Mark Levin was at the White House today, lobbying for war with Iran. To be clear, Levin has no plans to fight in this or any other war. He’s demanding that American troops do it. We need to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, he and likeminded ideologues in Washington are…

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) June 5, 2025

Is there anyone here willing to explain your support for initiating a war with Iran when Iran has made no credible threats toward the US homeland? Please raise your Israeli flags high and explain why Americans being financial slaves to Israel isnt enough for you... we actually need to go fight their wars and die for them too.

Trump will not go to war with Iran.

As such an adventure would politically destroy his presidency.

Iran will not go to war with Trump.

As the Iranian military would be crushed.

Levin is just a boomer version of Ben Shapiro and both are just Bib's mouthpiece to brainwash average conservative (mostly boomer) Americans. We need to oppose any war with Iran that involves American troops.

Of course we should not go to war with Iran, but also I cannot imagine them having nuclear weapons capable of reaching.... anywhere.

Well if you remember during his first term the liberals screamed and cried that Trump was starting WW3 about ten times. I know at least two of them were because of things he did/said towards Iran. I think the others were with North Korea and Russia

If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.

Levin has been a mouthpiece for neocons and Tel Aviv for years. He and Shapiro may be the two most useless comentators on the right along with Tick Tock Hannity.

cowboycwr said:

---

Well if you remember during his first term the liberals screamed and cried that Trump was starting WW3 about ten times. I know at least two of them were because of things he did/said towards Iran. I think the others were with North Korea and Russia

---

That is why is his first term was so successful.

Besides the occasional pot shot e.g. killing Soleimani, there were no new wars. Trump was a peace President.

OsoCoreyell said:

---

If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.

---

Did you say the same about North Korea?

Ultimately we didnt go to war with North Korea. They've had nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US for about a decade now and the world keeps on spinning.

Iran is less of a threat to the US homeland than North Korea is/was.

The_barBEARian said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.

---

Did you say the same about North Korea?

Ultimately we didnt go to war with North Korea. They've had nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US for about a decade now and the world keeps on spinning.

Iran is less of a threat to the US homeland than North Korea is/was.

---

That was a different equation because of China. That dynamic doesn't exist for Iran.

OsoCoreyell said:

---

If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.

---

No, thanks.

Sam Lowry said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.

---

No, thanks.

---

Let's review. We have the greatest military force in the history of the world, but there are limits to what we can do with it. We never lost a battle in Vietnam, we blew through the Afghani and Iraqi forces in a blur of shock and awe. Where did it go wrong? Occupation. Our elite forces are not built for occupying 2nd and 3rd world countries after we have eradicated their governments and infrastructure. What was the cost of our 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq in lives and what it as cost American taxpayers. Iran is beatable militarily, but 4 times the size of Iraq and more than double the population which overwhelmingly looks upon us as the ultimate evil. The terrain is difficult in the extreme. Every sane Western leader has been focused on avoiding a war in Iran for 45 years--not because they are unsure of what happens in the first 100 hours of battle, but what comes after.

Keeping midlevel despots from getting nukes has been a failing proposition since the Soviet breakup. We have learned to live with Pakistan, North Korea, et. all parading their missiles. The reason no nation since 1945 has used one is because nukes have become more of a political weapon than a strategic one. There is a feeling among the outlaw nations that nukes will make them safe from invasion. This is essentially a defensive concept as they also know firing a nuke at another nation basically ends their little corner of the world.

OsoCoreyell said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.

---

Did you say the same about North Korea?

Ultimately we didnt go to war with North Korea. They've had nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US for about a decade now and the world keeps on spinning.

Iran is less of a threat to the US homeland than North Korea is/was.

---

That was a different equation because of China. That dynamic doesn't exist for Iran.

---

How would war with Iran improve our national debt crisis? Or lower the price of energy which is keeping inflation in check?

Everytime the US has attempted regime change in the Middle East it has been catastrophically costly and resulted in abject failure even against adversaries much weaker than Iran.

Forget weapons. Iran has already agreed to not developing nuclear weapons.

Israel wants America to go to war with Iran over Iran keeping its nuclear energy program.

TWD 1974 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.

---

No, thanks.

---

Let's review. We have the greatest military force in the history of the world, but there are limits to what we can do with it. We never lost a battle in Vietnam, we blew through the Afghani and Iraqi forces in a blur of shock and awe. Where did it go wrong? Occupation. Our elite forces are not built for occupying 2nd and 3rd world countries after we have eradicated their governments and infrastructure. What was the cost of our 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq in lives and what it as cost American taxpayers. Iran is beatable militarily, but 4 times the size of Iraq and more than double the population which overwhelmingly looks upon us as the ultimate evil. The terrain is difficult in the extreme. Every sane Western leader has been focused on avoiding a war in Iran for 45 years--not because they are unsure of what happens in the first 100 hours of battle, but what comes after.

