No tags, links or clips by myself

Just a recommendation which I've mentioned before 

Watch Bitter Lake by Adam Curtis 

It's the closest explanation I've seen to our relatively modern fucked up world

I have a confession to make:

i wanted/needed to find out something quickly today so my wife suggested I use Chatgpt, I did for the first time ever and was surprised at the speedy and accurate response

6 minutes ago, athywhite1958 said:

I have a confession to make:

i wanted/needed to find out something quickly today so my wife suggested I use Chatgpt, I did for the first time ever and was surprised at the speedy and accurate response

I put your post in ChatGBT. This what came up. See the problem? Sometimes the font gives it away. All the following is AI.

If you’d like to make it read a little more naturally, you could write:

I have a confession to make: Today I needed to find something out quickly, and my wife suggested I try ChatGPT. It was my first time using it, and I was genuinely surprised by how fast and accurate the response was.

Or, in a more casual tone:

Confession time: I needed an answer to something today, and my wife suggested I use ChatGPT. I’d never tried it before, but I was honestly impressed by how quickly and accurately it answered my question.

If you’re planning to post this somewhere (social media, a review, a message to a friend, etc.), I can tailor the wording to fit the audience.

I can't see it being a regular thing for me

Me neither but if you look at the last paragraph of my post, you can see how some will use it to ‘win’ an argument on social media.

It’s great for researching though. As long as you look at the sources rather than relying on the AI to make an opinion. Obviously loads of other benefits but in the context of this discussion, it has a downside.

2 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

Me neither but if you look at the last paragraph of my post, you can see how some will use it to ‘win’ an argument on social media.

It’s great for researching though. As long as you look at the sources rather than relying on the AI to make an opinion. Obviously loads of other benefits but in the context of this discussion, it has a downside.

It's just like a more personalised version of Google for me. And you still have to sense check anything.

10 minutes ago, kent_white said:

It's just like a more personalised version of Google for me. And you still have to sense check anything.

Google uses AI. If in doubt, just ask.😉

1 hour ago, Sluffy said:

We don't actually know that, it is only what we are constantly told.

Why would the US or any of the western security agencies want to say otherwise if they are actively involved with other Arabic countries who have agents imbedded within other countries security agencies and/or militant groups?

You may say I'm only speculating - well maybe so but do you really think other Arab countries don't spy on their neighbours and wouldn't it be easier for Arabs to embed themselves in other Arab countries than Jews post their bar mitzvah?

I don't doubt for one moment that intelligence and counter intelligence is happening all the time in multiple countries in the Middle East - wouldn't you?

And that the US receives multiple sources of intelligence from friendly allies (including from countries like the UK and France even Pakistan and Turkey), as well as friendly states like the UAE and Bahrain.

If you want to believe the US needs Israel for their national Security then that's up to you, I merely note from recent history (two Iraq Wars and the on off one with Iran), that the US has numerous allies in the region, countless US bases, satellites and global eavesdropping capabilities, and the proven ability to establish an overwhelming military task force within a short period of time and deploy them anywhere in the world, depends for it's national security on Israel that even Vance is calling a 'leper' country (my term not his).

It no longer makes sense to me.

And don't forget the war in Iran was framed to be on national security grounds to stop Iran making a nuclear bomb (based on Israeli intelligence), even though US intelligence was saying otherwise, that Trump claimed he'd already bombed it to fuck the year previously (that US intelligence also rubbished), and on the off chance of Iran being able to make one, not even having the ability to strike the US with (nor even the UK which is this side of the Atlantic)?

That's my line of thinking anyway.

It's fairly common knowledge that the Isrealis are pretty much the world leaders on that kind of thing, especially in that region

They're also up there on the development of military technology as well

Again, you're resorting to absolutes - I didn't suggest that no other country engages in intelligence and counter intelligence or that the US depends solely on Israel for its national security

3 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

It's fairly common knowledge that the Isrealis are pretty much the world leaders on that kind of thing, especially in that region

They're also up there on the development of military technology as well

Again, you're resorting to absolutes - I didn't suggest that no other country engages in intelligence and counter intelligence or that the US depends solely on Israel for its national security

Really???

Don't you think the Hamas massacre of Israelis in October 2023 killing over 1,300 people, might have proved that to be no more than a myth?

Look, I've no knowledge of anybody's country's 'secret services' (including our own), but wouldn't you agree that they are termed as 'secret' services for a reason?

I 'get' that Mossad, etc are feted (even deliberately so, to give confidence to the Israeli population to lead normal lives and to make enemies think twice before messing with them), but I would suggest most other countries 'secret' services simply go about their business completely away from any 'fame' and the glare of publicity.

And I'm not "resorting to absolutes", it's you who has claimed that the US supports Israel because it's in their national interests to do so, I'm merely pointing out that it once WAS in their interest but that no longer applies.

It is now more accurate to describe the relationship as being as a 'political' interest flowing from the wishes (and the money) of the American super donors to the political PAC's

Think of it another way if you like, the US under Trump as made it clear to all its European allies that it IS NOT in the US national interest to continue supporting NATO because it sees its national interest as facing China.

