Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Just to be clear. You are claiming that Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons and that the argument that they are building them is a lie and a "neoconservative" talking point?

---

Correct. At this time there is no evidence Iran is actively building nukes. Same as it's been for the last few decades every time this talking point is trotted out. If Iran wanted to build a bomb, it could do so probably within a few weeks. But they don't want to give US justification to destroy them.

---

I love how in one post you admit that the Iranian government is obviously building nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Israel and the US. And in the next you claim they aren't building them only pretending to build them.

---

I have never admitted Iran is obviously building nukes. What I've consistently said is that they insist on keeping their nuclear program in case they need to build one.

---

Ok. Let's say you are the leader of Iran and you are against getting bombed by Israel. Would you?

A) Build nuclear weapons as fast as possible
B) Keep a nuclear program around just in case but not actually build a bomb


You arguments make zero sense.

Keyno: "Iran is not building nukes"

Quote:

---

"The IAEA report raised a stern warning, saying that Iran is now "the only non-nuclear-weapon state to produce such material" something the agency said was of "serious concern."

---

From my already linked article above. Of course, the IAEA being the nuclear watchdog of the notorious neocon organization called the United Nations.

Allen Gamble said:

---

But a nuclear Iran has everything to do with you and our country. This isn't hard to understand.

Most of what you have said is incoherent and comes off as pleading for Iran to have the ability to build a nuke. I've listed credible evidence that they are currently doing so. You refuse to acknowledge it and write it off as neocon propaganda. Fine, live in your warped reality.

This isn't even close to the Iraq war. Every situation is different when it comes to foreign policy, that's why it requires prudence, not some defunct ideology like "isolationism". No one is calling for an all out war or invasion of Iran with the end result of making them a liberal democracy. That's pure conjecture.

---

Ultimately a nuclear Iran only really affects America insofar as we are committed to enforcing nonproliferation. I am against them going nuclear purely on the basis of it giving the US justification to go do more endless foreign war, which I am totally against. I do not believe Iran would ever nuke the US unless we were trying to give them the Iraq/Libya treatment. That is to say, I don't believe they'd nuke the US unprovoked.

You've given evidence that they have the ability to create a bomb, which I agreed with. Did you not see where I agreed with it? You've given no clear evidence that they are actively building a bomb, because if such evidence existed we wouldn't be doing negotiations with them, we'd already be bombing.

The propaganda currently coming out from the right regarding Iran is almost identical to what was being said in the build up to Iraq. No one in 2003 thought we'd be still be in Iraq 22 years later. Obviously these things don't ever go as planned.

Iran wants nukes because then they will be like Pakistan, free to do whatever they want.

Keyno said:

---

Allen Gamble said:

---

But a nuclear Iran has everything to do with you and our country. This isn't hard to understand.

Most of what you have said is incoherent and comes off as pleading for Iran to have the ability to build a nuke. I've listed credible evidence that they are currently doing so. You refuse to acknowledge it and write it off as neocon propaganda. Fine, live in your warped reality.

This isn't even close to the Iraq war. Every situation is different when it comes to foreign policy, that's why it requires prudence, not some defunct ideology like "isolationism". No one is calling for an all out war or invasion of Iran with the end result of making them a liberal democracy. That's pure conjecture.

---

You've given evidence that they have the ability to create a bomb, which I agreed with. Did you not see where I agreed with it? You've given no clear evidence that they are actively building a bomb, because if such evidence existed we wouldn't be doing negotiations with them, we'd already be bombing.

---

Same things where said by Bill Clinton and others about North Korea....yet magically they got a bomb.

Allen Gamble said:

---

Keyno: "Iran is not building nukes"

Quote:

---

"The IAEA report raised a stern warning, saying that Iran is now "the only non-nuclear-weapon state to produce such material" something the agency said was of "serious concern."

---

From my already linked article above. Of course, the IAEA being the nuclear watchdog of the notorious neocon organization called the United Nations.

---

Yes I have agreed with you a few times they have the ability to create a bomb. This is not evidence they are building one currently.

Keyno said:

---

Allen Gamble said:

---

But a nuclear Iran has everything to do with you and our country. This isn't hard to understand.

Most of what you have said is incoherent and comes off as pleading for Iran to have the ability to build a nuke. I've listed credible evidence that they are currently doing so. You refuse to acknowledge it and write it off as neocon propaganda. Fine, live in your warped reality.

This isn't even close to the Iraq war. Every situation is different when it comes to foreign policy, that's why it requires prudence, not some defunct ideology like "isolationism". No one is calling for an all out war or invasion of Iran with the end result of making them a liberal democracy. That's pure conjecture.

