Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A great comfort to the Ukrainians and to all the patriots in the UK. " ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rather our troops ain't put into another war that has fuck all to do with us I see all those wanting our troops there are way psst being able to sign up and go over" F'in agree I'd be one of the one of the first to sign up if it was in defence of this country against a direct threat. But f"ck it, I would never sign up to go and fight a overseas war | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No great surprise. Worst Prime Minister in British history continues to be worst Prime Minister in British history. Labour constantly seem desperate for international approval. Like some annoying little poodle jumping around your feet waiting for a pat on the head. We should keep out of it and leave it to the EU." Not even close to the worst, I think the Tories hold the patent on crap prime ministers. Can I remind you all that the russians didn't hesitate using a nerve agent in the streets of the UK resulting in deaths of innocent British Citizens (under a Tory lead government) we've shown weakness and severely lacking in backbone for many years. I'm not suggesting for a minute we get into it with the Russians because that would just be crazy, I also think Zelenskyy wouldn't think twice about throwing us under the bus if it came to it. I'd prefer it if our government used the money for sending troops to the Ukraine to boost our dwindling forces at home. I think there's a bigger picture that needs looking at, will Putin stop if he manages to conquer the Ukraine? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What troops we haven't got any?" Starmers son will be 18 in a couple of years Lead from the front, send him first. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing?" It’s an interesting question. Among all countries it is the UK that has been hottest for this war in Ukraine. Why is that? The UK has no particular interests there and far less so than many other European countries. Is it a simple case of deluded thinking from the British political class? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing?" There's definitely a very militant anti labour feel to the forum at the moment,bots maybe trying to sew division and anti government feelings? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing? There's definitely a very militant anti labour feel to the forum at the moment,bots maybe trying to sew division and anti government feelings?" Could be Russian interference….. I think the Russians may be behind Starmer’s dismal poll ratings too. Still no doubt he will soon be very popular. In Kiev and Brussels. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing? It’s an interesting question. Among all countries it is the UK that has been hottest for this war in Ukraine. Why is that? The UK has no particular interests there and far less so than many other European countries. Is it a simple case of deluded thinking from the British political class? " Not quite that simple but it's a reasonable question. What's interesting about this is all the hypocrisy from the right wing flag-shaggers and Trump enthusiasts, when a Labour PM takes heed of a U.S. policy they agree with. They were all fine with it when Blair did it. I guess they all think backing Ukraine, backing a democracy under attack, isn't as important as it was when Boris was saying it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing? There's definitely a very militant anti labour feel to the forum at the moment,bots maybe trying to sew division and anti government feelings?" Maybe. It's far more likely to be real people with Starmer Derangement Syndrome. 😂 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing? There's definitely a very militant anti labour feel to the forum at the moment,bots maybe trying to sew division and anti government feelings? Maybe. It's far more likely to be real people with Starmer Derangement Syndrome. 😂" Seems like it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing? It’s an interesting question. Among all countries it is the UK that has been hottest for this war in Ukraine. Why is that? The UK has no particular interests there and far less so than many other European countries. Is it a simple case of deluded thinking from the British political class? Not quite that simple but it's a reasonable question. What's interesting about this is all the hypocrisy from the right wing flag-shaggers and Trump enthusiasts, when a Labour PM takes heed of a U.S. policy they agree with. They were all fine with it when Blair did it. I guess they all think backing Ukraine, backing a democracy under attack, isn't as important as it was when Boris was saying it." ive always thought we should keep our noses out be it bojo or two tier, and as for flag shaggers i think your talking about yourself, you seem to think the uk is a lot stronger than it is, how comes you havent gone out there to support ukraine? They are looking for more cannon fodder and you seem to bbe very pro sending troops, put your money where your mouth is mabey, lead by example | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing? It’s an interesting question. Among all countries it is the UK that has been hottest for this war in Ukraine. Why is that? The UK has no particular interests there and far less so than many other European countries. Is it a simple case of deluded thinking from the British political class? Not quite that simple but it's a reasonable question. What's interesting about this is all the hypocrisy from the right wing flag-shaggers and Trump