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.

"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."

This is where I have the problem. Belief isn't proof. Belief isn't rational.

Assuming what the rest of the world believes has no basis in fact. I've quoted with links other world leaders saying what Iran was doing was bad.

People want to believe it's not possible because the thought is scary and uncomfortable. Politicians downplay it because they don't want to cause panic.

Trump being an egomaniacal idiot doesn't change the underlying facts that Iran has produced an inordinate amount of HEU. Iran has a robust rocketry program. Iranian leadership chants Death to America. Iran supports terrorists. Iranians have knowledge of how to create IEDs.

All those things are verifiable facts.

We can debate Trump's and Hegseth's motivations and effectiveness or lack thereof.

Pretending facts don't exist isn't a debate.

A "nuke" doesn't have to be some gigantic, super efficient ICBM to be dangerous. I agree that's probably not "imminent." Some people seem too caught up on that idea of a "nuke," some idealized WMD. They already have the pieces in place to make "improvised" "nuclear" devices. The half life of uranium-235 is 704 million years. You spread 60% HEU with a conventional explosive and a widespread area is contaminated with highly radioactive material for longer than humanity has lived on the planet. Everything they need to do that is available to them right now. Not next year, not imminently, now.

It doesn't need to be complex or highly sophisticated. It doesn't have to be something we'd launch out of our missile silos or submarines. It'd just be HEU added to something they're already using. Car bomb, suicide vest, rocket. They don't have to split the atom to have a "nuclear" device.

We could all make up some far fetched scenarios as a cause to make war. I have watched you do it for days now. I watched Bush do it in Iraq. There are always war mongers among us. There are always those trying to prop up the military industrial complex.

But not a person who doesn't trust anyone. Not someone who claims to be as skeptical as you do. This silly exercise you have been employing over the past few days isn't fooling me. I doubt it's really fooling anyone else either.

When you get down to, "Well if they stop saying mean things I'll stop saying we should blow them up" the desperation and absurdity becomes blatantly obvious.

Or, "But you never know, they could build a dirty bomb and fly it over here on as plane!"

It's been real and it's been fun. But is hasn't been real fun.

Stop making sense. As we see that is not acceptable.

Yet here you are doing exactly that.


Bomb everyone doing bad.


Sure, that's it. That would be ignoring the fact and pretending that other nations and their leaders don't use intel and they just rely on "their beliefs". We both know that isn't true. I thought you said simply using "beliefs" wasn't rational?


And it also doesn't change the fact that Iran has no long range missiles capable of coming close to reaching the U.S.


Claiming the "facts" you are presenting is a cause to start a war is also pretending facts don't exist.

And the rest of your post is nothing but, Yeah but they could...... And fear tactics to induce a cause for war which is what people have done since time began. Which has most often been done to gain power and control. Then you say Trump being an egomaniacal idiot doesn't isn't the driving factor here. History disagrees with you.

You didn't watch Bush do it in Iraq. You watched questionable tv coverage at best. You see something in the media and think that means you know about it. You know a surface story told by people that also don't actually know what they're talking about. You regurgitate things you find on the internet that you don't understand and believe they mean things that they don't.

You don't know enough to know what's far fetched. You've never been trained in asymmetric warfare. You've never been forward deployed. You've never worked with nuclear engineers.

I'm not convinced that you've completed high school.

I don't trust peoples' words because people lie. I look at actions and facts. Verified by multiple independent sources.

I don't say we should blow "them" up. I say we shouldn't let them have the materials that could easily be used to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians if they tell us they want to kill us.

If that means sending in troops to confiscate the HEU, so be it. If that means destroying the enrichment facilities that we helped build because they can't be trusted to limit the enrichment to civilian use levels, so be it.

Do I like it? No. Do I warmonger? No.

When someone tells me they want to kill me, and goes about providing themselves the means to do it, I think stopping them before they do it is warranted.

Edit: I wish to God, Trump and Hegseth weren't involved, but that doesn't change the situation. They're what we've got.

