candide

It's not fake news it's a leaked preliminary assessment.

Crickets......

Crickets....

Proof? It seems you are making stuff up again!

I don't know, but my "theory" is obvious. "overstating the damage is in the interest of Iran, as it means downplaying the remaining risk." If it is claimed that the damage is higher than what it really is, Iran may be spared further strikes and may quietly develop nuclear weapon.

"So why should it matter to the US if Europe spends more on defense or not." Good question, in particular as it won't necessarily mean that the U.S. will spend less. It's probably because a significant share of European military expenses will be spent on U.S. weapons and equipment.

I would rather say that their leaders have the same interest.

"The left was howling that Iran had no nuclear weapon program." Proof?

"Back to me. One issue I and all rational sane people noticed during Trump's first term, was that when the USA stock market dropped it was all Trump's fault, but when the stock market increased ................. crickets in the night. And they are doing the same - any drop is the end of the world and any increase = silence. Much like when they are asked a rational sensible question like yours ............... they have got nothing but feelings." I don't know if it's true, but that's exactly what we've been reading for years on MAGA posts about Biden! 🤣

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_236705.htm?utm_source=social&utm_medium=posts&utm_campaign=250625%2Bmulti%2Bdeclaration Precisely, it's 3.5% on comparable basis (which is quite good), plus "up to" 1.5% window dressing, in order to display 5%. Smart. "Allies will allocate at least 3.5% of GDP annually based on the agreed definition of NATO defence expenditure to resource core defence requirements, and to meet the NATO Capability Targets. Allies agree to submit annual plans showing a credible, incremental path to reach this goal. And Allies will account for up to 1.5% of GDP annually to inter alia protect our critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base."

It works to laud Trump! 🤣 “These people really love their countries,” Trump said of the NATO leaders at his news conference concluding the NATO summit. “It’s not a rip-off, and we’re here to help them protect their country.” “I came here because it was something I’m supposed to be doing,” he added, “but I left here a little bit different.” Inside the NATO charm offensive that shocked as much as it delivered https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/25/europe/rutte-daddy-trump-nato-ukraine-intl-latam

Don't confuse paying attention to facts with supporting Iran. Actually, overstating the damage is in the interest of Iran, as it means downplaying the remaining risk. Iran's communication is now that sites have been "badly damaged". https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-says-nuclear-sites-badly-damaged-amid-conflicting-reports-on-strikes-success/

Another hate post calling others "haters"!

And an official declaration is always better than a meme from SM. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_236705.htm?utm_source=social&utm_medium=posts&utm_campaign=250625%2Bmulti%2Bdeclaration Precisely, it's 3.5% on comparable basis (which is quite good), plus up to 1.5% windows dressing, in order to display 5%. Smart. A few quotes: "United in the face of profound security threats and challenges, in particular the long- term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security and the persistent threat of terrorism, Allies commit to invest 5% of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence-and security-related spending by 2035..." .....Allies will allocate at least 3.5% of GDP annually based on the agreed definition of NATO defence expenditurek to resource core defence requirements, and to meet the NATO Capability Targets. Allies agree to submit annual plans showing a credible, incremental path to reach this goal. And Allies will account for up to 1.5% of GDP annually to inter alia protect our critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base."

So how does it contradict what I have posted, muppet?

Interesting comment. I would have thought that a visa run by land would look more suspect than by air. I also intend to do 2x60 days this winter. Just to check: - what's the recommended duration of short stay abroad between two entries? - is it better by land or by air? If by land, is by bus or train better ( from VE perspective) In case the VE would be back to 30 days, is there a simpler alternative to OA visa, which seems to be painful in terms of documents and conditions required?

In case you did not notice, the US is the dominant member of NATO. The de facto boss of Rutte. 🙂

"In a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) recommended Trump for the prestigious prize....." 🤣🤣🤣

The agreement still technically exists on paper, but no one respects it. It's a kind of ghost treaty.

Not being in denial of reality=Trump hate topic! 🤣

The other members actually tried to save the agreement. However, due to the de facto extraterritoriality of U.S. sanctions, they could do nothing. They were compelled to follow the U.S. sanctions. In 2020, Iran declared it was not bound any more by this agreement.

That's the 2015 deal you mentioned. I don't support Iran, but as the deal was trashed by the U.S., they had no reason to respect it. As concerns the NPT, there's no enrichment percentage limit, but a high level may be considered as a clue that enrichment activities may be diverted towards weapon development.

Trump trashed this deal in 2018. After that, and after the US killed a high ranked person, Iran declared it was not bound any more by this treaty. It is still adhering the NPT, until now!

Most of them enter legally as they don't need an visa, and then work illegally (until there's a regularisation campaign decided by the government). Considering that the population of the U.S. is 7 times higher than Spain, and also that the 700,000 number is only the number of immigrants which have been regularised (not those who haven't been yet), the percentage is not so far from the U.S. with 8 million.

Another pathetic attempt to substantiate the debunked Big Lie!