Iran Catch-All | IRAN WAR

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 123K
  • Politics 
lawtig02 said:
And that leads us to another bad faith tactic — intentionally misreading articles like the one anomaly posted.
Click to expand...
Is this projection? Because I don't think I misread this:

At the Fordow plant, located near the city of Qom, the Iranians have enough centrifuges (including IR-6s, their more advanced type) and uranium hexafluoride gas to produce several nuclear weapons. They could probably produce enough weapon-grade (90 percent) enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon within five to six days.

I agree that you seem to be arguing in bad faith.
 
Paine said:
No. “Let’s see how it plays out” is a posture of non-judgment, a shrug at the exercise of power. What I’m arguing is the opposite: that we should judge this action now, based on what we know: its legality, its precedent, its likely consequences.

You want to wait for history to confirm or refute your instincts. I’m saying the history is already there: we’ve seen this playbook before. Iraq. Libya. Syria. Toppling regimes without a plan for what comes next doesn’t lead to stability; it leads to catastrophe. Pretending that’s unknowable or premature is just a way of avoiding responsibility for cheering it on.
Click to expand...
I think one thing that Trump may have in his favor vs Iraq is that the goal is not stability. It is to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity.

Bush’s argument was not just WMD’s but also regime change to free the Iraqis from a brutal dictator. If you pretend to be acting in the best interest of a country, you have tied your goals to stability.

Trump may just say to hell with Iranians as long as they don’t develop nukes or continue to threaten US interests.

That isn’t a morally sound goal but something that may be achievable without boots on the ground.
 
nycfan said:
His name is Thomas Fugate, and at least based on his title, it is true.

www.propublica.org

“The Intern in Charge”: Meet the 22-Year-Old Trump’s Team Picked to Lead Terrorism Prevention

One year out of college and with no apparent national security expertise, Thomas Fugate is the Department of Homeland Security official tasked with overseeing the government’s main hub for combating violent extremism.
www.propublica.org www.propublica.org

“…
A year after graduation, the 22-year-old with no apparent national security expertise is now a Department of Homeland Security official overseeing the government’s main hub for terrorism prevention, including an $18 million grant program intended to help communities combat violent extremism.

The White House appointed Fugate, a former Trump campaign worker who interned at the hard-right Heritage Foundation, to a Homeland Security role that was expanded to include the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships. Known as CP3, the office has led nationwide efforts to prevent hate-fueled attacks, school shootings and other forms of targeted violence...”
Click to expand...
Holy hell.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
I think one thing that Trump may have in his favor vs Iraq is that the goal is not stability. It is to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity.

Bush’s argument was not just WMD’s but also regime change to free the Iraqis from a brutal dictator. If you pretend to be acting in the best interest of a country, you have tied your goals to stability.

Trump may just say to hell with Iranians as long as they don’t develop nukes or continue to threaten US interests.

That isn’t a morally sound goal but something that may be achievable without boots on the ground.
Click to expand...
Israel’s goal is almost certainly regime change though.
 
superrific said:
LOL. If they were less than a week away, why didn't they finish? Israel attacked them last week. Oh, are you contending that Iran has been enriching uranium at 100% capacity all this time, and we got them just in time, one week before they were finished? And you think that's something that intelligence communities could estimate with precision?
Click to expand...
I already stated that I don't necessarily buy the "one week away" argument. I didn't originally post that article....another poster did. I'm more of the belief that Iran was 2-3 years away, as another poster stated. However, I don't think it would have been as easy for us to take out Fordow 2-3 years from now.
 
superrific said:
LOL. If they were less than a week away, why didn't they finish? Israel attacked them last week. Oh, are you contending that Iran has been enriching uranium at 100% capacity all this time, and we got them just in time, one week before they were finished? And you think that's something that intelligence communities could estimate with precision?
Click to expand...
It would make a great summer blockbuster. Iran is on the verge of pressing the button to finally have the button, and as they all circle up and start the evil villain laugh, the US comes in to save the day and blows them up.
 
superrific said:
Fuck you. I'm autistic. The things that come easily to you don't necessarily come easily to me. You know what comes extremely easy to me? Academic work. I have a bachelor's in physics; a master's in intellectual history; a JD; I worked as a computer programmer in law school making almost a hundred grand for about 15 hours a week of work. In the interim I learned finance and economics. There is no universe in which you could possibly compete with me in academic work, because very few people can.

What is much more difficult for me is hanging out in a crowd. I instinctively feel that people are against me (somewhat borne out by experience) and I don't easily make friends. And sometimes I don't communicate well in micro-details. It's especially a problem when I am addressing one person and other people are reading it.

My life experience is generally that people don't allow me to be proud of what I'm good at, and they also rub my face in what I'm not good at. It's really a shit sandwich.
Click to expand...

You should absolutely be proud of being what you are good at, but you should also know when certain things come across as rude or condescending. I realize that may not have been your intention, but to me it came across that way. Anyways, I'm happy to move on from that particular discussion if you are.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Is this projection? Because I don't think I misread this:

At the Fordow plant, located near the city of Qom, the Iranians have enough centrifuges (including IR-6s, their more advanced type) and uranium hexafluoride gas to produce several nuclear weapons. They could probably produce enough weapon-grade (90 percent) enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon within five to six days.

