Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Taco Trump - didn't even wait until Tuesday

Featured Replies

11 minutes ago, candide said:

Interesting. In which court filling? My AI cannot find it. Google cannot find it.

Its time to know your AI and Google are clearly running on the same low-effort setting as your reading comprehension.

The document in question is a 2009 email written by Jeffrey Epstein’s own lawyer, Jack Goldberger. It summarizes a phone conference with Trump’s lawyer Alan Garten (and victims’ lawyer Brad Edwards). In the unredacted version, Garten states Epstein was “never asked to leave” Mar-a-Lago , he was “not a member… may have been his guest.”

This exact email was publicly highlighted on the House floor by Rep. Dan Goldman just last week (March 18, 2026). It’s been reported by The Daily Beast, Times of India, Yahoo, AOL, MSN, and multiple other outlets. It’s also referenced in the Congressional Record.

You didn’t “search” for it. You skimmed the thread, saw something that challenged your narrative, and immediately defaulted to the laziest dismissal possible: “nuh-uh, my robot couldn’t find it.”

That’s not skepticism. That’s intellectual surrender with extra steps.

Next time you want to play “gotcha,” try typing more than three words into Google before declaring victory. Or better yet actually read the document instead of outsourcing your brain to a chatbot and then acting smug when it fails.

The email exists. It’s been all over the news for days. Your inability (or unwillingness) to find it says far more about you than it does about the facts. I have it right here in my hot little hands so go find it if you are capable of doing so.

Here's the exact source for that statement (it's real and easily findable):Bradley J. Edwards (Virginia Giuffre’s lawyer and attorney for multiple Epstein victims) wrote it in his affidavit filed in the case Epstein v. Edwards (Case No. 09-34791-RBR, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida). The specific quote appears in Exhibit N to the Statement of Undisputed Facts (filed around 2010, but the information dates to 2009):

Ask nicely and maybe I will help your find your way. (refer to attachment)

“I learned through a source that Trump banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club.”

Direct links to the document:

  • Full PDF of the affidavit/exhibit: https://XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXtaffidavit-of-edwards-exh-n-to-stm-undisputed-facts.pdf

  • Another clean version hosted on Reason.com / DocumentCloud: https://reason.com/wp-content/ XXXXXXXXXXXXX(page 27 of the PDF)

It has also been widely quoted and linked in mainstream outlets (Washington Post, Vox, Yahoo, Florida Bulldog, etc.) for years. Quick context so you're not caught off guard: Edwards says he “learned through a source”, it’s hearsay (second-hand info), not something he personally witnessed or that was proven in court. The exact timing and details of the alleged assault were never specified or litigated. This is the same filing where Edwards was explaining why he wanted to depose Trump (Trump ended up cooperating voluntarily and Edwards later called him “very helpful”).

You're pulling the classic lazy “I can’t find it” move again even though a 5-second Google search for “Bradley Edwards affidavit Trump banned Epstein underage girl” brings it up immediately.

candide simpleton.jpg

  • Replies 164
  • Views 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • 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.

  • 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 an

  • 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 h

Posted Images

1 hour ago, boganJoe said:

Oh look, another keyboard warrior dropping the classic "Proper triggered. “You must be tired dear". Take a Bex and a good lie down.”

Mr/Mrs NanLaew (triggered version), that's not the clever mic-drop you think it is. That's the exhausted 1960s Australian housewife special, a cup of tea, a headache powder, and a nap because the actual argument is too hard.

You're not 'owning' anyone. You're just admitting you’ve got nothing. No facts, no counter to the hearsay email, no explanation why a lawyer's second-hand summary in a 2009 settlement chat magically disproves everything else on record. Just vintage condescension and a patronizing 'dear' to signal you're above it all while contributing less than the Bex powder itself (which, fun fact, was eventually banned for destroying people's kidneys and kind of like what this reply does to any hope of intelligent discussion from you)

Next time someone brings receipts about the Epstein files, club policies, or the actual lack of any criminal link, try engaging with the substance instead of cosplaying a sassy nanna who ran out of arguments in 1975.

"Proper triggered"? Nah. Properly empty. Go have that lie down since you clearly need it after straining so hard to say absolutely nothing.

I wouldn't dream of "owning" anything you divot, especially not a totally AI-dependent, vacuous and boring forum windbag like yourself. If anything needs banning, it should be you for wasting oxygen.