---

Ultimately a nuclear Iran only really affects America insofar as we are committed to enforcing nonproliferation. I am against them going nuclear purely on the basis of it giving the US justification to go do more endless foreign war, which I am totally against. I do not believe Iran would ever nuke the US unless we were trying to give them the Iraq/Libya treatment. That is to say, I don't believe they'd nuke the US unprovoked.

You've given evidence that they have the ability to create a bomb, which I agreed with. Did you not see where I agreed with it? You've given no clear evidence that they are actively building a bomb, because if such evidence existed we wouldn't be doing negotiations with them, we'd already be bombing.

The propaganda currently coming out from the right regarding Iran is almost identical to what was being said in the build up to Iraq. No one in 2003 thought we'd be still be in Iraq 22 years later. Obviously these things don't ever go as planned.

---

You are almost there man. You keep dancing around the edge of admitting they are obviously building nukes but it's none of our business. Just say that. It's a real argument and one that is worth discussing. Your smokescreen that "there is no proof" and it's a neocon talking point is a distraction.

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Just to be clear. You are claiming that Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons and that the argument that they are building them is a lie and a "neoconservative" talking point?

---

Correct. At this time there is no evidence Iran is actively building nukes. Same as it's been for the last few decades every time this talking point is trotted out. If Iran wanted to build a bomb, it could do so probably within a few weeks. But they don't want to give US justification to destroy them.

---

I love how in one post you admit that the Iranian government is obviously building nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Israel and the US. And in the next you claim they aren't building them only pretending to build them.

---

I have never admitted Iran is obviously building nukes. What I've consistently said is that they insist on keeping their nuclear program in case they need to build one.

---

Ok. Let's say you are the leader of Iran and you are against getting bombed by Israel. Would you?

A) Build nuclear weapons as fast as possible
B) Keep a nuclear program around just in case but not actually build a bomb


You arguments make zero sense.

---

Think of it like this. If they build a bomb, that gives the US the justification to go in and give them the Iraq treatment. They obviously do not want that. But if they totally give up the program, they believe they will ultimately get the Libya treatment (which Netanyahu recently called for). They also do not want that either.

Iran keeps their program as an insurance policy. If Israel does a major attack, or America goes in, then Iran literally has nothing left to lose and would then be compelled to build it. Which they would be able to do in a few weeks probably.

Let Israel fight Israel's war. We've already done the bit about WMD in some desert

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Just to be clear. You are claiming that Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons and that the argument that they are building them is a lie and a "neoconservative" talking point?

---

Correct. At this time there is no evidence Iran is actively building nukes. Same as it's been for the last few decades every time this talking point is trotted out. If Iran wanted to build a bomb, it could do so probably within a few weeks. But they don't want to give US justification to destroy them.

---

I love how in one post you admit that the Iranian government is obviously building nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Israel and the US. And in the next you claim they aren't building them only pretending to build them.

---

I have never admitted Iran is obviously building nukes. What I've consistently said is that they insist on keeping their nuclear program in case they need to build one.

---

Ok. Let's say you are the leader of Iran and you are against getting bombed by Israel. Would you?

A) Build nuclear weapons as fast as possible
B) Keep a nuclear program around just in case but not actually build a bomb


You arguments make zero sense.

---

Think of it like this. If they build a bomb, that gives the US the justification to go in and give them the Iraq treatment. They obviously do not want that. But if they totally give up the program, they believe they will ultimately get the Libya treatment (which Netanyahu recently called for). They also do not want that either.

Iran keeps their program as an insurance policy. If Israel does a major attack, or America goes in, then Iran literally has nothing left to lose and would then be compelled to build it. Which they would be able to do in a few weeks probably.

---

Your analogy is wrong. If Iraq had nuclear weapons Saddam would still be alive today and we would probably still be negotiating with him. The "Threat" of WMD is not what saved him, it turned out to be his downfall.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Let Israel fight Israel's war. We've already done the bit about WMD in some desert

---

THIS is the argument Keyo wants to make but he keeps getting hung up on "There is no proof"

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Just to be clear. You are claiming that Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons and that the argument that they are building them is a lie and a "neoconservative" talking point?

---

Correct. At this time there is no evidence Iran is actively building nukes. Same as it's been for the last few decades every time this talking point is trotted out. If Iran wanted to build a bomb, it could do so probably within a few weeks. But they don't want to give US justification to destroy them.

---

I love how in one post you admit that the Iranian government is obviously building nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Israel and the US. And in the next you claim they aren't building them only pretending to build them.

---

I have never admitted Iran is obviously building nukes. What I've consistently said is that they insist on keeping their nuclear program in case they need to build one.

