The Israeli attack on Iran.

Ekklesian said:
Romans 14:5 - One man bombeth the infidel, another doth not. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Wow. That's some insight right there. A veritable Thomas Auquinus, you are.
Click to expand...
You believe the Church has replaced Israel I don't. Its as simple as that.
 
biscuit1953 said:
The point is lying about uranium enrichment and not enabling inspections would allow them to become nuclear and start an arms race throughout the Middle East.
Click to expand...
😂 it’s crazy how the same talking points they’re using now is basically if not the exact same for invading Afghanistan.

You’re right. It’s on who we choose to believe.
 
biscuit1953 said:
Was RC Sproul a Dispensationalist? What about Charles Spurgeon?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. I know more about Spurgeon than Sproul. I doubt very seriously that Spurgeon wouldn't prolifically preach against the state of Israel you want to kill for, nor excoriate you for wanting to do so.

Though he was Premillennial of the historical flavor, he knew judaizers when he saw them. He wouldn't incorporate musical instruments in Christian worship because he saw them as judaizing.
 
Bruh said:
Tulsi Gabbard said in March of this year that Iran has no nuclear program.
Click to expand...

And as she said, only a few moments later: "In the past year, we have seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus. Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons."

So it's only a half-truth that Gabbard said Iran has no nuclear program. The fuller context implies "at the moment."
 
Okay, how badly do we want this war? Bad enough to lose a Republican majority for the next decade?

Link:
"A top MAGA pollster has warned that the Republicans may lose the majority in Congress 'for the next decade' if President Donald Trump gets the U.S. more closely embroiled in the Israel-Iran conflict.

"Big Data Poll Director Rich Baris took to X on Monday to argue that 'Starting new foreign wars never helps a presidency. But it sure as Hell can end one, especially one predicated on not starting new wars overseas when we've been invaded and neglected at home.'. . .

“'Kiss the Republican majority goodbye... For the next decade. If he pulls the trigger, it's all over for MAGA,' said Baris."
 
illinoisguy said:
That statement is half true. Uranium enrichment is not required to produce electricity in non-nuclear generating plants. However, it is required to produce electricity in a nuclear plant.

"The nuclear fuel used in a nuclear reactor needs to have a higher concentration of the U235 isotope than that which exists in natural uranium ore. U235 when concentrated (or enriched) is fissionable in light-water reactors (the most common reactor design in the USA). During fission, the nucleus of the atom splits apart producing both heat and extra neutrons. Under controlled conditions, these extra neutrons can cause additional, nearby atoms to fission and a nuclear reaction can be sustained. The heat energy released, by the controlled nuclear reaction within the nuclear reactor, can be harnessed to produce electricity. Commercially, the U235 isotope is enriched to 3 to 5% (from the natural state of 0.7%) and is then further processed to create nuclear fuel."

Uranium Enrichment | Nuclear Regulatory Commission

www.nrc.gov www.nrc.gov

Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which America signed, specifically grants to all signatories, including Iran, the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Since production of nuclear energy by definition involves the use of enriched uranium, we really don't have the right to forbid Iran from producing and using enriched uranium to produce electricity in a nuclear plant. For us to go to war against Iran, to prevent them from using enriched uranium to produce electricity, would be a violation of the treaty which we signed.

Somebody please give us a better reason to go into a stupid forever war in the Middle East. Or else, let's call the whole thing off.
Click to expand...
This is the field I work in. Keeping it simple, Uranium enrichment from 3-5% is what the vast majority of reactor designs require. Anything above that points to other intentions that probably are weapons oriented.
 
It may be very appropriate for America to take a position that Iran is not allowed to enrich uranium at a 60% rate, and that they must allow inspections to verify that they are not doing that.

What is not appropriate is the current demand that Iran not be allowed any enrichment of uranium at all, even at the 3-5% rate, for peaceful purposes such as electricity generation and medical uses. Such a demand would be a violation on our part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and would not be a valid reason for us to go to war.
 
Ransom said:
And as she said, only a few moments later: "In the past year, we have seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus. Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons."

So it's only a half-truth that Gabbard said Iran has no nuclear program. The fuller context implies "at the moment."
Click to expand...
I understand.

But for how many years has Bibi and other politicians lied about Iran and how close they are?

Tucker is coming out with an interview wit Ted Cruz and I watched a clip. Ted didn’t even know the population of Iran and he is advocating for this.
 
Ransom said:
And as she said, only a few moments later: "In the past year, we have seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus. Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons."

So it's only a half-truth that Gabbard said Iran has no nuclear program. The fuller context implies "at the moment."
Click to expand...
Bruh said:
I understand.

But for how many years has Bibi and other politicians lied about Iran and how close they are?

Tucker is coming out with an interview wit Ted Cruz and I watched a clip. Ted didn’t even know the population of Iran and he is advocating for this.
Click to expand...
The problem is Iran has enough enriched uranium to make several atomic bombs if they so choose but will not allow anyone to monitor it. What Tucker Carlson and other extreme isolationists advocate is to allow a radical religious regime that wishes the destruction of America to continue with their nuclear program even if it results in a spiraling out of control nuclear arms race that could result in the deaths of millions of people.

I will state right now that I am opposed to putting American boots on the ground in Iran full stop but I don’t believe President Trump has any intention of doing that. If he simply warns everyone to evacuate the underground nuclear facilities before eliminating them there would be no loss of life. Israel doesn’t have the military capability to take out the deepest bunkers without using a nuclear bomb so the only other option is for the United States to use the only non-nuclear solution to eliminate this serious threat. President Trump has been clear so far that Israel must fight its own wars but there is nothing wrong with the United States supporting its closest ally and the only democracy in that region.
 
Bruh said:
I understand.

But for how many years has Bibi and other politicians lied about Iran and how close they are?

Tucker is coming out with an interview wit Ted Cruz and I watched a clip. Ted didn’t even know the population of Iran and he is advocating for this.
Click to expand...
That's because Ted Cruz is an evangelical Christian, and a Dispensationalist.
 
illinoisguy said:
It may be very appropriate for America to take a position that Iran is not allowed to enrich uranium at a 60% rate, and that they must allow inspections to verify that they are not doing that.

What is not appropriate is the current demand that Iran not be allowed any enrichment of uranium at all, even at the 3-5% rate, for peaceful purposes such as electricity generation and medical uses. Such a demand would be a violation on our part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and would not be a valid reason for us to go to war.
Click to expand...

Even the UN knows better than that.

news.un.org

Atomic watchdog says Iran not complying with nuclear safeguards

The UN-backed atomic watchdog passed a resolution on Thursday declaring that Iran is not complying with its obligations regarding nuclear non-proliferation.
news.un.org news.un.org
 
How is opposing them in their rebellion against their King the same as not having love for them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top