enthusiasts, when a Labour PM takes heed of a U.S. policy they agree with. They were all fine with it when Blair did it. I guess they all think backing Ukraine, backing a democracy under attack, isn't as important as it was when Boris was saying it." Is Ukraine a democracy? When did that happen? When was the last election there? Would Zelensky still be in power if there were an election tomorrow? I was never in favour of our position on Ukraine when Boris was taking it. As before I can’t quite see why the UK has been so hot for this war more than any other country. It’s very odd. Maybe Boris was just sucking up to Biden, whose family had their own reasons for US involvement. Three things driving Starmer: As usual with a politician who is very unpopular at home he is seeking some kind of approval abroad to compensate. Partially connected to the first point, Labour do love their freebies and another opportunity to swan around abroad isn’t one they can miss. Starmer and his little clique of international human rights lawyers genuinely find it difficult to navigate where British interests lie. Same reason why they have got into such a mess with the Chagos Islands. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing? It’s an interesting question. Among all countries it is the UK that has been hottest for this war in Ukraine. Why is that? The UK has no particular interests there and far less so than many other European countries. Is it a simple case of deluded thinking from the British political class? Not quite that simple but it's a reasonable question. What's interesting about this is all the hypocrisy from the right wing flag-shaggers and Trump enthusiasts, when a Labour PM takes heed of a U.S. policy they agree with. They were all fine with it when Blair did it. I guess they all think backing Ukraine, backing a democracy under attack, isn't as important as it was when Boris was saying it.ive always thought we should keep our noses out be it bojo or two tier, and as for flag shaggers i think your talking about yourself, you seem to think the uk is a lot stronger than it is, how comes you havent gone out there to support ukraine? They are looking for more cannon fodder and you seem to bbe very pro sending troops, put your money where your mouth is mabey, lead by example" Then you have misunderstood the purpose of my OP. It was to expose the hypocrisy of the flag-shaggers. There will be plenty more of it to come. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is Ukraine a democracy? When did that happen? When was the last election there? Would Zelensky still be in power if there were an election tomorrow? I was never in favour of our position on Ukraine when Boris was taking it. As before I can’t quite see why the UK has been so hot for this war more than any other country. It’s very odd. Maybe Boris was just sucking up to Biden, whose family had their own reasons for US involvement. Three things driving Starmer: As usual with a politician who is very unpopular at home he is seeking some kind of approval abroad to compensate. Partially connected to the first point, Labour do love their freebies and another opportunity to swan around abroad isn’t one they can miss. Starmer and his little clique of international human rights lawyers genuinely find it difficult to navigate where British interests lie. Same reason why they have got into such a mess with the Chagos Islands." Ukraine has been a democracy since May 2014. Its first free and fair election. Their last one was in April 2019, when Zelensky was elected. They haven't had another one because they've been at war. Certainly, he's a bit over his term limit and it's unlikely he'll get re-elected; but Ukraine is a democracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing? It’s an interesting question. Among all countries it is the UK that has been hottest for this war in Ukraine. Why is that? The UK has no particular interests there and far less so than many other European countries. Is it a simple case of deluded thinking from the British political class? Not quite that simple but it's a reasonable question. What's interesting about this is all the hypocrisy from the right wing flag-shaggers and Trump enthusiasts, when a Labour PM takes heed of a U.S. policy they agree with. They were all fine with it when Blair did it. I guess they all think backing Ukraine, backing a democracy under attack, isn't as important as it was when Boris was saying it.ive always thought we should keep our noses out be it bojo or two tier, and as for flag shaggers i think your talking about yourself, you seem to think the uk is a lot stronger than it is, how comes you havent gone out there to support ukraine? They are looking for more cannon fodder and you seem to bbe very pro sending troops, put your money where your mouth is mabey, lead by example Then you have misunderstood the purpose of my OP. It was to expose the hypocrisy of the flag-shaggers. There will be plenty more of it to come." like i said you seem to be cheering on sending troops thats why u sound like a flag shagger you seem to think we are a lot stronger than we actually are and again how comes you havent gone to help? You seem very pro ukraine | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing? It’s an interesting question. Among all countries it is the UK that has been hottest for this war in Ukraine. Why is that? The UK has no particular interests there and far less so than many other European countries. Is it a simple case of deluded thinking from the British political class? Not quite that simple but it's a reasonable question. What's interesting about this is all the hypocrisy from the right wing