Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A definition of IranyFollow

#102 Dec 08 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Cat,

Quote:
If Obama "gave" it to them: It's a trojan horse. As soon as they "hacked" the honeypot trap (oh so juicy) and "took control" of the drone, they got a fresh dose of Stuxnet II on their entire internal IT network and they'll be battling it for years.

Actually, that's a brilliant plan


Great plan that people might actually believe were Obama not so sympathetic towards muslims.



So what if he was.



Quote:
also, it was recently discovered that China has been in our government and defense systems for years without us knowing it. Who knows how much info they managed to pull from us.



Um to be fair they likely own that network, I mean you owe them a lot of money.

Edited, Dec 8th 2011 4:44pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#103 Dec 08 2011 at 9:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,805 posts
They got the entire thing intact? Oh geez. Someone must have transposed a coordinate for the failsafe landing spot and ended up with one that was in or near Iran. It looks like one of the wings took a hit on landing, but not very hard. Elevation would have likely been within tolerance for it to automatically land on sensors regardless. since it thought it was landing in a "safe" location, the computers are probably intact too. God damn it so very much. Argh.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#104 Dec 08 2011 at 10:21 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,425 posts
Quote:
With early knowledge that the aircraft had likely remained intact, the senior U.S. official also told Fox News that President Obama was presented with three separate options for retrieving or destroying the drone. The president ultimately decided not to proceed with any of the plans because it could have been seen as an act of war, the official told Fox News.
Among the options the U.S. considered were sending in a special-ops team to retrieve the drone; sending in a team to blow up the aircraft; and launching an airstrike to destroy it.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/08/iranian-tv-airs-purported-images-downed-us-drone/?test=latestnews

Ok, that irks me a bit. We can go into Pakistan without their knowledge to kill someone, but we can't go into Iran to destroy technology that is likely going to end up in China's hands? Sorry, but there's something wrong with this picture
#105 Dec 08 2011 at 10:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
pakistan is an ally, iran is not.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#106 Dec 08 2011 at 10:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,425 posts
So it's ok to conduct unauthorized raids on allies, but not people who aren't?
#107 Dec 08 2011 at 10:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
yes when your ally is harboring an enemy you told the world 10 years earlier that you would get, and told the world that if your harbor these people that the US and Coalition of the Willing will come get them.

If he was in Canada id fully expect the US to do the same. I also wouldn't have a problem with it as a freedom loving citizen. (don't get me wrong I fell GWB should be up on war charges too.)

Edited, Dec 8th 2011 11:47pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#108 Dec 08 2011 at 11:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,425 posts
Lets completely ignore the fact that anyone who gets the communication and satellite info from that drone can potentially compromise our entire drone fleet.

Instead, lets ponder what's going to happen when Iran points their new toy at Israel.
#109 Dec 08 2011 at 11:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Wall Street Journal, to its credit, spent more time explaining the decision and less time trying to make president look bad.
WSJ wrote:
U.S. officials considered conducting a covert mission inside Iran to retrieve or destroy a stealth drone that crashed late last week, but ultimately concluded such a secret operation wasn't worth the risk of provoking a more explosive clash with Tehran, a U.S. official said.
[...]
Initially, officials in Washington didn't believe Iran had detected the drone crash.

The stealth drone was developed for the Air Force, but was flying under the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency when its remote pilots lost control of it late last week, said several U.S. officials.

The officials considered various options for retrieving the wreckage of the RQ-170 drone.

Under one plan, a team would be sent to retrieve the aircraft. U.S. officials considered both sending in a team of American commandos based in Afghanistan as well as using allied agents inside Iran to hunt down the downed aircraft.

Another option would have had a team sneak in to blow up the remaining pieces of the drone. A third option would have been to destroy the wreckage with an airstrike.

However, the officials worried that any option for retrieving or destroying the drone would have risked discovery by Iran.

"No one warmed up to the option of recovering it or destroying it because of the potential it could become a larger incident," the U.S. official said.

