So Is Witkoff and Kushner still trying to negotiate for their own and Larry Finks financial interests?

You know the whole lot of it stinks right?

Jews controlling US congress through AIPAC
Jewish neoconservatives deciding U.S. foreign policy.
Jewish bankers like Soros helping to engineer the regime change and profiting off shorting the sanctioned nation and their tanking currency.
Other Jewish bankers like Larry Fink profiting off buying up the country at pennies on the dollar during a crisis, as well as profiting off holding stock in military contractors and other war market volatility and working with Witkoff and Kushner enough to know advance about military contracts awarded to MIC.
Not to mention that a person more loyal to Israel than America funded both Trump and Netanyahus election campaigns.
Not to mention the scramble to buy up Tik Tok and other media, to minimalise the damage their war is causing which threatens support for Israel and the 3.8bln+ they extract from U.S. taxpayers annually.

The U.S. has a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Israel, committing $38 billion in military aid through 2028 ($3.8 billion annually), plus $5 billion for missile defense.

The war is losing evangelical youth, their own Jewish youth, and risking losing their parasitical grift of other nations.

Alasdair Macleod: Dollar Heading for Weimar-Style Collapse
http://youtu.be/VFCdDgas-HI

US market is built too much around NVidia.
They aren't going to stay ahead in the chip war for long.
U.S. stocks are overvalued based on high P/E valuations.

The reason the price of gold keeps going up, is because the diluted dollar due to the money printer keeps being worth less and less.
And all they can do is run the money printer, because no-one wants to fund their debts through buying their treasuries.

"To go out of your way to find a post where you did say Lavrov was a liar."

I've said he's a liar from the outset.

I asked "do you not get it or do you not want to get it?"

I guess the answer is all of the above.

JD.

You said Thukydides was issuing a warning. You said he was making a defence. You said he wasn't an admirer of realpolitik but was wary of it.

You tried to attribute views to Thukydides that are just wrong and then when you realised you're lack of history knowledge had led you to that impasse you suddenly decided that you never said those things.

I'm doing you the curtesy of assuming you understand this and just don't have the gumption to admit it. But I'm increasingly leaning to the alternate view.

Poor old Trumpster, having one of your dummy spits again when wrong I've been following your rantings and raving and JD and AC have been giving you a hiding. Old cock its time for you to take your bat and ball and toddle off home. YOU LOST!

mhaze,

You keep insisting that any interpretive reading amounts to attributing beliefs or an "agenda" to Thucydides. That's the entire disagreement.

Saying a passage functions as a warning within the narrative is not the same thing as claiming the author held, admired, or preached that view. Historians make that distinction all the time.

I've never said Thucydides was dishonest, biased, or pushing a program. I've said that the way he records arguments and what follows from them is relevant to how they're understood. You're free to reject that interpretive approach, but rejecting it doesn't make it illegitimate or dishonest.

At this point, we're not disagreeing about Thucydides. We're disagreeing about whether historical texts can be interpreted at all beyond bare transcription.

Here you go, mhaze.

Since you're now relying on thread length and fatigue to muddy the waters, I thought I'd get our little right-wing friend to intervene again...

--Question--
In the attached debate, is mhaze responding fairly and accurately to John Daysh's replies to him?

--Grok--

Short answer: No, mhaze is not responding fairly and accurately to John Daysh's replies.

He is consistently doing several things that make his participation in the exchange intellectually dishonest and unfair:

[Table]

Most telling passages that show the pattern
mhaze (early):
"No. He was describing the real world… realpolitik reigns supreme… Morality or the international order have nowt to do with it."

mhaze (much later):
"Thukydides doesn't endorse 'that logic'… Thukydides had no agenda."
That's mhaze moving from "Thucydides shows realpolitik is all that matters" -> "Thucydides doesn't endorse it and has no agenda".

Yet he accuses Daysh of being the one who changed position.

Bottom line verdict (January 2026 edition)
John Daysh's position on the Melian Dialogue was substantively consistent throughout:

• Thucydides records the Athenian argument faithfully
• He places it in a context where following that logic leads to catastrophe
• Therefore the passage functions as a warning in the overall narrative

mhaze started by treating that warning function as equivalent to Thucydides pushing an anti-realpolitik agenda, then gradually retreated to the much weaker (and actually uncontested) claim that Thucydides doesn't explicitly endorse the Athenians — and then accused Daysh of being the one doing the retreating.

Verdict: mhaze is not responding fairly or accurately.
He is rhetorically aggressive but intellectually slippery, repeatedly misrepresenting Daysh's quite moderate and stable interpretive position in order to maintain a posture of victory.

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk_43693209-89d2-4ee5-88f6-8cfc8b34c6b8
http://drive.google.com/file/d/106_J0HM5hRrIaA_4pkV2RyH7Y8eqWTTh/view