Mr Trump threatens the lives of former presidents

"Iran is enriching Uranium"

• because it accepted limitations and inspections under the Joint Comprehensive plan of Action and Trump withdrew from it.

"the huge fortified bunkers protect the peaceful Uranium?"

• Yes, Israel attacked nuclear installations in Iraq on 7 June 1981.

"Why would anybody attack"

• Israel likes to attack.
  The USA attacked the underground facilities, so they would have been attacked if not underground.
  I can understand the June 12 attacks being against Uranium enrichment.
  The war since 28 Februari 2026 has nothing to do with uranium.
  Bombing schoolgirls or bridges is not related to uranium.
  It is to 'grab their oil'. Trump likes to grab.

@Noflaps said ^

Damn man.. you guys sure can write a lot(without an LLM).. and still disagree...

Maybe write me a passage on how to make best use of college times..

@Noflaps said ^

Iran is enriching Uranium far beyond the need for actual energy generation in order to fuel something like a Venus probe?

Oh. I had no idea Iran was trying to reach the stars. Is Hamas involved in their space program, too?

And the huge fortified bunkers protect the "peaceful" Uranium? Oh.

Why would anybody attack slightly enriched Uranium (needed and useful ONLY for peaceful en...

You’re appealing to “rational independents” when you habitually refuse to account for rational—and often, likely— alternatives, instead rattling off fallacies like a Gatling?

Grab their oil?

What nonsense.

Iran has an enormous, powerful army. We couldn't take their fields if we wanted to.

Attempts at mind-reading, in the face of obvious impossibility, is not an argument.

And America didn't deliberately bomb any school girls. OBVIOUSLY.

Anti-Trump, Anti-American fantasy gets old. No, sorry, it's GOTTEN old.

@Clousems again tries to make this about me.

So, @clousems, are you, too, actually going to argue that Iran's long-range ballistic missiles and stubborn over-enrichment must be for peaceful purposes? And that it's safe to just assume that? If so, wow -- do you think a lot of your fellow "conservatives" agree?

I guess I can't be sure. As I recall, Neville Chamberlain was a conservative and a real optimist, too!

And if that's not what you are willing to argue, why address me at all? And precisely which "rational alternatives" do you claim I "refuse to account for" (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Please list them.

And then please check to see to which of those you list, if any, I have not actually (often repeatedly) responded.

And i haven't "rattled off fallacies." That's simply grumpy personal attack, which disappoints me, since you are among those I have long respected.

I do notice that things tend to get personal sometimes when people find themselves frustrated and feeling a bit of uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. But I won't try to read minds in any particular case.

"Grab their oil?"

• Trump literally said that.

"We couldn't take their fields if we wanted to."

• Trump wanted to take Kharg Island and the Strait of Trump.

"America didn't deliberately bomb any school girls"

• The girls school OBVIOUSLY was not an uranium enrichment facility. Neither were the bridges.

"long-range ballistic missiles"

• Diego Garcia or Cyprus are medium range, not long range.

"over-enrichment"

• Again, Iran accepted all kinds of limitations and inspections under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
  Then Trump withdrew. So Iran no longer felt obliged by the limitations and inspections. If there was or is any problem, then Trump's withdrawal caused it.

I once said I wanted to go to Spain. Unfortunately, I haven't been there yet. My saying I'd like to go doesn't make me a tourist.

"Iran no longer felt obliged" -- so what?

So, only the restraint of a paper agreement keeps Iran from doing something with an obvious military purpose and no seemingly plausible peaceful purpose that anybody has been able to convincingly state?

I suppose I COULD eat a dog. I'm not "obliged" not to.

But I'd never do it. Because I think it's a horrible idea. I'd never do it just "because I can."

Why not just act like the UAE or any of Iran's other peaceful neighbors? What would be so horrible?

At this point, the points of disagreement and the supporting arguments, such as they are, have been made clear. Is this about getting the last word? Well, I don't have to have it. My fingers are quite calloused enough.

"the restraint of a paper agreement keeps Iran from doing something"

• The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was carefully negotiated. Iran agreed to limitations and inspections in exchange for lifting of sanctions. Trump withdrew and reinstated sanctions, so Iran no longer felt bound by limitations and inspections.
  A deal is a deal. The author of 'the art of the deal' should not break deals.

@KNIGHT_c4 said ^

TDS

You're wrong, it's TFS: Trump Fatigue Syndrome.

@Noflaps said ^

NATO has long been funded primarily by WHAT country?

You should look up how NATO works.

NATO itself is actually funded mostly by Europeans.

Then all the countries have their own national defense, which Americans often confuses wiith NATO. So when USA spend money on like a nuclear submaring that they off course keeo as their own submaine they think they're "funding NATO" and somehow loosing the money despise USA obviously not loosing that money as USA keeos the submarine!

USA off course has a large budget for national defense as it's the biggest economy in NATO. But apart from that USA CHOOSES to spent a lot of money on it's army. NOBODY IS TELLING USA TO DO THIS.

USA itself decides LETS SPEND AN ENOURMOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY ON MILITARY and then after that USA goes I WANT MY MONEY BACK despite USA already having their money and despite that USA could just ... spend less on military if it doesn't want to.

I've been listening to these gross misunderstandings how for like 11 years since Trumo ran the first time.

It's kinda mind boggling to me that the USA pucling for 11 years still has not learned that "the money USA spends on it's defense is spent of USA's free will and USA actually gets to keep the stuff in it's national defense, it's not like NATO eats the tanks and fighter planes it or what you think...".
.