JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,981
- 3,318
- 126
hahahahaaaaa....yeah right....it`s easy to make a general blanket statement with no proof......
hahahahaaaaa....yeah right....it`s easy to make a general blanket statement with no proof......
Once we're out of Iraq & Afghanistan? What makes you think that can happen if the Iranians start meddling there in earnest?
It'd be like Br'er Rabbit punching the tarbaby.
Not to mention the reaction of countries like Egypt, Libya & Tunisia who are experiencing transitions in their govts, along with Hezbollah & Syria.
Attacking the Iranians has utterly incalculable consequences & no real exit strategy, which is why even the Bushistas weren't that stupid.
The smartest thing any American Admin could possibly do would be to strike a grand bargain with the Iranians, leave the Israelis and the Saudis gasping for air. It'd undercut the Iranians' own hard liners completely, open up trade with the largest & most socially advanced country in the region, other than Israel, who wouldn't really have a choice in the matter. It's like Nixon's opening to China.
irishScott
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,568
- 3
- 0
Well our supply lines into Afghanistan run through Pakistan, and our lines into Iraq via Saudi Arabia, and the 5th fleet controls the Gulf. Barring unlikely interference from Pakistan, nothing much would happen.
And what the hell would Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt do about it? Keep in mind that most Arab nations don't want Iran to get nukes. They may make some token objections, but behind the scenes they'd be thanking us.
Now you're being deliberately obtuse. First you predicate we can attack Iran with impunity when we disengage ourselves from Iraq & Afghanistan, as if we've already done that. We haven't, not by a longshot. When I point out that the Iranians can effectively prevent that, you shift to talking about supply lines, as if we're really interested in a much more protracted war in the region. We're not.
It's clear that we want out, and drawing the Iranians into it certainly won't hasten the time, nor will it really enhance the peace & security of our Israeli friends, either.
The Neocon vision of American exceptionalism & world hegemony via military means has already failed. Get used to it. Calibrate your headset accordingly- tune it to reality.
irishScott
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,568
- 3
- 0
Hahahaha. Are you Lemon Law and Craig234's bastard child? I'm not a Neocon by any stretch of the definition (although your definition of neocon seems to be "anyone who disagrees with me"), nor am I advocating a preemptive strike on Iran. I'm simply saying that we could do so successfully with relatively minimal repercussions. Tactically Iran can barely scratch us, unless they get viable nukes.
If you haven't figured it out yet, the US isn't really interested in "victory" in Iraq or Afghanistan at this point. If we were we wouldn't be pulling out at all and would have had multiple new surges by this point. The wars are mini-Vietnams and we want out, with just enough "success" to save political face and maybe kick the terrorism can down the road for a few years. Iran cannot effectively stop an egress from Afghanistan or Iraq. Especially Iraq, given many Iraqis' attitudes towards Iranians.
And for the record, American exceptionalism is self evident. We're not perfect by a long shot, but I know given the choice I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. We are the world's largest economy and have the most powerful military in the history of the world; and have sustained said statuses for decades. Our higher education system is the best in the world. Our healthcare, for all its faults, still beats out those of many of our supposed "competitors" such as China, by a large margin. We are to date the only nation to land on the freaking moon. Obviously these are traits befitting only the most lowly of nations.
Yes one day it's bound to end as everything eventually does, doesn't mean it's wrong to take pride in the present.
Last edited:
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be dishonest JEDIY, the USA and more so Israel are on record that a strike on Iran is an option on the table. And the USA and Israel have recently held joint military exercises as a dress rehearsal of such a bomb Iran option.
But point granted JEDIY, those that are rational in the US and Iran, realize the downsides of a per-empive strike on Iran by far outweigh the upsides. Only the shadow knows what foolishness lurks in the minds of idiots.
But I ask instead the entire drone question, After all aerial surveillance is a valuable and time tested military weapon. And if we go back in time, the USA got a huge diplomatic black eye when the USSR shot down a U-2 spyplane piloted by a pilot named Gary Powers which circa 1959 collapsed a scheduled US USSR summit. In short, the USA did not have a leg to stand on for its illegal act of overflying the soviet Union. As the USSR could show both the downed plane plus the pilot for all the world to see.
But wait, the USSR may have gotten butt lucky as it barely had the missiles to shoot down a high flying U2 spyplane, but CUBA had no such capability. And soon U-2 spyplanes had high quality images of the USSR smuggling nuclear armed missiles into Cuba for all the world to see. AKA the 1962 Cuban missile that forced the Soviet Union to back down.
In short manned spyplane tech was worth the risk.
Later even higher flying satellite surveillance became part of all the high tech nations tool kit. As by treaty, space is demilitarized as satellite surveillance is legitimized.
Which leads in to the next question, what good is aerial surveillance taken from 13 miles plus miles up from a plane or 100 up from a satellite? In short, not much good even though high tech cameras are amazing. To give an example, drones are excellent at detecting mass gathering of people, but is it a big fat Afghan wedding or a big fat Taliban gathering.
