DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Iran War II

How long can someone keep screaming death to America without acting on it until someone uses it as an excuse for war? The answer? 47 years.

Pivot

For the last 4 pages I've been explaining and saying that there is no evidence Iran imminently about to acquire a Nuclear weapon. The reason given to start a war with them.

You tried to argue otherwise starting with how easy it is to make a nuclear weapon ... To which I said arguing that something is easy isn't a good basis for launching a war.

Then we were talking about EU and NATO allies not saying anything about Iran's alleged imminent accusations of nuclear capability and steadfastly refusing to aid what they say as an illegal war of choice.

Now you are pivoting to ... It's all ok because Iran is a threat no matter how close or otherwise they are to a nuke.

As I said a while ago .. your not holding a conversation in good faith. Enjoy your pivots and hypotheticals. I won't engage.

Pivot

For the last 4 pages I've been explaining and saying that there is no evidence Iran imminently about to acquire a Nuclear weapon. The reason given to start a war with them.

You tried to argue otherwise starting with how easy it is to make a nuclear weapon ... To which I said arguing that something is easy isn't a good basis for launching a war.

Then we were talking about EU and NATO allies not saying anything about Iran's alleged imminent accusations of nuclear capability and steadfastly refusing to aid what they say as an illegal war of choice.

Now you are pivoting to ... It's all ok because Iran is a threat no matter how close or otherwise they are to a nuke.

As I said a while ago .. your not holding a conversation in good faith. Enjoy your pivots and hypotheticals. I won't engage.

Your just mad your political idols like the Aho tolah, Modero in Venezuela, and soon to be Castro in Cuba are getting removed. I see enemies of the US being taken out and our citizens being safer.

What threat was Venezuela to the U.S? What actual threat has Cuba been to the U.S.?

Here's a hint. None.

You can invent enemies any time you wish to make illegitimate excuses to take actions against them even when they were no viable threat to us at all.

What you see is a mirage that has been packaged and delivered to you because you lack any ability to think for yourself.

I actually think these leaders are terrible people.

But then Sadam was a terrible person too. How many of our young men and women died,lost limbs and suffer lifelong PTSD from that war which was based on lies? Maybe it's time to put the troops first and your political idols last.

Let me show you how stupid things you are saying sound like................

You do not love, respect or honor our troops because you want to put their lives on the line by supporting they go fight wars that aren't necessary!

That's what posting dumb crap looks like and that's exactly the way you sound. Only at least there's some ring of truth to this.

The deal wasn't only with Trump. Trump backed out of the deal to reimpose sanctions. Iran didn't (officially) "back out" of the JCPOA until after the bombing. But, they already weren't following their side of it.
link

Yes, inspections were happening, but those inspections were revealing that Iran was breaking the agreement with all those still in the JCPOA, which included Iran.

It's not about liking the sources. It's about your interpretation of what is in the sources being erroneous.



Memory is inherently biased. That's just the way memory works. It's not locked whole and frozen in time in our synapses. "Memories" are constantly rewritten and adapted. Then there's the whole metaphysics side of what your senses are sending to your brain isn't objective reality in the first place. I don't really expect you to understand that.

I also don't think I know better than you about your life, I just know that you are an inveterate liar, with the evidence to support this position constantly growing, so I don't blindly believe your stories about it.

Speaking of erroneous. But yes, let's ignore that. Shall we call it a lie?


I understand now that you have been cornered you're trying to play armchair psychologist and wiggle your way out of your previous assertion. Something you neither have a degree in nor are qualified to do. AKA - Diversion tactic.


There you go again. Trying to undermine my honesty while providing no evidence to support it as per usual. If you're going to keep saying that, often times repeatedly in several posts, at least lay some cards on the table instead of repeating meaningless rhetoric. Your crude attempt to undermine those who have brought a lot of evidence to the table is lame. But we have seen it a lot lately in politics. If you keep repeating the same thing over and over again even when providing zero evidence to support it, people will begin to believe it.

That only works with and for the weak minded.

1. There are numerous examples of Iran refusing inspections. Delaying inspections for up to 24 days. Refusing inspections of anything the Ayatollah considered a military site. Iran removing IAEA cameras. Exceeding limits they agreed to. Just do a quick google search and you'll find hundreds of sources.

2. I stand by my previous assertion. It's not hard to read articles on memory and find evidence that no one's memory is unbiased.

3. Telling lies over and over until you believe them doesn't make you honest, your being weak minded or not. I've given numerous examples of you changing other people's words, and your claiming you said one thing when you said something completely different. Going back to find them all doesn't seem worth the time. But here go a couple quick examples just from this thread over the past few days.

Presenting this as my words is disingenuous, AKA - a lie


Your responding to what I say with something completely different than what you quote is twisting the truth. Talking about "people" (i.e, you) is not making any claim on leaders. I made no claims on leaders using intel in the quote. Politicians downplay fears to avoid public panic, that has nothing to do with intel or actions, or even their beliefs. Yes, your made up position that I never proposed in what you quoted wasn't true. Changing what was said to something completely unrecognizable and pretending that is what someone else said is... telling a lie.


How many more examples do you want? I can go with maligner, demogogue, or gaslighter if you prefer those labels to liar.

1.They did remove the cameras. No suspected nuclear enrichment sites were ever kept from inspections. Military bases are not nuclear enrichment sites. Now you are going beyond the scope of the agreement.

2. I gave you a factual account. You have claimed that isn't so. You have zero evidence to support that. Once again you simply say that sometimes memories can be inaccurate as some weak azz argument.


3. Now you claim that not using the exact wording as someone else used is a lie. That's exactly what desperation looks like and certainly not evidence someone is lying.

You used the fact that Iran has said death to America as a reason on your list of reasons to justify a war. I get it. When someone cuts out the BS, fluff and empty hyperbole and gets to the crux of the matter you wish to label it deceptive or a lie.

So the leaders of other nations and top government officials of other countries are not "people" then? And don't even attempt to pretend that "people" don't fully understand global situations and understand the difference between war mongering and a need for war. I know you seem to think everyone but you is incapable of rational thoughts on complex issues but that's not true.

How many more? You haven't presented the first one yet. The examples you gave were just the perceptions you created in your own mind.

I think you missed your calling. You would have made a great defense attorney convincing jurors just how unreliable eye witnesses are.

Iran has stated they only want enriched uranium for power generation. 2-4% enrichment is needed for that.

They have enough uranium, enriched to 60 %, to build somewhere around 9 to 11 bombs.

Why are they enriching it to amounts only needed for bombs - not power production?

An interesting article here: https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enriched-uranium-worth-bargaining-for/ if you would care to educate your self, as you proclaim to do.

1. Again you're just making stuff up. How do you know no suspected nuclear enrichment sites were ever kept from inspections? You don't. Here's a link showing suspected nuclear activities in the Parchin Military Complex link

Here's further evidence of Iran hindering investigations with mention of Parchin if you don't trust the first source. link

Yes, there are instances of Iran cooperating. There are many instances of them not, though. When you're only compliant when you want to be, you're non-compliant.

2. It can't be a factual account because it is now unverifiable. Again you don't seem to understand how facts work. It's hearsay at best. It's your account, but we all know how (un)reliable you are.

3. No, I don't claim one needs exact wording. One does need to at least maintain the meaning and not change the meaning to something they didn't say.

Yes, expressing intent is one of the many reasons I listed. I never claimed it was enough on its own.

Yes, leaders are people. Yet, the people I was talking about weren't leaders. You can't just mash together two separate ideas changing the meaning of both whenever you want to further your agenda.

Some people do have some understanding, some people don't. No one "fully" understands global situations. It's not possible. Everyone is operating from limited information. Some have more than others. Some are idiots that don't know what they don't know.

I don't think everyone is incapable of rational thought, you've just shown that you don't restrict yourself to it.

Thank you for the compliment. Helping people to understand that you are an unreliable witness is a pretty low bar, though.

Once again, it takes 90+% enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb.

Once again, no, it doesn't. It would just be less efficient.


Edit:
What percentage were the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I'll give you a hint. It was less than 90%.

Edit 2: To be more precise, only one was actually HEU. The other used plutonium.

This maintains the meaning and not change the meaning to something you have said............. You came here as some self proclaimed "purveyor of truth" to stamp out some convoluted "posse" of which you have only created in your own mind. Because you know, you have to save Dawgtalkers.



You use your imagination to create a convoluted version of what you want the truth to be. You have mostly done that through hypotheticals what ifs with no actual basis.

According to you the agreement with Iran gave authority for inspections anywhere within that country they wanted to conduct at any time carte blanche. We both know that's BS.

You aren't a Dawgtalker superhero. And all you've done has been to present unfettered rhetoric and some warped version of reality.

I haven't changed the meaning of anything you have said. You keep stepping in crap and when I point out your shoes stink you blame me for it.

Personal responsibility doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

I think you are projecting your apparent mythomania.

