3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

460 kg of 60% enriched uranium and a massive ICBM programme. What do you think? 60% is only weeks away from a nuke.

It’s the ‘weapons of mass destruction destruction claim again.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Then you’ll have a link to back your claim.

Stop being puerile. The IAEA has said this as has Iran and you know this.

Trump to move the market and make billions tomorrow.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s the ‘weapons of mass destruction destruction claim again.

No it's not. Iran says it has 460 kg of 60% enriched uranium.

No need to wait two weeks.

Stop US involvement now.

Let the Israelis fight their own battles.

And, the US must NOT provide money to help Israel re-build after most of Israel is destroyed.

Let them live among the destruction they caused.

They need a lesson in attitude...BIG Time.

Many Jews in the US are now completely fed up with Israel.

Israel will soon learn that the world, and even the US, will not forget the destruction Israel, and their maniacal, and possibly also demented, leader, has caused the world....this time.

5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Stop being puerile. The IAEA has said this as has Iran and you know this.

I don’t know who said the war would be over in 4-6 weeks.

You claim this was stated.

So you’ll have no problem linking to the statement.

5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

No it's not. Iran says it has 460 kg of 60% enriched uranium.

Which, no longer being bound by any treaty to the contrary, they are entitled to have.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Which, no longer being bound by any treaty to the contrary, they are entitled to have.

Do you think every nation/dictatorship/theocratic dictatorship/terrorist organisations should have nukes? If you do and with all due respect you are quite mad. As for the treaty they were not abiding by it. Iran wanted nukes and ICBMs to put them on. Simple as.

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Do you think every nation/dictatorship/theocratic dictatorship/terrorist organisations should have nukes? If you do and with all due respect you are quite mad. As for the treaty they were not abiding by it. Iran wanted nukes and ICBMs to put them on. Simple as.

No, and I never argued they should. Iran now has every reason to develop a nuclear weapon and no reason not to.

Iran were abiding by the treaty.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-04/news/iaea-says-iran-abiding-nuclear-deal

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

Do you think every nation/dictatorship/theocratic dictatorship/terrorist organisations should have nukes? If you do and with all due respect you are quite mad. As for the treaty they were not abiding by it. Iran wanted nukes and ICBMs to put them on. Simple as.

What treaty - the JCPOA? According to the body monitoring it, the IAEA, they were absolutely abiding by it.

It was only after the US unilaterally abrogated the deal, that they started enriching uranium to higher levels.

IAEA Says Iran Abiding by Nuclear Deal

The IAEA quarterly report on Iran’s nuclear program, released publicly just days after Amano’s statement, contains additional details demonstrating that Iran is abiding by the deal’s terms. It notes that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium is below the 300-kilogram cap set by the JCPOA and that Iran has not enriched uranium above the limit of 3.67 percent uranium-235, far below the 90 percent level considered useful for weapons purposes.

The report notes that the agency has had access to “all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit.”

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-04/news/iaea-says-iran-abiding-nuclear-deal

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

4-6 wks. That was the initial call.

I must have missed that announcement, and your delusional arrogant matey on here said it would be a matter of days to finish it all off. So do you have a link to that claim, or are you an insider of the pentagon?

An inflammatory post commenting on moderation has been removed:

13. You will not publicly comment on moderation in an open forum. You will not comment on actions taken by individual moderators or on specific or general policies and issues. You will not post a negative emoticon in response to a public notice made by a moderator. You may send a private message to a moderator to discuss individual actions or you can email support (at) aseannow.com to discuss moderation policy and account suspensions.You will not block communication from moderators or Admin.

Aggression, personal attacks, derogatory comments or any form of abuse toward moderators, Admin, or this forum in general will not be tolerated and will result in strict consequences.

There is absolutely no excuse for abusive behavior.

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

You must be kidding. Not a threat. Years away. Where are you forming your opinions from?

From your leader, who said he obliterated their nuclear development last year, shock, horror, you don’t mean to say he was lying do you?

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Seems like Iran didn't want to stop their progression to ICBM's and nukes.

Thought Trump had obliterated the nuclear program last year?

AI Overview

Obliterated means to be completely destroyed, wiped out, or erased, leaving no traces or evidence behind. It describes something rendered unrecognizable or, in a figurative sense, to have feelings or memories entirely removed. Common synonyms include eradicated, annihilated, erased, wiped out, and extinguished. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

5 hours ago, Wingate said:

Hegseth said in one of his pressers, "I pray to God we blow the Hell out of them".

I'm a little hazy on my Bible, but from what Psalm is that? Maybe Psalm 666?

Maybe it was a redacted part of the Sermon on the Mount?

It certainly doesn't sound like the Jesus I've read about.

You obviously haven't read the bible. Many worse things discussed in that text.

7 hours ago, webfact said:

President Donald Trump says the war involving the United States and Iran may conclude within two to three weeks, regardless of whether a diplomatic agreement is reached.

America doing what it has always done rushed in with their, I'm America, we cannot be beaten attitude. Only to find out once again their in a conflict they cannot win and leave.

Leaving everyone else to suffer the consequences.

Now he says he may leave NATO.

America can no longer be trusted, Yes, NATO did rely heavily on America but now need to be rid of them.

America under Trump is a global liability. How ironic it is that Trump has turned out to be a bigger dictator than Putin.

5 minutes ago, Dene16 said:

America doing what it has always done rushed in with their, I'm America, we cannot be beaten attitude. Only to find out once again their in a conflict they cannot win and leave.

Leaving everyone else to suffer the consequences.

Now he says he may leave NATO.

America can no longer be trusted, Yes, NATO did rely heavily on America but now need to be rid of them.

America under Trump is a global liability. How ironic it is that Trump has turned out to be a bigger dictator than Putin.

NATO without America would be wonderful until a powerful nation threatened NATO nations. What would happen then? For a 100 years America has had to save Europe from itself or other aggressors. Why do you think now Europe is ready to be responsible about security when it is more dependent on America than ever?

China would destroy the Euro region and Russia would be able to do considerable damage. The American continent seems to be the only continent that isn't always at war with other countries or killing it own citizens.

51 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No, and I never argued they should. Iran now has every reason to develop a nuclear weapon and no reason not to.

Iran were abiding by the treaty.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-04/news/iaea-says-iran-abiding-nuclear-deal

Why? Why do they need nuclear weapons? As for the treaty the IAEA caught them out on several occasions breaking the treaty. Iran said they wanted domestic nuclear capacity. 60% enriched isn't this. What's so difficult for you to understand they want nuclear weapons and they've been on this path for decades.

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

Why? Why do they need nuclear weapons? As for the treaty the IAEA caught them out on several occasions breaking the treaty. Iran said they wanted domestic nuclear capacity. 60% enriched isn't this. What's so difficult for you to understand they want nuclear weapons and they've been on this path for decades.

They didn't have 60% enriched uranium at the time of the treaty, and the IAEA never claimed that either.
It was only after bully boy tore up the treaty that Iran went all in, and went to the limit for just NOT nuclear capacitive uranium.

Neither would it be a matter of weeks to go from 60% enriched to a nuclear weapon, several nuclear experts have made that clear since the war started

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

You must be kidding. Not a threat. Years away. Where are you forming your opinions from?

Do you suppose trump was lying last time when he said he obliterated (you do understand that word, right?) Iran's nuclear program and facilities. How could that be a threat now?

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Why? Why do they need nuclear weapons? As for the treaty the IAEA caught them out on several occasions breaking the treaty. Iran said they wanted domestic nuclear capacity. 60% enriched isn't this. What's so difficult for you to understand they want nuclear weapons and they've been on this path for decades.

Quit with your lies.

Iran were abiding with the treaty.

Israeli and the United States have started an illegal war of aggression against Iran.

That there is the justification for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Trump unilaterally withdrawing from the treaty with Iran removes all legal and treaty obligations on Iran not to produce a nuclear weapon.

We non of us have to like this, but it is the reality Trump has delivered.

7 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

TACO Trump

Is he still winning?

8 hours ago, webfact said:

President Donald Trump says the war involving the United States and Iran may conclude within two to three weeks,

I must say Trump has a strange sense for April's fool jokes.

7 hours ago, webfact said:

He noted that he had long supported NATO during his time in the Senate, particularly because U.S. forces rely on bases in Europe to project military power globally.

However, Rubio suggested that if allies restrict U.S. access to those bases during conflicts, the alliance could become a burden rather than a strategic asset.

He said the United States was not asking NATO members to participate directly in air strikes against Iran but expected them to allow the use of their facilities.

“If their answer is no,” Rubio said, “then you have to ask why we are in NATO.

How can I put in terms which even as worldy wise and experienced a master of international affairs as Marcus Rubio can understand?

NATO is a defensive alliance, of European and North American countries. The key to understanding it is article 5 of the founding treaty, under which if a member country is attacked it can ask the other members to assist with it's defence. It does not exist to support the United States in it's various military power projection adventures beyond it's (NATO's) boundaries. Now over the last three decades America has become accustomed to using it's basing facilities within Europe, naval, military and air, as part of its power projection in the Middle East and North Africa. This is not what the bases were made available for - but NATO - in my view unwisely allowed it to become the practice. The NATO countries were neither informed nor consulted about this war. It was a war of choice, aggression, launched for what are completely obvious domestic political reasons. Almost without exception they want no part of it.

Rubio now suggests (echoing President Trump) that once the fighting stops the USA will withdraw from NATO. That will mean losing access to those bases. Having to lose the major medical and logistic hub of Ramstein, the forward based airborne brigade in Italy, the forward air bases in England, Spain and Italy, the vital intelligence gathering installations in England and Cyprus - without them RAF Atrokiri is little more than a "ClubMed" resort for Crab Air. The 6th Fleet will lose automatic access to ports and maintenance facilities, next time the khazis are blocked on one of their obscenely expensive aircraft carriers they will have to pooh in buckets off the back all the way back to the Continental United States! Every tin of food, every piece of toilet paper, every medical casualty will have to be flown or shipped in or out to the Continental United States.

Let the implications sink in - I know the administration is not one for thinking things through - but the USA will be, to a very large extent, out of the power projection business!

Now that may, it could be argued, a good thing. There may be some economic damage in the areas where bases close, but probably insignificant when compared to the damage already done by this war.

Of course, and I have seen it argued, the US could replace the European bases with facilities created in North Africa. Libya, Egypt? Good luck with that - they will need the Airborne Brigade from Italy, and a (massive number more!) just to secure the perimiter fences!

Seeing as Marines, Apache helicopters and Warthog aircraft are on the way, Trump is probably lying about pulling out.

His ego couldn’t take the ridicule that would be heaped upon him at home if he did.

9 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

They didn't have 60% enriched uranium at the time of the treaty, and the IAEA never claimed that either.
It was only after bully boy tore up the treaty that Iran went all in, and went to the limit for just NOT nuclear capacitive uranium.

Neither would it be a matter of weeks to go from 60% enriched to a nuclear weapon, several nuclear experts have made that clear since the war started

You believe what you want. I suggest not just looking at the things that support your narrative aka legacy media. The Islamic Republic of Iran wanted nukes and ICBMs to put them on and that's what they were going for. I'm flummoxed by people who believe this abhorrent regime. They needed taking out for the good of the world and I hope it happens. Many of the top already gone. I hope the Iranian people can once again live their lives not dictated over by jihadist Islamists. Take your Trump hate out of the picture. Where do you stand? Imagine if Obama did this then what would you be saying? Did you cheer for the strikes on Libya to get rid of the dictator Gaddafi? There's the real world and then there's the world that exists only between people's ears believing what they're fed. What's happening in Iran is is the real world. Taking out a threat to OUR world. Imagine if Hitler, Stalin and Mao were taken out early. Hundreds of millions of people would not have died. The Republic of Iran has already showed it's hand and announced to the world JIHAD against Israel and the US and admitted to having near weapons grade uranium.

Do you think the fundamentalist Islamic regime should have nukes? If that's the case then this is what needs to happen. Everyone has nukes. Not exactly what I'd think to be a leftist viewpoint.

Fact is war is happening. Two countries are trying to stop one country from having nukes. Other countries who don't won't to get involved don't won't to get involved because they are now behoven to their Muslim voters and the leftist ideology.

p.s. I use to be a leftist. Not any more. It's madness.

48 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Iran were abiding with the treaty.

You actually believe the mullahs tell the truth? They must love the gullible westerners sticking up for them...

"The UK, France and Germany (referred to as the E3) said, however, that Iran’s “consistent and severe non-compliance with its JCPOA commitments” warranted the retention of sanctions"

"Since May 2019, however, Iran has continued to violate the terms of the JCPOA agreement. It has lifted the cap on its stockpile of uranium, which is now 30 times the level permitted; increased its enrichment activities to 60%, significantly beyond the 3.67% permitted under the JCPOA; expanded its enrichment capabilities and resumed activity at nuclear facilities that were previously prohibited under the terms of the deal."

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9870/

1 minute ago, CG1 Blue said:

You actually believe the mullahs tell the truth? They must love the gullible westerners sticking up for them...

"The UK, France and Germany (referred to as the E3) said, however, that Iran’s “consistent and severe non-compliance with its JCPOA commitments” warranted the retention of sanctions"

"Since May 2019, however, Iran has continued to violate the terms of the JCPOA agreement. It has lifted the cap on its stockpile of uranium, which is now 30 times the level permitted; increased its enrichment activities to 60%, significantly beyond the 3.67% permitted under the JCPOA; expanded its enrichment capabilities and resumed activity at nuclear facilities that were previously prohibited under the terms of the deal."

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9870/

It's not a matter of believing the mullahs it's a matter of believing the legacy media. Sadly some people do not have the intellectual capacity for critical thinking. Sheeple I believe is an appropriate noun.

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

It's not a matter of believing the mullahs it's a matter of believing the legacy media.

So what media do you believe in?

Please if an example or two!

5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

It's not a matter of believing the mullahs it's a matter of believing the legacy media. Sadly some people do not have the intellectual capacity for critical thinking. Sheeple I believe is an appropriate noun.

And you are the perfect example of a sheeple.

You are still following the guy who lied to you, make America great again he’s actually making America poorer again, no more wars, not invading Iran, ending the Ukraine war on day one, how much more of a sheeple could you be?