@sh76 saidUh… UN and CIA…
Western liberals claiming there's no evidence of Iran seeking nukes are funny.
They'll do it right up until the day Tel Aviv gets nukes and 250,000 people die.
Then they'll say "oops, sorry; we were wrong; but you kinda had it coming anyway" (like Spruce is aready saying)
Basically, it's Evian Conference 1942 redux.
That's exactly why Israel can't afford to take anyt ...[text shortened]... ay go through the motions after the fact, but that's it.
We're done relying on you to protect us.
@no1marauder saidDo you think Iran is seeking nuclear weapons? Yes or no?
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have far larger oil reserves than Iran but: https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/[WORD TOO LONG].
When should the sneak attacks on them commence?
Have to find another link I guess, but the punch line is both a ...[text shortened]... di Arabia: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/saudi-arabia
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou didn't respond to the question of why Iran would accept crippling sanctions for many years to keep administering a nuclear program if it were not for its intent to seek nuclear weapons.
US intelligence agencies say they are not according to Gabbard's sworn Congressional testimony in March.
Why should I not believe them? Surely not because of the fallacious argument my post responded to.
Edit: In any case, the question of how far along in the process they are or whether they're actually at the stage of building a bomb isn't the point. Everyone seems to agree that Iran is enriching uranium beyond what is needed for energy purposes. Whether they're months or years away or whether they're actually near the point of building a bomb can be debated from now until the cows come home, but their ultimate intent seems clear.
This is a nice summary.
https://www.factcheck.org/2025/06/trump-gabbard-comments-on-iran-nuclear-capability/
2 edits
@sh76 saidAnd there wouldn't have been "crippling sanctions" anyway? The US has sanctioned them for more than four decades.https://www.state.gov/iran-sanctions/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20has%20imposed,the%20U.S.%20Embassy%20in%20Tehran.
You didn't respond to the question of why Iran would accept crippling sanctions for many years to keep administering a nuclear program if it were not for its intent to seek nuclear weapons.
The US has been hostile to the Iranian government since the Shah was overthrown including numerous military actions against it. They have little reason to cooperate with the West; Saddam largely did as far as inspections and such and it gained him nothing.
And even after all that. Iran did agree to international monitoring and inspections though Trump trashed the agreement.
@sh76 saidIs Colin Powell going to give a speech soon confirming what "everyone knows" (except our Intelligence agencies)?
You didn't respond to the question of why Iran would accept crippling sanctions for many years to keep administering a nuclear program if it were not for its intent to seek nuclear weapons.
Edit: In any case, the question of how far along in the process they are or whether they're actually at the stage of building a bomb isn't the point. Everyone seems to agree that Iran is e ...[text shortened]... ice summary.
https://www.factcheck.org/2025/06/trump-gabbard-comments-on-iran-nuclear-capability/
@no1marauder saidhe probably will...he is part of the deep state
Is Colin Powell going to give a speech soon confirming what "everyone knows" (except our Intelligence agencies)?
@no1marauder saidWhether or not Iran has nukes is irrelevant. The nukes is a good excuse to go in there and get rid of that sick disgusting regime. Their own people hate their guts and want them out.
US intelligence agencies say they are not according to Gabbard's sworn Congressional testimony in March.
Why should I not believe them? Surely not because of the fallacious argument my post responded to.
@no1marauder saidyou are being foolish...
And there wouldn't have been "crippling sanctions" anyway? The US has sanctioned them for more than four decades.https://www.state.gov/iran-sanctions/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20has%20imposed,the%20U.S.%20Embassy%20in%20Tehran.
The US has been hostile to the Iranian government since the Shah was overthrown including numerous military actions against it. They have ...[text shortened]... that. Iran did agree to international monitoring and inspections though Trump trashed the agreement.
https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2025/06/19/iran-turns-against-anti-israel-u-n-after-it-condemned-illegal-nuclear-enrichment/
1 edit
@Rajk999 saidForeigners bombing them is unlikely to make the People more hostile to their government; if history is any lesson, the opposite is almost invariably true.
Whether or not Iran has nukes is irrelevant. The nukes is a good excuse to go in there and get rid of that sick disgusting regime. Their own people hate their guts and want them out.
Iran's government is a tyranny and it would be nice if the nation's People overthrew it but that is not a legitimate reason to go to war against the country.
1 edit
@sh76 saidHave you ever considered that the Allies removed the Japanese Empire off the map and the Japanese are doing fine?
The idea that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons is flat our nuts.
They're willing to accept crippling sanctions and maintaining huge heavily fortified nuclear facilities for what? Nuclear energy? When they have the cheapest and most plentiful oil supply in the world?
If they had threatened over and over again to wipe out Amsterdam, you wouldn't be so quick to put on the blinders.
@AThousandYoung saidSomehow I don't think Iran would be as benevolent to a defeated Israel as we were to the defeated Japanese.
Have you ever considered that the Allies removed the Japanese Empire off the map and the Japanese are doing fine?
@shavixmir saidSo is that a "no" or "yes and it's justified"?
No. I don’t.
Considering the US’s behaviour and Israel starting a war with them, could you blame them if they did?
