- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/24/26 at 9:54 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
How so?
For several reasons.
1. Civilian nuclear program =/= nuclear weapons, obviously.
2. Saudi Arabia and Iran occupy two separate strategic positions. Whether you like it or not, Saudi Arabia has been a US security partner for decades whereas Iran has been bombing American interests for decades.
3. The objectives are different. Helping Saudi Arabia attain civilian nuclear technology keeps them within a US aligned framework whereas "giving nukes to Iran" removes any leverage overnight and likely triggers an immediate regional arms race.
4. The US' position here is conditional and says, "if Saudi Arabia is going to do this regardless, US involvement is preferable. Your retarded analogy changes that premise into, "the US should actively proliferate nuclear weapons."
Try to be less retarded and learn to craft appropriate analogies.
Posted on 7/24/26 at 9:55 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
You would certainly know.
Personal attacks can get you banned amigo. No need for that
Posted on 7/24/26 at 9:56 am to AGGIES
quote:
2. The Trump admin wants the deal, and really wanted to coerce a trade deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and used a little bait and switch to try to get the Saudis to agree.
I think it's more along these lines. Using some leverage to get the ME peace deal moving again. It would be good if Saudi led the way.
I think it's not a good look to add conditions to an already ageeed upon deal.
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:02 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
In the future, if Saudi's radicals ever gain access to their nukes.....
This is the biggest concern. If there ever comes a time when the Saudi government gets overthrown by the terrorists, it would be time to move in.
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:05 am to BoarEd
Qatar , UAE , Bahrain , Jordan , Kuwait , Iraq , Oman , Egypt , Kenya , Morocco and Tunisia are also considered US allies interested in civil nuclear energy. Based on points 2 , 3 and 4, the US should be good to extend the same offer to them before China offers to help
This post was edited on 7/24/26 at 10:06 am
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:08 am to COAUTiger
And maybe we will. Maybe we won't. But those matters aren't under discussion.
This post was edited on 7/24/26 at 10:10 am
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:10 am to AGGIES
non military nuke and contingent on signing Abraham Accord
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:22 am to Tiger on the Rag
quote:
contingent on signing Abraham Accord
That is the reason. Everything else is BS. At least one of you get it.
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:35 am to cusoonkpd
Sudan signed the AA. You are good with the US helping Sudan develop civil nuclear technology?
We are also looking for Lebanon and Syria to sign the AA as well
We are also looking for Lebanon and Syria to sign the AA as well
This post was edited on 7/24/26 at 10:38 am
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:38 am to AGGIES
quote:
So was that the “big win” some of you here were talking about?
Is it a good deal, or no?
And Is that deal still on?
We don’t know man.
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:41 am to COAUTiger
quote:
You are good with the US helping Sudan develop civil nuclear technology?
Why do you keep trying to reframe the discussion?
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:44 am to BoarEd
The discussion is this a good deal for the US to allow SA to have nuclear facilities. The response has been they were going to do it so why not the US to help. If that response is good enough for SA, why not other countries in the exact same boat.
This post was edited on 7/24/26 at 10:45 am
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:46 am to COAUTiger
quote:
If that response is good enough for SA, why not other countries in the exact same boat.
You think that Sudan and Saudi Arabia are in "the exact same boat?"
You're terrible with analogies as well.
And again, these matters you keep bringing up aren't under discussion.
This post was edited on 7/24/26 at 10:47 am
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:48 am to BoarEd
Sudan was a response to having to sign the AA. Sudan has signed them.
I never wrote Sudan is in the same boat, you assumed I included them based on my reply to a different statement.
I never wrote Sudan is in the same boat, you assumed I included them based on my reply to a different statement.
This post was edited on 7/24/26 at 10:52 am
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:51 am to COAUTiger
quote:
Sudan has signed them.
Sudan is nothing at all like Saudi Arabia and your analogy is terrible. Do you need it explained to you why?
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:53 am to BoarEd
I did edit my previous reply. Can you show me where I wrote that Sudan is in the same boat?
I may not have been clear but Sudan was my response to signing the AA accords.
I may not have been clear but Sudan was my response to signing the AA accords.
This post was edited on 7/24/26 at 10:54 am
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:55 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Nobody else we've ever helped has been allowed to enrich uranium domestically as part of the deal
So much anger from the hypocrite. Simmer down little man and tell me how we stopped the world's 16th producer of uranium ore from enriching it once they had the tech to do it.
quote:
You might have to use the "MIC."
Such a big daddy government boot licker. Go wash your tongue little man. The boot had dog shite on it.
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:55 am to COAUTiger
quote:
Can you show me where I wrote that Sudan is in the same boat?
You can't be serious.
Posted on 7/24/26 at 10:59 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Another lie.
We did not give them any technology that would have allowed them to enrich uranium.
Really?
quote:
History
Beginnings (1970s through the Iran-Iraq War)
Under the Shah, Iran launched a series of ambitious nuclear projects that relied on assistance from the United States and Europe. According to Akbar Etemad, the President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) from 1974 through 1978, Iran was already carrying out nuclear research and education at the University of Tehran when the NPT—of which Iran was one of the original 62 signatories—entered into force on March 5, 1970. The work centered on a five-megawatt research reactor supplied by the United States, which began operation in 1967
What does that very last sentence say.
Google is your friend little man
History of Iran's Nuclear Program
This post was edited on 7/24/26 at 11:00 am
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News