Those 3 happen to be Jewish. Last I checked dispensationalist's are not and I mentioned them too. How about Tom Cotton, Lyndsey Graham, pretty much the entire staff at National Review, the Lincoln Project, fill in the blank neocon hack....

That better?

I actually don't care about Israel here, not primarily anyway.

A nuclear Iran is bad for us, and the world writ large. If the intelligence was correct, then we did the right thing.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I actually don't care about Israel here, not primarily anyway.

A nuclear Iran is bad for us, and the world writ large. If the intelligence was correct, then we did the right thing.

---

What intelligence? The only time a public American intelligence report was given recently to Congress it was reported that Iran was no where near to having a nuclear bomb.

If Trump manages to get a peace settlement out of this after only dropping a few bombs on Iran, then he deserves all the praise he can get. Most of those that were suddenly praising him just a few days ago are now grumbling that he isn't giving them the all out regime change war in Iran that they have been dreaming of.

So if he can pull this off, then fantastic for him and America.

Quote:

---

The only time a public American intelligence report was given recently to Congress it was reported that Iran was no where near to having a nuclear bomb.

---

Crazy how yall keep misrepresenting that testimony. Sad and crazy.

The iaea? The French, Germans, English and Israelis?

Levin has completely eviscerated Carlson on his program over the last couple of weeks. Tucker HATES Trump with a passion, and this is undoubtedly fueling some of his insanity.

Tucker is either on the take in a big way or he has completely gone off the rails. His opinions are utterly insane on this.

Hussein and Biden gave Iran billions to fund their terrorism program, so taking a very small role in eliminating it became necessary. Sadly, democrats always put America last.

Wes97 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I actually don't care about Israel here, not primarily anyway.

A nuclear Iran is bad for us, and the world writ large. If the intelligence was correct, then we did the right thing.

---

What intelligence? The only time a public American intelligence report was given recently to Congress it was reported that Iran was no where near to having a nuclear bomb.

If Trump manages to get a peace settlement out of this after only dropping a few bombs on Iran, then he deserves all the praise he can get. Most of those that were suddenly praising him just a few days ago are now grumbling that he isn't giving them the all out regime change war in Iran that they have been dreaming of.

So if he can pull this off, then fantastic for him and America.

---

whether this is a deliberate lie to try to make an ideological point or just ignorance-

but whatever it is you are absolutely 100% wrong:

Tulsi Gabbard now says Iran could produce nuclear weapon 'within weeks'
5 days ago

BBC News

The director of national intelligence had previously said Iran was not building nuclear weapons
Tulsi Gabbard says Iran could produce nuclear weapons "within weeks", months after she testified before Congress that the country was not building them.

The US Director of National Intelligence said her March testimony - in which she said Iran had a stock of materials but was not building these weapons - had been taken out of context by "dishonest media".

This argument is mostly semantics. She said there was no evidence that Iran "Was" pursuing a nuclear weapon. Now the argument is that they "Could" get a nuclear weapon based on their then current activities.

Plenty of countries "Could" get a nuclear weapon in pretty short order. But they aren't trying too get one which is all that matters. Maybe the American intelligence agencies aren't all that confident in that first statement now. But they are mostly playing word games now to justify the actions already taken.

And just to be clear, if this is the extent of American military involvement and it leads to a peace deal then Trump deserves all the credit that he can get, IMO. But that was a big gamble.

Quote:

---

Plenty of countries "Could" get a nuclear weapon in pretty short order.

---

Really? Which ones?

Specifically, who had the 60% enriched uranium that Iran had? You know, the thing that has one purpose and one purpose alone at those quantities.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Plenty of countries "Could" get a nuclear weapon in pretty short order.

---

Really? Which ones?

---

Most of the European nuclear powered countries that don't already have them, for one.

You don't think Japan could get some pretty quick if they really wanted too?

One of the arguments against Iran getting one is that it would immediately set off a arms race with Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries quickly working to get them too.

And since Israel doesn't allow international inspections then we are all supposed to assume that they don't have one either, right?

I see you left off the key to the entire question.

No, Japan and those other unnamed countries could not make a weapon as fast as Iran could with the levels and amounts of enriched uranium they had.

South Korea and Taiwan could as well in short order.

So could Canada and Brazil, although it would take the latter longer, but they do have the basic technology and infrastructure to restart their nuclear weapons program.

Japan could have a nuclear weapon tomorrow if they wanted to. They have the complete technical expertise and more than enough plutonium to build nuclear weapons quickly. It would not be a surprise if they already have designs and plans for one, should they decide it is necessary to do so. Their Epsilon rocket could quickly be converted to an ICBM.

I'm not a nuclear scientist but I know people in the field. And their assessment is much closer to Rapier's post above then to what you are saying,

Japan could move extremely fast if they wanted too. But this whole argument is kind of a side issue, in my view.

Rapier: Can you remind me, which of those countries have said a country two doors down should not be allowed to exist, funds terrorism around the globe and has a pseudo-national anthem of "death to america"?

canada?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Rapier: Can you remind me, which of those countries have said a country two doors down should not be allowed to exist, funds terrorism around the globe and has a pseudo-national anthem of "death to america"?

canada?

---

None, I was simply listing countries which could produce nuclear weapons very quickly.

Iran should never be allowed to have one.

Quote:

---

Iran should never be allowed to have one.

---

yuck. clearly an Israel first type.

Except "plenty" aren't trying to get one. And "plenty" aren't trying to actively wipe another country off earth. And the "plenty" don't actively deploy their proxies to harass neighbors or close major trade routes. And "plenty" don't use their nuclear status as an offensive weapon, much less their actual nuclear aresenal.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Iran should never be allowed to have one.

---

yuck. clearly an Israel first type.

---

Sanity first.

Israel is not going to use nuclear weapons except as a last resort, or if they are attacked with one.

Even North Korea isn't going to use nukes for no reason. Little Rocket Man has no desire to die. He knows if he launches, a bunch of Trident missiles will pay him a visit within minutes.

Iran thinks it is their sworn duty to bring on the apocalypse and the 12th Imam. Lunatics should not have nuclear weapons.

Yes, theres a major cultural difference between say russia and their use of nuclear power and hown most think iran would potentially use it.

It makes it much easier to use when death is rewarded vs when death ruins everything one is striving for

I enjoy listening to Tucker and find much that I agree with him on. However, I disagreed with his over the top concerns on bombing Iran and think it was the right move for the President to make. I keep hearing people say that he hates President Trump. Those people clearly don't listen to Tucker. He does not hate the President and largely supports him. I've never heard him say anything along those lines and I've listened to most everything he's put out since leaving Fox.

I also like Levin on many things. But not everything. But why do any of us have to agree with any pundit or politician in lock step? That's crap the dems do.

Wes97 said:

---

This argument is mostly semantics. She said there was no evidence that Iran "Was" pursuing a nuclear weapon. Now the argument is that they "Could" get a nuclear weapon based on their then current activities.

Plenty of countries "Could" get a nuclear weapon in pretty short order. But they aren't trying too get one which is all that matters. Maybe the American intelligence agencies aren't all that confident in that first statement now. But they are mostly playing word games now to justify the actions already taken.

And just to be clear, if this is the extent of American military involvement and it leads to a peace deal then Trump deserves all the credit that he can get, IMO. But that was a big gamble.

---

If you are enriching uranium to 60%, and the Iranians were by their own admission, then you are by definition pursuing nuclear weapons

Wes97 said:

---

I'm not a nuclear scientist but I know people in the field. And their assessment is much closer to Rapier's post above then to what you are saying,

Japan could move extremely fast if they wanted too. But this whole argument is kind of a side issue, in my view.

---

Japan could only move as fast as we let them. They do have plutonium but it's byproduct of power plants and too high in Pu240 to be used in weapons. They'd have to reprocess to concentrate the Pu239 to be used in a nuclear weapon. Basically the same thing we did at Hanford.

It is not a quick and easy task.

Teslag said:

---

Wes97 said:

---

I'm not a nuclear scientist but I know people in the field. And their assessment is much closer to Rapier's post above then to what you are saying,

Japan could move extremely fast if they wanted too. But this whole argument is kind of a side issue, in my view.

---

Japan could only move as fast as we let them. They do have plutonium but it's byproduct of power plants and too high in Pu240 to be used in weapons. They'd have to reprocess to concentrate the Pu239 to be used in a nuclear weapon. Basically the same thing we did at Hanford.

It is not a quick and easy task.

---

I'm in no position to argue this point and don't really desire to anyway.

Anything related to this would be far from "quick and easy" for me.


My only source on this is someone who is in this actual field (and pretty far up in it) and he seems to think that any country with a competent nuclear program would be able to make this transition fairly easily which is why we should be concerned in the first place.

Anyone telling you it's "easy" to highly enrich uranium or to reprocess plutonium is full of ***** It was the single most difficult aspect of the manhattan project and remains so today. It takes vast facilities and massive energy and power commitment which comes at great cost and time.

In addition there are very few people in this "field" anymore. We shut down our weapons grade uranium and plutonium enrichment/processing facilities years ago.

Teslag said:

---

In addition there are very few people in this "field" anymore. We shut down our weapons grade uranium and plutonium enrichment/processing facilities years ago.

---

Allegedly

Teslag said:

---

Anyone telling you it's "easy" to highly enrich uranium or to reprocess plutonium is full of ***** It was the single most difficult aspect of the manhattan project and remains so today. It takes vast facilities and massive energy and power commitment which comes at great cost and time.

---

OK, I'll tell him next time that I speak with him that some guy on texags told me he was full of ***** He was only employed at one time as an actual inspector of these sites but I'm sure he will take your criticism to heart.

I am happy to know that for all these years he has been wrong in telling me why I was wrong and that we should be more concerned about this than I was.

