@DeezyAZ81 I think most folks know where Modi stands. He has expressed his gratitude towards Trump quite a few times. As have a few of their leaders. But the more key thing is to look at what the actual folks are saying about it and not really some journalists with an ax to grind, so to speak.
Does Aljazeera work for you as a source??? Hmmm. This seems to directly contradict what you expressed about the ceasefire mediation and Modi. Again name a source that describes Trumps involvement in the ceasefire and the conditions brokered by Trump from a source or journalist without an "ax to grind" so to speak.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made it clear to United States President Donald Trump that a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after a four-day conflict in May was achieved through talks between the two militaries and not US mediation, a top diplomat in New Delhi says.
“PM Modi told President Trump clearly that during this period, there was no talk at any stage on subjects like India-U.S. trade deal or US mediation between India and Pakistan,” Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said in a press statement on Wednesday.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@DeezyAZ81 I think most folks know where Modi stands. He has expressed his gratitude towards Trump quite a few times. As have a few of their leaders. But the more key thing is to look at what the actual folks are saying about it and not really some journalists with an ax to grind, so to speak.
Does Aljazeera work for you as a source??? Hmmm. This seems to directly contradict what you expressed about the ceasefire mediation and Modi. Again name a source that describes Trumps involvement in the ceasefire and the conditions brokered by Trump from a source or journalist without an "ax to grind" so to speak.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made it clear to United States President Donald Trump that a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after a four-day conflict in May was achieved through talks between the two militaries and not US mediation, a top diplomat in New Delhi says.
“PM Modi told President Trump clearly that during this period, there was no talk at any stage on subjects like India-U.S. trade deal or US mediation between India and Pakistan,” Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said in a press statement on Wednesday.
Okay. I just disagree. I think if you are the face of the mediating party — then you earn some credit. But I just do not read a good reason for not giving it from you. It just seems because it was Trump. Do you give credit to the USA for helping or the administration at least?
0
@DeezyAZ81
Okay. I just disagree. I think if you are the face of the mediating party — then you earn some credit. But I just do not read a good reason for not giving it from you. It just seems because it was Trump. Do you give credit to the USA for helping or the administration at least?
What did he do to make the Russia/Ukraine situation worse?
How did he make the Israel/Gaza situation worse?
What did he do to get blame on either of those?
He has actually tried to talk to all parties involved and even met with some of them. I am sure he has called some as well. I do not see a line that you can draw that easily to say he worsened it at all. No sir, you would have to really do better at making a case for that.
0
@DeezyAZ81
What did he do to make the Russia/Ukraine situation worse?
How did he make the Israel/Gaza situation worse?
What did he do to get blame on either of those?
He has actually tried to talk to all parties involved and even met with some of them. I am sure he has called some as well. I do not see a line that you can draw that easily to say he worsened it at all. No sir, you would have to really do better at making a case for that.
@DeezyAZ81 But if you want to move to other topics, I would have a couple of questions for you about something you just posted. I understand why you think Iran and any other country that chooses should have nuclear weapons. But you certainly do not apply that on the individual level. You would not be okay with a radical person having a gun to protect their home. Not when this person has threatened folks and shown aggressive behavior in the past. He has threatened folks at work and even threatened to kill his wife. In fact, he has a restraining order and has been arrested a couple of times for aggressive behavior and assault. So, why do you not apply this on an international level? To a country that is run by a few very radical individuals that have demonstrated this type of behavior and threatening aggression? Can you consolidate these two things? Because I am sure you can understand why a lot of people would disagree with you on your political side. Including Clinton, Obama, and Biden, etc.
Why should I answer your questions when you do not answer mine? I assume you are trying to make the analogy that Iran is this fictitious radical person??? What makes Iran more radical than Trump (U.S.), Putin (Russia), Israel (Bibi), or Jong-Un (North Korea)? Who defines what being radical in the international system is? Each of these state actors can be considered radical too then because they each show aggressive behavior towards others individually and at the state level as consistent threats towards others (even killing state actors in their own countries and abroad). Yet, each is permitted to develop and possess nukes. So some states and actors can act radically and threaten others and attack others but some states simply cannot? That is the position you hold? That is laughable sir.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@DeezyAZ81 But if you want to move to other topics, I would have a couple of questions for you about something you just posted. I understand why you think Iran and any other country that chooses should have nuclear weapons. But you certainly do not apply that on the individual level. You would not be okay with a radical person having a gun to protect their home. Not when this person has threatened folks and shown aggressive behavior in the past. He has threatened folks at work and even threatened to kill his wife. In fact, he has a restraining order and has been arrested a couple of times for aggressive behavior and assault. So, why do you not apply this on an international level? To a country that is run by a few very radical individuals that have demonstrated this type of behavior and threatening aggression? Can you consolidate these two things? Because I am sure you can understand why a lot of people would disagree with you on your political side. Including Clinton, Obama, and Biden, etc.
Why should I answer your questions when you do not answer mine? I assume you are trying to make the analogy that Iran is this fictitious radical person??? What makes Iran more radical than Trump (U.S.), Putin (Russia), Israel (Bibi), or Jong-Un (North Korea)? Who defines what being radical in the international system is? Each of these state actors can be considered radical too then because they each show aggressive behavior towards others individually and at the state level as consistent threats towards others (even killing state actors in their own countries and abroad). Yet, each is permitted to develop and possess nukes. So some states and actors can act radically and threaten others and attack others but some states simply cannot? That is the position you hold? That is laughable sir.
