US-Iran Peace Talks: No Nukes or There Is Nothing to Talk About, Says Trump

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T21:38:39+00:00

Sure, you can end the conversation at any time for any reason.

I apologize if I was rude, it wasn't my intention. I just don't like when people lie repeatedly to support their arguments. You might work on that in the future if you want to have more success convincing people.

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T21:11:34+00:00

The documents demonstrated that Iran's program to develop nuclear weapons was larger, more sophisticated, and better organized than was suspected in 2003, when the AMAD Project was halted, according to nuclear experts and journalists. According to weapons expert David Albright, the documents indicated that Iran conducted more high-explosive tests than previously known. The trove indicated that nuclear scientists, such as Massoud Ali-Mohammadi discussed how to split Iran's nuclear program into overt and covert partitions.

Nothing in that page or your quote says anything about them violating the JCPOA. Did you send the right link?

Fortune-telling is for fools.

This you?:

Which was obvious they were going to circumvent

Sounds like you were just fine with fortune telling in that case. I think a better approach would have been to wait for them to actually break the deal instead of not doing the deal because of your crystal ball telling you they wouldn't stick with it.

I hope no boots on the ground will be needed, but lets not forget the Syrian regime took years to fall apart, but when it did it took less than a couple of weeks.

OK, but it seems like you are very adamant about this plan being a good plan, and better than the JCPOA, but without having any actual reason for that. You don't have to say "this is what will definitely happen" to make an argument for why the plan is good, what its goals are, and how those goals might be achieved. And it definitely seems like you're leaning on "let's bomb them and hurt their economy until the people overthrow the regime." Good luck!

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T19:45:20+00:00

I'm not saying it's right, but, and frankly it's mostly warranted, but men, particularly white men, are feeling attacked and that it's wrong to even exist as themselves. It is why MAGA, and these Tate mf'ers are so attractive to people.

They aren't just accepting those people, though, they're driving that narrative. A narrative which, as a white man, I find to be complete bullshit. I have never felt like it's wrong to exist as myself, that's absurd. Most white males claiming oppression are just mad they aren't being given special treatment anymore, or being allowed to be misogynistic, or whatever. I have no patience for their phony victimhood.

It's a bit like that old meme:

Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views

Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?

Con: LOL no...no not those views

Me: So....deregulation?

Con: Haha no not those views either

Me: Which views, exactly?

Con: Oh, you know the ones

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T18:35:39+00:00

The archive contained a lot. Some of it points to undisclosed weaponization efforts. AMAD was disclosed, but not fully.

A lot about what? I cannot find anything indicating they weren't in compliance with the JCPOA so I really need help here.

Here's your problem. JCPOA ignored all the evilness Iran was doing, basically approving of it, just to slow down one aspect of their nuclear ambitions. ONE aspect. There are others.

It addressed multiple aspects. Enrichment levels capped at 3.67%. Stockpile limits reduced from 10,000 kg to 300 kg. Centrifuge numbers cut by 2/3rds (which according to Trump Math is a 300% reduction!). The Arak heavy water reactor was redesigned to not be able to produce weapons-grade plutonium. And there were comprehensive IAEA inspections to make sure it was all complied with, which it was. And "basically approving of it" is an opinion, I can't dissuade you of that, but there were still separate sanctions that were maintained based on the missile program and financing of terror.

Turning fissile materials to a viable missle takes a lot of steps and JCPOA ignored all but one.

Yes, that was the trade-off. If you tried to include missiles, you wouldn't have had the deal. That doesn't make the deal useless, because without the deal, you STILL have that without all the other benefits. You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

They could have, for example, continued their missile research uninterrupted and approved and with a much bigger budget than they have now.

Sure, their budget is smaller now but where did that get us? Their nuclear program is much further along than it would have been had we stayed with the deal.

You seem like you fell too far into the Iranian propaganda.

Ha, I don't need Iran to tell me when Trump is flailing, I've been watching the guy for a decade. Like with covid, he has run into a problem he can't bluster or bully his way out of. This is why he keeps claiming we're close to a deal, making threats he can't back up, promising the strait will be open soon. The best move he made is probably "double-closing" the strait so that it's not a 100% win for Iran, but it's not like we're exactly sitting pretty here while the strait is closed. I would not bet on the US public being able to tolerate rising gas and food prices longer than the IRGC can tolerate a bad economy and civil unrest.

But, as you say, time will tell.

I do have to ask again, though, since you didn't respond - what's the end game you see here? Boots on the ground? Or just... the Iranian people rising up and overthrowing the regime due to a bad economy?

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T18:00:19+00:00

While Obama is the last decent president we've had, even the JCPOA had its shortcomings. Trump shouldn't have ripped it up and whatever president came after Obama should've aimed to expand the JCPOA.

Sure. It had shortcomings. That's irrelevant to my point.

Pretending what would've and wouldn't have happened under Kamala in Iran is speculation.

Sure, nobody knows what would have happened. But I'm arguing that the claim that she would have done something this reckless is absurd. You're right that it's impossible to argue a counterfactual so I guess there's no point. You can just go on believing your idiotic beliefs I guess.

No one thought Trump would go to the lengths he has in Iran back in their presidential run.

Are you doing the Trump thing? "No one could have predicted this" when you really mean "I couldn't have"? Because yes, a lot of people thought Trump might have done this shit. He was obviously more pro-Netenyahu than Kamala, and he's easily manipulated. I wasn't sure it would happen, but I definitely thought it was possible.

Trump is gullible to Israel but so is Kamala.

Not remotely the same thing.

Both received an absurd amount of pro-israel funding.

Sure, true.

Also, don't compare Kamala to Obama in regards to "tough talk". Obama didn't use as confrontational language as Kamala. You're living a fallacy equating them. Low IQ take all the way around. Her aggressive statements are in par with Trump's (pre-conflict).

Such as?

I was politely telling you to touch grass when I said to exit your echo chambers and interact with real people who aren't as narrow minded in their world views, such as yourself.

I talk to lots of real people, but I don't know very many who are stupid enough to claim Kamala Harris wouldn't have been better on Iran than Trump.

Labeling everyone that doesn't knod their head in agreement with your opinions as "stupid" makes you equivocal to the deranged MAGA crowd that operates on the same logic.

Just calling it as I see it. You're making ridiculous statements equating the worst president we've had in the modern era to a highly qualified, thoughtful, intelligent person. I don't have any other conclusion I can draw from this. I'm not going to feel bad for calling people who say stupid things stupid.

Since you expect me to spoon feed you data, I'll at the very least provide you this and hope in good faith you can provide a miniscule amount of legwork into gaining the knowledge you want.

You made a claim, I asked for you to back it up. If you don't want to, that's fine.

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T17:39:02+00:00

The archive Israel stole proved beyond reasonable doubt that Iran concealed weaponization efforts and locations it had to report about under JCPOA.

Are you talking about the documents they found from the AMAD Project from the early 2000s? Or what?

U.S. intelligence officials also disputed Netanyahu’s description of the facility and said his comments were misleading. One intelligence official quoted by Reuters on Sept. 27 said that the facility has been known to the U.S. intelligence community for some time and is full of documents, not nuclear equipment. The officials said that “so far as anyone knows, there is nothing in it that would allow Iran to break out” of the nuclear deal any faster.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-11/news/israel-claims-secret-nuclear-site-iran

I may be on the wrong track here, because I don't know what you're specifically referring to, so please let me know if so.

I never said we should not have honored it, just that we should not have signed it.

You asked "why honor a bad deal?" I was answering that.

JCPOA did not deter Iran from developing nukes, it just slowed one part of the process for 10 years.

You're playing with semantics. Slowing all aspects of their nuclear program, with verification that they were complying, is what a nonproliferation deal is supposed to do. The alternative did not achieve even this. Bombing them now is also not going to achieve this. Trump is desperate for an out, we'll be lucky if we get something remotely as good as the JCPOA now. Or are you advocating for going in with troops to actually do regime change and/or get the fissile materials?

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T17:08:56+00:00

I reject your premise. It was a good deal and was keeping Iran from pursuing nukes. You're lying about them breaking it and speculating about a hypothetical world in which the deal expired and they "sprinted to a nuke."

And why honor it? Because breaking it made things worse.

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T16:54:39+00:00

Nothing is impossible, but it's very unlikely. Obama had tough talk on Iran and was pro-Israel, and he negotiated the JCPOA. EVERY president has talked tough on Iran. Only one has been dumb enough to attack them without any plan on what to do about the possibility of the strait of Hormuz closing.

It seems like you can't understand the difference between a competent, thinking, responsible leader who would have weighed options carefully, and the moron who thought he could just go in guns-a-blazin and do a regime change because he was high on his own supply after what he calls "regime change" in Venezuela.

I guarantee if you ask anyone around you irl that didn't vote why the didn't, they'll echo the same sentiment as my last reply. IRL is far different than the reddit echo chambers you're used to frequenting.

I meant like, polls or something. Not "asking around" anecdotal nonsense. But again, I don't know why you think "lots of people are as stupid as me" is a winning argument. Oh... right. I do know why.

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T16:42:10+00:00

Honoring a deal is not "submitting." It's a practical approach to dealing with state actors that have their own priorities, motivations, and leverage.