Keeping midlevel despots from getting nukes has been a failing proposition since the Soviet breakup. We have learned to live with Pakistan, North Korea, et. all parading their missiles. The reason no nation since 1945 has used one is because nukes have become more of a political weapon than a strategic one. There is a feeling among the outlaw nations that nukes will make them safe from invasion. This is essentially a defensive concept as they also know firing a nuke at another nation basically ends their little corner of the world.

---

Well said.

The_barBEARian said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.

---

Did you say the same about North Korea?

Ultimately we didnt go to war with North Korea. They've had nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US for about a decade now and the world keeps on spinning.

Iran is less of a threat to the US homeland than North Korea is/was.

---

North Korea still doesn't have nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US. Even if they managed to get one to launch this far they' need about 1000 more to stand a chance at landing it

ron.reagan said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.

---

Did you say the same about North Korea?

Ultimately we didnt go to war with North Korea. They've had nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US for about a decade now and the world keeps on spinning.

Iran is less of a threat to the US homeland than North Korea is/was.

---

North Korea still doesn't have nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US. Even if they managed to get one to launch this far they' need about 1000 more to stand a chance at landing it

---

FYI

N Korea missile puts all of US mainland in nuclear attack range

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

It's really a pretty simple bit of calculus - A world where a nation that is dedicated to the destruction of the US and its allies cannot be allowed to possess a usable "ultimate" weapon. The cost of preventing it will almost certainly be better than the alternative.

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

OsoCoreyell said:

---

It's really a pretty simple bit of calculus - A world where a nation that is dedicated to the destruction of the US and its allies cannot be allowed to possess a usable "ultimate" weapon. The cost of preventing it will almost certainly be better than the alternative.

---

Your premise is flawed because that world already exists.

We have experienced "the cost" of not preventing North Korea from producing nuclear weapons capable of striking the US and its allies.

The_barBEARian said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

It's really a pretty simple bit of calculus - A world where a nation that is dedicated to the destruction of the US and its allies cannot be allowed to possess a usable "ultimate" weapon. The cost of preventing it will almost certainly be better than the alternative.

---

Your premise is flawed because that world already exists.

We have experienced "the cost" of not preventing North Korea from producing nuclear weapons capable of striking the US and its allies.

---

And ultimately, we will regret not finding a way to prevent it. But China made it clear that it would impose a much larger cost on us preventing it at the outset. There is no one doing the same in the case of Iran. And I'm using the term "costs" in the sense that economists do..i.e. not merely dollars.

I'm not saying it is without cost, and very dear costs. But I think in the case of Iran, the contemporaneous costs are much lower than the long-term costs, especially at this time.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

The_barBEARian said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.

---

Did you say the same about North Korea?

Ultimately we didnt go to war with North Korea. They've had nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US for about a decade now and the world keeps on spinning.

Iran is less of a threat to the US homeland than North Korea is/was.

---

North Korea still doesn't have nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US. Even if they managed to get one to launch this far they' need about 1000 more to stand a chance at landing it

---

FYI

N Korea missile puts all of US mainland in nuclear attack range

---

Did you read the article, junior? A general said a missile is likely capable of delivering a payload.

1. The tests have all failed, so certainly isn't likely
2. They still need 1000 of them to get through
3. Even with 1000 they'd need dozens of launchers, all that would be vaporized before they had a chance for round 2.

Stop your fear mongering, NK does not have the ability to hit the US

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

That's an interesting accusation. Let's see if there's any evidence for it.

Do you believe Iran to be a terrorist state? Do you believe it to be run by Islamists? Just FYI, most of the free world believe so and there's plenty of evidence for it. Or is that a position you don't subscribe because they share with you a common enemy?

ron.reagan said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.

---

Did you say the same about North Korea?

Ultimately we didnt go to war with North Korea. They've had nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US for about a decade now and the world keeps on spinning.

Iran is less of a threat to the US homeland than North Korea is/was.

---

North Korea still doesn't have nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US. Even if they managed to get one to launch this far they' need about 1000 more to stand a chance at landing it

---

FYI

N Korea missile puts all of US mainland in nuclear attack range

---

Did you read the article, junior? A general said a missile is likely capable of delivering a payload.

1. The tests have all failed, so certainly isn't likely
2. They still need 1000 of them to get through
3. Even with 1000 they'd need dozens of launchers, all that would be vaporized before they had a chance for round 2.

Stop your fear mongering, NK does not have the ability to hit the US

---

Accept that you were wrong. Yes I read the article and it completely disproves you.

The debate isnt around whether they could hit the continental US. They clearly can. Its about how accurate their strikes would be.

