Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A definition of IranyFollow

#102 Dec 08 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 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 ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#103 Dec 08 2011 at 9:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 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
***
2,496 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
****
7,564 posts
pakistan is an ally, iran is not.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#106 Dec 08 2011 at 10:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,496 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
****
7,564 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 ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#108 Dec 08 2011 at 11:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,496 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
******
29,919 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
******
20,643 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.
#112REDACTED, 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
*******
50,767 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
******
29,919 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
#116REDACTED, Posted: Dec 09 2011 at 12:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Omega,
#117 Dec 09 2011 at 12:50 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
Man, this whole episode screams fail
#118 Dec 09 2011 at 3:03 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,564 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 ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#119 Dec 09 2011 at 3:06 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,393 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.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

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
******
35,568 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
****
7,564 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 ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#122 Dec 09 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 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
*******
50,767 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
****
7,564 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 ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#125 Dec 09 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 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
****
7,564 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 ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 375 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (375)