Politics

I see the "peace talks" in Pakistan have collapsed after one day. Didn't take a crystal ball to foresee that would happen. Sending some philandering phony born again Christian spouting Crusader anti-Muslim rhetoric to make peace with a radical islamic state was bound to fail. Could Trump have made a worse choice? Where was Rubio in all this? Not that I think he is any kind of genius but at least he tries to act like a diplomat ... or at least a rational person. Perhaps Rubio has given up trying to make sense of Trump's diplomatic nonsense. What a mess!

Why is a bad deal better than no deal.

America has made deals with Iran before that Iran has broken. If Iran feels the need to have a nuclear program is a hard line. If America feels no nukes is a hard line, then why make a deal.

Is it worth having Zealots who believe the Mahdi will come at the end of time with nuclear bombs and a delivery system that will reach Europe.

Anyone who has made enough deals knows that some of the best are deals that were never made. Some of the worst were deals that were made on hope even though some red flags were seen in advance.
 
I didn't assume that Republicans want a dirty environment, I never said that. However, many republican politicians seem to. You see, not polluting the environment costs money, cleaning up past pollution costs even more money. Large corporations don't want to spend any money on such things, it tends to cut into their profits, and god forbid those go down at all.

"Your party knows no moderation"

Since I have had no registered political affiliation since 2012, I would be very interested to know what this means.

"Your party is against all fossil fuels"...again I have no political party, but if you mean the democrats, this is incorrect. The 14 million+ barrels of oil per day of domestic production during the Biden administration would seem to suggest otherwise. The democrats support all types of energy production, not just fossil fuels like the modern day republican party. How many times has trump tried to kill off-shore wind energy?

I was simply illustrating how over the past 40 years republicans have gone from supporting env regulations to being against them.

You need to research how corporations and businesses actually operate. Look up ISO 14001 and E.S.G. Scoring.

Corporations that have a high probability to, or a high severity level of pollution or contamination of the environment. Most assuredly are voluntarily seeking or holding a ISO 14001 certification and or complete an annual ESG assessment.

Both allow a business to acquire capital. But more importantly capital at a decent interest rate.

Large corporations take lines of credit or seek private credit or loans for expansion or projects. They rarely sit on piles of cash. They borrow capital.

How is all of that relevant? If your company either doesn’t participate in, or have a high ESG score. You’re not getting a loan and if you do it will have a higher interest rate.

So the government doesn’t have to force environmental enforcement. The market takes care of that. Have a major environmental disaster and your access to low interest loans is drastically impacted. Which is a big deal.


Most people in the C suite are not evil geniuses from 007 movies or like Mr. burns from the Simpsons.
 
FYI, Vance is Catholic, and so is Rubio.
I am actually quite looking forward to Vance's upcoming book on his journey to Catholicism. And I think the vast majority books by politicians are pure trash.
 
It appears that Vance is as good at getting authoritarians re-elected as he is as getting peace deals done.

Orban is done. A great day for the Ukraine.

I still think this administration's biggest problem is a competency crisis. If Vance really was the lead negotiator on this deal, it would have been like sending a guy who just learned to skate to play in the NHL. Just way out of his league. These Iranians are exceptionally good negotiators. If Vance really was leading, he was the wrong guy to captain that team.
 
This is what happens when a political dilettante wages war.
A comment by Thomas Schmoll

A golfer uninterested in the world, facts, and science rules the most powerful country on earth like an autocrat. His "do-what-you-please" attitude is reminiscent of Putin. But as soon as Donald Trump encounters opponents who, like him, disregard international law and humanity, things look bleak for him.

What goes on in Donald Trump's brain—clouded by his self-aggrandizement—is now well known: extremely banal. His Minister of Truth, Karoline Leavitt, officially the US government spokesperson, revealed just days after the attack on Iran that her boss decides on a gut feeling—based on "feelings informed by facts"—whether to send his country to war (or not). His simple mind must have concluded: Venezuela was a piece of cake and earned me and the US military (the latter rightly so), so Iran will be another child's play. This is how wrong you are when you ignore facts, science, and the experiences of others and believe in alternative truths.

