Iran

#3,701
#3,701
Yesterday Whoopi and the hosts of the view proclaimed being a woman in Iran was the same as being black in America.
 
#3,704
#3,704
Matt2496 said:
I’m getting serious 2003 WMD vibes from this.



I want to see the definitive proof.
Click to expand...

They’ve been saying Iran is close to nuclear weapons for 30 years now. At this point I’ve chalked it up as propaganda to justify supporting Israel/making billions from the carnage. Gives me Iraq vibes with the propaganda surrounding that and their “WMD”
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, Persian Vol and Matt2496
#3,705
#3,705
volbound1700 said:
Russia has a history of being horrible on offense but great on defense in wars. Basically Russia performs a lot better against people that invade them. A lot of this has to do with logistics. Russian logistical equipment sucks and always had with the exception of brief periods.

People underestimate how the oil trucks and equipment the USA gave to the USSR in 1940s really helped them drive back the Nazis.
Click to expand...
Agree 100 percent. They are terrible on the offensive and tend to waste hundreds of thousands of lives in the process.
 
#3,706
#3,706
Matt2496 said:
I’m getting serious 2003 WMD vibes from this.



I want to see the definitive proof.
Click to expand...


Berry4Heisman14 said:
They’ve been saying Iran is close to nuclear weapons for 30 years now. At this point I’ve chalked it up as propaganda to justify supporting Israel/making billions from the carnage. Gives me Iraq vibes with the propaganda surrounding that and their “WMD”
Click to expand...

I’m amazed y’all won’t let this false narrative die.

Iraq
Saddam denied enrichment of uranium
The UN denied finding enriched uranium

Iran
Admits to 60% enrichment
The UN admits they have enriched uranium to 60% a level that is well beyond and non military use

How can you guys continue pushing this obviously false narrative?
 
  • Like
Reactions: -GiveHim6- and MemphisVol77
#3,707
#3,707
Vol8188 said:
I’m amazed y’all won’t let this false narrative die.

Iraq
Saddam denied enrichment of uranium
The UN denied finding enriched uranium

Iran
Admits to 60% enrichment
The UN admits they have enriched uranium to 60% a level that is well beyond and non military use

How can you guys continue pushing this obviously false narrative?
Click to expand...
Suddenly Iran being "two weeks" away from a fission based nuclear weapon causes my BS meter to spike.

Obviously, you need more than just enriched U-235 to create a nuclear bomb. You also need a proper detonation mechanism, which is extremely difficult to get right.

This "two weeks away" statement sounds like something the government warmongers pulled out of their rear end to justify getting directly involved with Iran.

All I want to see is definitive proof of that statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy, EasternVol, Persian Vol and 1 other person
#3,708
#3,708
Vol8188 said:
What am I missing? Idk that I’m seeing it as a bad outcome. It detonates and we further cave in the entrance making it harder to access, but possibly don’t fully destroy the facility? Maybe it doesn’t detonate.

Outside of our aircraft being taken out or personnel lost, I can’t think of bad outcomes.
Click to expand...
These are good points. If the majority of the nuclear program is at Fordow and we severely disable it that would be a good result. We may have to continue the bombing effort. I am also certain Iran has more than one entrance into each facility, including Fordow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#3,709
#3,709
Matt2496 said:
Suddenly Iran being "two weeks" away from a fission based nuclear weapon causes my BS meter to spike.

Obviously, you need more than just enriched U-235 to create a nuclear bomb. You also need a proper detonation mechanism, which is extremely difficult to get right.

This "two weeks away" statement sounds like something the government warmongers pulled out of their rear end to justify getting directly involved with Iran.
Click to expand...
There is no definitive proof, but will bet that both China, Russia and North has provided or will provide the technology to allow Iran to break out a deliverable nuke.
 
#3,711
#3,711
Vol8188 said:
I’m amazed y’all won’t let this false narrative die.

Iraq
Saddam denied enrichment of uranium
The UN denied finding enriched uranium

Iran
Admits to 60% enrichment
The UN admits they have enriched uranium to 60% a level that is well beyond and non military use

How can you guys continue pushing this obviously false narrative?
Click to expand...
I understand the point with the uranium at 60% and agree that’s far beyond civilian use. My point is it’s been “Iran is weeks away from a nuke” for 30 years now. It just reminds me of how fear was used to build support for the Iraq war.
 
#3,712
#3,712
FortSanders said:
There is no definitive proof, but will bet that both China, Russia and North has provided or will provide the technology to allow Iran to break out a deliverable nuke.
Click to expand...
China and Russia have supported them since the 80s/90s. If that’s the case why didn’t they do so a long time ago instead of being “weeks away” for 30 years
 
#3,713
#3,713
headhunter15 said:
Click to expand...


At this point, it looks like we're going to take a few swings at Fordow. Gotta wonder if the MOPs will be used to try and chip away at it, or whether the Pentagon will opt to inflict damage with thermobarics. Either way or both, I hope they're successful (and that we restrict our activities to the air alone).
 
  • Like
Reactions: headhunter15
#3,714
#3,714
Berry4Heisman14 said:
I understand the point with the uranium at 60% and agree that’s far beyond civilian use. My point is it’s been “Iran is weeks away from a nuke” for 30 years now. It just reminds me of how fear was used to build support for the Iraq war.
Click to expand...

Iran hasn’t had 60% uranium for 30 years. There’s also been numerous things that have slowed them down.

But the obvious thing that matters isn’t “will it happen in two weeks, two months, or two years”, but rather “are they trying and are they getting close”.

If so, none of the other matters. And the Iraq example is horrible because they had no enriched uranium and never claimed to
 
  • Like
Reactions: VAVol85
#3,715
#3,715
Matt2496 said:
Suddenly Iran being "two weeks" away from a fission based nuclear weapon causes my BS meter to spike.

Obviously, you need more than just enriched U-235 to create a nuclear bomb. You also need a proper detonation mechanism, which is extremely difficult to get right.

This "two weeks away" statement sounds like something the government warmongers pulled out of their rear end to justify getting directly involved with Iran.

All I want to see is definitive proof of that statement.
Click to expand...

Idk that it’s difficult to get. I know that if you’re enriching uranium to 60% there’s only one reason to do so. Once you’ve accepted that does it matter if they’re 2 weeks, months, or years away?

It doesn’t.

And the Iraq example is horrible. They had 0 enriched uranium. They never claimed to. The UN never claimed they did.

This is not even remotely comparable
 
#3,716
#3,716
Vol8188 said:
Iran hasn’t had 60% uranium for 30 years. There’s also been numerous things that have slowed them down.

But the obvious thing that matters isn’t “will it happen in two weeks, two months, or two years”, but rather “are they trying and are they getting close”.

If so, none of the other matters. And the Iraq example is horrible because they had no enriched uranium and never claimed to
Click to expand...
Yes, Iraq didn’t enrich uranium, but the parallel is in how fear was used to justify war. The public was told by US media Iraq had WMDs when it didn’t, just like we’re constantly told Iran is days away from a bomb yet that day never comes. So I’m not denying enrichment or even concern. I’m questioning how the narrative is used because “getting close” has been a political tool for a long time, even if a nuke never actually appears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and UTSuave’
#3,719
#3,719
Vol8188 said:
Idk that it’s difficult to get. I know that if you’re enriching uranium to 60% there’s only one reason to do so. Once you’ve accepted that does it matter if they’re 2 weeks, months, or years away?

It doesn’t.

And the Iraq example is horrible. They had 0 enriched uranium. They never claimed to. The UN never claimed they did.

This is not even remotely comparable
Click to expand...

 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill, BartW and Vol8188
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top