Either way, the US Nato drone controllers have the same knee jerk reaction of kill em all.
Without human intel on the ground, Nato can't tell the difference. And even if Nato drone intel is only 20% wrong, it does more Nato PR damage than Nato being 80% right.
And then we can ask another drone question, Nato can say whoopie, them Taliban folks just don't have to modern technology to even detect a US drone lurking a few miles above them. But that was not the previous CIA training lesson when Afghan rebels were the good guy freedom fighters. As any freedom fighter could visually see and shoot down a big fat Russian low flying helicopter with a US provided stinger missile.
Or we can ask what good drone tech is when deployed against a nation that has some technological competence. As I might suggest Pakistan and Iran as possible examples.
With a little R&D, I can see them outfitting themselves with plane board radar in a fleet of piper cubs equipped with a single machine gun. And with such a set of cheap planes any nation can patrol and shoot down every single drone flying in their airspace. And if a single US drone tries to shoot down their attackers, while trespassing on their airspace, its the USA who has committed an act of war.
And if the USA wants to avoid committing an act of war, we have to ask how many million dollar plus drones can the US taxpayer afford to have shot down?
As I ask the question, why don't we in the USA ask if our drone technology is already mainly counterproductive?
boochi
Senior member
- May 21, 2011
- 984
- 0
- 0
irishScott
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,568
- 3
- 0
God almighty, why do you speak? It's a travesty to all reasonable people who have to set eyes on such a convoluted, psuedo-historical piece of shit that oozes from your brain and parades as argument. I can't even begin to address the incoherent ramblings except for the very last bit about drones, from which I can barely make sense.
Countries spy on each other all the time, in many different ways, for much longer than you've been around. Get over it, it's not exactly something nations go to war over and you're just using it as yet another chance to berate the US, which is apparently what you live for you American hating douchenozzle. As far as the money goes, a million dollars is cheap compared to the alternatives and is barely a drop in the ocean compared to the millions of millions we spend on bailouts and such.
We don't NOT build aircraft because we are scared one will crash or get shot down, that actually tends to happen in real life. On the subject of real life, our use of drones has proven so spectacularly successful in everyday operations by increasing capability while decreasing expense in cash and blood that a whole host of new UAVs for ISR, electronic attack, close support and even a new medium bomber will probably be a remote. I'm sure it boils your blood for the US to have advantageous capabilities and you will look for any minute, idiotic reason to make absurd claims and questions, but no, our drone technology is far from counterproductive.
Karl Agathon
Golden Member
- Sep 30, 2010
- 1,081
- 0
- 0
Karl Agathon
Golden Member
- Sep 30, 2010
- 1,081
- 0
- 0
Hahahaha. Are you Lemon Law and Craig234's bastard child? I'm not a Neocon by any stretch of the definition (although your definition of neocon seems to be "anyone who disagrees with me"), nor am I advocating a preemptive strike on Iran. I'm simply saying that we could do so successfully with relatively minimal repercussions. Tactically Iran can barely scratch us, unless they get viable nukes.
If you haven't figured it out yet, the US isn't really interested in "victory" in Iraq or Afghanistan at this point. If we were we wouldn't be pulling out at all and would have had multiple new surges by this point. The wars are mini-Vietnams and we want out, with just enough "success" to save political face and maybe kick the terrorism can down the road for a few years. Iran cannot effectively stop an egress from Afghanistan or Iraq. Especially Iraq, given many Iraqis' attitudes towards Iranians.
And for the record, American exceptionalism is self evident. We're not perfect by a long shot, but I know given the choice I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. We are the world's largest economy and have the most powerful military in the history of the world; and have sustained said statuses for decades. Our higher education system is the best in the world. Our healthcare, for all its faults, still beats out those of many of our supposed "competitors" such as China, by a large margin. We are to date the only nation to land on the freaking moon. Obviously these are traits befitting only the most lowly of nations.
I didn't offer that you were a Neocon, at all, merely that their "vision" was an illusion, and a self evident failure. Their version of American Exceptionalism is essentially that might makes right, and that we therefore have the right to inflict our will on the rest of the world, both by intimidation & force if necessary.
The one thing that will be necessary for withdrawal from Afghanistan is the appearance that we haven't been chased out, that it isn't because we failed, but rather because we've achieved our objectives, and a horde of Iranian "volunteers" along with strong Iranian support for insurgents won't allow for that.
Not to mention that the Shia plurality in Iraq is quite sympathetic to the Iranians, with stronger economic ties being created every day, and that they already have a strong & friendly economic relationship with the Kurds.
We've also alienated our Pakistani friends time & time again, perhaps to the point where they'd rather make a deal with the Iranians over the future of Afghanistan & the natural gas pipeline they want rather desperately.
That's not the end of it, either. Other possibilities exist that neither one of of us has even dreamed of.
The calculus in all this is very complex, as I offered earlier, and the outcome too unpredictable for us to attack Iran or allow our Israeli friends to do it, either.
So we attack the Iranians, destroy their known nuclear facilities. Then what? are we prepared to do so indefinitely, particularly when they start burrowing under the hills to create facilities like Cheyenne Mountain? When and if they declare the strait of Hormuz, their territorial waters, to be a war zone, even if they never fire a shot? Commercial shipping won't go near the place, because they wouldn't have insurance.
Can we really afford all this, both in terms of resources & world opinion?
I don't think I need to antagonize LL for him to create some of the most nonsensical, preposterous remarks to see the light of day... he does that entirely on his own. Besides, I've been pushing the insult envelope lately and I doubt I could take much more of his ravings without getting a vacation.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the original subject of this thread was only the question of if Iran shot down a US drone or if the US only lost control of the drone, I am trying to avoid widening any questions about the policies of Bozo Netanyuhu.
But still, its one thing to discuss the advantages of Aerial surveillance that at best gives a rather incomplete view from the air, and expanding aerial surveillance to add in offensive capabilities that is inherently subject to giant errors.
At what point does the error rate become counter productive?
No my head does not explode at your question, but there is something very wrong with you Karl, if your head does not explode with the results.
Last edited:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ft-downing/2011/12/04/gIQAyxa8TO_story_1.html
Whether or not the drone lost is what Iran has shot down or found remains to be seen. And if it actually is a RQ-170, next stop for the pieces: China
Not necessarily: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8453870&c=AME&s=AIR
Whether or not the drone lost is what Iran has shot down or found remains to be seen. And if it actually is a RQ-170, next stop for the pieces: China
Not necessarily: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8453870&c=AME&s=AIR
This is an opinion piece, but it addresses the subject of American Exceptionalism:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/02/opinion/lake-america-exceptional/index.html
Just read the comments at the original WSJ link I posted to get a sense of the desire for war with Iran. I think the root of the American desire goes to wanting revenge for the embarrassing 1979 hostage crisis, and disdain for an Islamic theocracy.
Karl Agathon
Golden Member
- Sep 30, 2010
- 1,081
- 0
- 0
Wow, thanks for the link on that. Very interesting read. I dont think that makes the F22 anywhere near a failure though. Unless of course a whole lot more incidents happen. The U.S. needs every technical advantage to get ready for its eventual conflict with en ever increasing belligerent Red China. This thread is about iran, so I wont elaberate on my feelings concerning our De-facto enemy here.
Last edited:
Another blast at a sensitive Iranian site:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...n-s-isfahan-damaged-key-nuclear-site-1.398671
This comes on the heals of a blast at an Iranian missile base (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/w...ase-seen-as-big-setback-to-iran-missiles.html)
Is this the Israeli strategy? Rather than an air attack, acts of sabotage and assassinations of key scientists....
What are some similar historical sabotage campaigns, and how did they work out?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...n-s-isfahan-damaged-key-nuclear-site-1.398671
This comes on the heals of a blast at an Iranian missile base (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/w...ase-seen-as-big-setback-to-iran-missiles.html)
Is this the Israeli strategy? Rather than an air attack, acts of sabotage and assassinations of key scientists....
What are some similar historical sabotage campaigns, and how did they work out?
irishScott
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,568
- 3
- 0
Right now the only measure anyone can agree on is to delay the nuclear program, and from the appearance of stuxnet alone massive resources have been put into play on that front. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Mossad had a clandestine plan to destroy key areas of the Iranian nuclear program without ever launching an air strike.
When a country becomes especially powerful, it seems to develop an opinion of 'exceptionalism'.
The Nazis had that. The WWII Japanese had that. England 'the sun never sets on the British Empire' had that. Rome had that. Alexender the Great. And so on.
It seems to pretty much just be fueling the 'power tends to corrupt' situation, finding ways 'the rules can be broken' by THAT country.
So, for example, ask a Brit in that era and they'd tell you how nice it was of Britain to 'spread civilization' to all those countries, helping them generously.
Of course anyone who questions the 'exceptionalism' can be attacked for doing so.
Good I hope it happens I hope we bomb these uncivilized Iranians to the stone age. I hope we show them what american freedom is all about. They hate us they hate the fact that we love freedom we will show them, let the tomahawks fly. I hope we start bombing them right when that whole nation sits down to eat Christmas dinner.
Freedom is bombing a people?
Freedom? The Yanks and the Brits rather re-enforced actions to brutally suppress Iranian domestic freedoms... Old memories are long held.
Oh, my... dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb....Please, oh please, let that OlafSicky post be a mock with a sarcasm emoticon left out.
...hopefully it is with it being brutally sad that those are the same views I'd expect some in this forum to proclaim with serious veracity.
irishScott
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,568
- 3
- 0
Freedom is bombing a people?
Freedom? The Yanks and the Brits rather re-enforced actions to brutally suppress Iranian domestic freedoms... Old memories are long held.
Please, oh please, let that OlafSicky post be a mock with a sarcasm emoticon left out.
...hopefully it is with it being brutally sad that those are the same views I'd expect some in this forum to proclaim with serious veracity.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151728/merry-fing-christmas (NSFW language)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter