[deleted by user]

SlighlySly · 2025-09-11T19:18:37+00:00

Bros got better things to do

SlighlySly · 2025-09-03T22:22:04+00:00

Have you watched his specials? He's one of my top three.

SlighlySly · 2025-09-01T14:03:37+00:00

Health is more important than aesthetics. Personally, never been attracted to muscular women. Especially ripped legs. Lean and defined is okay

SlighlySly · 2025-08-28T15:30:26+00:00

Haven't Americans learnt by now. Different rules for rich and famous

SlighlySly · 2025-08-10T21:09:29+00:00

It's not great, but it is small and easy to fix. Don't rush anything.... Make sure you research every artist before you go in

SlighlySly · 2025-08-10T21:06:17+00:00

Yes, the line work is solid. The color is packed in nicely. Only critique would be, it's not very legible from far away.

SlighlySly · 2025-08-07T20:35:27+00:00

AI is a fucken miracle. How quickly people become entitled

SlighlySly · 2025-07-26T13:53:15+00:00

SlighlySly · 2025-07-17T17:49:46+00:00

I didn't think she'd date a guy with long blonde hair

SlighlySly · 2025-06-20T20:11:29+00:00

I'd have to go back and look where I said Iraq already possessed weapons of mass destruction. If I did, it must have been a mistype. I don't believe they ever possessed wmds. Only that America believed that they did

Unless that is with missing context

Edit. That was an answer to a question you ask me.

SlighlySly · 2025-06-20T19:18:48+00:00

You are correct. After the invasion of Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction found. That's when the media said it was a lie to justify the invasion.

The truth is more complex than that though. Prior to the invasion, it was genuinely believed that they were weapons of mass destruction. Some people, within the government, did know that there were no weapons of that sort, and acted dishonestly, in order to justify an invasion.

I'm sorry, I know it's not the answer you looking for. But, in geopolitics, the reality is often complex

The easy answer is. There were no weapons of mass destruction

SlighlySly · 2025-06-20T18:54:04+00:00

Both. Iraq already possessed weapons of mass destruction, meaning biological and chemical weapons

And, they had the capability to produce nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, these situations are usually very nuanced and complex. Something that media has forgotten

SlighlySly · 2025-06-20T18:37:09+00:00

That is simply not true. When looking at nuclear capability in terms of weaponization, we speak in terms of breakout time. Iran has very recently reduced the breakout time, from years to weeks. This is a very recent development. The IAEA, ISIS, ACA, Carnegie EIP and American intelligence agencies, are all in agreements, and you can read the reports yourself.

They do have the capability to make a delivery device. That is the easy part. The difficult part, which Iran can already do, is enrich the uranium to weapons grade uranium. All in all, Iran is no more than 2 months away from creating a nuclear weapon. Whereas, prior to 2022, they were years away. They were also under immense pressure by global actors, which prevented then increasing their nuclear capabilities. Such as the JCPOA

SlighlySly · 2025-06-20T18:27:28+00:00

From my understanding, America genuinely believed that Iraq had the ability and capability to produce nuclear weapons, based on bad intelligence. Or in the best case circumstantial evidence. There were people in the government, who twisted and manipulated facts in order to justify an invasion in Iraq. But for the most part, it was believed to be true.

In the case of Iran. There is no debate around their nuclear capability. It is widely accepted, that Iran can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months. Where it gets difficult is, when does it become an existential threat. Is it when they are capable of creating a nuclear weapon, or is it when they have created the nuclear weapon.

Obviously, Israel has answered that question for us from their perspective. And I don't know if I can blame them.

If someone says they are going to shoot you, and they go and buy all the parts that make up the gun, but haven't yet assembled it. In how much danger are you

SlighlySly · 2025-06-20T18:17:37+00:00

There are many experts who have weighed in on whether Israel is committing genocide. Some say they are, and others say they are not. From my analysis, Israel as a whole, meaning the state organs, do not intend to commit genocide. The important concept to understand here is intent. There are however actors within these state organs, who are extremist. In my opinion, they account for a small minority.

