FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / MIKES GRIPES /  So many lib tears...

So many lib tears...

Started by Plum17 REPLIES508 VIEWS· 28 Jun 2025, 12:22
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
28 Jun 2025, 12:22
#1
28 Jun 2025, 12:22#1

Obama sends pallets of cash to Iran as payment for them to halt/slow their nuclear program. They take the cash but keep trucking.


Trump takes the right decision and shows them who the boss is.


That action is praised by average Iranians who don't want to be seen as the aggressors and terrorisers of the Middle East.


A massive win for average Iranians, the world and certainly for the US and Israel.


What seemed to be something that, if lib media was to be believed, could result in WW3, had a line drawn under it by Trump.


But the libs just can't stand the Donald took the action to end a conflict which threatened peace in the Middle East much more than anything else in recent history and could have escalated into something far worse. The lib morons do their absolute best to downplay it and draw out as many negatives as they can...when there are hardly any. They can't simply be happy that Donald banged Israel's and Iran's heads together and made them cut out their nonsense. Nah, the libs would much rather have had a full scale war and then blamed Trump for not doing anything to prevent it.


Well, what else are we to believe when you look at the response to it?


It's just far too difficult to say, "Well done Trump."


The lib tears pile on.


One has to wonder about the mindset that attempts to draw out the negatives from an action that stops war, a war that could proliferate into something far worse.


So let's hear it, Stav and Blo...let's hear you say that Trump made the right call. Let's hear you say that Trump likely saved a great many lives and took an action that directly resulted in a net gain for global geopolitical stability.


Go on, put your big girl panties on and say it! Say "Well fucking done, Uncle Donald"

PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
28 Jun 2025, 12:22
#2
28 Jun 2025, 12:22#2

...and then let's talk about Syria.

ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
28 Jun 2025, 13:06
#3
28 Jun 2025, 13:06#3

Obama sends pallets of cash to Iran as payment for them to halt/slow their nuclear program. They take the cash but keep trucking.


The Iranian's did not keep trucking, they complied with the deal, as stated by the IAEA, US intelligence services and European intelligence services. Trump killed it solely because Obama's name was on the deal. After Trump killed it then the Iranian's started enriching uranium again. Bravo. Slow clap.


Trump takes the right decision and shows them who the boss is.


Whether Trump took the right or wrong decision is debateable. Yes he did show them who the boss is. Netanyahu.


That action is praised by average Iranians who don't want to be seen as the aggressors and terrorisers of the Middle East.


A massive win for average Iranians, the world and certainly for the US and Israel.


Wait what, so far the indications are that is caused a rally around the flag effect in Iran. We also have had some Iranian dissenters and critics of the Iranian regime condemn the Israeli and American attacks. Your literally just making shit up.


What seemed to be something that, if lib media was to be believed, could result in WW3, had a line drawn under it by Trump.


Wait what. How is a line drawn under this...we don't actually know if Iran's nuclear capability has been destroyed. It might be, it might delayed for months or years. Iran may or may not be even more determined that they need a bomb now.


But the libs just can't stand the Donald took the action to end a conflict which threatened peace in the Middle East much more than anything else in recent history and could have escalated into something far worse. The lib morons do their absolute best to downplay it and draw out as many negatives as they can...when there are hardly any.


There was multiple reasons people had issues with the action Israel then Trump took. Firstly it was clearly against international law. Yes Iran doesn't get any sympathy on the ground as they have broken international law on numerous occasions, but the west is supposed to be the upholder of the rules based order. Then there was potential risks of the strike, would it trigger a wide regional conflict, would it cause a refugee crisis, if the Iranian regime fell would whoever take its place be any better, would it cause a global economic shock...etc. And we are not downplaying the attack...we just don't trust Trump's bragging and are waiting for more credible evidence to see how successful the attack really was. Of course the right wing retards are conflating factual reporting of the news as an attack on them.


They can't simply be happy that Donald banged Israel's and Iran's heads together and made them cut out their nonsense. Nah, the libs would much rather have had a full scale war and then blamed Trump for not doing anything to prevent it.


No one complained about and I'm actually am happy that he banged Israel's and Iran's heads together to ensure the ceasefire held.


Issue people have is that this may strike have been completely unnecessary had Trump stuck to Obama's deal. This is what's so grating about Trump supporters, they don't look at bigger long term pictures. They are selective with their dates and look at events in isolation. Not even a thought that Trump's action back in 2018 could have consequences down the road. But any criticism is dismissed under orange man bad without again having to use any critical thinking.


Iran's nuclear deal could of been years further behind where it was at the time of the attack, it's moderate Iranian President behind the original deal know not have lost his influence and potentially a new could have followed it.


It's just far too difficult to say, "Well done Trump."


Look we are not in the cult. Why would say well done when we don't know what the long term repercussions are going to be?


One has to wonder about the mindset that attempts to draw out the negatives from an action that stops war, a war that could proliferate into something far worse.


Good lord you're such a well trained little acolyte. We didn't have an issue with him stopping the war, we have issues with him taking actions that illegal, may not have been necessary, that may have triggered a wider conflict, potentially have a significant global economic effect and also that may not be effective in the long run.


So let's hear it, Stav and Blo...let's hear you say that Trump made the right call. Let's hear you say that Trump likely saved a great many lives and took an action that directly resulted in a net gain for global geopolitical stability


When would I say something I don't believe. I will give him credit for restraining Israel and Iran after the ceasefire was announced, that very probably saved lives and prevented the ceasefire collapsing. As for a net gain for global geopolitical stability, that's impossible to say one way or another right now.


Go on, put your big girl panties on and say it! Say "Well fucking done, Uncle Donald"


Sorry Plum I can't hear you, would you take Donald's dick out of your mouth for a moment.





PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
28 Jun 2025, 13:27
#4
28 Jun 2025, 13:27#4

So many lib tears...deflections...mental gymnastics...



Just say the words, Stavie...


WELL DONE UNCLE DONALD



ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
28 Jun 2025, 15:52
#5
28 Jun 2025, 15:52#5

Still can't hear you Plum...just slurping sounds.

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
28 Jun 2025, 15:52
#6
28 Jun 2025, 15:52#6

Former President Donald Trump announced the United States' withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), on

May 8, 2018. As stated by ABC News and the Trump White House Archives, he also reimposed economic sanctions on Iran as a result of this decision.

…….…


  1. 2010: ~ 5,000 SWU/yr from operational IR?1 machines.
  2. 2014: Rose to ~ 9,400 SWU/yr ahead of the 2015 JCPOA.
  3. 2020: Reduced to ~ 6,960 SWU/yr under deal constraints.
  4. 2024–2025: Rapid expansion—jumping to ~53k SWU/yr in late 2024, ~58.8k SWU/yr by Feb 2025, and ~64k by May 2025


MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
28 Jun 2025, 16:03
#7
28 Jun 2025, 16:03#7

Hard to format…but here’s the logic. The Iranian deal did have an effect on enrichment capacity. And it was still low, when Trump left office, in spite of the deal being set aside in May 2018.


There was rapid expansion from 2021 onwards and explosive growth in 24 and 25 after Biden had unfrozen Iranian assets, Cause and effect….looks likely, but who knows. Use of the funds was limited to humanitarian needs, but money is fungible.


What we do know is Biden presided over an explosion in Iranian enrichment capacity and did nothing.









ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
28 Jun 2025, 16:23
#8
28 Jun 2025, 16:23#8

And it was still, when Trump left office, in spite of the deal being set aside in May 2018.


Not exactly in May 2019 Iran announced it would begin reducing compliance with the deal and in January 2020 announced it was entirely abandoning the deal. It's nuclear weapon's program began accelerating in November 2020 following the assassination of Mohsen Fakhizadeh who was regarded as the head of Iran's nuclear program. In December 2020 the Iranian's passed a law regarding a mandating the resumption of 20% uranium enrichment.


There was rapid expansion from 2021 onwards and explosive growth in 24 and 25 after Biden had unfrozen Iranian assets, Cause and effect….looks likely, but who knows. Use of the funds was limited to humanitarian needs, but money is fungible


Impossible to know were that funding Biden released went to. We don't know if that expansion would not of occurred anyway.


What we do know is Biden presided over an explosion in Iranian enrichment capacity and did nothing.


What we also know is Obama successfully capped Iranian enrichment and Trump killed the deal. Had Trumped not killed that deal then that expansion may not have occurred under Biden (and accelerated even further during Trump's second term. After all Biden wanted to go back to the deal but Iran wanted additional assurances the US would not pull out again. We could be sitting here looking at figures similar to your point number 3 and potentially an easier path to negotiating a second deal.

SH
sharkbokCaptain20,097 posts
28 Jun 2025, 16:41
#9
28 Jun 2025, 16:41#9

Iran’s Estimated Uranium Enrichment Capacity (2010–2025)

Year ------------ Estimated SWU/y ----- ------------ Notes ------------ 2010~5,000IR-1 centrifuges, pre-JCPOA negotiations2011~6,000Gradual increase, more IR-1s online2012~7,000Expansion at Natanz, Fordow facilities2013~8,500Further installation of IR-1s2014~9,400Peak pre-JCPOA capacity2015~9,400JCPOA signed mid-year, capacity capped2016~6,000JCPOA implemented, major reduction2017~6,000JCPOA limits maintained2018~6,000U.S. withdrawal (May), Iran compliance2019~6,500Iran begins incremental breaches2020~6,960Continued slow increase, law passed late 20202021~10,000Strategic Action Law, more advanced centrifuges2022~20,000Significant expansion, IR-2m/IR-4s deployed2023~35,000Rapid growth, higher enrichment levels2024~53,000Late 2024, large-scale expansion2025~64,000By May, continued explosive growth


SH
sharkbokCaptain20,097 posts
28 Jun 2025, 16:45
#10
28 Jun 2025, 16:45#10

According to that table, Iran was complying with what was expected of it. The problems started when Trump left the deal.


Iran may have chosen to do this anyway, even if the deal was in place. It is hard to know.

SH
sharkbokCaptain20,097 posts
28 Jun 2025, 16:52
#11
28 Jun 2025, 16:52#11

Perplexity opines


Iran was extremely close to having the capacity to produce nuclear weapons-grade material as of mid-2025. Here’s a concise breakdown based on the latest evidence:

Enriched Uranium Stockpile and Breakout Time

  1. As of May–June 2025, Iran possessed enough enriched uranium—primarily at the 60% level—to make the fissile core for up to nine nuclear weapons if further enriched to 90%24.
  2. Enriching uranium from 60% to weapons-grade (90%) is technically straightforward and can be accomplished rapidly, as 60% enrichment represents over 90% of the technical work required to reach weapons-grade4.
  3. Iran’s “breakout time”—the period needed to enrich enough material for a single bomb—was assessed to be “almost zero” by the IAEA in 202524. Iran could have produced enough weapons-grade uranium for five bombs in about one week, and for eight bombs in less than two weeks, according to independent nuclear experts4.

Weaponization and Delivery

  1. While Iran had the material for several bombs, producing a deliverable nuclear weapon (the process of weaponization) would require additional steps: converting uranium into metal, fabricating weapon components, and integrating these into a warhead.
  2. Most experts agree that, as of June 2025, Iran had not taken overt steps toward weaponization. Completing a functional, deliverable nuclear weapon would likely take several months to years, depending on technical hurdles and political decisions245.
  3. The destruction of Iran’s only known uranium metal production facility in Isfahan by Israeli airstrikes in June 2025 was a significant setback, as producing uranium metal is essential for weapon cores5.

Impact of Military Strikes

  1. Recent U.S. and Israeli strikes in June 2025 severely damaged Iran’s major enrichment facilities, but did not destroy Iran’s entire stockpile of enriched uranium or all centrifuge components, some of which were moved to undisclosed locations ahead of the attacks136.
  2. The strikes set back Iran’s program by several months to possibly a few years, depending on Iran’s ability to reconstitute its infrastructure and the effectiveness of international monitoring36.

Oversight and Monitoring

  1. The collapse of IAEA monitoring in June 2025, after Iran suspended inspector access, has made it much harder for the international community to track Iran’s nuclear activities, increasing the risk of covert “sneakout” to a bomb12.

Summary Table: Iran’s Nuclear Weapon Proximity (2025)

FactorStatus (June 2025)
Enriched uranium stockpileSufficient for up to 9 bombs if further enriched24Enrichment levelUp to 60% (90% needed for weapons)Breakout timeAlmost zero—days to weeks for enough material for several bombs24Weaponization progressNo evidence of active weaponization; would take months–years245Facility damageMajor enrichment sites damaged, but core stockpile survived136IAEA monitoringSuspended by Iran after June 202512


Bottom line:

By mid-2025, Iran was only days to weeks away from producing enough weapons-grade uranium for several bombs, but likely still months to years from fielding an actual nuclear weapon, mainly due to the technical and political hurdles of weaponization245. The destruction of key facilities and loss of IAEA oversight complicate future assessments and increase proliferation risks.


MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
28 Jun 2025, 17:02
#12
28 Jun 2025, 17:02#12

The first acceleration of capacity was in 2021….nothing happened that was out of trend during Trump’s first term…..be honest Anger. And nuclear restraint wasn’t the only issue with Iran, supporting terrorism never ended….the deal papered over that.

ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
28 Jun 2025, 18:37
#13
28 Jun 2025, 18:37#13

Nothing happened out of trend?


Trump broke the deal, then the Iranian's started mining oil tankers and Iranian proxies in Iraq attacked a US airbase in Iraq resulting in US retaliatory air strikes in Iraq and Syria, which then resulted in an attack on the US embassy in Iraq while the US started talking about regime change in Iran. Then the American's assassinated Soleimani, which the Iranian's responded to with another set of missile strikes on an American airbase. The Iranian's expecting a response for that then accidentally shot down a Ukrainian airliner with mostly Iranian's onboard, then before anything else could happen Covid came along and put everything on ice.


Yeah sure nothing happened out of trend. As regards Iran not immediately not going back to enriching uranium after Trump was pulled out was partly to do with Iran trying to salvage the deal by working with the Europeans hence a year delay before they start.


Again Trump supporters never seem to realise correlation does not equal causation (like this no war's under Trump nonsense). Consequences to a person's decision are not always immediate. Had that deal been honoured by Trump the Iranian's may never have begun enriching Uranium again.


And nuclear restraint wasn’t the only issue with Iran, supporting terrorism never ended….the deal papered over that.


The deal Obama struck never meant to deal with Iran supporting terrorism, they were two separate issues. Now you can be all mean's call the deal bad for not addressing this issue but instead of addressing one of two major issues. Trump addressed neither and caused greater regional instability. It also sent a message to the world, the US cannot be trusted to honour a deal.


Also the lack of consistency from Trump supporters, they say the deal was bad because it did not address Iranian sponsorship of terrorism. But they never criticize Trump's deal with the Taliban which allowed the Taliban to continue attacking Afghan forces, just not American/Coalition force. Nor then Trump struck a deal with the Houthi's earlier this year to stop them attack shipping made no prevision that prevented them from launching rockets at Israel.




MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
28 Jun 2025, 19:21
#14
28 Jun 2025, 19:21#14

You can’t see that the President who saw a 1000% increase in Centrifuges and did nothing was culpable? And Kamala would have done nothing either. Get real. Imagine the left wing crowing if Trump had a similar record.

ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
28 Jun 2025, 19:49
#15
28 Jun 2025, 19:49#15

You can’t see that the President who saw a 1000% increase in Centrifuges and did nothing was culpable?


Sure you can say he's somewhat culpable for nothing paying more attention. Mind you he had fair bit on his plate such as Covid, Ukraine and October 7th but typically the right wingers throw it back at Biden, It's always Biden fault. Trump break's a deal working perfectly as intended, but its Biden's fault, why he didn't clean up the mess, a mess that wouldn't have been there if not for Trump.


Asides lets say Biden had ordered a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites in 2021. What's different, well Iran's proxies would all still be in play. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthi's, Syria under Assad and the Russian's in Syria who would have been engaged in Ukraine at the point would possible be in much stronger position to help Iran. We could have had an absolute shit show in the middle east and you be on criticizing Biden for creating another war in the middle east. But all those factors were out of play by the time Trump strike, reducing the risk.


And Kamala would have done nothing either. Get real. Imagine the left wing crowing if Trump had a similar record.


She also wouldn't have tried to shank Zelenksy or tried to implement bat shit economy policies. But for crying out loud the Dems had a deal before. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that they could get another one. The funny thing is the Iranian's had massively accelerated Uranium enrichment this year adding over 50% to their stockpile since February this year. Trump didn't feel the need to take action on this and was happy to try to negotiate and in all likely hood had Israel not attacked Iran, Trump would not have attacked by this point, we would probably still be negotiating and we wouldn't be having any conversations about the immanent need to stop Iran's nuclear program. He got bounced into acting by Israel.


Imagine the right wing crowd had Trump got a deal with Iran only for the Dems to kill it next term.

SH
sharkbokCaptain20,097 posts
28 Jun 2025, 22:21
#16
28 Jun 2025, 22:21#16


.

BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
28 Jun 2025, 23:11
#17
28 Jun 2025, 23:11#17

The devil's spawn ... shudder.

BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
28 Jun 2025, 23:18
#18
28 Jun 2025, 23:18#18

nm

— END OF THREAD —

More from Mikes Gripes