6 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

I wouldn't dream of "owning" anything you divot

We rent space in your mind at no cost for a specific reason.

36 minutes ago, boganJoe said:

Its time to know your AI and Google are clearly running on the same low-effort setting as your reading comprehension.

The document in question is a 2009 email written by Jeffrey Epstein’s own lawyer, Jack Goldberger. It summarizes a phone conference with Trump’s lawyer Alan Garten (and victims’ lawyer Brad Edwards). In the unredacted version, Garten states Epstein was “never asked to leave” Mar-a-Lago , he was “not a member… may have been his guest.”

This exact email was publicly highlighted on the House floor by Rep. Dan Goldman just last week (March 18, 2026). It’s been reported by The Daily Beast, Times of India, Yahoo, AOL, MSN, and multiple other outlets. It’s also referenced in the Congressional Record.

You didn’t “search” for it. You skimmed the thread, saw something that challenged your narrative, and immediately defaulted to the laziest dismissal possible: “nuh-uh, my robot couldn’t find it.”

That’s not skepticism. That’s intellectual surrender with extra steps.

Next time you want to play “gotcha,” try typing more than three words into Google before declaring victory. Or better yet actually read the document instead of outsourcing your brain to a chatbot and then acting smug when it fails.

The email exists. It’s been all over the news for days. Your inability (or unwillingness) to find it says far more about you than it does about the facts. I have it right here in my hot little hands so go find it if you are capable of doing so.

Here's the exact source for that statement (it's real and easily findable):Bradley J. Edwards (Virginia Giuffre’s lawyer and attorney for multiple Epstein victims) wrote it in his affidavit filed in the case Epstein v. Edwards (Case No. 09-34791-RBR, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida). The specific quote appears in Exhibit N to the Statement of Undisputed Facts (filed around 2010, but the information dates to 2009):

Ask nicely and maybe I will help your find your way. (refer to attachment)

“I learned through a source that Trump banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club.”

Direct links to the document:

  • Full PDF of the affidavit/exhibit: https://XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXtaffidavit-of-edwards-exh-n-to-stm-undisputed-facts.pdf

  • Another clean version hosted on Reason.com / DocumentCloud: https://reason.com/wp-content/ XXXXXXXXXXXXX(page 27 of the PDF)

It has also been widely quoted and linked in mainstream outlets (Washington Post, Vox, Yahoo, Florida Bulldog, etc.) for years. Quick context so you're not caught off guard: Edwards says he “learned through a source”, it’s hearsay (second-hand info), not something he personally witnessed or that was proven in court. The exact timing and details of the alleged assault were never specified or litigated. This is the same filing where Edwards was explaining why he wanted to depose Trump (Trump ended up cooperating voluntarily and Edwards later called him “very helpful”).

You're pulling the classic lazy “I can’t find it” move again even though a 5-second Google search for “Bradley Edwards affidavit Trump banned Epstein underage girl” brings it up immediately.

candide simpleton.jpg

Thanks. However:

Your quote from Exhibit N is real, but it is hearsay, unverified, and never repeated by Edwards. Never corroborated by another source.

It's in an affidavit that show the context of the investigation, including rumors, tips, and leads, not a testimony under oath.

If Edwards believed the rumor was true, he would have included it in his 2019 book.

He didn’t.

1 minute ago, Fact said:

We rent space in your mind at no cost for a specific reason.

Only in your mind, you failure.

Just now, NanLaew said:

Only in your mind, you failure.

You exemplify why this forum has not reached its potential.

Just now, Fact said:

You exemplify why this forum has not reached its potential.

Forum stalking, the last redoubt of the intellectually stunted.

Anyway, enjoy your flailing.

On 3/23/2026 at 4:01 PM, Patong2021 said:

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.

Have the Egyptians and Pakistanis, that we have been belatedly advised are the new mediators, and thus responsible for Trump's sudden 5-day stay of execution, promised anything more substantial on Iranian agreement than the Omani mediator that was shown the door on the eve of the war?

What are the Saudis and Emiratis saying about the new mediators?

  • Popular Post
10 hours ago, candide said:

It's so obvious! Trump is laying ground for blaming someone else for this fiasco! 🤣

I would love to see Tiny Petie thrown under the bus. He richly deserves that indignity. And during his second term so far Trump is way under quota when it comes to trashing his subordinates.

