem 15-03-2026 16:47
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Why is this apparent ‘Telegraph' article so badly written? Trump, US, America, Venezuela should be spelt with initial capital letters. Inconsistent terminology (us tariffs on eu cars were 2 per cent while eu tariffs on us autos were 11 per cent). Cars and then autos?

It’s a piece of AI generated slop, isn't it?

Hugh 15-03-2026 16:56
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jem (Post 36212478)
Why is this apparent ‘Telegraph' article so badly written? Trump, US, America, Venezuela should be spelt with initial capital letters. Inconsistent terminology (us tariffs on eu cars were 2 per cent while eu tariffs on us autos were 11 per cent). Cars and then autos?

It’s a piece of AI generated slop, isn't it?

And the figures are wrong - in 2024 the US tariffs on EU made cars were 2.5%, and the EU tariffs on USA made cars was 10% (which was the same rate as all other WTO members).

Hugh 16-03-2026 07:23
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Apparently, we should have sent support to a war we didn’t know was going to happen before it happened…

And even if we now send support, it won’t help us in the future…

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/16/trum...-oil-iran.html

Quote:
Trump said Sunday that British Prime Minister Kier Starmer had offered to deploy aircraft carriers to the region, which Trump said should have been sent “before we start the war [with Iran].”

“Whether we get support or not, I can say this, and I said it to them: we will remember,” Trump added.
Also

Quote:
“We’re always there for NATO. We’re helping them with Ukraine. It’s got an ocean in between us. Doesn’t affect us, but we’ve helped them. And it’ll be interesting to see what country wouldn’t help us with a very small endeavour, which is just keeping the strait open.”

papa smurf 16-03-2026 07:38
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Trump demands seven countries help police Strait of Hormuz


The greatest country in the work, the most powerful military, oorah usa usa

the military that has obliterated Iran's military capability oorah usa usa demands help, i have two words and the second one is off
he's screwed up and has no idea how to fix this balls up of his making

https://news.sky.com/story/iran-late...-news-13509565

Dingbat 16-03-2026 07:39
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
So the most powerful military on the planet can’t cope without help, and he’s demanding that other NATO nations join the fight he started? Or is it to try to reduce the number of body bags he has to salute by shifting the casualties to other countries?

papa smurf 16-03-2026 07:42
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
operation Epstein fury isn't going well :)

Hugh 16-03-2026 07:44
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36212496)
operation Epstein fury isn't going well :)
The one that’s taking place in the Gulf of Epstein?

Sephiroth 16-03-2026 08:04
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36212491)
Trump demands seven countries help police Strait of Hormuz


The greatest country in the work, the most powerful military, oorah usa usa

the military that has obliterated Iran's military capability oorah usa usa demands help, i have two words and the second one is off
he's screwed up and has no idea how to fix this balls up of his making

https://news.sky.com/story/iran-late...-news-13509565
That would be the Trump who has regularly vilified and bullied the "allies" he's now asking to help him.

Hugh 16-03-2026 08:17
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
@spignal

Quote:
"It would be very bad for customers of the china shop if they didn't help keep order in the china shop," says the bull in said china shop.
Also

https://www.twz.com/sea/u-s-navy-min...ved-to-pacific

Quote:
U.S. Navy Minesweepers Assigned To Middle East Have Been Moved To Pacific

Two of the three Littoral Combat Ships that had taken over the minesweeping role in the Middle East have just appeared in Malaysia.

The U.S. Navy Independence class Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) USS Tulsa and USS Santa Barbara, which are configured for minesweeping duties, have appeared in port in Malaysia. Both of these ships were last known to be forward-deployed in the Middle East, having arrived in Bahrain in the past year or so to take the place of a group of now-decommissioned Avenger class mine hunters…

…Pictures available through the U.S. military’s Defense Visual Information Distribution Service (DVIDS) show USS Tulsa was in port in Bahrain at least as of February 9. Separate images also show USS Santa Barbara operating in the Persian Gulf on January 30. The current disposition of a third Independence class LCS, the USS Canberra, which had also been forward-deployed in the Middle East at least as of January, is unknown. Whether any other mine countermeasures ships may now be headed to the Middle East is also not known.

A review of satellite imagery in Planet Labs’ commercial archive shows no evidence of any U.S. warships being in port in Manama since February 23. The United States and Israel launched their joint operation against Iran on February 28.

Moving U.S. warships out of port in Bahrain ahead of the current conflict was a prudent security measure. The Gulf state is well within range of Iranian missiles and long-range kamikaze drones, and U.S. military facilities in Manama did subsequently come under attack. The U.S. military’s own strikes on Iranian naval vessels in port have underscored the vulnerability of ships sitting pierside.