flag-shaggers and Trump enthusiasts, when a Labour PM takes heed of a U.S. policy they agree with. They were all fine with it when Blair did it. I guess they all think backing Ukraine, backing a democracy under attack, isn't as important as it was when Boris was saying it.ive always thought we should keep our noses out be it bojo or two tier, and as for flag shaggers i think your talking about yourself, you seem to think the uk is a lot stronger than it is, how comes you havent gone out there to support ukraine? They are looking for more cannon fodder and you seem to bbe very pro sending troops, put your money where your mouth is mabey, lead by example Then you have misunderstood the purpose of my OP. It was to expose the hypocrisy of the flag-shaggers. There will be plenty more of it to come.like i said you seem to be cheering on sending troops thats why u sound like a flag shagger you seem to think we are a lot stronger than we actually are and again how comes you havent gone to help? You seem very pro ukraine" "Seem to be". Read and understand what you're writing. 🙂 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the BBC, our PM has told the Daily Telegraph that he is "ready and willing" to put UK troops on the ground in Ukraine to help guarantee its security as part of a peace deal. A great comfort to the Ukrainians and to all the patriots in the UK. If he actually means it." Ready and willing and with others three years too late In 1994 at Budapest the United Kingdom signed the security guarantee for Ukraine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing? It’s an interesting question. Among all countries it is the UK that has been hottest for this war in Ukraine. Why is that? The UK has no particular interests there and far less so than many other European countries. Is it a simple case of deluded thinking from the British political class? Not quite that simple but it's a reasonable question. What's interesting about this is all the hypocrisy from the right wing flag-shaggers and Trump enthusiasts, when a Labour PM takes heed of a U.S. policy they agree with. They were all fine with it when Blair did it. I guess they all think backing Ukraine, backing a democracy under attack, isn't as important as it was when Boris was saying it.ive always thought we should keep our noses out be it bojo or two tier, and as for flag shaggers i think your talking about yourself, you seem to think the uk is a lot stronger than it is, how comes you havent gone out there to support ukraine? They are looking for more cannon fodder and you seem to bbe very pro sending troops, put your money where your mouth is mabey, lead by example Then you have misunderstood the purpose of my OP. It was to expose the hypocrisy of the flag-shaggers. There will be plenty more of it to come.like i said you seem to be cheering on sending troops thats why u sound like a flag shagger you seem to think we are a lot stronger than we actually are and again how comes you havent gone to help? You seem very pro ukraine "Seem to be". Read and understand what you're writing. 🙂" I know what I'm writing your cheerleaders to send boots on the ground,and your upset that those you consider flag staggers don't feel the same as you, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the BBC, our PM has told the Daily Telegraph that he is "ready and willing" to put UK troops on the ground in Ukraine to help guarantee its security as part of a peace deal. A great comfort to the Ukrainians and to all the patriots in the UK. If he actually means it. Ready and willing and with others three years too late In 1994 at Budapest the United Kingdom signed the security guarantee for Ukraine. " Agreed. Way too late. Wasn't much of a deal, either. If membership of NATO had been on offer, we probably wouldn't be where we are now. That said, back then, surprisingly few Ukrainians wanted to join. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing? It’s an interesting question. Among all countries it is the UK that has been hottest for this war in Ukraine. Why is that? The UK has no particular interests there and far less so than many other European countries. Is it a simple case of deluded thinking from the British political class? Not quite that simple but it's a reasonable question. What's interesting about this is all the hypocrisy from the right wing flag-shaggers and Trump enthusiasts, when a Labour PM takes heed of a U.S. policy they agree with. They were all fine with it when Blair did it. I guess they all think backing Ukraine, backing a democracy under attack, isn't as important as it was when Boris was saying it.ive always thought we should keep our noses out be it bojo or two tier, and as for flag shaggers i think your talking about yourself, you seem to think the uk is a lot stronger than it is, how comes you havent gone out there to support ukraine? They are looking for more cannon fodder and you seem to bbe very pro sending troops, put your money where your mouth is mabey, lead by example Then you have misunderstood the purpose of my OP. It was to expose the hypocrisy of the flag-shaggers. There will be plenty more of it to come.like i said you seem to be cheering on sending troops thats why u sound like a flag shagger you seem to think we are a lot stronger than we actually are and again how comes you havent gone to help? You seem very pro ukraine "Seem to be". Read and understand what you're writing. 🙂I know what I'm writing your cheerleaders to send boots on the ground,and your upset that those you consider flag staggers don't feel the same as you," LOL Ok. 