The result of this mix of disregard and misguided pronouncements is well known: a global economic crisis and a political debacle for Trump and the US, much to the delight of their most powerful adversary, China. The rapid collapse of the negotiations was only logical, as the US and Iran each made demands that were impossible for the other to fulfill. Only someone who thinks like the US president could declare this disaster a glorious victory across the board. However, his fuse is as short as the one he has when someone dares to doubt him and his brilliance. We can safely assume that the first man in the White House remains unshaken in his absurd self-assessments. The fact that his sanity is now being openly debated is of as much concern to this political charlatan as the content of international law.

As early as the summer of 2025, Trump demonstrated to the public that he mastered the art of autosuggestion like few others in the world—at least in this respect, he came close to the uniqueness he claimed for himself. He proclaimed: "The nuclear sites in Iran are completely destroyed"—only to justify the war against the Middle Eastern country a few months later, in part, by claiming that it should never be allowed to build atomic bombs. But what does this old white man care about his blather from yesterday and the day before? It's often outdated within hours.

"We have had a regime change," Trump declared, referring to the fact that numerous previously influential figures in Iranian politics, the military, the Revolutionary Guard, and intelligence services had been killed. The executions of insurgents prove that the barbarians in Tehran have lost none of their domestic power. "Iranian patriots, keep protesting!" Trump had urged the courageous demonstrators via Truth Social in mid-January. "Help is on the way." The opposition is still waiting for that. Those who rely on Trump are left high and dry. Europe and NATO are also feeling the effects.

All that had long been suspected was confirmed by Trump during his war against Iran: He exposed his intellectual and strategic weaknesses like a bankrupt man revealing his financial situation in a bankruptcy hearing. A good gut feeling about what the masses want to hear is not enough to turn a war into a lasting victory, no matter how great the military superiority. Trump has no boldly conceived plan, or indeed any plan at all. The only thing that drives him is generating headlines so that he dominates the news every day and sees confirmation of what a brilliant leader he is.

Trump's most effective tactic is retaliation. He vows revenge to anyone who doesn't fall in line. A tariff here, a threat there to withdraw military support. The man may be shrewd. In the realm of world politics, he has so far proven himself clueless and incompetent. To wage war against Iran and not consider the end of it, the Strait of Hormuz, or the economic consequences in general is not just stupid, it's utterly foolish. Trump has so far failed to understand that NATO is a defense alliance and not an alliance to support wars started by a would-be autocrat in order to go down in history as a peacemaker and Nobel laureate.

What the US president may consider strategy is nothing more than what a feared schoolyard bully does, someone who knows his physical strength. He threatens a beating with anyone who gets in his way and doesn't do what he wants—and if necessary, he actually strikes. You don't need a shred of intelligence for that. Trump's idiocy would be tolerable; there are plenty of dimwits in politics. But they are reined in by advisors. However, the first man in the White House has chased away or silenced countless advisors because they were increasingly less likely to tell him what he wanted to hear.

Reports from the US that intelligence officials and military personnel no longer dare to present the president with findings and facts that don't suit his agenda seem plausible. Anyone who does is fired—one of several parallels to Kremlin chief Vladimir Putin, Trump's role model. Both are surrounded by lackeys and sycophants who say what their master wants to hear. US "Secretary of War" Pete Hegseth is the prototype of these ludicrous figures. His appearances, his effusive praise of Trump, are so absurd that they are indistinguishable from satire.

Trump and Putin are also united in their acceptance of war as a means of pursuing political interests. The US president admires the Russian dictator because no parliament, no court, and no pressure from the streets sets limits for him. The American would certainly like to act just like the ruler in the Kremlin, but he has to constantly be corrected and restrained by judges and a genuine opposition, which, unlike the opposition in Russia, doesn't have to fear ending up in the Gulag.

The Iran war revealed how difficult it becomes for Trump when he encounters leaders who, like himself, live in a parallel world of thought and act with the same lack of empathy and ruthlessness. They couldn't care less whether the civilian population suffers or dies. They have only one goal: to secure their power. And they use everything at their disposal without scruple to achieve it. If Trump possessed even a shred of empathy for people outside his electorate, he would know this. But he doesn't. But only his military and the certainty of being able to command it and send it wherever he pleases. However, military superpower isn't everything. You can't bomb away the mental weaknesses of a simpleton.

Trump has found himself in a dead end, forced to negotiate with the worst kind of Islamists about opening the "fucking Strait of Hormuz." The fact that the Iranians now know just how effective the blockade of the strait is is thanks to the US president. The idea of collecting tolls in the strait together with these "crazy bastards" is something straight out of a comedy sketch—the guy has truly lost his mind.

The winners of this fiasco are China and its allies Russia and Iran. The US failed to coordinate its war with the pro-Western Gulf states, thereby jeopardizing their economic model. The government in Beijing appears to be more rational and reliable—a view shared by countries in the Middle East. China is reportedly preparing to ship shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. The trilateral alliance of China, Russia, and Iran, flanked by North Korea and economically closely linked to India, poses a challenge for the US. But Trump and his cronies don't seem to grasp this.

The war against Iran has revealed how easily the US president can be defeated. It's enough to drive up oil prices – and Iran will now do just that again. There's already a term for this on the stock market: TACO. The acronym stands for "Trump always chickens out," which roughly translates to: Trump always caves in. Iran grasped this very quickly and put it into practice. Other countries will do the same. This will make the world even more insecure. Because deterrence works differently. But Trump won't understand that either. He's simply too simplistic.
images (73).jpeg
 
It appears that Vance is as good at getting authoritarians re-elected as he is as getting peace deals done.

Orban is done. A great day for the Ukraine.

I still think this administration's biggest problem is a competency crisis. If Vance really was the lead negotiator on this deal, it would have been like sending a guy who just learned to skate to play in the NHL. Just way out of his league. These Iranians are exceptionally good negotiators. If Vance really was leading, he was the wrong guy to captain that team.
Not sure how Orban being out is a great day for Ukraine?

I guess when Hungry is full of Middle Eastern refugees causing problems, like in every other European county, except Poland, they might want him back.
 
RLD, please explain how Iran is in a better spot after dealing with Vance compared to Blinken and Obama. I’m guessing the Iranians preferred dealing with Blinken than Vance. Just a hunch.
Well if my memory serves neither of those guys was involved in directly negotiating with Iran. I am pretty sure the negotiations were lead by Kerry and a career Diplomat named Sherman. Sherman really knew what was going on, she had trained under Albright and other really skilled folks, and had significant experience negotiating with North Korea. She understood and had a lot of experience with international diplomatic negotiations with tough opponents.

Further they were not the only negotiators there. You seem to forget it was the P5+1 against Iran at the time and China, Russia and others were involved in those negotiations. The guys on the Russian team included Lavrov. Now that guy is a heavyweight. China had Yi, who is a killer at international negotiations. Vance is just not in that league.

Vance says he got to their best and final position before he left. That is bush league. How you do that in 21 hours in a complicated international negotiation is beyond me. Iran's diplomats are excellent negotiators and you are not going to get them where you need them to be in a day. You are barely getting warmed up in that period of time.

It's not a partisan issue (which you seem to want to make it) it is a competency issue. If you have a serious electrical problem you don't send a plumber to fix it. You send an electrician. Doesn't matter if it is a Dem plumber, or a Repub plumber, a plumber should not be rewiring your factory. Vance is a plumber. But that is what happens when you chose people based on personal loyalty and political factors, rather than competence.

If you sent say Rubio to lead the team, and make say Kushner his right hand man with a good technical team, and give them say 3 or 6 months you would have a much better chance of a useful outcome. And if you had say China and some european heads at the table, the odds get better yet.
 
