Keyno said:BusterAg said:Keyno said:BusterAg said:
1) Al Udeid Air Base is likely our most important asset in the region. I am trying to get you to focus your comments.
2) I do believe that we were going to have to attack Iran eventually or abandon the ME. You disagree. Good, let's start there.
2a) Do you agree that Iran was amassing thousands of ballistic missiles?
2b) Do you agree that if Iran had enough ballistic missiles, that they could overwhelm US anti-defense missile systems and hit US targets?
2c) Do you agree that once Iran had enough ballistic missiles to hit US targets, they would have more of a deterrent to keep the US from attacking to stop their Uranium enrichment?
2d) Do you agree that if Iran could enrich uranium to get a nuke, they would?
2e) Do you agree that Iran having a nuke would be a bad thing for the US?
If 2a - 2e are true, why don't you think we would have to eventually attack Iran? If you disagree with 2a - 2e, which of them do you disagree with and why?
2a- Iran has a massive stockpile of missiles and drones.
2b- Iran has enough missiles and drones to overwhelm US bases in their region. This one is an Israel security question framed as a US one.
2c- Iran is a signatory of the NPT, which ALLOWS uranium enrichment. Greatest Ally is not (curious). This is another Israel security question framed as a US one.
2d- Iran is a signatory of NPT. If Iran actually wanted to build a nuke, they could have done so many years ago. Iran has been using the security strategy of nuclear hedging. Their biggest rival in the region (Israel), is nuclear (although not a signatory of the NPT)
2e- Not really. I do not subscribe to the Mark Levin theory of "Iran is a death cult of terrorists that wants to nuke everyone". Interestingly enough, Greatest Ally actually has a policy called the Samson Option, where they declare they will nuke everyone if they feel sufficiently threatened.
So yeah, I don't know if my answers qualify for the result you were hoping for. I hope you learned something though
I appreciate the very candid response.
Marco Rubio believed that Iran is trying to stockpile enough missiles to overwhelm US anti-missile defense systems, and that is why Israel attacked. I believe him. You don't. That is the source of the disagreement. That is fine.
Iran did not have enough missiles or drones to overwhelm US anti-missile systems. The proof is that they tried to after we attacked, and they were largely unsuccessful.
If you think that Iran has any reason to enrich Uranium, I believe that you are delusional. We will give them all of the unenriched uranium that they want for peaceful purposes.
If you think that Iran having a nuke would not be a bad thing for the US, I believe that you are delusional. Iran is a government who draws their power on the chant "death to America".
Your concern over Israel having a nuke and lack of concern for Iran having a nuke is also very telling.
And I did learn something, thank you for asking. What I learned is that your underlying assumptions are much more closely aligned to those of the Iranian government than they are the intelligence of the US government as communicated by Trump and Rubio, which means I really don't care at all what you think, but very happy you articulated why you carry the opinions that you do.
Yikes this is going to be another long one. I will start by thanking you for the candid response as well.
Israel did not attack because Iran was trying to stockpile enough missiles to overwhelm US-anti missile systems. Israel attacked because Israel has wanted to take out Iran for like 5 decades, and they finally got a US President who would back them.
Iran has enough missiles and drones to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is why it has been closed.
Iran has the right to enrich uranium because they are a signatory of the NPT. It literally grants the right to enrich uranium. Greatest Ally is not a signatory- I noticed you did not address this when I said it earlier and I doubt you will now.
The "death to America" thing is basically a reaction to American action in the ME (and support for Greatest Ally). As an American, I would like to see the entire ME denuclearized. America has a stated policy of non proliferation- which apparently does not apply to Greatest Ally (not a signatory of the NPT)
Look man, you can say whatever. This is a political message board and we are talking politics.
Well, Marco Rubio disagrees with you. So, maybe you aren't anti American. Maybe you are uninformed. Or maybe you think that Rubio is lying. I dunno.
https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/03/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-remarks-to-press-6