Dude let it go and check in with your doctor, your meds are off.
You called Jennifer Garner a bitch apropos of nothing. What’s your encore, calling Leslie Uggams the N word?
[quote=“madmonk28, post:341, topic:1019962”]
You called Jennifer Garner a bitch apropos of nothing. [/quote]
It’s ‘The Pit’. I could call Mother Theresa a bitch. It’s just an opinion.
Wow, now that crosses a line & is not just opinion. Might you check your white hood at the door please? Thanks.
Yeah, but it’s a weird misogynist opinion that has nothing to do with what people are talking about. You’re nuttier than a squirrel’s turd.
Tell us about your run-ins with Jennifer Garner. I love your celebrity stories!
( Shouldn’t you be saving all of your ‘white knighting’ for when she’s around to appreciate it? Its a pretty cheesy way to troll for dates.)
Just wanted to acknowledge this. I like how the media ran with “Kami/Kammie” like they knew what they were talking about. Totally believable, sadly.
(And, like MI: Final Reckoning, the prevention of total nuclear war depends on one man.)
Umm, could you link to that/those posts? TIA!
But remember, Iran is the existential threat to the US, not the other way around.
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran has enough highly enriched uranium to build “several” nuclear weapons if it chooses, the United Nations’ top nuclear official is now warning. But diplomatic efforts aimed at again limiting its atomic program seem more unlikely than ever before as Tehran arms Russia in its war on Ukraine and as unrest shakes the Islamic Republic.
The warning from Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in response to questions from European lawmakers this week, shows just how high the stakes have become over Iran’s nuclear program. Even at the height of previous tensions between the West and Iran under hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran never enriched uranium as high as it does now. - SOURCE
Is the head of the IAEA not to be trusted?
So, the question to you is if not now, when? Or do you just wait till it is a moot point and Iran has nuclear weapons? Clearly they are working towards one. Fordo was not built under a mountain because it is a peaceful, normal enrichment plant meant for civilian power generation.
While they may not have actually built a bomb yet the hard part is the enriched fuel which they seem to have been doing and likely have already. The road from there to a working atomic bomb is comparatively easy and fast.
Of course, Netanyahu and Trump still suck and they very likely are wagging the dog. That doesn’t make the above go away though.
The bombings didn’t make it go away either. In fact, the bombings appear to have accomplished very little in terms of Iran’s actual nuclear capabilities. We may have just guaranteed that Iran gets nukes.
So are you in favor of invasion now, since that may be the only thing that could prevent it?
We will be greeted as liberators.
I think it’s pertinent to note that your source is from January of 2033.
I remain unconvinced that there is anything remotely imminent about Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
I don’t trust either Trump or Bibi at all, and would not be at all surprised to find out the claimed urgency of these strikes was a cynical hoax. Moreover, to the extent that Iran actually was moving quickly towards a bomb, it’s largely Trump’s fault for pulling out of the non-proliferation treaty.
Having said that, there is objective evidence from sources like the IAEA that Iran has been less cooperative with international monitors than they have been in the past, and are stockpiling fissionable material. So it’s not implausible IMO that this might be an actual emergency, nor that Israeli intelligence might have a more accurate assessment of the situation than Tulsi Gabbard does. And I can’t disagree that Iran getting nukes would be a Very Bad Thing.
Of course, in the long run this will only make the population rally around the regime, and make the regime more determined to obtain nukes. Unfortunately, Israel never seems to have realistic options that are better than “ensure short-term safety at the expense of making problems worse in the long term”. 
2023, of course.
@Whack-a-Mole, given your source is from over 2 years ago, and Iran still hasn’t made a bomb, do you want to change your post at all?
Do you think that our failed attack on that sovereign country would encourage them to really make a bomb now?
Here’s a cite from April of this year:
The UN nuclear watchdog’s chief Rafael Grossi warned that Iran was “not far” from possessing a nuclear bomb, shortly before he arrived in Tehran on Wednesday for talks.
“It’s like a puzzle. They have the pieces, and one day they could eventually put them together,” Grossi told French newspaper Le Monde in an interview published on Wednesday.
“There’s still a way to go before they get there. But they’re not far off, that has to be acknowledged,” he said.
They haven’t been far off for a decade or more now. As I’ve mentioned, they might have more leverage threatening to build one than they would if they actually had one.
I’m against this war… and you accuse me of supporting it? God damn, man, you’re drunk.
How is that supposed to work, exactly? Especially with Trump in office?
The only way this works is if they use the threat to get a deal, like they did with Obama. Everyone knows Trump is incapable of making a deal in which the other party actually gets anything. “Giving” Iran anything in return for ending their program is anathema to him, and to his Republican supporters.
But let’s imagine the Iranians actually believe a deal is possible. Then why weren’t they making any serious efforts to make that deal? Why was there no progress in the last 5 months of the Trump Era? So little progress that bombing Iran became the preferred option.
-
Iran accelerates production of near weapons-grade uranium, IAEA says, as tensions with US ratchet up - AP News, February 26, 2025
-
UN nuclear chief says it’s possible Iran’s highly enriched uranium ‘is there’ - Reuters, June 25, 2025
I could be wrong but I think you can make a really shitty nuke at 60% enrichment but weapons grade is considered to be at a higher number (90?) - presumably that’s what you need to make state of the art uranium bombs?