WAR US/Iran war. Non news discussion.

okie-carbine

Veteran Member
It was posted that Iran has not had internet service for 40 days. Think about that for a minute. How much would YOU know about the Iran situation if you had absolutely no internet access? Do you get news from any other source other than the internet? If so, what?
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
I am giving it a few minutes to see whether the Sky News report on a 2-week ceasefire is accurate, and then I'm off to bed. It is now being reported on RTE (Irish National Broadcaster) as well. The deadline was at 1 am our time. Well, better a slightly late bedtime than a civilization dying tonight.

We will see if it happens in two weeks (or the ceasefire even holds that long).
 

library lady

Veteran Member
Mea culpa. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong and have no trouble admitting it. However, why I was wrong is that the disparate and privileged treatment of Israel - and all things Israeli - by the US government has been so pervasive, for so long that myself and millions of other Americans have come to expect - though not agree - with it.

Also note that this post is not remotely "anti-Jewish" anymore than it would be if Romania received the same sort of special treatment accorded to Israel and I called it out. My comments would be directed at the country of Romania and not the millions of Romanians.

I also hate that I feel compelled to include the following disclaimer, but the topic is so sensitive that I feel I must: I have had many Jewish friends, have dated Jewish women and have been helped by Jewish business associates. Not every interaction I've had with Jews has been good, but this was no more or less so than dealings I've had with other groups.

Best
Doc
Fair enough, Doc. We may continue to disagree--I wouldn't say Obama or Biden gave Israel privileged treatment, or that Saudi Arabia wasn't let off the hook for 9/11--but I appreciate your taking the time to explain. :-)
 

Luddite

Has No Life - Lives on TB
The Iranian statement says they will continue enrichment.

One of two things happens in the next hour.

The rubble bounces or they clarify/retract that part.

No matter your position or how you feel, PDJT can't overcome that "TACO". JMHO

Their chin music just got potentially hundreds of thousands killed. Jmho

Eta: post 14740 in the big serious thread.
 

jward

passin' thru
The Iranian statement says they will continue enrichment.

One of two things happens in the next hour.

The rubble bounces or they clarify/retract that part.

No matter your position or how you feel, PDJT can't overcome that "TACO". JMHO

Their chin music just got potentially hundreds of thousands killed. Jmho

Eta: post 14740 in the big serious thread.
Can u clue me in on the "TACO" thing- i am not groking what that is bout.

- and yeah, the rubble still stands a fair chance of going airborn, any time now, due to any number of things, from any number of players... :: shrug ::
 

Doc1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
The Iranian statement says they will continue enrichment.

One of two things happens in the next hour.

The rubble bounces or they clarify/retract that part.

No matter your position or how you feel, PDJT can't overcome that "TACO". JMHO

Their chin music just got potentially hundreds of thousands killed. Jmho

Eta: post 14740 in the big serious thread.

I try to look at things logically and I've heard the Iranian claims of "60% enrichment." Frankly, that makes absolutely no sense.

60% enriched uranium is far too highly enriched for commercial reactor use and it is not enriched enough for weapons use. Open source technical material(s) have stated that an atomic bomb could be constructed using 80% HEU. More highly enriched uranium would be desirable, but not necessary.

Why would the Iranians only enrich to 60%? It doesn't make any sense, other than to (try to) convince the world that they're not dangerous. My very strong suspicion is that they have already enriched into the 90% range, especially since this material is not inspected by world agencies.

Best
Doc
 

Luddite

Has No Life - Lives on TB
We heard "their capabilities were destroyed" months ago.

This latest skirmish had them "two weeks away".

I make no claim to insider information. I cannot see how any reasonable person resolves current information.

(Taking the statement that Rondaben posted in the other thread at face value)
 

jward

passin' thru
Trump Always Chickens Out.
I didn't come up with it.

Nor do I agree with the sentiment.

IF they actually aren't expected to cease enrichment I can see where some might feel compelled to use the phrase.
Thank you..and yes, it's hard for even a fair minded person to feel confident about things while we're still in the middle of all nuanced events going on...but my guess is that concept is being pushed hardest (but not only!) by those who're can in no way shape or form be confused for sincere, fair minded or people of good will interested in truth for the truths sake
: )

and at first blush I would agree that in djt we find someone who always seeks to apply the least amount of pain to the least amount of people, and tries to limit it to only the most deserving of them- - - :: shrug ::
 

rondaben

Veteran Member
Thank you..and yes, it's hard for even a fair minded person to feel confident about things while we're still in the middle of all nuanced events going on...but my guess is that concept is being pushed hardest (but not only!) by those who're can in no way shape or form be confused for sincere, fair minded or people of good will interested in truth for the truths sake
: )

and at first blush I would agree that in djt we find someone who always seeks to apply the least amount of pain to the least amount of people, and tries to limit it to only the most deserving of them- - - :: shrug ::
Wait...is this the same "a whole civilization will die tonight." DJT we are talking about? Hardly seems minimalist OR limited.
 

okie-carbine

Veteran Member
I try to look at things logically and I've heard the Iranian claims of "60% enrichment." Frankly, that makes absolutely no sense.