Unforgiven94 said:

---

I enjoy listening to Tucker and find much that I agree with him on. However, I disagreed with his over the top concerns on bombing Iran and think it was the right move for the President to make. I keep hearing people say that he hates President Trump. Those people clearly don't listen to Tucker. He does not hate the President and largely supports him.

---

You need to read the information that came through discovery after the 2020 election and his Fox firing. His own text messages prove he hates Trump. He said as much. He has been lying to his audience.

He is the same fraud he was when he was wearing a bowtie.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Unforgiven94 said:

---

I enjoy listening to Tucker and find much that I agree with him on. However, I disagreed with his over the top concerns on bombing Iran and think it was the right move for the President to make. I keep hearing people say that he hates President Trump. Those people clearly don't listen to Tucker. He does not hate the President and largely supports him.

---

You need to read the information that came through discovery after the 2020 election and his Fox firing. His own text messages prove he hates Trump. He said as much. He has been lying to his audience.

He is the same fraud he was when he was wearing a bowtie.

---

Wow, wait until you find out what JD Vance once said about Trump. That will be ground breaking news.

Rapier108 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Iran should never be allowed to have one.

---

yuck. clearly an Israel first type.

---

Sanity first.

Israel is not going to use nuclear weapons except as a last resort, or if they are attacked with one.

Even North Korea isn't going to use nukes for no reason. Little Rocket Man has no desire to die. He knows if he launches, a bunch of Trident missiles will pay him a visit within minutes.

Iran thinks it is their sworn duty to bring on the apocalypse and the 12th Imam. Lunatics should not have nuclear weapons.

---

We can have legit grievances with Iran without repeating this absurd talking point. I have no idea where this narrative came from but its so cartoonishly goofy that I cannot believe grown men believe it.

Wes97 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Unforgiven94 said:

---

I enjoy listening to Tucker and find much that I agree with him on. However, I disagreed with his over the top concerns on bombing Iran and think it was the right move for the President to make. I keep hearing people say that he hates President Trump. Those people clearly don't listen to Tucker. He does not hate the President and largely supports him.

---

You need to read the information that came through discovery after the 2020 election and his Fox firing. His own text messages prove he hates Trump. He said as much. He has been lying to his audience.

He is the same fraud he was when he was wearing a bowtie.

---

Wow, wait until you find out what JD Vance once said about Trump. That will be ground breaking news.

---

Mark Levin has had some issues with Trump in the past as well. Megan Kelly hated him too. Not anymore. People change. Hell, look no further than our own GeorgiAg having good things to say about Trump.

Levin was upset with Trump because of the way he treated Cruz. He ultimately voted for him in 2016 and has been an ardent supporter.

Carlson called Trump a Demonic force. He said he hated Trump passionately. This was in 2021.

Those aren't exactly the same thing!


It's hilarious that the poster says people that think Tucker hates Trump don't listen to him. Those were his OWN WORDS!!


You could've saved some face by just saying "I didn't know he said that"

And I said people change in their views. I can acknowledge he said those things in 2020. I can also acknowledge he can be weird sometimes. I don't agree with him on everything. But he does have valid points on various issues.I enjoy the topics he discusses and many of the people he interviews. He's wrong in my opinion at times as well. But I can tell you he seems to have changed his tune on Trump "being a demonic force" over the past five years. Maybe he's just fooling me but I haven't heard anything disparaging of Trump out of him since he was fired from Fox.

And I feel no need to save face. Just having a discussion. Not trying to score points here.

Keyno said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Iran should never be allowed to have one.

---

yuck. clearly an Israel first type.

---

Sanity first.

Israel is not going to use nuclear weapons except as a last resort, or if they are attacked with one.

Even North Korea isn't going to use nukes for no reason. Little Rocket Man has no desire to die. He knows if he launches, a bunch of Trident missiles will pay him a visit within minutes.

Iran thinks it is their sworn duty to bring on the apocalypse and the 12th Imam. Lunatics should not have nuclear weapons.

---

We can have legit grievances with Iran without repeating this absurd talking point. I have no idea where this narrative came from but its so cartoonishly goofy that I cannot believe grown men believe it.

---

Guess who said it:

Quote:

---

"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi."

---

Quote:

---

"The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be uprooted and destroyed."

---

Quote:

---

Israel must be wiped off the map

---

Quote:

---

The Iranian nation regards itself as the standard-bearer of the movement to prepare the world for the arrival of the Mahdi

---

Quote:

---

We have a mission: to hand over the world to the Mahdi's rule.

---

Isn't Tucker the one who is vindicated by recent events? We didn't go to war with Iran and topple the regime like Levin wanted. Israel went to war and we carried out a single set of airstrikes that didn't injure anyone followed by an immediate offer of a ceasefire. Trump seems to have settled on a position much closer to Tucker's, while Levin is still pushing for regime change. I'm not complaining too much about the outcome so far, but it's kind of odd to see people like Levin gloating over not getting what they said they wanted.