This is not hard at all, even if people have different opinions which is quite normal.
I believe most/all agree Iran should not have nuclear weapons. That's both Americans and the rest of the western world .
The only debate is how close they were to that.
Changing the discussion to how easy or otherwise it is to make a nuclear weapon obfuscates the discussion on how close Iran actually was to having a nuclear weapon. Wanting to say it's easy to get a weapon essentially opens the door to permit a war/attack on Iran at any time whenever any country feels like it. .. . "Its so easy to get a nuke, we need to stop them".
I do not believe Iran was imminently about to acquire or create a nuke. Neither did the rest of the world other than the USA and Israel.
What does seem worth highlighting - Trump in the first term nixed the agreement that was in place with Iran that gave unrestricted access to Iran's enrichment program. That has made the world less safe and made knowing exactly the status of Iran's progress towards enrichment and weapons grade materials more opaque.
I'll add - but hopefully not to distract from the simple debate about how imminent or otherwise Iran was ... in reality - I do not believe the USA actually believed that Iran was close. I personally believe Trump flush with his god complex over successful airstrikes of Iran last year without blowback, the very precise military execution of removing Maduro. Having no checks and balances from the house or the senate . . . thought he could do anything and there would not be any blowback, he was also convinced by Netanyahu and Hegseth that it would be a swift easily won "objective" with Iran capitulating. That's just my own view. Based on quite detailed reporting it is clear the adults in the room when Netanyahu did his sales pitch did not agree that this would be easy.
"theoretically be used"..... "considered a significant proliferation risk"......... The last link you posted was article from 1998.That was five years before the war in Iraq ever started and it was found they possessed no WMD. And none of those assertions actually say that 60% enrichment is considered weapons grade uranium.
You're really reaching for air with little life support left.
Not having WMDs isn't the same as not trying to make WMDs. If a terrorist (or radical government) is trying to make a WMD, do you wait until they finish making it to try to stop them from making it? That makes no sense. Once they've made it, they can use it. That possibility should be avoided.
Weapons grade and able to be used in a weapon are separate but overlapping ideas. I used weapons grade colloquially because I thought it was easy to understand, but unfortunately, it is also possible for a "bad actor" to be deliberately obtuse.
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Quote
It's not the world police when Iran more or less says it's targeting America, or does "Death to America" mean something else to you?
Iran has been chanting "Death to America" for 47 years. How long will it take before you stop trying to use that as excuse?
Our NATO allies were there in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Revisionist history doesn't change that. If they felt these actions were justified they would be there. They're not.
I'll stop using it as a reason when they stop saying it. Official government representatives chanting death to another country will always be a problem for me.
I never said NATO allies weren't there. The only revisionist history is you trying to say that I said things that I didn't say.
I think you are overlooking a few things as far as why they might not be there. NATO is already in a standoff with Russia over Ukraine and wants to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia. Russia supports Iran. Here's a video on NATO preparing for a potential war with Russia:
There's also the they don't trust our military leadership to not screw things up potential angle, which I can also understand.
But, having said all that, you still can't just let Iran have that HEU. And we're the ones with the target on our backs. They don't chant death to NATO.
"theoretically be used"..... "considered a significant proliferation risk"......... The last link you posted was article from 1998.That was five years before the war in Iraq ever started and it was found they possessed no WMD. And none of those assertions actually say that 60% enrichment is considered weapons grade uranium.
You're really reaching for air with little life support left.
Quote
It's not the world police when Iran more or less says it's targeting America, or does "Death to America" mean something else to you?
Iran has been chanting "Death to America" for 47 years. How long will it take before you stop trying to use that as excuse?
Our NATO allies were there in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Revisionist history doesn't change that. If they felt these actions were justified they would be there. They're not.
Tillis slams emerging Iran deal, offers sharp criticism for Pete Hegseth
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) on Sunday added his voice to other Republicans criticizing an emerging peace deal with Iran, saying he would not support it based on his understanding of what it includes.
“It doesn’t make sense to me,” Tillis said of the deal, arguing it was a mistake to leave nuclear material in Iran.
“I’m not too far away from where Pompeo is to be honest with your and I support what Chairman Wicker says,” Tillis said during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) are among the current and former office-holders to criticize the emerging deal, which Wicker warned would be a disaster.
The Trump administration has pushed back on the criticism, particularly from Pompeo.
Tillis was also blistering in his criticism of Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth, who he accused of giving bad advice on the war to Trump.