He himself would never take responsibility for a mistake, his ego is simply too fragile and his self-esteem is too low.

  • Author
3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I would love to see Tiny Petie thrown under the bus.

The "throw em under the bus" phase of Trump's second term has already begun. Kristi was a good start. I agree that Pete is a likely second candidate, and we'll know Trump's in full stride when Pam is shown the door 😆

7 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Have the Egyptians and Pakistanis, that we have been belatedly advised are the new mediators, and thus responsible for Trump's sudden 5-day stay of execution, promised anything more substantial on Iranian agreement than the Omani mediator that was shown the door on the eve of the war?

What are the Saudis and Emiratis saying about the new mediators?

Ask Vance and Rubio who are going to be in the negotiations.

15 hours ago, CallumWK said:

@Patong2021

Qatar just confirmed they are NOT mediating between the US and Iran, it was on the BBC news.

Over to you

https://dohanews.co/qatar-not-engaged-in-mediation-in-u-s-israel-iran-war-diplomat-tells-sky-news/

Qatar not engaged in mediation in U.S.-Israel-Iran war, diplomat tells Sky News

Qatar is not currently engaged in mediation efforts in the war involving Iran, the United States and Israel, despite reports suggesting possible talks led by Doha and Cairo to end the nearly month-long conflict.

No need now that Rubio and Vance are directly implicated.

BTW, did you see this comment from the. Qatari FM?

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/iran-war-us-israel-trump-03-24-26?post-id=cmn4ra1rf00033b6tclxungfp

18 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

No need now that Rubio and Vance are directly implicated.

BTW, did you see this comment from the. Qatari FM?

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/iran-war-us-israel-trump-03-24-26?post-id=cmn4ra1rf00033b6tclxungfp

Yes I see that comment, and it says this

However, Al-Ansari also said that his country is not making any efforts to directly mediate between the US and Iran.

Where is the credible link, other than out of Trump's lying pie hole, that those negotiations are really happening?

It's not because Trump says, that Iran even engage in the talks.

1 hour ago, CallumWK said:

Yes I see that comment, and it says this

However, Al-Ansari also said that his country is not making any efforts to directly mediate between the US and Iran.

Where is the credible link, other than out of Trump's lying pie hole, that those negotiations are really happening?

It's not because Trump says, that Iran even engage in the talks.

Ok, everyone is lying, the Turks, Egyptians and Pakistanis. Trump is bad bad man. Happy now? The Iranians are not going to make a public statement because they could open themselves up to internal feuds. We'll just go along with your expert assessment.

1 minute ago, Patong2021 said:

Ok, everyone is lying, the Turks, Egyptians and Pakistanis. Trump is bad bad man. Happy now? The Iranians are neither united nor in a position to offer a reliable position because the leadership is dead or missing or in hiding or jostling for position. We'll just go along with your expert assessment.

The left's position is that anyone supporting Trump is a liar, and anyone that attacks Trump is a Truth-teller.

1 minute ago, Patong2021 said:

Ok, everyone is lying, the Turks, Egyptians and Pakistanis. Trump is bad bad man. Happy now? The Iranians are neither united nor in a position to offer a reliable position because the leadership is dead or missing or in hiding or jostling for position. We'll just go along with your expert assessment.

You could just post some links to credible sources where the Turks, Egyptians and Pakistanis confirm that they are mediating in talks between US and Iran, and that Iran is committing to those talks.

So far you have failed for THREE days to post a single link, other than what is announced by the liar in chief of the US himself.

So I'm not saying those countries are lying, I'm saying that NONE of those countries have confirmed that they AND Iran are involved in such talks.

You better stop pretending you are the expert

12 hours ago, boganJoe said:

Its time to know your AI and Google are clearly running on the same low-effort setting as your reading comprehension.

The document in question is a 2009 email written by Jeffrey Epstein’s own lawyer, Jack Goldberger. It summarizes a phone conference with Trump’s lawyer Alan Garten (and victims’ lawyer Brad Edwards). In the unredacted version, Garten states Epstein was “never asked to leave” Mar-a-Lago , he was “not a member… may have been his guest.”

This exact email was publicly highlighted on the House floor by Rep. Dan Goldman just last week (March 18, 2026). It’s been reported by The Daily Beast, Times of India, Yahoo, AOL, MSN, and multiple other outlets. It’s also referenced in the Congressional Record.

You didn’t “search” for it. You skimmed the thread, saw something that challenged your narrative, and immediately defaulted to the laziest dismissal possible: “nuh-uh, my robot couldn’t find it.”

That’s not skepticism. That’s intellectual surrender with extra steps.

Next time you want to play “gotcha,” try typing more than three words into Google before declaring victory. Or better yet actually read the document instead of outsourcing your brain to a chatbot and then acting smug when it fails.

The email exists. It’s been all over the news for days. Your inability (or unwillingness) to find it says far more about you than it does about the facts. I have it right here in my hot little hands so go find it if you are capable of doing so.

Here's the exact source for that statement (it's real and easily findable):Bradley J. Edwards (Virginia Giuffre’s lawyer and attorney for multiple Epstein victims) wrote it in his affidavit filed in the case Epstein v. Edwards (Case No. 09-34791-RBR, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida). The specific quote appears in Exhibit N to the Statement of Undisputed Facts (filed around 2010, but the information dates to 2009):

Ask nicely and maybe I will help your find your way. (refer to attachment)

“I learned through a source that Trump banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club.”

Direct links to the document:

  • Full PDF of the affidavit/exhibit: https://XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXtaffidavit-of-edwards-exh-n-to-stm-undisputed-facts.pdf

  • Another clean version hosted on Reason.com / DocumentCloud: https://reason.com/wp-content/ XXXXXXXXXXXXX(page 27 of the PDF)

It has also been widely quoted and linked in mainstream outlets (Washington Post, Vox, Yahoo, Florida Bulldog, etc.) for years. Quick context so you're not caught off guard: Edwards says he “learned through a source”, it’s hearsay (second-hand info), not something he personally witnessed or that was proven in court. The exact timing and details of the alleged assault were never specified or litigated. This is the same filing where Edwards was explaining why he wanted to depose Trump (Trump ended up cooperating voluntarily and Edwards later called him “very helpful”).

You're pulling the classic lazy “I can’t find it” move again even though a 5-second Google search for “Bradley Edwards affidavit Trump banned Epstein underage girl” brings it up immediately.

candide simpleton.jpg

You really MUST adhere to the forum rules when it comes to content written by AI. By not doing that you turn yourself into a fake and a fraud.

And you present lies as facts. Here are the facts. You lose.

'Trump Said He Banned Epstein From Mar-a-Lago. A Lawmaker Who Reviewed Unredacted Files Says They Tell a Different Story'

https://time.com/7379910/epstein-files-trump-maxwell-frost-mar-a-lago/

Tweet from Congressman Dan Goldman:

https://x.com/RepDanGoldman/status/2034731690686283855?s=20

image.png

Iran looks increasingly like it might pull off a stunning “win,” while America edges toward something closer to a historic defeat and humiliation Not quite Suez 2.0 but you can almost hear the echoes. Pax Americana drowning in the Straits of Hormuz.

A group routinely dismissed as “mad mullahs” has absorbed serious punishment and still hasn’t blinked. Whatever else you think of them, they’ve shown a willingness to take hits and keep going something the West, for all its hardware and rhetoric and borrowed cash no longer can.

We used to do that dig in, take the pain, call it resolve. Now it’s more about optics, timelines, and exit strategies dressed up as victory.

Empires don’t collapse in a day. They just start sounding a bit more like press releases and Trumpoian bluster , lies ,defection and corruption and future President's of the US won't be going down this avenue with Israel ever again. Oh and Trump sound like a man defeated who is looking at this failure no doubt expressed with deep concern by Pentagon and State Department offciails who have to communicate the actual truth to the Liar-in-Chief.

The reality in the air, is that the US fighters on search & destroy missions only have less than 60 minutes of loiter time over Western and Southern parts of Iran.

Leaving vast swaths of Iran untouched by search and destroy missions. This allows Iran to hide missile launchers and critical systems.

The images of strikes deep into Iran are done by standoff munitions hitting stationary targets. Not Search and Destroy missions that is needed to deal with mobile and popup threats like missile launchers. They carefully thought this out over decades of planning.

Made with help from AI and user query;

1️⃣Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan;
--Distance to Western Iran: ~700km to 900km.
--Fighters on base: F-15E; Combat radius ~1270km.
--Loiter time over Western Iran of 30min to 60min.