Why the decision was made to then send the USS Tulsa and USS Santa Barbara thousands of miles to the east is unknown. A host of factors may have come into play, including the availability of suitable friendly ports and diplomatic considerations.

papa smurf 16-03-2026 08:45
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212499)
That would be the Trump who has regularly vilified and bullied the "allies" he's now asking to help him.
this could end tomorrow if the usa turns around and sends it's military home, just chalk it up as another military failure,i think the uk should keep out of this

Carth 16-03-2026 08:55
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Meanwhile, back in Greenland . .


https://external-content.duckduckgo....10e&ipo=images

Paul 16-03-2026 17:16
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Apparently hes unhappy.

Quote:
US President Donald Trump says he's "not happy" with the UK after Keir Starmer said it would not be drawn into a "wider war" over Iran
Guess what, we're "not happy" with you starting a bloody war, you muppet. :rolleyes:

TheDaddy 16-03-2026 18:41
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36212521)
Apparently hes unhappy.



Guess what, we're "not happy" with you starting a bloody war, you muppet. :rolleyes:
I've never been happier with Keir, nato has told him to do one too by the sound of it, seems like the world is done with being pushed around and bullied by a man child

Dude111 16-03-2026 18:43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
Guess what, we're "not happy" with you starting a bloody war, you muppet. :rolleyes:
No and the sooner he gets OUT OF OFFICE the better Paul!!

Im glad your country is standing up to this moron!!

Sephiroth 16-03-2026 19:07
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
One side of me wants Trump to be humiliated for pushing us around. Another side of me wants Starmer humiliated for crapping on our strategic, closest ally - albeit led by a bad egg.

Then both sides of me want the Iran job to be fully completed.

Hugh 16-03-2026 19:26
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212532)
One side of me wants Trump to be humiliated for pushing us around. Another side of me wants Starmer humiliated for crapping on our strategic, closest ally - albeit led by a bad egg.

Then both sides of me want the Iran job to be fully completed.
How has he crapped on the USA?

In order for the USA to be the UK’s strategic, closest ally, they have to behave like it - at this time, it’s not happening; Trump is not strategic, only transactional - even then, the transaction has to be Zero Sum (he not only has to win, the other side has to lose…).

Dingbat 16-03-2026 19:27
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36212523)
I've never been happier with Keir, nato has told him to do one too by the sound of it, seems like the world is done with being pushed around and bullied by a man child
Trump quite probably thinks that Article 5 means he can dictate that other NATO forces are available to use as he pleases when he starts wars. He doesn’t seem to understand that A5 is defensive, not offensive.

Sephiroth 16-03-2026 19:40
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36212533)
How has he crapped on the USA?

In order for the USA to be the UK’s strategic, closest ally, they have to behave like it - at this time, it’s not happening; Trump is not strategic, only transactional - even then, the transaction has to be Zero Sum (he not only has to win, the other side has to lose…).
It depends on where you're coming from in regard to the USA.

If the USA calls for help, if we don't want to give that help, then a diplomatic way has to be found to protect the alliance we have with them.

As we do not wish to engage in the offensive activity, at least we could have let them use our bases. By the time that we did, the damage to the relationship was done. That was wholly incompetent.


---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingbat (Post 36212534)
Trump quite probably thinks that Article 5 means he can dictate that other NATO forces are available to use as he pleases when he starts wars. He doesn’t seem to understand that A5 is defensive, not offensive.
We mustn't let disdain for Trump go too far in over-analysing him negatively. It becomes group think.

jem 16-03-2026 19:41
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212532)
One side of me wants Trump to be humiliated for pushing us around. Another side of me wants Starmer humiliated for crapping on our strategic, closest ally - albeit led by a bad egg.

Then both sides of me want the Iran job to be fully completed.
"Then both sides of me want the Iran job to be fully completed.”

Seph, what is your understanding of 'the Iran job to be fully completed’; is it the death of every single member of the current regime - and if so, what happens then? Is it that Iran ‘is bombed back to the stone age’, irrespective of deaths - because that worked so well in the 1970s in Indo-China.

It’s all vague, one day we have the idiot-in-chief claiming that Iran’s military has been completely OBLITERATED and the war is all but over, and the next day threatening them with MORE ATTACKS in retaliation for them still fighting. Now hang on, even the most fanatical Trump supporter has, surely, to see the obvious issue here?

Despite all the claims to the Iranian people that ‘help is coming’; no it isn’t. This war ends when Israel (who really are the puppet masters here but Trump can’t see it) decides that Iran is not longer a serious threat for the next couple of years. If the current regime is replaced by an even more fanatical and repressive one, so be it - certainly Tel Aviv and Washington won’t care.

Hypothetically Iran slowly rebuilds its nuclear research and weapons capability; it’ll take years maybe a decade and it won't be Netanyahu’s problem - he’ll be long gone.

This whole sorry story has the stench of something not properly thought out; what is the aim, is it feasible and what steps do you have to take to achieve it?

Anyone else remember Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech re. Iraq? That went on for years afterwards and cost many, many lives!

America has for long, despite all the evidence, believed that overwhelming firepower will also work and achieve the desired result - it doesn’t. And in this case I don’t think anyone in the US administration actually knows what the desired result is.

I do feel sorry for the real professionals in the US military who must face-palm every time Trump makes a statement!

Sephiroth 16-03-2026 19:57
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
@jem

You pose a fair question.

To my mind, there are two priorities, the first of which is a must to achieve.

1. Capture of all enriched uranium to prevent a nuclear attack on Israel.

2. Regime change - which may not be possible without there being a civil war.

I take into account the significant degradation of Iran's mililtary strike capability. I'm also mindful that Israel has decided that now is the time for it to safeguard its existence.

Of course I agree that Trump is to moronic to have properly thought the end-game through. But then I'm of the chool of thought that the USA was bounced into this by Israel.

Hugh 16-03-2026 20:14
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212535)
It depends on where you're coming from in regard to the USA.

If the USA calls for help, if we don't want to give that help, then a diplomatic way has to be found to protect the alliance we have with them.

As we do not wish to engage in the offensive activity, at least we could have let them use our bases. By the time that we did, the damage to the relationship was done. That was wholly incompetent.


---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------



We mustn't let disdain for Trump go too far in over-analysing him negatively. It becomes group think.
But that’s not how Trump works - if you don’t do what exactly what he wants, you’re against him…

And it’s not "negative group think" to accurately report how he behaves, consistently

TheDaddy 16-03-2026 20:24
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212538)

You pose a fair question.

To my mind, there are two priorities, the first of which is a must to achieve.

1. Capture of all enriched uranium to prevent a nuclear attack on Israel.

2. Regime change - which may not be possible without there being a civil war.

I take into account the significant degradation of Iran's mililtary strike capability. I'm also mindful that Israel has decided that now is the time for it to safeguard its existence.

Of course I agree that Trump is to moronic to have properly thought the end-game through. But then I'm of the chool of thought that the USA was bounced into this by Israel.
The mediators in Oman said Iran offered to give up all its enriched uranium and promised to never stockpile more...

Sephiroth 16-03-2026 20:40
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36212540)
The mediators in Oman said Iran offered to give up all its enriched uranium and promised to never stockpile more...
Like I said, USA was bounced into the war by Israel, imo.

---------- Post added at 21:40 ---------- Previous post was at 21:40 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36212539)
But that’s not how Trump works - if you don’t do what exactly what he wants, you’re against him…

And it’s not "negative group think" to accurately report how he behaves, consistently
It's about how Starmer should have worked.

Chris 16-03-2026 20:41
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212538)
@jem

You pose a fair question.

To my mind, there are two priorities, the first of which is a must to achieve.

1. Capture of all enriched uranium to prevent a nuclear attack on Israel.

2. Regime change - which may not be possible without there being a civil war.

I take into account the significant degradation of Iran's mililtary strike capability. I'm also mindful that Israel has decided that now is the time for it to safeguard its existence.

Of course I agree that Trump is to moronic to have properly thought the end-game through. But then I'm of the chool of thought that the USA was bounced into this by Israel.
Israel has wanted to give Iran a good shoeing for decades. The USA has never been bounced into it before, and somehow it’s involved now at the behest of a president who made a campaign pledge about stopping wars and disentangling the USA from them.

Israel wanting the US to help take on Iran is not new. An idiot-level IQ thinking he can rescue the mid-term elections by making himself into a hero wartime president is what’s new.

1andrew1 16-03-2026 21:02
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36212540)
The mediators in Oman said Iran offered to give up all its enriched uranium and promised to never stockpile more...
Iran had previously signed an agreement to limit its nuclear actvities which Trump tore up so this would make sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Plan_of_Action

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:53 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212542)
Like I said, USA was bounced into the war by Israel, imo.
He's a poor leader and failed to stand up to Netanyahu. He did not need to get involved in Israel's actions and his ending of the deal with Iran caused Israel's concerns in the first place.
Quote:
It's about how Starmer should have worked.
How should he have worked? Just become Trump's yes man?

Dude111 16-03-2026 21:05
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
How has he crapped on the USA?
Well he is makiing us look horrible.... Most of the world is mad at this coutnry because of him.... WE NEED TO GET HIM OUT!!!!!!!!!

Before this goes too far Hugh!!

Sephiroth 16-03-2026 21:18
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36212545)
Iran had previously signed an agreement to limit its nuclear actvities which Trump tore up so this would make sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Plan_of_Action

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:53 ----------


He's a poor leader and failed to stand up to Netanyahu. He did not need to get involved in Israel's actions and his ending of the deal with Iran caused Israel's concerns in the first place.
How should he have worked? Just become Trump's yes man?
Like I said, Starmer should have allowed the USA to use our bases.

Chris 16-03-2026 21:31
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212548)
Like I said, Starmer should have allowed the USA to use our bases.
No he shouldn’t. He’s right to insist on defensive ops only and he’s right to refuse to deploy ships to Hormuz. Trump is chaotic, he’s unreliable, and we cannot become hostages to his fortune.

The sooner we accept that the US is unreliable for at least the duration of Trump’s presidency the better - it will kill off this dangerous impulse to do whatever America wants, on demand, as if we were back in 1991.

1andrew1 16-03-2026 21:50
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212548)
Like I said, Starmer should have allowed the USA to use our bases.
Your unbridled enthusiasm for the UK to become a vassal state is unbecoming of you. Trump should be happy that other countries buy into his philosophy of putting national interests first.

Dingbat 17-03-2026 08:06
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111 (Post 36212547)
Well he is makiing us look horrible.... Most of the world is mad at this coutnry because of him.... WE NEED TO GET HIM OUT!!!!!!!!!

Before this goes too far Hugh!!
Yes, indeed, Trump is certainly making the rest of the world mad at him, but how do you get him out? Dems winning the Midterms, followed by impeachment?

Hugh 17-03-2026 08:22
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingbat (Post 36212562)
Yes, indeed, Trump is certainly making the rest of the world mad at him, but how do you get him out? Dems winning the Midterms, followed by impeachment?
Impeachment wouldn’t be successful, as it requires 2/3rds supermajority in the Senate, I believe

Dingbat 17-03-2026 08:51
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36212564)
Impeachment wouldn’t be successful, as it requires 2/3rds supermajority in the Senate, I believe
But if the Dems take just Congress, they might at least be able to rein him in somewhat, as they are supposed to control the purse strings. Plus, they can bog him down in investigations of his actions - particularly around Epstein, his appointees, and his family’s dodgy dealings.

Hugh 17-03-2026 09:44
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingbat (Post 36212566)
But if the Dems take just Congress, they might at least be able to rein him in somewhat, as they are supposed to control the purse strings. Plus, they can bog him down in investigations of his actions - particularly around Epstein, his appointees, and his family’s dodgy dealings.
Here’s hoping…

Chris 17-03-2026 10:15
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36212564)
Impeachment wouldn’t be successful, as it requires 2/3rds supermajority in the Senate, I believe
Indeed.

Congress impeaches, which is in effect the equivalent of a grand jury hearing a case outline and voting to issue an indictment (indictment is a procedure we’ve abolished in any meaningful way in the UK).

The Senate is then roughly equivalent to a jury in a criminal trial, hearing all the evidence and voting on guilt or innocence. When seen in those terms, the requirement for a supermajority makes more sense, although with the senate itself now being directly elected by the people rather than filled with appointees sent by the states any such hearing is now so nakedly political as to be more or less pointless. If you know the political makeup of-up of the senate you know within a vote or two what the outcome will be.

Hugh 17-03-2026 10:54
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212548)
Like I said, Starmer should have allowed the USA to use our bases.
All he did was insist on our Sovereignty, and not being bossed about by the Leader of a bunch of Federated States… ;)

Carth 17-03-2026 11:38
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36212574)
All he did was insist on our Sovereignty, and not being bossed about by the Leader of a bunch of Federated States… ;)
Isn't that what Brexit was about too? ;)

:naughty: :devsmoke:

Hugh 17-03-2026 12:10
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36212576)
Isn't that what Brexit was about too? ;)

:naughty: :devsmoke:

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2026/03/2.gif

Hugh 17-03-2026 13:17
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
1 Attachment(s)
Top US counterterrorism official resigns over Iran war and urges Trump to 'reverse course'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg4g66r3z40o

Quote:
The Trump administration's top official on counterterrorism has resigned from his position, citing opposition to the war in Iran, and urged the president to "reverse course".

In a letter posted on X, National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent said that Iran posed "no imminent threat" to the US and claimed that the Trump administration "started this war due to pressure from Israel" and its powerful American lobby.

Kent, 45, is a US special forces and CIA veteran whose wife, navy cryptologic technician Shannon Kent, was killed in a suicide bombing in Syria in 2019.

The BBC has contacted the White House for comment on Kent's resignation.

Additionally, Kent alleged that "high-ranking Israeli officials" and influential US journalists had sowed "misinformation" that caused Trump to undermine his "America First" platform.

"This echo was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posted an imminent threat to the United States," the letter continued. "This was a lie."
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...8&d=1773756986

papa smurf 17-03-2026 13:25
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
he'll be a "loser" by teatime

Paul 17-03-2026 13:54
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212548)
Like I said, Starmer should have allowed the USA to use our bases.
Why ? Its not our war or anything we needed to be part of.