“We were told about 11 weeks about by Hegseth and Department of Defense that they had obliterated Iran’s defenses and it was just a matter of time before we had the nuclear material. Now we are talking about a posture where we may accept the nuclear material remaining in Iran? How does that make sense at all?,” Tillis said.
The deal being discussed between Iran and the U.S. appears to be one that would allow ships carrying oil to move through the Strait of Hormuz. The war has cut off traffic for that route, through which 20 percent of the world’s supply is delivered. That has led to high gas prices in the U.S., which has put greater pressure on Trump in an election year.
Though details on the proposal have been few, it does not appear the 60-day cease fire being discussed would put any limitations on Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, that would be left for future talks. Nuclear material held in Iran would be part of those discussions.
Hegseth questioned having a 60-day ceasefire in which terms of the nuclear deal would be subject to later negotiations, an argument also made by Pompeo, Wicker and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). He also called questionable a deal in which the U.S. would be holding Iran to promise to clear the Strait of Hormuz.
Tillis also said any deal should be ratified by Congress.
Tillis sharply criticized Hegseth.
“When you tell the president that you have obliterated Iran and you’re in a position to pretty much dictate terms, and now you see what we have,” said Hegseth, who argued owns the war given his position as secretary of Defense.
Tillis criticized Hegseth’s handling of the Russian war with Ukraine and troop deployments to Poland.
“When you see these mistakes made by Hegseth, actually, with all these mistakes in total, it’s beginning to make Kristi Noem look like a five-star recruit,” Tillis quipped, referring to the former Homeland Security secretary who was fired by Trump earlier this year amid intense criticism from congressional Republicans.
Once again, they did not have weapons grade uranium and they have zero delivery systems that could reach U.S. shores. It appears Europe doesn't share your views or they would have been supportive. They were not. But you know, according to you getting oil is more important to the than mass nuclear destruction.
I thought people such as yourself were against the U.S. being the world police? Bad for the world as a whole? We watched how a preemptive strike turned out in Iraq based on overly sensationalized fear tactics. Maybe that's how our allies and NATO learned their lesson?
"From a nuclear physics perspective, as the level of enrichment increases, the "critical mass" required to sustain a fission chain reaction decreases. While uranium enriched to approximately 90% is typically referred to as weapons-grade because it allows for the most efficient and compact designs, materials at the 60% enrichment level are still considered a significant proliferation risk by international monitoring bodies." link
"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitors enrichment activities globally because HEU at various levels can theoretically be used in explosive devices, though lower enrichment levels require significantly more material and result in larger, less efficient configurations."
Yet, a less efficient nuclear bomb is still a nuclear bomb. Iran has hundreds of kilograms of 60% HEU.
It's not the world police when Iran more or less says it's targeting America, or does "Death to America" mean something else to you? A flight from Iran can be in the US in less than a day. As big as the world is, it can be traversed quickly. A bad actor doesn't need an ICBM. You can't check plane cargo in the air. If a private jet secretly carrying a nuclear device reaches our air space, it's already too late.
I don't think most people know what they are talking about when it comes to WMDs. I still support the idea of invading Iraq. Again execution wasn't ideal. But, it was much the same situation. Anti-west regime trying to make nuclear weapons and hide things from inspectors. link
The only lesson "NATO" learned was that war is expensive, and they'd prefer letting someone else foot the bill. And they don't want to be inconvenienced when that other party does it. Yet, sometimes, someone has to do it. Allowing a culture that mass produces suicide bombers and displays an animosity towards America to have large quantities of highly enriched nuclear material is a recipe for disaster.
Tillis slams emerging Iran deal, offers sharp criticism for Pete Hegseth
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) on Sunday added his voice to other Republicans criticizing an emerging peace deal with Iran, saying he would not support it based on his understanding of what it includes.
“It doesn’t make sense to me,” Tillis said of the deal, arguing it was a mistake to leave nuclear material in Iran.
“I’m not too far away from where Pompeo is to be honest with your and I support what Chairman Wicker says,” Tillis said during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) are among the current and former office-holders to criticize the emerging deal, which Wicker warned would be a disaster.
The Trump administration has pushed back on the criticism, particularly from Pompeo.
Tillis was also blistering in his criticism of Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth, who he accused of giving bad advice on the war to Trump.
“We were told about 11 weeks about by Hegseth and Department of Defense that they had obliterated Iran’s defenses and it was just a matter of time before we had the nuclear material. Now we are talking about a posture where we may accept the nuclear material remaining in Iran? How does that make sense at all?,” Tillis said.
The deal being discussed between Iran and the U.S. appears to be one that would allow ships carrying oil to move through the Strait of Hormuz. The war has cut off traffic for that route, through which 20 percent of the world’s supply is delivered. That has led to high gas prices in the U.S., which has put greater pressure on Trump in an election year.
Though details on the proposal have been few, it does not appear the 60-day cease fire being discussed would put any limitations on Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, that would be left for future talks. Nuclear material held in Iran would be part of those discussions.
Hegseth questioned having a 60-day ceasefire in which terms of the nuclear deal would be subject to later negotiations, an argument also made by Pompeo, Wicker and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). He also called questionable a deal in which the U.S. would be holding Iran to promise to clear the Strait of Hormuz.
Tillis also said any deal should be ratified by Congress.
Tillis sharply criticized Hegseth.
“When you tell the president that you have obliterated Iran and you’re in a position to pretty much dictate terms, and now you see what we have,” said Hegseth, who argued owns the war given his position as secretary of Defense.
Tillis criticized Hegseth’s handling of the Russian war with Ukraine and troop deployments to Poland.
“When you see these mistakes made by Hegseth, actually, with all these mistakes in total, it’s beginning to make Kristi Noem look like a five-star recruit,” Tillis quipped, referring to the former Homeland Security secretary who was fired by Trump earlier this year amid intense criticism from congressional Republicans.
I have spent my life adapting my consulting services to fit the market I see, with current technology. Its what I have been doing for 35 years. I dont have a job. I have a consulting service. The reason I am successful is I provide a service that is valuable to my clients. That service has always been changing. Prime example I use to be the autocad expert. I could not do a project in autocad today. I transitioned to being a revit consultant. I will just use AI to make my services more valuable to my clients. I will use AI. it is just a tool. I will decide how to use it to best fit the needs of my clients.
It is a small part of my job. It frees up time to do other more productive work. I am not afraid of AI. I will continue to see how I can use it to make me more valuable to my clients.
If "thoughts" and prayers meant anything we would no longer have school shootings. I was taught decades ago that actions speak louder than words. NATO has refused to help in a war they do not consider in defense of themseves or their allies. Full stop.
Quote
It'd be great if things could be done diplomatically, but some people are just extremists and are willing to lie if it gets them closer to their goals.
Yet that's exactly what's being done now by the trump administration and was successfully done by the Obama administration. You know, until trump pulled out of the nuclear deal in May of 2018.
Quote
Deflect, deflect, deflect. Pointing that Trump is bad all over, doesn't have anything to do with the premise that Iran with nuclear capability is bad for the United States (and our allies, and the world as a whole) and had/has to be stopped.
I get it. When someone gives you an apples to apples comparison you call it a deflection. That seems to a very popular thing these days.
Once again, they did not have weapons grade uranium and they have zero delivery systems that could reach U.S. shores. It appears Europe doesn't share your views or they would have been supportive. They were not. But you know, according to you getting oil is more important to the than mass nuclear destruction.
I thought people such as yourself were against the U.S. being the world police? Bad for the world as a whole? We watched how a preemptive strike turned out in Iraq based on overly sensationalized fear tactics. Maybe that's how our allies and NATO learned their lesson?
The source is in the link at post #2138225. Then your links were also sources for my argument. You took part of a timeline out of context and ignored the context I provided. What wasn't accurate?
I think comparing Iranian leadership to Trump helps my argument more than yours.
I don't want Trump to have Nukes, either, but he is slightly less likely to use them on the US.
Re: NATO's thoughts: "European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen officially welcomed progress toward an agreement between the U.S. and Iran, emphasizing that any lasting deal must stop Iran's nuclear ambitions and curtail its regional proxy actions." link Unfortunately, the EU is highly dependent on imported oil, so they want the situation resolved as quickly as possible now, and don't want to risk becoming embroiled in a long conflict. Yet, diplomatic agreements won't change the underlying problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions and support of terrorism. The EU sees the big problem, but they are more worried about their short term problem. They want their oil now.
It'd be great if things could be done diplomatically, but some people are just extremists and are willing to lie if it gets them closer to their goals.
Deflect, deflect, deflect. Pointing that Trump is bad all over, doesn't have anything to do with the premise that Iran with nuclear capability is bad for the United States (and our allies, and the world as a whole) and had/has to be stopped.
The animation above was done with pictures of me . I just told chatgp to make me bronze and put into a museum. Then i went to a more sophisticated ai video creation app and made the video with another pic of me and explanation of the scene.