@DeezyAZ81 What did he do to make the Russia/Ukraine situation worse? How did he make the Israel/Gaza situation worse? What did he do to get blame on either of those? He has actually tried to talk to all parties involved and even met with some of them. I am sure he has called some as well. I do not see a line that you can draw that easily to say he worsened it at all. No sir, you would have to really do better at making a case for that.
Are you actually being serious??? Do you do any reading of current events?? I can post these situations separately but Ill start with Russia/Ukraine.
1. Trump stopped intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March enhancing the ability for Russia to escalate the war and attempt to gain more territory.
2. Trump froze all military aid in Ukraine as well in March also driving up the attacks on Ukraine and making violence worse.
3. Trump meets with Putin and Saudi Crown Prince to discuss Ukraine-Russia conflict to "negotiate" an end to the war without Ukraine representation ever present.
4. At G7 Summit Trump blocked initiatives to lower the price cap on Russian oil, which could have limited Russian revenues as sanctions to reduce the states ability to fund aggression.
These are four things right off the bat, but there are many more.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@DeezyAZ81 What did he do to make the Russia/Ukraine situation worse? How did he make the Israel/Gaza situation worse? What did he do to get blame on either of those? He has actually tried to talk to all parties involved and even met with some of them. I am sure he has called some as well. I do not see a line that you can draw that easily to say he worsened it at all. No sir, you would have to really do better at making a case for that.
Are you actually being serious??? Do you do any reading of current events?? I can post these situations separately but Ill start with Russia/Ukraine.
1. Trump stopped intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March enhancing the ability for Russia to escalate the war and attempt to gain more territory.
2. Trump froze all military aid in Ukraine as well in March also driving up the attacks on Ukraine and making violence worse.
3. Trump meets with Putin and Saudi Crown Prince to discuss Ukraine-Russia conflict to "negotiate" an end to the war without Ukraine representation ever present.
4. At G7 Summit Trump blocked initiatives to lower the price cap on Russian oil, which could have limited Russian revenues as sanctions to reduce the states ability to fund aggression.
These are four things right off the bat, but there are many more.
He explained what he told them about the trade situation and posited the situation as too dangerous with them both being nuclear capable. It is not a situation where he is doing an official treaty where there are certain steps to take and things are signed. This is a situation where it is more of a deescalation before two countries decide to use nuclear weapons. This is not like one is making certain concessions or overtaken land is ceded. This is just a calm third party voice. I think you assume there have to be threats or exact deals with all ceasefires. There does not have to be even anything written down or signed. The matter has subsided and if either or both countries want to take complete credit — let them. The bottom line is still the state department reached out and talked to them and met with them and it seems calmed down for now. There had to be some credit given for that. Because it wasn’t calming down beforehand, it appeAres to be ramping up.
0
@DeezyAZ81
He explained what he told them about the trade situation and posited the situation as too dangerous with them both being nuclear capable. It is not a situation where he is doing an official treaty where there are certain steps to take and things are signed. This is a situation where it is more of a deescalation before two countries decide to use nuclear weapons. This is not like one is making certain concessions or overtaken land is ceded. This is just a calm third party voice. I think you assume there have to be threats or exact deals with all ceasefires. There does not have to be even anything written down or signed. The matter has subsided and if either or both countries want to take complete credit — let them. The bottom line is still the state department reached out and talked to them and met with them and it seems calmed down for now. There had to be some credit given for that. Because it wasn’t calming down beforehand, it appeAres to be ramping up.
@DeezyAZ81 Okay. I just disagree. I think if you are the face of the mediating party — then you earn some credit. But I just do not read a good reason for not giving it from you. It just seems because it was Trump. Do you give credit to the USA for helping or the administration at least?
Well of course you disagree, you are a MAGA and unwavering rah rah Trump guy. No one says that Trump is the face of the mediating party except for you and Trump himself. Legit no one from India or Pakistan stated this about the ceasefire. Secondly, this ceasefire was almost immediately violated.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@DeezyAZ81 Okay. I just disagree. I think if you are the face of the mediating party — then you earn some credit. But I just do not read a good reason for not giving it from you. It just seems because it was Trump. Do you give credit to the USA for helping or the administration at least?
Well of course you disagree, you are a MAGA and unwavering rah rah Trump guy. No one says that Trump is the face of the mediating party except for you and Trump himself. Legit no one from India or Pakistan stated this about the ceasefire. Secondly, this ceasefire was almost immediately violated.
@DeezyAZ81 He explained what he told them about the trade situation and posited the situation as too dangerous with them both being nuclear capable. It is not a situation where he is doing an official treaty where there are certain steps to take and things are signed. This is a situation where it is more of a deescalation before two countries decide to use nuclear weapons. This is not like one is making certain concessions or overtaken land is ceded. This is just a calm third party voice. I think you assume there have to be threats or exact deals with all ceasefires. There does not have to be even anything written down or signed. The matter has subsided and if either or both countries want to take complete credit — let them. The bottom line is still the state department reached out and talked to them and met with them and it seems calmed down for now. There had to be some credit given for that. Because it wasn’t calming down beforehand, it appeAres to be ramping up.