Hugh 17-03-2026 14:53
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
1 Attachment(s)
How long before Trump pulls the USA out of NATO?

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1773762818

Damien 17-03-2026 14:54
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212542)
Like I said, USA was bounced into the war by Israel, imo.

---------- Post added at 21:40 ---------- Previous post was at 21:40 ----------



It's about how Starmer should have worked.
I am confused by your position where you seem to accept it's a stupid war, accept that Trump isn't acting rationally here, but think we should have supported it and him because it's the USA?

I agree that when the US requests our help, we owe it greater hearing than we do other nations because of the support we require from them, but that's not unconditional. If we think they've gone completely off the reservation, then we are not totally beholden to them. Just as if we went mad and decided it was time to invade some country, we shouldn't expect them to come and help us do so.

It's not in our interests to get too involved in military action in Iran. It's even so when you consider the Americans seem to have not only no plan, but no clear objective as to what success would be. Iraq was famously a disaster, but even that had much more planning for the initial stages than this war does. Even by American standards, this is an extremely stupid military endeavour.

You've succumbed to the same reflexive thought that our hyperactive political and media class succumbed to. That there is an American-led war, and therefore we should join without condition. It only takes a few minutes of thought to get past that impulse to ask why and how until you understand what a terrible idea it really is.

Hugh 17-03-2026 14:58
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36212588)
I am confused by your position where you seem to accept it's a stupid war, accept that Trump isn't acting rationally here, but think we should have supported it and him because it's the USA?

I agree that when the US requests our help, we owe it greater hearing than we do other nations because of the support we require from them, but that's not unconditional. If we think they've gone completely off the reservation, then we are not totally beholden to them. Just as if we went mad and decided it was time to invade some country, we shouldn't expect them to come and help us do so.

It's not in our interests to get too involved in military action in Iran. It's even so when you consider the Americans seem to have not only no plan, but no clear objective as to what success would be. Iraq was famously a disaster, but even that had much more planning for the initial stages than this war does. Even by American standards, this is an extremely stupid military endeavour.

You've succumbed to the same reflexive thought that our hyperactive political and media class succumbed to. That there is an American-led war, and therefore we should join without condition. It only takes a few minutes of thought to get past that impulse to ask why and how until you understand what a terrible idea it really is.
Also (it seems) because Starmer didn’t do it, it’s bad that he didn’t do it - its not a pro-Trump position, it’s an anti-Starmer* stance…

*whatever stance Starmer takes, Seph is against it…

Damien 17-03-2026 15:10
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Well Andrew Neil is getting dunked on across social media for having two articles a week apart, the first proclaiming how he is to admit to his American friends that Starmer has gone mad for not supporting Trump, the second bemoaning Trump has no plan and shouldn't have done this.

These people (not anyone on here) are just terminally incapable of thinking about anything beyond the immediate hysteria and energy of the moment. Trump has gone to war! This is about history, the world stage, statecraft of the highest level, and in this moment, their greatest ally has abandoned them! Then, a week later, Trump is a lunatic who started a war with no plan.

Social media has cooked people's brains to the extent that they have no attention span. Everything is about the takes on x/Bluesky. I remember back when Trump blew up at Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, and you had liberals on Bluesky legitimately wondering if Starmer needed to resign because he hadn't put out a statement in the hours after it happened.

Everyone has gone mad about everything. Just take a breath, step back, and wait to think for a few moments before acting or commenting.

Carth 17-03-2026 15:20
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
I'm convinced that the only sane people left in the World are those with a minimal social media presence . . of course I'm one of them

:wavey:

papa smurf 17-03-2026 15:35
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36212592)
I'm convinced that the only sane people left in the World are those with a minimal social media presence . . of course I'm one of them

:wavey:
I'm the other one, the rest of em are all nuts :nutter:

Damien 17-03-2026 15:57
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Ironically, even old school forums like this are healthier, not least because you have to write in full paragraphs (or at least attempt to do so).

Paul 17-03-2026 17:13
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Spit his dummy again ....

Quote:
"We no longer 'need,' or desire, the Nato countries' assistance — WE NEVER DID!"
If you never needed it, then why did you ask for it ?
If you didnt need it, then you should be happy - since you didnt get it.

Carth 17-03-2026 17:38
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Probably doesn't need all his military bases throughout Europe either then

1andrew1 17-03-2026 18:32
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36212600)
Probably doesn't need all his military bases throughout Europe either then
Indeed. I somehow doubt the US Airforce wants to stop using its UK bases at the moment!

Hugh 17-03-2026 19:10
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36212602)
Indeed. I somehow doubt the US Airforce wants to stop using its UK bases at the moment!
Or Ramstein Air Base, in Germany, which is the largest U.S. military hospital outside the United States, where they initially shipped casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan in order to treat them in a timely manner (rather than a 10-12 hour flight back to the USA) - if Donnie keeps on in this manner, they (unfortunately) may have need of it...