I am convinced you are posting things you know are nonsense just to be a provocateur. Now you have resorted to some diatribe in a personal attack as a last resort. Sadly for you that doesn't resemble the acts of an educated man. But then I suppose going on some personal rant against someone you disagree with isn't restricted for the uneducated after all. But it does sound rather trumpian.

As has been shown to you, Iran has been shouting death to America for over 47 years now and at this point even attempting to use that as some justification for war is pure ignorance. So,"they sayin' bad thangs and throwing threatening words around hyere so I'm a gonna kill um!".... I phrased it that way because it sounds like something people living in a holler would say. A real Hatfield and Mc'Coys type situation.

And I formed my opinion on Bush by watching the media? You must not have been around the board back then. A member who used to post here called PDR found intel from some of our own allies that were totally the opposite of our own.

As you rant on with your personal attack the fact is, which you claim to put so much focus on, is that the intel our allies had was true and ours was false. Bush chose to cherry pick which intel he shared with the American people and which intel he chose to hide from them. He could have shared that intel with the American people as well but he had a war to sell.

The fact is the American people were lied to about Iraq having WMD. I didn't need the media to tell me that. The fact that Bush could provide zero evidence to substantiate that claim told me that.


So you are ignoring what you have been saying all along now? You have been supporting military actions against Iran and have come up with litany of excuses to justify it. In case you missed it, bombing Iran is exactly what you've been defending and supporting all along. With your self appointed "supposedly" superior intellect, which you are certainly quite full of ..... or full of something, surely you understand that dropping bombs on a country blows things up, right?

I'm almost at the point of feeling sorry for you. I'm worried that your own ego may explode in your chest and cause you a sudden death. At least it would be quick and not slow and painful. But then again if it hasn't done that by now.....

Edit to add: I came up with a great idea of how you can expand your portfolio. I think you should start your own fragrance line. Your first scent should be "Arrogance by Bull_Dawg". It seems to have a very appropriate ring to it.

...Someone on the board named PDR "found intel."

Ope, I give up. You got me. That's totally incontrovertible fact.

There's no chance that was made up misinformation found on the internet. No, no, that's bold, all caps FACT.

Bush didn't have evidence or Bush didn't provide classified information to the public? I don't really care either way, in that this is just your latest attempt to change the conversation from what I'm saying to something else because you know you're wrong.

If you think improvised nuclear devices and dirty bombs are "far fetched," you should read up on NEST. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/nuclear-emergency-support-team-nest

Edit: Eau de PitDAWG. Smells like BS. Lingers forever.

Arrogance by Bull_Dawg sounds classy.

I am certain that the consensus was that Iran had a lot of 60% enriched uranium. I am certain no-one else was claiming that Iran was imminent or even "close" to obtaining a nuclear weapon. Although close is subjective - someone might argue years away is "close.

As for quoting politicians from around the world -- was that before or after the attacks last year (that was stated to have obliterated Iran's program)? And I can go quote you people from every country in the world who will tell you the holocaust wasn't real... doesn't make it true. I can quote you politicians from virtually any/every country in the world who will repeat and parrot Trump ... that doesn't make them or Trump right.

Suggesting someone's position is based out of them being scare of reality really doesn't warrant a reply other than to point out the absurdity and arrogance of such a statement.

Nations chanting Death to America is also not a reason to go to war.

As for pretending facts don't exist - you seem to be cherry picking and making up your own facts. Now you're trolling posters with comments about feeling sorry for them. . . . It does not seem like a good faith discussion. I mentioned we can disagree but instead of acknowledging that you want to create your own facts and call others scared if they do not share your thinking. Kudos to you. Way to win a debate.

Delivering a dirty bomb from Iran to the U.S. is far fetched.

I'm sorry you are so intent on going to war and bombing another country, you know "blowing them up", that you keep coming up with self created theories to justify it.

