Iran Catch-All | IRAN WAR

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 123K
  • Politics 
ZZLPHeels said:
This article does not discount my post. In fact, it largely confirms that the attack on Fordow was a necessary act. It also states that Iran was a week away from being able to develop a nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...
Your claim of "a million times harder" is false and without meaning or possible reference. They have thousands of centrifuges, and likely moved equipment before the bombings. All of your posts on this making us safer, are variously specious, false, distortions and or disconnected from reality.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
So, just to be clear, your argument is that more unstable regimes with nuclear weapons is a good thing?
Click to expand...
Dude. I defend your positions when they get caricatured, and this is how you repay me? With strawmen and caricatures? I hate being strawmanned.

My argument is that it's neither a good thing nor a bad thing. It's just a thing, and it will have very little effect on our lives. The only thing a nuke gets for Iran is the ability to defend itself against US presidents attacking it for domestic political reasons. Or perhaps to dissuade Israel from bombing it when Israel wants. That's all. My evidence is the entire history of nuclear weapons.

I am all for diplomatic solutions, like the one we had until Trump ripped it up. I am generally speaking against war. There are many reasons for that, but one is the lesson that we've learned -- or should have learned -- from the last fifty years of wayward US military adventures.

Can you name the last Republican president who DIDN'T launch a war or use military force against a Middle Eastern Muslim nation? I think it was Nixon. Depends on how you interpret some of Reagan's actions. Either way, it's a dreadful record. You don't think Iran has a legitimate security interest in defending itself? I think it does, but more importantly it doesn't matter what we think. It matters what Iran thinks. And when you look at it from Iran's point of view, of course they need a nuke. That's what happens when your region gets invaded all the time.
 
an0maly said:
Your claim of "a million times harder" is false and without meaning or possible reference. They have thousands of centrifuges, and likely moved equipment before the bombings. All of your posts on this making us safer, are variously specious, false, distortions and or disconnected from reality.
Click to expand...
Yet the article you posted disagrees:

If the Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program, started on June 13, is to prove successful in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, then a necessary—but not sufficient—step will involve the elimination of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant.
thebulletin.org

The United States may destroy the Fordow enrichment plant. It won’t make the Iranian nuclear threat go away

If Israel decides to continue down the military path against Iran’s nuclear program, it has no choice but to ensure that the Fordow enrichment plant no longer poses a threat.
thebulletin.org thebulletin.org

Did you mean to post something else?
 
Healing said:
On this thread, that poster has devolved into the caricature of an ill informed American.
Click to expand...
Au contraire. My opponents here would have us believe that the US should simply ship a few nuclear-laden ICBMs to Iran, because what is it going to hurt?
 
Duke Mu said:
And diverted mega resources away from national security.
Click to expand...
The great irony of America First is that, when it comes to global influence and national security, we’ve been an unchallenged #1 for almost 40 years now. And an average president likely could have kept us there for another 50. But the odds are now shockingly high that we won’t be #1 in November 2028. We may not even be the top three.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
We bombed them because that's the only realistic way their nuclear facilities, which are largely buried deep underground, could be destroyed.
Click to expand...
But as people keep pointing out, there is little to no evidence that they were close to actually having a nuclear bomb, and no evidence that this bombing has actually hurt their chances of building one. If anything, it is likely only going to cause them to redouble their efforts to build one. And your persistent arguments about how weak Iran is only keep undermining your argument that we needed to bomb them. If Israel already had them on their knees and they're weaker than ever then there was no need for us to get involved, beyond Dear Leader's desire to bomb somebody to prove how tough he is.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
But as people keep pointing out, there is little to no evidence that they were close to actually having a nuclear bomb, and no evidence that this bombing has actually hurt their chances of building one. If anything, it is likely only going to cause them to redouble their efforts to build one. And your persistent arguments about how weak Iran is only keep undermining your argument that we needed to bomb them. If Israel already had them on their knees and they're weaker than ever then there was no need for us to get involved, beyond Dear Leader's desire to bomb somebody to prove how tough he is.
Click to expand...
As an0maly graciously pointed out, Iran was "less than a week" from being able to develop a nuclear weapon. You can't build a nuclear weapon in your grandma's garage. It is a tremendously complicated labor and resource-intensive effort, which is why there are only a handful of countries that have them. Taking out a nuclear enrichment facility that took many many years to build is a significant setback for Iran's nuclear program and it will take them some time to recover from it. There is a good chance that they will never be able to recover from these setbacks. That's why they built this facility literally inside of a mountain....they didn't want anything to happen to it.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Yet the article you posted disagrees:

If the Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program, started on June 13, is to prove successful in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, then a necessary—but not sufficient—step will involve the elimination of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant.
thebulletin.org

The United States may destroy the Fordow enrichment plant. It won’t make the Iranian nuclear threat go away

If Israel decides to continue down the military path against Iran’s nuclear program, it has no choice but to ensure that the Fordow enrichment plant no longer poses a threat.
thebulletin.org thebulletin.org

Did you mean to post something else?
Click to expand...
I now confirm you are a essentially a troll, and will not respond to you again. The use of "million" by you was idiotic. Right in your quote it says "not sufficient."

From the article, and intentionally ignored by you:

But the United States and Israel must acknowledge that Fordow is not the only pathway for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran may have other centrifuges available, including at secret sites, and probably already at work. On June 12, Iran said that it would retaliate for the IAEA Board of Governors’ adoption of a resolution finding Iran in noncompliance with its treaty obligations by unveiling another secret “invulnerable” enrichment facility. Iran could also have a stock of additional centrifuges that it could either rapidly install or use, with enriched uranium from other parts of the country serving as feedstock. Destroying or rendering Fordow inoperable would not preclude Iran from using these alternative sites to potentially produce one or several nuclear weapons.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
What an elitist post, attempting to judge someone's intelligence by their occupation. I used to watch a show called South Park. I'm 100% positive that this show is beneath someone of your stature and education, so I'll summarize an episode that they did about people like you. Basically, the people they depicted got their jollies off by farting into a wine glass and then inhaling their own scent. This sounds like an activity that you might enjoy.
Click to expand...
Dude. You completely misinterpreted what I said. I was specifically not judging anyone's intelligence by their occupation. Are you, or are you not acquainted with the work of anti-colonialist sociologist/cultural theorist Edward Said? I doubt you are. Not because you're not intelligent; rather, because you're not a humanities scholar.

Statistically speaking, the odds of someone having the academic ability to be a law professor (not counting the trade law schools) are extremely long. That's a fact. And all that academic ability has saved zero lives. I'm guessing you have saved a positive number of lives. Isn't that important? I think it's important. "Intelligence" is a vastly overrated ability/trait. It's prestigious but not nearly important as some people like to pretend. It's useful. So is work ethic, and bravery, and gumption, and "social intelligence" -- i.e. people skills -- to name a few. Not all basketball players can be Vince Carter. Some of them can aspire to be Tyler Hansbrough, though few have the personality traits to get there. Wouldn't you want both of them on your team?
 
ZZLPHeels said:
As an0maly graciously pointed out, Iran was "less than a week" from being able to develop a nuclear weapon. You can't build a nuclear weapon in your grandma's garage. It is a tremendously complicated labor and resource-intensive effort, which is why there are only a handful of countries that have them. Taking out a nuclear enrichment facility that took many many years to build is a significant setback for Iran's nuclear program and it will take them some time to recover from it. There is a good chance that they will never be able to recover from these setbacks. That's why they built this facility literally inside of a mountain....they didn't want anything to happen to it.
Click to expand...
One of the primary and most annoying bad faith argumentation tactics is to assume all disputed or uncertain facts in your favor, and then refuse to acknowledge the possibility that some or all of those facts may not be what you have assumed them to be. You do that over and over and over again on this board, and it’s why threads are almost always derailed when you get involved.
 
an0maly said:
I now confirm you are a essentially a troll, and will not respond to you again. The use of "million" by you was idiotic. Right in your quote it says "not sufficient."

From the article, and intentionally ignored by you:

But the United States and Israel must acknowledge that Fordow is not the only pathway for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran may have other centrifuges available, including at secret sites, and probably already at work. On June 12, Iran said that it would retaliate for the IAEA Board of Governors’ adoption of a resolution finding Iran in noncompliance with its treaty obligations by unveiling another secret “invulnerable” enrichment facility. Iran could also have a stock of additional centrifuges that it could either rapidly install or use, with enriched uranium from other parts of the country serving as feedstock. Destroying or rendering Fordow inoperable would not preclude Iran from using these alternative sites to potentially produce one or several nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

The premise of your argument holds that the Fordow strike occurs in a vacuum. As I'm sure you are aware, it doesn't. It was simply one component of a multifaceted attack on Iran's nuclear program, which included strikes not only on other nuclear facilities but also on its leading nuclear scientists. Israel and the US are aware that Fordow is not the only pathway. That's why they have been taking out the other pathways as well. Thank you for the link, it has been most useful.
 
lawtig02 said:
One of the primary and most annoying bad faith argumentation tactics is to assume all disputed or uncertain facts in your favor, and then refuse to acknowledge the possibility that some or all of those facts may not be what you have assumed them to be. You do that over and over and over again on this board, and it’s why threads are almost always derailed when you get involved.
Click to expand...
Which of these facts are uncertain, again?
 
farce© said:
And nonsense like this is why you have no credibility, even when peel agree with you.
Click to expand...
Agree with me or not, when I'm right I'm right and when I'm wrong I'm wrong. I have a pretty good hunch that I'm right about this one. You are more than welcome to hide in your basement waiting for WWIII, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top