---

Ok. Let's say you are the leader of Iran and you are against getting bombed by Israel. Would you?

A) Build nuclear weapons as fast as possible
B) Keep a nuclear program around just in case but not actually build a bomb


You arguments make zero sense.

---

Think of it like this. If they build a bomb, that gives the US the justification to go in and give them the Iraq treatment. They obviously do not want that. But if they totally give up the program, they believe they will ultimately get the Libya treatment (which Netanyahu recently called for). They also do not want that either.

Iran keeps their program as an insurance policy. If Israel does a major attack, or America goes in, then Iran literally has nothing left to lose and would then be compelled to build it. Which they would be able to do in a few weeks probably.

---

Your analogy is wrong. If Iraq had nuclear weapons Saddam would still be alive today and we would probably still be negotiating with him. The "Threat" of WMD is not what saved him, it turned out to be his downfall.

---

Incorrect. The entire justification for the invasion was the premise that he already had them.

Quote:

---

Which they would be able to do in a few weeks probably.

---

And the reason they'd be take to do it in a few weeks is because they continue to enrich uranium as part of their weapons program!


Quite impressive that even with your circular logic you managed to back yourself into that corner.

rootube said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Let Israel fight Israel's war. We've already done the bit about WMD in some desert

---

THIS is the argument Keyo wants to make but he keeps getting hung up on "There is no proof"

---

Incorrect again. I stated in this thread that this is not an option. If we let Israel bomb Iran, Iran retaliates, then the US is compelled to get involved. I am against this.

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Just to be clear. You are claiming that Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons and that the argument that they are building them is a lie and a "neoconservative" talking point?

---

Correct. At this time there is no evidence Iran is actively building nukes. Same as it's been for the last few decades every time this talking point is trotted out. If Iran wanted to build a bomb, it could do so probably within a few weeks. But they don't want to give US justification to destroy them.

---

I love how in one post you admit that the Iranian government is obviously building nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Israel and the US. And in the next you claim they aren't building them only pretending to build them.

---

I have never admitted Iran is obviously building nukes. What I've consistently said is that they insist on keeping their nuclear program in case they need to build one.

---

Ok. Let's say you are the leader of Iran and you are against getting bombed by Israel. Would you?

A) Build nuclear weapons as fast as possible
B) Keep a nuclear program around just in case but not actually build a bomb


You arguments make zero sense.

---

Think of it like this. If they build a bomb, that gives the US the justification to go in and give them the Iraq treatment. They obviously do not want that. But if they totally give up the program, they believe they will ultimately get the Libya treatment (which Netanyahu recently called for). They also do not want that either.

Iran keeps their program as an insurance policy. If Israel does a major attack, or America goes in, then Iran literally has nothing left to lose and would then be compelled to build it. Which they would be able to do in a few weeks probably.

---

Your analogy is wrong. If Iraq had nuclear weapons Saddam would still be alive today and we would probably still be negotiating with him. The "Threat" of WMD is not what saved him, it turned out to be his downfall.

---

Incorrect. The entire justification for the invasion was the premise that he already had them.

---

False. If/when Iran gets nukes you will immediately see a nuclear test to demonstrate to the world that they have them. They already have ballistic middles capable of hitting Israel. Then the entire calculus changes.

Do you remember a Nuclear test from Iraq? No? That's because it never happened.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Which they would be able to do in a few weeks probably.

---

And the reason they'd be take to do it in a few weeks is because they continue to enrich uranium as part of their weapons program!


Quite impressive that even with your circular logic you managed to back yourself into that corner.

---

Correct. Which is why they insist on keeping enrichment.

Hey genius,

Quote:

---

The report by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency which was seen by The Associated Press says that as of May 17, Iran has amassed 408.6 kilograms (900.8 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60%.

That's an increase of 133.8 kilograms (294.9 pounds) or almost 50% since the IAEA's last report in February.

---

That's over a 50% increase in the span of 3 months. What's your definition of "currently" in your world?

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Let Israel fight Israel's war. We've already done the bit about WMD in some desert

---

THIS is the argument Keyo wants to make but he keeps getting hung up on "There is no proof"

---

Incorrect again. I stated in this thread that this is not an option. If we let Israel bomb Iran, Iran retaliates, then the US is compelled to get involved. I am against this.

---

He did not have nukes.

He had chemical and bio (or so was claimed).

Allen Gamble said:

---

Hey genius,

Quote:

---

The report by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency which was seen by The Associated Press says that as of May 17, Iran has amassed 408.6 kilograms (900.8 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60%.

That's an increase of 133.8 kilograms (294.9 pounds) or almost 50% since the IAEA's last report in February.

---

That's over a 50% increase in the span of 3 months. What's your definition of "currently" in your world?

---

In the last 3 months? Isn't that the timeline of Trumps ultimatum? Seems like Iran is expecting to have to deal with aggression from Israel/US.

I'd like to thank Keyno for proving the insanity that is of the isolationist demagoguery. You see, Iran was just a peaceful nation minding its own business until the neocons warned them to not build nukes, so of course they are now stockpiling more uranium as a result of America/Israel's recent aggression! In the same breath, he will continue to say they are not building nukes.....even though he just acknowledged they are.

Allen Gamble said:

---

I'd like to thank Keyno for proving the insanity that is of the isolationist demagoguery. You see, Iran was just a peaceful nation minding its own business until the neocons warned them to not build nukes, so of course they are now stockpiling more uranium as a result of America/Israel's recent aggression! In the same breath, he will continue to say they are not building nukes.....even though he just acknowledged they are.

---

I understand where the hangup is. You consider enriching uranium to be the equivalent of building nukes. I do not. I guess its a disagreement of personal opinion.

Yes, Iran enriching uranium doesn't mean they're building a nuke. Just like Hitler militarizing the Rhineland in 1936 was a sign of deterring French invasion.

Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

Allen Gamble said:

---

Yes, Iran enriching uranium doesn't mean they're building a nuke. Just like Hitler militarizing the Rhineland in 1936 was a sign of deterring French invasion.

Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

---

Well we've reached Godwin's Law and the attacks on intelligence. Thanks for the discussion. Pray for no more foreign wars.

Thanks for playing buddy.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Let Israel fight Israel's war. We've already done the bit about WMD in some desert

---

THIS is the argument Keyo wants to make but he keeps getting hung up on "There is no proof"

---

Incorrect again. I stated in this thread that this is not an option. If we let Israel bomb Iran, Iran retaliates, then the US is compelled to get involved. I am against this.

---

He did not have nukes.

He had chemical and bio (or so was claimed).

---

As it turns out he didn't have squat. Which is why the threat of a WMD (chemical or nuclear) is nothing unlike what Keo is suggesting and only makes you more vulnerable. An actual test explosion of a nuclear device is another story altogether.

Iran has been 1 week away from a nuke for 40 years. Levin is just a warmonger like half the GOP.

Today @SecDef confirmed that Iran’s terrorist regime is actively working towards a nuclear weapon.

For the sake of our national security, the security of our allies, and millions of civilians in the region this cannot be allowed to happen.

— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) June 11, 2025

If you are on the fence about who to believe, on side we have the secretary of defense, senator cotton, and mark levin, and on the other side we have Tucker, Iran apologists Obama and gabbard and the poster that says Sandusky was framed.

Tough call.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Today @SecDef confirmed that Iran’s terrorist regime is actively working towards a nuclear weapon.

For the sake of our national security, the security of our allies, and millions of civilians in the region this cannot be allowed to happen.

— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) June 11, 2025

If you are on the fence about who to believe, on side we have the secretary of defense, senator cotton, and mark levin, and on the other side we have Tucker, Iran apologists Obama and gabbard and the poster that says Sandusky was framed.

Tough call.

---

Speaking of going nuclear!!

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Quote:

---

If it's fine to say Rashida Tlaib is a shill for Hamas, then it should be fine to say that Mark Levin is a shill for Israel. Is that not fair?

---

Sure, but Hamas is a group of murderous savages straight out of the Middle Ages and Israel is a thriving parliamentary democracy. One produces suicide bombers and the other the highest per capita number of Nobel Prize winners in the world. Shilling for Israel is often in our interest.

---

Most Nobel Prize winners per capita is a wild statistic, but this isn't even correct.

Hegseth is just part of the political elites that want nuclear war - Tulsi

Levin is on Mt Rushmore of chicken hawks for sure. Globalist to boot I would guess with this action.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Today @SecDef confirmed that Iran’s terrorist regime is actively working towards a nuclear weapon.

For the sake of our national security, the security of our allies, and millions of civilians in the region this cannot be allowed to happen.

— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) June 11, 2025

If you are on the fence about who to believe, on side we have the secretary of defense, senator cotton, and mark levin, and on the other side we have Tucker, Iran apologists Obama and gabbard and the poster that says Sandusky was framed.

Tough call.

---

When did Pete Hegseth say that? Do you have a link to his statement? I like and trust Hegseth but this is a statement that has been made and then proven false more times than I can count in the past 30 years.

Wait, what???

When was Iran seeking nuclear weapons ever disproved???

BMX Bandit said:

---

thorough evisceration by AG.

AG in bold, Calson in quotes.
…,,,…,,,..,,

---

Weli stated & thought out, thank you for the information.