Iran's military has shot down an unmanned US aircraft over the east of the country, state TV has reported.

"Iran's military has downed an intruding RQ-170 American drone in eastern Iran," Iran's Arabic-language Al Alam state television network quoted an unnamed military source as saying.

A report on English-language Press TV said the drone was "downed with minimum damage" and seized by Iranian officials.

The RQ-170 Sentinel is an unmanned stealth aircraft used for reconnaissance. It is not designed to carry weapons.

The semi-official Fars news agency, which is believed to be close to the Revolutionary Guard military force, said Iran would respond to the violation of its airspace with actions beyond its own borders.

There was no immediate comment on the claims from the US military.

The reports came amid worsening relations between the West and Iran over its nuclear programme after the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report it said showed Iran had worked on designing an atomic bomb .

Iran has insisted its nuclear ambitions are entirely peaceful, but prompted the US and European Union to agree tighter sanctions on Iranian companies and individuals.

Earlier on Sunday, Iran's foreign ministry warned that any move to extend those sanctions to block oil exports would double the price of crude.

"As soon as such an issue is raised seriously the oil price would soar to above \$250 a barrel," foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast was quoted as saying.

More to follow...

mattyrm wrote:Why is Cameron spineless? What are you basing this on?

Orlanth wrote:Hopefully this story will die down and not be considered a provocative act by Iran. Iran was not being provocative, whoever sent the drone was.

LordofHats wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Hopefully this story will die down and not be considered a provocative act by Iran. Iran was not being provocative, whoever sent the drone was.

Iran has been provocative. The drone was shot down near a nuclear site. Iran's refusal to cease its development program has sent us in this direction. Alternatively, we could ignore the very obvious weapons development in the country, but Iran isn't a county I'd trust with nukes. They supply terrorist organizations, fund insurgent operations, and destabilize the whole the region. Iran has been proxy killing US troops for nearly a decade now.

No one is to blame but Iran for this situation.

LordofHats wrote:If anyone is going to get dragged into a war with Iran at this point it'll be the UK. If a war starts I don't think there's a way to avoid it and it really looks like there might be a war.

Look on the bright side though, if there is, Iran started it with a suicidal foreign policy

Pyriel- wrote:Any proof that a drone was actually shot down? Pics or it didnt happen.
Or is it another one of those photoshopped iranian missiles deal?

"Iran's military has downed an intruding RQ-170 American drone in eastern Iran," Iran's Arabic-language Al Alam state television network quoted the unnamed source as saying.

dogma wrote:So, I should put the words "Middle" "East" and "specialist" in bold when I submit my application to State?

Iraq complied, we know how that turned out.

North Korea hasn't, and got away with it.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:If Iranian TV says it was an American drone, then that's good enough for me.

Any attack would be sheer lunacy - driving up oil prices at a time of recession, not to mention the innocent women and children who always seem to die at the hands of warmongers, be they British/American/Iranian whatever.

Any attack would be sheer lunacy - driving up oil prices at a time of recession, not to mention the innocent women and children who always seem to die at the hands of warmongers, be they British/American/Iranian whatever.

Orlanth wrote:On top of that Israel completely and blatantly ignores international arms development limitations. They have also threatened to use nukes, which is something Iran has yet to say.

Ketara wrote:

Orlanth wrote:On top of that Israel completely and blatantly ignores international arms development limitations. They have also threatened to use nukes, which is something Iran has yet to say.

When was that? Israel has never even officially admitted to possessing nukes, let alone threatening to use them on anyone.

Iran has also threatened to wipe israel off the face of the earth. Not with nukes as they "don't have them", but the sentiment is fairly clear

"Iran's military has downed an intruding RQ-170 American drone in eastern Iran,"

A U.S. official with knowledge of the incident said the crew operating the unmanned drone reported a loss of flight control just before the drone went down.

Orlanth wrote:Besides Obama is not to be trusted, not by us anyway.

LordofHats wrote:They supply terrorist organizations, fund insurgent operations, and destabilize the whole the region.

