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.Anonymous wrote:Israel’s days are numbered. How long will the white nationalists continue to give billions to a Jewish state?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It is physics, from the level of the AP physics B exam.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?
Are you talking about craniometry?
Anonymous wrote:It is physics, from the level of the AP physics B exam.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?
Anonymous wrote:It is physics, from the level of the AP physics B exam.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?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It is physics, from the level of the AP physics B exam.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?
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 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.
Anonymous wrote:It is physics, from the level of the AP physics B exam.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 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?
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:They deserve their country back, no longer in the hands of warmongering Islamist sponsors of terrorism, is what you mean to say.
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.
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.