If an assault team entered the country to recover or destroy the drone, the official said, the U.S. "could be accused of an act of war" by the Iranian government.

Some officials argued in private meetings that because the drone crashed in a remote part of eastern Iran, it might never be discovered, and therefore, leaving the remains where they were could be the safest option.


Rao wrote:
We can go into Pakistan without their knowledge to kill someone

We (A) Send Pakistan a crapton of money and (B) Know that Pakistan won't be declaring war on us due to (A).

Edited, Dec 8th 2011 11:25pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#110 Dec 08 2011 at 11:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,805 posts
I guess they figured since they already gave away our stealth helicopter tail, might as well give them the engine and sensor package too huh. Well, either china or russia is about to catch up on 10 years of stealth and drone powerplant research overnight. We're going to have to give china an entire ford class carrier to top that one on their wish list.

I stand by my "you stupid bastards, you've killed us all" comment.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#111 Dec 09 2011 at 8:24 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
yes when your ally is harboring an enemy you told the world 10 years earlier that you would get, and told the world that if your harbor these people that the US and Coalition of the Willing will come get them.

With friends like these...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#112varusword75, Posted: Dec 09 2011 at 8:57 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Kao,
#113 Dec 09 2011 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Varrus wrote:

So Obama's solution is to pretend it never happened. Some leadership.


Well when your options are that or start a fucking WAR...

He chose correct.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 10:26am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#114 Dec 09 2011 at 9:27 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,157 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Well when your options are that or start a fucking WAR...
Consider who you speak to. The professional German Basketball team's girly towel boy isn't the one that has to actually deal with it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#115 Dec 09 2011 at 11:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,805 posts
Peace in our time with Iran eh?
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#116varusword75, Posted: Dec 09 2011 at 12:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Omega,
#117 Dec 09 2011 at 12:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,198 posts
Man, this whole episode screams fail
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#118 Dec 09 2011 at 3:03 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Omega,

Quote:
Well when your options are that or start a @#%^ing WAR...


I would say Iranians keeping our drone was the act to start a war; not sending in an air strike to take out our lost tech.

However, once again you're assuming it landed into irans hands by mistake.




Your spy technology being in thier airspace is enough to warrant Iran to take an offensive. Regardless of the reason for it being there it was there. Unless you believe Iran saying that they shot it down (in one piece) or that it was hijacked, but such can be the fate of things that aren't supposed to exist.

I am of the belief that the US had its hands in the cookie jar and got caught. I don't believe that the military happened to lose contact over Iran and has no clue why the drone was lost. They were spying and got caught. It happens.

There is no pretense to go to war, and if anyone does have pretense it is likely Iran.

and because it was mentioned earlier in this thread. (russia)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHGUpxtfcoc

(i dont know how to embed video's sorry)


Edited, Dec 9th 2011 4:03pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#119 Dec 09 2011 at 3:06 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,258 posts
Quote:
So Obama's solution is to pretend it never happened. Some leadership.


I'm not sure what you're expecting here. Is he supposed to go on tv and make an address any time anything of any sort happens?

Quote:
I would say Iranians keeping our drone was the act to start a war; not sending in an air strike to take out our lost tech.


Of course its an action that could justify a war if anyone actually wanted that(better than the justification for Iraq), but it's not the best of reasons(not even remotely close). Why should war be anything other than a last resort? Leave it to someone with no military experience or knowledge of military and political history to think that such a thing should be an easy course of action to undertake.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#120 Dec 09 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Varrus wrote:

So Obama's solution is to pretend it never happened. Some leadership.


Well when your options are that or start a fucking WAR...

He chose correct.


No. He chose incorrectly. Conflict with Iran is nearly inevitable at this point. Assuming we actually don't want them to be able to build nukes that is. Obama was just handed a gift wrapped situation which might have allowed us the justification to actually do something about Iran's nuclear program if handled correctly (hell, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the CIA accident wasn't quite so accidental for exactly that reason). He blinked.

