该用户的聊天记录定位。
I don’t mind you believing No is right. That’s fair and square. But to claim that the American commitment is an expression of openness, that looks bad.
I don’t mind you believing No is right. That’s fair and square. But to claim that the American commitment is an expression of openness, that looks bad.
I respect if someone makes an argument that sequenced commitment is not definitive. I disagree but that argument makes sense. But to claim that “the US is _open_ to withdrawal _depending on negotiations_” seems to be manipulation or bad faith at best. The US committed and agreed to do withdraw the troops later. They didn’t say: “We’re open to negotiate about it.” The negotiations took place and the result of it was that the US committed to a withdrawal once the second phase is complete. Importantly, the US engages in the second round of negotiations in good faith. It’s not a fake commitment to buy time. It is reasonable to assume that both sides expect a second deal, and that thus the US will be withdrawing their troops, as their clear and signed commitment states. <@941405798096076880>
I respect if someone makes an argument that sequenced commitment is not definitive. I disagree but that argument makes sense. But to claim that “the US is _open_ to withdrawal _depending on negotiations_” seems to be manipulation or bad faith at best. The US committed and agreed to do withdraw the troops later. They didn’t say: “We’re open to negotiate about it.” The negotiations took place and the result of it was that the US committed to a withdrawal once the second phase is complete. Importantly, the US engages in the second round of negotiations in good faith. It’s not a fake commitment to buy time. It is reasonable to assume that both sides expect a second deal, and that thus the US will be withdrawing their troops, as their clear and signed commitment states. <@941405798096076880>
Polymarket