What exactly do you think trump means by MIGA

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

Where have I heard similar prediction before?

Oh yea, I remember!

“Once Saddam Hussein is removed, Iraqis will greet Americans as a liberator”

How did that work out?

Click to expand...

I'm not figuring on liberating anyone. We aren't in the business of regime change.

If the Iranians want a different future they have to take it themselves, meaning they do have to want it.

BCP1928 said:

Why not look into how well it worked the other times we have tried it in Iran?

Click to expand...

It worked out well in past ? when ?

Hazelelponi said:

I'm not figuring on liberating anyone. We aren't in the business of regime change.

A song by Adam Calhoun cones to mind called "Self Made" that might be descriptive of the moment, though I don't recommend listening to it as it's full of cuss words.

Click to expand...

So what is the objective?

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

It worked out well in past ? when ?

Click to expand...

You might have missed the sarcasm?

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

So what is the objective?

Click to expand...

To make sure a tyrannical hyper-religious terrorist regime doesn't acquire nuclear weapons.

Outside of that nothing that I know of. Getting Iran and Israel to peace would be nice.

That circumstances has provided opportunity for the Iranian people is tangential, but I would imagine opportunity Iranians would like to take full advantage of.

I'm sure the whole region would welcome it

Hazelelponi said:

To make sure a tyrannical hyper-religious terrorist regime doesn't acquire nuclear weapons.

Outside of that nothing that I know of. Getting Iran and Israel to peace would be nice.

That circumstances has provided opportunity for the Iranian people is tangential.

Click to expand...

After conducting a four-hour bombing operation, do we now have confirmation that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons?

Is this the same certainty we had about Iraq possessing WMDs when we went to war?

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

After conducting a four-hour bombing operation, do we now have confirmation that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons?

Is this the same certainty we had about Iraq possessing WMDs when we went to war?

Click to expand...

We have radar and eyes on the sites, no boots.

I believe eyes on the site showing what appears to be destruction is certainly more than we had in Iraq.

US had planes physically fly over the sites, drop bombs, then we assessed damage. Real time. I believe that amount of fire power should be plenty sufficient.

We can't get boots for a long time, and then it would be through international bodies inspecting the sites.

Hazelelponi said:

We have radar and eyes on the sites, no boots.

I believe eyes on the site showing what appears to be destruction is certainly more than we had in Iraq.

US had planes physically fly over the sites, drop bombs, then we assessed damage. Real time. I believe that amount of fire power should be plenty sufficient.

We can't get boots for a long time, and then it would be through international bodies inspecting the sites.

Click to expand...

Is this the same radar and eyes on the site that informed Americans that Saddam Hussein had WMD? If that is the case, then I would not be so certain that Iran no longer poses a nuclear threat.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

Is this the same radar and eyes on the site that informed Americans that Saddam Hussein had WMD? If that is the case, then I would not be so certain that Iran no longer poses a nuclear threat.

Click to expand...

What does Saddam have to do with the topic?

Sinxe the days of Saddam Hussein the United States has a completely different President, a mostly different Congress, a very different intelligence community (see the closing of USAID) and even a military that likewise, is not exactly the same.

I'm not desirous of arguing war, I'm especially not desirous of arguing about long past wars I stood against

It's a new day, with all new people.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

After conducting a four-hour bombing operation, do we now have confirmation that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons?

Click to expand...

No, it wasn’t destroyed. Couldn’t you tell by their response? ;-)

War requires an ability to think strategically. You don’t apply a layman’s perspective. You’re calculating with your enemy in mind and getting ahead of them or countering. It was evident in the Khomeini’s body language they were fine and I’ve said continually the uranium was gone. In spite of the reports from Washington. You don’t wait for someone to destroy your property when you’ve had time to move it and Trump was aware. They were warned in advance and returned the favor with Qatar.

New U.S. intelligence report suggests Iran’s nuclear program only set back by months after strikes

A new U.S. intelligence report found that Iran’s nuclear program has been set back only a few months after a U.S. strike and was not “completely and fully obliterated” as President Donald Trump has said, according to two people familiar with the early assessment.

The intelligence report issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency on Monday contradicts statements from Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the status of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The people were not authorized to address the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

According to the people, the report found that while the Saturday strikes at the Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites did significant damage, they were not totally destroyed.

The assessment found that at least some of Iran’s highly enriched uranium was moved out of multiple sites before the U.S. strikes and survived, according to the people, and it also found that Iran’s centrifuges are largely intact.

At the deeply buried Fordo uranium enrichment plant, the entrance collapsed and infrastructure was damaged, so that will take time to fix, but the underground infrastructure was not destroyed, according to one of the people. The person also said that previous assessments had warned of this outcome at Fordo.

The White House strongly pushed back on the assessment, calling it “flat-out wrong.

~bella

bèlla said:

No, it wasn’t destroyed. Couldn’t you tell by their response? ;-)

Click to expand...

What response, Iran is now in the middle of a civil war, on top of the war with Israel. (There's on the ground fighting now in both the north and the south in Iran, between the Iranians and the regime as far as I can tell,).

Khamenei's office has made no public statements in 24 hours now, and we are no longer even sure the state of Iranian leadership in reality.

So what response exactly? A regime on the brink of collapse with who even knows in charge?

Do you think they are going to tell anyone the truth when they are having to use paramilitary against their own people to perchance remain in power?

We did no damage. Right. I'll take MAGA eyes on the problem in real time and go with that assessment.

We destroyed three underground nuclear sites. it's probably not the only underground nuclear sites, but they were major sites nonetheless, and it serves to set them back at the least quite considerably in their ambitions.

The propagandists are not trustworthy. In or out of the so-called intelligence community.

"Monica Elfriede Witt, 39, a former U.S. service member and counterintelligence agent, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia for conspiracy to deliver and delivering national defense information to representatives of the Iranian government." Former U.S. Counterintelligence Agent Charged With Espionage on Behalf of Iran; Four Iranians Charged With a Cyber Campaign Targeting Her Former Colleagues


Not everyone in life is trustworthy. The president of the United States is the commander in chief of the armed forces and executed an historic military operation that successfully completed its mission objective. Kudos to all our men and women in the military. Zero deaths and 3 nuclear facilities destroyed. In and out without anyone even knowing.

For a military operation it was flawless and serves as a warning I'm sure.

No one wants to be involved any further militarily, and I'm sure no one desires our further military involvement I pray. Iran can end their nuclear weapons ambitions. It's always been a red line.

Hazelelponi said:

What does Saddam have to do with the topic?

Sinxe the days of Saddam Hussein the United States has a completely different President, a mostly different Congress, a very different intelligence community (see the closing of USAID) and even a military that likewise, is not exactly the same.

I'm not desirous of arguing war, I'm especially not desirous of arguing about long past wars I stood against

It's a new day, with all new people.

Click to expand...

“Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It.”

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

“Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It.”

Click to expand...

Theres a difference between reacting to that information as if we have the same situation and president today, and knowing these things happened in the past so being a little more cautious as a result.

With a large and vocal part of the country wanting our president dead, jailed, impeached or otherwise silenced by any means necessary, I think we can safely say we all know caution is important and that we can't trust people at all. Even without the Iraq lies being brought into it.

This is one small reason to why I'm more confident with the who of who Trump might be listening to - he won't be listening to just anyone, I don't imagine.

Hazelelponi said:

What response

Click to expand...

The response Iran provided about the attack. That is what I’m addressing in my reply.

Hazelelponi said:

I'll take MAGA eyes on the problem in real time and go with that assessment.

Click to expand...

You’ve demonstrated the necessity of utilizing sources beyond the mainstream news. Given your response to Trump’s misinformation about Haitians eating animals and emotional reactions to other incidents. I’ll wait to review the day’s reports. I don’t believe you address the topic evenhandedly and no one crying about politics on the internet will ever be a reliable source of reporting from my perspective. You’re too biased.

~bella

I’ve seen several reports that the US’s bombing may have been less about Iran’s nuclear-weapons ambitions and more about the regime’s reluctance to sell the U.S. “antimony”.

Hazelelponi said:

Theres a difference between reacting to that information as if we have the same situation and president today, and knowing these things happened in the past so being a little more cautious as a result.

With a large and vocal part of the country wanting our president dead, jailed, impeached or otherwise silenced by any means necessary, I think we can safely say we all know caution is important and that we can't trust people at all. Even without the Iraq lies being brought into it.

This is one small reason to why I'm more confident with the who of who Trump might be listening to - he won't be listening to just anyone, I don't imagine.

Click to expand...

Well

President Trump has revised his assessment this morning.


“The document said it could be very severe damage. But they didn’t take that. They said it could be limited or it could be very severe. They really didn’t know other than to say it could be limited or it could be very, very severe,” Trump said during a news conference at a NATO meeting at the Hague on Wednesday.