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is anything enriched above 20% and weapon-grade uranium is commonly considered to have been enriched above 90% U-235. However, some research reactors use 90% enriched U-235 to produce medical isotopes, so there are civilian applications for this fuel too.

https://armscontrolcenter.org/uranium-enrichment-for-peace-or-for-weapons/

So then you are denying you came here to "call out the lies" and that you were taking on the "posse"? You know, a posse of two?

See you stepped in dog crap again didn't you?

Calling out lies and confronting bullies doesn't take a superhero, Just an ordinary joe willing to stand up. It would only seem to require a superhero if you consider yourself a supervillain.

Weapons-grade doesn't mean it has to be that grade to be used in weapons. It is the grade that is generally used in modern arsenals, that's why they use the term. Hitting 90% doesn't magically make it usable in weapons when it wasn't previously. It was just what they decided to use for efficiency.

So here we go again. According to you it's "just a term" that actually means nothing and it's actually a term of misconception. I'll have to inform every nuclear organization globally that they're wrong and you are right.


I get that. That's what I've been doing throughout this entire thread. But then I'm not the one who came on here proclaiming I am here to be the beacon of truth and take on a posse. Only an extremely self absorbed, borderline narcissist would do something crazy like that.

It's a term that has meaning, just not the one that you keep trying to ascribe to it.

No, you've been trying to push an agenda despite not knowing what you're talking about while bringing in stories about little girls from 50 years ago and posting comedy routines.

Edit: Personally, those actions sound more like an extremely self absorbed, raging narcissist to me.

A thread where we're trying to discuss a potential nuclear holocaust doesn't seem like a great spot for random middle school anecdotes, bad jokes, and making up BS to me. Apparently it does to you.

I'm more concerned with the issues than your feelings. You seem to be more concerned with your feelings than the issues.

I see. In this imaginary figment of your own imagination you have created in your mind is now "your truth" and refuse to take ownership of the fact you stated you were here to take on the "lies" and a "posse".

Comedy is often a valuable tool when confronted with the nonsensical reasoning, which is certainly a part of what I've been doing to combat that.

You're once again not being honest by trying to deflect away from the fact I pointed out the very things you posted.

There's a difference between truth and honesty and the tool you have been using throughout this entire thread. What you have been deploying is "truthiness". Something not fact based to defame your opponent.

Truthiness; Truthiness is the quality of asserting a statement is true based on intuition, emotion, or desire, rather than factual evidence or logic.

Yes, I will take on your lies. Yes, I alluded to your posse when you shared an odd story about your alleged middle school experience with your alleged football buddies.

I never made the grandiose claims you keep inventing. Just because one doesn't have the sense to see the reasoning doesn't make something nonsensical. Comedy can be a tool, it can also be used as a weapon by those incapable of formulating a defense with reason.

You didn't point out the very things I posted. You took them out of context or changed them completely.

It seems you are projecting again with your "Truthiness." It's common in people that struggle with factual evidence and logic. You ignore my facts because they disagree with your intuition, emotion, and desire to be right. You claim facts that aren't because they feel "truthy" to you.

I'm almost at the point of pitying you. At first I found you entertaining but now it's just sad.

I'd rather you found me informative, but I can't control how you process things.

-------

Now we've got more attacks in Iran without really addressing the big problem. Escalation and retaliation seems more and more likely. And we've got HEU unaccounted for.

I wish our politicians would get rid of the criminal in chief and his stooges, so that we had rational adults in charge of addressing the situation.

#thoughtsandprayers

We get it. You want everyone to process things from your point of view.

No, just not a point of view filled with faulty assumptions that they believe are facts.

Can we stay on topic please? Or must you find a way to take everything as a personal affront?

Which is precisely why I don't find you informative.


I take things exactly as they are appear to be intended based on the previous flow of the topic. But sure, I'll address something you felt was on topic.


The part in bold is something we certainly agree with. After eight pages we at least found a morsel of common ground.

Where we most likely disagree is that if we had rational adults in charge we wouldn't have found ourselves in this situation to begin with.

We do disagree here. I'd have much less to push back on if you included an I think after the in charge. I'd still disagree, but you wouldn't be presenting your opinion as fact.

Even if "we" had rational adults in charge, that doesn't make Iran have rational adults in charge. To me, rational adults don't chant Death to other countries. Iran has an unusual hybrid government that's part theocracy. That's not inherently bad, but the theocracy here seems problematic to me.

Every president over the past 30+ years have been ignoring Netanyahu's fear tactics, false claims and war mongering rhetoric. Until now. That's a wide selection of men and administrations from both parties to choose from. Now Netanyahu has the U.S. fighting a war against his own nations biggest enemy and footing the bill for it. If you consider a war monger like Dick Cheney as a rational adult you may have a point but when you look at the way that turned out......

