Iran Shoots Down US Drone

ejmaztec · 04-12-2011 06:09PM

SamHarris wrote: »

Second.

I also believe there are elements within the regime which believe baiting Israel into a strike will rally international support for their right to a weapon. One of the reasons a "surguical strike" is a bad idea, it practically guarantees the eventual aquisition of a weapon.

They might get a weapon, but the Israelis will probably send it to them.

SamHarris · 04-12-2011 06:12PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

They might get a weapon, but the Israelis will probably send it to them.

I think we are very very far from an actual nuclear exhange. What we are close to is a nuclearisation of every major player in the region, meaning an eventual use becomes incredibly likely.

MisterEpicurus · 04-12-2011 06:12PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

They might get a weapon, but the Israelis will probably send it to them.

Ugh, diversion to Israel again...
Every time the argument reverts back to Israel, I can't help think there is some paranoid agenda as work...

woodoo · 04-12-2011 06:13PM

Principal Skinner wrote: »

Personally I don't want any country to have nuclear weapons but I'd trust the American's a hell of a lot more than I would trust the Iranians

Take the Nukes off Israel. America can offer them complete backing as their defense. Let nobody have them in that region at all. Israel are the bully around those parts. Flattening Lebanon when the mood takes them.

RichieC · 04-12-2011 06:14PM

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Ugh, diversion to Israel again...
Every time the argument reverts back to Israel, I can't help think there is some paranoid agenda as work...

I love when people pretend that all this has nothing to do with Israel... it's so cute!

SamHarris · 04-12-2011 06:16PM

woodoo wrote: »

Take the Nukes off Israel. America can offer them complete backing as their defense. Let nobody have them in that region at all. Israel are the bully around those parts. Flattening Lebanon when the mood takes them.

Thats how the US and the Soviet Union to some extent prevented mass nuclearisation of arsenals - many nations are under the nuclear umbrella of the States. This means they have no need for their own, expensive and illegal program, as the US would be treaty bound to retlaite in kind.

You will notice it was also how massive amounts of fissile material was secured from unsafe locations, such as old bases in the Ukraine as they passed it to a more powerful state with better facilities in exchange for a guarantee no one hopes will have to be called upon.

SamHarris · 04-12-2011 06:19PM

RichieC wrote: »

I love when people pretend that all this has nothing to do with Israel... it's so cute!

I love how people are so fixated on their enormously childish anti americanism and facile analysis of the state of Israel that they can see the nuclear Iran in no other terms :rolleyes: Its so cute!

RichieC · 04-12-2011 06:21PM

SamHarris wrote: »

I love how people are so fixated on their enormously childish anti americanism and facile analysis of the state of Israel that they can see the nuclear Iran in no other terms :rolleyes: Its so cute!

Facile! yes. that is exactly how I see the argument the other way... funny that.

perhaps it is a complex issue :rolleyes:

Zebra3 · 04-12-2011 06:24PM

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I love how people assume that if you are against the Iranian Nuclear Programme, somehow that infers you support Israel.

I never assumed that.

I thought you were refering to Israel when it wanted nukes.

charlemont · 04-12-2011 06:31PM

MOSSAD wrote: »

Wonderful stuff! Sooner a nuclear device is detonated over Teheran the better.

Post direct from the horses mouth..

SamHarris · 04-12-2011 06:34PM

RichieC wrote: »

Facile! yes. that is exactly how I see the argument the other way... funny that.

perhaps it is a complex issue :rolleyes:

If you believe it is "cute" when someone believes it is more important than "if Israel has one, its only fair" then yes, I have no doubt your opinions are facile.

ejmaztec · 04-12-2011 06:35PM

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Ugh, diversion to Israel again...
Every time the argument reverts back to Israel, I can't help think there is some paranoid agenda as work...

Well, if anyone's going to Iran, Israel is. It's more a study of habits than paranoia.

Killer Pigeon · 04-12-2011 06:35PM

SamHarris wrote: »

If anyone thinks China will go to war with the US over IRan they are insane. PLain not going to happen. If they were going to they would have a PUBLIC defense treaty with Iran.

Puting aside MAD there is little or no doubt who would win such a conflict, the Chinese and Russians are well aware of this. If they dont want IRan to be attacked, regardless of their flautning of treaties they will do a hell of alot before declaring war on the US.

The MAD doctrine won't last forever. I would say the odds are very much stacked against the US & NATO in a Iran-Russia-China military alliance. Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world (thousands more than the US) and China has the largest army in the world when it comes to manpower. China alone would well be able to overrun the Middle East in a conventional non-nuclear war.