The_barBEARian said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.

---

Did you say the same about North Korea?

Ultimately we didnt go to war with North Korea. They've had nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US for about a decade now and the world keeps on spinning.

Iran is less of a threat to the US homeland than North Korea is/was.

---

North Korea still doesn't have nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US. Even if they managed to get one to launch this far they' need about 1000 more to stand a chance at landing it

---

FYI

N Korea missile puts all of US mainland in nuclear attack range

---

Did you read the article, junior? A general said a missile is likely capable of delivering a payload.

1. The tests have all failed, so certainly isn't likely
2. They still need 1000 of them to get through
3. Even with 1000 they'd need dozens of launchers, all that would be vaporized before they had a chance for round 2.

Stop your fear mongering, NK does not have the ability to hit the US

---

Accept that you were wrong. Yes I read the article and it completely disproves you.

The debate isnt around whether they could hit the continental US. They clearly can. Its about how accurate their strikes would be.

---

No, there isn't a debate. They have no capability to hit the US.

ron.reagan said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.

---

Did you say the same about North Korea?

Ultimately we didnt go to war with North Korea. They've had nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US for about a decade now and the world keeps on spinning.

Iran is less of a threat to the US homeland than North Korea is/was.

---

North Korea still doesn't have nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US. Even if they managed to get one to launch this far they' need about 1000 more to stand a chance at landing it

---

FYI

N Korea missile puts all of US mainland in nuclear attack range

---

Did you read the article, junior? A general said a missile is likely capable of delivering a payload.

1. The tests have all failed, so certainly isn't likely
2. They still need 1000 of them to get through
3. Even with 1000 they'd need dozens of launchers, all that would be vaporized before they had a chance for round 2.

Stop your fear mongering, NK does not have the ability to hit the US

---

Accept that you were wrong. Yes I read the article and it completely disproves you.

The debate isnt around whether they could hit the continental US. They clearly can. Its about how accurate their strikes would be.

---

No, there isn't a debate. They have no capability to hit the US.

---

"Van Diepen states that the larger solid-fuel Hwasong-19, compared to the Hwasong-18, has improved boost capability that increases payload capacity without extending range, as the previous ICBM can already reach the US mainland."

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

That's an interesting accusation. Let's see if there's any evidence for it.

Do you believe Iran to be a terrorist state? Do you believe it to be run by Islamists? Just FYI, most of the free world believe so and there's plenty of evidence for it. Or is that a position you don't subscribe because they share with you a common enemy?

---

1) Probably

2) Yes

But neither of those should be justifications for pre-emptively attacking nuclear facilities or starting a war.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

That's an interesting accusation. Let's see if there's any evidence for it.

Do you believe Iran to be a terrorist state? Do you believe it to be run by Islamists? Just FYI, most of the free world believe so and there's plenty of evidence for it. Or is that a position you don't subscribe because they share with you a common enemy?

---

1) Probably

2) Yes

But neither of those should be justifications for pre-emptively attacking nuclear facilities or starting a war.

---

This is where we disagree. I am unwilling to rely on the goodwill and reasoning abilities of a terrorist state run by Islamist zealots to behave with a cache of nuclear weapons. And I think doing so would be extremely foolish.

ron.reagan said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.

---

Did you say the same about North Korea?

Ultimately we didnt go to war with North Korea. They've had nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US for about a decade now and the world keeps on spinning.

Iran is less of a threat to the US homeland than North Korea is/was.

---

North Korea still doesn't have nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US. Even if they managed to get one to launch this far they' need about 1000 more to stand a chance at landing it

---

FYI

N Korea missile puts all of US mainland in nuclear attack range

---

Did you read the article, junior? A general said a missile is likely capable of delivering a payload.

1. The tests have all failed, so certainly isn't likely
2. They still need 1000 of them to get through
3. Even with 1000 they'd need dozens of launchers, all that would be vaporized before they had a chance for round 2.

Stop your fear mongering, NK does not have the ability to hit the US

---

Agreed

North Korea does not have the capability to destroy the US.

Today

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

That's an interesting accusation. Let's see if there's any evidence for it.

Do you believe Iran to be a terrorist state? Do you believe it to be run by Islamists? Just FYI, most of the free world believe so and there's plenty of evidence for it. Or is that a position you don't subscribe because they share with you a common enemy?

---

1) Probably

2) Yes

But neither of those should be justifications for pre-emptively attacking nuclear facilities or starting a war.

---

This is where we disagree. I am unwilling to rely on the goodwill and reasoning abilities of a terrorist state run by Islamist zealots to behave with a cache of nuclear weapons. And I think doing so would be extremely foolish.

---

Again you are creating strawmans.

They have agreed to not pursue nuclear weapons but refuse to give up their nuclear energy program.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?