PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Pentagon: Iran fires on U.S. drone


Chiefspants
11-08-2012, 01:57 PM
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/08/first-on-cnn-iranian-jets-fire-on-u-s-drone/?hpt=hp_t3

Chocolate Hog
11-08-2012, 01:57 PM
FORWARD!

SNR
11-08-2012, 01:58 PM
Cool. Jesus Obama the Prince of Peace can now go kill more brown people to the delight of anti-war liberals.

Cave Johnson
11-08-2012, 01:58 PM
WHY HAVEN'T WE INVADED IRAN YET??!?

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 01:59 PM
Cool. Jesus Obama the Prince of Peace can now go kill more brown people to the delight of anti-war liberals.

He's very sorry that our drone got in the way of their jets.

jiveturkey
11-08-2012, 02:00 PM
If they can't shoot down a drone then they're fucked when the FA-18's show up.

HonestChieffan
11-08-2012, 02:01 PM
November 1st? What?

Donger
11-08-2012, 02:06 PM
If they can't shoot down a drone then they're ****ed when the FA-18's show up.

I would imagine that it's more likely that they missed intentionally.

The_Grand_Illusion
11-08-2012, 02:08 PM
November 1st? What?

Yeah, can't show anything that might hurt his election chances. :shake:

TGI

KILLER_CLOWN
11-08-2012, 02:09 PM
This is an outrage, how dare a sovereign nation defend itself..Inexcusable..invade Naow!

Donger
11-08-2012, 02:09 PM
This is an outrage, how dare a sovereign nation defend itself..Inexcusable..invade Naow!

The drone was in international airspace.

cosmo20002
11-08-2012, 02:11 PM
Game. Changer.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 02:11 PM
The drone was in international airspace.

Shhhhh......

You'll just confuse him.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 02:12 PM
Game. Changer.

Y'know fellas, he makes an excellent point.

His guy won...so nothing matters now. No sense in discussing this because it has no bearing on an election.

And as KCNative has so profoundly shown us all, if it doesn't say voters, it doesn't actually matter.

Thanks for the reminder, Cosmo. Carry on folks, nothing to see here until about 2015.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 02:14 PM
This is an outrage, how dare a sovereign nation defend itself..Inexcusable..invade Naow!

I know I don't get the other viewpoint at all. So illogical.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 02:15 PM
The drone was in international airspace.

Heading where though?

And why is a drone needed in international airspace anyway?

( Not to mention our own acts of war inside the place since 2003. His point is still valid. )

cosmo20002
11-08-2012, 02:15 PM
Y'know fellas, he makes an excellent point.

His guy won...so nothing matters now. No sense in discussing this because it has no bearing on an election.

And as KCNative has so profoundly shown us all, if it doesn't say voters, it doesn't actually matter.

Thanks for the reminder, Cosmo. Carry on folks, nothing to see here until about 2015.

Oh, I totally meant 2016.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 02:16 PM
He's very sorry that our drone got in the way of their jets.

Well, at least we didn't shoot down a civilian airliner this time.

Donger
11-08-2012, 02:18 PM
Heading where though?

( not to mention our own acts of war inside the place since 2003 )

Since it was doing maritime surveillance...

If one of our drones enters their airspace, it's fair game.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 02:19 PM
Oh, I totally meant 2016.

I gotta give it to the D Machine - always campaigning. In the process of talking about what you'll do next time, you fellas do a damn fine job of taking attention away from all the stuff you're screwing up this time.

Pretty handy trick, I must say.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 02:22 PM
Heading where though?

And why is a drone needed in international airspace anyway?

( Not to mention our own acts of war inside the place since 2003. His point is still valid. )

No, it isn't. You don't get to leave your airspace, go into international airspace and start firing at other nation's stuff without it being considered an act of unprovoked aggression.

And this drone appeared to have a legitimate purpose for being where it was.

"Grudges" are not adequate justification for acts of aggression.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-08-2012, 02:34 PM
The drone was in international airspace.

So it was a drone of love just minding it's own business?

Donger
11-08-2012, 02:35 PM
So it was a drone of love just minding it's own business?

