Iran, the next war.

illinoisguy said:
I'm not sure what Speaker Johnson means when he says that "Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability." If he means they were "very close" to creating a working nuclear bomb, that is something that has been heavily disputed.

“'There was no evidence that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon,'. . . Iran’s main enrichment capabilities were “completely and totally obliterated,” according to Trump himself in June."

www.yahoo.com

Iran was nowhere close to a nuclear bomb, experts say

Confusion on whether Iran truly needed only “two weeks to four weeks” to make a nuclear weapon, as President Donald Trump suggested on Monday, hangs over the ongoing U.S. and Israeli war on the Persia...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

"Iran was not, in March 2026, unanimously judged by public intelligence reporting to be on the verge of fielding a finished nuclear weapon; multiple U.S. and international assessments concluded Tehran was not actively producing a bomb."


I suppose it really doesn't matter - Trump had his orders from Bibi to attack Iran for him, and that's all we need to know.
Click to expand...
I understand the opposition to our being at war…I do not understand how anyone who’s paying attention could possibly believe that Trump is not the person ‘in charge’.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Until Ekk’s last post I wasn’t aware of anyone clearly stating such. I do not believe this war was necessary or timely. However I want us to do what it takes to defang Iran’s evil, terrorist propagating regime.
Click to expand...
Your comment came prior to Ekk’s announcement, which I disagree with him about that. Hoping our country isn’t successful means death to our soldiers, and I’ll never root for that. I can’t see any way of hoping for unsuccessful outcomes and it not resulting in such, but maybe he has other ideas.
 
I work in the nuclear industry (gamma spectroscopy specifically), not that that makes me an expert on international policy, but I will relate one short and sanitized story for some perspective on nuclear weapons.

About 25 years ago I was doing repetitive environmental radioactive analysis of commercial wastes and low-level testing on biota (vegetation, soils, vegetables, fish, etc). Pretty mundane stuff. Then, out of the blue, I was tasked by the Department of Energy through my employer/contractor with spectral analysis of simulated data for what’s known as a “dirty bomb”. This isn’t a conventional nuclear detonation threat, but rather a more crude explosive device that is easier to deploy, involving radioactive material that is more obtainable than enriched fissile material. The reason for this “exercise” was to assist in the growing need for development of security measures to combat this type increased terroristic threat. If you think Iran wasn’t capable and intent on these types of activities you are willfully ignorant. It may be your position that we should wait until such an attack actually occurs on U.S. soil. I prefer to cut the head of the snake off before I have to suck the poison from the wound.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Your comment came prior to Ekk’s announcement, which I disagree with him about that. Hoping our country isn’t successful means death to our soldiers, and I’ll never root for that. I can’t see any way of hoping for unsuccessful outcomes and it not resulting in such, but maybe he has other ideas.
Click to expand...
Ekk’s comment just stated plainly what previously was ‘covert’. Which goes to my point.

I agree with your post. And I wish we weren’t in this war.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Ekk’s comment just stated plainly what previously was ‘covert’. Which goes to my point.

I agree with your post. And I wish we weren’t in this war.
Click to expand...
Well, I hope he doesn’t really feel that way. Seems very unpatriotic to me. I’m hoping he’ll clarify.
 
illinoisguy said:
High Trump official resigns in protest of the war. Poor guy must be a RINO, with a bad case of TDS- I can't think of any other reason why anyone would not support a war that is going so well.
Click to expand...

Put another way, two Islamic terrorist attacks happened last week on his watch, so he rage-quit and blamed the Jooos.
 
The Peace Speech versus the War Prayer - take your pick:

President Kennedy's Peace Speech: "The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough, more than enough, of war and hate and oppression."


Or Mark Twain's War Prayer: "It was a time of great and exalting excitement. . . . in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles, beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpouring of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety’s sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way. . . . Then came the 'long' prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language."

 
Secretary of War Hegseth confirms Pentagon is seeking $200 billion for war with Iran.
 
illinoisguy said:
Click to expand...
Thanks. I had never read the Twain one before. I'm not sure that I can get where he wanted me to go but it was certainly well written. Better than just calling everyone war mongers.

And as for the duality of what is being requested in the prayer he's correct that unspoken is usually the opposite of what is spoken.

Since we are to pray first and foremost that God's will is done, I will have to leave it to Him to determine the outcome.
 
illinoisguy said:
The Peace Speech versus the War Prayer - take your pick:

President Kennedy's Peace Speech: "The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough, more than enough, of war and hate and oppression."


Or Mark Twain's War Prayer: "It was a time of great and exalting excitement. . . . in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles, beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpouring of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety’s sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way. . . . Then came the 'long' prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language."

Click to expand...
Excuse me for electing not to choose my ethics or international policy from the false dichotomy of one of the greatest philanderers ever to grace the office of president, and a man who despised the Bible and much of organized Christianity.
 
ALAYMAN said:
I work in the nuclear industry (gamma spectroscopy specifically), not that that makes me an expert on international policy, but I will relate one short and sanitized story for some perspective on nuclear weapons.

About 25 years ago I was doing repetitive environmental radioactive analysis of commercial wastes and low-level testing on biota (vegetation, soils, vegetables, fish, etc). Pretty mundane stuff. Then, out of the blue, I was tasked by the Department of Energy through my employer/contractor with spectral analysis of simulated data for what’s known as a “dirty bomb”. This isn’t a conventional nuclear detonation threat, but rather a more crude explosive device that is easier to deploy, involving radioactive material that is more obtainable than enriched fissile material. The reason for this “exercise” was to assist in the growing need for development of security measures to combat this type increased terroristic threat. If you think Iran wasn’t capable and intent on these types of activities you are willfully ignorant. It may be your position that we should wait until such an attack actually occurs on U.S. soil. I prefer to cut the head of the snake off before I have to suck the poison from the wound.
Click to expand...
I agree Iran was "days away" from a nuclear weapon and was intending to harm Americans, which makes the war coherent with the U.N. Charter. Also, right off the bat, I see President Trump doing a good effort to keep the use of force to the minimum necessary.
 
Mario said:
I agree Iran was "days away" from a nuclear weapon and was intending to harm Americans, which makes the war coherent with the U.N. Charter. Also, right off the bat, I see President Trump doing a good effort to keep the use of force to the minimum necessary.
Click to expand...
I think one of the most damning claims so far about their intent is the fact that they were severely hindered just six months ago in their nuclear program, but they had already began pursuing enriched uranium production again. That’s not a sign of somebody that wants to have (low enriched) uranium merely for energy.
 
ALAYMAN said:
I think one of the most damning claims so far about their intent is the fact that they were severely hindered just six months ago in their nuclear program, but they had already began pursuing enriched uranium production again. That’s not a sign of somebody that wants to have (low enriched) uranium merely for energy.
Click to expand...
I'm not anti-U.N. but I have a fundamental problem with how the Security Council permanent membership and veto-power works. I'm really invested into the rules-based global order but at some point it seems everything gets stuck into "he didn't do it because he's my friend" (ie. America says Israel didn't do it because Israel is an ally, Russia says Iran didn't do it because Iran is an ally).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top