Will we be using the CBU-57 bomb or will Iran get to the table and negotiate. Time is running out.

[scourge165]

1 hour ago, Scouts Honor said:

i only see one question mark

so i will answer that question

yes i can answer your question.

so stop being a clown.

You didn't and you will never answer my question.

MY question was so extremely simple, but in order to answer it, you'd have to admit you're a liar. 

 

Why do you NOT believe the 2018 report that Iran was abiding by the agreement, but then turn around and use that very same source to say they're at 60% enrichment(and they need to get to 90%...and they also need a delivery system, but I understand you only understand what's on Twitter.

 

(And don't worry, I know there is zero chance you'll justify believing the IAEA AND the US Sec of State in 2018, but you believe the IAEA now). 

 

[scourge165]

4 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

go ahead, tell us how you can use it from 2018, but discount it now

And ONCE AGAIN... to show the difference between me and Scout(and since Scout apparently hasn't picked up on this) but I've never questioned the current report. I absolutely said...from the start of this thread, once we pulled out, they've been working toward a bomb. 

 

Scout is the one who believes the IAEA in one case, but not in the other.

[Scouts Honor]

not that i want to go into iran

but just for all the peanuts out there...

this isn't our war etc etc 

[scourge165]

So... yet again @Scouts Honor is incapable of articulating why he agrees with the 2025 IAEA report, but claims he knows for sure the IAEA was lying in 2018(Along with the US State Department). 

 

That's about a page now and he can't answer a simple question. Not that it's a big deal, it's SUPER obvious why he can't. one fits his talking points and the other doesn't. 

 

 

And as always, I'm neve sure why people screen show an article rather than just posting it here. 

-It's almost like they don't actually read the articles and prefer to remain ignorant;

 

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/iran-attacks-us-military-iraq-syria-biden/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

It also says;

Quote

 

Biden took office 26 months ago, so the total of 83 attacks translates to an average of little more than three attacks against U.S. troops per month. By comparison, Iranian-backed militia groups attacked U.S. troops several times per day during the 2007 Iraq surge, said retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor, who served as executive officer for the commander of all U.S. troops in Iraq at the time.

Even though attacks against U.S. troops by Iranian forces have decreased significantly since the surge, the total number of attacks is still significant, Mansoor told Task & Purpose.

 

 

Not sure this is a compelling argument that this is "our war," and we've attacked those same groups many more times then they've attacked us.... or why don't we go after Jordan ore the places these Iranian backed groups actually live?

 

 

-Either way, don't be a coward Scout, answer the question or just say you're a hypocrite. 

-Also, the screenshot with no link so you can only see the headline with no context is quintessential Scout/Jimmy stuff. 

[Scouts Honor]

not a coward

i just really don't care for your opinion

[Scouts Honor]

everything you need to know about the IAEA and people like scroogie

 

[red viking]

Tulsi Gabbard even admitted they werent close. 

Nothing unique about the timing of Israel's attack except they knew trumptard would back them no matter what they did. 

[Offthemat]

22 hours ago, scourge165 said:

that... you're now taking as gospel,

I never take anything the gov’t says at face value.  They always have a taint. 

[Offthemat]

I knew there was another level that had been reported. 
 

UN report: Uranium particles enriched to 83.7% found in Iran

 

https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-uranium-enrichment-germany-israel-c9b3669a7721bd8929d465117c81b70f

[Paul158]

2 hours ago, Offthemat said:

I knew there was another level that had been reported. 
 

UN report: Uranium particles enriched to 83.7% found in Iran

 

https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-uranium-enrichment-germany-israel-c9b3669a7721bd8929d465117c81b70f

That is slightly higher than the 3 to 5 percent needed to make electricity. Maybe they are making a bomb or something.

[Offthemat]

10 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

That is slightly higher than the 3 to 5 percent needed to make electricity. Maybe they are making a bomb or something.

The AP and IAEA may not be reputable enough for left wangers. 

[Paul158]

US just dropped bombs on 3 sites in Iran.

[scourge165]

15 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

not a coward

i just really don't care for your opinion

LOL... because you can't without making a fool of yourself.

By the way, my Norton blocks the Tweets you send... but shockingly, you're once again leaning on someone else to articulate a point for you. 

 

6 hours ago, Offthemat said:

The AP and IAEA may not be reputable enough for left wangers. 

 

That's funny, they're PERFECTLY valid sources for ME.

 

YOU all were the ones claiming Iran "wasn't serious" and that Iran wasnt' following the agreement in 2018 when Trump pulled out...despite those same sources saying otherwise. 

 

 

[scourge165]

On 6/20/2025 at 5:03 PM, Offthemat said:

Take your own advice.  When it says they are not building a bomb, it means exactly that and nothing more.  They may have all the components on the bench in front of them, but as long as they’re not assembling them, they’re not building one.  Even at that, it’s still just informed speculation.  Recognizing all the missed calls of the intelligence community. 
 

There is no civilian or industrial application for uranium enriched above 40%.  Iran’s cheating on the JCPOA was known to be just as prolific as in the Oil for Food Program.  Anything above 40% is building towards a bomb.  To anyone with common sense. 

Yes...and since the START... my point has simply been... if you want to say you can't 'trust' the United States, they were, according to ALL sources abiding by the conditions. 

It wasn't until after they started to ramp up their Nuclear program again. 

I've NEVER argued they were going to go back to trying to become a Nuclear power. Look at it from their perspective. The US has them, Israel has them...why should they not be allowed to?

But fine, they made a deal where THEIR ASSETS(money was NOT "given" to them) were unfrozen...and so they stopped. Every agency agreed on this point, Gov't or the IAEA

 

That was it. 

Quote

I never take anything the gov’t says at face value.  They always have a taint.

Ok. You know the IAEA is not "the Government," and it's the Trump Government.

 

But if you didn't believe it then, why are you using numbers citing the same sources now?

 

[scourge165]

15 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

everything you need to know about the IAEA and people like scroogie

 

Ok, so I just cut and pasted your link and... I never case to be amazed at your ability to so consistently misrepresent an argument.

1-Show me a SINGLE time I've been again bombing Iran?

I DID point out your hypocrisy. You JUST used this source to advocate for it. YOU were using the IAEA's Data... but only NOW in 2025 when it suits the argument you'd already made up before you came into this conversation. 

Me on the other hand, I've consistently said I think the best thing that could happen to the Middle East would be if we were able to help aid the Crown Prince of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, and see it returned to the type of country they were in the 1970s.

 

2-Well, I'll just repeat #1 again. 
I've pointed out MOUNTAINS of hypocrisy... maybe that's why you're confused? But you keep saying that I'm ....denying Iran is working on their Nuclear plan or I guess just whatever argument you need to make at the time to stop from looking like a fool, but #2 is show me where I've been against Trump's action?

 

3-Tell me why you think the IEAE is such a great source in 2025, but you didn't believe them in 2018? 

Or at least why YESTERDAY you thought they were such a great source now, but not in 2018?

IAEA chief says Iran has material for warheads but no weapon program | Fox News