The IAEA found 83.7% enriched uranium in 2023. The situation changed over the last 30 years.

I've never seen anything close to a credible source make that claim.

I retract my last post. After looking into it I found you were correct about the enrichment level you stated in your post.

Here's the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145

Here's PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/...nriched-up-to-83-7-percent-found-in-iran

Here's CSIS: https://www.csis.org/analysis/three-things-will-determine-irans-nuclear-future-fordow-just-one-them

Here's a .pdf straight from the IAEA: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2023-24.pdf

You were in too much of a hurry to argue instead of reading the post after that one. Why am I not surprised? I'll post it again in hopes you may actually stop trying to argue long enough to read it.............


Even letting you know that after I looked into it you were correct wasn't good enough for you.

I'll explain it to you in hopes it may sink in................

When you have never seen evidence of something you don't know if it's credible or not. But people seeking the truth try to investigate such things to find out if those claims are valid. That's exactly what I did.

I hope that helps you come to a better understanding.

When I opened the thread, only the first post was there. It doesn't auto-update. I have lots of tabs open at a time. I don't always respond right away. I have other things I need to do. I'm not in a hurry to write things I know you'll ignore or change.

You actually checking out what I say? There's a first time for everything. Why didn't I precognitively know a post I hadn't seen yet existed? Plus I gave you a link earlier with the 83.7 in it with a lengthy bibliography at the end, so the credibility deflection doesn't really fly. (Edit: here's the post: #2138385)

I look up your BS all the time. That's how I know when it is wrong.

Check the time stamps. Our posts were 35 minutes apart.

And after all of that you just hurl insults when you know you are lying.

I don't look up many of your references. At one time I did on occasion. Until I actually pointed out to you how I wasted my time doing that on one of the links you posted because it was from 1998 long before further events unfolded that totally changed the context.

So you look up my sources because then you know it's BS but don't post on the board how or why it's BS. Got it. Speaking of BS.

They were more than 35 minutes a part. That doesn't change the fact that one can right click and open in a new tab every thread that has new posts and leave them sitting there until hours later. The posts only show up from when you opened them.

It seems apparent that you don't look up my references or even read what I write most of the time. The time of an article's writing doesn't make it irrelevant. You can look at something in a different context, but it doesn't mean the previously existing information is no longer relevant, especially when the content is technical rather than situational. Does it matter when it was written if it is accurate and shows that a bomb can be made with a lower enrichment percentage than "weapons-grade?" Little Boy (the bomb dropped on Hiroshima) was dropped in 1945. It had an average enrichment of 80%. Is the number irrelevant because it was dropped 80+ years ago?

I literally provided links of why your incorrect interpretation of your sources is BS.

Here's a link with a look at some of the technical considerations of nukes at different percentages of HEU. I don't agree with all their conclusions about what to do about it, but it seems to explain the possibilities in a pretty easy to understand way. link

Another story today quoted a source saying the fund would be between 300 billion and 1 trillion. Congress has the power of the purse-they need to use it. We can't help homeless vets or do healthcare in this country but would piss away money like this

Emerging US-Iran MoU said to reference possible $300B postwar ‘investment fund’ to aid Tehran’s reconstruction
By Nava Freiberg Follow
29 May 2026, 4:53 pm
Share
4

Pedetrians walk by a destroyed building within the Grand Hosseiniyeh, with the mosque visible in the background, which officials at the site say was hit by US-Israeli airstrikes in Zanjan, Iran, April 4, 2026. (AP Photo/Francisco Seco)
The draft memorandum of understanding being discussed by Iran and the US references a postwar investment fund to support Tehran’s postwar reconstruction and economic growth if a final deal is reached, the New York Times reports, citing an Iranian official and a diplomat involved in the talks.

The two sources put the fund at $300 billion, though other officials involved in mediation would not confirm the amount, according to the report.

Two diplomats briefed on the latest draft called it “an international ‘investment fund,’ which the United States would help facilitate in the event of a final deal,” and plans for which would be discussed during the initial 60-day negotiations period that the memorandum would kick off, the report says.

The report notes that the proposal appears to reflect an earlier idea floated by US Mideast envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who are both real estate investors, and, according to some mediators, had suggested promoting real estate projects and an investment fund in Iran if a final deal were reached.

Iranian officials said they had proposed during talks that American companies, including major oil and energy corporations, could pursue investment and joint venture deals with Iran, the report adds.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveb...ment-fund-to-aid-tehrans-reconstruction/

Oh, the irony. Where have I seen this narrative before....