Schrödinger’s nukes
There’s absolutely no evidence that Iran has, or has ever possessed, nuclear weapons. Indeed, the Obama Administration negotiated an agreement whereby Iran agreed not to develop nuclear weapons or even enrich uranium to the purity necessary to create a fission bomb. Trump tore up that agreement, but there’s no evidence that Iran made any progress toward an atom bomb since then. Still, last June Trump claimed to have obliterated Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program. Now he’s claiming that his attack on Iran was justified because their nuclear weapons posed an immanent existential threat. So is the Iranian atom bomb dead or alive?
“Speaking from the East Room at the start of a ceremony to award the Medal of Honor to a trio of U.S. Army soldiers who’d served in the Second World War, the Vietnam War and Afghanistan, the president said Iran’s ballistic missile capability would have “soon” been able to reach beyond hitting American bases in the Middle East and Europe to hit “our beautiful America” while making it “extraordinarily difficult” for future airstrikes to halt the nuclear weapons program he claimed to have “obliterated” last June.
“An Iranian regime armed with long range missiles and nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat to the Middle East, but also to the American people. Our country itself would be under threat, and it was very nearly under threat.”
Well, it’s Trump, so you already know it’s bullshit on stilts. Nobody knows what the goal is or what the endgame is. Cadet Bone Spurs is promising several more weeks of this and won’t rule out deploying American troops on the ground.
Trump attacks imaginary Iranian nukes
“Speaking from the East Room at the start of a ceremony to award the Medal of Honor to a trio of U.S. Army soldiers who’d served in the Second World War, the Vietnam War and Afghanistan, the president said Iran’s ballistic missile capability would have “soon” been able to reach beyond hitting American bases in the Middle East and Europe to hit “our beautiful America” while making it “extraordinarily difficult” for future airstrikes to halt the nuclear weapons program he claimed to have “obliterated” last June.
“An Iranian regime armed with long range missiles and nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat to the Middle East, but also to the American people. Our country itself would be under threat, and it was very nearly under threat.”
Well, it’s Trump, so you already know it’s bullshit on stilts. Nobody knows what the goal is or what the endgame is. Cadet Bone Spurs is promising several more weeks of this and won’t rule out deploying American troops on the ground.
Trump attacks imaginary Iranian nukes
Joel:
But we who did serve in the military are called “losers and suckers,”
“Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.”
And McCain? “He’s not a war hero,” Trump said in 2015 while running for the Republican nomination for president. “I like people who weren’t captured.”
And I like people who are not idiots.
Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’
Pres. Trump is a fraud and a want-to-be without making the effort. Trump is an agitator and knows little about the Middle East and how they all fit together. Israel does not need our help and should be working with their neighbors to reach a neutral and unfriendly agreement ane keep their guard up.
@Bill,
What did you expect from Cadet Bone Spurs? He’s a narcissist, solipsism on stilts. He’s a disgrace. Millions of Americans voted for him. Some say we should not criticize them for fear of offending them.
I was raised to honor my father and mother. They would have wanted me to call out those who disgrace and shame America. I honor them by doing so.
While the agreement did keep enrichment below weapons grade, the allowed enrichment levels exceeded any other purpose but weapons. This agreement was quite unusual. The Obama administration never submitted it as a treaty, so it was never a sovereign obligation of the United States. Working with Congressional leaders, a process was created that was kind of a mirror image of the treaty process. A little different because it involved the House also. Both the House and Senate passed a bill rejecting the agreement, which Obama vetoed and when the veto override failed, took that as the agreement was therefore “approved”. That worked until it didn’t work. I thought then that Trump ought to have considered another route of just submitting it to the Senate as a treaty and let that process play out. It may be fair to argue that the process was meant to allow Some Democratic members of Congress a formal manner to oppose the agreement without killing it, but for the record, Congress voted on this agreement and rejected it. You won’t be shocked to hear that this sorry episode is not discussed much by the “but Democracy!” contingent.
@Eric,
“That worked until it didn’t work.”
I’m not shocked to see that you elided the truth. For the record, it worked until Trump tore up the agreement.
Joel
I invite anyone to try to stop and think if we are/were better off with an agreement than we are without one. If Iran was going to cheat on the agreement, under inspections and sanctions, what is it going to do without inspections and without having to worry about additional sanctions? Some people might think Iran has the same “right” to have a nuke to deter aggression against itself as we have. I don’t like this idea, though I think that strictly as a matter of justice, it is valid,
What’s wrong with it is that a world with more nukces is far less safe than a world fewr of them. An honest international treaty to limit them would make the world a better place. But that treaty will not happen or be honored as long as injustice and aggression are practiced by the stronger against the weaker.
Ditto. If Trump did not make it, then it is wrong.
Eric
we know that you do not know of your own knowledge the truth of anything you say. You are merely repeating the words of known liars and sowers of evil. The things they say are intended to promote their own political lust for power, or are merley products of their own damaged imagination. There is noting we can do about your damaged imagination except to recognize that it is not grounded in any reality we can afford tobelieve in. We do what we can to lower the level of the possible evil we face in the world. You do what you can, I suppose, to lower the level of the evil you think you see. We can’t change that. We can only recognize that your view has no basis in any reality we can actually see, and take the steps we think will tend to reduce the likelihood of the dangers we see. So far, in the history i have seen…beyond a resonable doubt..you are part of the factors that contribute to the success of the forces of evil, and if I am, at least I did not begin by placing myself to believe everything I hear or want to hear. Have you heard any more about Sadaam’snukes lately?
Coberly:
Let Joel handle these issues. Stick to the topic if you are going to rebut.
Joel
this is just for fun: you may know more about Schrödinger’s cat than I do. But from what I have heard about it, it seems to say the cat is neither dead or alive until we “detect” it. But there is an ignored detector in the picture: the trigger itself is a detector. It detects the electron or whatever triggers the trigger. After that we know as much about the cat as we know about anything in the non-quantum universe we can’t “detect” with our normal “big” sensors. The cat is either dead or alive, it is not “neither dead nor alive.” I am sure Schrodinger was saying something more subtle than that, if not making fun himself of an aspect of Quantum theory, but that is the “artist’s conception–journalist conception” as I have heard it.