What he just did was show Iran that he is unwilling to even risk an action which might lead to escalating conflict between the US and Iran. You seriously don't see how this is a problem in light of the larger foreign policy issues?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#121 Dec 09 2011 at 3:48 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
No. He chose incorrectly. Conflict with Iran is nearly inevitable at this point. Assuming we actually don't want them to be able to build nukes that is.


LOL the US can't afford another stupid war. A War with Iran is idiotic. If you want to fight Iran put pressure on Israel to do it. Haven't done anything worthwhile for the west (other than hollywood) anyway. Let them fight their own fight. The only reason Iran wants nukes is because Israel has them. Personally I say let them have their cake. Or let Israel stop them, they are the only ones really threatened by nuclear Iran anyway.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#122 Dec 09 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
No. He chose incorrectly. Conflict with Iran is nearly inevitable at this point. Assuming we actually don't want them to be able to build nukes that is.


LOL the US can't afford another stupid war. A War with Iran is idiotic. If you want to fight Iran put pressure on Israel to do it. Haven't done anything worthwhile for the west (other than hollywood) anyway. Let them fight their own fight. The only reason Iran wants nukes is because Israel has them. Personally I say let them have their cake. Or let Israel stop them, they are the only ones really threatened by nuclear Iran anyway.


You can't be this naive. Actually, strike that. I think you can. The point isn't specifically to go to war with Iran, but to force *them* to make a decision to do so or let us get away with getting our drone back. If they choose war, then we toss some airstrikes their way, just happen to blast their nuclear production sites to the stone age, then ask them if they want another round. If they back off, we get our drone back.


What Obama just did was give it to them for free. It was a mistake.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#123 Dec 09 2011 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,157 posts
gbaji wrote:
If they choose war, then we toss some airstrikes their way, just happen to blast their nuclear production sites to the stone age, then ask them if they want another round.
D'aww, speaking of naivety.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#124 Dec 09 2011 at 5:55 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
If they choose war, then we toss some airstrikes their way, just happen to blast their nuclear production sites to the stone age, then ask them if they want another round. If they back off, we get our drone back.


Tommy Franks called he wants his Iraq war strategy back.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#125 Dec 09 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
If they choose war, then we toss some airstrikes their way, just happen to blast their nuclear production sites to the stone age, then ask them if they want another round. If they back off, we get our drone back.


Tommy Franks called he wants his Iraq war strategy back.


There are significant specific differences between the two cases, but whatever you think of the process, the fact does remain that Iraq is no longer working on building/developing/whatever any form of WMD. Not saying the same approach applies to Iran, but then I'm not the one who made the comparison.

The broader point though, is that if we'd done "something" to try to get that drone back, the worst case is that we invoke some sort of conflict with Iran. Remember that "conflict" does not necessarily mean full fledged war. Iran would have to decide what response it wanted to bring, and the reality is that we could destroy their air power, air defense, ground forces, and command/control centers without too much more effort than that expended in the "non-war" we engaged in Libya.

In the grand scheme of "bad things that could happen", getting into such a conflict with Iran now is far far from the top of the list.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 4:05pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#126 Dec 09 2011 at 6:04 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
you obviously don't know who Tommy Franks is or why I made the comment but that's ok.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#127 Dec 09 2011 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
you obviously don't know who Tommy Franks is or why I made the comment but that's ok.


I know who Tommy Franks is. And I assume you made the comment because you thought that tossing out a name you googled would make it appear like you had some kind of intelligent point to make. So go ahead. What point are you making? Because from here it looks like you're just trying to use some kind of vaguely stated commonality in order to draw on emotional responses related to the war in Iraq in lieu of actually addressing the specifics of the situation at hand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#128 Dec 09 2011 at 6:11 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Actually the point I was making was that the US airforce used massive airstrikes in Iraq to destroy the militaries infrastructure. That worked out real well for the War there eh. Also the ironic part of the hole thing, a war started on (false) pretense of Iraqi WMD's resulted in the ability for Iraq to now legally acquire and manufacture WMD's.