Carth 17-03-2026 19:46
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Humpty Trumpy has already won the war, he says, they've taken out anything that can hurt them . . . so . . . the only reason his troops would need medical facilities is . . . the infamous American friendly fire :D

Hugh 17-03-2026 20:58
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36212606)
Humpty Trumpy has already won the war, he says, they've taken out anything that can hurt them . . . so . . . the only reason his troops would need medical facilities is . . . the infamous American friendly fire :D
tbf, the Kuwaitis shot down three F-15Es, and one KC-135 Stratotanker refuelling plane was downed by collision with another, so no "friendly fire" was involved*…

*so far…

TheDaddy 17-03-2026 21:17
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36212604)
Or Ramstein Air Base, in Germany, which is the largest U.S. military hospital outside the United States, where they initially shipped casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan in order to treat them in a timely manner (rather than a 10-12 hour flight back to the USA) - if Donnie keeps on in this manner, they (unfortunately) may have need of it...
They have need of it now, there have been at least 200 Americans injured and at least 10 of them are very seriously injured, could even be more but the regime is hiding the figures

Dude111 18-03-2026 02:49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
Impeachment wouldn’t be successful, as it requires 2/3rds supermajority in the Senate, I believe
Yes and sadly we dont have nearly enough SANE PEOPLE here to do that!!

Hugh 18-03-2026 07:54
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Interesting article (imho) in The Atlantic, which sums up Trump’s modus operandi.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/20...campaign=share

Quote:
Everyone but Trump Understands What He’s Done

Allied leaders know that any positive gesture they make will count for nothing.

Donald Trump does not think strategically. Nor does he think historically, geographically, or even rationally. He does not connect actions he takes on one day to events that occur weeks later. He does not think about how his behavior in one place will change the behavior of other people in other places.

He does not consider the wider implications of his decisions. He does not take responsibility when these decisions go wrong. Instead, he acts on whim and impulse, and when he changes his mind—when he feels new whims and new impulses—he simply lies about whatever he said or did before.
Quote:
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has declared that Canada will not participate in the “offensive operations of Israel and the U.S., and it never will.” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius says, “This is not our war, and we didn’t start it.” The Spanish prime minister refused to let the United States use bases for the beginning of the war. The U.K. and France might send some ships to protect their own bases or allies in the Gulf, but neither will send their soldiers or sailors into offensive operations started without their assent.

This isn’t cowardice. It’s a calculation: If allied leaders thought that their sacrifice might count for something in Washington, they might choose differently. But most of them have stopped trying to find the hidden logic behind Trump’s actions, and they understand that any contribution they make will count for nothing. A few days or weeks later, Trump will not even remember that it happened.
In case the above link is limited

https://archive.ph/XdXBm

Dude111 18-03-2026 13:58
Trump is an idiot who is off his hinges!!

1andrew1 18-03-2026 17:40
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36212588)
I am confused by your position where you seem to accept it's a stupid war, accept that Trump isn't acting rationally here, but think we should have supported it and him because it's the USA?
Likewise.

Trump's transactional regime preaches America First and does not reward loyalty.

We saw what happened when Blair dragged us into Bush's Iraq War and we learnt the hard way about getting involved in such misadventures.

TheDaddy 18-03-2026 20:10
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36212657)
Likewise.

Trump's transactional regime preaches America First and does not reward loyalty.

We saw what happened when Blair dragged us into Bush's Iraq War and we learnt the hard way about getting involved in such misadventures.
It's not transactional though, all those gulf States bought his crappy crypto for billions thinking they'd be safe, they bought him planes and all sorts and its still got them no where, just like when he robbed his contractors for his whole business life

Paul 18-03-2026 20:24
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
I bet a lot of Americans (and others) are now wishing Thomas Crooks was a better shot. :erm:

Carth 18-03-2026 21:05
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Probably the only one for a while that's had the ear of Trump ;)

Sephiroth 18-03-2026 21:13
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36212553)
Your unbridled enthusiasm for the UK to become a vassal state is unbecoming of you. Trump should be happy that other countries buy into his philosophy of putting national interests first.
Not at all, Andrew.

I'm advocating sensible diplomacy by the UK toward the USA with the aim of protecting the special relationship (which has important implications for trade). This could have been achieved had Starmer simply not disallowed the USA to use our bases.

Reprisal from Trump, which we don't need, can be expected.

Hugh 18-03-2026 21:40
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
But whatever we would have done would not have been enough - that’s how he works.

If we had let him use our bases for the initial strikes, he would then have wanted us to use our military in active support.

With Trump there is no "Special Relationship", and if you think there is, your anti-Starmer hatred is blinding you to that reality.

Chris 18-03-2026 21:51
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212669)
Not at all, Andrew.

