DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Iran War II

Here is a narrative for you. Trump has had a "concept of a plan" for healthcare without actually presenting one since 2015. Sometimes you dismiss facts as a narrative. That happens quite often in trumplandia.

He first promised a comprehensive replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) on the campaign trail in September 2015, famously declaring: "I am going to take care of everybody... Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now."

Sure. The screen name Bull seems quite appropriate. Now carry on and rant some more. That seems to be what you do best lately.

I'm not sure it means what you think it means. I think the investment would be coming from multinational corporations (MNCs), not tax payer money. I still think it's shady. Basically Trump "facilitating" MNCs getting sweetheart deals to build facilities and extract what they can in Iran, and probably trying to get kickbacks/finder's fees is what it sounds like to me. (Or he just plans to invest in the MNCs before the deals go public.) Iran gets tax income. Trump seems to always be looking for ways to make a buck using other peoples' money, no matter what he's allegedly doing.

It's kind of weird to me that this is leaking from the Iranian side. Iran suddenly wanting American companies in their country doesn't really add up for me with all their rhetoric about the evils of western capitalism. Makes me wonder if some stuffed envelopes were slipped into some pockets figuratively speaking.

You're projecting again. And ignoring the topic. Still think you need 90% HEU to make nukes?

Here is a little more detailed article that says alot of the same talking points. And, there better not be any taxpayer money going to this.
It more seems like trump and his merry band of billionaires going from country to country where there is lots of oil/gas/rare earth minerals and starting something so they can gain access to markets.



Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...p;utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Let's get down to the brass tacks here.

You have been engaging in making an argument for war. I have been arguing that there is not at least some immediate case for war.

My argument is based on several reasons. First I am not in favor of being the world police. Iran has no method of deploying long range missiles anywhere close to capable of reaching the U.S nor our allies in Europe. As such they are currently of no imminent threat to us. Yes I understand that there is some very remote possibility that someone could somehow sneak a dirty bomb through an airport in Iran to some neutral country, since we accept no direct flights from Iran, then pass customs in that nation, then again when it is reloaded on a connecting flight and yet once again pass customs in the U.S. However that sounds much more like something form a fictional spy novel than it does reality. Some remote possibility isn't a legitimate cause for war.

You have seemed to indicate that the reason our NATO allies have not gotten involved is because of political reasons and that war is not popular to their people. Yet from a political standpoint and from a popularity perspective war was no more popular when we went to war with both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both times our allies fought beside us. I do believe that Iran taught them not be so blindly trusting of the U.S. and has made them more cautious.

But if anything they have even greater reason to capitulate in helping us now than they did then. Trump has threatened the NATO alliance. He has struck them financially with tariffs. He is the most vindictive and punitive president in my lifetime. They fully realize the grave possible consequences of telling him no. Yet they have done so anyway.

We know that Iran and Israel have been "warring it" for decades now. We know if anyone is at risk from Iran it's Israel. As of now Israel is fighting Iran's proxies in both Lebanon and Gaza while we're fighting them in Iran. Something Netanyahu has been trying to achieve for decades now.

The world sees these things. The world understand these things. And the world isn't prepared to fight an entire war for Israel. Not even our own allies.

You have laid out some very good and informative information that helps explain a lot. But I doubt you get a response from him. He is too focused and obsessed with me for some very strange and somewhat creepy reason.

I've been engaging in making an argument for keeping nuclear weapon capability out of the hands of a government that supports terrorists however is necessary. No one can make them do anything through diplomacy. If they agreed to get rid of their capability to refine HEU above civilian grade, turn over/destroy all the HEU they already have, and allow uninhibited inspections country wide, in a peaceful decision tomorrow, great. I don't see them agreeing to that no matter what we offer. Every day the HEU is unobserved is another day it could get into the hands of terrorists.

You seem to assume a plane has to land at an airport and/or be commercial. You seem to assume terrorists have to obey the law. None of those things are true. A Gulfstream G700 (private business jet) has a range of ~8,360 miles. A straight line flight between Tehran and Caracas, Venezuela is 7,321 miles (and it doesn't have to be a straight flight, Libya could make some sense as a connecting point, ISIS and AQIM still operate camps in the Fezzan Region.) It doesn't have to be an airport. It could be a crude (if somewhat lengthy) airstrip in the middle of nowhere. From Caracas, a G700 could reach anywhere in the continental US. And it doesn't have to fly to the US. They could offload a weapon in remote Mexico and finish delivery through other methods.

