Iran and US Getting Interesting

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/17/content_5615540.htm


Iran shoots down U.S. spy drone amid growing military pressure
www.chinaview.cn 2007-01-17 08:41:25

Special report: Iran Nuclear Crisis

by Liang Youchang

TEHRAN, Jan. 16 (Xinhua) -- Iranian troops have shot down a U.S. pilotless spy plane recently, an Iranian lawmaker announced on Tuesday as the Islamic Republic was facing increasing military pressure from its arch rival -- the United States.

The aircraft was brought down when it was trying to cross the borders "during the last few days," Seyed Nezam Mola Hoveizeh, a member of the parliament, was quoted by the local Fars News Agency as saying.

The lawmaker gave no exact date of the shooting-down or any other details about the incident, but he said that "the United States sent such spy drones to the region every now and then."

SECOND U.S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER

The announcement came amid reports that the United States is increasingly flexing its muscles to counter Iran's growing regional assertiveness and put more pressure on Tehran over its controversial nuclear programs.

It was reported Tuesday that a second U.S. aircraft carrier, the USS John C. Stennis, will arrive in the Middle East in about one month, the first time since the U.S.-led Iraq war in 2003 that the United States will have two carrier battle groups in the region.

The USS John C. Stennis, a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered carrier that has a capacity for 5,000 sailors, is scheduled to sail Tuesday from its home port of Bremerton, Washington, said Commander Kevin Aandahl of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain.

In about one month, the USS John C. Stennis, including an air wing of more than 80 tactical aircraft, will join Fifth Fleet forces that includes aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower...
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Alright, first Iranian soldiers attacking ours, and now them shooting down our drones. At what point is someone going to admit they are waging war on us?
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Alright, first Iranian soldiers attacking ours, and now them shooting down our drones. At what point is someone going to admit they are waging war on us?
The Iranians are attacking from inside Iraq. That drone was over their airspace. We'd shoot it down too, if someone tried. But we should and will keep sending them.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
The Iranians are attacking from inside Iraq. That drone was over their airspace. We'd shoot it down too, if someone tried. But we should and will keep sending them.
That isn't the point.

This is the second time in almost two weeks they have fired upon us. How many times is it going to happen before people admit they are at war with us?
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
That isn't the point.

This is the second time in almost two weeks they have fired upon us. How many times is it going to happen before people admit they are at war with us?
They are in Iraq, we are going to fight them there, perhaps even across their border. Do you think that their shooting down the drone which was in their airspace is an 'act of war' upon us?
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
They are in Iraq, we are going to fight them there, perhaps even across their border. Do you think that their shooting down the drone which was in their airspace is an 'act of war' upon us?
No, I think them attacking us in Iraq is an act of war against us. The drone is just a continuation.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
No, I think them attacking us in Iraq is an act of war against us. The drone is just a continuation.
As I said, I think we should and will continue to use the drones in Iran, but in that sense we too are acknowledging the war. Consider it fighting back, not preemption, but the continuation would be on our part, not Iran's.
 

ErikViking

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
128
Points
85
Location
Stockholm - Sweden
This isn't exactly funny. But kind of typical how conflicts get escalated into war. But it would be the first time a drone was involved in starting a war. "War of the Drones".

Anyhow, I will watch carefully how those events are reported. Another test for media to show if they can stay objective.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
This isn't exactly funny. But kind of typical how conflicts get escalated into war. But it would be the first time a drone was involved in starting a war. "War of the Drones".

Anyhow, I will watch carefully how those events are reported. Another test for media to show if they can stay objective.
Is there really any question any more?
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
The jingoistic nonsense and eagerness for a war with Iran that I see here is simply unbelievable. To paraphrase the old Chinese curse, "Be careful what you wish for...you may get it."
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
The jingoistic nonsense and eagerness for a war with Iran that I see here is simply unbelievable. To paraphrase the old Chinese curse, "Be careful what you wish for...you may get it."
Whats "unbelievable" is how far, and fast your willing to jump to make some kind of skewed point.

I fail to see an "eagerness for war" in the preceding posts, maybe you could point that out?

Those sage words you quote, should be heeded well by the Iranians.:eusa_think:
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
The jingoistic nonsense and eagerness for a war with Iran that I see here is simply unbelievable. To paraphrase the old Chinese curse, "Be careful what you wish for...you may get it."
Unbelievable? Why? Because we have enough sense that we know its quite in evitable and its wiser to get it over before we are in a position to lose far more lives?

The idea that anyone actually wants war is a myth of the left. No one wants war. But we arent afraid of it when it comes. We arent going to bury our heads in the sand.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Unbelievable? Why? Because we have enough sense that we know its quite in evitable and its wiser to get it over before we are in a position to lose far more lives?

The idea that anyone actually wants war is a myth of the left. No one wants war. But we arent afraid of it when it comes. We arent going to bury our heads in the sand.
The only inevitability here is the disastrous consequences to America, and the world, if Chimpy McPresident and his merry band are allowed to continue down the path to war with Iran.

Given General Abizaid's November 15th testimony before the Senate,

<blockquote>U.S. Central Command Commander Gen. John Abizaid told McCain at a Senate hearing: "We can put in 20,000 more Americans tomorrow and achieve a temporary effect. But when you look at the overall American force pool that's available out there, the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and the Marine Corps."</blockquote>

Fielding the troops necessary to sustain military action against Iran would seem to be an unrealistic pipe-dream on the part of the administration.

The President and his administration have brazenly ignored the recommendations of every source he claims to have sought advice from. All have said a troop increase is not the option to choose, and diplomatic engagement with ALL parties in the region, INCLUDING Iran and Syria would have been the most productive course. Instead, in his own blind self-righteousness, Chimpy has decided his way is the only way, all and everyone else be damned.

And, lest we forget, in 2003, there was this:

<blockquote>Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. - The Washington Post - 6/18/06</blockquote>

This offer of a dialogue was dismissed by Chimpy and Co. They had a chance to put these issue to rest more than three years ago, yet declined to do so. This clearly places the responsibility for the manufacture of this confrontation with Iran solely at the door-step of President Bush and the other jingoists in his administration.

The President and his administration remind me of nothing so much as a bunch of monkeys playing with a box of matches in the middle of a fuel refinery. And they appear to be equally as ignorant of the consequences, either through stupidity or willfulness. The former is, while a simpler explanation, unlikely. The latter is simply evil. Both are unacceptable, and in either case they have no business leading this country.

As for "The idea that anyone actually wants war is a myth of the left", let me remind you that the Bush administration CHOSE to invade Iraq, and are CHOOSING to goad Iran into open war. Myth busted.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
No, Iraq chose to go to war by repeatedly violating the conditions of the ceasefire.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
No, Iraq chose to go to war by repeatedly violating the conditions of the ceasefire.
The UN resolution regarding Iraq's compliance with weapons inspectors did not include language authorizing the use of military for for violations of said compliance.

You can find the full text of the 2002 resolution <a href=http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm>HERE</a>.

From the day his administration took office, and we have reliable accounts of this, Chimpy and Co were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. The policy was clearly outlined in <i><b>The Project for the New American Century's</b></i> white paper, <i><a href=http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf>Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century</a></i>, released in 2000. The tragedy of 9/11 provided all the cover the Administration needed to implement these plans to invade Iraq. And they played the fears of the American people masterfully in their run-up to the invasion as they spun their cherry-picked, questionable and even fabricated intel to justify the invasion.

It was the actions Bush administration that led to weapons inspectors being pulled out Iraq, before the US invasion, not the orders of Saddam Hussein. It was President Bush who chose this course...deny it as often and as loudly as you wish...I will not change the fact that HE chose to go to war.
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
.....
It was the actions Bush administration that led to weapons inspectors being pulled out Iraq, before the US invasion, not the orders of Saddam Hussein. It was President Bush who chose this course...deny it as often and as loudly as you wish...I will not change the fact that HE chose to go to war.
So what would you have done?
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Since when do we need permission to enforce our ceasefire agreements?

BTW I cant help but notice the irony of Bully trying to lecture me on international law.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
The UN resolution regarding Iraq's compliance with weapons inspectors did not include language authorizing the use of military for for violations of said compliance.

You can find the full text of the 2002 resolution <a href=http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm>HERE</a>.
Help me out here Bully, just so I don't have to go read that resolution for the twentieth time, where EXACTLY does it say WHAT we can do if Iraq didn't adhere to the terms of the resolution?

There must be some measure of punishment for enforcement on ANY resolution, that has a snow balls chance in hell of being successful, wouldn't you agree?

From the day his administration took office, and we have reliable accounts of this, Chimpy and Co were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. The policy was clearly outlined in <i><b>The Project for the New American Century's</b></i> white paper, <i><a href=http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf>Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century</a></i>, released in 2000.
I've never excepted your "reliable accounts" Bully.

The tragedy of 9/11 provided all the cover the Administration needed to implement these plans to invade Iraq. And they played the fears of the American people masterfully in their run-up to the invasion as they spun their cherry-picked, questionable and even fabricated intel to justify the invasion.
We do agree, that 9/11 was a tragedy. As to it being a "cover", Bull Shit!

Ya know Bully it's comical, but on the one hand you call our President stupid, and his administration incompetent, yet on the other hand, you say how masterful they can be, and how they play the people to get their way. Which is it?



It was the actions Bush administration that led to weapons inspectors being pulled out Iraq, before the US invasion, not the orders of Saddam Hussein. It was President Bush who chose this course...deny it as often and as loudly as you wish...I will not change the fact that HE chose to go to war.
Well Bully, the same can be said to YOU. Deflect as you do, shifting the blame across the table, massaging the facts to suit your agenda changes NOTHING. We ARE in Iraq, and we ARE at war. Deal with it as a patriot, and help win this thing, or be the stick in the side of freedom, and give aid and comfort to our enemies.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top