2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

do you believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

Absolutely. And then park them right next to America and Israel. Rein in the terrorist scum and make the world a better, safer place. 🙂

20 minutes ago, Packer said:

Absolutely. And then park them right next to America and Israel. Rein in the terrorist scum and make the world a better, safer place. 🙂

Thanks for your honesty.

9 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

This is why other countries must follow Spain's lead and not get involved.

Who else has the <deleted> to do that?

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Why was it a mistake, and how was it a failure?

So, what is the alternative? Do you believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

Well... according to your standards, who is allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles? AND WHY?

We all see the intelligence involved regarding this war... or are we blind?

1 minute ago, ravip said:

Well... according to your standards, who is allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles? AND WHY?

You have to answer my questions, and then I'll answer yours, sound fair?

1 minute ago, ravip said:

We all see the intelligence involved regarding this war... or are we blind?

Some are blind, some are not.

One crazy stat , just wait to BRICs joins.

Some brainwashed yanks still call Iran the aggressors 😂

7 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Well if the Deep State which no doubt controls Trumps every move wanted World War III, Trump would certainly be the perfect puppet for them to utilize

They control Trump that means they also controlled past presidents as well. Biden Bush Clinton et Al....right ?

Post breaking forum guidelines removed. @JimCM

Low-Value Posts Reminder.

Posts that add no written contribution harm the forum and reduce its value for readers and search engines.

This includes:

2–3 word replies

Emoji-only posts

Memes or GIFs with no explanation or context.

Screenshots with no supporting text

Embedded social media posts with no comment or opinion

Youtube videos with no explanation or comment

If your post does not explain, add context, or express a view in your own words, it has no value here.

What happens next

Any such content will be removed without notice

Repeat posting of this type may lead to further moderation action

If you want to post a meme, image, or screenshot, add a short explanation or your view.

If you have nothing to add in text, don’t post.

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

You falsely claimed that the JCPOA was approved by Congress, it was not.

No I did not "... falsely claim that the JCPOA was approved by Congress ..". What I actually said was " .. both the UN and the US Congress at the time were convinced that Iran was abiding by the agreement". I will acknowledge that my mistake: The US Congress - together with Israel and Saudi Arabia (there's an unholy alliance) - were not convinced. "Only" the UN inspectors and the rest of the world were convinced.

Will you acknowledge that you misrepresented my position?

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Now you are (IMO) falsely claiming that Iran was abiding by the JCPOA which you clearly have no way of knowing, because unrestricted access for inspections was never allowed.

Again, I am not falsely claiming anything.

Iran allowed access to its nuclear facilities in accordance with the terms of the JCPOA which was enough to satisfy the UN and other bodies/ nations.

Where is your evidence that Iran breached the terms of the Agreement, other than an unverified and unvalidated Israeli report?

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Well, you can thank Germany for nuclear weapons, they have done so much for the world,

So the US explanation for developing (and using) nuclear devices is, 'We didn't invent them'.

Not much of a defence, is it?

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

In any event, the question was, do you believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

A simple yes or no will do. You can say no and still be against doing anything to stop them. That seems to be the left's position on everything.

If Trump had not ripped up JCPOA, there would not be a conversation about Iran possessing nuclear weapons and, if there was then the international community would be fully entitled to do something about it.

Wrt ballistic missiles, unless and until Israel decommissions it's arsenal, why shouldn't Iran be allowed its own deterrent?

The situation in Iran is of Trump's own making. As I mentioned previously, if he hadn't unilaterally left JCPOA we wouldn't be having this discussion and there would have been no bombing of Iran. Two wrongs rarely make a right, and they certainly don't in this case.

The US right-wing's attitude to solving problems seems to be 'F**k the rest of the world' and/or 'Bomb it'.

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

No I did not "... falsely claim that the JCPOA was approved by Congress ..". What I actually said was " .. both the UN and the US Congress at the time were convinced that Iran was abiding by the agreement". I will acknowledge that my mistake: The US Congress - together with Israel and Saudi Arabia (there's an unholy alliance) - were not convinced. "Only" the UN inspectors and the rest of the world were convinced.

Will you acknowledge that you misrepresented my position?

I will acknowledge that my claim that you stated Congress had approved the JCPOA was false. It was not my intention to misrepresent what you said. I'll rephrase: You falsely claimed that Congress was convinced that Iran was abiding by the terms of the JCPOA.

Will you acknowledge that claiming "...the Congress at the time were convinced that Iran was abiding by the agreement.." implied Congress had approved the JCPOA?