No, it was performing maritime surveillance over the Gulf in international waters.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-08-2012, 02:35 PM
Well, at least we didn't shoot down a civilian airliner this time.

LMAO

KILLER_CLOWN
11-08-2012, 02:37 PM
No, it was performing maritime surveillance over the Gulf in international waters.

It's not like we've invaded other countries without reason or killed innocent civilians with drones.

theelusiveeightrop
11-08-2012, 02:38 PM
Un-armed drone. Near Iran. Great defense policy. Let's send unarmed infantry there next. We have armed drones, and nuclear weapons. Time to teach Iran a lesson, and end their charades. No ground forces. All by air. We have the capability. Let's use it. Election is over.

Donger
11-08-2012, 02:41 PM
It's not like we've invaded other countries without reason or killed innocent civilians with drones.

So, in your mind, those are justification for Iran to fire upon one of our drones in international airspace. Is that right?

Donger
11-08-2012, 02:44 PM
Un-armed drone. Near Iran. Great defense policy. Let's send unarmed infantry there next. We have armed drones, and nuclear weapons. Time to teach Iran a lesson, and end their charades. No ground forces. All by air. We have the capability. Let's use it. Election is over.

:spock:

I'd say that's just a little over-the-top.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-08-2012, 02:44 PM
So, in your mind, those are justification for Iran to fire upon one of our drones in international airspace. Is that right?

No what i'm saying is what was our drone doing anywhere near their airspace? I don't think it was out looking for flowers or cool pics for peoples desktops.

Donger
11-08-2012, 02:45 PM
LMAO

I'm not sure why you think that is humorous. Care to explain?

Donger
11-08-2012, 02:46 PM
No what i'm saying is what was our drone doing anywhere near their airspace? I don't think it was out looking for flowers or cool pics for peoples desktops.

Again, it was in international airspace and it was conducting maritime surveillance over the Gulf. Do you know and understand what those two things are?

KILLER_CLOWN
11-08-2012, 02:46 PM
I'm not sure why you think that is humorous. Care to explain?

The loss of life isn't it, the rest you can figure out.

Donger
11-08-2012, 02:47 PM
The loss of life isn't it, the rest you can figure out.

No, I'm not sure that I can. Please elaborate.

KChiefer
11-08-2012, 02:48 PM
Un-armed drone. Near Iran. Great defense policy. Let's send unarmed infantry there next. We have armed drones, and nuclear weapons. Time to teach Iran a lesson, and end their charades. No ground forces. All by air. We have the capability. Let's use it. Election is over.

Yeah, let's nuke a country that can't shoot down a paper airplane.

And if they missed on purpose as to escalate things while still getting to cry foul because they didn't actually shoot it down, great, you just played right into their hands by overreacting.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-08-2012, 02:48 PM
Again, it was in international airspace and it was conducting maritime surveillance over the Gulf. Do you know and understand what those two things are?

Yes and what do you think our response should be?

KILLER_CLOWN
11-08-2012, 02:49 PM
No, I'm not sure that I can. Please elaborate.

Why was the airliner shot down?

Donger
11-08-2012, 02:49 PM
Yes and what do you think our response should be?

What has apparently already been done.

Donger
11-08-2012, 02:51 PM
Why was the airliner shot down?

Overly-aggressive captain of our warship combined with recent engagements with the Iranian navy.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-08-2012, 02:52 PM
Overly-aggressive captain of our warship combined with recent engagements with the Iranian navy.

I figured with your stance on Iran you probably wouldn't mind if we overreacted to it right?

alpha_omega
11-08-2012, 02:53 PM
It's ok...i am sure the drone was just headed for Benghazi to help out...it just got a little lost.

Donger
11-08-2012, 02:55 PM
I figured with your stance on Iran you probably wouldn't mind if we overreacted to it right?

I think it was an unfortunate event, but no, it didn't and doesn't exactly keep me awake at night. And you may note that I said that the captain over-reacted.

loochy
11-08-2012, 02:57 PM
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/29875576.jpg

KILLER_CLOWN
11-08-2012, 03:23 PM
How many think Romney would have invaded over this?

