A five-day pause to the two-day deadline. He's such a Donald 🙄

27 minutes ago, Wuvu2 said:

A five-day pause to the two-day deadline. He's such a Donald 🙄

Actually it would have been late Monday night. So disappointing.

I think a few people have pointed out to him that it would be a war crime, and he would never be able to visit his golf course in the UK because he would be arrested (after his presidency, of course)

19 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think a few people have pointed out to him that it would be a war crime, and he would never be able to visit his golf course in the UK because he would be arrested (after his presidency, of course)

No, there is no war crime exposure. Your deciding it is does not make it so. The facilities are used by the military and are controlled by the IRGC.

30 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Actually it would have been late Monday night. So disappointing.

You are disappointed because they are talking and as a gesture of good faith, the USA has held off? Isn't it preferable that they talk or is your desire to see the conflict continue?

39 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Actually it would have been late Monday night. So disappointing.

Strange that you want them to continue the bombing

5 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

No, there is no war crime exposure. Your deciding it is does not make it so. The facilities are used by the military and are controlled by the IRGC.

You are disappointed because they are talking and as a gesture of good faith, the USA has held off? Isn't it preferable that they talk or is your desire to see the conflict continue?

Oh, so they're talking, are they? That's news to the Iranians, and in this day and age, with the walking garbage can in the WH, the Iranians are more credible than whatever comes out of Washington.

5 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

You are disappointed because they are talking and as a gesture of good faith, the USA has held off? Isn't it preferable that they talk or is your desire to see the conflict continue?

You know for a fact that they are talking? Given that it seems highly unlikely that the Mullahs or th IRGC is going to give Trump anything he wants, I don't think so. But what is clear is that Trump has got a big electoral problem on his hands if he can't find some way to extricate himself from this mess. The simplest explanations that fit the facts are generally the best. It could be otherwise of course. But taking the word of Donald Trump is just plain nuts.

6 minutes ago, sungod said:

Strange that you want them to continue the bombing

Psychology, Political Ideology, and Humor Appreciation

Why Is Satire So Liberal?

https://www.ovid.com/journals/ppmc/abstract/10.1037/ppm0000157~psychology-political-ideology-and-humor-appreciation-why-is?redirectionsource=fulltextview

6 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Oh, so they're talking, are they? That's news to the Iranians.

He used the same "very productive negotiations" line on the Tariff Tacos. He was the only attendee at those negotiations too 🙄

1 hour ago, Wuvu2 said:

A five-day pause to the two-day deadline. He's such a Donald 🙄

The operative word here is 'pause' - Taco-bois inner child has been humiliated having been forced to acknowledge his limitations, there is ample proof that such defeats will bring even worse reactions in narcissists...... will it be a nuclear threat next, from which he thinks he cant climb down?

Bessent was on the Sunday talk-show circus to talk escalation - that was not a partisan outlier, it was the neo-cons talking points, with a twist of religious zealots hidden in plain sight..

Sadly, the off-ramp does not exist in their vocabulary.

22 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

...Isn't it preferable that they talk or is your desire to see the conflict continue?

The Oman Foreign Minister as chief mediator, was talking with JD Vance in Washington DC on 27 February. Trump and Netanyahu pulled the trigger on 28 February.

Now, what are you saying about dialog being preferable to war?

32 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

You are disappointed because they are talking and as a gesture of good faith, the USA has held off? Isn't it preferable that they talk or is your desire to see the conflict continue?

Talk? The last time the Iranians talked to the Americans they used it as a ploy to kill the Iranian leadership.

Do you really think they'd trust them a second time??🤣

6 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

The Oman Foreign Minister as chief mediator, was talking with JD Vance in Washington DC on 27 February. Trump and Netanyahu pulled the trigger on 28 February.

Now, what are you saying about dialog being preferable to war?

I've read a reports in the WSJ the while MbS was claiming he was opposed to attacking Iran, actually he was urging the US and Israel on. Maybe the UAE, too. But Oman has always had good relations with Iran and I doubt that they wanted this war.

21 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Psychology, Political Ideology, and Humor Appreciation

Why Is Satire So Liberal?

https://www.ovid.com/journals/ppmc/abstract/10.1037/ppm0000157~psychology-political-ideology-and-humor-appreciation-why-is?redirectionsource=fulltextview

More like waffle

Timothy is right. The most incompetent president in history did this.

As has been pointed out no intelligence was used when the decision to go to war was made. You can interpret that two ways, and both are correct.

He plans to have Hormuz "jointly controlled." What? By the US and the GCC? Donald, step away from the drugs.

17 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

But what is clear is that Trump has got a big electoral problem on his hands if he can't find some way to extricate himself from this mess.

I believe that Netanyahu's electoral problem was bigger. Either get the 2006 budget approved or face dissolution of the Knesset and early elections where he would face significant challenges. Start a war on 28 February and the budget debate gets fast-tracked. The first of three readings just got the nod, the formality of the final two readings will be done and dusted by this Thursday, beating the end of March fiscal deadline.

Winning.

1 minute ago, BLMFem said:

Timothy is right. The most incompetent president in history did this.

As has been pointed out no intelligence was used when the decision to go to war was made. You can interpret that two ways, and both are correct.

That pretty well sums it up BLMFem.

24 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Psychology, Political Ideology, and Humor Appreciation

Why Is Satire So Liberal?

https://www.ovid.com/journals/ppmc/abstract/10.1037/ppm0000157~psychology-political-ideology-and-humor-appreciation-why-is?redirectionsource=fulltextview

2 minutes ago, sungod said:

More like waffle

Because a large part of the political right disengaged their brains when they immersed themselves in their sick cult.

12 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

The Oman Foreign Minister as chief mediator, was talking with JD Vance in Washington DC on 27 February.

That's called perfidy. Lulling the adversary you plan on attacking in the guise of diplomatic talks. Vance should understand that is a war crime.

4 minutes ago, sungod said:

More like waffle

Waffle House or TACO Bell?

48 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

No, there is no war crime exposure. Your deciding it is does not make it so. The facilities are used by the military and are controlled by the IRGC.

You are disappointed because they are talking and as a gesture of good faith, the USA has held off? Isn't it preferable that they talk or is your desire to see the conflict continue?

You are wishful thinking with an Israeli perspective.

It would be a war crime, it doesn’t matter if the IIRG manage the power stations or not.

There is no demonstration that they are predominantly military targets.

When Trump and his crew are no longer in power, countries around the world will be queuing up at the ICC to file their accusations. None of his pardons are valid internationally.

I’m looking forward to Trump explaining how civilian power plants are military targets.

The civilian population relies on that power for desalination.

You couldn’t be more wrong. It would indeed be perceived as a war crime.

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

You are wishful thinking with an Israeli perspective.

It would be a war crime, it doesn’t matter if the IIRG manage the power stations or not.

There is no demonstration that they are predominantly military targets.

When Trump and his crew are no longer in power, countries around the world will be queuing up at the ICC to file their accusations. None of his pardons are valid internationally.

I’m looking forward to Trump explaining how civilian power plants are military targets.

The civilian population relies on that power for desalination.

You couldn’t be more wrong. It would indeed be perceived as a war crime.

The issue of targeting power generation facilities was settled long ago.

If the facilities are under the control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and they usually are, and f they are used by the Iranian military, then they will be deemed to be legal targets.

It is not an "Israeli" perspective. I know you need to demonize anyone and anything tat is contrary to your pro Iranian position, but that's the reality. You can take to the streets and beat your drum to protest.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-us-israel-war-updates-2026/card/power-infrastructure-can-be-lawfully-targeted-in-certain-circumstances-military-experts-say-wVSOxc7KGyVZcClHdiWu

1 hour ago, BLMFem said:

Talk? The last time the Iranians talked to the Americans they used it as a ploy to kill the Iranian leadership.

Do you really think they'd trust them a second time??🤣

The last time the Iranians pretended to negotiate they dragged the. negotiations out for a decade and went from 10% enriched uranium to 60%. 😄

If the iranians want to become martyrs, that desire can be satisfied. if they want to behave they can be welcomed to the civilized world.

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

The Oman Foreign Minister as chief mediator, was talking with JD Vance in Washington DC on 27 February. Trump and Netanyahu pulled the trigger on 28 February.

Now, what are you saying about dialog being preferable to war?

The Oman foreign minister neither represented the Iranians, nor had the power to ensure their agreeing to anything. He was being used by Iran to play for more time. He knows that and his comments were intended to save face. The Saudis and Emiratis knew the talks would achieve nothing.

2 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You know for a fact that they are talking? Given that it seems highly unlikely that the Mullahs or th IRGC is going to give Trump anything he wants, I don't think so. But what is clear is that Trump has got a big electoral problem on his hands if he can't find some way to extricate himself from this mess. The simplest explanations that fit the facts are generally the best. It could be otherwise of course. But taking the word of Donald Trump is just plain nuts.

They have been talking indirectly for days. Multiple countries have been interceding. Because it isn't made public, does not mean it has not occurred. Turkiye, Turkmenistan, and Kuwait all made overtures. Until, the Iranians fired missiles at Azerbaijan, they too were trying to help as the Azerbaijan government has good relations with both Israel and USA. Kuwait and Azerbaijan were both close to Iran, until they were attacked. There are a lot of people from a diverse group of countries trying to calm things down. Have faith. There are alot of good and intelligent people working on this matter.

5 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

There are alot of good and intelligent people working on this matter.

I wish a few of them worked at the White House 😔

6 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

They have been talking indirectly for days. Multiple countries have been interceding. Because it isn't made public, does not mean it has not occurred.

So you have inside information, or are just as usual defending Israel and the US, with unconfirmed claims?

1 minute ago, Patong2021 said:

They have been talking indirectly for days. Multiple countries have been interceding. Because it isn't made public, does not mean it has not occurred. Turkiye, Turkmenistan, and Kuwait all made overtures. Until, the Iranians fired missiles at Azerbaijan, they too were trying to help as the Azerbaijan government has good relations with both Israel and USA. Kuwait and Azerbaijan were both close to Iran, until they were attacked. There are a lot of people from a diverse group of countries trying to calm things down. Have faith. There are alot of good and intelligent people working on this matter.

Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

7 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

So you have inside information, or are just as usual defending Israel and the US, with unconfirmed claims?

How am I defending Israel and the USA, when I point out what has been going on since the conflict started? Kuwait and Azerbiajan were frequent interceders on behalf of Iran, until some idiot fired missiles at them. Turkiye was partners with Iran as they pursued their joint attacks on the Kurds. Some of the Turkish military leadership have personal relationships with their Iranian counterparts.. I believe that the Guardian was making mention of China and Qatar offering to help. A reading of the Pakistani media will show that Pakistan has been trying to calm things down too. Because the EU and the UK are not at the forefront, doesn't mean that communication was not ongoing. Many countries have been trying to calm things down for quite some time. And despite the Russian quiet support of Iran, they have been careful with their public statements in an effort to contain the conflict that is on the Russian doorstep.