re: I laugh so hard at all of the "This isn't what I voted for" threads.

LOL... You got no replies..... Imagine that.

No replies on this either.

OH LOOK... The orginal RONBOT is back.

quote:

---

iran was nowhere near having a nuke-ular weapo

---

Iran literally went to the negotiating table stating they had enough material for 11 nukes. Try again.

LINK

LINK

And FWIW, it's funny you are getting your talking points from the MSM. In fact, there are at least 4 articles from yesterday with your exact verbiage of "Iran was nowhere close to a nuclear weapon." Here is one of the links you are parroting. Iran was nowhere close to a nuclear bomb, experts say

And now the failure of your talking point.

quote:

---

“There was no evidence that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon,” says Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. His comment echoed those of other experts after the war’s start, as well as statements from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi at that time and in 2025 and last year’s “threat assessment” report by U.S. intelligence agencies.

---

That quote is immediately followed by:

quote:

---

According to an IAEA estimate, 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 weeks in a fully functioning Iranian nuclear complex, perhaps explaining the time line within Trump’s declaration.

---

So if you'd bother reading the bullshite that is fed to you, you probably wouldn't repeat it.

quote:

---

link?

---

On a phone doing other shite, and you're a low effort poster (you made the claim that they were no where near nukes so this isvreally your job to provide evidence). So here's an AI answer that should at least give you something to sink your teeth in.

As of mid-2025 to early 2026, Iran was considered to be at the "breakout" threshold, holding enough 60%-enriched uranium to create multiple nuclear weapons within weeks if they decided to enrich to 90%. While 60% enrichment is technically only one step away from the ~90% weapons-grade, and Iran has significant stockpiles (over 400kg as of May 2025), experts debate if they have the immediate capability to weaponize this material, with some suggesting a two-year setback following 2025 strikes.
ISRM
ISRM
+3
Key Findings:
Stockpile Size: As of May 2025, Iran held ~400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, enough to theoretically produce material for several bombs if further enriched.
Proximity to 90%: Once uranium is enriched to 60%, the jump to 90% (weapons-grade) is relatively quick, reducing "breakout" time to days or weeks, according to some assessments.
Weaponization Capabilities: While the fissile material is available, constructing a functional nuclear device requires additional steps, and some analysts believe Iran was not imminently close to creating a deliverable warhead.
Setbacks: Reports indicate that US/Israeli strikes in 2025 may have caused significant setbacks (around two years) to the program.
Al Jazeera
Al Jazeera
+5

quote:

---

'd at least respect that.

---

Based on your posting history, NO you would not have.


The fact is you simply did not pay attention. Trump has always stated he would use the military if he had to and when needed. He stated no NEW wars in the context of never ending wars.

That's on you.

Bug, they only hear what they want to hear.

quote:

---

"I voted for this" has become just a meme people post.

---

Don't you remember all the topics in 2024 calling for regime change in Iran?

quote:

---

Don't use slogans that are complete absolutes then. Don't repeat the exact same platitude over and over and over again that you know 99% of the voting populace is only going to hear. That is a politician thing and I liked him because he wasn't a politician.

---

That's great and all, and i'm glad you are sticking to your morals. However, do you think that POTUS deals with more facts than you?

I don't know nor remember, nor care about what trump may or may not have said, or your interpretation thereof. But the fact remains, someone has to deal with Iran. And that someone is us. This isn't an opinion, it's fact. No one else has the capabilities we do to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. NO ONE. So, there are only 2 choices to be made, if you are a realist.

1) Do nothing, and our children will have to deal with a much bigger, deadlier, and destructive problem
2) Do something now, and end it before it starts.

I, like you, would prefer us to not be in that shithole sandbox in the ME. But what i want, doesn't apply to reality. We are in it no matter what. It's not really a choice. It's global politics. If you are lamenting the fact that we are caught up in global politics and not isolationists, then you should take your gripe up with US Presidents starting at Woodrow Wilson or even further back.