SamHarris · 04-12-2011 06:39PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

The MAD doctrine won't last forever. I would say the odds are very much stacked against the US & NATO in a Iran-Russia-China military alliance. Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world (thousands more than the US) and China has the largest army in the world when it comes to manpower. China alone would well be able to overrun the Middle East in a conventional non-nuclear war.

Very doubtful. There are indexes and methods of measuring military power.The US in conventional terms is far far beyond that of Russia or CHina, or bothe combined for that matter. With regard to having more nukes it really is irrelevant when the stockpile is still enough to destroy the enemy nations many tiems over already. Being able to nuke the US a 20 th or 30th time is superflous.

ejmaztec · 04-12-2011 06:41PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

The MAD doctrine won't last forever. I would say the odds are very much stacked against the US & NATO in a Iran-Russia-China military alliance. Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world (thousands more than the US) and China has the largest army in the world when it comes to manpower. China alone would well be able to overrun the Middle East in a conventional non-nuclear war.

The Russians fell out with the Chinese when they were both communist, and I don't think that there's much love lost between them now.

LighterGuy · 04-12-2011 07:00PM

Surprised to hear this getting shot down.
Arent they capable of flying especially high since its unmanned.

MisterEpicurus · 04-12-2011 07:01PM

Zebra3 wrote: »

I never assumed that.

I thought you were refering to Israel when it wanted nukes.

If it was misunderstood, then sincerest apologies!

But one or two others have already demonstrated my point, so it's relevant either way. :-)

RichieC · 04-12-2011 07:03PM

SamHarris wrote: »

If you believe it is "cute" when someone believes it is more important than "if Israel has one, its only fair" then yes, I have no doubt your opinions are facile.

All we know for a concrete fact is that Iran are building reactors. They are entitled to a peaceful nuclear program. I'm not rushing to agree with America again, certainly not after the dog and pony show that was the Iraq invasion and its media spin bull****e leading up to it. That's fresh in my memory.

I do not want to see another country in the middle east fall to ruin and humanitarian crisis because of a game of politics. Half the reason we are where we are right now with Iran is because of what the US and Britain done in the 40's when they overthrew an elected government and installed the Shah because they dared to nationalise their own oil. The government we see now is the result of them overthrowing that US appointed Dictator.
Can you imagine what the repercussions of a full invasion would be when we are still feeling the repercussions of something that happened in the 40's?

Do you even care..

MisterEpicurus · 04-12-2011 07:10PM

RichieC wrote: »

They are entitled to a peaceful nuclear program.

I do not want to see another country in the middle east fall to ruin and humanitarian crisis because of a game of politics.

Can you imagine what the repercussions of a full invasion would be when we are still feeling the repercussions of something that happened in the 40's?

Do you even care..

1. Yes - they are definitely entitled to a peaceful nuclear program, but have repeatedly lied to the IAEA, and it's very worrying when a backward theocracy could attain them while regarding the US as 'the great Satan', and wishing to see the ultimate destruction of Jews.

2. I'd consider Iran already in a humanitarian crisis the way law and order represses and oppresses society and women.

3. It wasn't in the 40's, it was 1953

4. Yes - I do care.

Killer Pigeon · 04-12-2011 07:13PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

The Russians fell out with the Chinese when they were both communist, and I don't think that there's much love lost between them now.

Well, why have they been engaged in military drill with each other for the past decade.

SamHarris wrote: »

Very doubtful. There are indexes and methods of measuring military power.The US in conventional terms is far far beyond that of Russia or CHina, or bothe combined for that matter.

Tell that to the Vietnamese or the Taliban.

Freddie59 · 04-12-2011 07:18PM

SamHarris wrote: »

Very doubtful. There are indexes and methods of measuring military power.The US in conventional terms is far far beyond that of Russia or CHina, or bothe combined for that matter. With regard to having more nukes it really is irrelevant when the stockpile is still enough to destroy the enemy nations many tiems over already. Being able to nuke the US a 20 th or 30th time is superflous.

Indeed. It was proven that the Yanks had way overestimated the Russians nuclear Arsenal, and were thousands of nukes ahead of them.

Freddie59 · 04-12-2011 07:20PM

woodoo wrote: »

Take the Nukes off Israel. America can offer them complete backing as their defense. Let nobody have them in that region at all. Israel are the bully around those parts. Flattening Lebanon when the mood takes them.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, the Israelis are the baddies. FFS.:rolleyes:

Freddie59 · 04-12-2011 07:21PM

woodoo wrote: »

I would have no problem with a Nuclear Iran. They wouldn't use it but it would be there as a means of standing up to the US/Israel bully-boy tactics.

