IAEA Iran 6 to 8 months away from having nuclear weapons .

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: DBCowboy

I get it. But your battle with them has ramifications for the rest of us.

Iran would be Vietnam. We can't just send genz kids to a country who hasn't attacked us, it would be a slaughter.

I'm 29 and can be in fighting shape in a month, but I'm not doing it unless we're attacked. Not out of fear, principle. I don't plan on doing the whole family gambit, I don't really worry about my self, but I'm a prideful f#, and I don't do the bidding of others.

It's not gonna be Vietnam. We won't be invading. If we do take military action, it'll be mostly air and missile strikes and maybe some special ops.

"shock and awe" "mission accomplished".

Cute buzz words. I think you misunderstand what both of them mean. Shock and Awe wasn't like "hey we're gonna do this and the war will be over". That was never what it was meant to do and it wasn't presented that way, so I dunno why you even think that's a point to be made here. Also, the Mission Accomplished sign was at the request of the Navy because the ship the speech was given on was about to rotate back to the States after its successful deployment. It wasn't put there by the administration as a claim that the war was over and done with. Bush didn't claim that in the speech either.

15 years later and people still don't know this stuff? You guys seriously disappoint me sometimes. Next you'll tell me there were no WMD in Iraq.

Longest wars of our country, and arguably the most costly.

Don't mind me, I'm just over here trying to cut federal spending.

If you're worried about federal spending, look at the domestic side. You could cut the military budget to zero and we'd still have a budget deficit. About 75% of our federal budget is spent domestically, with the majority of that going to social programs. The idea that the wars have been responsible for our deficits and debt, even just "most" of it, is just not true. We're around $22T in debt, and the wars account for maybe 10% of that. Not to mention we're conflating Iraq and Afghanistan now.

a reply to: face23785

Alright, I'll sarcastically comcede to the fact we decimated Iraq which would have definitely put our way of life at risk.

Also, excellent point on we spend more domestically than on idiodic wars that kill our own citizens. Why should we invest our own money to our own house? F#ing retarded, I'm embarrassed for asking.

I vote we slash education, keep the system of health care bills being the number one cause of bancrupsy, and bitching about putting the stick in the front tire of our bicycle while we lay in the aftermath pointing our finger at something else.

Because accountability and self awareness are un-American and disgusting.

*caveat, I'm being blunt and semi sarcastic, also I'm with an out of town good friend so bourbon is involved.... While semi-serious, I won't hold a grudge and can take a different stance in another thread*

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: face23785

Alright, I'll sarcastically comcede to the fact we decimated Iraq which would have definitely put our way of life at risk.

Also, excellent point on we spend more domestically than on idiodic wars that kill our own citizens. Why should we invest our own money to our own house? F#ing retarded, I'm embarrassed for asking.

I vote we slash education, keep the system of health care bills being the number one cause of bancrupsy, and bitching about putting the stick in the front tire of our bicycle while we lay in the aftermath pointing our finger at something else.

Because accountability and self awareness are un-American and disgusting.

*caveat, I'm being blunt and semi sarcastic, also I'm with an out of town good friend so bourbon is involved.... While semi-serious, I won't hold a grudge and can take a different stance in another thread*

Yeah none of that changes the fact that military spending isn't responsible for any of the stuff you're so worried about. It's just a convenient place to lay the blame. Big black holes in the classified budget and fake stories about the Pentagon "losing" trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, we invest plenty of money in our house, to the tune of about 3 TRILLION dollars a year. It's just misspent and mismanaged. And what's the answer? More inefficient, incompetent government? Brilliant! Nobody is suggesting cutting all the domestic spending, but we need to take an honest look at how we spend. There is abuse and inefficiency everywhere. That's the nature of government. It's not something you can really take out of it by getting the "right" people in charge.

a reply to: face23785

Oppenheimer was a bit into ancient Hindu scriptures.
Some of the scriptures have stories about flying machines
and also descriptions of events that are similar to
nuclear blasts.

If you want a real rabbit hole to explore,
anagram "The Marcellus Shale Formation"
and see how many anagrams about nukes
it contains.
Coincidence you say?
You mean like stop signs always
coinciding with intersections?

originally posted by: RavenSpeaks
a reply to: face23785

Oppenheimer was a bit into ancient Hindu scriptures.
Some of the scriptures have stories about flying machines
and also descriptions of events that are similar to
nuclear blasts.

If you want a real rabbit hole to explore,
anagram "The Marcellus Shale Formation"
and see how many anagrams about nukes
it contains.
Coincidence you say?
You mean like stop signs always
coinciding with intersections?

His quote "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" is from Hindu scripture isn't it?

That's an interesting take on it. I don't know why that was so hard for Lumenari to explain. It was less work than her actual response. I can actually search for more info now that I have something to go on. Thanks.

Well, with all the money that the US used to give Iran and how much EU is giving to Iran, they finally have money to get their missiles finished. Iran should thank Europe and Obama for all the help in their quest for nuclear weapons.

a reply to: face23785

Meanwhile, we invest plenty of money in our house, to the tune of about 3 TRILLION dollars a year. It's just misspent and mismanaged. And what's the answer? More inefficient, incompetent government?

I'm willing to ignore the first part or your post to agree with you on this. I'm not an extra spending guy, I'm a invest for more kind of dude.

Yup,cut it. Cut it and make it more efficient. Invest in education so people can go to community College for an associates while we make public schools who we already fund accept them at a reasonable rate. We'll do that to mitigate the labor crisis since we don't want to do labor.

Then, we trim our forever wars because we can literally destroy a "threat" conventionally and without t the abiltiey we hold to cleanse the planet a few times over.

Finally, the number one reason for bancrupcy in the states is health care bills. Thats pathetic my dude. We need to fix that, and without adding spending, because we do more or that than anyone else already.

Forgive my sassyness, but I meant all of that.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: face23785

Meanwhile, we invest plenty of money in our house, to the tune of about 3 TRILLION dollars a year. It's just misspent and mismanaged. And what's the answer? More inefficient, incompetent government?

I'm willing to ignore the first part or your post to agree with you on this. I'm not an extra spending guy, I'm a invest for more kind of dude.

Yup,cut it. Cut it and make it more efficient. Invest in education so people can go to community College for an associates while we make public schools who we already fund accept them at a reasonable rate. We'll do that to mitigate the labor crisis since we don't want to do labor.

Then, we trim our forever wars because we can literally destroy a "threat" conventionally and without t the abiltiey we hold to cleanse the planet a few times over.

Finally, the number one reason for bancrupcy in the states is health care bills. Thats pathetic my dude. We need to fix that, and without adding spending, because we do more or that than anyone else already.

Forgive my sassyness, but I meant all of that.

I can agree with a lot of that. People shouldn't be going bankrupt on medical bills, not to mention the student loan problem. I don't think the solution is the government just paying for everything though. A more effective solution would be to find ways to make those things more affordable. Anything the government subsidizes, the cost skyrockets. That's simple supply and demand. When you know you're gonna get paid from the government, there's no incentive to control prices. What do all these things in red have in common? Big government programs subsidizing them.

Growing the economy so people have more money and educating young people about finance would be a smart idea too. A lot of people cause their own financial problems by just spending recklessly, as sad as that is.

Back on topic:

a reply to: face23785

You'll never find me advocating initiatives with increased spending. We do enough spending to revolutionize anything.

Props to your response though. This is why I come here👍

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Saudi Arabia are the closest thing to a sovereign nation attacking us since Pearl Harbor.

You forgot Israel. They attacked a US naval ship in international waters. Hell, we just claimed Vietnam attacked a ship and used that for justification for a decade+ war costing hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of American lives. And that was all based on a lie.

Israel actually attacks a ship, and we give them nuclear weapons. Fun Fact: they are also the only sovereign nation that has admitted to carrying out terrorist attacks against US citizens.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

As callous as it is... People are deciding what our nation's kids must do.

I'm in the position where that doesn't effect me, yet I try to do what's "right".

I can fight, but I won't unless it's a worthy rigjt. I have no sh##s given if it's not on my terms.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Fallingdown

I saw this earlier.
According to the MSM and other UN mouthpieces Iran has been X weeks/months/years from having a nuclear weapon for the last 30 years.

It's nothing more than our regularly scheduled fear mongering/war drum beating as far as I'm concerned. They've cried wolf for far too long. I can't take them seriously.

I agree we have been hearing this for what seems like ages. That said, at some point you would think they would be able to make a nuclear weapon after all these years though.

Or just buy one from Russia.

Of course, they would need literally pallets of money to actually pull that off.

Oh wait...

Maybe Russia will sent them one made with the Uranium from America, that Hillary took bribes too give them, and pay for it with the pallets of Money Obamakins sent them?

Then we will turn their sand box into glass

a reply to: DBCowboy

Ya, poor helpless Israel

originally posted by: Fallingdown
I can’t see the US or our allies allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Nor do I see Iran giving them up without a fight .

Gawd forbid them from having their own self-determination, like we strive for like history cant compare, gawd damn anyone try to be free (of the "Land of the Free"). Gawd damn them I say! Turn em into a glass parking lot already. I mean FFS if Iran never existed then Reagan couldnt have had that pesky Iran-Contra Scandal tarnish his record. Oh, wait, everyone ignores that bit. Perhaps Iranians can go on existing then? I'm so scared and confused, now.

a reply to: Fallingdown

spoiler alert, if Iran wanted nuclear weapons they would have them. Not that they aren't a country to be worried about, but they are on a 1 day window when it comes to having nukes.

If they wanted them they would have them.

The Iranian regime would never divulge that they tested anything like North Korea does that's for sure. We wouldn't know how close they are, if they have something even crude for shorter ranges (tactical), or anything else.

They're very quiet and espionage is almost impossible, which at the least presents an unknown factor and also showing how serious they are.

That said, I don't think they have anything much at all. Don't you have to have tests to develop? We have sensors, at least the one for earthquakes that would pick up something like it does every time North Korea tests. If they aren't testing, how are they so close to having nukes?

I don't read about Iran's nuclear program so pardon my ignorance if that sounds wrong but I haven't seen a single article anywhere in recent times about it.

Fake news: IAEA released a report last week saying Iran are making no efforts to develop a nuke and are still following the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty.

uk.reuters.com...

a reply to: Fallingdown

Is that so bad?

At least it might send a message to that very small but very powerful country in the mid east that uses the US to do its dirty work that forcing the US to make war with Iran might be such a grand idea.

Totally BS, since when the ATS has become the fake news central? Natnyahoo said the same crap since 90’s it is nothing news actually.

So… what is news..? lol

a reply to: Fallingdown

I'm fairly sure Iran has nukes, what they don't have is assured detonation, transport-ability, high yields or delivery systems.