Why then would it see its national interest as being involved in the Middle East?

The answer is that it doesn't, or at least only in the way Europe matters to them - which clearly isn't a lot.

Trump has just has his arse handed to him in respect of his Middle Eastern conflict, his defeat seems to have come about through believing Netanyahu and presumably Israeli intelligence because he reject his own US intelligence before attacking Iran and killing its leader.

He wants to bail out of that part of the world as quickly as he can.

Cleary that result wasn't in its national interest and the much vaunted 'Iran will have no nuclear bomb' and which is hardly mentioned in the recently agree Memorandum of Agreement.

I wonder why?

If you want to believe the US sees Israel as being in their national interests then fine, I don't believe Trump's US sees any country important enough to them to be in their national interest - it sees itself big enough to do what it wants when it wants, on its own.

As I've previously said I don't believe the US has seen supporting Israel as being in it's national interest maybe even dating back as far as the first Gulf War.

FFS.

You make some decent points at times in your conveluted posts but despite repeatedly being asked to reign it in you can't help yourself.

How can you not see the simple premise that your posting style is pissing everyone else off?

10 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

FFS.

You make some decent points at times in your conveluted posts but despite repeatedly being asked to reign it in you can't help yourself.

How can you not see the simple premise that your posting style is pissing everyone else off?

It's hard for anyone to summarise that the worth of Israel to the US is now political rather than that of its national security, in three sentences.

Sorry if I've pissed you and anyone else off.

Thank you for at least noting that I have made some decent points.

12 hours ago, BobyBrno said:

Google uses AI. If in doubt, just ask.😉

it had to perform a search first though to find out

15 hours ago, kent_white said:

Well we've just enabled Iran. So good luck with that! 👍😁

'Enabled'? I'd say that they have been significantly 'disabled'.

54 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

'Enabled'? I'd say that they have been significantly 'disabled'.

Maybe. They won’t be for long though after Dumb Donnie gives them $300Bn to stop doing what they weren’t doing before he started the war.

2 hours ago, bolty58 said:

'Enabled'? I'd say that they have been significantly 'disabled'.

The regime are still in charge, they've just 'defeated' a superpower, they have won preferential terms in the peace deal, they've demonstrated that they can shut down the SOH at a moments notice therefore have enormous leverage AND are likely to impose some sort of tariff or fee for it's use in the coming months, they've shown the limits of American power and it's reluctance to put boots on the ground, the resistance movement has been quelled, it's reputation as the sole defender of it's proxies has been strengthened, there is a ever increasing rift between the US and Israel, the gulf states are now in a position where they are questioning US hegemony in the area and US intelligence reports state that they've only actually set Iran's nuclear programme back by months. These are just off the top of my head.

Iran's military has taken a battering. There have been tactical military successes. But Iran will regroup and recover these given the terms of the deal.

Iran is in a MUCH better strategic position than it was prewar and the west is in a much weaker one. Literally nobody - including MAGA and right wing US think tanks are framing this as a US 'win'.

Barring an Iran war MK II - with the US going all in - this has been a huge win for Iran.

It's in an even greater place than what Kent describes above, actually.

The assassination of it's leadership has removed the old dinosaurs (and their way of thinking and doing) and allowed younger more flexible thinkers to act, Iran's attacks on their neighbours (including those seen to be close to Iran) were totally unexpected (the aim being for them in turn to put pressure on the US to stop the war, so they would themselves stop being attacked - think why all the flights in and out of the Gulf were stopped, prestigious hotels damaged, oil terminals set alight, etc).

The discovery that use of drone power in vastly more effective a extremely more cheaper than building proxy army's such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthi's.

Seizing the control of Hormuz (and keeping it - no matter how the US try to frame things otherwise).

It's now looking to me that the Gulf states are now going to be paying tribute to Iran indefinitely, the funding of the eyewatering $300m reparation fund, conceding (in practical terms at least, if not legal ones) the ownership of the whole Straights of Hormuz, and paying for transit through it.

Even the 'hammering' of Iran's military is not an issue (I suggest we are actually referring to military 'hardware' here) in that warfare has drastically changed in the last few years away from tanks and battleships to unmanned air and sea drones (as demonstrated by Ukraine's heroic battle against the military super power Russia).

5 hours ago, kent_white said:

The regime are still in charge, they've just 'defeated' a superpower, they have won preferential terms in the peace deal, they've demonstrated that they can shut down the SOH at a moments notice therefore have enormous leverage AND are likely to impose some sort of tariff or fee for it's use in the coming months, they've shown the limits of American power and it's reluctance to put boots on the ground, the resistance movement has been quelled, it's reputation as the sole defender of it's proxies has been strengthened, there is a ever increasing rift between the US and Israel, the gulf states are now in a position where they are questioning US hegemony in the area and US intelligence reports state that they've only actually set Iran's nuclear programme back by months. These are just off the top of my head.

Iran's military has taken a battering. There have been tactical military successes. But Iran will regroup and recover these given the terms of the deal.

