pull down to refresh

This has no boots on the ground and no regime change calls.... entirely different then Iraq or Afghanistan
Plus ummm even the IAEA has said Iran was violating what they claimed since early 2000s
This just started. Your party had a lot of support because Trump didn't get us into any new wars. That support was just lost, to a great extent.
Americans are sick of this shit and it's not going to end well for your warmongering comrades.
reply
121 sats \ 7 replies \ @Cje95 OP 23h
Reagan did the exact same things.... twice.
You understand they have attacked American bases twice in the last week via their proxies in Iraq right? We were able to shot down the drones before hand but Iran was already acting out.
reply
Do you really want to compare the scope of American acts against Iran with their actions against America? You need to stop drinking the Kool Aid
Edit: Also, no one but Republican sycophants give a shit about what Reagan did 40 years ago. We are sick of the wars that people like you keep dragging us into.
reply
531 sats \ 5 replies \ @Cje95 OP 23h
Sounds like you are the one drinking the Kool Aid...
Trump is calling for peace and is calling for it right now. Iran will you pick up the phone? No they wont because they want the US to impose its will on Israel which contradicts what you said about playing world police and forcing people to act one way or another. Israel can do its own stuff and so can the US its call independence
reply
Calling for peace after bombing someone. Ok, good luck with that.
Have fun siding with Lindsey Graham and the other lunatics. The people who keep being right about these conflicts will be right again this time. I'm happy to stand by that. @remindme in 1 year. We'll see who was drunk on Kool Aid.
reply
I am sorry but have you no idea on history? Never forget the Beirut bombing and who was the supporters of the Islamic Jihad Organization at the time.
39 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 18h
This has no boots on the ground and no regime change calls.... entirely different then Iraq or Afghanistan
@remindme in 60 days
reply
Iran is clearly attempting to build nuclear weapons. There aren't civilian applications for uranium enriched beyond 20%. As it is, Iran has openly admitted to the IAEA that they're enriching to 60%.
reply
Yes, they've been open about enriching uranium for energy and medical purposes. That's not justification for anything.
By my understanding, they were complying with inspections while the Iran Deal was in place and have always been open to resuming those.
Stop falling for every dumb piece of war propaganda.
reply
10 sats \ 7 replies \ @petertodd 8h
Neither medical nor energy purposes need 60% enriched uranium. Certainly not 83%
Stop falling for dumb Iranian propaganda.
reply
Naval reactors do use that level of enrichment, unlike nuclear weapons.
reply
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @Cje95 OP 5h
The SMRs in subs use roughly 20% enrichment.... far cry from 60% that is a level that is way to high and dangerous
reply
The reference I found said at least 50%, but I'm certainly no expert on this.
Is that number universal or are there models that use higher levels?
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @petertodd 6h
Iran doesn't have nuclear powered submarines and isn't building any; it would be perfectly reasonable to ensure they don't get any even if they tried.
reply
Your view of what's reasonable is very different from mine. Mine doesn't involve trying to police the actions of everyone on Earth.