60% enriched uranium is far too highly enriched for commercial reactor use and it is not enriched enough for weapons use. Open source technical material(s) have stated that an atomic bomb could be constructed using 80% HEU. More highly enriched uranium would be desirable, but not necessary.

Why would the Iranians only enrich to 60%? It doesn't make any sense, other than to (try to) convince the world that they're not dangerous. My very strong suspicion is that they have already enriched into the 90% range, especially since this material is not inspected by world agencies.

Best
Doc
I mean this with all due respect and civility, but have you ever listened to or watched an Iranian official talk about this?
 

TFergeson

Non Solum Simul Stare
Live a few minutes ago - after ceasefire - missles being fired into Israel. ON Fox News!

IRAN LIED AGAIN!

It could be that there is no more "Iran" in the negotiating sense.

Why is this hard to believe? It has been talked about for weeks now. Anyone who could speak for the whole country/IRGC has been killed, and they openly stated they gave each IRGC unit independent orders and instructions.
 

TFergeson

Non Solum Simul Stare
✡︎
@NiohBerg
25m

Sirens are sounding in:

Israel
United Arab Emirates
Bahrain
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait

This is AFTER the ceasefire. Why? Because Trump negotiated with one regime faction, not all of them.

From the other thread, in addition to my post above.
 

Old Greek

Veteran Member
He gave them an off ramp, they declined to exit.

The consequences are on them.

Almost like it was the plan?
Yep - agree - our miltary probably asked for it.
And also shored up some of the small support he was losing by not pushing negotiations. I believe he knows they will not work.

Also gives our guys some down time. Bet our satellites will be busy in the next 48 hours!
 

Doc1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I read the "ten point plan" several times and was struck by the fact that there was no mention of Iran's nuclear weapons program. This is what President Trump described as "a workable basis on which to negotiate."?

I can only assume that there is a lot of behind the scenes negotiating going on which we, the public are wholly unaware of.

Best
Doc
 

Tristan

TB Fanatic
I read the "ten point plan" several times and was struck by the fact that there was no mention of Iran's nuclear weapons program. This is what President Trump described as "a workable basis on which to negotiate."?

I can only assume that there is a lot of behind the scenes negotiating going on which we, the public are wholly unaware of.

Best
Doc

That'd be a fair bet.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
I just wanted to say here for the record that while I have very mixed feelings about Trump's conduct of this war, the last-minute ceasefire could be either a disaster or a master stroke.

The reasons it could be a disaster are obvious, and have been pointed out all over the place on both this thread and the main one.

However, the reason it could turn out to be a master stroke is that if Iran blows it, which I suspect some of the Revolutionary Guard Units will; then the world is likely to be much more accepting of whatever he does to them, if Iran breaks the ceasefire themselves.

Because of the way the Revolutionary Guard Units are structured, whatever the Mullahs (or the remnants of the civil government) say is likely to be ignored by some of the local commanders. They were obviously firing last night on Israel, perhaps hoping to get the "last word" before receiving orders to shut down.

If they start up again, even if it is only against Israel, but attacking in obvious and in ways impossible to ignore, then it is likely that Israel at least will resume their attacks, essentially acting in self-defense.

Also, an outright civil war in Iran is more likely than not, with at least one side (there may be more than two) refusing to honor a ceasefire not of their own making.

At which point, if either or both of these things occur, Trump is likely to feel justified in going in with all guns/planes blazing, and the rest of the world may be unhappy about it, but the sense of anger and horror is going to be directed more at the Iranians than at the US - or at least, that may be what Trump is counting on.

If this was thought through, which I am not certain of, at this time.

We shall see...
 

auxman

Deus vult...
MAZE:

2015. Chuck Schumer explains why he is not supporting Obama's Iran nuclear deal.

Schumer detailed how the deal would not only fail to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, it would in many ways advance Iran's nuclear program.

It's worth noting that as soon as Trump announced in 2018 that he was withdrawing from the deal, Schumer switched his position and began claiming that Obama's deal had been a success.

RT 4:15
View: https://twitter.com/i/status/2042011945172078737
 
Top