I'm advocating sensible diplomacy by the UK toward the USA with the aim of protecting the special relationship (which has important implications for trade). This could have been achieved had Starmer simply not disallowed the USA to use our bases.

Reprisal from Trump, which we don't need, can be expected.
The sPeCiAl ReLaTiOnShIp is political theatre that waxes and wanes. The actual security co-operation between the UK and the US, is the actual special thing, and that itself is fine. It exists at the operational level and is resilient to political whims. That’s not to say it can’t be put in peril by Trump’s continuing behaviour. Just that it’s unlikely someone as dim-witted and erratic as Donald Trump is capable of issuing the correct instructions to that part of the American state that would result in such peril.

All that said, you need to stop trying to understand Trump as some sort of rational actor who can be dealt with rationally. He isn’t and he can’t. He is dumb as bricks. He doesn’t play 5D chess. He says and does whatever makes him feel good at any given moment because he is a malignant narcissist in neurological decline. Starmer’s recent responses to Trump suggest the British state is finally understanding this and acting accordingly.

Sephiroth 18-03-2026 21:56
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Then Starmer should have been working on a viable plan that protects our economy - other than by giving our independence away to the EU.

Dude111 18-03-2026 22:59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
But whatever we would have done would not have been enough - that’s how he works.

If we had let him use our bases for the in7strikes, he would then have wanted us to use our military in active support.
Yes and im glad your people told him to stick it Hugh!!

Trying to get you guys involved is a disgrace!!

TheDaddy 18-03-2026 23:00
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111 (Post 36212674)
Yes and im glad your people told him to stick it Hugh!!

Trying to get you guys involved is a disgrace!!
Didn't you vote for him, this shouldn't becoming as much of a shock to you

Hugh 19-03-2026 07:23
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212672)
Then Starmer should have been working on a viable plan that protects our economy - other than by giving our independence away to the EU.
https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2026/03/3.gif

Dingbat 19-03-2026 08:43
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212672)
Then Starmer should have been working on a viable plan that protects our economy - other than by giving our independence away to the EU.
Agree with the first half of your sentence, but it went downhill after that.

If nothing else, having an unpredictable narcissist in charge of the US, who changes his mind every time someone speaks to him, makes working closer with the neighbours more important than ever.

Sephiroth 19-03-2026 11:00
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingbat (Post 36212691)
Agree with the first half of your sentence, but it went downhill after that.

If nothing else, having an unpredictable narcissist in charge of the US, who changes his mind every time someone speaks to him, makes working closer with the neighbours more important than ever.
It's easy to say that - be closer to your neighbours. But it's necessary to drill down a bit. France, for example, will try to stiff us at every opportunity (which they are taking at Calais).

The only thing the EU can do is tie our hands with their rules and regvulations.

Brexit should have done much better. The politicians are total fools who have not deregulated sufficiently, have given away 12 years of fishing rights for absolutely no tangible benefit ( if you know of one, please tell me).

The ideal situation given the EU and France is that we stand on our own, providing incentives for businesses to develop and grow instead of being taxed out of existence (see our high streets).

Dingbat 19-03-2026 11:01
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
I’d love to see the evidence that backs up your assertions.

mrmistoffelees 19-03-2026 11:10
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212672)
Then Starmer should have been working on a viable plan that protects our economy - other than by giving our independence away to the EU.
What in your opinion would be a viable plan ?

Sephiroth 19-03-2026 11:47
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingbat (Post 36212698)
I’d love to see the evidence that backs up your assertions.
I'm sorry - I don't have the time to provide links to the bleedin' obvious.



---------- Post added at 12:47 ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36212699)
What in your opinion would be a viable plan ?
Given that we have a nutter to deal with in the USA, and looking forward to post-Trump days, we should be doing everything to avoid being foul-mouthed by the current administration.

I buy what Chris said that for each piece of concession we make, Trump would demand more. But that can be diplomatically handled so that Trump's disappointment can be expressed in a way that lets us off the hook. At least we should try.

The objective must be to expand and develop our technology industries and avoid totally missing the AI boat. We shouldn't tie ourselves into the EU's AI straitjacket.

Domestic policy must change so that government spending focuses on economic expansion. Businesses are closing because the cost of operating them are too high and thus unempolyment is rising. Business taxes must be lowered - they are a stealth tax that enable the government to claim that they haven't increased the main personal taxes.

Once wealth is created, tax receipts rise and we can rebuild our welfare architecture.

Something like that - but don't piss off the USA who will be our largest customer. The EU will just try to stiff us - they're only interested on what we can pay in - and you know that.

Dude111 19-03-2026 13:26
Look at how popular our president is!
 
Ya cant even hear Trump in this video :D

http://youtube.com/shorts/3rsTej8iaU...qzmThRxme1t6xq

Listen to those boos . He is disliked more than Biden.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
Didn't you vote for him
No not at all!!