2️⃣USS Abraham Lincoln Aircraft carrier;
--Distance to Southern Iran: ~800km to ~1000km.
--Fighters on carrier: F-35C and F/A-18 E/F; Combat radius 1220km and 700km respectively.
--Loiter time over Southern Iran, extremely limited.

This hard restriction means the US can never destroy all the missile and drone launchers, and Iran will continue to posses the capabilities of shutting off the Strait of Hormuz indefinitely.

This point alone means Iran WILL outlast the US, because Trump cannot afford to have high oil prices which will cause spiraling inflation and that's why Iran has been able to fire missiles evry night.

Telegraph - David Blair - Iran now has a clear path to victory

Despite being hammered by aerial bombardment, the Islamic Republic could yet survive the war and rebuild

https://archive.ph/tNI2f

For more than three weeks, American and Israeli jets have rained bombs from Iran’s skies with seeming impunity. Their intelligence agencies have spent years undermining the Islamic Republic from within. Yet, incredible though it may sound, Iran’s remaining leaders now have a clear path to what they would see as victory in this war.

FT - Trump’s Armageddon-Taco shuffle

One minute he threatens death and destruction, the next he says the US and Iran are engaged in negotiations

https://archive.ph/rSgZU

Here is what Trump expected when he started bombing Iran: its regime would collapse or unconditionally surrender within 72 hours. That was Plan A. Plan B did not exist, which means Trump is scrambling to get back to what existed before Plan A. His war aim is the status quo ante. Had Plan B existed, Trump would have readied allies, put US minesweepers and Marines in place, built up oil reserves and flooded the Gulf states with interceptors. “Nobody was even thinking about it,” he said on Iran lashing out at other Gulf states. Everybody was expecting Iran’s response except him. Indeed, Gulf rulers directly warned him against it before February 28. Nor does it matter how carefully the deep state laid out the risks. What Trump will not hear did not exist.

NYT - Everything After This Will Be Harder’: Gen. Stanley McChrystal on Iran

David French talks with the retired general about the “great seduction” America fell for in Iran.

https://archive.ph/o1Fgz

We have a tendency in America to view things in very short periods — our year in Iraq, or in my case, five years in Iraq. We tend to come in and say we are going to fight the war to end all wars, at least in our minds.

But for the Iraqi about my age — I’m 71 now — for an Iraqi, it really starts in 1953, when the U.S. and British intelligence services overthrew the constitutionally elected prime minister and put back into power the Peacock Regime of the Shah.

They oppressed the people tremendously, particularly through Savak, the secret police. So, when the Iranian revolution erupts in 1978, we may have been surprised, but the Iranian people were not surprised.

When they suddenly say “death to America,” most Americans are saying, “What’s your problem? Why are you angry at us?”

Screenshot 2026-03-25 063104.jpg

52 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

You really MUST adhere to the forum rules when it comes to content written by AI. By not doing that you turn yourself into a fake and a fraud.

And you present lies as facts. Here are the facts. You lose.

'Trump Said He Banned Epstein From Mar-a-Lago. A Lawmaker Who Reviewed Unredacted Files Says They Tell a Different Story'

https://time.com/7379910/epstein-files-trump-maxwell-frost-mar-a-lago/

Tweet from Congressman Dan Goldman:

https://x.com/RepDanGoldman/status/2034731690686283855?s=20

image.png

When the goon says something there is always a different story, you're never getting the actual facts because the man doesn't know what a fact is. His credibility is at 0%. He has deeply earned that mistrust.

images (60).jpeg

12 hours ago, NanLaew said:

I wouldn't dream of "owning" anything you divot, especially not a totally AI-dependent, vacuous and boring forum windbag like yourself. If anything needs banning, it should be you for wasting oxygen.

I had AI stuff removed go figure ......

1 hour ago, CallumWK said:

You could just post some links to credible sources where the Turks, Egyptians and Pakistanis confirm that they are mediating in talks between US and Iran, and that Iran is committing to those talks.

So far you have failed for THREE days to post a single link, other than what is announced by the liar in chief of the US himself.

So I'm not saying those countries are lying, I'm saying that NONE of those countries have confirmed that they AND Iran are involved in such talks.