Where did I say bush should have reveal "classified information"? He certainly had no problem revealing the conclusion of our intel. Would doing the same with the conclusions from other countries be "classified"?

U.S. Allies Were Not Persuaded By U.S. Assertions on Iraq WMD

https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/u.s.-allies-were-not-persuaded-by-u.s.-assertions-on-iraq-wmd

This one tells a far more detailed account.....

France and Germany
Prior to the 2003 invasion, France and Germany strongly opposed military action, arguing that diplomatic inspections were working and that there was no credible evidence proving Iraq had reconstituted its WMD programs. French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder heavily scrutinized U.S. and UK intelligence claims, advocating for continued UN inspections rather than a rushed intervention.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

I know, I know. "That's just something you found on the internet!"

I'm not the one who started with the personal rant against you. That was you. You reap what you sow. Don't start whining now. If you want it to remain civil, try being civil.

Saying one is certain no one else was making any claim is bad logic. Do you know what every single person said? No. False certainty is anethema to me. You don't believe that anyone else was claiming Iran getting a nuke was imminent. That is no certainty.

Trump's bad statements don't disprove other facts. Holocaust deniers don't disprove other facts. Others repeating Trump doesn't make Trump right.

Yet, Iran has a ton (literally and figuratively) of HEU. Are you disputing that fact?

Dude, I'm "scared" of the reality. Giving fear as the potential reason for avoiding facts was giving the benefit of the doubt. I've seen the museums about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I know the regulations about handling the cooling water for nuclear reactors because of potential contamination due to the damage that can do, because I had to actually handle that as part of my job in the military. Actual highly enriched uranium being purposely dispersed is flat out terrifying.

Civilians at a protest chanting Death to America isn't a reason to go to war. Government officials chanting Death to America while their country is producing massive quantities of HEU against international law (both in exceeding limits and, later, in their ejecting/refusing inspectors) is something else.

PitDAWG was the one that used the feeling sorry line. I agree that doesn't seem like part of a good faith discussion.

Show one fact I made up. Your and Pit's not knowing something doesn't mean it's made up. Expressing certainty about things you couldn't possibly know (what everyone, everywhere has said) is the making up facts.

Seriously, read up on NEST. If dirty bombs are far fetched, why did we start an agency 50 years ago to address them? Why do they deploy at public events?

"Blowing them up" is your BS line.

Broad Conclusions don't put HUMINT sources at risk. Revealing specific evidence can.

What does the last line of the first article say? I'll put it here for you. This is your link, not me going digging for something:

"However, what Secretary of State Powell did prove was that Iraq was capable of producing WMDs."

Your cherry picking one excerpt from the second link ignores the majority of what it says.

I'm not whining. Just telling it how it is.

Once again even though you are ignoring it, the ability to produce a dirty bomb is not my issue. My issue is Iran having the ability to deploy it is.

You just brought up Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both of those weapons were launched via military aircraft. Once again, Iran lacks any long range ability to launch an attack on the U.S. You're trying to compare apples to oranges. Can you come up with some "remote possibility" of how that could happen? Sure. But if that's the criteria for war we should be making a list of all the nations we should go to war with. You may wish to consider this, or maybe not.

Because a dirty bomb does not require weapons-grade material, virtually any industrialized nation possessing standard radioactive isotopes used in hospitals, agriculture, or industry has sufficient materials to build one.

So that brings right back to them saying death to America for 47 years as the only real difference here.

And my whining comment went right over your head or at least you're pretending it did. That comment was in regards to you first launching a personal attack against me and then whining when you got a taste of your own medicine. Hopefully we're past all of that now.


"capable of"? Dear Lord man. Many countries fall into that category. Because they can or they might is a pretty weak argument. But then again Thomas the Train did manage to climb that mountain. That was not and never was the case made for war by the Bush administration. Just a reminder for you................

President George W. Bush repeatedly stated that Iraq possessed massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). These claims—which cited materials like thousands of tons of chemical agents, biological agents, and reconstituting nuclear programs—served as the primary justification for the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html