CT GAMER wrote:For a country that produced the self-proclaimed legend that is Mattrym you Brits sure are whinning a lot about doing what he repeatedly suggests he would love to do...

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:They supply terrorist organizations, fund insurgent operations, and destabilize the whole the region.

Wait, are we talking about the United States?

LordofHats wrote:

Iraq complied, we know how that turned out.

Iraq was a different situation. They got called out for invading Kuwait for first time and we told them to cease there. If anything, the second invasion where we thought they still had WMD's should have told Iran 'we will invade you' not the opposite.

LordofHats wrote:

North Korea hasn't, and got away with it.

North Korea is shielded by proximity to China (and I'm sure Iran isn't so dumb as to not know that). The idea that China or Russia care about Iran's arms development is meaningless. The US could do a turn around, be for Iran with nukes, and China and Russia would decry the US as destabilizing the Middle East and proliferating WMD. I don't care what Russia or China vote for in the UNSC. They usual just vote the opposite of what the US wants for no other reason than the US wants it. It's international posturing.

Orlanth wrote:Also Bush/Blair didn't think they still had WMD, they knew they didnt, but claimed they did anyway.

Orlanth wrote:
Iran is not as stupid as it is made out to be, practically all the scientists involved are from the former Soviet Union and it appears a lost of the materiel comes from China. They wouldnt do what they did especially then without backup.

Orlanth wrote:[Iran is also shielded by China.

LordofHats wrote:

Orlanth wrote:[Iran is also shielded by China.

I was unaware Iran and China shared a border. North Korea gets saved because China is literally right there. That's not so with Iran.

Orlanth wrote:It doesn't have a direct border with the US either.

What it does have is direct access to Russia via the Caspian and is connected to China via one country, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In either case its a direct flight from China. You want to shoot down Chinese heavy transport aircraft over Pakistan and Afghanistan? I hope not.

Jihadin wrote:Hellfire blew up on impact...why we have little pieces here......rrriiigghhhhhhttttttttt

LordofHats wrote:There's a reason Iran doesn't and it's because no one worries about anyone helping Iran if it gets attacked.

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:There's a reason Iran doesn't and it's because no one worries about anyone helping Iran if it gets attacked.

Iran doesn't really need help. Its huge, mountainous, and possessed of a strong historical culture. Not really invasion fodder.

purplefood wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:For a country that produced the self-proclaimed legend that is Mattrym you Brits sure are whinning a lot about doing what he repeatedly suggests he would love to do...

Kill everyone who owns a turban? Oh yeah good point.

Melissia wrote:They've also threatened to bomb Turkey too.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Orlanth wrote:On top of that Israel completely and blatantly ignores international arms development limitations. They have also threatened to use nukes, which is something Iran has yet to say.

When was that? Israel has never even officially admitted to possessing nukes, let alone threatening to use them on anyone.

Iran has also threatened to wipe israel off the face of the earth. Not with nukes as they "don't have them", but the sentiment is fairly clear.



Honestly, this sounds like a propaganda piece to me. Iran doesn't have something other then dumbfire anti air that can shoot down a modern stealth aircraft, and they'd have to see or find it first. Given the current drone track record the thing could of just fallen out of the sky on it's own accord though. Irans government is nothing if not opportunistic in it's effort to keep the populace xenophobic and anti western.

LordofHats wrote:


That's not even talking about the fallout of the Korean War. There's a reason North Korea gets away with it and its because of China. There's a reason Iran doesn't and it's because no one worries about anyone helping Iran if it gets attacked.

Huffy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Orlanth wrote:On top of that Israel completely and blatantly ignores international arms development limitations. They have also threatened to use nukes, which is something Iran has yet to say.

When was that? Israel has never even officially admitted to possessing nukes, let alone threatening to use them on anyone.

Iran has also threatened to wipe israel off the face of the earth. Not with nukes as they "don't have them", but the sentiment is fairly clear.