I agree that you seem to be arguing in bad faith.
Click to expand...
Maybe your issue is reading comprehension rather than bad faith. Sorry if I jumped to an unfair conclusion.
 
lawtig02 said:
Maybe your issue is reading comprehension rather than bad faith. Sorry if I jumped to an unfair conclusion.
Click to expand...
Seems like projection, once again. And once again, this seems like a pretty straightforward statement:

At the Fordow plant, located near the city of Qom, the Iranians have enough centrifuges (including IR-6s, their more advanced type) and uranium hexafluoride gas to produce several nuclear weapons. They could probably produce enough weapon-grade (90 percent) enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon within five to six days.

I even made the portion in question bigger for you in case you missed it the first 3 times. Hope this helps.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
That's fine if they want to retaliate. Wanting to and being able to are two different things. I want to have a threesome with two supermodels. I would really enjoy that. But at the end of the day I'm probably not going to be able to do that. That's where probabilities come into play. Let's say that if we did nothing there was a 1% chance that Iran would somehow detonate a nuke in Israel by 2035. We have over 700,000 US citizens living in Israel. So, odds are nothing would happen to them, but that 1% chance of a bad outcome would be REALLY bad if it came to fruition. Let's also say that by striking Iran we incur a 30% risk that Iran kills 100 Americans in a terrorist attack over the next two years, but the odds of them detonating a nuclear weapon by 2035 go down to 0.05%. I'd argue that we'd be stupid not to take those odds.
Click to expand...
But there's a much higher risk that Iran now mines the Straits of Hormuz or China finally invades Taiwan. That's what happens when we think in isolationist or "America First" terms.

Superrific - congrats on your success. My daughter's on the Spectrum. I feel ya.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Seems like projection, once again. And once again, this seems like a pretty straightforward statement:

At the Fordow plant, located near the city of Qom, the Iranians have enough centrifuges (including IR-6s, their more advanced type) and uranium hexafluoride gas to produce several nuclear weapons. They could probably produce enough weapon-grade (90 percent) enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon within five to six days.

I even made the portion in question bigger for you in case you missed it the first 3 times. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
You’re getting closer to realizing the mistake you’re making every time you enlarge it. Maybe try it another time or two?
 
Outside of Trump regime claims, the results of the attacks are unknown at this time:

At odds with Trump’s claim of “complete obliteration”, two Israeli officials who spoke to the New York Times described serious damage at Fordow but said the site had not been completely destroyed.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, added: “As for the assessment of the degree of damage underground, on this we cannot pronounce ourselves. It could be important; it could be significant, but no one … neither us nor anybody else could be able to tell you how much it has been damaged.” ...

Ultimately, the question is whether the US-Israeli attacks are seen as sufficient for Iran to capitulate, or whether they instead encourage the regime to accelerate its efforts to produce a viable nuclear weapon.
www.theguardian.com

How effective was the US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites? A visual guide

Trump claims the assault ‘totally obliterated’ the key facilities, but what do we know about its impact?
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
lawtig02 said:
You’re getting closer to realizing the mistake you’re making every time you enlarge it. Maybe try it another time or two?
Click to expand...
My reading comprehension is spot-on, thank you. If you need to enlarge it further, I suggest you copy and paste that text into Microsoft Word and then you can make it as large as you need to in order for it to finally sink in.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

So there is no actual evidence that Iran was close to building a bomb. Trump wanted to bomb Iran because it looked easy after Israel destroyed most of their air defenses and he was played by Netanyahu into getting directly involved in a war they started. At least it was successful in the sense that none of our military personnel were killed or injured in the attack, so that god for that.
 
Duke Mu said:
But there's a much higher risk that Iran now mines the Straits of Hormuz or China finally invades Taiwan. That's what happens when we think in isolationist or "America First" terms.

Superrific - congrats on your success. My daughter's on the Spectrum. I feel ya.
Click to expand...

I don't think the risk of China invading Taiwan is tied to our strike on Iran's nuclear program. I do agree that is a risk of an isolationist foreign policy which is why I am generally not supportive of that philosophy.
 
North Korea suffers from a horrific leader, who is disturbed and egomaniacal. The reason we don't attack North Korea is because they have nuclear weapons.

Iran and its leadership have just learned the meaning of this, in personal and real world terms, and will proceed like never before to gain such security.

It's likely North Korea, China and to what ever extent, Russia, will help them.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Seems like projection, once again. And once again, this seems like a pretty straightforward statement:

At the Fordow plant, located near the city of Qom, the Iranians have enough centrifuges (including IR-6s, their more advanced type) and uranium hexafluoride gas to produce several nuclear weapons. They could probably produce enough weapon-grade (90 percent) enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon within five to six days.

I even made the portion in question bigger for you in case you missed it the first 3 times. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
The highest enrichment cited in the government link you provided

Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)

and dated May 31, 2025 is 60%. This is what our US Intelligence has declared as well. Trump is on videotape in response to a question stating emphatically that "They're wrong... and I'm Bibi's b*tch" (I made up the last part - but he thought it). You might want to READ the documentation when you post a link. Otherwise, posters might consider your posits unreliable and poorly considered. Limbic forward, in other words.
 
Duke Mu said:
The highest enrichment cited in the government link you provided

Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)

and dated May 31, 2025 is 60%. This is what our US Intelligence has declared as well. Trump is on videotape in response to a question stating emphatically that "They're wrong... and I'm Bibi's b*tch" (I made up the last part - but he thought it). You might want to READ the documentation when you post a link. Otherwise, posters might consider your posits unreliable and poorly considered. Limbic forward, in other words.
Click to expand...
That's not my link, that's an0maly's link. I already stated that I didn't think the "one week away" claim was accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top