You better stop pretending you are the expert

When people use Trump as a source in the way you suggest however sophisticated and elegent their rhetoric they are ultimately echoing a blowhard liar and by doing so become one themsleves.

46 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Iran looks increasingly like it might pull off a stunning “win,” while America edges toward something closer to a historic defeat and humiliation Not quite Suez 2.0 but you can almost hear the echoes. Pax Americana drowning in the Straits of Hormuz.

A group routinely dismissed as “mad mullahs” has absorbed serious punishment and still hasn’t blinked. Whatever else you think of them, they’ve shown a willingness to take hits and keep going something the West, for all its hardware and rhetoric and borrowed cash no longer can.

We used to do that dig in, take the pain, call it resolve. Now it’s more about optics, timelines, and exit strategies dressed up as victory.

Empires don’t collapse in a day. They just start sounding a bit more like press releases and Trumpoian bluster , lies ,defection and corruption and future President's of the US won't be going down this avenue with Israel ever again. Oh and Trump sound like a man defeated who is looking at this failure no doubt expressed with deep concern by Pentagon and State Department offciails who have to communicate the actual truth to the Liar-in-Chief.

The reality in the air, is that the US fighters on search & destroy missions only have less than 60 minutes of loiter time over Western and Southern parts of Iran.

Leaving vast swaths of Iran untouched by search and destroy missions. This allows Iran to hide missile launchers and critical systems.

The images of strikes deep into Iran are done by standoff munitions hitting stationary targets. Not Search and Destroy missions that is needed to deal with mobile and popup threats like missile launchers. They carefully thought this out over decades of planning.

Made with help from AI and user query;

1️⃣Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan;
--Distance to Western Iran: ~700km to 900km.
--Fighters on base: F-15E; Combat radius ~1270km.
--Loiter time over Western Iran of 30min to 60min.

2️⃣USS Abraham Lincoln Aircraft carrier;
--Distance to Southern Iran: ~800km to ~1000km.
--Fighters on carrier: F-35C and F/A-18 E/F; Combat radius 1220km and 700km respectively.
--Loiter time over Southern Iran, extremely limited.

This hard restriction means the US can never destroy all the missile and drone launchers, and Iran will continue to posses the capabilities of shutting off the Strait of Hormuz indefinitely.

This point alone means Iran WILL outlast the US, because Trump cannot afford to have high oil prices which will cause spiraling inflation and that's why Iran has been able to fire missiles evry night.

Telegraph - David Blair - Iran now has a clear path to victory

Despite being hammered by aerial bombardment, the Islamic Republic could yet survive the war and rebuild

https://archive.ph/tNI2f

For more than three weeks, American and Israeli jets have rained bombs from Iran’s skies with seeming impunity. Their intelligence agencies have spent years undermining the Islamic Republic from within. Yet, incredible though it may sound, Iran’s remaining leaders now have a clear path to what they would see as victory in this war.

FT - Trump’s Armageddon-Taco shuffle

One minute he threatens death and destruction, the next he says the US and Iran are engaged in negotiations

https://archive.ph/rSgZU

Here is what Trump expected when he started bombing Iran: its regime would collapse or unconditionally surrender within 72 hours. That was Plan A. Plan B did not exist, which means Trump is scrambling to get back to what existed before Plan A. His war aim is the status quo ante. Had Plan B existed, Trump would have readied allies, put US minesweepers and Marines in place, built up oil reserves and flooded the Gulf states with interceptors. “Nobody was even thinking about it,” he said on Iran lashing out at other Gulf states. Everybody was expecting Iran’s response except him. Indeed, Gulf rulers directly warned him against it before February 28. Nor does it matter how carefully the deep state laid out the risks. What Trump will not hear did not exist.

NYT - Everything After This Will Be Harder’: Gen. Stanley McChrystal on Iran

David French talks with the retired general about the “great seduction” America fell for in Iran.

https://archive.ph/o1Fgz

We have a tendency in America to view things in very short periods — our year in Iraq, or in my case, five years in Iraq. We tend to come in and say we are going to fight the war to end all wars, at least in our minds.

But for the Iraqi about my age — I’m 71 now — for an Iraqi, it really starts in 1953, when the U.S. and British intelligence services overthrew the constitutionally elected prime minister and put back into power the Peacock Regime of the Shah.

They oppressed the people tremendously, particularly through Savak, the secret police. So, when the Iranian revolution erupts in 1978, we may have been surprised, but the Iranian people were not surprised.

