Taro T
-
Posts
4,955 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Taro T
-
-
8 hours ago, Doc said:
Yeah, the “Trump will start WWIII” claim back in 2016 wasn’t fear-mongering hysteria…Nor was the "Trump has started WWIII" claim this past weekend fear-mongering hysteria ...
Nor were any of the other times they claimed that over the past 9 or so years fear-mongering hysteria ...
-
1
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, muppy said:
greetings PPP. You KNOW Im going to cut to the chase in regards to questions I have. Opening to discussion
1. How can the USA prove the raw materials needed for nuclear weapons are destroyed. It's a yes, no answer I hope for. Maybe destroyed leaves conjecture
2. How will we know if this effort results in a regime change or Not. hmmm. General answers are okay. I know Noone down here is Yahweh
3. How long will this story be front and center due to actions of our government . Wether you support the bombing or support it with caveats or flat up didn't approve of it happening at all.
to the 3rd I say as long as there is a middle east there will be DRAMA. And this thread could easily goo beyond 100 pages.
that's what I think and hope to learn from interested parties today
thanks
m
1A. The only way to PROVE it is to inspect it. And personally expect any peace treaty coming out of this war will include an ability for either the US or Israel to inspect the actual bombed facilities (possibly technically through the auspices of a 3rd party like the UN or the IAEA but in either case am expecting that US &/or Israeli boots will be on the ground for that one).
1B. Likely the 60% uranium hexaflouride itself has not been destroyed, but it is also likely under several hundred feet of rock and debris. Would expect the centrifuges used to purify it likely are destroyed and are many of the Iranian scientists and engineers that oversaw and designed the purification operations. The only way to guarantee that the Iranians can't use that uranium is if somebody else takes possession of it. Expect that will be a key demand of the US/Israeli side in any peace agreement.
1C. Forgotten in all this talk of the bombing of the enrichment facilities is that the Israelis also did a number on the Iranians missile building capacity. Finding themselves back near square 1 on that front is another good thing that likely has come out of this kerfuffle.
2. Are the mullahs still in power? Then regime change still hasn't happened. Are they removed / dead? (Oviously not asked today as they aren't, but hopefully soon.) If yes, then regime change has happened.
3. No data. Won't even hazard a guess.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
Ought to be interesting that’s for sure
Isn't "may you live in interesting times" an ancient Chinese curse? (If it isn't, it definitely should be.)
-
7 minutes ago, stevestojan said:
Honest question since I of course have no way of knowing what actually happened, nor do any of us here. But since many on the right are blasting any suggestion that the sites weren’t destroyed (by judging the website that posts the story) are you believing they did completely destroy them because Hegseth said they did? Or are you just waiting for more confirmation. Aljzerra is also reporting they have not been destroyed, along with other sources. So, aside from “CNN is biased” (no s.hit) what gives you confidence that the mission was indeed accomplished?Don't know if they were destroyed or not. Do know the IAEA has said there is significant damage to at least 4 of the facilities. There is radiation eminating from at least 2 of them but radiation hasn't been detected beyond the perimeter of any of the facilities. And they did specifically state that one of the entrances to Fordam was hit and at least 2 strikes hit Natanz.
Don't know if the Fordam faciliy was destroyed, but do expect it is under a couple hundred feet of rubble in a worst case. So, it isn't exactly an easy get back if somehow the 12 - 30,000# bombs didn't penetrate all 300' that the facility was reported to have been originally underground.
And while we're all speculating whether or not the Iranians would've moved uranium after the Israelis first took out their air defenses, it is just as likely, possibly moreso that the Iranians moved uranium TO the Fordam site because it was believed to be inaccessible to the attacks rather than move uranium OUT of that seemingly (at least that was how it was described 3 days ago) unpenetrable facility.
But, considering pretty much all "intelligence reports" prior to the raids of these past 2 weeks said that there was no way to knock the Iranian defenses out this easily and that Iran would get support both from its benefactors and from the proxy groups it funds but except for the Yeminis firing a few missiles, NONE of that intelligence was correct; not sure just how reliable those same sources now claming that these strikes were unsuccessful actually are. They have a vested interest in these raids failing. Just like the Israelis and the US have a vested interest in them having succeeded.
And am going back to the old axiom, NEVER trust reports during the 1st 48 hours of ANY major event. They're almost always wrong.
