US just dropped Bombs on 3 nuclear sites. Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan.

[mspart]

7 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be much of a ceasefire. 

Yes, but now both sides say they will do it for real.   Who knows. 

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

7 minutes ago, Caveira said:

And ended it apparently.   Funny how that works.   

I’m not sure I’m fully confident it’s been ended. 

[Scouts Honor]

56 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

The true irony that cannot be lost in all of this is that we, the United States, literally started Iran’s nuclear program. 

yes that darn Ike.

and they were fine... until 

[WrestlingRasta]

37 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

yes that darn Ike.

and they were fine... until 

Ike got It started, LBJ gave them the uranium 

[mspart]

Obama gave them billions in cash.

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

55 minutes ago, mspart said:

Obama gave them billions in cash.

mspart

You’re taking about the 400 million in cash, along with forty years of interest that totaled to between 1-2 billon, that was Irans money in the first place and frozen in the 70’s, that resolved the rulings of the international tribunal in The Hague….correct?   I mean I thought I was talking about the beginning of Iran’s nuclear program in the 50’s and 60’s, but that’s the payment you are talking about, correct? 

[mspart]

I was talking about the progression of how the regime was allowed the nuclear tech that they had.   When Obama gave millions and billions to Iran, Iran was a shell  of what it was due to the sanctions.   After that, they had money to pour into terrorism and their nuclear program.   

mspart

 

[Tripnsweep]

23 minutes ago, mspart said:

I was talking about the progression of how the regime was allowed the nuclear tech that they had.   When Obama gave millions and billions to Iran, Iran was a shell  of what it was due to the sanctions.   After that, they had money to pour into terrorism and their nuclear program.   

mspart

 

That was their money the US was legally obligated to give back to them. Nobody gave it to them. If I stole $100 from you and then 40 years later tracked you down and handed youb$100, would I be giving you money? 

[JimmySpeaks]

15 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

That was their money the US was legally obligated to give back to them. Nobody gave it to them. If I stole $100 from you and then 40 years later tracked you down and handed youb$100, would I be giving you money? 

That would mean you borrowed it 

[Caveira]

13 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

That was their money the US was legally obligated to give back to them. Nobody gave it to them. If I stole $100 from you and then 40 years later tracked you down and handed youb$100, would I be giving you money? 

Here is a good one.  Transcript provided.  First half is John Kirby explaining how they (Iran) won’t be able to use the $ for nefarious things.  That we would know what the $ was used for.   Second half is after a large withdrawal where they ask John Kirby what the $ was used for and he says I don’t know.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8r4UFvD/

00:00:00 --> 00:00:03
We'll have visibility, and we'll be able to engage in oversight

00:00:03 --> 00:00:05
about where the money was going

00:00:05 --> 00:00:06
and for what purpose.

00:00:07 --> 00:00:09
If Iran tries to divert the funds,

00:00:09 --> 00:00:12
we'll take action and we'll lock them up again.

00:00:12 --> 00:00:14
And there will be sufficient oversight

00:00:14 --> 00:00:16
to make sure that the request is valid

00:00:16 --> 00:00:18
and that it's going through.

00:00:18 --> 00:00:18
Uh, uh,

00:00:18 --> 00:00:21
vendors who we. Who we and the cutteries can trust

00:00:22 --> 00:00:25
will actually contract for the goods,

00:00:25 --> 00:00:26
the medical equipment, the food,

00:00:26 --> 00:00:29
whatever it is. The regime doesn't get to touch the money.

00:00:29 --> 00:00:32
Peter doesn't go to them. They don't get to the.

00:00:32 --> 00:00:34
They don't get to decide, uh,

00:00:34 --> 00:00:36
ultimate destination. Uh,

00:00:36 --> 00:00:36
and, uh.

00:00:36 --> 00:00:38
And they have no direct access to it.

00:00:38 --> 00:00:39
Um, John

00:00:39 --> 00:00:42
Iran made two transactions

00:00:42 --> 00:00:46
withdrawing from the previously frozen funds in Oman.

00:00:46 --> 00:00:48
What were those transactions for?

00:00:48 --> 00:00:51
I don't have the details on that, Jackie.

00:00:51 --> 00:00:53
You're gonna have to let me get back to you on that.

[Scouts Honor]

2 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

You’re taking about the 400 million in cash, along with forty years of interest that totaled to between 1-2 billon, that was Irans money in the first place and frozen in the 70’s, that resolved the rulings of the international tribunal in The Hague….correct?   I mean I thought I was talking about the beginning of Iran’s nuclear program in the 50’s and 60’s, but that’s the payment you are talking about, correct? 

what does it matter where it came from? 

he gave it to them.

and they used it to further their wants

are we supposed to sanction them or let them have their way 

[Scouts Honor]

1 hour ago, Tripnsweep said:

That was their money the US was legally obligated to give back to them. Nobody gave it to them. If I stole $100 from you and then 40 years later tracked you down and handed youb$100, would I be giving you money? 

so we sanctioned them for years... but keeping their money is a bridge too far.

doesn't matter whose it was... sanction them or don't. 

[scourge165]

8 hours ago, Caveira said:

Don’t ceasefire’s always occur this way?

 

The Armistice that ended fighting in World War I was signed at 5:00 a.m. on November 11, 1918, in a railway carriage in the Compiègne Forest of France. The ceasefire was scheduled to take effect six hours later, at 11:00 a.m. Central European Time—the "eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month". 

Despite the agreement, fighting continued during those final hours. Some commanders, particularly in the American forces under General John J. Pershing, chose to press on with offensives until the last moment. This decision led to significant casualties on the war's final day.

Estimates suggest that approximately 11,000 soldiers were killed, wounded, or went missing on November 11, 1918. Of these, around 2,750 were killed.militarytimes.com+3history.blog.gov.uk+3legionmagazine.com+3militarytimes.comcwgc.org Notable among the last casualties were:

• Henry Gunther (USA): Killed at 10:59 a.m., just one minute before the armistice took effect, making him the last American—and possibly the last Allied—soldier to die in the war.

• George Lawrence Price (Canada): Shot by a sniper at 10:58 a.m., he is recognized as the last British Empire soldier killed in action during the war. 

• Augustin Trébuchon (France): Killed at 10:45 a.m. while delivering a message to his unit. His death was officially recorded as occurring on November 10 to avoid the embarrassment of acknowledging combat deaths after the armistice was signed. 

These final casualties underscore the tragic reality that, even with peace agreed upon, the war's toll continued up to its very last moments.

 

 

 

 

ww2 too

 

When was the ceasefire agreed upon?

• May 7, 1945 – At 02:41 am CE(S)T in Reims, France, Germany’s Chief-of-Staff, Col. Gen. Jodl, signed an unconditional surrender covering all fronts—land, sea, and air—under Eisenhower’s supervisiondefense.gov+15theguardian.com+15cmohs.org+15.

• May 8, 1945 – A second, diplomatic signing took place in Berlin at 22:43 pm CET, led by Field Marshal Keitel, to placate Soviet demands theguardian.com.

When did it take effect?

• The armistice came into force at 23:01 CET on May 8, 1945,

Yeah, it's always been done where the cease fire starts at a certain time... but I said it didn't make sense to sign it with the intent of trying to launch a massive attack just prior to the treaty going into effect. You gave two scenarios, there was one where someone continued an offensive with knowledge they'd agreed to a peace treaty. 

Also, comparing WWI or WWII when you have people all over Europe, you needed time to coordinate with literally hundreds of thousands of Men... of course there was going to be fighting from the time it was signed until it went into effect.  You couldn't quite communicate via cell phone back then and you didn't agree to a Ceasefire so you could quick launch off another massive attack. 

 

2025 where you can communicate with everyone in a matter of seconds... I just find it an odd way to go about a peace treaty. 

 

 

[scourge165]

3 hours ago, mspart said:

Obama gave them billions in cash.

mspart

Can we PLEASE stop just claiming Obama just "gave" them billions in cash?

For starters, it wasn't billionS, it was a little over a billion.

Second, he released money that was THEIR money as part of an agreement in which they'd not pursue nuclear weapons...as well as a return of American prisoners...but primarily to stop pursuing weapons.

 

So he unfroze Iranian assets in an agreement. One in which they were abiding by. 

[Scouts Honor]

LOL

[scourge165]

9 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

In history class I learned that technically Korea was a conflict and not a war. But you’re soooooo smart you already knew that.  

Is that was ya learned there Jimmy?

Can you tell me the difference?

And do you want to seriously argue the US hasn't been to War since WWII?

[Caveira]

14 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Yeah, it's always been done where the cease fire starts at a certain time... but I said it didn't make sense to sign it with the intent of trying to launch a massive attack just prior to the treaty going into effect. You gave two scenarios, there was one where someone continued an offensive with knowledge they'd agreed to a peace treaty. 

Also, comparing WWI or WWII when you have people all over Europe, you needed time to coordinate with literally hundreds of thousands of Men... of course there was going to be fighting from the time it was signed until it went into effect.  You couldn't quite communicate via cell phone back then and you didn't agree to a Ceasefire so you could quick launch off another massive attack. 

 

2025 where you can communicate with everyone in a matter of seconds... I just find it an odd way to go about a peace treaty. 

 

 

Those terrorists hiding in holes in the ground are strapped with iPads and iPhones ?

[scourge165]

4 hours ago, Caveira said:

And ended it apparently.   Funny how that works.   

Sadly...apparently not. If US intelligence is to be believed(and I don't know why they'd lie about this)...most of the underground infrastructure and enriched uranium remains intact. 

We set them back...maybe 3 months.... which begs the question, why the hell didn't we go back in and keep bombing? Is it just too deep? In my mind, I'd think 12 of those MOPs would...soften it up, if you needed another 12, finish the job. 

 

I'd suspect they were not certain until after the fact, otherwise, this entire exercise was futile beyond showing Iran what we're capable of(and they already knew that). 

Edited 20 hours ago by scourge165

[scourge165]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Those terrorists hiding in holes in the ground are strapped with iPads and iPhones ?

I don't understand if you're arguing just for the sake of arguing here.

We're not talking about bombing some Taliban stronghold, we're talking about the Governments of Israel and Iran and it was Israel who kept on attacking after the ceasefire. 

But yeah, I'm fairly certain they have satellite phones and the like. 

 

Some of you really need to figure out what point you're trying to argue. 

It can't both be a Nation that's "not serious," and "terrorists hiding in a cage," with 200 feet of reinforced Concrete building a nuclear weapon AND a threat so large the US had to bomb them. 

You really think the dichotomy makes sense? The IRGC can't get reception, they don't have communications... but hey, they are DAYS away from a Nuclear weapon and the capacity to launch it...

 

[ionel]

10 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

We set them back...maybe 3 months.... which begs the question, why the hell didn't we go back in and keep bombing? Is it just too deep? In my mind, I'd think 12 of those MOPs would...soften it up, if you needed another 12, finish the job. 

How many MOPs do we have?  How many B-2s do we have?  How long does it take to fly non stop halfway around the world in a sub sonic aircraft?

Our good buddy rv wants us to decimate the defense department budget.  

Edited 20 hours ago by ionel

[scourge165]

6 minutes ago, ionel said:

How many MOPs do we have?  How many B-2s do we have?  How long does it take to fly non stop halfway around the world in a sub sonic aircraft?

Our good buddy rv wants us to decimate the defense department budget.  

According to the defense department, they have hundreds. 

https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/us_hits_iranian_nuclear_sites_with_14_gbu_57_bombs_how_many_are_in_stock_and_how_fast_are_they_made-14927.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

As for how long it takes, the same amount of time it takes to fly 1. 

We have ~20(that we know of) and we had 6 in Guam. 

 

I was told(and believe) we had complete control of the Iranian airspace. 

 

So the only question should be...did we know we wouldn't be able to completely destroy the bunker before, only slow Iran down, or was this the result of intelligence we found out after the fact. 

 

[ionel]

19 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

According to the defense department, they have hundreds. 

https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/us_hits_iranian_nuclear_sites_with_14_gbu_57_bombs_how_many_are_in_stock_and_how_fast_are_they_made-14927.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

As for how long it takes, the same amount of time it takes to fly 1. 

We have ~20(that we know of) and we had 6 in Guam. 

 

I was told(and believe) we had complete control of the Iranian airspace. 

 

So the only question should be...did we know we wouldn't be able to completely destroy the bunker before, only slow Iran down, or was this the result of intelligence we found out after the fact. 

 

Pretty sure we had 20 B-2 but now 19. 

[scourge165]

6 minutes ago, ionel said:

Pretty sure we had 20 B-2 but now 19. 

Perhaps. Send all 19. If this was important enough to do... make sure you finish the job(though...I never believe the US Military...they're not honest about their most advanced aircraft or technology in general...which is fine, the rest of the world doesn't need to know what we have plus there are several other planes that may be able to carry MOPs that...again, the public is just ignorant about). 

That'd lead me to believe they didn't know this until later... though Leavitt and another UN Spokesman have said they DID destroy the nuclear sites completely.

But it was US Intelligence Agencies who said it didn't destroy them.

 

I guess just wait and see more concrete reports.

 

But the cease-fire is holding...even if it didn't happen right on time. 

Edited 19 hours ago by scourge165

[ionel]

Just now, scourge165 said:

Perhaps. Send all 19.

Now there's a great strategy.  

[scourge165]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

Now there's a great strategy.  

 

Sure. You had 6 sitting there in Guam that they didn't use. 

 

But lets just play this out.

-Iran, had to be taken care of. Too close to a Nuclear Weapon. They're weeks, maybe days away. We HAVE to bomb them. That's an acceptable risk/reward for the United States. 

End result?

-Set their Nuclear program back 3 months. 

 

So was this a success or a failure in your estimation? Was the risk worth 3 months?