Donger
11-08-2012, 03:26 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/05/un-nuclear-chief-iran-not-cooperating-with-probe-suspected-secret-work-on/

UNITED NATIONS – In a story Nov. 5 about the U.N. nuclear chief's report to the General Assembly, The Associated Press incorrectly spelled his first name. His name is Yukiya Amano, not Yukio Amano.

A corrected version of the story is below:

UN: Iran not cooperating on nuclear weapons probe

UN nuclear chief: Iran not cooperating with probe of suspected secret work on nuclear weapons

By EDITH M. LEDERER

Associated Press

The U.N. nuclear chief said Monday that Iran is not cooperating with an investigation into suspected secret work on nuclear weapons.

Yukiya Amano told the U.N. General Assembly that talks between the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran have intensified this year after an IAEA report in November 2011 said it had "credible information that Iran had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device," he said.

"However, no concrete results have been achieved so far," Amano said.

While the IAEA continues to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material is not being diverted from peaceful purposes, "Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation to enable us to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities," Amano said.

"Therefore, we cannot conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities," he said.

But the IAEA director general said "the agency is firmly committed to intensifying dialogue with Iran."

"We will continue negotiations with Iran on a structured approach," he said. "I hope we can reach agreement without further delay."

Iran has repeatedly denied any interest in possessing nuclear arms, but the international community fears that Tehran may turn its peaceful uranium enrichment program toward weapons making — a concern that is growing as the government expands the number of machines it uses to enrich its stockpile of enriched uranium.

As those fears grow, so does concern that Israel could carry out its threats to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before that nation reaches the bomb-making threshold.

Iran's U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee reiterated his country's position, that it has a right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and rejected the claims in the IAEA report saying they are "not credible" and based on "forged reports" provided by Israel and the United States.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/05/un-nuclear-chief-iran-not-cooperating-with-probe-suspected-secret-work-on/#ixzz2BfX3ZDi4

J Diddy
11-08-2012, 03:33 PM
Since it was doing maritime surveillance...

If one of our drones enters their airspace, it's fair game.

Are you not assuming that's what it was doing and where it was?

Donger
11-08-2012, 03:36 PM
Are you not assuming that's what it was doing and where it was?

I wasn't flying it, so I'm taking the military at its word sans any other evidence to the contrary.

tiptap
11-08-2012, 03:56 PM
Since it was doing maritime surveillance...

If one of our drones enters their airspace, it's fair game.

Get those Nukes out of Cuba (and we will in Turkey)

Donger
11-08-2012, 04:07 PM
Get those Nukes out of Cuba (and we will in Turkey)

Are you trying to link the two events?

tiptap
11-08-2012, 04:32 PM
Cuba and Turkey? That is well known

jjjayb
11-08-2012, 04:34 PM
Interesting that his happened a week ago and we didn't hear about it until now.

The Rick
11-08-2012, 04:37 PM
Interesting that his happened a week ago and we didn't hear about it until now.

Precisely. :shake:

alpha_omega
11-08-2012, 04:39 PM
Cuba and Turkey? That is well known

Mmmmm, i would love both a Turkey and a Cuban sammich.

tiptap
11-08-2012, 04:51 PM
black beans and rice. And that crispy hog skin from the mountains with that thick coffee.

KChiefer
11-08-2012, 04:54 PM
Interesting that his happened a week ago and we didn't hear about it until now.

This was leaked by an unnamed source so it's likely that we still shouldn't be hearing about it. Please forgive our leaders for not tweeting any and every incident concerning national security.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 05:12 PM
Donger, of course being a govt shill, believes all the wrong sources.

Donger
11-08-2012, 05:14 PM
Cuba and Turkey? That is well known

No, between the deal Kennedy made (Cuba and Turkey) and this situation.

Donger
11-08-2012, 05:15 PM
Donger, of course being a govt shill, believes all the wrong sources.

Yeah, I really should wait to see what Lew and/or antiwar.com have to say about it, right?

