Jump to content

Rex Kramer

Full Members
  • Posts

    3043
  • Joined

Posts posted by Rex Kramer

  1. 53 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

    Iran appears, like Israel to have zero interest in discussing a cease fire. Neither side of that surprises me even a little.

      Reveal hidden contents

    DUBAI - Iran has told mediators Qatar and Oman that it is not open to negotiating a ceasefire while it is under Israeli attack, an official briefed on the communications told Reuters on Sunday, as the two foes launched fresh attacks and raised fears of a wider conflict.

    "The Iranians informed Qatari and Omani mediators that they will only pursue serious negotiations once Iran has completed its response to the Israeli pre-emptive strikes," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the conflict.

    Iran has vowed to "open the gates of hell" in retaliation in what has emerged as the biggest ever confrontation between the longstanding enemies.

    Iran has vowed to "open the gates of hell" in retaliation in what has emerged as the biggest ever confrontation between the longstanding enemies.

    The official told Reuters media reports that Iran appealed to Oman and Qatar to engage the U.S. to broker a ceasefire and renew nuclear talks were inaccurate.

    Reuters Link

    Iran, if it continues, will get absolutely smoked. This is old man ayatollah pride we are witnessing. And it’ll end with his downfall. 

  2. 1 hour ago, MadTrapper said:

    Dude. Sid Miller supports this...the guy who wholly believes in 2000 Mules. I'm an O&G guy who's worked onshore and offshore and this is 100% a terrible idea to even think about.

    But more to the thread...who would pay for such expensive water? Farmers and most O&G outfits would rather just pump it fresh. Both have pretty slim margins right now, so it may be a moo point.

    Any topic introduced in a fashion to be an anti-oil dick, and intro’d by CaptainAnt is not gonna be read. I didn’t even read the article. Maybe I will now. 

    • Haha 1
  3. 2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Calm the fuck down. We were approaching the question from different perspectives. I was looking at purely from a technical "get it done" perspective of who can mediate. I wasn't suggesting who should or analyzing political implications. I understand your points generally and already said I agreed it wouldn't be good for the US. I don't know what else you want. Go fucking take a Xanax or something. Your brain fucking turns off and you go rage mode whenever Israel is mentioned. 

    It has nothing to do with Israel. There is no perspective where China leading a peace negotiation makes sense. It’s an incredibly naive and dumb comment. You’re not dumb, and you’re saying this to be contrarian. Walz made an off the cuff comment. You’re actually rationalizing his comment. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

    You're making the same mistake. The question wasn't about what he wanted. It was about which entity was in a position to do it. The answer demonstrates the difficulty of the situation from our perspective. 

    At any rate, I didn't intend this to be a huge derail, so let's drop it and get back to updates on events. Iran has updated the number of scientists killed to 9. 

    There is also this:

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/14/world/israel-iran-news/db1009e6-b251-5d94-bdab-cb4e25bd1276?smid=url-share

     

    You live in fantasy land. I mean it is quite astounding. 

    • Fuck You 1
  5. 11 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

    I think you've misunderstood the question. Your point appears to be that it would be bad FOR US. That may be true. But that isn't what I was analyzing. The question was who was in a position to negotiate a peace successfully, not what is the ideal outcome for the US.  I don't disagree that China negotiating a peace isn't an ideal outcome for the US. 

    Therefore the US and Israel would never let it occur. I can’t believe you’re this pedantic. 

  6. 23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    We aren't a party. I don't know that either Iran or Israel have particularly strong feelings on China. You keep saying it is terrible idea. But 1) you haven't actually said why and 2) it isnt like I'm saying I want it, it just is reality. There aren't really any other strong players that haven't already staked a position here. 

    Y'all be dense. For real. 

    I stated exactly why it’s a terrible idea. You’re not taking the time to read my words. Goodnight. 

  7. 3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Involved is one thing.  The principal peace negotiator is another.  The money and emotional interest is why we're not credible to Iran.

     

    2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Again, what are you arguing? I know a thing or two about mediation. A heavily biased party is never going to be a good mediator. It just isn't how it works. The US can certainly exert pressure on Iran (and Israel). But the Iranians are never going to see it as anything but an Israeli proxi. That's just the reality. I don't know why you think China is a bad option. It hasn't staked any particularly strong position with regard to Israel that I'm aware of. 

    Both fair posts. Until we get to China. You’ve got ME and Russian noise - and it’s noise contained in the region - and you’ve got China. China would seek to fuck us over in any dealing with Iran.  It’d literally be the worst option to negotiate some sort of peace. And Israel would see it that way too, as would Iran. It’d be a worse option than what is transpiring before our eyes.  Ultimately for all parties. Terrible idea. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  8. 12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    I really don't know what point you're making. What we want is irrelevant. The question was what party is in position to mediate an end to this. It isn't us. That's a fact. China is a decent option. I'm not sure what the other one is. Nd

    You’d be a terrible geopolitic. You’ve gotta stay involved particularly with the money and emotional interest invested in Israel. China is a laughable option. 

    Edit: China is probably the worst option I can think of. 

  9. 4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    China is both a strong party and semi neutral. Iran isn't going to listen to us. 

    Iran won’t listen to anyone. I’d rather us be involved behind the scenes than them have a nuke, and I think that goes for most admins, R or D. 

  10. 2 hours ago, Serak The Preparer said:

    This whole bit is peak fucking @Rex Kramer. Just before recent Israeli strikes:

    Surly posters: It's a bummer that the deal prohibiting Iran's development is no longer in effect. It seems like they were complying withe deal before Trump cancelled it.

    Rex: You are all a bunch if Irani apologists, there's no way Iran was complying, the whole system is out of order!

    Surly posters: We are not apologizing, just pointing out there there is no longer an agreement for them to stop developing nuclear weapons.

    Rex: whatever, Israel has attacked, no longer relevant.

    ... attacks begin ...

    Surly posters: Continue to say that Trump struck down the deal banning Iran from developing nuclear weapons

    Rex: They weren't complying and stop blaming Trump

    Surly posters: Here's evidence they were complying

    Rex: I didn't know about that, but stop blaming Trump

    Surly posters: Here is the year that Trump struck down the deal

    Rex: whatever, I'm just tired of Trump being blamed

    Gonna disagree with your police work there, Lou. I don’t care if anyone blames Trump. I don’t at all and hate him. But good timing on the post with the slicing and dicing of threads, totally out of context, as immamac does all the time. 

  11. Where is the LSU Freek gif of the Saban military parade?  Can someone post it?

    found it.  Parade tomorrow is reminiscient of North Korea, as captured by the great LSU Freek making fun of Bama. image.gif.048dc0ffc2b3483201be03f6ec1ab1ac.gif

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  12. 50 minutes ago, Hank_Hill said:

    Surely you think more regulation of their nuclear programs was better than less, no? Also, who is saying Iran is in the right?

    Relative to Trump doing anything right (and I’m not at all saying he did here)?  99% of the board dude.

    Any conversation about anything (foreign policy in this case) devolves into Trump hatred. Granted this has Trump squarely in it, but this is a norm that is applied across Surlyhorns and general social media.  Basically Brisket has successfully cloned himself multiple times. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    I'm not going to do any more of your homework. Educate yourself rather than make definitive, blustering statements next time.

    I made no such definitive statement. I asked for a link.  You provided. My reading comprehension was off. You called me on it. Thanks for the 10 seconds of homework for me. 

  14. 1 minute ago, elfenix said:

    you seem pretty certain for someone who admits he doesn't know and has no idea.

    No, I’m not certain at all and am asking questions. 

    1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

    We have no way of knowing. He claimed he did. The reports from the IAEA that was actually doing the inspections indicated compliance. Again, those reports were done quarterly and you can read all of them. The information is pretty detailed and specific. 

    The reports themselves weren’t what I was wondering about. This verbiage from the article suggests France and Trump had questions about the deal in place: “Le Drian, whose country signed the Iran deal along with Britain, Germany, China, Russia and the United States under then-President Barack Obama, said Tehran should be ready to negotiate on its future nuclear plans, its ballistic missile arsenal and its role in wars in Syria and Yemen.

    Those issues were not covered by the 2015 deal and Trump has cited this as a major reason for pulling Washington out of it.”
    1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

    He just wanted to take some shots at me I guess who the fuck knows

    My bad. Fantana, I’m sorry. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  15. 1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

    I mean... we have been withdrawn from the agreement for nearly a decade. Fantana's point was correct. You can't say it wasn't complying when the agreement was torn up. There was nothing to comply with. 

     

    1 minute ago, bolverk said:

    What's wrong with your reading comprehension?

    Fantana said that Iran was complying with the previous deal that got torn up by Trump 1.0. After that deal got torn up (as of yesterday at least), they were no longer complying. Fantana was NOT saying they were still in compliance as of yesterday.

     

    Got it. Did Trump have reason to tear up the 2015 agreement?  I read the whole article and it suggests he did, but I don’t know and have no interest in defending his actions (ever). Also, I have no idea about the efficacy of the IAEA. 

    • Fuck You 1
  16. 50 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

    I don’t think some posters on here realize or understand that Israel attacking Iran with American support is going to lead to significant future attacks on Americans. We are in the early stages of what’s going to become likely a multiyear shitshow imo. 

    I just took my Italy trip and my wife got back from another. I do not intend to travel abroad for a while because of this. I’d like to think they cannot touch us in our own country but know that’s foolhardy thinking. 

    I don’t think Iran can send operatives over here. I worry about Muslim extremists, though Lax makes a good point about Iran not being allied with much of the rest of the traditional terrorist hotbed centers. We need to continue to be behind the scenes, and our president needs to stop tweeting about helping them out with weapons. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...