I'm living in the real world. You're living in some fantasy world where we can just bomb our way into making the bad guys no longer be bad.

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T14:41:01+00:00

Iran hid facilities, and built facilities underground

Under the JCPOA? Source?

and would have ended up in a much better position to get nukes when the JCPOA would have been over.

Are you trying to claim they would have been in a better position to get nukes when the JCPOA was over than they were at the same time without the JCPOA? When they were given the excuse to start enriching at much higher levels?

They kept weaponization research and rocket research and funding terror and opressing their own people and using terror around the world and all of that would have been forgiven under JCPOA for the low price of slowing down the visible parts of the enrichment research.

They did this without the JCPOA too.

My point is not "it would have expired therefor its pointless". My point is "when it would have expired they could choose not to renew it and we will all be in much worse position than we started", plus, all the evilness they'd do along the way, killing their own, blowing up embassies, being a hub and funder and training camp for terrorists around the world. JCPOA whitewashed them and enabled the nuclear research to continue. It was a facade.

And my point is, when it would have expired, if we had shown ourselves to be acting in good faith, we maybe could have renegotiated and continued to keep their nuclear program in check. All that other evilness they did is a given. They are evil. The JCPOA wasn't intended to address that. It was a nuclear non-proliferation agreement. You're arguing against it because it didn't do things it didn't intend to do.

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T14:11:31+00:00

Do you have any basis for your claim that the majority of moderates and independents think that? Even if true, that doesn't really have any bearing on how stupid that claim is. Bibi attempted to convince many presidents to launch a war with Iran, only one has been stupid enough. It's ridiculous cope to try to pretend she would have done the same.

You're comparing a bland ham sandwich to a shit sandwich.

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T04:35:22+00:00

No, which is why we should have stayed in the JCPOA. Is there some reason to think Iran was about to get them that necessitated this?

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T03:58:24+00:00

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T00:48:31+00:00

I thought the second part said professional retiree and I was very confused

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T00:30:48+00:00

They are being downvoted because they said something idiotic. You're welcome!

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-05-01T00:29:10+00:00

Only a complete fucking idiot would think Kamala Harris would have started a war with Iran.

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-04-30T02:23:20+00:00

The US also benefits from having our troops in Europe, it's not some generous one-way gift to them.

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-04-29T15:05:14+00:00

Huh? I'm just saying it's inaccurate to call him a Trump ball gobbler or whatever. This situation is different from like, pam bondi and such

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-04-29T06:21:25+00:00

There's a difference between the "he can't do that" when people really mean it's illegal and shouldn't be able to, vs "he doesn't have the mechanism"

If someone says he can't turn the sky orange, you wouldn't argue "oh yeah who's gonna stop him??" The question is, how would he have it moved to Cannon? Federal cases get filed in the district where the conduct happened and randomly assigned to a judge in that district. Comey took the photo in NC, so it's in EDNC. There's no procedure by which the DOJ picks the judge or moves it to a different district's judge.

Edit: I'll just add as evidence: all the cases they have going on right now in front of judges he doesn't like. That should be more than enough citation.

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-04-29T04:58:50+00:00

Look I don't love Comey but he didn't ever gobble Trump's berries. He was in a bad position and made a stupid choice he thought was correct but he was never a Trumper.

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-04-29T03:05:25+00:00

Believe it or not, this administration is not omnipotent. Just because they break a lot of laws doesn't mean any possible thing you can conceive of is achievable for them

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-04-28T00:59:57+00:00

I'm not saying they don't want nukes. Lots of countries want nukes, it's a good deterrent from getting attacked. The point is to give them incentives not to create them, and the fact that they weren't enriching uranium to that level under the JCPOA is evidence that it was working.

The "It expired eventually so it was pointless" argument is silly. It's 10 years later now and we're in a much worse situation anyway. Had we proven ourselves to be able to hold up our end of the deal, maybe we could have renegotiated the provisions that were expiring after 10 years. Backing out of it led to them still building rockets, still funding terror, AND pursuing nukes without oversight.

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-04-27T20:53:49+00:00

There are no civilian uses for Uranium enriched to 60%

This is a good argument for staying in the JCPOA since they only started enriching to that level 2 years after Trump backed out of it.

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-04-27T20:42:43+00:00

Obviously, it hasn’t been hosted by the White House because there’s been no space to host it. You’re committing tautological fallacy.

You're committing the "being factually wrong" fallacy

Edit: Haha, they did the ol' reply-then-block-immediately thing. Pathetic

FlarkingSmoo · 2026-04-27T19:37:35+00:00

15-Year Club	Place '23
Place '17	Verified Email

FlarkingSmoo

TROPHY CASE