DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Iran War II

Not having WMDs isn't the same as not trying to make WMDs. If a terrorist (or radical government) is trying to make a WMD, do you wait until they finish making it to try to stop them from making it? That makes no sense. Once they've made it, they can use it. That possibility should be avoided.

Weapons grade and able to be used in a weapon are separate but overlapping ideas. I used weapons grade colloquially because I thought it was easy to understand, but unfortunately, it is also possible for a "bad actor" to be deliberately obtuse.


I'll stop using it as a reason when they stop saying it. Official government representatives chanting death to another country will always be a problem for me.

I never said NATO allies weren't there. The only revisionist history is you trying to say that I said things that I didn't say.

I think you are overlooking a few things as far as why they might not be there. NATO is already in a standoff with Russia over Ukraine and wants to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia. Russia supports Iran. Here's a video on NATO preparing for a potential war with Russia:

There's also the they don't trust our military leadership to not screw things up potential angle, which I can also understand.

But, having said all that, you still can't just let Iran have that HEU. And we're the ones with the target on our backs. They don't chant death to NATO.

This is not hard at all, even if people have different opinions which is quite normal.

I believe most/all agree Iran should not have nuclear weapons. That's both Americans and the rest of the western world .

The only debate is how close they were to that.

Changing the discussion to how easy or otherwise it is to make a nuclear weapon obfuscates the discussion on how close Iran actually was to having a nuclear weapon. Wanting to say it's easy to get a weapon essentially opens the door to permit a war/attack on Iran at any time whenever any country feels like it. .. . "Its so easy to get a nuke, we need to stop them".

I do not believe Iran was imminently about to acquire or create a nuke. Neither did the rest of the world other than the USA and Israel.

What does seem worth highlighting - Trump in the first term nixed the agreement that was in place with Iran that gave unrestricted access to Iran's enrichment program. That has made the world less safe and made knowing exactly the status of Iran's progress towards enrichment and weapons grade materials more opaque.

I'll add - but hopefully not to distract from the simple debate about how imminent or otherwise Iran was ... in reality - I do not believe the USA actually believed that Iran was close. I personally believe Trump flush with his god complex over successful airstrikes of Iran last year without blowback, the very precise military execution of removing Maduro. Having no checks and balances from the house or the senate . . . thought he could do anything and there would not be any blowback, he was also convinced by Netanyahu and Hegseth that it would be a swift easily won "objective" with Iran capitulating. That's just my own view. Based on quite detailed reporting it is clear the adults in the room when Netanyahu did his sales pitch did not agree that this would be easy.