Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds

[PakistanLVR]

this was a fun interview

Pravin: ISI is a powerful agency on the same level as Mossad

Mario: Oh really?.. I did not think Pakistan had a good intelligence agency

Pravin : No Mario, they are good since 1948 they had plenty of good experince

Mario: Oh dear I was very sympathetic Imran Khan and his issues.. I take it back and Pakistanzindad !...

(of course I paraphrased it )


watch it is was good fun...

NGL I want to slap the sh*t out of this Lebanese twink. Too much involved in internal affairs of Pakistan.

 

[unconventional]

If you feel that the MoU is enough for Iran to declare victory, then congratulations.

I have no need to challenge what you have decided for yourself.

You seem quite bitter, are you ok?

 

[unconventional]

Nicholas Kristof is one of the finest American journalists. He used to criticize Israel but very carefully in his NY Times columns. But this war on Iran has opened a floodgates of pent up charges against Israel.
I started to watch this but stopped after minute 7. Felt nauseated that Israelis had trained dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners. OMG!!

Jonathan Spencer at least is upfront with who he is, Eric Weinstein is a real weasel.

 

[Magi]

Qalibaf comes across as dishonest and shady. I didn't expect this much low grade excuse making and sophistry. Dark days ahead.

 

[VCheng]

You seem quite bitter, are you ok?

You seem to know what I feel like even over the internet? Quite impressive, if true.

Now, back on topic, do you feel that the MoU has enough for Iran to declare victory?

 

[unconventional]

You seem to know what I feel like even over the internet? Quite impressive, if true.

Now, back on topic, do you feel that the MoU has enough for Iran to declare victory?

You were quite unwilling to engage in your previous posts:

“You can look up what you seek in the MoU itself just as easily as anyone else. I can copy it for you as you ask, but I cannot comprehend it for you.”

“What you comprehend from the above to indicate what I seem to think is up to you, and not up to me at all.”

And you were not willing or unable to explain the significance of 60 days in the MOU, and how would impact the overall long term agreement; saying that you cannot predict the future.

That indicates you are either clueless or not a good faith debater.

Anyways, my position about the terms of the MOU text as it is has been stated, so I don’t feel the need to repeat myself.

 

[PakistanLVR]

Good thread on UAE decisions

Reddit - Please wait for verification

www.reddit.com

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

Source: https://www.wsj.com/client/auth?code=A1782481898ozFdZlxpayd-NiXkPGFd1JayPXXwQ9zuxgZ9_5JgFPVaC&state=https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-us-naval-base-bahrain-e87bbca3?st=95Z3WC#_=_


"Rubio also stopped in the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait but skipped Saudi Arabia, which restricted U.S. base and airspace access during the war, deepening a rift that has accelerated Washington’s reassessment of its posture there. Gulf partners have welcomed the ceasefire but remain anxious about Iran’s long-term threat and the durability of American commitments."

So, Marco Rubio was roaming in the GCC to send a message to Saudi Arabia after it did not allow its airspace and land to be used against Iran. It is obvious the deep state opposes any military alliance between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkiye, and Iran.

The below quote sums it up for everybody. They're building new military bases in Kenya and the rest of Horn of Africa.

"The decisions the U.S. makes now—what to reconstruct, what to abandon, how far to pull back—will define its presence in the Middle East for a generation."

 

[VCheng]

Anyways, my position about the terms of the MOU text as it is has been stated, so I don’t feel the need to repeat myself.

Could you refer to that post of yours please, so that I may read it for myself. Thanks.

 

[VCheng]

And you were not willing or unable to explain the significance of 60 days in the MOU

LOL.

The significance of the 60 days is clear from the MoU itself: whatever arrangements have been immediately implemented are provisional until the final agreement is reached in 60 days. Or longer, if both sides agree to lengthen the process.

Do you really need anyone to explain the significance of that to you, or are you showing your bad faith as a debater?

Again, a simple yes or no answer would suffice to this straightforward question:

Do you feel that the MoU has enough for Iran to declare victory?

 

[unconventional]

@VCheng

Let us recap how the discourse went:

And yet, we are forced to accept that Iran has already won, and therefore we must accept its victory right now.

To which I responded:

No one is forcing you, you are free to believe anything you want.

But it is clear to everyone impartial who won this, and it’s reflected in the analyses of most international observers; and reflected even in the terms of the MOU.

We have to remember, the only concession Iran had to give in the (documented) MOU was opening up the straits, the rest were all concessions by the US. There was no mention of Iran’s nuclear program/assets.

My post was strictly about the war before the ceasefire deal/MOU was negotiated. I said Iran had won that round, which was also reflective in the text of the MOU.

You clearly disagreed with the above assessment of mine, and tried to indicate that the 60 days was important (from a US strategy standpoint).

Of course. Of course.

The 60 days mentioned in the MoU are not important, I take it?

I asked you why precisely 60 days was important for the deal, on what would be different after the 60 day period; you said you can’t predict the future. So you don’t know the importance of the 60 days, but were earlier alluding that the 60 days in the MOU were important.

My claims are strictly for the kinetic war (first round), which Iran clearly won, with the trajectory of the war and the lack of accomplishment of the strategic objectives of the war by the US and Israel. And the text of the MOU written the way it is clearly reflects that reality. I have not claimed a long term Iranian victory, my point is strictly focused on round 1 this year, and the text of the MOU applicable for the 60 day period.

Now, we cannot say what will happen after the 60 days, but nothing in the text of the MOU, the way it is written right now indicates an Iranian defeat.

 

[VCheng]

Let us recap how the discourse went:

Let's not.

A simple yes or no answer would suffice to this straightforward question:

Do you feel that the MoU has enough for Iran to declare victory?

 

[unconventional]

Let's not.

A simple yes or no answer would suffice to this straightforward question:

Do you feel that the MoU has enough for Iran to declare victory?

Which victory are you talking about?

Victory in round 1 of war this year?

Victory in the text of the MOU?

Victory in the long term conflict with the US/Iran?

 

[VCheng]

nothing in the text of the MOU, the way it is written right now indicates an Iranian defeat.

Agreed. I have never said or even implied that, since the MoU is simply a placeholder for the final agreement, at least in my view.

 

[VCheng]

Which victory are you talking about?

Does this mean that you realize there is no claim of victory or defeat possible, for either side, with the MoU, given that it is just an interim agreement to negotiate?

And just to be clear - it is good to negotiate, because that is how all wars end.