But considering it is in America's and the world's best interests for the Iranian nuclear program to have been destroyed, will cautiously hope that the early reports stating that's the case happen to be the correct ones.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Orlando Buffalo said:
That band was actually far more entertaining then you would think in concert.
Yep.
Pretty much a weirder and less talented version of BNL.
-
6 minutes ago, Doc said:
If you’re gonna come up with a fake story, at least make it believable. The dude is white as snow.
-
8 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:
Sorry captain, the standard set by truth teller is completely obliterated and that golden shower analogy doesn't really hit home (unless it's your home). The White House authenticated it was a real story. To what level remains to be seen.
Do you believe those trucks coming and going from the Nuclear facilities were just bringing concrete?
You might be right on this. We really don't know, but the president is not right. Its been a couple days and his need for parading himself around before knowing anything is unraveling. Any sensible person would have simply said the mission was a success, we believe the nuclear threat is contained, and our intelligence community will be working hard in the coming days to verify those findings. Instead he chose, obliterated, no longer functional, and completely destroyed. It's the difference between qualified and unqualified, presidential and pedestrian. He was so eager to pat his back he couldn't even wait a few days.
I would be more inclined to agree with you if the white house didn't already acknowledge it and it being top secret. Making up as they go is not what this is. It could be incorrect? Sure, Trump could do his best to ensure that is the perception? That's a certainty.
Have not seen/heard Leavitt's statement, so will take your word for it that is what she said. And, what she said goes exactly with what was stated in the post you responded to. That post said it was either someone in government leaking classified (or apparently top secret in this instance) info or CNN was making it up. Per your post, she said it was someone in government leaking top secret info.
And the question still remains as to which one is a more accurate restating of the information. Whether 47 exaggerated or the leaker lied or a little of both, we don't know yet what the truth is. Personally will wait for more info to come out before deciding which of those scenarios is the correct one. (And yes, it is almost definite that 47 exaggerated; it is what he does. But that doesn't mean necessarily that the 3 facilities aren't essentially completely back to ground zero so to speak. Which, if it's the case would make 47's version significantly closer to the truth IF in fact that is what's happened than what the leaker has divulged.) (Just like 47 isn't necessarily going to tell the truth, the leaker might have motives to lie as well. And when we have no idea who that leaker is at this time, can't honestly say whether they are or aren't lying.)
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Mikie2times said:
The president saying 5 seconds after it happened:
"have been completely and totally obliterated."
But CNN is the misinformation here?
I guarantee the Iranian ability to generate Nuclear weapons is still present and the following months will prove that. It might only take days. If I'm wrong I will never post in the PPP forum again.
How confident are you?
One thing to remember about any of CNN's reporting, at least for the next 3-1/2 years, is that most of their insiders that held securitiy clearances even after leaving government service had them revoked by 47. So, in a matter like this, they're either getting told by somebody still working in the government that is leaking classified information or they're making it up as they go.
A significant portion of their former sources have dried up.
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:
If the Iranian people overthrow the regime I will become more bullish over these actions making a difference. Khomeini is prepping his son to take over. His internal network historically has been enough to hold back the Iranian people. While many are pro west, the old guard has been hard to make any progress with. Seeing Trump say today that he doesn't want a regime change is disappointing. I know why he said and I don't think he believes it, he wants stability, but still, disappointing. Certainly part of the cease fire agreement, it had to be.
Regardless, can we trust Khomeini or Netanyahu? No. Not as far as you could throw them. What happens if the ceasefire doesn't hold? If it doesn't the real threats haven't even started. That was always the risk of handling things this way. It's the 1st quarter at this point. A lot of time to see what this ultimately results in.
Well,a ceasefire is only that - a ceasefire. It doesn't mean there necessarily is a resolution but it does provide time for negotiations.
IMHO it would be very shortsighted and antithetical to obtaining a peace agreement for 47 to be calling for regime change. Seems he couching that about as well as we can hope (though very much in his particular brand of communication) in stating that we aren't calling for regime change but we aren't opposed to it (and personally take that as saying we'd really like to see the Iranian people overthrow what's left of the regime and also that if they don't negotiate in good faith an end of their nuclear program that we WILL actively work towards regime change).