Honestly, this sounds like a propaganda piece to me. Iran doesn't have something other then dumbfire anti air that can shoot down a modern stealth aircraft, and they'd have to see or find it first. Given the current drone track record the thing could of just fallen out of the sky on it's own accord though. Irans government is nothing if not opportunistic in it's effort to keep the populace xenophobic and anti western.

So I just saw this on msn, a drone did crash in Iran, US says no indication that it was shot down, but we say that we lost control of it in Afghanistan, it flew into Iran where it crashed or possibly shot down..who knows
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45541622/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-no-indication-drone-iran-was-shot-down/#.TtzBd2OIm0s

Melissia wrote:But someone stealing it from Iran and detonating it somewhere else, I can see that happening given the nation's corruption.

Orlanth wrote:You are being hysterical.

Nukes are easily trackable, giving a nuke away is as dangerous to Iran as launching it themselves. Countries like Iran and North Korea need nukes as bargaining chips, not for trade or to build suitcase bombs.

Ketara wrote:There will be conflict between either the US and Iran, or Israel and Iran within the next year. The signs are all there.

Melissia wrote:But someone stealing it from Iran and detonating it somewhere else, I can see that happening given the nation's corruption.

CT GAMER wrote:

purplefood wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:For a country that produced the self-proclaimed legend that is Mattrym you Brits sure are whinning a lot about doing what he repeatedly suggests he would love to do...

Kill everyone who owns a turban? Oh yeah good point.

Jihadin wrote:Didn't germany kind of staged something similiar with Poland before they invaded?

LordofHats wrote:

Ketara wrote:There will be conflict between either the US and Iran, or Israel and Iran within the next year. The signs are all there.

I think the most likely scenario is another Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. So far Iran has been keen to just let the air strikes and cyber attacks slide, so a war will only happen if they decide to change their mind about how they react. If a war does start, I think the chances of US intervention goes up by a lot. Not really sure how Iran would retaliate though. Retaliation airstrikes?

Jihadin wrote:I see walk to the coast fora submarine pick up. Not mention an isreali in a muslim country has the same chance I have if I walk around in Afghanistan...even though we did have a couple idiots try....with a bottle of water and a couple bags of potato chips...in PT uniform....you all know the PT shirt has "ARMY" printed on it right?

Ketara wrote: A is difficult, the Iranian facilities are dug deep, and Israeli lacks the ordnance to demolish them purely by air.

B is even moreso, the Iranians won't have left these facilities undefended against a raid, and successful execution and extraction would be unlikely considering the spread out nature of the sites.

Meaning the most logical route would be for Israel to 'acquire' Bunker Buster bombs from the US, and utterly blitz the sites. Shoot down anything the Iranians put up, and just keep nailing the sites.

Jihadin wrote:I mention on another thread of the hand off of drones from ground control in Afghanistan to the drone operaters in the States. its like 3-4 sec lag on the hand off. Since the transmitter is similiar to our SINGARS the chances of Iran cracking into the Freq is nil.....very very nil. Time, starting freq, and how many freq a second the transmitter jumps is an idea how SINGARS work for those that are not fimiliar with it. Good bet someone did not have a good "Fill" in the states.

LordofHats wrote:
I think that's why they've stepped up cyber attacks, but the tech ability of a lot of countries can be quite surprising. Iran's no China but they're not pushovers. I don't think airstrikes or cyber attacks are going to be as useful as they once were.

I don't even think B is an option. To logistically difficult.

I don't even know if those would be enough. A lot of the sites are way deep. Bombing them is impractical. The amount of ordnance needed would be absurd. I don't think that'll stop Israel from trying per se, but still. Oddly enough, A good nuke might do the job but even Israel in its kneejerk craziest moments I don't think is that crazy.

obsidianaura wrote:I think this is just lies from what i remember of these spy planes.

1 These things are stealth
2 They fly too high to be shot down
3 They have self-destruct systems in place

So all in all i think they're making this up. Has the US checked to see if they're missing one?

I see walk to the coast fora submarine pick up. Not mention an isreali in a muslim country has the same chance I have if I walk around in Afghanistan

Hulksmash wrote:I'd point out that N. Korea gets away with more not just because of it's proximity to China but also because they practically hold S. Korea hostage. Any type of strike on N. Korea would not be fast enough to prevent them from destroying millions with just their ready weaponry.

As for the Iran issue as a whole I suspect that if Iran moves against Israel our chance as the US in becoming involved becomes a certainty.

Regarding the drone I have no problem with drones invading their air space and keeping tabs. We lose one it happens. Not like they don't fall out of the sky on their own anyway....

Imagine, for a moment, that you are an Iranian mullah. Sitting crosslegged on your Persian rug in Tehran, sipping a cup of chai, you glance up at the map of the Middle East on the wall. It is a disturbing image: your country, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is surrounded on all sides by virulent enemies and regional rivals, both nuclear and non-nuclear.

On your eastern border, the United States has 100,000 troops serving in Afghanistan. On your western border, the US has been occupying Iraq since 2003 and plans to retain a small force of military contractors and CIA operatives even after its official withdrawal next month. Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation, is to the south-east; Turkey, America's Nato ally, to the north-west; Turkmenistan, which has acted as a refuelling base for US military transport planes since 2002, to the north-east. To the south, across the Persian Gulf, you see a cluster of US client states: Bahrain, home to the US Fifth Fleet; Qatar, host to a forward headquarters of US Central Command; Saudi Arabia, whose king has exhorted America to "attack Iran" and "cut off the head of the snake".

Then, of course, less than a thousand miles to the west, there is Israel, your mortal enemy, in possession of over a hundred nuclear warheads and with a history of pre-emptive aggression against its opponents.

The map makes it clear: Iran is, literally, encircled by the United States and its allies.

If that wasn't worrying enough, your country seems to be under (covert) attack. Several nuclear scientists have been mysteriously assassinated and, late last year, a sophisticated computer virus succeeded in shutting down roughly a fifth of Iran's nuclear centrifuges. Only last weekend, the "pioneer" of the Islamic Republic's missile programme, Major General Hassan Moghaddam, was killed – with 16 others – in a huge explosion at a Revolutionary Guards base 25 miles outside Tehran. You go online to discover western journalists reporting that the Mossad is believed to have been behind the blast.

And then you pause to remind yourself of the fundamental geopolitical lesson that you and your countrymen learned over the last decade: the US and its allies opted for war with non-nuclear Iraq, but diplomacy with nuclear-armed North Korea.

If you were our mullah in Tehran, wouldn't you want Iran to have the bomb – or at the very minimum, "nuclear latency" (that is, the capability and technology to quickly build a nuclear weapon if threatened with attack)?

Let's be clear: there is still no concrete evidence Iran is building a bomb. The latest report from the IAEA, despite its much discussed reference to "possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme", also admits that its inspectors continue "to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at [Iran's] nuclear facilities". The leaders of the Islamic Republic – from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei to bombastic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – maintain their goal is only to develop a civilian nuclear programme, not atomic bombs.

Nonetheless, wouldn't it be rational for Iran – geographically encircled, politically isolated, feeling threatened – to want its own arsenal of nukes, for defensive and deterrent purposes? The US government's Nuclear Posture Review admits such weapons play an "essential role in deterring potential adversaries" and maintaining "strategic stability" with other nuclear powers. In 2006, the UK's Ministry of Defence claimed our own strategic nuclear deterrent was designed to "deter and prevent nuclear blackmail and acts of aggression against our vital interests that cannot be countered by other means".

Apparently, what is sauce for the Anglo-American goose is not sauce for the Iranian gander. Empathy is in short supply. As leading US nuclear policy analyst George Perkovich has observed: "The US government never has publicly and objectively assessed Iranian leaders' motivations for seeking nuclear weapons and what the US and others could do to remove those motivations." Instead, the Islamic Republic is dismissed as irrational and megalomaniacal.

But it isn't just Iran's leaders who are unwilling to back down on the nuclear issue. On Tuesday, around 1,000 Iranian students formed a human chain around the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". Their protest may have been organised by the authorities but even the leaders and members of the opposition Green Movement tend to support Iran's uranium enrichment programme. According to a 2010 University of Maryland survey, 55% of Iranians back their country's pursuit of nuclear power and, remarkably, 38% support the building of a nuclear bomb.

So what is to be done? Sanctions haven't worked and won't work. Iranians refuse to compromise on what they believe to be their "inalienable" right to nuclear power under the Non-proliferation treaty. Military action, as the US defence secretary Leon Panetta admitted last week, could have "unintended consequences", including a backlash against "US forces in the region". The threat of attack will only harden the resolve for a nuclear deterrent; belligerence breeds belligerence.

The simple fact is there is no alternative to diplomacy, no matter how truculent or paranoid the leaders of Iran might seem to western eyes. If a nuclear-armed Iran is to be avoided, US politicians have to dial down their threatening rhetoric and tackle the very real and rational perception, on the streets of Tehran and Isfahan, of America and Israel as military threats to the Islamic Republic. Iranians are fearful, nervous, defensive – and, as the Middle East map shows, perhaps with good reason. As the old adage goes, just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

obsidianaura wrote:I

So all in all i think they're making this up. Has the US checked to see if they're missing one?

LordofHats wrote:Iran's problem is that if it stopped developing nuclear technology Israel and the US and their allies would no longer see Iran as a threat. The idea that Iran needs the weapon to deter aggression is circular logic. They're developing a WMD and everyone is their enemy, so they need a WMD to defend against all these enemies.

LordofHats wrote:Iran's problem is that if it stopped developing nuclear technology Israel and the US and their allies would no longer see Iran as a threat. The idea that Iran needs the weapon to deter aggression is circular logic. They're developing a WMD and everyone is their enemy, so they need a WMD to defend against all these enemies.

Kilkrazy wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Iran's problem is that if it stopped developing nuclear technology Israel and the US and their allies would no longer see Iran as a threat. The idea that Iran needs the weapon to deter aggression is circular logic. They're developing a WMD and everyone is their enemy, so they need a WMD to defend against all these enemies.

The US and Israel have been Iran's enemies for decades before they started nuclear development.

Frazzled wrote:
Israel has? Really? I missed that war.

purplefood wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:I'd point out that N. Korea gets away with more not just because of it's proximity to China but also because they practically hold S. Korea hostage. Any type of strike on N. Korea would not be fast enough to prevent them from destroying millions with just their ready weaponry.

As for the Iran issue as a whole I suspect that if Iran moves against Israel our chance as the US in becoming involved becomes a certainty.

Regarding the drone I have no problem with drones invading their air space and keeping tabs. We lose one it happens. Not like they don't fall out of the sky on their own anyway....

If you managed to kill them all in one go...
They might notice that kind of build up though.

LordOfHats wrote:Iran's problem is that if it stopped developing nuclear technology Israel and the US and their allies would no longer see Iran as a threat. The idea that Iran needs the weapon to deter aggression is circular logic. They're developing a WMD and everyone is their enemy, so they need a WMD to defend against all these enemies.

Melissa wrote:But someone stealing it from Iran and detonating it somewhere else, I can see that happening given the nation's corruption.

Pacific wrote:

North Korea has the largest artillery contingent of any army in the world, within easy striking range of Seoul. Although some hawks in the US government were calling for military action against NK after Bush's 'Axis of evil' speech, pretty much every commentator on the subject has remarked that a war would not be a terribly good idea for either side, and most specifically for the Koreans who would likely see 50 years of growth and hard work destroyed and the country blasted back into the 3rd world. Now that China is finally moving its political presence on the world stage to match it's economic power, fortunately (for all of us) the prospect of war is even less likely.

purplefood wrote:They could walk...

Huffy wrote:

Pacific wrote:

North Korea has the largest artillery contingent of any army in the world, within easy striking range of Seoul. Although some hawks in the US government were calling for military action against NK after Bush's 'Axis of evil' speech, pretty much every commentator on the subject has remarked that a war would not be a terribly good idea for either side, and most specifically for the Koreans who would likely see 50 years of growth and hard work destroyed and the country blasted back into the 3rd world. Now that China is finally moving its political presence on the world stage to match it's economic power, fortunately (for all of us) the prospect of war is even less likely.

Not to mention the amount of resources that would have to go into reconstructing N. Korea..theres a reason S. Korea doesn't want N. Korea

dogma wrote:The West had no problem with the Iranian nuclear program when the Shah was in power, so I think its safe to say that the issue isn't really that Iran is developing nuclear technology, but that the present government of Iran is not looked upon kindly by the West. In essence, it isn't the nuclear program that has turned the world against the Iranian state.

The US and Israel have been Iran's enemies for decades before they started nuclear development.

Albatross wrote:Why do people persist in saying that Ahmedinajad threatened to wipe Israel off the map? That isn't what he said.

LordofHats wrote:

Albatross wrote:Why do people persist in saying that Ahmedinajad threatened to wipe Israel off the map? That isn't what he said.

Ahmedinajad has made such threats, as have numerous other Iranian officials.

And the translation controversy is a bunch of word games.

Jihadin wrote:United States of America
United Kingdom
Russia
China
Isre......disregard
Iran...inprocess
Pakistan
India
North Korea...maybe (Purple)

So who do you think will launch a nuke round first...

Albatross wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Albatross wrote:Why do people persist in saying that Ahmedinajad threatened to wipe Israel off the map? That isn't what he said.

Ahmedinajad has made such threats, as have numerous other Iranian officials.

And the translation controversy is a bunch of word games.

Yeah, feth words. Words and their inconvenient meanings... Who needs 'em?

Seriously though, he didn't threaten to wipe Israel off the map, though he regularly agitates for a single unified Palestinian state in which people of all faiths have equal democratic representation. What a monster!

Albatross wrote:Seriously though, he didn't threaten to wipe Israel off the map, though he regularly agitates for a single unified Palestinian state in which people of all faiths have equal democratic representation. What a monster!

The US military has said a missing unmanned spyplane was involved in a joint CIA military operation on Afghanistan's border with Iran.

The Pentagon has admitted the RQ 170 Sentinel drone is lost somewhere in Iran.

But the US disputes Iranian claims to have shot down the state-of-the-art spy aircraft.

News of the CIA involvement is causing controversy in Washington.


Congressman Dennis Kucinich told Sky News the involvement of America's spy agency was a worrying development.

"We have to be very careful that we don't stumble into a wider war here. If we are in Iran's airpace with anything that belongs to the US, that's a provocation," he said.

The revelation coincides with speculation a covert war is being waged in Iran by America and Israel to thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions.

A series of events remain unexplained. Iranian scientists have been assassinated, in one case by a bomb strapped to his vehicle by a hit team on a motorbike.

A huge explosion at a top secret missile base in the Iranian desert appears to have killed the lead scientist on missile development.


Mr Kucinich said he is worried these events mean the region is sliding towards greater conflict.

"The events have been confirmed, so when you start to connect the dots, those dots start to spell the word war," he said.

The US has justified the use of drones in Afghan airspace as necessary to keep watch over American forces, but CIA involvement seems to confirm their use to gather intelligence beyond the border with Iran.

The Sentinel drone, thought to be 65ft in wingspan, is one of the world's most secret aircraft. Packed with surveillance electronics, it is capable of staying in the air for days.

Albatross wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Albatross wrote:Why do people persist in saying that Ahmedinajad threatened to wipe Israel off the map? That isn't what he said.

Ahmedinajad has made such threats, as have numerous other Iranian officials.

And the translation controversy is a bunch of word games.

Yeah, feth words. Words and their inconvenient meanings... Who needs 'em?

Seriously though, he didn't threaten to wipe Israel off the map, though he regularly agitates for a single unified Palestinian state in which people of all faiths have equal democratic representation. What a monster!

LordofHats wrote:
The way nuclear weapons are looked at have changed since then.

LordofHats wrote:
Besides, the Iranian Revolution actually ended the Shah's research program. They started it up again in the 1980's in response to Iraq's program.

LordofHats wrote:
If we want to throw around the history ball, Iraq got invaded because of their weapons program (Persial Gulf invasion) so the idea that Iran has learned that having one will protect you falls on its face. Iran is either stupid or their smart. Which is it? I think their smart, but defending themselves isn't why they want nukes so that's a pointless argument. If they wanted to defend themselves they'd drop the program thats making them so many enemies.

dogma wrote:That aside, Iran is in a situation that is nothing like the one in which Iraq found itself.

Their nuclear program may be a focus of Western rhetoric at the moment, but ultimately that isn't the issue here. The issue is that the Iranian government is itself anti-Western, which effectively renders much of the West (primarily the US and Israel) anti-Iranian.

The nuclear program, and more importantly any weapons that come about as a result, are an attempt to develop a deterrent against any attempt at regime change.

The weapons program is a savvy move because the alternative is, essentially, acquiescing to Western demands, which is something that would fundamentally compromise the identity of the Iranian state.

LordofHats wrote:
And the translation controversy is a bunch of word games. Wiped out, vanish from the pages of time, etc whatever. His intention is clear and no matter how the speech gets translated it's threatening or insulting and clearly antagonistic.

LordofHats wrote:
Plenty of governments are anti-western but no one talks about going to war with any of them.

LordofHats wrote:
I'm sure that's what Iran thinks but it's drawing unnecessary aggression. Iran would get no more notice than anyone else save for their weapons program.

LordofHats wrote:
We don't bully around every anti-western state in the world. Why is Iran different?

dogma wrote:Well, except the Syrians, the Sudanese, the Cubans, the North Koreans, the Yemeni, the Libyans, and the Somalians.

LordofHats wrote:What explicitly anti-Western nations do we not adopt a position of material opposition to? Venezuela is the only one I can think of.

Actually, that's not true. I lived there for a couple of years, and while there are exceptions I would say most people probably want the country to be one again. They are a single race after all.

Iraq was invaded because of a desire to institute democracy, and thereby stabilize the region

Jihadin wrote:Interesting

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html



Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Sep-11 Aug-11 YTD 2011 Sep-10 YTD 2010

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANADA 2,324 2,240 2,157 1,937 1,971

SAUDI ARABIA 1,465 1,075 1,180 1,082 1,072

MEXICO 1,099 1,150 1,113 1,108 1,132

VENEZUELA 759 806 893 919 928

NIGERIA 529 854 826 1,107 1,018

COLOMBIA 510 365 364 308 328

IRAQ 403 637 473 422 464

ECUADOR 299 303 203 229 215

ANGOLA 283 311 323 404 413

RUSSIA 275 252 246 286 295

BRAZIL 163 213 225 177 270

KUWAIT 145 165 164 172 204

ALGERIA 139 140 204 366 337

CHAD 74 32 54 30 14

OMAN 72 52 39 0 0

Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Sep-11 Aug-11 YTD 2011 Sep-10 YTD 2010

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANADA 2,829 2,637 2,670 2,479 2,537

SAUDI ARABIA 1,479 1,075 1,187 1,093 1,086

MEXICO 1,192 1,185 1,218 1,254 1,260

VENEZUELA 806 906 979 1,008 1,007

RUSSIA 592 585 609 648 624

NIGERIA 580 892 876 1,174 1,053

COLOMBIA 529 395 395 363 360

IRAQ 404 637 473 422 464

ECUADOR 305 309 205 229 217

ANGOLA 304 331 335 417 422

ALGERIA 291 298 396 543 512

VIRGIN ISLANDS 189 185 189 302 261

BRAZIL 188 228 240 181 289

ARUBA 149 81 79 0 0

KUWAIT 145 165 165 172 206

LordofHats wrote:
No one actual considers going to war with Syria, even now. Or Sudan. We didn't even get involved during the Darfur genocide. We haven't gone to war with Yemen, and even with all the piracy we aren't at war with Somalia (then again one has to wonder if one can be at war with a non-state). Being Anti-western just means no one in the West likes you which is different from wanting to go to war with you.

LordofHats wrote:
Opposition is different from actually talking about war. Look at Zimbabwae. Probably one of the vilest governments on the planet. Anti-western, poised for genocide, and it never gets a mention.

Huffy wrote:Why how funny...we don't import oil from Iran..

You keep using the word war, and I'm not sure what you mean.

Want to guess what happens to oil prices if those sources are cut off by Iran closing the Persian Gulf? Want to guess what happens to the American economy if that happens?

LordofHats wrote:
I draw a distinction between the rhetoric and a legitimate consideration of action.

That is not to say that the contributions from Gulf States is negligible. Saudi Arabia, for example is second on the list. Iraq, Kuwait, and Oman also contribute a good chunk. Want to guess what happens to oil prices if those sources are cut off by Iran closing the Persian Gulf? Want to guess what happens to the American economy if that happens?

Tyyr wrote:

That is not to say that the contributions from Gulf States is negligible. Saudi Arabia, for example is second on the list. Iraq, Kuwait, and Oman also contribute a good chunk. Want to guess what happens to oil prices if those sources are cut off by Iran closing the Persian Gulf? Want to guess what happens to the American economy if that happens?

No, my point is that the idea that we invaded Iraq for oil is frankly stupid. The amount to what can scientifically be refered to as "dick" in the grand scheme of our oil consumption. If we were going to steam roll someone just for oil there are plenty of places a lot closer with a lot more oil we can bomb. Prettier too.

What happens if Iran closes the Persian Gulf? Iran ceases to exist as a functioning nation. If Iran really tried to put the pinch on the west by "closing" the gulf how long would it take for the west to stage a freedom of navigation exercise that included leveling every SSM launcher and small boat ramp on Iran's coast? Not very long. Iran can't and won't bother trying to close the gulf. They know they can't and that doing so would just give us a reason to open fire.

dogma wrote:The point being, I've heard lots of people talk about a series of airstrikes against Iran, which I'm not sure I would consider war, but no one talk about a ground invasion, which I would consider war.

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
I draw a distinction between the rhetoric and a legitimate consideration of action.

Right, but that's not really what I'm asking. When you say "war" do you mean any military action, or some formally declared military action?

Ketara wrote:

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
I draw a distinction between the rhetoric and a legitimate consideration of action.

Right, but that's not really what I'm asking. When you say "war" do you mean any military action, or some formally declared military action?

People have been asking for a definition of that one for millennia, from Cicero to Clausewitz. Good luck getting a definitive answer to it off Dakka.

LordofHats wrote:

Clausewitz is the best btw "War is the continuation of politics through other means. An act of force to compel our enemy to do our will."

King Pariah wrote:Funny thing about oil... Green River Basin is the LARGEST oil reserve in the world, yeah, that's right, the US has the largest natural oil reserve in the world. Not to mention the bunch we have up in Alaska. Why the hell don't we drill our own f***ing oil? Oh yeah, it'd take ten years to get plants up and running to start processing the oil shale. WELL GET TO WORK ALREADY!

Anyway with Iran, I have a feeling that for the time being it's going to be our usual shouting match that gets us nowhere but keeps the tensions running a bit high.

Ketara wrote:
People have been asking for a definition of that one for millennia, from Cicero to Clausewitz. Good luck getting a definitive answer to it off Dakka.

King Pariah wrote:Funny thing about oil... Green River Basin is the LARGEST oil reserve in the world, yeah, that's right, the US has the largest natural oil reserve in the world. Not to mention the bunch we have up in Alaska. Why the hell don't we drill our own f***ing oil? Oh yeah, it'd take ten years to get plants up and running to start processing the oil shale. WELL GET TO WORK ALREADY!