Sad
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

UK faces the biggest hit to growth of all major economies thanks to the Iran War.

What are we making this sacrifice for?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
specman · 51-55, M
What sacrifice is the UK making?
FreddieUK · 70-79, M
@specman I wonder if the title of the post could help you? Sacrificing growth and its benefits because someone's bombing fetish got the better of him was not of our choosing.
specman · 51-55, M
@FreddieUK Unless the op is from the United States or Israel then his country is making no sacrifice. The UK is not in the war is it?
FreddieUK · 70-79, M
@specman It is sending forces to protect territories/assets that might come under attack now that the situation has escalated. Our economy has taken a massive hit (as suggested) with high fuel prices, interest rates higher than expected and markets completely unstable so businesses cannot make concrete plans. None of this started by the UK or asked for by it.

Interesting that you use the word 'war'. You're right, the UK is not at war. Is the US legally at war?
specman · 51-55, M
@FreddieUK a war has no legality
FreddieUK · 70-79, M
@specman 🤔 OK
peterlee · M
@specman These are the words of the IMF. not mine.

We have no quarrel with si’ite muslims. nor the Persian cultures.
specman · 51-55, M
@FreddieUK Legal Controversy: Many legal experts and lawmakers argue these actions are "illegal" or "unconstitutional" because they lack explicit Congressional approval. The executive branch justifies these as "defensive" under Article II or as part of existing counter-terrorism authorities.
Northeastern Global News
Northeastern Global News
+6
specman · 51-55, M
@peterleethe US has a quarrel with terrorists
peterlee · M
@specman The USA is no longer considered a reliable ally.

P
specman · 51-55, M
@peterlee neither is the UK
FreddieUK · 70-79, M
@specman
the US has a quarrel with terrorists

Fair enough. But if the US wants to involve others in dealing with their problem, perhaps a conversation before setting off an incendiary explosion across the globe and then demanding everyone else joins in would have been good? Incidentally, some nations do recognise international law when it comes to warfare and don't just have a leader who gets easily riled and acts without strategic thought.
specman · 51-55, M
@FreddieUK everyone should be against terrorists
FreddieUK · 70-79, M
@specman I'm sure they are. Not everyone thinks that there is only one way to deal with it.
specman · 51-55, M
@FreddieUK are you serious? You can’t trust a terrorist. Then again some think you can. Iran should have already been dealt with.
peterlee · M
@specman Are the Christians of Lebanon terrorists?
Are the Shi’ite people terrorists?
FreddieUK · 70-79, M
@specman In am serious that a) everyone is against terrorism and b) that not everyone believes that setting the world on fire and cutting off your nose to spite your face is the best way of dealing with it,
specman · 51-55, M
@peterlee hezbollah is
@specman I'm not entirely sure the OP was saying that the UK is making a sacrifice. More that the US and Israel are sacrificing the economy of the entire world by attacking the country that controls the Strait of Hormuz. Maybe they were asking why "we" are making that sacrifice, meaning the people here who might be from the US or Israel.
specman · 51-55, M
@FreddieUK there is only one way to deal with terrorist. It might cost a lot and it might even cost your life which for some it has. Isn’t freedom worth it?
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@FreddieUK

What other ways would you suggest?
specman · 51-55, M
@SinlessOnslaught we will never have peace with that regime. War comes with a price. You have to do what has to be done.
@specman Well, now we won't.
specman · 51-55, M
@SinlessOnslaught that regime is terrorists that supports other terrorists. We never have been at true peace with them
FreddieUK · 70-79, M
@Thinkerbell There was a successful arrangement some years ago which ended the nuclear threat from Iran. That was overridden by a later administration. That threat was once again finally and definitely obliterated in some bombing raids on strategic targets...apparently. Then the threat suddenly became imminent - in some strange way having been obliterated. There were negotiations apparently doing well at the point that the bombs started falling on the schools. There are real issues with Hezbollah for Israel. Not sure anyone else was under threat.

Having failed to change the regime in Iran by bombing, one might have expected a rational person to think that doing the same thing over and over and achieving nothing positive another approach might be better. Unfortunately, too many people just like seeing bombs going off.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment