- Reaction score
- 4,921
- Location
- Colorado
320M citizens of US. 160M individuals file tax returns.While initial cost estimates of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were $50 to $60 billion, they ended up costing a
this is spread over time it isn't so much
tl;dr
(Iraqi yellowcake anyone?)
Confusion on whether Iran truly needed only “” to make a nuclear weapon, as President Donald Trump suggested on Monday, hangs over on the Persian Gulf nation. Nuclear experts call this claim unlikely—but the confusion may stem from some basics of atomic chemistry.
“There was no evidence that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon,” says of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the . His comment echoed those of after the war’s start, as well as statements from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief at that time and and last year’s “” report by U.S. intelligence agencies.
According to an IAEA , as of June 2025, Iran possessed 441 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium, where the percentage refers to the share of the isotope uranium 235 (U 235) found in the material. That would be enough for 10 nuclear weapons if the material could be enriched further to full 90 percent weapons-grade concentrations, according to the IAEA. That further enrichment would take a matter of in a fully functioning Iranian , perhaps explaining the time line within Trump’s declaration.
That step alone doesn’t equal a bomb, however. And Iran’s main enrichment capabilities were “completely and ,” according to Trump himself in June, after the U.S. . The administration’s special envoy to the Middle East nonetheless claimed on March 3, after the start of the current war, that Iran had the capability to make 11 nuclear bombs. Trump administration officials to include nuclear technical experts in their negotiation teams with Iran prior to the war, adding to the uncertainty. If Iran really had rebuilt these facilities, that might have led—over months and not weeks—to the nation resuming its uranium enrichment, Lewis says. “But this is all ‘if,’ ‘maybe’ and ‘later,’” he adds.
Trust me, Reggie, no one here comes close to despising islam as much as I do. I'm certainly not one who respects it enough to capitalize the word as you do. Why do you respect islam, Reggie?tl;dr
But at least we know Holli is a pussy who "submits" to Islam.
Holli is a pussy
I usually follow the AP style book. Bad habit, I know.Trust me, Reggie, no one here comes close to despising islam as much as I do. I'm certainly not one who respects it enough to capitalize the word as you do. Why do you respect islam, Reggie?
Fixed it for you.
"Dooooooooom! Gloooooooooom! Everything sucks and it's all because of Trump!"
Key takeaways
How big is today’s oil shock, in historical context? Does this resemble any past crisis or is it unprecedented?
- Today’s oil shock is largest in history.
- The United States probably can’t clear the Strait of Hormuz without ending its war with Iran.
- Rising oil prices will slow industrial activity and raise food costs.
- Markets may be too optimistic about how quickly the war’s impacts can be reversed.
In terms of barrels taken off the market, this is the largest supply shock in history by at least a factor of two. The only one that comes close is the 1979 shock, which also involved Iran, and which caused oil prices to more than double. But the current disruption — 20 million barrels a day unable to flow for over a week — is twice that size in real terms.
So, we’re very much in an unprecedented situation. Which is part of why markets have struggled to interpret it. For years, Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz and it never happened. On some level, I think traders came to believe that Iran would never really do it. Now, many believe that it’s a situation that won’t last much longer despite the fact that we’re in the second week and it doesn’t show any signs of ending.
You certainly are.Disgusting.
From Quora:for you
Since when do you care what any General has to say about anything?From Quora:
Dan Razin Caine, the chairman of Chiefs of Staff, warned Trump that a war against Iran could lead to a broader conflict dragging other great powers such as Russia and China to the scene. The general advised Trump to keep the military action as short as possible and without prolonging it beyond a week or so. But Donald Trump refused as he promised Netanyahu a more broader and fierce action.
As social media was abuzz with such narrations of General Caine, Trump didn’t make it late to respond via his truth social handle. He admired the General and said he would do exactly as he would say, he would lead the pack whenever he would order to. The status Trump gave in response was more of an assertion rather than a friendly complement we think. Exactly how politicians typically warn their subordinates in a polite & elegant way!
General Caine argued that USA's munitions were already depleted, especially interceptors and defence munitions which it largely supplied to Ukraine and Israel. Caine also believed the situation was a bit of puzzling as Iran is demonstrating resilience against all odds stacked upon it. The general thinks that allies may not help US forces there if things get chaotic and if Russia or China backs Iran up with technologies which US is not aware of, things can get pretty bad. He mainly referred to the possibility of Iran acquiring anti-ship missiles from Russia, or perhaps any other sophisticated techs from anti-US alliances.
Trump however has reiterated his previous claim that nothing could stop USA from achieving its goals. President is adamant to make Iran submit.
Oi fuckwit… stop being stupid and see this war was an imperative necessity for our civilised future. You’re a fucking dipstick …keep sucking on woke penises and stay out of our lane. Conservatives are working here…You certainly are.
What's this war about?
Nukes?
Helping the oppressed in Iran?
Oil?
It really reminds of the Iraq war - yellowcake, regime change, oil. Take yer pick. What appeals to you most?
Let's see, There is zero evidence that Iran has nuke grade uranium or the means to make it...ZERO.
No one on the right ever expressed any concern over repression in Iran. Actually, and of course you can look it up, I was the only person here to write about it. It's convenient for contards to preach righteously now and they will because the Trump Ministry of Truth has told them to.
..and hey, this is all great for American oil companies. BIGLY big profits to come.
..but is any of that really what is going on, or is it something else I have already mentioned?
So really...it was better to gradually destabilize Iran over time as the sanctions were actually working @Holy Holliday ! Iranians were rioting in the streets against the regime even thinking the USA was on THEIR side. But now that Trump killed all those ordinary Iranian citizens he destroyed that perception. Plus he didn't build an alliance with the Kurds in Iran who could have waged a proxy war against the regime.I know all you MAGAtards know better than a US General, but take a look just for laughs.
Midair refueling operations are inherently dangerous. It appears in this case the plane being refueled clipped the tanker. That plane landed safely but the tanker went down, killing four crewman.4 more dead @Reggie_Essent
So a Jihadi doing Jihadi stuff is Trump's fault too?Another islamist attack in the US - Michigan.
. Thanks Trump. Keeping Americans safe.
You want an omelette, a few eggs gonna get broke.
Iranians were rioting in the streets against the regime
Four of six crew members died after a U.S. military KC-135 refueling aircraft that was part of the American war against Iran crashed in neighboring Iraq, United States Central Command on Friday.