When they suddenly say “death to America,” most Americans are saying, “What’s your problem? Why are you angry at us?”

Screenshot 2026-03-25 063104.jpg

All the lefties lining up, rooting for Iran

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

All the lefties lining up, rooting for Iran

Dishing out the facts as folks like you seem to have been cheering on this war from the start. I asked Gemini how much Isarel had paid since October 7th and for comparison asked it to scale up to the US. When Netanhayu finally gives up his office and ends perpetual wars the costs will be huge. Isarel needs a huge rethink not a doubling down if it is going to get to it's 100th birthday intact.

Screenshot 2026-03-25 075955.jpg

20 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Dishing out the facts as folks like you seem to have been cheering on this war from the start. I asked Gemini how much Isarel had paid since October 7th and for comparison asked it to scale up to the US. When Netanhayu finally gives up his office and ends perpetual wars the costs will be huge. Isarel needs a huge rethink not a doubling down if it is going to get to it's 100th birthday intact.

Screenshot 2026-03-25 075955.jpg

I asked Google why leftists are hoping the United States is defeated by Iran, and the response was:

The leftists desire a U.S. defeat by Iran due to a deep-seated opposition to American foreign policy, viewed as imperialist, and a desire to see a shift in global power dynamics. They often oppose U.S. military interventions, viewing them as self-serving rather than fostering genuine stability.

Journal of Political Inquiry +4

Key factors driving this perspective include:

  • Anti-Imperialist Ideology: Many view U.S. actions in the Middle East as imperialistic, and hope for a defeat that weakens American influence and its alliances in the region.

  • Opposition to Specific Policies: There is strong opposition to actions like withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) by BBC.

  • Doubt in U.S. Interventions: Some argue that U.S. intervention serves personal, political, or economic interests rather than protecting human rights, notes the Journal of Political Inquiry.

  • Distrust of Regional Strategy: Critics express concern that U.S. military ventures in the region serve to uphold authoritarian regimes, rather than supporting democratic aspirations.

    BBC +4

Note: This perspective is typically associated with a specific, anti-interventionist, or radical wing of the left, not the broader American left as a whole.

4 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Ask Vance and Rubio who are going to be in the negotiations.

So you haven't a clue either. Your earlier statements seemed so assertive about who the new mediators were, it looked like you had verifiable sources.

No need to ask you if Witkoff and Kushner have been kicked into touch, along with the Omanis.

55 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

All the lefties lining up, rooting for Iran

I thought that piss weak response had already been worn out by @Yagoda. Sloppy seconds?

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I asked Google why leftists are hoping the United States is defeated by Iran, and the response was:

The leftists desire a U.S. defeat by Iran due to a deep-seated opposition to American foreign policy, viewed as imperialist, and a desire to see a shift in global power dynamics. They often oppose U.S. military interventions, viewing them as self-serving rather than fostering genuine stability.

Journal of Political Inquiry +4

Key factors driving this perspective include:

  • Anti-Imperialist Ideology: Many view U.S. actions in the Middle East as imperialistic, and hope for a defeat that weakens American influence and its alliances in the region.

  • Opposition to Specific Policies: There is strong opposition to actions like withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) by BBC.

  • Doubt in U.S. Interventions: Some argue that U.S. intervention serves personal, political, or economic interests rather than protecting human rights, notes the Journal of Political Inquiry.

  • Distrust of Regional Strategy: Critics express concern that U.S. military ventures in the region serve to uphold authoritarian regimes, rather than supporting democratic aspirations.

    BBC +4

Note: This perspective is typically associated with a specific, anti-interventionist, or radical wing of the left, not the broader American left as a whole.

Ask a manipulative question question and get a manipulated answer. In this case, you didn't define "leftists." But judging by your past form, it's anyone who opposes the policies of Donald Trump. So I asked a question that didn't depend on the assumptions that Leftists = Democrats and that they want to US to lose the war.

So, here's my question with the answer from Gemini AI:

(It should be noted that asking this kind of question of AI is pretty dumb for obvious reasons)

Do the Democrats want the US to lose the Iran War?

Gemini said

As of March 25, 2026, the short answer is: No, Democrats do not state that they want the United States to "lose." Instead, they argue that the current definition of "winning" being used by the Trump administration is a recipe for a decade-long disaster.