@Raiders22
I understand what Trump claims. However, India and Pakistan do not support his claims. In fact, India publicly stated what he said is untrue. I am showing you specific sources stating this. You have not shown me or named a single source that backs up what Trump stated from officials in India or Pakistan. I see Pakistan said the U.S. was involved and helped facilitate but gave no specifics and did not support his story about the trade situation publicly at all. It's almost like Trump might be lying.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@DeezyAZ81 He explained what he told them about the trade situation and posited the situation as too dangerous with them both being nuclear capable. It is not a situation where he is doing an official treaty where there are certain steps to take and things are signed. This is a situation where it is more of a deescalation before two countries decide to use nuclear weapons. This is not like one is making certain concessions or overtaken land is ceded. This is just a calm third party voice. I think you assume there have to be threats or exact deals with all ceasefires. There does not have to be even anything written down or signed. The matter has subsided and if either or both countries want to take complete credit — let them. The bottom line is still the state department reached out and talked to them and met with them and it seems calmed down for now. There had to be some credit given for that. Because it wasn’t calming down beforehand, it appeAres to be ramping up.
@Raiders22
I understand what Trump claims. However, India and Pakistan do not support his claims. In fact, India publicly stated what he said is untrue. I am showing you specific sources stating this. You have not shown me or named a single source that backs up what Trump stated from officials in India or Pakistan. I see Pakistan said the U.S. was involved and helped facilitate but gave no specifics and did not support his story about the trade situation publicly at all. It's almost like Trump might be lying.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @DeezyAZ81 But if you want to move to other topics, I would have a couple of questions for you about something you just posted. I understand why you think Iran and any other country that chooses should have nuclear weapons. But you certainly do not apply that on the individual level. You would not be okay with a radical person having a gun to protect their home. Not when this person has threatened folks and shown aggressive behavior in the past. He has threatened folks at work and even threatened to kill his wife. In fact, he has a restraining order and has been arrested a couple of times for aggressive behavior and assault. So, why do you not apply this on an international level? To a country that is run by a few very radical individuals that have demonstrated this type of behavior and threatening aggression? Can you consolidate these two things? Because I am sure you can understand why a lot of people would disagree with you on your political side. Including Clinton, Obama, and Biden, etc. Why should I answer your questions when you do not answer mine? I assume you are trying to make the analogy that Iran is this fictitious radical person??? What makes Iran more radical than Trump (U.S.), Putin (Russia), Israel (Bibi), or Jong-Un (North Korea)? Who defines what being radical in the international system is? Each of these state actors can be considered radical too then because they each show aggressive behavior towards others individually and at the state level as consistent threats towards others (even killing state actors in their own countries and abroad). Yet, each is permitted to develop and possess nukes. So some states and actors can act radically and threaten others and attack others but some states simply cannot? That is the position you hold? That is laughable sir.
I answered them. No I am not making that analogy. Many others that are experts have told you what that regime is. My question is why do you support it? When you know who they are, what they support, and what they have done to their own people?
I am not sure why you do not understand that they have clearly demonstrated their intent to be far worse than any dictator, including NK and RU.
Aw far as who determines it, the world at large and the world experts that actually understand and study it. For example, MI-5’s biggest caseload today is not far-Right extremism; it is Islamic extremism. There are plenty of bad dictators and even countries. But it is far from laughable to think they are as serious a regional or world threat as other countries are. There are a lot of people that consider this a very serious matter.
1
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @DeezyAZ81 But if you want to move to other topics, I would have a couple of questions for you about something you just posted. I understand why you think Iran and any other country that chooses should have nuclear weapons. But you certainly do not apply that on the individual level. You would not be okay with a radical person having a gun to protect their home. Not when this person has threatened folks and shown aggressive behavior in the past. He has threatened folks at work and even threatened to kill his wife. In fact, he has a restraining order and has been arrested a couple of times for aggressive behavior and assault. So, why do you not apply this on an international level? To a country that is run by a few very radical individuals that have demonstrated this type of behavior and threatening aggression? Can you consolidate these two things? Because I am sure you can understand why a lot of people would disagree with you on your political side. Including Clinton, Obama, and Biden, etc. Why should I answer your questions when you do not answer mine? I assume you are trying to make the analogy that Iran is this fictitious radical person??? What makes Iran more radical than Trump (U.S.), Putin (Russia), Israel (Bibi), or Jong-Un (North Korea)? Who defines what being radical in the international system is? Each of these state actors can be considered radical too then because they each show aggressive behavior towards others individually and at the state level as consistent threats towards others (even killing state actors in their own countries and abroad). Yet, each is permitted to develop and possess nukes. So some states and actors can act radically and threaten others and attack others but some states simply cannot? That is the position you hold? That is laughable sir.
I answered them. No I am not making that analogy. Many others that are experts have told you what that regime is. My question is why do you support it? When you know who they are, what they support, and what they have done to their own people?
I am not sure why you do not understand that they have clearly demonstrated their intent to be far worse than any dictator, including NK and RU.
Aw far as who determines it, the world at large and the world experts that actually understand and study it. For example, MI-5’s biggest caseload today is not far-Right extremism; it is Islamic extremism. There are plenty of bad dictators and even countries. But it is far from laughable to think they are as serious a regional or world threat as other countries are. There are a lot of people that consider this a very serious matter.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @DeezyAZ81 What did he do to make the Russia/Ukraine situation worse? How did he make the Israel/Gaza situation worse? What did he do to get blame on either of those? He has actually tried to talk to all parties involved and even met with some of them. I am sure he has called some as well. I do not see a line that you can draw that easily to say he worsened it at all. No sir, you would have to really do better at making a case for that. Are you actually being serious??? Do you do any reading of current events?? I can post these situations separately but I’ll start with Russia/Ukraine. 1. Trump stopped intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March enhancing the ability for Russia to escalate the war and attempt to gain more territory. 2. Trump froze all military aid in Ukraine as well in March also driving up the attacks on Ukraine and making violence worse. 3. Trump meets with Putin and Saudi Crown Prince to discuss Ukraine-Russia conflict to "negotiate" an end to the war without Ukraine representation ever present. 4. At G7 Summit Trump blocked initiatives to lower the price cap on Russian oil, which could have limited Russian revenues as sanctions to reduce the states ability to fund aggression. These are four things right off the bat, but there are many more.
How exactly did any of that ‘worsen’ it?
Because aiding Ukraine has never been a great idea for the West and only steeled Putin’s resolve. If there is a way to explain to Ukraine they are not getting support because they will not listen to reason or even attempt to settle the matter — then why should he not attempt to ease it up by withdrawing any support. If anything, giving them support would certainly worsen it. So, the opposite could prove to work in the long run.
You have already seen how insincere Zelensky was. So, what should he do? Certainly not continue to pseudo-support that insincerity.
Yes, he met with all of the other members players as well. I am sure he has called them also. But could continuing to support one side completely will certainly not make the opposite side more apt to calm down.
0
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @DeezyAZ81 What did he do to make the Russia/Ukraine situation worse? How did he make the Israel/Gaza situation worse? What did he do to get blame on either of those? He has actually tried to talk to all parties involved and even met with some of them. I am sure he has called some as well. I do not see a line that you can draw that easily to say he worsened it at all. No sir, you would have to really do better at making a case for that. Are you actually being serious??? Do you do any reading of current events?? I can post these situations separately but I’ll start with Russia/Ukraine. 1. Trump stopped intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March enhancing the ability for Russia to escalate the war and attempt to gain more territory. 2. Trump froze all military aid in Ukraine as well in March also driving up the attacks on Ukraine and making violence worse. 3. Trump meets with Putin and Saudi Crown Prince to discuss Ukraine-Russia conflict to "negotiate" an end to the war without Ukraine representation ever present. 4. At G7 Summit Trump blocked initiatives to lower the price cap on Russian oil, which could have limited Russian revenues as sanctions to reduce the states ability to fund aggression. These are four things right off the bat, but there are many more.
How exactly did any of that ‘worsen’ it?
Because aiding Ukraine has never been a great idea for the West and only steeled Putin’s resolve. If there is a way to explain to Ukraine they are not getting support because they will not listen to reason or even attempt to settle the matter — then why should he not attempt to ease it up by withdrawing any support. If anything, giving them support would certainly worsen it. So, the opposite could prove to work in the long run.
You have already seen how insincere Zelensky was. So, what should he do? Certainly not continue to pseudo-support that insincerity.
Yes, he met with all of the other members players as well. I am sure he has called them also. But could continuing to support one side completely will certainly not make the opposite side more apt to calm down.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @DeezyAZ81 Okay. I just disagree. I think if you are the face of the mediating party — then you earn some credit. But I just do not read a good reason for not giving it from you. It just seems because it was Trump. Do you give credit to the USA for helping or the administration at least? Well of course you disagree, you are a MAGA and unwavering rah rah Trump guy. No one says that Trump is the face of the mediating party except for you and Trump himself. Legit no one from India or Pakistan stated this about the ceasefire. Secondly, this ceasefire was almost immediately violated.
Not really. But I have to be fair and give him credit. As a lot of world leaders have done as well. It is just odd that folks hate the guy so much they will not give him any credit but only blame. Even if what he does is very tangential to the process — give him that. The folks in Rwanda certainly did and actually faulted your past Presidents for not helping. But the anti-Trump crowd does not even allow him credit for that. And that has been going on for far longer than the others. Just weird to me that folks hate the guy so much that they won’t even give their own country or at least the administration some credit for being peacemakers around the world. At least they are trying. The last one certainly did not try.
2
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @DeezyAZ81 Okay. I just disagree. I think if you are the face of the mediating party — then you earn some credit. But I just do not read a good reason for not giving it from you. It just seems because it was Trump. Do you give credit to the USA for helping or the administration at least? Well of course you disagree, you are a MAGA and unwavering rah rah Trump guy. No one says that Trump is the face of the mediating party except for you and Trump himself. Legit no one from India or Pakistan stated this about the ceasefire. Secondly, this ceasefire was almost immediately violated.
Not really. But I have to be fair and give him credit. As a lot of world leaders have done as well. It is just odd that folks hate the guy so much they will not give him any credit but only blame. Even if what he does is very tangential to the process — give him that. The folks in Rwanda certainly did and actually faulted your past Presidents for not helping. But the anti-Trump crowd does not even allow him credit for that. And that has been going on for far longer than the others. Just weird to me that folks hate the guy so much that they won’t even give their own country or at least the administration some credit for being peacemakers around the world. At least they are trying. The last one certainly did not try.
This is one from before yours. So, there is credit given. Does it really matter if the countries want to change the narrative now or take full credit on their own?
If the USA announced it and all three countries officials at the time were saying it, does it really matter if they want to shift it now?
I just do not think so, nor care. The bottom line is still it happen d on Trump’s watch after he and his administration reached out to both countries.
This is one from before yours. So, there is credit given. Does it really matter if the countries want to change the narrative now or take full credit on their own?
If the USA announced it and all three countries officials at the time were saying it, does it really matter if they want to shift it now?
I just do not think so, nor care. The bottom line is still it happen d on Trump’s watch after he and his administration reached out to both countries.
@DeezyAZ81 https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/how-india-pakistan-pulled-back-brink-with-us-brokered-ceasefire-2025-05-13/ This is one from before yours. So, there is credit given. Does it really matter if the countries want to change the narrative now or take full credit on their own? If the USA announced it and all three countries officials at the time were saying it, does it really matter if they want to shift it now? I just do not think so, nor care. The bottom line is still it happen d on Trump’s watch after he and his administration reached out to both countries.
Did you actually read the link you attached? The source sums up that Trump did nothing to broker ceasefire. It says Vance made a phone call. This link does not say one thing Trump did to mediate between the countries or negotiate a ceasefire. Does not even say Trump made a phone call. Says nothing about anything that Trump actually did. This does not support anything you claim about the situation. Explain why India states Trump was not involved and did not mediate anything. That is odd considering you claim India is "fond" of Trump.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@DeezyAZ81 https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/how-india-pakistan-pulled-back-brink-with-us-brokered-ceasefire-2025-05-13/ This is one from before yours. So, there is credit given. Does it really matter if the countries want to change the narrative now or take full credit on their own? If the USA announced it and all three countries officials at the time were saying it, does it really matter if they want to shift it now? I just do not think so, nor care. The bottom line is still it happen d on Trump’s watch after he and his administration reached out to both countries.
Did you actually read the link you attached? The source sums up that Trump did nothing to broker ceasefire. It says Vance made a phone call. This link does not say one thing Trump did to mediate between the countries or negotiate a ceasefire. Does not even say Trump made a phone call. Says nothing about anything that Trump actually did. This does not support anything you claim about the situation. Explain why India states Trump was not involved and did not mediate anything. That is odd considering you claim India is "fond" of Trump.
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @DeezyAZ81 I answered them. No I am not making that analogy. Many others that are experts have told you what that regime is. My question is why do you support it? When you know who they are, what they support, and what they have done to their own people? I am not sure why you do not understand that they have clearly demonstrated their intent to be far worse than any dictator, including NK and RU. Aw far as who determines it, the world at large and the world experts that actually understand and study it. For example, MI-5’s biggest caseload today is not far-Right extremism; it is Islamic extremism. There are plenty of bad dictators and even countries. But it is far from laughable to think they are as serious a regional or world threat as other countries are. There are a lot of people that consider this a very serious matter.
Experts?? You trust "experts" now. Name some of these "experts". I can find experts that claim the Trump regime is radical too. I can also find numerous states in the global system that argue Trump regime and the United States are dangerous and radical.
To answer your question, I do not support Iran's leadership or government, I simply do not care about them. I do not think the U.S. should be involved in Israel-Iran conflict or affairs to sum up my position. Just like I do not support Bibi's regime, or Putin's regime, or North Korea's regime. We should not be involved, which I thought was the MAGA position considering you cheered no new wars his entire first administration and throughout the 2024 election cycle. In fact, you stressed that getting out and staying out of the Middle East was a huge accomplishment. Now that he got involved in Iran and the region again, that position has mysteriously disappeared and MAGAS flipped flopped. You do not stand for anything. Trump actually wrote make Iran great again. He even sold out his own catch phrase.
You are making assumptions and guesses about intent. I cannot predict or confirm anyone's intent, nor can you or any "experts". I care about actual action and history.
You clearly have not done any reading on North Korea and the Kim dynasty or Russia. I cannot believe you actually typed that without knowing NK's history, so no need to delve into that further. You need to brush up on international politics and history, if you are going to attempt to speak on it. Have a great Sunday!
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @DeezyAZ81 I answered them. No I am not making that analogy. Many others that are experts have told you what that regime is. My question is why do you support it? When you know who they are, what they support, and what they have done to their own people? I am not sure why you do not understand that they have clearly demonstrated their intent to be far worse than any dictator, including NK and RU. Aw far as who determines it, the world at large and the world experts that actually understand and study it. For example, MI-5’s biggest caseload today is not far-Right extremism; it is Islamic extremism. There are plenty of bad dictators and even countries. But it is far from laughable to think they are as serious a regional or world threat as other countries are. There are a lot of people that consider this a very serious matter.
Experts?? You trust "experts" now. Name some of these "experts". I can find experts that claim the Trump regime is radical too. I can also find numerous states in the global system that argue Trump regime and the United States are dangerous and radical.
To answer your question, I do not support Iran's leadership or government, I simply do not care about them. I do not think the U.S. should be involved in Israel-Iran conflict or affairs to sum up my position. Just like I do not support Bibi's regime, or Putin's regime, or North Korea's regime. We should not be involved, which I thought was the MAGA position considering you cheered no new wars his entire first administration and throughout the 2024 election cycle. In fact, you stressed that getting out and staying out of the Middle East was a huge accomplishment. Now that he got involved in Iran and the region again, that position has mysteriously disappeared and MAGAS flipped flopped. You do not stand for anything. Trump actually wrote make Iran great again. He even sold out his own catch phrase.
You are making assumptions and guesses about intent. I cannot predict or confirm anyone's intent, nor can you or any "experts". I care about actual action and history.
You clearly have not done any reading on North Korea and the Kim dynasty or Russia. I cannot believe you actually typed that without knowing NK's history, so no need to delve into that further. You need to brush up on international politics and history, if you are going to attempt to speak on it. Have a great Sunday!
It is obvious that some people seek out ways to give credit and praise Trump without really understanding the situation they are weakly attempting to connect him with.
India is not one of our allies they will not follow what we say or what we demand, they will only use us to get what they want and resume with their self centered global approach. India needs the US for the visa scam we allow them and the funds that are drained from the US economy and sent back home to India, they use the US as a farming system for their IT industry. Without the US their IT industry is neutered, if we were to cut off the H1 Visa scam and shut down all offshoring of IT and help center jobs they would have a massive loss to their economy so for sure they are taking advantage of the US to serve their purposes but they are not our allies only to the extent it serves them. India will play free agent with any country and they do even with our enemies and those we are at odds with like Iran like Russia like China, anyone who serves the purpose of their needs they will engage with.
India as a country is a male dominated, caste based corrupt government on a national and local level, their conflicts and wars are based on generations of caste based hatred of other countries and even in their own country the divides between both religion and caste. India laughs at the US and uses us knowing they can keep doing whatever they want and the US has no power over them. Trump has absolutely zero trade chips to bargain with India because the TRUE chips that the US have we will never call in. The visa system has been challenged by previous administrations and only then did India feel motivated to make an effort to negotiate. Trade tariffs are quite useless to India because they are such intelligent free agents that can and do navigate their trade needs without having reliance on ANY one country or source.
Trump to India is like Simon Cowell a media spectacle that since Trump loves gold then India idolizes him because they do as well but outside that on a political basis they have Trump over a barrel and he has zero leverage they just do not care.
0
It is obvious that some people seek out ways to give credit and praise Trump without really understanding the situation they are weakly attempting to connect him with.
India is not one of our allies they will not follow what we say or what we demand, they will only use us to get what they want and resume with their self centered global approach. India needs the US for the visa scam we allow them and the funds that are drained from the US economy and sent back home to India, they use the US as a farming system for their IT industry. Without the US their IT industry is neutered, if we were to cut off the H1 Visa scam and shut down all offshoring of IT and help center jobs they would have a massive loss to their economy so for sure they are taking advantage of the US to serve their purposes but they are not our allies only to the extent it serves them. India will play free agent with any country and they do even with our enemies and those we are at odds with like Iran like Russia like China, anyone who serves the purpose of their needs they will engage with.
India as a country is a male dominated, caste based corrupt government on a national and local level, their conflicts and wars are based on generations of caste based hatred of other countries and even in their own country the divides between both religion and caste. India laughs at the US and uses us knowing they can keep doing whatever they want and the US has no power over them. Trump has absolutely zero trade chips to bargain with India because the TRUE chips that the US have we will never call in. The visa system has been challenged by previous administrations and only then did India feel motivated to make an effort to negotiate. Trade tariffs are quite useless to India because they are such intelligent free agents that can and do navigate their trade needs without having reliance on ANY one country or source.
Trump to India is like Simon Cowell a media spectacle that since Trump loves gold then India idolizes him because they do as well but outside that on a political basis they have Trump over a barrel and he has zero leverage they just do not care.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @DeezyAZ81 I answered them. No I am not making that analogy. Many others that are experts have told you what that regime is. My question is why do you support it? When you know who they are, what they support, and what they have done to their own people? I am not sure why you do not understand that they have clearly demonstrated their intent to be far worse than any dictator, including NK and RU. Aw far as who determines it, the world at large and the world experts that actually understand and study it. For example, MI-5’s biggest caseload today is not far-Right extremism; it is Islamic extremism. There are plenty of bad dictators and even countries. But it is far from laughable to think they are as serious a regional or world threat as other countries are. There are a lot of people that consider this a very serious matter. Experts?? You trust "experts" now. Name some of these "experts". I can find experts that claim the Trump regime is radical too. I can also find numerous states in the global system that argue Trump regime and the United States are dangerous and radical. To answer your question, I do not support Iran's leadership or government, I simply do not care about them. I do not think the U.S. should be involved in Israel-Iran conflict or affairs to sum up my position. Just like I do not support Bibi's regime, or Putin's regime, or North Korea's regime. We should not be involved, which I thought was the MAGA position considering you cheered no new wars his entire first administration and throughout the 2024 election cycle. In fact, you stressed that getting out and staying out of the Middle East was a huge accomplishment. Now that he got involved in Iran and the region again, that position has mysteriously disappeared and MAGAS flipped flopped. You do not stand for anything. Trump actually wrote make Iran great again. He even sold out his own catch phrase. You are making assumptions and guesses about intent. I cannot predict or confirm anyone's intent, nor can you or any "experts". I care about actual action and history. You clearly have not done any reading on North Korea and the Kim dynasty or Russia. I cannot believe you actually typed that without knowing NK's history, so no need to delve into that further. You need to brush up on international politics and history, if you are going to attempt to speak on it. Have a great Sunday!
Oh jeez. I guess Deezy and I are on the same page about something. Gross.
TIME TO BRING BACK THE OBAMA CAGES!
0
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @DeezyAZ81 I answered them. No I am not making that analogy. Many others that are experts have told you what that regime is. My question is why do you support it? When you know who they are, what they support, and what they have done to their own people? I am not sure why you do not understand that they have clearly demonstrated their intent to be far worse than any dictator, including NK and RU. Aw far as who determines it, the world at large and the world experts that actually understand and study it. For example, MI-5’s biggest caseload today is not far-Right extremism; it is Islamic extremism. There are plenty of bad dictators and even countries. But it is far from laughable to think they are as serious a regional or world threat as other countries are. There are a lot of people that consider this a very serious matter. Experts?? You trust "experts" now. Name some of these "experts". I can find experts that claim the Trump regime is radical too. I can also find numerous states in the global system that argue Trump regime and the United States are dangerous and radical. To answer your question, I do not support Iran's leadership or government, I simply do not care about them. I do not think the U.S. should be involved in Israel-Iran conflict or affairs to sum up my position. Just like I do not support Bibi's regime, or Putin's regime, or North Korea's regime. We should not be involved, which I thought was the MAGA position considering you cheered no new wars his entire first administration and throughout the 2024 election cycle. In fact, you stressed that getting out and staying out of the Middle East was a huge accomplishment. Now that he got involved in Iran and the region again, that position has mysteriously disappeared and MAGAS flipped flopped. You do not stand for anything. Trump actually wrote make Iran great again. He even sold out his own catch phrase. You are making assumptions and guesses about intent. I cannot predict or confirm anyone's intent, nor can you or any "experts". I care about actual action and history. You clearly have not done any reading on North Korea and the Kim dynasty or Russia. I cannot believe you actually typed that without knowing NK's history, so no need to delve into that further. You need to brush up on international politics and history, if you are going to attempt to speak on it. Have a great Sunday!
Oh jeez. I guess Deezy and I are on the same page about something. Gross.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @DeezyAZ81 https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/how-india-pakistan-pulled-back-brink-with-us-brokered-ceasefire-2025-05-13/ This is one from before yours. So, there is credit given. Does it really matter if the countries want to change the narrative now or take full credit on their own? If the USA announced it and all three countries officials at the time were saying it, does it really matter if they want to shift it now? I just do not think so, nor care. The bottom line is still it happen d on Trump’s watch after he and his administration reached out to both countries. Did you actually read the link you attached? The source sums up that Trump did nothing to broker ceasefire. It says Vance made a phone call. This link does not say one thing Trump did to mediate between the countries or negotiate a ceasefire. Does not even say Trump made a phone call. Says nothing about anything that Trump actually did. This does not support anything you claim about the situation. Explain why India states Trump was not involved and did not mediate anything. That is odd considering you claim India is "fond" of Trump.
I can only quote what is in the article. Calling them and talking to them and having Modi over and having Vance an other officials talk to them — is all certainly part of getting them to Sri down at the table and broker a ceasefire. I am not sure what you expect the article to say exactly. Do you want to know exactly what Trump, Vance or the officials said to help them? Why? That part may be private. The fact that they helped is the point:
U.S. played key role in brokering ceasefire, just days after Vance downplayed need to act
Vance call to Modi followed Oval Office discussion with Trump
which began with the looming specter of a full-blown war and ended with an evening cease-fire announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump - is based on interviews with more than a dozen people, including U.S., Indian and Pakistani officials, as well as Reuters' review of public statements from the three capitals.
They described the rapid escalation of hostilities as well as behind-the-scenes diplomacy involving the U.S., India and Pakistan, and underscore the key role played by Washington in brokering peace.
0
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @DeezyAZ81 https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/how-india-pakistan-pulled-back-brink-with-us-brokered-ceasefire-2025-05-13/ This is one from before yours. So, there is credit given. Does it really matter if the countries want to change the narrative now or take full credit on their own? If the USA announced it and all three countries officials at the time were saying it, does it really matter if they want to shift it now? I just do not think so, nor care. The bottom line is still it happen d on Trump’s watch after he and his administration reached out to both countries. Did you actually read the link you attached? The source sums up that Trump did nothing to broker ceasefire. It says Vance made a phone call. This link does not say one thing Trump did to mediate between the countries or negotiate a ceasefire. Does not even say Trump made a phone call. Says nothing about anything that Trump actually did. This does not support anything you claim about the situation. Explain why India states Trump was not involved and did not mediate anything. That is odd considering you claim India is "fond" of Trump.
I can only quote what is in the article. Calling them and talking to them and having Modi over and having Vance an other officials talk to them — is all certainly part of getting them to Sri down at the table and broker a ceasefire. I am not sure what you expect the article to say exactly. Do you want to know exactly what Trump, Vance or the officials said to help them? Why? That part may be private. The fact that they helped is the point:
U.S. played key role in brokering ceasefire, just days after Vance downplayed need to act
Vance call to Modi followed Oval Office discussion with Trump
which began with the looming specter of a full-blown war and ended with an evening cease-fire announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump - is based on interviews with more than a dozen people, including U.S., Indian and Pakistani officials, as well as Reuters' review of public statements from the three capitals.
They described the rapid escalation of hostilities as well as behind-the-scenes diplomacy involving the U.S., India and Pakistan, and underscore the key role played by Washington in brokering peace.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @DeezyAZ81 I answered them. No I am not making that analogy. Many others that are experts have told you what that regime is. My question is why do you support it? When you know who they are, what they support, and what they have done to their own people? I am not sure why you do not understand that they have clearly demonstrated their intent to be far worse than any dictator, including NK and RU. Aw far as who determines it, the world at large and the world experts that actually understand and study it. For example, MI-5’s biggest caseload today is not far-Right extremism; it is Islamic extremism. There are plenty of bad dictators and even countries. But it is far from laughable to think they are as serious a regional or world threat as other countries are. There are a lot of people that consider this a very serious matter. Experts?? You trust "experts" now. Name some of these "experts". I can find experts that claim the Trump regime is radical too. I can also find numerous states in the global system that argue Trump regime and the United States are dangerous and radical. To answer your question, I do not support Iran's leadership or government, I simply do not care about them. I do not think the U.S. should be involved in Israel-Iran conflict or affairs to sum up my position. Just like I do not support Bibi's regime, or Putin's regime, or North Korea's regime. We should not be involved, which I thought was the MAGA position considering you cheered no new wars his entire first administration and throughout the 2024 election cycle. In fact, you stressed that getting out and staying out of the Middle East was a huge accomplishment. Now that he got involved in Iran and the region again, that position has mysteriously disappeared and MAGAS flipped flopped. You do not stand for anything. Trump actually wrote make Iran great again. He even sold out his own catch phrase. You are making assumptions and guesses about intent. I cannot predict or confirm anyone's intent, nor can you or any "experts". I care about actual action and history. You clearly have not done any reading on North Korea and the Kim dynasty or Russia. I cannot believe you actually typed that without knowing NK's history, so no need to delve into that further. You need to brush up on international politics and history, if you are going to attempt to speak on it. Have a great Sunday!
No sir I did not stress that getting out of ME and staying out was a main accomplishment. But if things are going great it would be.
I get that you want to leave other countries alone and stay out of there business. The only issue I would have is that a policy of isolationism’ can be seen as ‘appeasement’.
But I think the USA does owe some sort of responsibility to the world to be an ‘adult’ of sorts.
Cerainly people disagree. I mean look back at WWI and WWII. You had folks that didn’t even want t get involved in either of those. Even folks in congress that voted against both. So, i understand you feeling this way. I just think at times more is needed than to sit and watch and hope it never directly affects you.
0
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @DeezyAZ81 I answered them. No I am not making that analogy. Many others that are experts have told you what that regime is. My question is why do you support it? When you know who they are, what they support, and what they have done to their own people? I am not sure why you do not understand that they have clearly demonstrated their intent to be far worse than any dictator, including NK and RU. Aw far as who determines it, the world at large and the world experts that actually understand and study it. For example, MI-5’s biggest caseload today is not far-Right extremism; it is Islamic extremism. There are plenty of bad dictators and even countries. But it is far from laughable to think they are as serious a regional or world threat as other countries are. There are a lot of people that consider this a very serious matter. Experts?? You trust "experts" now. Name some of these "experts". I can find experts that claim the Trump regime is radical too. I can also find numerous states in the global system that argue Trump regime and the United States are dangerous and radical. To answer your question, I do not support Iran's leadership or government, I simply do not care about them. I do not think the U.S. should be involved in Israel-Iran conflict or affairs to sum up my position. Just like I do not support Bibi's regime, or Putin's regime, or North Korea's regime. We should not be involved, which I thought was the MAGA position considering you cheered no new wars his entire first administration and throughout the 2024 election cycle. In fact, you stressed that getting out and staying out of the Middle East was a huge accomplishment. Now that he got involved in Iran and the region again, that position has mysteriously disappeared and MAGAS flipped flopped. You do not stand for anything. Trump actually wrote make Iran great again. He even sold out his own catch phrase. You are making assumptions and guesses about intent. I cannot predict or confirm anyone's intent, nor can you or any "experts". I care about actual action and history. You clearly have not done any reading on North Korea and the Kim dynasty or Russia. I cannot believe you actually typed that without knowing NK's history, so no need to delve into that further. You need to brush up on international politics and history, if you are going to attempt to speak on it. Have a great Sunday!
No sir I did not stress that getting out of ME and staying out was a main accomplishment. But if things are going great it would be.
I get that you want to leave other countries alone and stay out of there business. The only issue I would have is that a policy of isolationism’ can be seen as ‘appeasement’.
But I think the USA does owe some sort of responsibility to the world to be an ‘adult’ of sorts.
Cerainly people disagree. I mean look back at WWI and WWII. You had folks that didn’t even want t get involved in either of those. Even folks in congress that voted against both. So, i understand you feeling this way. I just think at times more is needed than to sit and watch and hope it never directly affects you.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
