Unlikely, Europe would sooner buy more lng from the US than from Russia. And Russia’s drone supplier is likely not supplying much anymore, especially after Iran saw that Russia’s response to the US attacking is basically nothing. Putin is almost certainly very unhappy about this.
IIRC they found that even with balanced training data facial recognition models just do worse on darker-skinned people. Something about cameras picking up less contrast on the skin, meaning there are fewer easily-identifiable facial features it can pick up from an image.
So you were arguing a hypothetical point that hasn’t actually happened. I’m not sure what the point of that is, you’re essentially shoehorning people in a position that you believe they might take, despite them not actually having done so (and possibly wouldn’t take in the first place).
Word of advice: don’t. People tend to not respond well to what is essentially a strawman argument. Don’t focus on hypotheticals but on what has actually happened and what people are actually arguing in favour of. Otherwise you’re having an imaginary discussion with imaginary people.
So either the rules hold, and the seizing was legitimate, or they don’t hold anymore, meaning it doesn’t matter it was seized?
What were you arguing again?
Both Hamas and Israel seem to agree it is a war? Hamas stated goal was to create a “permanent state of war” with Israel, and Netanyahu announced that Israel was at war as well. You think they’re only pretending or something?
I’m not sure what the point of denying that it is a war is? It doesn’t undercut the genocide perpetrated by Israel in any way, nor does it justify it. Perhaps you could explain this as I’m not following.
Palestinians would be checking if Palestinians are sticking to the peace deal. It’s not a good idea to do that, and that has nothing to do with them being Palestinians. You need a 3rd party.
In case Russia and Ukraine brokered peace, you wouldn’t staff an oversight committee on the peace deal with Russians or Ukrainians either. You’d get an outside referee to do so.
Although my first choice wouldn’t be a bunch of conservative white dudes either, mind.
It can be both.
It’s a pretty braindead choice, but I’m not sure this board checks the Israelis in the first place. According to the deal, they are supposed to remove themselves from Palestinian land, so they should be outside of the territory the board oversees.
Sure, but a nuclear program is kinda hard to hide. Even spy sattelites will likely spot the signs, and good luck blocking those.
The “Board of Peace” is a bit more symbolic. The actual work will be done by the NCAG which is led by and comprises of Palestinians.
The BoP functions a bit more like an oversight committee would in a business. Not handling the day-to-day, but monitoring progress and checking for violations. It kind of makes sense that that entity doesn’t have Palestinians in it, as the board needs to make sure all parties adhere to the peace plan. This necessitates it to be a third-party (in this case the US, as decided by the US). It should be mentioned that there’s also a Gaza Executive Board which also has Turkish, Qatari, UAE and UN representatives, which focuses on the operations of the NCAG.
So yeah, definitely US bias leading to the BoP having largely US officials (and cockroach Blair for some reason), but it’s seemingly not the worst thing ever here or evidence of an anti-Palestinian bias.
Afaik, no Israelis are involved in any board/committee.
I’d rather have the war stop though.
Pahlavi himself iirc never ruled and criticised his father who did, so not sure how correctly he can be characterized as an “autocrat”. He might well be genuine. But yes, it’s obvious that there’s foreign countries who’d much prefer him over the theocracy.
As far as I could tell the Shah guy isn’t actually intent on becoming a monarch (he was fairly critical of his dad) but wants to help Iran transition towards democracy. How he does that, no clue.
Still, apparently that guy is the dude most Iranians trust to take over. I say most, but it’s still barely 30% iirc; Iranians are pretty disillusioned with their (potential) leaders at the moment.
China also knows that other countries don’t exactly share that perspective. And it certainly won’t persuade Trump to not continue his anti-China policies.
Which is the point, it’s rarely tried because it’s very risky and unlikely to succeed or achieve your goals. The US military however was capable enough.
How many other heads of state do you remember being kidnapped from their palace, like from anywhere?
Of course Venezuela is no China or Russia and doesn’t compare to the US military, but they did have fairly modern Russian-made AA installations, all of which were successfully disabled or destroyed. And again: zero casualties.
You expect the operation would be successful, sure. But not as perfectly executed as it was.
In a matter of hours the US kidnapped the president of Venezuela, from his house on an army base, taking zero casualties. I don’t think there’s many militaries around that can beat that. It’s not the same as capturing Putin or Xi, sure, but it’s no trifle either.
A random Xitter account crying foul isn’t a sign of widespread crisis of confidence. Only 6% of Republicans don’t approve of the Maduro kidnapping. His approval rating went up a bit since the kidnapping (38% -> 42%).
His base, by and large, support the warmongering.
Germany and Japan were fascist states that went on the offensive, and both were forced into total capitulation followed by extensive programmes to uproot the fascist elements from their societies, paired with programmes to help rebuild.
Syria was primarily fighting a civil war against a dictator, not against the US and Israel.
In this case, Iran was attacked and its spiritual leader was assassinated. And as much as we dislike that guy, many Iranians did like him. Iran was then heavily bombed, including what appear to be civilian targets. There are no clear signs of widespread civil unrest that could topple the regime entirely yet.
I don’t see this ending well anytime soon.