Now that is an epic war strategy.


and here I thought you were a critically logical thinker.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 7:12pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#129 Dec 09 2011 at 6:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Actually the point I was making was that the US airforce used massive airstrikes in Iraq to destroy the militaries infrastructure. That worked out real well for the War there eh.


Yeah. It did. Or are you arguing we'd have had less problems in Iraq if we had not used airstrikes first?


Quote:
and here I thought you were a critically logical thinker.


Yes. Which means you test the conditions you're looking at. Like say asking "Would the ground campaign in Iraq have been more or less successful if we hadn't used airstrikes to destroy much of their military infrastructure first?". Then, you might even follow it up with "Had we chosen to invade in that way, instead of the way we did, would it have had any effect on the years afterwards, insurgent problems, road side bombs, etc?".

I don't think it's hard to conclude that absent airstrikes, the ground campaign would have been much tougher, with far higher US casualties during that phase of the war *and* that not using those airstrikes would have had no effect at all on the insurgencies and other problems we encountered after the ground war was complete and Iraq's military forces were defeated. Of course, that's just my opinion, but I think it's a reasonable one, and it's one which makes me wonder why the hell you even brought the subject up.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#130 Dec 09 2011 at 6:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Actually the point I was making was that the US airforce used massive airstrikes in Iraq to destroy the militaries infrastructure. That worked out real well for the War there eh. Also the ironic part of the hole thing, a war started on (false) pretense of Iraqi WMD's resulted in the ability for Iraq to now legally acquire and manufacture WMD's.

Now that is an epic war strategy.


and here I thought you were a critically logical thinker.


Oh! Let me also observe that this post is nowhere near actually "making a point". Stringing together a set of sarcastic comments isn't making a point. Perhaps you can try again? Because I'm still mystified where you're trying to go with this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#131 Dec 09 2011 at 7:11 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
Yeah. It did. Or are you arguing we'd have had less problems in Iraq if we had not used airstrikes first?


Shouldn't have bothered to go at all was it worth the estimated 3 trillion dollar hit to the US economy?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#132 Dec 09 2011 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Yeah. It did. Or are you arguing we'd have had less problems in Iraq if we had not used airstrikes first?


Shouldn't have bothered to go at all was it worth the estimated 3 trillion dollar hit to the US economy?


Ok. But that's a completely different question. I was talking about airstrikes alone against Iran, not an invasion/occupation. You compared that to airstrikes in the leadup to the war in Iraq, but apparently you weren't really talking about the airstrikes themselves, but the war and occupation in Iraq, even though I wasn't talking about the same sort of thing at all.


See how critical thinking helps us cut through the BS? If you'd used it yourself, you could have avoided talking about the airstrikes and directly talked about whether I was proposing some sort of ground war and/or invasion of Iraq, and we could have saved several posts of me having to practically drag your point out of you.

Oh. And btw: We're talking about options and scenarios in Iran. Not whether you or I think that Iraq was worth the effort/cost. Try to stay on target here.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 5:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#133 Dec 09 2011 at 7:44 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
I agree with gbaji that this would have been a great opportunity to force Iran's hand, instigating them into action that would lead to retaliation. And forget about Franks, the one we should be taking advice from is Vizzini.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#134 Dec 09 2011 at 7:46 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
You compared that to airstrikes in the leadup to the war in Iraq


The Airstrikes were initially done to have Iraq just give up and hand over their "WMD's". Kinda like coercing Iran into handing over your toy.

When Iraq said no we are going to fight you, then you occupied the country. When Iran says no we are going to fight you, you going to occupy them too?. The US have 3 Trillion that it can spend on another decade long war.