The images below are typical work application. The grey model is in revit an architectural modeling software. This takes a long time. It is a full scale model of what will be built. The color rendering is something that I could spend a day doing. Chatgp did this in a couple minutes.
Please clarify what you mean, because this can go many ways lol
You can probably take it in all ways, but primarily traffic, sprawl, crime.
So just like every other place where you have a large concentration of people in a small area?
Atlanta doesn't even rank in the top 25....................
Most Dangerous Places in the U.S. in 2026-2027
Crime rate can be one of the deciding factors of where families settle down. Based on each city's murder and property crime rates per 100,000 people, determined by FBI crime reports, these are the most dangerous places to live in the United States.
The only re-butting you did was metaphorically once again sticking your head somewhere unpleasant.
You made a list of assertions with zero sources to present a story with no context. I pointed out the timeline of those events that made it evident that picture you were trying to paint was in no way an accurate one.
Quote
Peaceful resolutions haven't worked. Iran hasn't done what they said they would do. How do you seriously negotiate with a terrorist supporting regime that can't be trusted? They "formally" stopped allowing access in 2025, but have been "informally" obfuscating and evading for much longer, while producing more enriched uranium than they agreed to, at much higher concentrations than they agreed to, all while simultaneously supporting terror groups.
You'll have to ask trump how you negotiate with them. He was doing it before he attacked them twice and he is doing it again now. I can show you a very long list of things the U.S. has said they will do that they haven't done either if that makes you feel any better. Or are you saying we can trust trump's word any more than theirs? And allow me to remind you first of what he said on April 17th of this year.................
Trump says Iranians have "agreed to everything," including removal of enriched uranium
Updated on: April 17, 2026 / 4:28 PM EDT / CBS News
You do realize they were still allowing inspections and it was known of their uranium enrichment levels since 2021, right? Is that what you call ""informally" obfuscating and evading for much longer"?
Quote
We don't need to watch the people supporting terrorists? We should just let them do whatever?
Just because you don't start a war and attack a country doesn't mean you are supporting them. Or is that what you claim all the other nations of NATO are doing? As I said, the world is watching and they aren't lining up to support trump's actions. According to you that must mean they are supporting terrorists?
Meanwhile as Putin is bombing Ukraine.......
What was Iran "doing" other than their conflict with Israel? What exactly do you claim they were "doing" to the U.S when trump attacked them?
Quote
A core pillar of official state sponsored ideology in Iran is "Death to America." We should just watch as we allow them to work toward a nuclear arsenal?
You don't mean to tell me they are a nation with a crazy leader who says crazy things are you? Hmmmm, why does that sound so familiar?
But that isn't what was happening. There were still inspections going on through June of 2025 when their nuclear program was bombed. The amount and levels of their uranium enrichment was known. They had no uranium enrichment that could produce weapons grade material. Not to mention they have no long range delivery system that can reach the U.S.
Did you miss the way trump has threatened to take over or annex other nations? To make them the "51'st state"? It appears as though Cuba may be next on his hit list. What excuses are you going to come up with then? He has already drawn up a road map........
The Trump administration's three-phase plan for Venezuela—outlined by Secretary of State Marco Rubio—consists of stabilization, recovery, and transition. The initial stabilization phase is currently underway following the U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro.
It's odd how some people will look half way around the world to blame others while ignoring what's going on in their own home.
I rebutted the points you made with factual information you can't deny. If you wish to take the timeline all the way back to 1953 we can do that. But don' try to do what a lot of people have been trying to do and pretend the timeline started in 1979.
What I'm blaming someone for is creating a war that was not needed at the time. Not seriously negotiating a peaceful resolution first. You know, like normal world leaders do. Instead they would negotiate all week and say, "We'll see you back here Monday" and then bomb them over the week-end. They did that twice.
But please, do go on.
The only re-butting you did was metaphorically once again sticking your head somewhere unpleasant.
Yes, go ahead and start at 1953. I'm curious how you'll try to tie '53 to Trump.
Peaceful resolutions haven't worked. Iran hasn't done what they said they would do. How do you seriously negotiate with a terrorist supporting regime that can't be trusted? They "formally" stopped allowing access in 2025, but have been "informally" obfuscating and evading for much longer, while producing more enriched uranium than they agreed to, at much higher concentrations than they agreed to, all while simultaneously supporting terror groups.
We don't need to watch the people supporting terrorists? We should just let them do whatever?
A core pillar of official state sponsored ideology in Iran is "Death to America." We should just watch as we allow them to work toward a nuclear arsenal?
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/Tt7KKbY.png)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/PYiaNAk.jpeg)