🙂 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing?" I don't really think left or right politics should override rational thinking when it comes to sending our troops into a war.... Having said that it seems those to the left in here are more than eager to get into direct conflict with Putin and it appears from reading the never ending threads on Trump, that there is a disconnect between what people emotionally think and the reality of there thoughts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing? I don't really think left or right politics should override rational thinking when it comes to sending our troops into a war.... Having said that it seems those to the left in here are more than eager to get into direct conflict with Putin and it appears from reading the never ending threads on Trump, that there is a disconnect between what people emotionally think and the reality of there thoughts. " And I thought it was us woke lefties who are supposed to be the communists | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Putin may not agree a peace settlement that includes Uk and others troops in Ukraine. " If it looks like he is doing ok Why would Putin want a peaceful resolution. And if he dose is it just a re-group to have another go in 10 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No great surprise. Worst Prime Minister in British history continues to be worst Prime Minister in British history. Labour constantly seem desperate for international approval. Like some annoying little poodle jumping around your feet waiting for a pat on the head. We should keep out of it and leave it to the EU. Not even close to the worst, I think the Tories hold the patent on crap prime ministers. Can I remind you all that the russians didn't hesitate using a nerve agent in the streets of the UK resulting in deaths of innocent British Citizens (under a Tory lead government) we've shown weakness and severely lacking in backbone for many years. I'm not suggesting for a minute we get into it with the Russians because that would just be crazy, I also think Zelenskyy wouldn't think twice about throwing us under the bus if it came to it. I'd prefer it if our government used the money for sending troops to the Ukraine to boost our dwindling forces at home. I think there's a bigger picture that needs looking at, will Putin stop if he manages to conquer the Ukraine?" That is actually a good argument for troops being sent there. I very much doubt that Putin would stop at Ukraine. Take a breather and re-organise maybe, but he would want more and more. I think it was a British general who was quoted as saying that "the defence of Britain doesn't start at the White Cliffs of Dover". I fully get that Britain shouldn't get involved in other peoples wars and we've got involved in plenty that we shouldn't have. However, this isn't someone else's war. Like it or not it's our war, albeit being fought at a distance, for now at least. If one day we do have to fight the Russians I'd much prefer it to be in Donetsk than Doncaster. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" However, this isn't someone else's war. Like it or not it's our war, albeit being fought at a distance, for now at least. If one day we do have to fight the Russians I'd much prefer it to be in Donetsk than Doncaster." This. And those cheerleading Trump (and therefore by proxy Putin) would do well to realise that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just imagine if Europe had decided not to let the Nazis walk into Poland. I wonder how much lower the death toll would have been." Is it maybe time the UK/Europe moved on from seeing absolutely everything in terms of WWII? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just imagine if Europe had decided not to let the Nazis walk into Poland. I wonder how much lower the death toll would have been. Is it maybe time the UK/Europe moved on from seeing absolutely everything in terms of WWII? " But we cannot ignore the past and just ignore it. Trump stepping in certainly seems to have made things worse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just imagine if Europe had decided not to let the Nazis walk into Poland. I wonder how much lower the death toll would have been. Is it maybe time the UK/Europe moved on from seeing absolutely everything in terms of WWII? But we cannot ignore the past and just ignore it. Trump stepping in certainly seems to have made things worse." How? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just imagine if Europe had decided not to let the Nazis walk into Poland. I wonder how much lower the death toll would have been. Is it maybe time the UK/Europe moved on from seeing absolutely everything in terms of WWII? " WWI the war to end all wars. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing? It’s an interesting question. Among all countries it is the UK that has been hottest for this war in Ukraine. Why is that? The UK has no particular interests there and far less so than many other European countries. Is it a simple case of deluded thinking from the British political class? Not quite that simple but it's a reasonable question. What's interesting about this is all the hypocrisy from the right wing flag-shaggers and Trump enthusiasts, when a Labour PM takes heed of a U.S. policy they agree with. They were all fine with it when Blair did it. I guess they all think backing Ukraine, backing a democracy under attack, isn't as important as it was when Boris was saying it.ive always thought we should keep our noses out be it bojo or two tier, and as for flag shaggers i think your talking about yourself, you seem to think the uk is a lot stronger than it is, how comes you havent gone out there to support ukraine? They are looking for more cannon fodder and you seem to bbe very pro sending troops, put your money where your mouth is mabey, lead by example Then you have misunderstood the purpose of my OP. It was to expose the hypocrisy of the flag-shaggers. There will be plenty more of it to come." Who are the flag shaggers ? The ones with English/Union flags on social profiles ? or the ones with Ukraine flags ? Palestine flags ? and all the other type of flags | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just imagine if Europe had decided not to let the Nazis walk into Poland. I wonder how much lower the death toll would have been." Newsflash - Britain and France did not let the Nazis walk into Poland. War was declared on 3rd September 1939. The rest as they say is history. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just imagine if Europe had decided not to let the Nazis walk into Poland. I wonder how much lower the death toll would have been. Newsflash - Britain and France did not let the Nazis walk into Poland. War was declared on 3rd September 1939. The rest as they say is history." That’s why I said Europe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing? I don't really think left or right politics should override rational thinking when it comes to sending our troops into a war.... Having said that it seems those to the left in here are more than eager to get into direct conflict with Putin and it appears from reading the never ending threads on Trump, that there is a disconnect between what people emotionally think and the reality of there thoughts. And I thought it was us woke lefties who are supposed to be the communists " Trotskyists | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, well. Such a lack of enthusiasm. Not right wing enough? It's exactly what the Trump administration expects of European leaders. They've made that clear. We've even had contributors in here in full agreement with J.D. Vance's recent speech. The UK Parliament made a commitment to support Ukraine, as soon as Russia invaded it, "for as long as it takes". Starmer and Labour backed Johnson, Truss and Sunak all the way on that stance. Boris Johnson was hailed as a hero in Kyiv. But now we have a PM saying he's prepared to go further than supplying armaments, it's a problem? Would it be easier to accept if Farage were giving it his blessing? I don't really think left or right politics should override rational thinking when it comes to sending our troops into a war.... Having said that it seems those to the left in here are more than eager to get into direct conflict with Putin and it appears from reading the never ending threads on Trump, that there is a disconnect between what people emotionally think and the reality of there thoughts. And I thought it was us woke lefties who are supposed to be the communists Trotskyists " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" " Dose not look like EU wants to put Boots on the ground. On the news it Quoted Ukraine thinks it would need 200,000 troops to police the boarder. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Dose not look like EU wants to put Boots on the ground. On the news it Quoted Ukraine thinks it would need 200,000 troops to police the boarder. " Source? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Dose not look like EU wants to put Boots on the ground. On the news it Quoted Ukraine thinks it would need 200,000 troops to police the boarder. Source?" ITV news tonight interview with Zelensky. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Dose not look like EU wants to put Boots on the ground. On the news it Quoted Ukraine thinks it would need 200,000 troops to police the boarder. Source?" Italy was even 1 hour late to the meeting and are apparently not keen with a peace keeping role. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Dose not look like EU wants to put Boots on the ground. On the news it Quoted Ukraine thinks it would need 200,000 troops to police the boarder. Source? Italy was even 1 hour late to the meeting and are apparently not keen with a peace keeping role. " Italy were never keen to be part of this. The UK is considering asking MP's to vote on whether to go ahead with boots on the ground. France has always said that it would be willing (Macron muted this year's ago but nobody wanted to take him up on this). Germany seems quite keen. Poland will also be keen. Not sure about Spain and other countries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Dose not look like EU wants to put Boots on the ground. On the news it Quoted Ukraine thinks it would need 200,000 troops to police the boarder. Source? Italy was even 1 hour late to the meeting and are apparently not keen with a peace keeping role. Italy were never keen to be part of this. The UK is considering asking MP's to vote on whether to go ahead with boots on the ground. France has always said that it would be willing (Macron muted this year's ago but nobody wanted to take him up on this). Germany seems quite keen. Poland will also be keen. Not sure about Spain and other countries." Sir Keastamer was quoted saying the UK was keen to help. But what would the UK contribute 20,000 max | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Dose not look like EU wants to put Boots on the ground. On the news it Quoted Ukraine thinks it would need 200,000 troops to police the boarder. Source? Italy was even 1 hour late to the meeting and are apparently not keen with a peace keeping role. Italy were never keen to be part of this. The UK is considering asking MP's to vote on whether to go ahead with boots on the ground. France has always said that it would be willing (Macron muted this year's ago but nobody wanted to take him up on this). Germany seems quite keen. Poland will also be keen. Not sure about Spain and other countries. Sir Keastamer was quoted saying the UK was keen to help. But what would the UK contribute 20,000 max " From what I have gleaned from reading various snippets from a number of sources is that Europe is waiting to see what the US and Russia come away with. I am sure that many options and responses will have been discussed today but, until they know what they are dealing with, they cannot pre-empt a decision. Some countries are not keen to put boots on the ground and some physically have not got the resources to do so. All countries can contribute in some way and again, this will have been discussed. I guess that we will learn more as things unfold. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just imagine if Europe had decided not to let the Nazis walk into Poland. I wonder how much lower the death toll would have been. Newsflash - Britain and France did not let the Nazis walk into Poland. War was declared on 3rd September 1939. The rest as they say is history. That’s why I said Europe." Italy was already closely allied to Nazi Germany so would unlikely be much help. Similarly fascist Spain just coming out of a civil war another unlikely contender. Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland all traditionally neutral. Belgium, Norway, Denmark and Holland all with armies probably smaller than the Berlin police force. Czechoslovakia already gobbled up. Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania already putting out feelers to Hitler with alliances pending. Leaves only the might of Luxembourg to challenge the Fuhrer! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Assuming that the endgame is new borders with some sort of protective demilitarised zone, I’m struggling to see why Russia would accept UK troops on its border. The UK clearly hasn’t been a neutral observer in this war as Ukraine’s biggest cheerleader. I can’t see why Russia would want its enemy patrolling its border. It would make more sense to have a zone policed by the UN staffed by neutral countries, of which I’m sure there are many." So witch neutral countries want that job or the cost of it. The border is about 3,000km so let's say a force of how many and for how long. Guess we are back to the cold war. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Assuming that the endgame is new borders with some sort of protective demilitarised zone, I’m struggling to see why Russia would accept UK troops on its border. The UK clearly hasn’t been a neutral observer in this war as Ukraine’s biggest cheerleader. I can’t see why Russia would want its enemy patrolling its border. It would make more sense to have a zone policed by the UN staffed by neutral countries, of which I’m sure there are many." It would've made more sense to put a stop to it in 2014but no-one had the nuts to do so and now we're playing catch-up because the USA is threatening to leave it to the European team | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Assuming that the endgame is new borders with some sort of protective demilitarised zone, I’m struggling to see why Russia would accept UK troops on its border. The UK clearly hasn’t been a neutral observer in this war as Ukraine’s biggest cheerleader. I can’t see why Russia would want its enemy patrolling its border. It would make more sense to have a zone policed by the UN staffed by neutral countries, of which I’m sure there are many." China and Iran maybe?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How about British troops on Britain's borders ? "That’ll stop the boat people from sending drones over to attack our power plants. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No great surprise. Worst Prime Minister in British history continues to be worst Prime Minister in British history. Labour constantly seem desperate for international approval. Like some annoying little poodle jumping around your feet waiting for a pat on the head. We should keep out of it and leave it to the EU. Not even close to the worst, I think the Tories hold the patent on crap prime ministers. Can I remind you all that the russians didn't hesitate using a nerve agent in the streets of the UK resulting in deaths of innocent British Citizens (under a Tory lead government) we've shown weakness and severely lacking in backbone for many years. I'm not suggesting for a minute we get into it with the Russians because that would just be crazy, I also think Zelenskyy wouldn't think twice about throwing us under the bus if it came to it. I'd prefer it if our government used the money for sending troops to the Ukraine to boost our dwindling forces at home. I think there's a bigger picture that needs looking at, will Putin stop if he manages to conquer the Ukraine?" Not a chance, he'll want to dip his toes in the Adriatic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Assuming that the endgame is new borders with some sort of protective demilitarised zone, I’m struggling to see why Russia would accept UK troops on its border. The UK clearly hasn’t been a neutral observer in this war as Ukraine’s biggest cheerleader. I can’t see why Russia would want its enemy patrolling its border. It would make more sense to have a zone policed by the UN staffed by neutral countries, of which I’m sure there are many." UK troops are already on Russia's border, keep up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Dose not look like EU wants to put Boots on the ground. On the news it Quoted Ukraine thinks it would need 200,000 troops to police the boarder. Source? Italy was