You forgot to ask if I'm against them, there again making more assumptions...I'm not against a work requirement for welfare recipients by the way.
Wasn’t asking. Just stating party fact.
 
I didn't assume that Republicans want a dirty environment, I never said that. However, many republican politicians seem to. You see, not polluting the environment costs money, cleaning up past pollution costs even more money. Large corporations don't want to spend any money on such things, it tends to cut into their profits, and god forbid those go down at all.

"Your party knows no moderation"

Since I have had no registered political affiliation since 2012, I would be very interested to know what this means.

"Your party is against all fossil fuels"...again I have no political party, but if you mean the democrats, this is incorrect. The 14 million+ barrels of oil per day of domestic production during the Biden administration would seem to suggest otherwise. The democrats support all types of energy production, not just fossil fuels like the modern day republican party. How many times has trump tried to kill off-shore wind energy?

I was simply illustrating how over the past 40 years republicans have gone from supporting env regulations to being against them.
Wind is a joke.

You still haven’t acknowledged that the Democratic Party has changed a great deal. We “far right” folks have not. Done with you now.
 
Vance says he got to their best and final position before he left. That is bush league. How you do that in 21 hours in a complicated international negotiation is beyond me. Iran's diplomats are excellent negotiators and you are not going to get them where you need them to be in a day. You are barely getting warmed up in that period of time.
Iranian preconditions to negotiate a cease fire were:
-- Recognition of their control of Strait of Hormuz.
-- Israel not attacking Hezbollah
-- Reparations by USA
-- Withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East

Complete non-starter. They came to make demands, not negotiate.
 
It appears that Vance is as good at getting authoritarians re-elected as he is as getting peace deals done.

Orban is done. A great day for the Ukraine.

I still think this administration's biggest problem is a competency crisis. If Vance really was the lead negotiator on this deal, it would have been like sending a guy who just learned to skate to play in the NHL. Just way out of his league. These Iranians are exceptionally good negotiators. If Vance really was leading, he was the wrong guy to captain that team.
Oh really? How hard is it to state that Iran can’t enrich uranium to weapons grade anymore or build a nuclear bomb? Even you could do that and you’re no JD Vance.
 
Well if my memory serves neither of those guys was involved in directly negotiating with Iran. I am pretty sure the negotiations were lead by Kerry and a career Diplomat named Sherman. Sherman really knew what was going on, she had trained under Albright and other really skilled folks, and had significant experience negotiating with North Korea. She understood and had a lot of experience with international diplomatic negotiations with tough opponents.

Further they were not the only negotiators there. You seem to forget it was the P5+1 against Iran at the time and China, Russia and others were involved in those negotiations. The guys on the Russian team included Lavrov. Now that guy is a heavyweight. China had Yi, who is a killer at international negotiations. Vance is just not in that league.

Vance says he got to their best and final position before he left. That is bush league. How you do that in 21 hours in a complicated international negotiation is beyond me. Iran's diplomats are excellent negotiators and you are not going to get them where you need them to be in a day. You are barely getting warmed up in that period of time.

It's not a partisan issue (which you seem to want to make it) it is a competency issue. If you have a serious electrical problem you don't send a plumber to fix it. You send an electrician. Doesn't matter if it is a Dem plumber, or a Repub plumber, a plumber should not be rewiring your factory. Vance is a plumber. But that is what happens when you chose people based on personal loyalty and political factors, rather than competence.

If you sent say Rubio to lead the team, and make say Kushner his right hand man with a good technical team, and give them say 3 or 6 months you would have a much better chance of a useful outcome. And if you had say China and some european heads at the table, the odds get better yet.
We should have sent an internet social media warrior like you to negotiate with Iran.
You can show everyone how a foreign policy expert like yourself negotiates with terrorists who have no intention of negotiating anything.

Bring Big Easy, and the Ontario Karen with you.
The Three Stooges will have the Iranians shaking in their shoes for a deal.
 
Last edited:
“How you do that in 21 hours in a complicated international negotiation is beyond me.”

