U.S. build up to Iranian invasion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iran is providing weapons to Russia. Why shouldn't America invade?

The world, including the U.S., will be better off with a regime change in Iran, or at least with Iran rendered impotent in terms of nuclear weapons. We live in this world, so it is our circus unless you prefer to close your eyes and just hope Iran will be magnanimous and exempt U.S. interests from their future targeting after they acquire nuclear weapons, a prospect so unlikely as to be laughable. That a weak and ineffectual Iran would also benefit Israel is incidental, if salutary.

Yes. duh. That's why we negotiated a multi-lateral treaty back in the 2010's, which seemed to actually be working until this country lost its mind.

As for regime change in Iran - how exactly do you think we got here my friend?

This treaty allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons while ostensibly preventing it.
The key detail is Iran had to process uranium, and this takes a long time.
So Iran under the deal would not process uranium, but could use this equipment to process other chemicals.
The problem is by doing this, Iran could develop better and better centrifuges.
These better centrifuges make the time to process uranium drop by many years.
So Iran goes from needing 50 years to process enough uranium, to developing its centrifuges over a 10-15 year timeframe, at the end of which it would only take months to develop uranium for a nuke.

Is this straight outta the Netanyahu Gazette?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Iran's leader said Iran could launch a nuke at Israel and it wouldn't matter if Israel retaliated with nukes, because it would only destroy a small part of the Muslim world.

B-b-b-b-but I thought their animus towards the U.S. has nothing to do with our blind, unconditional support of Israel’s policies and actions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They deserve their country back, no longer in the hands of warmongering Islamist sponsors of terrorism, is what you mean to say.

Because that worked so well with Iraq.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Iran's leader said Iran could launch a nuke at Israel and it wouldn't matter if Israel retaliated with nukes, because it would only destroy a small part of the Muslim world.

Israel’s leadership openly talked about using nuclear weapons in Gaza to kill everyone. You have no problem with that. The rhetoric coming out of Israel is much more scary vs what comes out of Iran. Go find another country to fight your imperialist wars. Maybe China will be the new sponsor of Israel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They deserve their country back, no longer in the hands of warmongering Islamist sponsors of terrorism, is what you mean to say.

Because that worked so well with Iraq.

And Afghanistan.

[Anonymous]

Tremendous satisfaction in reading post after post from individuals who understand the score, understand the fact that Israel’s propaganda-driven manipulation of geopolitical events is the main issue to deal with, and who don’t hesitate in drop kicking these Hasbara mules into the dumpster of history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iran is providing weapons to Russia. Why shouldn't America invade?

The world, including the U.S., will be better off with a regime change in Iran, or at least with Iran rendered impotent in terms of nuclear weapons. We live in this world, so it is our circus unless you prefer to close your eyes and just hope Iran will be magnanimous and exempt U.S. interests from their future targeting after they acquire nuclear weapons, a prospect so unlikely as to be laughable. That a weak and ineffectual Iran would also benefit Israel is incidental, if salutary.

Yes. duh. That's why we negotiated a multi-lateral treaty back in the 2010's, which seemed to actually be working until this country lost its mind.

As for regime change in Iran - how exactly do you think we got here my friend?

This treaty allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons while ostensibly preventing it.
The key detail is Iran had to process uranium, and this takes a long time.
So Iran under the deal would not process uranium, but could use this equipment to process other chemicals.
The problem is by doing this, Iran could develop better and better centrifuges.
These better centrifuges make the time to process uranium drop by many years.
So Iran goes from needing 50 years to process enough uranium, to developing its centrifuges over a 10-15 year timeframe, at the end of which it would only take months to develop uranium for a nuke.

Is this straight outta the Netanyahu Gazette?

It is physics, from the level of the AP physics B exam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iran is providing weapons to Russia. Why shouldn't America invade?

The world, including the U.S., will be better off with a regime change in Iran, or at least with Iran rendered impotent in terms of nuclear weapons. We live in this world, so it is our circus unless you prefer to close your eyes and just hope Iran will be magnanimous and exempt U.S. interests from their future targeting after they acquire nuclear weapons, a prospect so unlikely as to be laughable. That a weak and ineffectual Iran would also benefit Israel is incidental, if salutary.

Yes. duh. That's why we negotiated a multi-lateral treaty back in the 2010's, which seemed to actually be working until this country lost its mind.

As for regime change in Iran - how exactly do you think we got here my friend?

This treaty allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons while ostensibly preventing it.
The key detail is Iran had to process uranium, and this takes a long time.
So Iran under the deal would not process uranium, but could use this equipment to process other chemicals.
The problem is by doing this, Iran could develop better and better centrifuges.
These better centrifuges make the time to process uranium drop by many years.
So Iran goes from needing 50 years to process enough uranium, to developing its centrifuges over a 10-15 year timeframe, at the end of which it would only take months to develop uranium for a nuke.

Is this straight outta the Netanyahu Gazette?

It is physics, from the level of the AP physics B exam.

Science is not part of the pro-terror "intellect". Only propaganda matters, repeated often, in the hope that at least one other person will join in the repeated posts by the same paid Hamas shill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tremendous satisfaction in reading post after post from individuals who understand the score, understand the fact that Israel’s propaganda-driven manipulation of geopolitical events is the main issue to deal with, and who don’t hesitate in drop kicking these Hasbara mules into the dumpster of history.

I think you misunderstood my comment on this thread. I'm saying let the Middle East settle its own affairs without our involvement. That's very different from what you think I've said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iran is providing weapons to Russia. Why shouldn't America invade?