Iran is in a MUCH better strategic position than it was prewar and the west is in a much weaker one. Literally nobody - including MAGA and right wing US think tanks are framing this as a US 'win'.

Barring an Iran war MK II - with the US going all in - this has been a huge win for Iran.

??? Just explain to me how this is a synopsis of the 'enabled vs disabled' theory?

Did I suggest it had been a US victory? Don't think so but go ahead and prove me wrong.

I would be prepared to argue however that those primitive fanatics of the Iranian suppression regime losing their ability to build a nuclear missile is a win for the world. It will not be 'months of setback' if they lose their fissile material or have it vastly degraded.

6 hours ago, kent_white said:

The regime are still in charge, they've just 'defeated' a superpower, they have won preferential terms in the peace deal, they've demonstrated that they can shut down the SOH at a moments notice therefore have enormous leverage AND are likely to impose some sort of tariff or fee for it's use in the coming months, they've shown the limits of American power and it's reluctance to put boots on the ground, the resistance movement has been quelled, it's reputation as the sole defender of it's proxies has been strengthened, there is a ever increasing rift between the US and Israel, the gulf states are now in a position where they are questioning US hegemony in the area and US intelligence reports state that they've only actually set Iran's nuclear programme back by months. These are just off the top of my head.

Iran's military has taken a battering. There have been tactical military successes. But Iran will regroup and recover these given the terms of the deal.

Iran is in a MUCH better strategic position than it was prewar and the west is in a much weaker one. Literally nobody - including MAGA and right wing US think tanks are framing this as a US 'win'.

Barring an Iran war MK II - with the US going all in - this has been a huge win for Iran.

but apart from that, what have the Romans ever done for us?

36 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

??? Just explain to me how this is a synopsis of the 'enabled vs disabled' theory?

Did I suggest it had been a US victory? Don't think so but go ahead and prove me wrong.

I would be prepared to argue however that those primitive fanatics of the Iranian suppression regime losing their ability to build a nuclear missile is a win for the world. It will not be 'months of setback' if they lose their fissile material or have it vastly degraded.

Is there anything I wrote that you disagree with? Because if not, I don't understand how you could read it and interpret it as anything other than a massive slapped arse for Trump and the US. It's a strategic loss of world altering proportions.

And Iran have absolutely not lost their ability to produce a nuke. At best we'll get international observers moving in to keep an eye on things. Which is what we already had under the Obama deal, when Iran were well and truly in their box.

Just now, wakey said:

but apart from that, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Yeah - to be fair. Apart from that paragraph they've done a brilliant job! 😁

25 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

??? Just explain to me how this is a synopsis of the 'enabled vs disabled' theory?

Did I suggest it had been a US victory? Don't think so but go ahead and prove me wrong.

I would be prepared to argue however that those primitive fanatics of the Iranian suppression regime losing their ability to build a nuclear missile is a win for the world. It will not be 'months of setback' if they lose their fissile material or have it vastly degraded.

It certainly isn't a US victory by any stretch of the imagination.

Trump will however present it as such to his vatnik followers though.

As for these so called "primitive fanatics of the Iranian suppression regime" they've (in your own words) prevented the US from being victorious in its war against them - not bad for a bunch of 'primitives' against the worlds greatest military superpower, wouldn't you agree?

As for preventing Iran from building a nuclear missile, well that was exactly the case with Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) of 2015 (which was agreed by the UK, France, Russia and China as well) that Tump unilaterally tore up in his first term and which he's paying billions to simply trying to get back to - as per the link below -

How does Trump’s MOU with Iran compare with Obama’s nuclear pact? | US-Israel war on Iran News | Al Jazeera

14 hours ago, kent_white said:

Is there anything I wrote that you disagree with? Because if not, I don't understand how you could read it and interpret it as anything other than a massive slapped arse for Trump and the US. It's a strategic loss of world altering proportions.

And Iran have absolutely not lost their ability to produce a nuke. At best we'll get international observers moving in to keep an eye on things. Which is what we already had under the Obama deal, when Iran were well and truly in their box.

So you are pre-empting the outcome of any actual agreement then. There's a few like that on here. There will be a big degradation or destruction of their fissile material - we can all play Confucius (except Sweep it seems).

Like those referred to, all you wish to see is a tick in the L column for Trump. Only 943 days to go.

14 hours ago, wakey said:

but apart from that, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Taken Gazza to their hearts.

1 hour ago, bolty58 said:

So you are pre-empting the outcome of any actual agreement then. There's a few like that on here. There will be a big degradation or destruction of their fissile material - we can all play Confucius (except Sweep it seems).

Like those referred to, all you wish to see is a tick in the L column for Trump. Only 943 days to go.

No - I want to see a big tick in the W column for the people of Iran. As was promised.

18 hours ago, bolty58 said:

I would be prepared to argue however that those primitive fanatics of the Iranian suppression regime losing their ability to build a nuclear missile is a win for the world. It will not be 'months of setback' if they lose their fissile material or have it vastly degraded.

I think we all agree with that, but didn't Trump tell us he'd already done that once only a year ago?