I actually think it was a waste of U.S. jet fuel and 21 hrs. Everyone knows they don’t honor any deal ever made with them. It was simply to show the world. They tried before they take over the Straits and invade Kharg Island.


The Iranians thought having 40 people sitting across from our team is intimidating.

Iran should have sent a better team of negotiators. They could’ve left with some relief on the sanctions, a peaceful way to turn over the uranium. A peaceful sharing of the straits.

Now what they will get will be dictated by the U.S.

No sanction relief, the uranium will be secured eventually. And the U.S. will take control of the Straits.

Zero gain for Iran. I would say that’s some piss poor negotiation.
 
Why is a bad deal better than no deal.

America has made deals with Iran before that Iran has broken. If Iran feels the need to have a nuclear program is a hard line. If America feels no nukes is a hard line, then why make a deal.

Is it worth having Zealots who believe the Mahdi will come at the end of time with nuclear bombs and a delivery system that will reach Europe.

Anyone who has made enough deals knows that some of the best are deals that were never made. Some of the worst were deals that were made on hope even though some red flags were seen in advance.
All of the truly wealthy people I know have said some version of…..

“The biggest mistakes I’ve made were because I didn’t want to walk away at the last minute.”
 
Iranian preconditions to negotiate a cease fire were:
-- Recognition of their control of Strait of Hormuz.
-- Israel not attacking Hezbollah
-- Reparations by USA
-- Withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East

Complete non-starter. They came to make demands, not negotiate.
Amazing that someone gave you a copy of their actual position.

Anyone who expected a deal to get done in the first day has recently fallen off the turnip truck.

Help me out with this Tank. What is the difference between making demands and negotiating? Seriously? A negotiation is at its core two sides exchanging sets of demands, or in more polite circles, offers. How does the deal get done if nobody makes demands? Hopefully each set of demands moves in the right direction, but even that doesn't happen all the time.

And tell me what kind of negotiator puts anything close to his bottom line on the table early?
 
We should have sent an internet social media warrior like you to negotiate with Iran.
You can show everyone how a foreign policy expert like yourself negotiates with terrorists who have no intention of negotiating anything.
We could actually send you professor. Your drooling fanaticism would fit in perfectly with the Iranians. They could chant "Death to the USA" and you could chant "Trump kicks ass and Death to Iran." It would be so cool.

Strangely I have actually done lots of complex, interesting and some international negotiations.

Tell us about your background in the field professor. I can't wait.
 
Oh really? How hard is it to state that Iran can’t enrich uranium to weapons grade anymore or build a nuclear bomb? Even you could do that and you’re no JD Vance.
Well shit Scott, than you could do it. Why even get on the plane then, you can send a one line e-mail. That is why it took China, Russia and others months to construct a deal what included details of little things like verification. I guess they were all incompetent and you should have done the whole deal. Could have had it wrapped before dinner.

And thankfully I am no JD Vance.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
67,277
Messages
1,492,672
Members
144,812
Latest member
JamiFredri
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

channelkat wrote on NMAmateurHunter's profile.
FYI we need NM members! Please spread the word and join us if you can make it.
1775843806328.png
observe wrote on NZ Jack's profile.
Jerome, do you think my last post in rough camping must maybe shift as an article?
rayford445 wrote on Hunter-Habib's profile.
Good afternoon,

I'm trying to get in contact with Mr Butch Searcy. I have the opportunity to buy one of his rifles chambered in 577 nitro Express however the seller does not have any of the paperwork with the information about what ammunition or bullet weight was used to regulate it. I know he is not making firearms anymore but I wanted to reach out after seeing one of your post about him.
Daryl S wrote on mgstucson's profile.
Hi - the only (best) method of sending you the .375/06IMP data is with photographing my book notes. My camera died so the only way I can do it is with my phone. To do that, I would need your e-mail address, as this
new Android phone is too complicated to upload to my desk computer, which would be easier and to down-grade, reduce the file sizes.
Best wishes
Daryl
 
Top