Rubbish. Have you learned nothing from history? Ahmedinejad is a tyrant. His "clerics" are Nazis in frocks. It's like saying Hitler wouldn't have used a nuke.

hmmm · 04-12-2011 07:23PM

I don't believe Israel has pledged to wipe Iran off the face of the earth, yet the reverse is true. And that threat has come from a theocracy whose leaders seem more interested in achieving happiness in heaven than caring much about the living.

I mightn't be the greatest fan of Israeli politics, but they do face threats that would see their entire country and people exterminated if they ever end up on the losing side in a war. That's reason enough for them to possess nuclear weapons.

Freddie59 · 04-12-2011 07:23PM

Jaafa wrote: »

I don't think Iran will get a nuke. For the exact reason SamHarris is giving. They too understand the danger of sparking a nuclear arms race in the region. If everyone has the bomb then any advantage of them having one is nullified and your just left a very very dangerous situation.

No, I think what Iran will/has been doing is developing the know how of making a bomb, without taking that final step. It makes sense.

All the reports from the IAEA (assuming they're completely true), say Iran has tested this component or researched this aspect or enriched up to this level.
The one thing it does not say (and it can say this with reasonable certainty due to the cameras and monitors it has at the facilities), is that not one gram of nuclear material has ever been diverted from any of the facilities. In other words all the enriched materials have been used in the facilities themselves and not sent to a secret weapons program.

So while one side say's Iran will never build a nuke and the other says Iran definitely is, I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. It is developing the capability without taking the final step and the consequences that brings.

Jesus, this is hard to credit. Again no lessons taken from history. They'll develop the technology but won't use it. Like fcuk they won't.

BASHIR · 04-12-2011 07:30PM

These are not the drones you are looking for!

gigino · 04-12-2011 07:30PM

the drone stopped off at Shannon on its way to Iran and has an Irish stamp in its logbook, so Iran has its missiles pointed here now.

could'nt the yanks fly a drone without it getting compromised by the iranians ? Maybe the drone was serviced at Shannon on the way over ?

the afghans could'nt fly kites before the yanks arrived and now the yanks cant fly their drones.

Killer Pigeon · 04-12-2011 07:33PM

gigino wrote: »

the drone stopped off at Shannon on its way to Iran and has an Irish stamp in its logbook, so Iran has its missiles pointed here now.

could'nt the yanks fly a drone without it getting compromised by the iranians ? Maybe the drone was serviced at Shannon on the way over ?

the afghans could'nt fly kites before the yanks arrived and now the yanks cant fly their drones.

How do you know the drone stoned off in Shannon? And I doubt that Iran has missiles that could reach as far as Ireland.

RichieC · 04-12-2011 08:03PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Jesus, this is hard to credit. Again no lessons taken from history. They'll develop the technology but won't use it. Like fcuk they won't.

How is the Iranian regime comparable to the Nazis?

absolutely ridiculous comparison.

conorhal · 04-12-2011 08:14PM

SamHarris wrote: »

I never said anyone supported Iran, I pointed out the complete childishness of believing it has a right to it because others already have it.

Or that countries should not react to Iran getting the bomb because they do not throw themselves around the same way when allied states act the same way is childish in the extreme. It is also

Last statement is very false, if you do not believe me read a left leaning newspaper, say the Guardian then a right leaning publication and I can guarantee you the spin they put on every story concerning the region will nearly always have the same "bad guys".

So your belief is that everyone that whants one badly enough should be allowed to it? that an oppressive theocratic regime should have one because YOU believeit is purely for their own defence (again of the regime, not of the peopel an important distinction). You should run that by the CFR, your analysis is scathing.

The idea that the US cannot try and stop a nationquiring a nuclear weapon (as all reasonable evidence now points to) that routinely refers to it as "the great satan" and calls for its death because Israel flouts international law from and the US does not push for sanctions against it is

Why do I have a feeling if it were Israel seeking nuclear weapons (leaving aside the fact they probably alreadyt have them) and the Arab nations surrounding them were raising alarm bells it would be very different people protecting their "rights"?

It's the moral gymnastics of mental midgets that assume that 'my enemies enemy is my friend' that has all the yank haters rooting for the appalling vista of mad mullahs with their fingers on the button.
Such posters remind me of the idiot left wingers marching through London at an anti war protest beside a somewhat bemused looking Muslim Brotherhood waving banners that proclaimed "we're all Hamas now!", in a sick reference to Tony Blair's 9/11 speech in which he proclaimed that 'we are all New Yorkers now'.
Well trust me, your enemies enemy is not your friend (the Americans are belatedly learning this basic truth with regards Pakistan at the moment) and if you think so, it's the kind of thinking that will inevitably come back to bite you in the ass.

Iran Shoots Down US Drone

Comments