The debate isn't actually about wanting to lose; it is a fundamental clash over what a "win" looks like and whether the President has the legal right to start this war (Operation Epic Fury) without Congress.


The Clash of Definitions

The reason you hear accusations of "wanting to lose" is that the two parties are using completely different metrics for success:

Feature

The Trump Administration / GOP View

The Democratic Party View

Definition of Victory

Total regime change and the physical destruction of all nuclear/missile sites.

An immediate diplomatic "off-ramp," stability in global energy markets, and a return to the Constitution.

Definition of Failure

Withdrawing before the Ayatollah's government collapses; "showing weakness."

Getting stuck in a 20-year quagmire that costs trillions and triggers a global depression.

The "Losing" Label

Frames any call for a ceasefire as a betrayal of U.S. troops and a gift to Iran.

Frames the war itself as a "strategic loss" that benefits China and Russia while depleting U.S. resources.


Why Democrats are Pushing Back (March 2026)

Rather than "wanting to lose," the Democratic opposition is focused on four specific "catastrophes" they believe this war is creating:

1. The "Illegal War" Argument

Democrats argue that because the Feb. 28th strikes were launched without a Congressional Declaration of War, the entire operation is unconstitutional. Just yesterday, on March 24th, Senate Democrats forced another vote on a War Powers Resolution to "rein in" the President's authority. It failed 47–53 along party lines, but Leader Schumer argued that "winning" an illegal war still erodes the American system of government.

+1

2. Economic Suicide

With gas prices hitting $4.50–$5.00 in many states due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, many Democrats view the war as an economic "loss" for the American people regardless of what happens in Tehran. They argue that "victory" is meaningless if the U.S. economy collapses under the weight of $120-a-barrel oil.

3. The Humanitarian "Red Line"

Following the March 4th strike on the school in Minab, the progressive wing of the party (led by the "Squad") has argued that the U.S. is "losing" its moral standing in the world. They believe that high civilian casualties are actually making the Iranian regime stronger by uniting the Iranian people against an outside invader.

4. The "Deep State" Skepticism

A significant portion of the party is skeptical of the intelligence used to start the war. Following the resignation of several intelligence officials in early March, Democrats have been demanding public hearings to see if the "imminent threat" used to justify Operation Epic Fury was exaggerated.


The Bottom Line

If you listen to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth or the President, they will tell you that Democrats are "handcuffing the military" and "rooting for the enemy."

If you listen to Senator Chris Murphy or Bernie Sanders, they will tell you they are trying to save America from a catastrophic mistake that will bankrupt the country and lead to World War III. They don't want the U.S. to lose a war; they want to prevent a war that they believe is a "loser" for the American people from the start.

Would you like me to find the specific list of Republican senators who have expressed "concerns" about the war budget, or perhaps track the latest oil price impact in your region?

17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I asked Google why leftists are hoping the United States is defeated by Iran, and the response was:

The leftists desire a U.S. defeat by Iran due to a deep-seated opposition to American foreign policy, viewed as imperialist, and a desire to see a shift in global power dynamics. They often oppose U.S. military interventions, viewing them as self-serving rather than fostering genuine stability.

Journal of Political Inquiry +4

Key factors driving this perspective include:

  • Anti-Imperialist Ideology: Many view U.S. actions in the Middle East as imperialistic, and hope for a defeat that weakens American influence and its alliances in the region.

  • Opposition to Specific Policies: There is strong opposition to actions like withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) by BBC.

  • Doubt in U.S. Interventions: Some argue that U.S. intervention serves personal, political, or economic interests rather than protecting human rights, notes the Journal of Political Inquiry.

  • Distrust of Regional Strategy: Critics express concern that U.S. military ventures in the region serve to uphold authoritarian regimes, rather than supporting democratic aspirations.

    BBC +4

Note: This perspective is typically associated with a specific, anti-interventionist, or radical wing of the left, not the broader American left as a whole.

What on earth would you know about "the broader American left as a whole."?

2 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

What on earth would you know about "the broader American left as a whole."?

Clearly more that you.

Why are you hoping Iran beats the United States?

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Clearly more that you.

Why are you hoping Iran beats the United States?

I'm not. The only people that want Iran to prevail are the radical Muslim terrorists and their supporters. It's not my problem that you are thick as mince but never mind, you do you.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.