Like I said your country can't afford an encounter with Iran, so get Israel to do it. Again they are the only country that is really threatened by a Nuclear Iran.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#135 Dec 09 2011 at 7:46 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,157 posts
Yeah, we should never have gotten involved with land wars in Asia. Smiley: mad
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#136 Dec 09 2011 at 8:25 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
You compared that to airstrikes in the leadup to the war in Iraq


The Airstrikes were initially done to have Iraq just give up and hand over their "WMD's". Kinda like coercing Iran into handing over your toy.

When Iraq said no we are going to fight you, then you occupied the country. When Iran says no we are going to fight you, you going to occupy them too?. The US have 3 Trillion that it can spend on another decade long war.

Like I said your country can't afford an encounter with Iran, so get Israel to do it. Again they are the only country that is really threatened by a Nuclear Iran.

Note I didn't specify that *we* (the US) had to retaliate. Though we could probably be convinced to lend some support. And if Israel gets involved in a war with Iran, maybe they'll stop screwing around with the Palestinians for awhile.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#137 Dec 09 2011 at 8:39 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
You compared that to airstrikes in the leadup to the war in Iraq


The Airstrikes were initially done to have Iraq just give up and hand over their "WMD's". Kinda like coercing Iran into handing over your toy.


You have it wrong on both counts. The goal of the airstrikes during the leadup to the invasion of Iraq was to destroy their air defenses, command and control, and ground forces in preparation of our attack. We had already committed ourselves to invasion before we started the air campaign. We did not bomb them a few times and then demand they turn over WMDs, then attack when they refused. You are just plain wrong.

Similarly, I did not speak of air strikes as a means to force Iran to turn over the drone. I said we should have gone in immediately with sufficient force to recover or destroy the drone. What that force was made up of could be anything from air power alone (destroy the drone), to combined air ground (attempt to recover, destroy if you can't). My comment about airstrikes was to say what we could do *if* Iran decided to take our provocation as an act of war and do something about it.

We don't have to land in Iran or invade them. We can just bomb the hell out of them. My point is that had Obama played this right, he could have used the drone as an excuse to launch an "attack" into Iran to recover/destroy the drone, then challenge Iran to do something about it. If Iran doesn't then they lose face and we win a point in the foreign policy game (and they don't get the drone). If they do, then we can use that as an excuse to escalate into airstrikes against their nuclear program facilities (and they don't get the drone).

I thought I was pretty clear about this when I first wrote it. How the hell did you get things so backwards? Maybe stop smoking pot?

Quote:
When Iraq said no we are going to fight you, then you occupied the country. When Iran says no we are going to fight you, you going to occupy them too?.


No. We take or destroy the drone without asking their permission. If they do anything tangible about it, we escalate to airstrikes. Why the hell would we invade and occupy Iran? My whole point about air power was that we don't have to get involved in an expensive ground war with Iran. We can, with sufficient provocation/excuse, just bomb the hell out of them with out spending significantly more money than we spent in Libya. Again, how the hell did you misunderstand what I was talking about? Why would you assume any part of the goal here would be to invade Iran?

Quote:
Like I said your country can't afford an encounter with Iran, so get Israel to do it. Again they are the only country that is really threatened by a Nuclear Iran.


Israel *can't* do it. Not on their own (or without massive military aid from us, at which point the distinction is silly). And if you can't see how more than just Israel are threatened by Iranian nuclear weapons, then I'm not sure how I can lay a string of bread crumbs for you clear enough to see.

Let's apply that critical thinking again, shall we? Let's pretend that since Israel is the only country threatened by a nuclear Iran, no one else steps in and helps. Let's assume that Iran gets the bomb. Let's pretend that Iran hands a bomb to some operatives, who smuggle it into Syria, where it ends out in the hands of a Hezbolla attack group, who detonate it in Tel Aviv. What the hell do you think happens next? How many countries get involved at that point? Do we just continue to sit at home, smoking our pot, and say "sucks to be Israel"?