Chris 19-03-2026 14:52
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212701)
I'm sorry - I don't have the time to provide links to the bleedin' obvious.



---------- Post added at 12:47 ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 ----------



Given that we have a nutter to deal with in the USA, and looking forward to post-Trump days, we should be doing everything to avoid being foul-mouthed by the current administration.

I buy what Chris said that for each piece of concession we make, Trump would demand more. But that can be diplomatically handled so that Trump's disappointment can be expressed in a way that lets us off the hook. At least we should try.

The objective must be to expand and develop our technology industries and avoid totally missing the AI boat. We shouldn't tie ourselves into the EU's AI straitjacket.

Domestic policy must change so that government spending focuses on economic expansion. Businesses are closing because the cost of operating them are too high and thus unempolyment is rising. Business taxes must be lowered - they are a stealth tax that enable the government to claim that they haven't increased the main personal taxes.

Once wealth is created, tax receipts rise and we can rebuild our welfare architecture.

Something like that - but don't piss off the USA who will be our largest customer. The EU will just try to stiff us - they're only interested on what we can pay in - and you know that.
The problem is he is so capricious that we are neither on nor off the hook regardless what we do. He really is that unstable. We could be his best pal right now and he’d love it, but we’d be bad allies again next week. And then we’d have two aircraft carriers he definitely doesn’t need whilst he’s also cross we won’t send ships to get shot at in Hormuz. He is not a rational actor, and it is a waste of time trying to formulate plans for dealing with him rationally.

1andrew1 19-03-2026 15:22
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212701)
[COLOR="Blue"]

Given that we have a nutter to deal with in the USA, and looking forward to post-Trump days, we should be doing everything to avoid being foul-mouthed by the current administration.

I buy what Chris said that for each piece of concession we make, Trump would demand more. But that can be diplomatically handled so that Trump's disappointment can be expressed in a way that lets us off the hook. At least we should try.

The objective must be to expand and develop our technology industries and avoid totally missing the AI boat. We shouldn't tie ourselves into the EU's AI straitjacket.

Domestic policy must change so that government spending focuses on economic expansion. Businesses are closing because the cost of operating them are too high and thus unempolyment is rising. Business taxes must be lowered - they are a stealth tax that enable the government to claim that they haven't increased the main personal taxes.

Once wealth is created, tax receipts rise and we can rebuild our welfare architecture.

Something like that - but don't piss off the USA who will be our largest customer. The EU will just try to stiff us - they're only interested on what we can pay in - and you know that.
Some sensible points in there but mostly focuses on tackling the symptoms and avoids mentioning the causes that are behind the need to raise taxes - Ukraine War and the need to re-arm, the hike in energy prices due to Trump/Netanyahu, ageing population, growth in adult social care burden and the reduction in GDP when we left the EU.

I think the tax burden needs to be shifted away from taxing employers as that makes Britain less competitive but with an honest penny or two placed on income tax. I get that would be unpopular so would need presenting as a UK security tax top-up or something.

And Trump's USA is not a stable country to bet your economic growth on or your defence either. Because Trump himself is fundamentally unstable. The UK is a world leader alongside France in diplomacy (thanks to their colonial past) and has one of the best relationships with the USA that any country enjoys. But even that's not great.

Sephiroth 19-03-2026 16:59
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36212719)
Some sensible points in there but mostly focuses on tackling the symptoms and avoids mentioning the causes that are behind the need to raise taxes - Ukraine War and the need to re-arm, the hike in energy prices due to Trump/Netanyahu, ageing population, growth in adult social car burden and the reduction in GDP when we left the EU.

I think the tax burden needs to be shifted away from taxing employers as that makes Britain less competitive but with an honest penny or two placed on income tax. I get that would be unpopular so would need presenting as a UK security tax top-up or something.

And Trump's USA is not a stable country to bet your economic growth on or your defence either. Because Trump himself is fundamentally unstable. The UK is a world leader alongside France in diplomacy (thanks to their colonial past) and has one of the best relationships with the USA that any country enjoys. But even that's not great.
On the taxes point, there is need to raise more money for the investment programme (not welfare). This should be done through the front door and taxes transferred from stealth to direct as part of the investment method.

1andrew1 19-03-2026 20:35
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36212725)
On the taxes point, there is need to raise more money for the investment programme (not welfare). This should be done through the front door and taxes transferred from stealth to direct as part of the investment method.
I think there's quite a bit we agree on here. :tu:

Hugh 19-03-2026 20:54
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cx...rrer=deep-link

Quote:
In a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in the Oval Office, US President Donald Trump was asked why he didn't inform allies about his plan to attack Iran.

Trump responded by raising Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, saying, "Who ​knows better about surprise than Japan?"


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:59.
Page 28 of 30 « First 1824252627 28 2930
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum