Can you show me where I called him an apologist?

Iran deserves an arse whipping for all the support in terrorism. They've needed this arse whipping for a long time. The arse whippin can be given with very little boots on ground, if any.

Kinda off topic .........

Does anyone think that American Defenses would let one get by the goalie on purpose if an enemy like Iran did fire ballistic missiles? You know, to build a reason to push all in.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Can you show me where I called him an apologist?

---

That's what the threads about. I guess you're not saying he's an apologist. But you clearly think he has an agenda, or you wouldn't have used such vivid imagery like he "creamed" himself. Gross.

PaulsBunions said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

This is one area that Tucker is certifiably insane on. Of course Iran wants to build a bomb. After every marxist/democrat regime in the US, they are that much closer.

---

America has spent ~30 years and trillions of dollars fighting one regime change war after another in the ME for no gain to us, and now we're supposed to fall for another "they gonna get WMDs if we don't stop em" lie again like we did in Iraq?

---

You don't see the possible outcome of a 100% reversal of that policy?

BMX Bandit said:

---

dont know about china, but its spot on for Russia and Qatar.

you see his piece creaming over the grocery baskets in moscow?

---

Wish I still had the laugh/cry emoji. I can't say I did.

TRM said:

---

US didn't invade Iraq for Israel, so find me an instance.

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Iran deserves an arse whipping for all the support in terrorism. They've needed this arse whipping for a long time. The arse whippin can be given with very little boots on ground, if any.

Kinda off topic .........

Does anyone think that American Defenses would let one get by the goalie on purpose if an enemy like Iran did fire ballistic missiles? You know, to build a reason to push all in.

---

I believe Mark Levin would allow this

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I absolutely do not believe any source that tries to assert Iran is not planning to build a nuclear arsenal. There is literally no other reason for them having had the nuclear program they have had for decades now. They have vast amounts of petroleum for energy needs. The enrichment capability they have constructed far exceeds the needs of nuclear power generation, yet they are not even dabbling in a significant power generation reactor site.

Anyone telling you that a nuclear arsenal is still not in the long term strategic plans of the Iranian regime is trying to get you to buy into a false narrative.

---

If you don't understand what Iran is doing, I will explain it to you. No, Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon (currently). Our AIPAC backed politicians, as well as Israel, have been trying to convince you of this for decades. Exactly how they did with Iraq.

America has a non proliferation policy. If Iran were to develop a nuke, it would allow the US a justification to go in. Iran does not want a war with the United States. The US does not want a war with Iran.

However, Iran knows that Israel has nukes. And Iran saw what happened to Libya after Gaddafi gave up his nukes. Iran saw what the US did to Iraq even based on the lie of Saddam having nukes. The reason Iran insists on the capability to produce a nuke (enrichment) is they need a form of deterrence. It protects them from a potential major Israeli attack. Or a potential invasion from the US.

Levin reponds to Chatsworth Osborne Jr

I'm a lifelong constitutional conservative, not a "false profit" that changes who he is for the most money

I didn't lobby for war; have never demanded American troops do anything;

lots of leakers around Trump trying to force isolationist policies Trump doesn't agree with Stopping Iran from getting nukes has always been Trump position.

UN and IAEA both who hate Israel and aren't fans of America, say Iran is working to build nukes. Are they lying? Iran won't allow inspections. Why?

Carlson says "Iran isn't building and doesn't want nuclear weapons, but as wise not to give up its nucleurvweapons program." so do they are don't they have a weapons program? Make up your mind.

Levin out with a justified rant against Tehran Tucker’s dishonest and absurd attack from the other night.

Most interesting part to me was Levin explaining that he knows who was part of the conversation leaked he was there (“or his staff” is a nice touch). To be fair, everyone… https://t.co/BRHphH1aet

— AG (@AGHamilton29) June 6, 2025

No doubt Iran saw what happened to Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi when they had become international pariahs and were governing a majority population hostile to them and had hostile powers they had provoked with repeated terrorism or other hostile acts.

They have been observing for decades that non nuclear dictatorships and authoritarian regimes might fall, but Nuclear powers remain intact, so they have been pursuing a nuclear arsenal for decades. It is rhetorical spin to suggest that just because they vary the intensity to which they dedicate resources to the effort that that can be used to argue whether or not they are still pursuing it or not. It is quite clear via their own rhetoric and trend of activities that they are still working towards to goal of becoming a nuclear armed power to secure the power of their thoracic leadership.

They just fine tune the degree of their visible efforts to play the political propaganda games necessary to buy time and prevent any intervention. His would be happening even without the existence of Israel or the United States as oppositional fools due to the centuries old Shia/Sunni blood feud.

I am getting tired of Carlson's increasingly tedious but apparently effective gimmick of feeding an increasingly neurotic and conspiracy enthusiast audience the confirmation biases they want to believe. It seems sometimes when there is a environment of greater social chaos, there is a group that desires to be seen as counter narrative or feel like they have special knowledge and this group desires to engage in seeking and expressing even implausible counter narratives and entertain conspiracy theory. It is part of the group identity and helps them feel special and enlightened I suppose. The impression I get from Carlson is that he deeply engages in this type of thinking and encourages it in others.

Things are rather more often actually as they seem, and plain to understand, in my view. I see groups that keep biting on various conspiracy narratives and if they are wrong 9 times out of ten, they'll rationalize away the nine and focus on the tenth. It's fine to be a skeptic but understand that all of us are prone to confirmation biases and to select that which confirms our intuitions.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Tucker strikes me as carrying water for Russia and their proxies.

---

Cool. Go send your kids to fight in iran and leave mine alone. And then after we destroy the country, you can take in all the iranian refugees.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

No doubt Iran saw what happened to Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi when they had become international pariahs and were governing a majority population hostile to them and had hostile powers they had provoked with repeated terrorism or other hostile acts.

They have been observing for decades that non nuclear dictatorships and authoritarian regimes might fall, but Nuclear powers remain intact, so they have been pursuing a nuclear arsenal for decades. It is rhetorical spin to suggest that just because they vary the intensity to which they dedicate resources to the effort that that can be used to argue whether or not they are still pursuing it or not. It is quite clear via their own rhetoric and trend of activities that they are still working towards to goal of becoming a nuclear armed power to secure the power of their thoracic leadership.

They just fine tune the degree of their visible efforts to play the political propaganda games necessary to buy time and prevent any intervention. His would be happening even without the existence of Israel or the United States as oppositional fools due to the centuries old Shia/Sunni blood feud.

---

Saddam and Gaddafi were eliminated because they were hostile to Israel.

I agree Iran would like to have nukes. Why wouldn't they? Their chief rival Israel has nukes, and that puts them in an existential threat. But this endless decades old line of "iran is pursuing a bomb" is just propaganda. If Iran actually wanted to create a nuke, they could probably do it within a few weeks or months. They don't do this for the reason I mention above- they don't want to get attacked or invaded by the US. However, they need to have the capability to make one as a deterrent against Israel (and the United States). This is why enrichment is their requirement with these negotiations.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Carlson says "Iran isn't building and doesn't want nuclear weapons, but as wise not to give up its nucleurvweapons program." so do they are don't they have a weapons program? Make up your mind.

Levin out with a justified rant against Tehran Tucker’s dishonest and absurd attack from the other night.

Most interesting part to me was Levin explaining that he knows who was part of the conversation leaked he was there (“or his staff” is a nice touch). To be fair, everyone… https://t.co/BRHphH1aet

— AG (@AGHamilton29) June 6, 2025

---

Iran isn't building nukes because they don't want to get attacked by Israel (or invaded by the US). They want to keep the ability to produce nukes for the same reason. They straddle a line.

Also, what leaks is this tweet referring to? We don't need a leak to know Levin wants Trump to take us to war with Iran. He says it on his show pretty often

This doesn't even make any sense. You say they're not building nukes, but then you say they'd like to and essentially agree they should. The IAEA, Austrian intelligence, CIA, and Israeli intel confirmed they've built enough weapons-grade uranium to create a nuke. IAEA stated they're the only country that has this level of enriched uranium despite not having a formally declared nuclear program. Are we really supposed to believe this isn't for nefarious purposes? The largest state sponsor of terror? If they end up creating one it'll turn into an arm's race in the ME. It's a safety net for any retaliation efforts against their terrorist proxies.

I too listen to Levin, nowhere has he stated he wants a war or Iraq-like invasion. In fact, he's basically supported letting Israel take out their nuclear facilities. I don't remember us getting into a World War after Trump took out Soleimani, Iran's top general. In fact, Tucker claimed it would! He's a nut.

Allen Gamble said:

---

This doesn't even make any sense. You say they're not building nukes, but then you say they'd like to and essentially agree they should. The IAEA, Austrian intelligence, CIA, and Israeli intel confirmed they've built enough weapons-grade uranium to create a nuke. IAEA stated they're the only country that has this level of enriched uranium despite not having a formally declared nuclear program. Are we really supposed to believe this isn't for nefarious purposes? The largest state sponsor of terror? If they end up creating one it'll turn into an arm's race in the ME. It's a safety net for any retaliation efforts against their terrorist proxies.

I too listen to Levin, nowhere has he stated he wants a war or Iraq-like invasion. In fact, he's basically supported letting Israel take out their nuclear facilities. I don't remember us getting into a World War after Trump took out Soleimani, Iran's top general. In fact, Tucker claimed it would! He's a nut.

---

Yes, I am saying there is no evidence they are building nukes. Because this gives the US justification to attack them because of our non proliferation policy. Iran does not want to get destroyed by the US (like Iraq and Libya) so they are not currently building nukes.

On the other hand, they need the ability to produce nukes for the same reason. Gaddafi gave up his nukes and Saddam dropped his program after the Gulf War (and Iran saw what happened there). So, the ability to create a nuke is a deterrent from aggression from Israel or the US. I agree Iran COULD build a nuke if it wanted to- that's the point. They want to keep this ability as an insurance policy against the US and Israel.

Does that make sense?

Edit- when Levin (or anyone) says "we should just let Israel bomb them and stay out of that", it would never play out like that. Iran would retaliate against Israel, forcing the US to get involved.

PaulsBunions said:

---

KerrAg76 said:

---

Iran cannot have nuclear weapons or we will have massive casualties events on the horizon. Whatever Trump needs to do, this is an imperative

---

"Iraq cannot have nuclear weapons or we will have massive casualties events on the horizon. Whatever Bush needs to do, this is an imperative" - You in 2002

---

Obama & Biden freed their funds, paid them money and agreed to loosened restrictions. They actively are try to create their own weapon. I am not advocating for an invasion of Iran but find no problem with a massive destruction of their nuclear and oil capabilities, and then sponsoring a global no trade until conditions are met.

So which is it? Should they or should they not? Are we to ignore the ever increasing evidence that they are building a nuclear arsenal? Let's stop tip toeing around that. They aren't allowing legitimate inspections from the IAEA, they've hidden secret sites of stockpiling and enrichment of which the IAEA has recently discovered. Here's a direct quote from an AP link from the same IAEA report:

Quote:

---

VIENNA (AP) Iran has further increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels, a confidential report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Saturday. In a separate report, the agency called on Tehran to urgently change course and comply with its years-long probe.

The report comes at a sensitive time, as the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump seeks to reach a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program. The two sides have held several rounds of talks, so far without agreement.

The report by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency which was seen by The Associated Press says that as of May 17, Iran has amassed 408.6 kilograms (900.8 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60%.

That's an increase of 133.8 kilograms (294.9 pounds) or almost 50% since the IAEA's last report in February. The 60% enriched material is a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. A report in February put this stockpile level at 274.8 kilograms (605.8 pounds).

---

Here's the kicker, the IAEA chief believes they already have enough uranium to build nukes if they wanted to:

Quote:

---

The IAEA report raised a stern warning, saying that Iran is now "the only non-nuclear-weapon state to produce such material" something the agency said was of "serious concern."

Approximately 42 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium is theoretically enough to produce one atomic bomb, if enriched further to 90%, according to the watchdog.

The IAEA report, a quarterly, also estimated that as of May 17, Iran's overall stockpile of enriched uranium which includes uranium enriched to lower levels stood at 9,247.6 kilograms (20,387.4 pounds). That's an increase of 953.2 kilograms (2,101.4 pounds) since February's report.

Iran has maintained its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, but the IAEA chief, Rafael Mariano Grossi, has warned that Tehran has enough uranium enriched to near-weapons-grade levels to make "several" nuclear bombs if it chose to do so.

---

We already have the Iran Supreme Leader on record stating they'll never stop enriching uranium.

So again I ask, which is it? Literally no one is advocating for 250,000 troops to invade Iran a la like we did in Iraq. Iran is hell-bent on the destruction of the West and Israel and has murdered Americans, Jews, and it's own citizens either directly through their regime or through their proxies in Hesbollah and Hamas. In what world does it make sense for the West to allow them to have nukes?

Allen Gamble said:

---

So which is it? Should they or should they not? Are we to ignore the ever increasing evidence that they are building a nuclear arsenal? Let's stop tip toeing around that. They aren't allowing legitimate inspections from the IAEA, they've hidden secret sites of stockpiling and enrichment of which the IAEA has recently discovered. Here's a direct quote from an AP link from the same IAEA report:

Quote:

---

VIENNA (AP) Iran has further increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels, a confidential report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Saturday. In a separate report, the agency called on Tehran to urgently change course and comply with its years-long probe.

The report comes at a sensitive time, as the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump seeks to reach a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program. The two sides have held several rounds of talks, so far without agreement.

The report by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency which was seen by The Associated Press says that as of May 17, Iran has amassed 408.6 kilograms (900.8 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60%.

That's an increase of 133.8 kilograms (294.9 pounds) or almost 50% since the IAEA's last report in February. The 60% enriched material is a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. A report in February put this stockpile level at 274.8 kilograms (605.8 pounds).

---

Here's the kicker, the IAEA chief believes they already have enough uranium to build nukes if they wanted to:

Quote:

---

The IAEA report raised a stern warning, saying that Iran is now "the only non-nuclear-weapon state to produce such material" something the agency said was of "serious concern."

Approximately 42 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium is theoretically enough to produce one atomic bomb, if enriched further to 90%, according to the watchdog.

The IAEA report, a quarterly, also estimated that as of May 17, Iran's overall stockpile of enriched uranium which includes uranium enriched to lower levels stood at 9,247.6 kilograms (20,387.4 pounds). That's an increase of 953.2 kilograms (2,101.4 pounds) since February's report.

Iran has maintained its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, but the IAEA chief, Rafael Mariano Grossi, has warned that Tehran has enough uranium enriched to near-weapons-grade levels to make "several" nuclear bombs if it chose to do so.

---

We already have the Iran Supreme Leader on record stating they'll never stop enriching uranium.

So again I ask, which is it? Literally no one is advocating for 250,000 troops to invade Iran a la like we did in Iraq. Iran is hell-bent on the destruction of the West and Israel and has murdered Americans, Jews, and it's own citizens either directly through their regime or through their proxies in Hesbollah and Hamas. In what world does it make sense for the West to allow them to have nukes?

---

It would take wayyy more troops than Iraq to invade Iran. It would be orders of magnitude more costly in both money and American blood.

The US is not allowing them to have nukes. The issue is enrichment and the ability to potentially create a nuke. Thats what these negotiations have been about the past few weeks. What are you asking me, "Which is it?". I believe I've answered- they are not currently building nukes, but will not give up their ability to build them for the reasons stated in my previous post. It's not that hard to understand.

You know what will cause Iran to start actively building a bomb? A major attack from Israel or US. That's why I hope we can reach some diplomatic deal.

These podcasts are convenient because since they are from the waist up you can't see the sock where Putin controls the mouth. Kim Jong Un needs to schedule an interview where Tucker can gush about how clean the subways are in North Korea.

My brother in Christ, they're not enriching uranium to create alternative sources of energy for their people. They don't give a damn about their people. They are building nukes.

They are a terrorist regime. They will not honor any agreement with the US. They already proved that with Obama's administration and they are currently doing that with the IAEA. They are building nukes.

Israel has already wiped out their air defense systems, they could wipe out their nuclear facilities in an instant without an invasion force. Israel has enough missile defense systems to withstand retaliation, of course with the support of us and other regional partners.

This binary of allowing them to continue enriching or it's WW3 is asinine and pure paranoia.

Allen Gamble said:

---

My brother in Christ, they're not enriching uranium to create alternative sources of energy for their people. They don't give a damn about their people. They are building nukes.

They are a terrorist regime. They will not honor any agreement with the US. They already proved that with Obama's administration and they are currently doing that with the IAEA. They are building nukes.

Israel has already wiped out their air defense systems, they could wipe out their nuclear facilities in an instant without an invasion force. Israel has enough missile defense systems to withstand retaliation, of course with the support of us and other regional partners.

This binary of allowing them to continue enriching or it's WW3 is asinine and pure paranoia.

---

Brother in Christ,

"They don't give a damn about their people" is a neocon propaganda talking point. "They are building nukes," is a neocon talking point. They have been "building nukes" for decades.

I am old enough to remember the build up to the Iraq war. All of these talking points were used back then for the Iraq invasion justification.

Israel does not have the capability to wipe out their underground facilities. Its debatable if the US even has that capability without a ground force. This war you want so bad is not going to go the way you think it will.

Quote:

---

"They are building nukes," is a neocon talking point

---

ridiculousness

I rest my case. By all means continue burying your head in the sand and shout empty slogans such as "neocon" and "warmonger". You gonna call me a Zionist next?

I provided ample evidence they're building nukes yet in typical isolationist dribble it's simply a "neocon" talking point. That's funny, I seem to remember Tehran Tucker working and writing for the "neocon" publication called the Weekly Standard.

Just to be clear. You are claiming that Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons and that the argument that they are building them is a lie and a "neoconservative" talking point?

Allen Gamble said:

---

I rest my case. By all means continue burying your head in the sand and shout empty slogans such as "neocon" and "warmonger". You gonna call me a Zionist next?

I provided ample evidence they're building nukes yet in typical isolationist dribble it's simply a "neocon" talking point. That's funny, I seem to remember Tehran Tucker working and writing for the "neocon" publication called the Weekly Standard.

---

You have provided evidence that they could potentially build nukes. I agree with all of it. They want to keep this ability as an insurance policy against a major attack from Israel or US.

rootube said:

---

Just to be clear. You are claiming that Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons and that the argument that they are building them is a lie and a "neoconservative" talking point?

---

Correct. At this time there is no evidence Iran is actively building nukes. Same as its been for the last few decades every time this talking point is trotted out. If Iran wanted to build a bomb, it could do so probably within a few weeks. But they don't want to give US justification to destroy them.

Keyno said:

---

Allen Gamble said:

---

I rest my case. By all means continue burying your head in the sand and shout empty slogans such as "neocon" and "warmonger". You gonna call me a Zionist next?

I provided ample evidence they're building nukes yet in typical isolationist dribble it's simply a "neocon" talking point. That's funny, I seem to remember Tehran Tucker working and writing for the "neocon" publication called the Weekly Standard.

---

You have provided evidence that they could potentially build nukes. I agree with all of it. They want to keep this ability as an insurance policy against a major attack from Israel or US.

---

So it's not a "neoliberal" talking point but an obvious and accepted fact that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Look we have common ground.

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Just to be clear. You are claiming that Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons and that the argument that they are building them is a lie and a "neoconservative" talking point?

---

Correct. At this time there is no evidence Iran is actively building nukes. Same as it's been for the last few decades every time this talking point is trotted out. If Iran wanted to build a bomb, it could do so probably within a few weeks. But they don't want to give US justification to destroy them.

---

I love how in one post you admit that the Iranian government is obviously building nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Israel and the US. And in the next you claim they aren't building them only pretending to build them.

Ah come on guys! Iran really is just a benevolent country who cares about their people! It's not they're systematically suppressing dissent and imprisoning protestors and torturing/killing them! That's just neocon propaganda! Even this neocon Iranian prisoner says so!

Quote:

---

The regime's merciless killing spree has seen at least 176 inmates sent to the gallows in the past month.

Insiders told The Sun the shocking spike in executions comes amid a barbaric attempt from leaders to crush dissent and act as a warning against it.

Masouri, who was arrested for his affiliation with the resistance unit People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, has now told of the secret process behind executions.

Psychological torture, threats against family and sham trials are all used as tools by the regime to condemn its enemies to death on trumped-up charges.

---

Of course, according to Keyno, Iran SHOULD have nukes! Because the evil neocons who run America and Israel are just agitators and they should have a right to defend themselves from oppressive regimes such as us!

Allen Gamble said:

---

Ah come on guys! Iran really is just a benevolent country who cares about their people! It's not they're systematically suppressing dissent and imprisoning protestors and torturing/killing them! That's just neocon propaganda! Even this neocon Iranian prisoner says so!

Quote:

---

The regime's merciless killing spree has seen at least 176 inmates sent to the gallows in the past month.

Insiders told The Sun the shocking spike in executions comes amid a barbaric attempt from leaders to crush dissent and act as a warning against it.

Masouri, who was arrested for his affiliation with the resistance unit People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, has now told of the secret process behind executions.

Psychological torture, threats against family and sham trials are all used as tools by the regime to condemn its enemies to death on trumped-up charges.

---

Of course, according to Keyno, Iran SHOULD have nukes! Because the evil neocons who run America and Israel are just agitators and they should have a right to defend themselves from oppressive regimes such as us!

---

Bro, now you are kind of getting away from the topic at hand. And assuming things about me which are not true. I am America First and I want to keep us out of more endless middle east war. I do not particularly care if Iran is brutal to its political prisoners. It has nothing to do with me or my country.

Don't mistake my arguments here for support of a nuclear Iran. All I am doing here is giving you the reasons Iran is posturing the way that they are and showing you the similarities between now and the build up to the Iraq war 2 decades ago.

Keyno said:

---

Allen Gamble said:

---

Ah come on guys! Iran really is just a benevolent country who cares about their people! It's not they're systematically suppressing dissent and imprisoning protestors and torturing/killing them! That's just neocon propaganda! Even this neocon Iranian prisoner says so!

Quote:

---

The regime's merciless killing spree has seen at least 176 inmates sent to the gallows in the past month.

Insiders told The Sun the shocking spike in executions comes amid a barbaric attempt from leaders to crush dissent and act as a warning against it.

Masouri, who was arrested for his affiliation with the resistance unit People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, has now told of the secret process behind executions.

Psychological torture, threats against family and sham trials are all used as tools by the regime to condemn its enemies to death on trumped-up charges.

---

Of course, according to Keyno, Iran SHOULD have nukes! Because the evil neocons who run America and Israel are just agitators and they should have a right to defend themselves from oppressive regimes such as us!

---

Bro, now you are kind of getting away from the topic at hand. And assuming things about me which are not true. I am America First and I want to keep us out of more endless middle east war. I do not particularly care if Iran is brutal to its political prisoners. It has nothing to do with me or my country.

Don't mistake my arguments here for support of a nuclear Iran. All I am doing here is giving you the reasons Iran is posturing the way that they are and showing you the similarities between now and the build up to the Iraq war 2 decades ago.

---

Then just say that. You are trying to make the facts fit your world view.

Is Iran building a Nuclear weapon? Of course they are. Don't try to suggest they aren't. Just say that it's none of our business or stopping them is not worth it.


If you were the leader of a fundamentalist theocracy and when you weren't busy oppressing women your other obvious concern would be the occasional bombing that you are unable to stop from Israel backed by the US. What would be one way you may be able to prevent that? Wouldn't that be something you be interested in?

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Just to be clear. You are claiming that Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons and that the argument that they are building them is a lie and a "neoconservative" talking point?

---

Correct. At this time there is no evidence Iran is actively building nukes. Same as it's been for the last few decades every time this talking point is trotted out. If Iran wanted to build a bomb, it could do so probably within a few weeks. But they don't want to give US justification to destroy them.

---

I love how in one post you admit that the Iranian government is obviously building nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Israel and the US. And in the next you claim they aren't building them only pretending to build them.

---

I have never admitted Iran is obviously building nukes. What I've consistently said is that they insist on keeping their nuclear program in case they need to build one.

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Allen Gamble said:

---

Ah come on guys! Iran really is just a benevolent country who cares about their people! It's not they're systematically suppressing dissent and imprisoning protestors and torturing/killing them! That's just neocon propaganda! Even this neocon Iranian prisoner says so!

Quote:

---

The regime's merciless killing spree has seen at least 176 inmates sent to the gallows in the past month.

Insiders told The Sun the shocking spike in executions comes amid a barbaric attempt from leaders to crush dissent and act as a warning against it.

Masouri, who was arrested for his affiliation with the resistance unit People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, has now told of the secret process behind executions.

Psychological torture, threats against family and sham trials are all used as tools by the regime to condemn its enemies to death on trumped-up charges.

---

Of course, according to Keyno, Iran SHOULD have nukes! Because the evil neocons who run America and Israel are just agitators and they should have a right to defend themselves from oppressive regimes such as us!

---

Bro, now you are kind of getting away from the topic at hand. And assuming things about me which are not true. I am America First and I want to keep us out of more endless middle east war. I do not particularly care if Iran is brutal to its political prisoners. It has nothing to do with me or my country.

Don't mistake my arguments here for support of a nuclear Iran. All I am doing here is giving you the reasons Iran is posturing the way that they are and showing you the similarities between now and the build up to the Iraq war 2 decades ago.

---

Then just say that. You are trying to make the facts fit your world view.

Is Iran building a Nuclear weapon? Of course they are. Don't try to suggest they aren't. Just say that it's none of our business or stopping them is not worth it.

---

There is no evidence they are actively building one. Again, the "Iran is building a nuke" line has been trotted out for decades. What are they waiting for? Its literally never been true.

But a nuclear Iran has everything to do with you and our country. This isn't hard to understand.

Most of what you have said is incoherent and comes off as pleading for Iran to have the ability to build a nuke. I've listed credible evidence that they are currently doing so. You refuse to acknowledge it and write it off as neocon propaganda. Fine, live in your warped reality.

This isn't even close to the Iraq war. Every situation is different when it comes to foreign policy, that's why it requires prudence, not some defunct ideology like "isolationism". No one is calling for an all out war or invasion of Iran with the end result of making them a liberal democracy. That's pure conjecture.

Tucker ---> The Truth < ----- Mark


The truth lies somewhere between these two extremes...