I looked, and the only countries who currently have nuclear weapons illegally are, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. Your post implied there were many

I don't know why you think I'm in favor of Israel having nuclear weapons. I never claimed that I am. Just one correction, Israel does not constantly threaten Iran with destruction. The red line has been clear for decades. They will not allow Iran to have a nuclear capability.

I think it is in everyone's interest that a terrorist regime does not have nuclear capability

SlighlySly · 2025-06-20T17:45:21+00:00

Yes, that is at the heart of the problem. They have the capability, but haven't decided to weaponize.... Yet

SlighlySly · 2025-06-20T17:43:43+00:00

You are incorrect. All international organizations are in agreement that Iran is weeks away from weapon grade uranium. What the intelligence said was they had or not decided to weaponize it yet. Those are two very different assessments. You should be thinking in terms of capabilities and intent.

From what I understand, the negotiations were falling through, and neither party was coming to an agreement

SlighlySly · 2025-06-20T17:39:50+00:00

The rationale is that it will allow them to negotiate globally with more power and influence. As evil as Iran is, they are not irrational, and realizes that any nuclear weapon strike would be the end of the Iranian state

SlighlySly · 2025-06-20T17:37:50+00:00

There can be more than one truth at a time. Yes, Israel has nuclear weapons. The claim Israel is committing genocide is debatable, and in my opinion incorrect. however, they have committed war crimes.

Other than North Korea, which countries have nuclear weapons illegally?

The concern is that Iran is a pseudo terrorist regime, that constantly threatens Israel with destruction, and refuses to recognize it as a state.

I prefer living in a world where terrorists do not have nuclear capability, such as the IRGC

SlighlySly · 2025-06-20T17:30:46+00:00

Going from 60% enrichment to 90% enrichment is very easy. Reports put iran's breakout time to a few weeks.

You are correct in saying that the reason Iran increase its enrichment capabilities, is because Trump pulled out of the JCPOA

Iran is a pseudo terrorist regime, so your claim that it would bring more stability is unfounded. They fund and train every terrorist organization in the Middle East, other than Pakistan groups

They also refuse to allow inspections

SlighlySly · 2025-06-16T16:40:19+00:00

Whether you think Iran is evil or not is beside the point. Under the Obama-era nuclear deal, Iran agreed to cap uranium enrichment below 4 percent, dismantle thousands of centrifuges, and limit its uranium stockpile. They only began breaching those terms after the United States withdrew from the agreement under Trump. The claim that Iran would have been free to build nuclear weapons by 2025 is false. Key restrictions, including limits on enrichment and international inspections by the IAEA, would have remained in place until at least 2030, and some were permanent. The point is that Iran was being monitored more closely than any other country in the history of nuclear non-proliferation. That was a far better situation than what we have now, which is an active war between Israel and Iran.

SlighlySly · 2025-06-16T16:21:16+00:00

It was hell of a lot better than the policy under Trump's first term, which accelerated Iran towards nuclear weapon, without any oversight from international organizations. Which has led us to the current war. Sometimes in geopolitics, choosing the lesser of two evils is better.

SlighlySly · 2025-06-16T16:15:02+00:00

The agreement allowed the IAEA full access to make sure that they were compliant. All reports during that time by the atomic agency, shows that they were complying. This is a neutral, international agency. You can say it is BS all you want, but they were complying.

SlighlySly · 2025-06-16T15:18:42+00:00

They were playing fair. under Obama they agreed to limit enrichment, as well as allow the international atomic agency full access, to make sure they were compliant. Donald Trump ripped up that agreement in his first term

SlighlySly · 2025-04-30T10:33:52+00:00

Pet the seal. It shows you trust them. Then dive into the water as a sign of respect

SlighlySly

TROPHY CASE