Will be interesting to see how negotiations between the 3 parties go now that we seem to be in a ceasefire. If the mullahs survive this, expect that they will be required to grant full unfettered access to their nuclear sites and that ANY lack of access will result in more bombs landing on them. Will also be very interested to see what, if any, concessions the Israelis and the Americans make in the negotiations. Expecting those to be minimal and strictly something that we don't particularly care about that lets the mullahs CLAIM some form of victory, however minor it might be.
To your earlier questions of "why now?" IMHO 2 additional reasons beyond what @sherpa has mentioned: 1 Russia is otherwise occupied, which is the same reason Assad fell over in Syria and
2. the guy that always seemed to be partial to solutions that Iran would favor in that region of the world such as wanting to partition Iraq after Saddam fell is no longer even titularly in the WH.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, B-Man said:
There sure are some blissful leftists here.
Ironically, the ones that are most blissful seem to be the most over the top pissed off people around. Such a dichotomy.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
Same people “suggesting” all these things publicly literally to do 2 things:
1. Leave every enemy with no clue
2. To own Homeloser and the libs.
These same people said “2 weeks.”
48 hours later - a round trip refueled in mid air flight 3 times bombing campaign the likes of which we have not seen since WWII.
And 2 ways to view the "our goal is not regime change in Iran" but "we'd be good with it should it happen" that don't leave these as contradictory messages are:
1. we have no intention of enacting regime change but if the Iranian people try to make it happen, we'd be more than willing to support them. And
2. we've said repeatedly that we want to negotiate an end to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program(s). If the mullahs are finally willing to come to the table, great. But if they aren't, well there's more than 1 way to "negotiate" an end to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program(s). We'll let the mullahs choose which way they want it to play out, but they have to make their choice very quickly.
Am not thrilled that the Netanyahu decided to bring this decades long conflict to a head nor that the US got involved. But at the end of the day, prefer this to Iran having a nuclear weapon or 9.
-
44 minutes ago, boyst said:
Lol rolling Stone
Well, in fairness to him, Vanity Fair was behind a paywall.
-
3
-
-
16 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
A lot of it is far from "pristine."
Most of it is not "developable" because it is far, far away from anywhere where people or business are likely to locate.
I'm not against a sale of some of the land, but people have a legitimate concern that this is a foot in the door technique, and that somehow (I wonder how ...) big developer interests will wind up buying the land for far less than what they deem it to be worth after an intensive lobbying effort for water rights, road access, etc.
No offense intended here, but sometimes I wonder exactly how much time these proponents of federal land sales have actually spent on western USFS and BLM lands ...
The thing to watch for is in states that don't have eminent domain laws that somebody buys land with the only access roads to some adjacent lands and then they effectively buy a whole lot more land than they'd actually paid for.
Because without eminent domain, you can't force somebody to allow a road in on their property. It's how folks like Ted Turner ended up getting some really great land. Buy up everything surrounding what you REALLY want and then make a swap of some of what you have for what you actually want.
As long as the feds &/or the state can get roads built to what lies beyond what is being sold off, there isn't a whole lot to be worried about provided you aren't a competitor of clean coal (the real reason 42 converted large chunks of Utah to national parkland - to prevent low sulfur coal from being mined) or a rancher with a dirt cheap lease on federal lands for grazing purposes or someone else benefiting from that land not being private / exploitable.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Trump_is_Mentally_fit said:
What in the holy hell are you talking about? You're going back to your Billsy level halucinations.
You're equating our government pushing private companies to restrict free speech (the deplatforming outlets that ran with the Hunter Biden laptop story back in 2020, and the deplatforming of Dr. Bhattacharya for his views regarding covid in 2021 as prime examples) with people asking the government to not sponsor artists like Maplethorpe? Interesting take. And one of a comparison of apples and kumquats.
And you know darn well that what 44 is calling for is for the government censoring views that challenge it. A reimagining of the Disinformation Governence Board if you will. The fact that you can't even admit that you know that's what he's calling for tells us one of 2 things about you. So, have fun with it.
-
9 minutes ago, aristocrat said:
We going to war? Or is this a strike?
It would seem to be in the hands of the mullahs at present. 47 made a nonveiled threat that if they don't agree to negotiate an end to this war that we will be at war and with the vast majority of their air (and other?) defenses taken out that that would not go well for them.