The world, including the U.S., will be better off with a regime change in Iran, or at least with Iran rendered impotent in terms of nuclear weapons. We live in this world, so it is our circus unless you prefer to close your eyes and just hope Iran will be magnanimous and exempt U.S. interests from their future targeting after they acquire nuclear weapons, a prospect so unlikely as to be laughable. That a weak and ineffectual Iran would also benefit Israel is incidental, if salutary.

Yes. duh. That's why we negotiated a multi-lateral treaty back in the 2010's, which seemed to actually be working until this country lost its mind.

As for regime change in Iran - how exactly do you think we got here my friend?

This treaty allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons while ostensibly preventing it.
The key detail is Iran had to process uranium, and this takes a long time.
So Iran under the deal would not process uranium, but could use this equipment to process other chemicals.
The problem is by doing this, Iran could develop better and better centrifuges.
These better centrifuges make the time to process uranium drop by many years.
So Iran goes from needing 50 years to process enough uranium, to developing its centrifuges over a 10-15 year timeframe, at the end of which it would only take months to develop uranium for a nuke.

Is this straight outta the Netanyahu Gazette?

It is physics, from the level of the AP physics B exam.

Science is not part of the pro-terror "intellect". Only propaganda matters, repeated often, in the hope that at least one other person will join in the repeated posts by the same paid Hamas shill.

That’s for sure. Those welfare queens in Israel couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag at the science fair if Uncle Sam wasn’t doing the work for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iran is providing weapons to Russia. Why shouldn't America invade?

The world, including the U.S., will be better off with a regime change in Iran, or at least with Iran rendered impotent in terms of nuclear weapons. We live in this world, so it is our circus unless you prefer to close your eyes and just hope Iran will be magnanimous and exempt U.S. interests from their future targeting after they acquire nuclear weapons, a prospect so unlikely as to be laughable. That a weak and ineffectual Iran would also benefit Israel is incidental, if salutary.

Yes. duh. That's why we negotiated a multi-lateral treaty back in the 2010's, which seemed to actually be working until this country lost its mind.

As for regime change in Iran - how exactly do you think we got here my friend?

This treaty allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons while ostensibly preventing it.
The key detail is Iran had to process uranium, and this takes a long time.
So Iran under the deal would not process uranium, but could use this equipment to process other chemicals.
The problem is by doing this, Iran could develop better and better centrifuges.
These better centrifuges make the time to process uranium drop by many years.
So Iran goes from needing 50 years to process enough uranium, to developing its centrifuges over a 10-15 year timeframe, at the end of which it would only take months to develop uranium for a nuke.

Is this straight outta the Netanyahu Gazette?

It is physics, from the level of the AP physics B exam.

Fascinating. Fire your school’s AP Physics 1 and 2 instructor. The war crime porn you posted is lifted verbatim from Netanyahu’s little black book of false claims. Nobody with as much as an ounce of integrity believes him, or you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iran is providing weapons to Russia. Why shouldn't America invade?

The world, including the U.S., will be better off with a regime change in Iran, or at least with Iran rendered impotent in terms of nuclear weapons. We live in this world, so it is our circus unless you prefer to close your eyes and just hope Iran will be magnanimous and exempt U.S. interests from their future targeting after they acquire nuclear weapons, a prospect so unlikely as to be laughable. That a weak and ineffectual Iran would also benefit Israel is incidental, if salutary.

Yes. duh. That's why we negotiated a multi-lateral treaty back in the 2010's, which seemed to actually be working until this country lost its mind.

As for regime change in Iran - how exactly do you think we got here my friend?

This treaty allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons while ostensibly preventing it.
The key detail is Iran had to process uranium, and this takes a long time.
So Iran under the deal would not process uranium, but could use this equipment to process other chemicals.
The problem is by doing this, Iran could develop better and better centrifuges.
These better centrifuges make the time to process uranium drop by many years.
So Iran goes from needing 50 years to process enough uranium, to developing its centrifuges over a 10-15 year timeframe, at the end of which it would only take months to develop uranium for a nuke.

Is this straight outta the Netanyahu Gazette?

It is physics, from the level of the AP physics B exam.

Are you talking about craniometry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iran is providing weapons to Russia. Why shouldn't America invade?

The world, including the U.S., will be better off with a regime change in Iran, or at least with Iran rendered impotent in terms of nuclear weapons. We live in this world, so it is our circus unless you prefer to close your eyes and just hope Iran will be magnanimous and exempt U.S. interests from their future targeting after they acquire nuclear weapons, a prospect so unlikely as to be laughable. That a weak and ineffectual Iran would also benefit Israel is incidental, if salutary.

Yes. duh. That's why we negotiated a multi-lateral treaty back in the 2010's, which seemed to actually be working until this country lost its mind.

As for regime change in Iran - how exactly do you think we got here my friend?

This treaty allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons while ostensibly preventing it.
The key detail is Iran had to process uranium, and this takes a long time.
So Iran under the deal would not process uranium, but could use this equipment to process other chemicals.
The problem is by doing this, Iran could develop better and better centrifuges.
These better centrifuges make the time to process uranium drop by many years.
So Iran goes from needing 50 years to process enough uranium, to developing its centrifuges over a 10-15 year timeframe, at the end of which it would only take months to develop uranium for a nuke.

Is this straight outta the Netanyahu Gazette?

It is physics, from the level of the AP physics B exam.

Are you talking about craniometry?

Non sequiturs hardly help you appear credible, you know.

[Anonymous]

Israel’s days are numbered. How long will the white nationalists continue to give billions to a Jewish state?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Israel’s days are numbered. How long will the white nationalists continue to give billions to a Jewish state?

As long as oil is a valuable commodity. The US relationship w/Israel is really about protecting Mideast oil from whomever. The entire country is a military staging area, w/lots runways. Never was about the Jews.