White House says Iran able to produce nuclear bomb in ‘a couple of weeks’

The Times of Israel ^

[MIA_eccl1212]

Iran WAS able to do that PERHAPS... but that is no longer.

take out the infrastructure (both technical and nuclear), take out the engineers and take out the false religion foundational leadership... and it will no longer be possible.

[Alberta's Child]

1. I’m not sure that measuring military spending as a % of GDP is an accurate way to analyze this. You’re comparing metrics over a period of time that has been defined by massive government spending in areas other than the military.

2. National defense is certainly a primary function of the federal government. But when was the last time the U.S. military was actually used for national defense?

3. The 1% interest rates you reference from Trump’s first term were limited to the COVID fiasco. The “high” 4.5% interest rates you describe are actually LOW by historical standards. And the U.S. dollar has suffered an enormous loss in purchasing power over the last several decades because nobody has any confidence that a 4.5% rate on government debt will even protect them from inflationary losses in the future.

[Angelino97]

You still can't answer a simple question.

But you certainly are dishonest, accusing me of being a Pharisee.

Modern Jews are the Pharisees. The Pharisees rejected Jesus in favor of their traditions (the Talmud) and because they wanted an earthly kingdom (earthly Israel) rather than the salvation offered by Christ.

[af_vet_1981]

But you certainly are dishonest, accusing me of being a Pharisee.

False, perhaps it is your own conscience that accuses you. I still wonder why you hate Israel and the Jews so much, which is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Philistinians tend to exhibit that behavior. Do you have a connection with Gaza or a similar area in Judea and Samaria ? or perhaps another Middle Eastern country ? Although, to be fair, antisemitism has infected Europe as well, especially Ireland. It’s like the 1930s have resurfaced.

[Angelino97]

How is it false? Every time I ask you a question, you compare me to Pharisees.

And how is it "hate" to apply the same standards to Jews and Israel as to everyone else?

No foreign aid for anyone. But that's "hate" if it's applied to Israel?

[larrytown]

Not taking that pointless bait.

The problem, as I see it, is that people need to make the standard for ANY military adventures much higher than it has been.

This idiotic rah-rah jingoism has, and is, used to sway people to support WAY too many unnecessary acts of war.

Once committed, “we have to stay the course and win” the whatever it is.

Our government has lied too many times to be followed so blindly.

[af_vet_1981]

How is it false? Every time I ask you a question, you compare me to Pharisees.

That is also false (to be fair, I did compare you to the Philistines).

Pharisees mentioned
1. https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4324117/posts?page=137#137 in scriptural text
2. https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4324117/posts?page=137#137 in scriptural text
3. https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4324117/posts?page=160#160 in scriptural context where the comparison was to "Philistines and their supporters."
4. Philistines and their supporters in scriptural text
5. https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4324117/posts?page=173#173 in scriptural context for the reason the Pharisees and Sadduccess questioned Jesus
6. By contrast, Angelino97 literally claimed Modern Jews are the Pharisees. thereby exhibiting his hatred for Israel and the Jews contrary to Catholic Church teaching.

[Angelino97]

Angelino97 literally claimed Modern Jews are the Pharisees.

Well they are.

The Pharisees...

1. Rejected Christ in favor of their traditions (the Talmud).

2. Rejected Christ because they were waiting for an earthly Kingdom (earthly Israel).

3. Thought that their bloodline made them special in the eyes of God. (Something that both John the Baptist (Matthew 3:9) and Peter (Acts 10:34) specifically refuted).

Modern Jews reject Christ, revere the Talmud, seek an earthly Israel, and believe their Jewish bloodline makes them special.

How is Modern Judaism not Pharisaic Judaism? All the key theological elements are matched.

You think the Pharisees just disappeared after the fall of the temple in 70 A.D.? No. The Pharisees are the roots of Talmudic/Rabbinical Judaism.

[af_vet_1981]

It is ugly to see your hatred for the Jews. It is typical of Philistinians. It does not conform to Catholic teaching and thus you have no moral authority on Free Republic to represent Catholics.

[Angelino97]

You sound like a leftist.

You answer no questions.

You ignore my arguments and just shout "hate, hate, hate."

How about you respond to what I've actually said?

[Angelino97]

That the Pharisees are the foundation of Modern Judaism is not even controversial.

Here's what AI Assist says:

"Modern Judaism is largely based on the traditions and beliefs of the Pharisees, who became the foundational source for Rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD. Their emphasis on the Oral Law and interpretation of Jewish texts continues to influence mainstream Jewish practices today."

An excerpt from Historact's philo-Semitic article on the Pharisees:

"The Pharisees are often viewed in a positive light within modern Jewish thought, as their teachings and practices form the foundation of contemporary Judaism."

An excerpt from The Bible Stories:

"The Pharisees, a prominent Jewish sect during the Second Temple period, have left an indelible mark on modern Judaism, particularly through their emphasis on oral traditions and interpretations of the Torah. This influence is most notably encapsulated in the development of the Talmud, which serves as a foundational text for Rabbinic Judaism."

[dforest]

🤣

Lets ask George what he thinks.

[dforest]

He needs to be inserted in that pic that has Obama standing in the ruins of a burning America that says “My job is done here”.