Praying that Netanyahu and 47 are right about this one. We seem to be at a major inflection point. And as much as the world changed for the worse on 9/11/01 maybe it'll change that much for the better now. That's all those of us texting on a message board can do at this point.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Wacka said:
The Iranians obviously didn't watch Star Trek The Wrath of Khan.🙂
Savik: You lied!
Spock: I exaggerated.
Kirk: Hours instead of days! Now we have minutes instead of hours!
Thus quote was what I thought of when Trump said we'd wait 2 weeks.
Had the exact same thought.
Who knew 47 is a Trekkie?
-
17 minutes ago, Trump_is_Mentally_fit said:
He didn't lay out a plan, and did say it would be experimental, but what are you talking about with the government deciding what is truth or not? They do that all the time. Slander is a crime, for instance that a judge (appointed government official) can make decisions on. Businesses are sued over lies and misleading advertising.
Come on, up your game buddy 🤣
NEITHER of which are even close to the government deciding what truths are allowed to be stated and which aren't. Which is what 44 is calling for. Having the ability to deplatform positions the government finds "inconvenient" is what they really want.
And remember, though your favorites propose such things, were they enacted today the guy you can't stand would be the one choosing who the arbiters of truth are. You SURE you're really ok with that?
-
21 hours ago, Trump_is_Mentally_fit said:
Ya, it's real hateful and authoritarian how he calls for the first amendment to be followed. Makes his sound like Hitler or something!
How is a politician, or an authority appointed by a politician (same difference), choosing what is "truth" or a "fact" in any way shape or form following the 1st amendment?
The 1st amendment says the politicians don't get to choose what others are allowed to say or believe.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, muppy said:
I would love an answer to what will make we trust them. and what repurcussions if the regime doesn't really end. Still will hurt the Iranian people maybe
I dunno
pretty much 🙂 bring me some good non alcoholic beer next time I see you. I'm gripping about pool parties with no drinking 😞
The ONLY way we trust the mullahs to be honest about their nuke program (presuming they are still in power when the dust settles) is by full, complete, unfettered inspection of their facilities. Like Reagan said "trust but verify." And that can work. It worked in the late 80's, both sides got to inspect the other's facilities to prove they were honoring the treaties.
What repercussions happen if they don't allow that &/or they get caught cheating: if the "good guys" are serious about not letting Iran have a bomb; in short order we're back to where we are today. If they're not serious about it and the mullahs are still there, we go back to where we were before: with the mullahs lying about following the jcpoa rules and supporting as much terrorist activity as they can buy.
As @sherpa stated, the BEST way to ensure the mullahs don't end up with control of nukes is by removing them from power. It looked like the Iranian people were on the verge of overthrowing the mullahs 10 or so years ago. Our government then signed the jcpoa and literally gave their government "pallets of cash." So much for that rebellion. Not expecting 47 nor Netanyahu to be nearly as accomodating as the US had been in the past. So, hopefully what Israel is doing now is enough to give the Iranian people the ability to overthrow the mullahs. THAT would be best case and would be a true game changer for global politics.
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
***** owners? Since when do diseases and medical conditions care whether you drive a Swedish car or not? 😉
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
Running with he's too stupid to live is an interesting defense in place of he's too partisan to tell the truth. Jake, how is saying you're the most gullible person on the face of the earth a better defense than simply saying yes, we were lying the entire time but we got the job done?
Nobody with at least 1/2 of a functioning cerebral cortex will ever trust you again regardless of how you spin this, but at least you'd maintain nearly a shred of dignity.
-
14 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
Really hoping that we don't escalate our involvement in this war. Keep providing support to Israel; but let them do the heavy lifting.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Orlando Buffalo said:
since 2020 the State of Florida has won 4 more Stanley Cups than the entire nation of Canada has won since 1993. it is kinda representative of what has happened to Canada over the past 10 years.
And if Alberta were to jump ship and swap countries, English speaking Canada would have to go all the way back to the 6 team league to have a Championship they could call their own.
-
On 5/15/2006 at 1:01 PM, The Poojer said:
i have run away from The main page, now the off topic page. I just want some good old fashioned random talk. Any going on here?
Sabre talk? Just how depressed do you want to get?
-
1
-
UPDATE: ISRAEL v IRAN - Ceasefire reached?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Only the ones hoping for a lawyer still hand out that name. 😉