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

Again, I am not falsely claiming anything.

Iran allowed access to its nuclear facilities in accordance with the terms of the JCPOA which was enough to satisfy the UN and other bodies/ nations.

Because they never agreed to unrestricted access for inspections. But the feckless Obama was so desperate for a deal he's agreed to it.

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

Where is your evidence that Iran breached the terms of the Agreement, other than an unverified and unvalidated Israeli report?

So the US explanation for developing (and using) nuclear devices is, 'We didn't invent them'.

Not much of a defence, is it?

If Trump had not ripped up JCPOA, there would not be a conversation about Iran possessing nuclear weapons and, if there was then the international community would be fully entitled to do something about it.

And what might the "international community" have done to stop them?

What did the "international community" do about the tens of thousands of innocent protestors killed by the Iranian regime?

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

Wrt ballistic missiles, unless and until Israel decommissions it's arsenal, why shouldn't Iran be allowed its own deterrent?

The situation in Iran is of Trump's own making. As I mentioned previously, if he hadn't unilaterally left JCPOA we wouldn't be having this discussion and there would have been no bombing of Iran. Two wrongs rarely make a right, and they certainly don't in this case.

The US right-wing's attitude to solving problems seems to be 'F**k the rest of the world' and/or 'Bomb it'.

And the left-wing's attitude is wait until they rule the world and then convert to Islam.

You believe Iran should be permitted to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, correct? That's fin if that's your position, I just want clarity.

4 hours ago, Packer said:

Absolutely. And then park them right next to America and Israel. Rein in the terrorist scum and make the world a better, safer place. 🙂

So you are advocating the destruction of America and Israel? LOL. Dream on LOL. Your heroes are blown to bits in rubble

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Will you acknowledge that claiming "...the Congress at the time were convinced that Iran was abiding by the agreement.." implied Congress had approved the JCPOA?

No I will not acknowledge that statement because it is not what I said or meant.

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Because they never agreed to unrestricted access for inspections. But the feckless Obama was so desperate for a deal he's agreed to it.

In response to the question: "Did iran allow access to its nuclear facilities in accordance with the terms of JCPOA?", AI provided the following response:

"Iran's compliance with the access and monitoring terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has shifted significantly over three distinct phases:

1. Initial Compliance (2016–2019)

Verified Access: Following "Implementation Day" on January 16, 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verified that Iran had provided "unprecedented access" to its nuclear facilities and supply chain.

Active Monitoring: During this period, the IAEA maintained continuous surveillance at declared sites like Natanz and Fordow, utilizing tamper-resistant cameras and fiber-optic seals.

Implementation of Additional Protocol: Iran provisionally applied the Additional Protocol, which granted inspectors short-notice access to undeclared sites.

I realise that this answer does not fit your narrative but there you have it.

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And what might the "international community" have done to stop them?

"If Iran broke the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the "snapback" mechanism in UN Security Council Resolution 2231 would have automatically reimposed pre-2015 UN sanctions. These measures, which were triggered in late 2025 by the E3 (UK, France, Germany), include a full arms embargo, restrictions on missile technology, a ban on uranium enrichment, and financial sanctions" (Source: AI again)

I'll preempt your objection: If those sanctions did not have the desired effect effect, then I assume the use of force against Iran to ensure compliance would be an option.

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What did the "international community" do about the tens of thousands of innocent protestors killed by the Iranian regime?

Sadly, very little.

But let's not pretend concern for Iranian's civilian population forms part of Trump's agenda. The statement about 'Not being in the business of nation building' proves that.

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And the left-wing's attitude is wait until they rule the world and then convert to Islam.

Of course it is.

The 7% of the UK population who are Muslims are plotting the overthrow of the British state as the extreme left-wing Starmer government does nothing.

Sorry but sometimes sarcasm is justified.

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You believe Iran should be permitted to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, correct? That's fin if that's your position, I just want clarity.

No as I have explained at least twice previously, I do not believe that Iran - or any other nation which does not already possess such arms - should be permitted to continue developing nuclear weapons.

Yes, I do believe that Iran should be permitted to continue developing ballistic missiles in order to protect itself against its' perceived enemies, notably Israel (I do not know whether such missiles would be considered intercontinental).

In an ideal world, Iran and Israel would enter into a bi-lateral agreement limiting the development of arms but that is almost certainly wishful thinking on my part.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

No I will not acknowledge that statement because it is not what I said or meant.

My statement had to do with what your statement implied, not what you said or meant.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

e

In response to the question: "Did iran allow access to its nuclear facilities in accordance with the terms of JCPOA?", AI provided the following response:

"Iran's compliance with the access and monitoring terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has shifted significantly over three distinct phases:

1. Initial Compliance (2016–2019)

Verified Access: Following "Implementation Day" on January 16, 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verified that Iran had provided "unprecedented access" to its nuclear facilities and supply chain.

Active Monitoring: During this period, the IAEA maintained continuous surveillance at declared sites like Natanz and Fordow, utilizing tamper-resistant cameras and fiber-optic seals.

Implementation of Additional Protocol: Iran provisionally applied the Additional Protocol, which granted inspectors short-notice access to undeclared sites.

I realise that this answer does not fit your narrative but there you have it.

It's not my narrative. Because the JCPOA did not mandate inspectors have unrestricted access, it was worthless.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

"If Iran broke the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the "snapback" mechanism in UN Security Council Resolution 2231 would have automatically reimposed pre-2015 UN sanctions. These measures, which were triggered in late 2025 by the E3 (UK, France, Germany), include a full arms embargo, restrictions on missile technology, a ban on uranium enrichment, and financial sanctions" (Source: AI again)

I'll preempt your objection: If those sanctions did not have the desired effect effect, then I assume the use of force against Iran to ensure compliance would be an option.

Without unrestricted access for inspections, there is no way of knowing if Iran was in compliance or not.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

Sadly, very little.

But let's not pretend concern for Iranian's civilian population forms part of Trump's agenda. The statement about 'Not being in the business of nation building' proves that.

Why do you assume Trump cares nothing about the protestors that were murdered?

What evidence do you have? None.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

Of course it is.

The 7% of the UK population who are Muslims are plotting the overthrow of the British state as the extreme left-wing Starmer government does nothing.

Sorry but sometimes sarcasm is justified.

No as I have explained at least twice previously, I do not believe that Iran - or any other nation which does not already possess such arms - should be permitted to continue developing nuclear weapons.

Like the rest of the "international community", you are against it, but you will not do anything about it, and you want to stop Trump from doing anything about it.

Exactly your position on mass illegal migration as I remember.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

Yes, I do believe that Iran should be permitted to continue developing ballistic missiles in order to protect itself against its' perceived enemies, notably Israel (I do not know whether such missiles would be considered intercontinental).

Thanks for your honesty,

1 minute ago, RayC said:

In an ideal world, Iran and Israel would enter into a bi-lateral agreement limiting the development of arms but that is almost certainly wishful thinking on my part.

In an ideal world, leftism would not exist.

3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

So you are advocating the destruction of America and Israel?

Nah. Just that those they threaten and attack should also have nukes parked alongside them to help calm down the American-Israel Terrorist Machine.

Though the destruction of Israel as a country would make the world a much nicer, quieter, more peaceful place, I'm sure we can agree. 🙂

3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

So you are advocating the destruction of America and Israel? LOL. Dream on LOL. Your heroes are blown to bits in rubble

Yes I do, and do you have a problem with that, or is it only YOU who think he has the right to advocate the destruction of countries which don't follow YOUR agenda?

17 minutes ago, Packer said:

Though the destruction of Israel as a country would make the world a much nicer, quieter, more peaceful place, I'm sure we can agree. 🙂

Your lot already tried. What didnt kill the Jewish "menace" just made them stronger. Haha.

17 hours ago, JimCM said:

Another experts says they have failed.

This man speaks so much truth. I appreciate your sharing his insights.

15 hours ago, blaze master said:

They control Trump that means they also controlled past presidents as well. Biden Bush Clinton et Al....right ?

Yes. No doubt the Deep State is nonpartisan, and they control who's ever in power. For them it's all about greed, power and control.

3 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Yes. No doubt the Deep State is nonpartisan, and they control who's ever in power. For them it's all about greed, power and control.

Its a shame that throughout history the power structure has done so much damage to the rest of us.

Please shoot me into space so I can leave.

1 minute ago, blaze master said:

Its a shame that throughout history the power structure has done so much damage to the rest of us.

Please shoot me into space so I can leave.

The one benefit to getting older at this point in time is that we won't be around to witness the extreme decline in the quality of life that is starting to take place, and will likely accelerate dramatically in the coming decades.

I would not want to be a kid in today's world, nor would I want to bring a kid into today's world.

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

My statement had to do with what your statement implied, not what you said or meant.

Then your interpretation was incorrect.

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

It's not my narrative. Because the JCPOA did not mandate inspectors have unrestricted access, it was worthless.

That is your narrative.

The UN were satisfied that Iran was complying with the terms of the Agreement and did not think that the JCPOA was worthless.

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Without unrestricted access for inspections, there is no way of knowing if Iran was in compliance or not.

Without perfect knowledge, there is very little that anyone can be certain about.

You seem unwilling to accept the fact that the authorities who mattered were convinced that Iran was complying with the terms of the Agreement. Why would Iran go over and above the agreed terms?

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Why do you assume Trump cares nothing about the protestors that were murdered?

What evidence do you have? None.

Urging the Iranian public to enact regime change - which would almost certainly result in a large number of casualties - while at the same time ruling out US support to effect that change does not suggest to me that Trump is overly concerned with the fate of Iranian civilians.

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Like the rest of the "international community", you are against it, but you will not do anything about it, and you want to stop Trump from doing anything about it.

I suggest that you re-read the bit in my previous post about what would happened if Iran had been found to be non-compliant when the JCPOA was in force.

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Exactly your position on mass illegal migration as I remember.

Then you recall incorrectly. I have never stated that no action should be taken against illegal migrants.

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Thanks for your honesty,

You're welcome.

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

In an ideal world, leftism would not exist.

If 'leftism' hadn't existed, then you might still have 4-year olds cleaning chimneys if it were cost-effective. There likely wouldn't be any restrictions on 'laissez faire' capitalism, such as Health and Safety legislation but, hey, what's a few industrial related deaths amongst friends: Humans don't need to be treated any differently to machines.

Just now, spidermike007 said:

The one benefit to getting older at this point in time is that we won't be around to witness the extreme decline in the quality of life that is starting to take place, and will likely accelerate dramatically in the coming decades.

I would not want to be a kid in today's world, nor would I want to bring a kid into today's world.

At 49 and healthy im afraid I might last to see a bunch of that.

Fingers crossed.

13 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

In an ideal world, leftism would not exist.

Without leftism there wouldn't be an ideal world.

9 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Your lot

15 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Your heroes

No 'lot' no 'heroes'.

You sound hateful. You sound maniacal. You sound angry. You sound Israeli.

5 hours ago, RayC said:

Then your interpretation was incorrect.

That is your narrative.

The UN were satisfied that Iran was complying with the terms of the Agreement and did not think that the JCPOA was worthless.

Without perfect knowledge, there is very little that anyone can be certain about.

You seem unwilling to accept the fact that the authorities who mattered were convinced that Iran was complying with the terms of the Agreement. Why would Iran go over and above the agreed terms?

The "authorities that matter" to you, do not much matter to me.

The authorities that matter to me, do not believe the JCPOA was not worth the paper it was printed on, and in fact believed it did more harm than good.

5 hours ago, RayC said:

Urging the Iranian public to enact regime change - which would almost certainly result in a large number of casualties - while at the same time ruling out US support to effect that change does not suggest to me that Trump is overly concerned with the fate of Iranian civilians.

I suggest that you re-read the bit in my previous post about what would happened if Iran had been found to be non-compliant when the JCPOA was in force.

Then you recall incorrectly. I have never stated that no action should be taken against illegal migrants.

You're welcome.

If 'leftism' hadn't existed, then you might still have 4-year olds cleaning chimneys if it were cost-effective. There likely wouldn't be any restrictions on 'laissez faire' capitalism, such as Health and Safety legislation but, hey, what's a few industrial related deaths amongst friends: Humans don't need to be treated any differently to machines.

Iran was found to be non-compliant while the JCPOA was in force, and nothing was done.

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Without leftism there wouldn't be an ideal world.

So, we have an ideal world now?

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, we have an ideal world now?

We have become our own worst enemy, not just regionally, but on a planetary level. Humanity is, in many ways a self destructing specie, and the Anthropocene Paradox makes it all too real.

6 hours ago, Packer said:

No 'lot' no 'heroes'.

You sound hateful. You sound maniacal. You sound angry. You sound Israeli.

Sounding Israeli is far better than sounding like an anti-semitic troglodyte. You sound like that you sound hateful

On 3/10/2026 at 7:35 AM, khaosokman said:

Another doomsday cultist telling lies

You think Professor Sachs is a cultist? wow just wow

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

The "authorities that matter" to you, do not much matter to me.

The authorities that matter to me, do not believe the JCPOA was not worth the paper it was printed on, and in fact believed it did more harm than good.

Iran was found to be non-compliant while the JCPOA was in force, and nothing was done.

The USA's recent document said otherwise and said there was no threat. Trump buried it, as you well know.