Yes, you believe a reason that you are making up. That doesn't make it true. I never claimed a specific reason as fact. I presented other potential reasons for their deciding not to go to war.

They also have more reasons not to. An active conflict right on their "borders." Dissension at home. Trump is an idiot. Our military leadership is inept. They are much more reliant on oil imports. Not their problem as Israel and the US are more likely potential targets. While we're allies, we're led by a bully. I don't think hardly anyone likes helping out bullies. Some "like" standing up to them (or feel obligated to.)

According to trump he set back their nuclear program by many years of not decades in June of 2025.

You seem to assume that some far fetched conspiracy of how Iran would get a dirty bomb into the U.S. as a reason for war.

The facts I laid out were not made up. They are facts. Rather than address those facts you attack the messenger and claim otherwise with nothing to substantiate that.

Israel is a likely target. Iran has the military capability to carry that out. This manufactured, far fetched plot you have created as to a method to deploy a dirty bomb or nuke to the U.S. is just that and nothing more.

This entire "But they could put it on a jet and fly it directly to the U.S." is a very unlikely scenario to say the least. One would think you feel as though we nor Israel have any surveillance on air traffic that detects aircraft leaving Iranian air space. An obvious detail you either didn't consider or obviously omitted.

I thought we both agreed Trump lied. Or do you think he told the truth now?

Which part is far fetched? Iran working with terrorists? Terrorists using planes? Terrorists using bombs? HEU being unmonitored? A country that chants "death to America" targeting America?

The facts you laid out are few and far between. The things you claimed were facts that were actually BS were legion. Do you need 90% HEU to make a nuke? The answer is still no.

Israel is a likely target. Yet, Israel is a densely populated (14 times the population density of the US), not immense area to cover, highly monitored, highly militarized country. On the other hand, our southern border is vast and has unpopulated sections. You keep talking military, I'm talking (potentially state sponsored) terrorism. While our country is monitored and militarized, there are gaps in the coverage. While Israel is the closer target, terrorists go for symbolic targets rather than the closest. We are the "softer" target, with a potentially larger "terror" factor. I.e, If they can hit us, they can hit anywhere. Israel has mandatory military service. Much of our population is unaware of the realities of war, and, in the eyes of extremists, we are the much more "decadent" country.

I agree a direct flight is an unlikely scenario. That's why it isn't the scenario I speculated on.

Israel has surveillance, yes. Is Israel going to track a private plane going SE away from them and circling around over central Africa then heading west away from Israel? I think you overestimate the abilities of radar and underestimate the number of private jets that fly out of the middle east. It's something I did consider and factored into my hypothetical scenario.

That does seem to be the situation.

Neither of the options seem particularly good to me.

There seems to be a bit of confusion here. We both agree trump lies on a regular basis. What we don't know is which time he lied. In June of 2025 he stated he set back Iran's nuclear program by several years if not decades. Eight months later he claimed later he needed to start a war because they were on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. What we do know for sure is that in one of those cases he lied. What we don't know is which time he was lying and which time he was telling the truth.


That's already been explained to you. First one would have to be naive enough to think that both Israel and the U.S. would not have any surveillance tracking airplanes leaving Iran headed towards Israel or the U.S. and track them. The only other way they would have at accomplish that would be transferring that payload through other nations airport security including our own.


You keep repeating that over and over again without any evidence to support it. Assassinating my character but not the facts I've posted. That's pretty weak.


Yet according to everything we've heard our border was wide open until trump took office and now it is totally secure. So what happened while it was wide open again? You just keep finding more rabbit holes to climb down. I get it. You'll say, "Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it wont happen." And I'll say if it didn't happen when the border was wide open there's even less of a chance of it happening now that it's much more secure. And the beat goes on.


Which in no way changes or makes a scenario of how to deliver a nuclear device to the U.S.


These are the words of a war monger who has reached the point of using hyperbole and unlikely scenarios as an excuse for war. Fear tactics do not make a cause for war.


Really? Here is a quote from one of your previous posts.....



I think you underestimate it. There is also satellite surveillance.

You see, on one hand you pose this immediate nuclear threat from Iran to be deployed on the U.S. You propose methods by which they could accomplish and deploy that threat. You point out how they have been yelling death to America for 47 years now. Then on the other hand you propose our own government has done nothing have the ability or wherewithal to have systems in place to prevent that from happening.

What you seem to be suggesting is a 2+2=3 argument.