[dforest]

You should be embarrassed with that tagline because you are way overboard in the 💩posting.

[dforest]

LOL

[cowboyusa]

I don’t take anything you post seriously any more. Belive what you want, en pace resquiescat

[BroJoeK]

Chipper quoting: “1992: As a parliamentarian, Netanyahu warned the Israeli Knesset that Iran was “three to five years” away from developing nuclear weapons, urging an international coalition led by the U.S. to “uproot” the threat.”

You're right that Netanyahu's first warnings about Iran's nuclear ambitions came in the 1990s (not the 1980s), and that he claimed then Iran was "3 to 5 years away" from a nuclear weapon.
I remember, American media also warned of Iran's nuclear ambitions during the 1990s, but instead of "3 to 5 years", our reports at that time said "10 to 15 years".

Around 2010, the joint US-Israeli Stuxnet computer virus delayed Iran's timeline by at least two more years.

So, nobody has disputed that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, and estimates of how close they were to building a bomb have steadily decreased over the years.

And your problem with this is what, exactly?

[MIA_eccl1212]

I am not chipper.

I think Iran’s Islamist leadership needed to have their idol worship of nukes... disrupted. I think the threat was imminent and that now it is significantly degraded...

decimated would be the wrong word as that implies the threat or structure to produce it was reduced by an increment of 10 percent.

I think the physical foundational AND the intellectual aspect of their ‘programme’ has been eliminated. The religious/political whack job concept of pursuing it... not so much. We can leave that up to the Persians and the Israeli’s... is my current assumption.

[BroJoeK]

Alberta's Child: "1. I’m not sure that measuring military spending as a % of GDP is an accurate way to analyze this.
You’re comparing metrics over a period of time that has been defined by massive government spending in areas other than the military."

Well...

1. Military spending as a % of GDP is the only way to analyze it since, over time, everything else changes, but the national effort required (% of GDP) to support the military can be compared over decades and even centuries.

2. Such comparisons show that we are currently (pre-Trump) near or at the lowest levels of defense spending since 1940.

3. None of your "massive government spending" is expressly authorized by the US Constitution or necessary for national survival.
   National defense is both -- it's the first and most important requirement of all national governments.

So, unlike everything else government does, the first question in national defense is not, "how much can we afford", but rather, "how much do we need".

Alberta's Child: "2. National defense is certainly a primary function of the federal government.
But when was the last time the U.S. military was actually used for national defense?"

Sure, you might easily argue that the last time the US fought a war for "national defense" was 213 years ago, the War of 1812 -- which began with a US declaration of war against Britain and our immediate invasion of Canada, but only ended after the Brits invaded Michigan (Detroit), Illinois (Chicago), upstate New York (Buffalo & Lake Champlain), Chesapeake Bay, shelled Baltimore, burned Washington, attacked Mobile Alabama and New Orleans.
That was true national defense, and we didn't like it one bit, so all our foreign wars since 1812 have been "away games".

That makes the question: do you want to go back to fighting wars against foreign invaders, or might it be better to keep our defensive lines further from our own borders?

Alberta's Child: "3. The 1% interest rates you reference from Trump’s first term were limited to the COVID fiasco.
The “high” 4.5% interest rates you describe are actually LOW by historical standards. "

No, interest rates on US national debt are based in Federal Funds rates, which during Pres. Trump's first term (2017-2020) averaged around 1.5%, even before Covid reduced them to less than 0.5%.
Today those rates are about 4.5% which makes interest on the national debt over $1 trillion.

If Federal Funds rates are reduced back to the previous 1.5% average, it would reduce interest payments on the national debt by over $650 billion.

That's what I'm talking about.

[Alberta's Child]

1. Military spending as a % of GDP is a pointless measure to make comparisons across decades. The reason for this is that a huge portion of the growth in GDP in my lifetime has involved business transactions for things that people used to do themselves. I think of how much money is being spent these days on things that didn't even exist in my circle of family and friends when I was a kid -- like day care, landscapers, school lunches, a whole boatload of pharmaceutical products that serve no real function, etc. These are all counted in the nation's GDP today, but in reality they don't represent much of a positive growth of any kind (and in some cases, I'd make the case that they reflect NEGATIVE trends).

2. You could make the case that military campaigns in North America post-1814 involved the acquisition and protection of territories that would otherwise be subject to predation by European powers. At least the U.S. added states and territories as a result of its military ventures long after 1814 -- which it hasn't done in my lifetime.

3. No, interest rates on US national debt are based in Federal Funds rates, which during Pres. Trump's first term (2017-2020) averaged around 1.5%, even before Covid reduced them to less than 0.5%. This is absolutely, 100% incorrect. Interest rates on U.S. government debt are based on the rates investors demand for buying U.S. Treasury bills. This is usually a large gap between these rates and the Federal Funds rate. In rare cases (like mid-2024 before the Federal Reserve cut rates late in the year) the Federal Funds rate is actually higher than U.S. Treasury rates, but for most of the time the U.S. Treasury rates are higher. The Federal Reserve could cut its rates to almost 0% tomorrow, and that will have no impact on the interest rate for our national debt because there aren't enough retards out there who would be willing to buy government bonds that offer a 0% return on their investment.