even 1 hour late to the meeting and are apparently not keen with a peace keeping role. Italy were never keen to be part of this. The UK is considering asking MP's to vote on whether to go ahead with boots on the ground. France has always said that it would be willing (Macron muted this year's ago but nobody wanted to take him up on this). Germany seems quite keen. Poland will also be keen. Not sure about Spain and other countries. Sir Keastamer was quoted saying the UK was keen to help. But what would the UK contribute 20,000 max From what I have gleaned from reading various snippets from a number of sources is that Europe is waiting to see what the US and Russia come away with. I am sure that many options and responses will have been discussed today but, until they know what they are dealing with, they cannot pre-empt a decision. Some countries are not keen to put boots on the ground and some physically have not got the resources to do so. All countries can contribute in some way and again, this will have been discussed. I guess that we will learn more as things unfold." Europe knows what's coming, and it will be war. Have you not seen the serious kit being flown into the UK in recent days. Trump the bullshitter and liar, says he wants peace but then sends over some serious hardware to the UK - some peace loving, draft dodging dictator he is. The Russians aren't stupid, they don't trust him either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Have you not seen the serious kit being flown into the UK in recent days. " I assume you mean the 4 x B52H Stratofortress's at Fairford ? Serious bits of kit for doing serious bits of work. . As for the countries in the list, Poland would be my best guess for any entanglement, but as a NATO country they are restrained for now. I feel the Polish particularly loathe the RF and it would not take much to provoke them, though they are well aware of that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, no and no! Starmer is writing cheques his ass cannot cash! We have a depleted Army and will continue to deplete further under this shower of sh!te of a government! We do not have the capability to do something like this anymore! Starmer is deluded and just trying to deflect his incredibly poor attempt at governing our country! Also, with his lawyer mates wanting to prosecute our soldiers for things that allegedly went on in NI and Afghanistan, I’m surprised we actually have an army!! " Did you sleep through the last 14 years when the last government reduced the size of our forces from just under 192k to just over 138k, but yeah it's Liebour that are reducing our forces. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, no and no! Starmer is writing cheques his ass cannot cash! We have a depleted Army and will continue to deplete further under this shower of sh!te of a government! We do not have the capability to do something like this anymore! Starmer is deluded and just trying to deflect his incredibly poor attempt at governing our country! Also, with his lawyer mates wanting to prosecute our soldiers for things that allegedly went on in NI and Afghanistan, I’m surprised we actually have an army!! Did you sleep through the last 14 years when the last government reduced the size of our forces from just under 192k to just over 138k, but yeah it's Liebour that are reducing our forces." We touched on this before, remember the austerity measures needed post labour? There is never a clean slate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, no and no! Starmer is writing cheques his ass cannot cash! We have a depleted Army and will continue to deplete further under this shower of sh!te of a government! We do not have the capability to do something like this anymore! Starmer is deluded and just trying to deflect his incredibly poor attempt at governing our country! Also, with his lawyer mates wanting to prosecute our soldiers for things that allegedly went on in NI and Afghanistan, I’m surprised we actually have an army!! Did you sleep through the last 14 years when the last government reduced the size of our forces from just under 192k to just over 138k, but yeah it's Liebour that are reducing our forces. We touched on this before, remember the austerity measures needed post labour? There is never a clean slate." Under the Tories prior to Blair the forces shrunk from 315k to 210k. They do like a bit of austerity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, no and no! Starmer is writing cheques his ass cannot cash! We have a depleted Army and will continue to deplete further under this shower of sh!te of a government! We do not have the capability to do something like this anymore! Starmer is deluded and just trying to deflect his incredibly poor attempt at governing our country! Also, with his lawyer mates wanting to prosecute our soldiers for things that allegedly went on in NI and Afghanistan, I’m surprised we actually have an army!! Did you sleep through the last 14 years when the last government reduced the size of our forces from just under 192k to just over 138k, but yeah it's Liebour that are reducing our forces. We touched on this before, remember the austerity measures needed post labour? There is never a clean slate. Under the Tories prior to Blair the forces shrunk from 315k to 210k. They do like a bit of austerity." In fact in the last 5 years prior to the Blair election win the Tories reduced them from 293k to 210k | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, no and no! Starmer is writing cheques his ass cannot cash! We have a depleted Army and will continue to deplete further under this shower of sh!te of a government! We do not have the capability to do something like this anymore! Starmer is deluded and just trying to deflect his incredibly poor attempt at governing our country! Also, with his lawyer mates wanting to prosecute our soldiers for things that allegedly went on in NI and Afghanistan, I’m surprised we actually have an army!! Did you sleep through the last 14 years when the last government reduced the size of our forces from just under 192k to just over 138k, but yeah it's Liebour that are reducing our forces. We touched on this before, remember the austerity measures needed post labour? There is never a clean slate. Under the Tories prior to Blair the forces shrunk from 315k to 210k. They do like a bit of austerity." Public spending 2019-2020 £889 billion Public spending 2020-2024 £1,228 billion AuStErItY! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, no and no! Starmer is writing cheques his ass cannot cash! We have a depleted Army and will continue to deplete further under this shower of sh!te of a government! We do not have the capability to do something like this anymore! Starmer is deluded and just trying to deflect his incredibly poor attempt at governing our country! Also, with his lawyer mates wanting to prosecute our soldiers for things that allegedly went on in NI and Afghanistan, I’m surprised we actually have an army!! Did you sleep through the last 14 years when the last government reduced the size of our forces from just under 192k to just over 138k, but yeah it's Liebour that are reducing our forces. We touched on this before, remember the austerity measures needed post labour? There is never a clean slate. Under the Tories prior to Blair the forces shrunk from 315k to 210k. They do like a bit of austerity. Public spending 2019-2020 £889 billion Public spending 2020-2024 £1,228 billion AuStErItY!" But clearly not on DeFeNcE | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, no and no! Starmer is writing cheques his ass cannot cash! We have a depleted Army and will continue to deplete further under this shower of sh!te of a government! We do not have the capability to do something like this anymore! Starmer is deluded and just trying to deflect his incredibly poor attempt at governing our country! Also, with his lawyer mates wanting to prosecute our soldiers for things that allegedly went on in NI and Afghanistan, I’m surprised we actually have an army!! Did you sleep through the last 14 years when the last government reduced the size of our forces from just under 192k to just over 138k, but yeah it's Liebour that are reducing our forces. We touched on this before, remember the austerity measures needed post labour? There is never a clean slate. Under the Tories prior to Blair the forces shrunk from 315k to 210k. They do like a bit of austerity. Public spending 2019-2020 £889 billion Public spending 2020-2024 £1,228 billion AuStErItY! But clearly not on DeFeNcE" You think this is just a UK thing? Europe fell asleep at the wheel... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, no and no! Starmer is writing cheques his ass cannot cash! We have a depleted Army and will continue to deplete further under this shower of sh!te of a government! We do not have the capability to do something like this anymore! Starmer is deluded and just trying to deflect his incredibly poor attempt at governing our country! Also, with his lawyer mates wanting to prosecute our soldiers for things that allegedly went on in NI and Afghanistan, I’m surprised we actually have an army!! Did you sleep through the last 14 years when the last government reduced the size of our forces from just under 192k to just over 138k, but yeah it's Liebour that are reducing our forces. We touched on this before, remember the austerity measures needed post labour? There is never a clean slate. Under the Tories prior to Blair the forces shrunk from 315k to 210k. They do like a bit of austerity. Public spending 2019-2020 £889 billion Public spending 2020-2024 £1,228 billion AuStErItY! But clearly not on DeFeNcE You think this is just a UK thing? Europe fell asleep at the wheel... " No I'm saying this is not a Labour thing as intimated by the poster I was replying to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just re read this. And thought Boots are on the HIGH STREET. lol and they don't sell boots. " They sell medicine in boots, which I find really strange. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Did you sleep through the last 14 years when the last government reduced the size of our forces from just under 192k to just over 138k, but yeah it's Liebour that are reducing our forces." "We touched on this before, remember the austerity measures needed post labour? There is never a clean slate." "Under the Tories prior to Blair the forces shrunk from 315k to 210k. They do like a bit of austerity." "You think this is just a UK thing? Europe fell asleep at the wheel..." "No I'm saying this is not a Labour thing as intimated by the poster I was replying to." You mean "not *just* a Labour thing". Blair's reign saw forces reduce from 210k to 192k. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the BBC, our PM has told the Daily Telegraph that he is "ready and willing" to put UK troops on the ground in Ukraine to help guarantee its security as part of a peace deal. A great comfort to the Ukrainians and to all the patriots in the UK. If he actually means it." As ex military, I left in 95 due to British involvement in the balkans. Nothing to do with us etc. Same applies here, if politicians want to send troops to another country... fine, their relations in the front line | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