If you have any answer other than "we'd just sit by and let Iran blow Israel up without acting", then doesn't it make some sense to find a way to do something *now* when nuclear weapons are not on the table, than to wait until then, when anything we do is hindered by the very real fact that we'd be dealing with a nuclear armed state? I honestly didn't think I had to spell this out so clearly for you. I figured most people understood already why "nuclear armed Iran" is a really really really bad thing we need to avoid at all costs. There is no indication that the current leadership and likely future leadership of Iran would think twice about using a nuke on Israel if they had the chance. They wouldn't launch it directly, of course, but you aren't thinking very clearly if you don't see the obvious method they would use.


And btw. Said method works just as well against the US. Actually, it could work *better*. We have a far more porous border and far less stringent import inspection process than Israel does. Israel has been dealing with terrorists attempting to sneak bombs into their country to blow people up for over half a century. We have not.


Preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is an absolute necessity for the US. Obama was just handed a perfect opportunity to use this accident to possibly (depending on Iranian response) do something about it. It was a win-win situation. We get away with our provocation (and keep the drone out of their hands) *or* we get the drone out their hands and get an excuse to set their nuclear program back some more. This is why his choice was the wrong one. I'm not sure what the hell he was thinking.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 6:42pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#138 Dec 09 2011 at 8:59 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
Do we just continue to sit at home, smoking our pot, and say "sucks to be Israel"


Thats what I will be doing. Then again I thinl being allies with Israel and rushing to back them up all the time is stupid, also I @#%^ing hate the country of Israel. (read country of Israel, not its people, just like I hate the USA). mAlso the destruction of Israel has no impact on the successes or failures of the USA. Dunno why you would want to defend a country who makes their own bed but refuse to sleep in it.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 10:01pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#139 Dec 09 2011 at 9:12 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
I would think that any actions in the immediate future (read, the next five years or so) would not be nuclear in nature; any actions Iran could take now would be conventional in nature and would not result in the immediate irradiation of Israel.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#140 Dec 09 2011 at 9:52 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
oh well guess ill put this scotch back in the cellar then.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#141 Dec 09 2011 at 10:25 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
oh well guess ill put this scotch back in the cellar then.

Well, let's not be so hasty. Is it anything special?

Oh, hell with it. I drink Jack so it wouldn't matter, just pass it over.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#142 Dec 09 2011 at 11:09 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
nothing super special just some Johnnie Walker I got a few years back when I finished college.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#143 Dec 10 2011 at 12:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:
The broader point though, is that if we'd done "something" to try to get that drone back, the worst case is that we invoke some sort of conflict with Iran. Remember that "conflict" does not necessarily mean full fledged war. Iran would have to decide what response it wanted to bring, and the reality is that we could destroy their air power, air defense, ground forces, and command/control centers without too much more effort than that expended in the "non-war" we engaged in Libya.

In the grand scheme of "bad things that could happen", getting into such a conflict with Iran now is far far from the top of the list.


I'll support a war with Iran if we let the Bush tax cuts expire in order to pay for it. You agree, right?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#144 Dec 10 2011 at 1:44 AM Rating: Decent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,160 posts
Debalic wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
oh well guess ill put this scotch back in the cellar then.

Well, let's not be so hasty. Is it anything special?

Oh, hell with it. I drink Jack so it wouldn't matter, just pass it over.


JD isn't even whisky, it's a bourbon.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#145 Dec 10 2011 at 6:33 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Debalic wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
oh well guess ill put this scotch back in the cellar then.

Well, let's not be so hasty. Is it anything special?

Oh, hell with it. I drink Jack so it wouldn't matter, just pass it over.


JD isn't even whisky, it's a bourbon.

Bourbon is only made in Kentucky. Jack is made in Tennessee.
#146 Dec 10 2011 at 7:27 AM Rating: Excellent
g-unit wrote:
No. He chose incorrectly. Conflict with Iran is nearly inevitable at this point. Assuming we actually don't want them to be able to build nukes that is. Obama was just handed a gift wrapped situation which might have allowed us the justification to actually do something about Iran's nuclear program if handled correctly (hell, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the CIA accident wasn't quite so accidental for exactly that reason). He blinked.
How is Iran taking down one of our spy drones an act of aggression on their part? You are conflating two separate issues. If the Iranian nuclear situation warrants a war, then it warrants a war. We have absolutely no business starting a war just because they took out a spy drone. I know some people may find this hard to believe, but the US isn't some sort of global police that has a right to just do whatever the fuck it wants. Other countries, even ones that we don't like, do kinda have a right to protect their interests.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for us sending in drones and keeping an eye on them, but we really shouldn't be shocked because they might have a problem with it and do something about it.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#147 Dec 10 2011 at 8:52 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Debalic wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
oh well guess ill put this scotch back in the cellar then.

Well, let's not be so hasty. Is it anything special?

Oh, hell with it. I drink Jack so it wouldn't matter, just pass it over.


JD isn't even whisky, it's a bourbon.

Bourbon is still a kind of whiskey, as is scotch.

Edited, Dec 10th 2011 9:53am by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#148 Dec 10 2011 at 8:56 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
g-unit wrote:
No. He chose incorrectly. Conflict with Iran is nearly inevitable at this point. Assuming we actually don't want them to be able to build nukes that is. Obama was just handed a gift wrapped situation which might have allowed us the justification to actually do something about Iran's nuclear program if handled correctly (hell, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the CIA accident wasn't quite so accidental for exactly that reason). He blinked.
How is Iran taking down one of our spy drones an act of aggression on their part? You are conflating two separate issues. If the Iranian nuclear situation warrants a war, then it warrants a war. We have absolutely no business starting a war just because they took out a spy drone. I know some people may find this hard to believe, but the US isn't some sort of global police that has a right to just do whatever the fuck it wants. Other countries, even ones that we don't like, do kinda have a right to protect their interests.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for us sending in drones and keeping an eye on them, but we really shouldn't be shocked because they might have a problem with it and do something about it.

The point is taunting Iran into making the first move, before their nuclear program is complete, then justifying a retaliation.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#149 Dec 10 2011 at 9:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
Debalic wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Debalic wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
oh well guess ill put this scotch back in the cellar then.

Well, let's not be so hasty. Is it anything special?

Oh, hell with it. I drink Jack so it wouldn't matter, just pass it over.


JD isn't even whisky, it's a bourbon.

Bourbon is still a kind of whiskey, as is scotch.

Edited, Dec 10th 2011 9:53am by Debalic

Oh, I know. Just stating that true bourbon is made in KY, and the rest of that crap can be made anywhere.
#150 Dec 10 2011 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji wrote:
Obama was just handed a gift wrapped situation which might have allowed us the justification to actually do something about Iran's nuclear program if handled correctly (hell, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the CIA accident wasn't quite so accidental for exactly that reason).

So your theory is that the CIA, without Obama's foreknowledge or permission, intentionally lost a top secret drone in Iran in order to provoke Obama pulling the United States into a war with Iran and... you're crying about Obama not going for this insanely illegal act?

Holy hell. You conservatives are all sorts of fucked up.

Edited, Dec 10th 2011 10:09am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 Dec 10 2011 at 10:13 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Debalic wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
oh well guess ill put this scotch back in the cellar then.

Well, let's not be so hasty. Is it anything special?

Oh, hell with it. I drink Jack so it wouldn't matter, just pass it over.


JD isn't even whisky, it's a bourbon.

Bourbon is still a kind of whiskey, as is scotch.

Edited, Dec 10th 2011 9:53am by Debalic

Oh, I know. Just stating that true bourbon is made in KY, and the rest of that crap can be made anywhere.


As a fan of various whiskeys I would have to say Rye is the best. But Ill take a glass of Eagle anytime too.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CDT
Demoncard, Anonymous Guests (53)