Iowanian
11-08-2012, 05:17 PM
Better hurry up and invite Abberjabbercrombie over for a beer so we can offer an apology for our drone getting too close to those innocent Iranian weapon tests.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 05:18 PM
That poor unarmed drone.:deevee:

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 05:24 PM
The claim that the drone was in international airspace cannot be confirmed.
It's doubtful, as it would be difficult for Iran to fire on a small drone from its own territory.
That this was due to “routine maritime surveillance” is also very dubious. Even if it were“routine” that still has no bearing on how it could be perceived as hostile. If it was really routine, then the Pentagon had nothing to hide, and should not have been classified as it had been.
All sorts of angles here. But if it was hovering near our airspace, or just off the coast our govt would have acted more aggressively than Iranian warning shots, that actually missed this "poor unarmed drone." Po' wittle piece of metal.

Oh and the Obama administration witheld this for the public until after the election.

Donger
11-08-2012, 05:26 PM
The claim that the drone was in international airspace cannot be confirmed.
It's doubtful, as it would be difficult for Iran to fire on a small drone from its own territory.
That this was due to “routine maritime surveillance” is also very dubious. Even if it were“routine” that still has no bearing on how it could be perceived as hostile. If it was really routine, then the Pentagon had nothing to hide, and should not have been classified as it had been.
All sorts of angles here. But if it was hovering near our airspace, or just off the coast our govt would have acted more aggressively than Iranian warning shots, that actually missed this "poor unarmed drone." Po' wittle piece of metal.

Oh and the Obama administration witheld this for the public until after the election.

Is this a cut and paste job, or did you write it??

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 05:31 PM
Change the word "one" to "drone" here:

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kqPjwbD5G54" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Donger
11-08-2012, 05:32 PM
Ah, I see. A cut and paste job from here. What a shock:

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/11/08/iranian-jets-fired-on-us-predator-drone/

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 05:47 PM
Ah, I see. A cut and paste job from here. What a shock:

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/11/08/iranian-jets-fired-on-us-predator-drone/

:doh!:

Wow, BEP. The guy openly and pre-emptively mocks you for waiting on a source from Antiwar.com....and you still can't be bothered to re-write what you plagiarize from the exact site?

That's pretty damn weak right there.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 05:54 PM
:doh!:

Wow, BEP. The guy openly and pre-emptively mocks you for waiting on a source from Antiwar.com....and you still can't be bothered to re-write what you plagiarize from the exact site?

That's pretty damn weak right there.

He already knows where I get that from because I always get it from the same place. It is still facts.
It was not all cut and paste though but excerpted and in parts paraphrased. I just forgot to link which I usually do.
I did say I was reading that.

antiwar.com called out all the lies on Iraq and turned out right.
They did the same on the Balkan intervention.
They specialize in tough investigative reporting on war only.
They even have former CIA as contributers.

Donger
11-08-2012, 05:55 PM
He already knows where I get that from because I always get it from the same place. It still facts.

Are you willing to attempt to defend their "facts" with me?

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 06:03 PM
Donger would rather plagiarize/cut and paste the govt's claims.

Donger
11-08-2012, 06:07 PM
Donger would rather plagiarize/cut and paste the govt's claims.

I take it that you aren't willing to defend any of the article you posted?

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 06:11 PM
:deevee:Po'r wittle piece of unarmed metal.
I'm so skeer'd.

Donger
11-08-2012, 06:12 PM
:deevee:Po'r wittle piece of unarmed metal.
I'm so skeer'd.

I know you won't (because you have no idea what you're talking about), but please explain this, particularly the second sentence:

The claim that the drone was in international airspace cannot be confirmed.

It's doubtful, as it would be difficult for Iran to fire on a small drone from its own territory.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 06:13 PM
Poor wandering drone.
Though thou hast surely strayed,
Take heart of grace,
Thy steps retrace,
Poor wand'ring drone!

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 06:31 PM
Are you willing to attempt to defend their "facts" with me?

I said, in bold, " I'm reading"....As I have said many times before with you those are called contrary facts. I told you before when there are contrary facts then something isn't right about what we're being told. Being that we're trying to create a reason for another war, were lied to before and my source has reported more accurately than yours I remain suspicious.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 06:32 PM
:d

Wow, BEP. The guy openly and pre-emptively mocks you for waiting on a source from Antiwar.com....and you still can't be bothered to re-write what you plagiarize from the exact site?


Here's the facts on what is plagiarism.
http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_plagiarism_faq.html

Donger
11-08-2012, 06:36 PM
I said, in bold, " I'm reading"....As I have said many times before with you those are called contrary facts. I told you before when there are contrary facts then something isn't right about what we're being told. Being that we're trying to create a reason for another war, were lied to before and my source has reported more accurately than yours I remain suspicious.

What makes you think that this is a "contrary fact"?

It's doubtful, as it would be difficult for Iran to fire on a small drone from its own territory.

J Diddy
11-08-2012, 06:38 PM
I said, in bold, " I'm reading"....As I have said many times before with you those are called contrary facts. I told you before when there are contrary facts then something isn't right about what we're being told. Being that we're trying to create a reason for another war, were lied to before and my source has reported more accurately than yours I remain suspicious.

I think a link would be sufficient. What you did there would've gotten me kicked out of school.

BigRedChief
11-08-2012, 06:41 PM
I'm totally surprised this made it to the media. Someone is in big trouble.

J Diddy
11-08-2012, 06:41 PM
I think we were flying over iran and got shot at. I don't think an agenda for getting another war was at play, we have already had more than enough provocation for that.

I also think the story of international waters etc is bullshit meant to prevent embarassment.

Now I shall put on my tin foil hat.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 06:42 PM
I think a link would be sufficient. What you did there would've gotten me kicked out of school.

It's not a school paper. It was not just cut and pasted. I admitted I forgot the link but Donger did it for me...he knows where I get such things. So the deed is done.

Go read the whole link it has more in there that should be known such as:

"News of the Obama administration’s drone wars in Yemen and Pakistan have been publicized internationally for years. That the Iranians were just supposed to presume the drone was unarmed, or surveilling the Gulf instead of the Iranian territory, is absurd."

Yeah, the Iranians have no right to perceive it threatening.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 06:42 PM
I'm totally surprised this made it to the media. Someone is in big trouble.

We should know imo. And we would shoot it if it came near our coast too.

Donger
11-08-2012, 06:46 PM
That the Iranians were just supposed to presume the drone was unarmed, or surveilling the Gulf instead of the Iranian territory, is absurd.

No, it isn't. We have every right to fly whatever we want in international airspace. So do the Iranians.

BigRedChief
11-08-2012, 06:47 PM
We should know imo.Why? Some fucking little ass Iranian dingy with a rifle takes a pot shot at a drone?

Do you realize how a situation with Iran and USA could spiral out of control quickly? You dont think there are hard liners in Iran wanting to provoke us into an attack for their own benefit? And to the detriment of our interests?

Donger
11-08-2012, 06:47 PM
I think we were flying over iran and got shot at. I don't think an agenda for getting another war was at play, we have already had more than enough provocation for that.

I also think the story of international waters etc is bullshit meant to prevent embarassment.

Now I shall put on my tin foil hat.

We are flying over Iran, but not with Predators.

Donger
11-08-2012, 06:49 PM
Why? Some ****ing little ass Iranian dingy with a rifle takes a pot shot at a drone?

Do you realize how a situation with Iran and USA could spiral out of control quickly? You dont think there are hard liners in Iran wanting to provoke us into an attack for their own benefit? And to the detriment of our interests?

SETEC ASTRONOMY

KCTitus
11-08-2012, 06:53 PM
Why? Some ****ing little ass Iranian dingy with a rifle takes a pot shot at a drone?

Do you realize how a situation with Iran and USA could spiral out of control quickly? You dont think there are hard liners in Iran wanting to provoke us into an attack for their own benefit? And to the detriment of our interests?

Maybe they dont know that Obama won, yet.

stonedstooge
11-08-2012, 06:57 PM
Wonder if the White House has comments on this one?

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 06:58 PM
Why? Some ****ing little ass Iranian dingy with a rifle takes a pot shot at a drone?

Do you realize how a situation with Iran and USA could spiral out of control quickly? You dont think there are hard liners in Iran wanting to provoke us into an attack for their own benefit? And to the detriment of our interests?
What are you worried about, that's exactly what some people in our govt are aiming for—a casus belli for war would be a blessing to those folks.

Do you realize what we tried to de-list MEK as a terrorist group because we've already been in Iran using them to commit terrorism, kidnapping officials etc. Are you unaware who sent the Stuxnnet worm to them?

Chocolate Hog
11-08-2012, 06:59 PM
I think a link would be sufficient. What you did there would've gotten me kicked out of school.

Or elected as Vice President.

stonedstooge
11-08-2012, 07:02 PM
Or elected as Vice President.

ROFL

Pants
11-08-2012, 07:04 PM
Hey, I know this is off-topic but do you guys think we let Iran have that RQ-17 in order to get a newer and better version of Stuxnet all up in their shit?

KCTitus
11-08-2012, 07:04 PM
Wonder if the White House has comments on this one?

They sentenced the video maker to a year in jail...that should do it.

KChiefer
11-08-2012, 07:05 PM
Maybe they dont know that Obama won, yet.

I know you are just now trying to go cold-turkey on ingesting the fox ideology but alluding that Obama is allied with Iran is a clear side-effect of your over-dosage in nonsense.

Also, might I suggest just lowering your dosage instead of immediately cutting it off. I wouldn't want you to miss the 2016 cycle.

Donger
11-08-2012, 07:07 PM
Hey, I know this is off-topic but do you guys think we let Iran have that RQ-17 in order to get a newer and better version of Stuxnet all up in their shit?

170. And no.

Donger
11-08-2012, 07:08 PM
What are you worried about, that's exactly what some people in our govt are aiming for—a casus belli for war would be a blessing to those folks.

Do you realize what we tried to de-list MEK as a terrorist group because we've already been in Iran using them to commit terrorism, kidnapping officials etc. Are you unaware who sent the Stuxnnet worm to them?

And we are allegedly doing all that because....

Pants
11-08-2012, 07:11 PM
170. And no.

Yeah, 170 is what I meant.

What do you think really happened?

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 07:13 PM
I know you are just now trying to go cold-turkey on ingesting the fox ideology but alluding that Obama is allied with Iran is a clear side-effect of your over-dosage in nonsense.

It is nonsense. Obama's been continuing warfare on a covert basis in Iran, just as Bush did.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 07:17 PM
Obama Bombs Yemen Hours After Winning Reelection

The drone war violates both domestic and international law, and the Obama administration’s vehement disdain for transparency in government is the only thing keeping it from public and legal scrutiny. Beyond the law, it’s terrorism.
http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/11/07/obama-bombs-yemen-hours-after-winning-reelection/

O.M.G. This was the picture with this news report:

http://antiwar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/p091812ps-0756-208x300.jpg

KChiefer
11-08-2012, 07:20 PM
...
O.M.G. This was the picture with this news report:
...

What's the "OMG" for?

Donger
11-08-2012, 07:22 PM
Yeah, 170 is what I meant.

What do you think really happened?

Just a system failure.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 07:25 PM
What's the "OMG" for?

It's an expression on the net for "Oh my God!" It's being used to show Obama laughing about the drone attacks there.

Pants
11-08-2012, 07:33 PM
Just a system failure.

Damn, that really fucking sucks.

Pants
11-08-2012, 07:33 PM
It's an expression on the net for "Oh my God!" It's being used to show Obama laughing about the drone attacks there.

Wait, are you being serious?

KChiefer
11-08-2012, 07:35 PM
It's an expression on the net for "Oh my God!" It's being used to show Obama laughing about the drone attacks there.

I was just wondering what's shocking about some website exploiting an unrelated photo of Obama to make him look bad. That's pretty typical of a smear job.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 07:41 PM
I was just wondering what's shocking about some website exploiting an unrelated photo of Obama to make him look bad. That's pretty typical of a smear job.

No you weren't wondering. You already had an opinion and didn't agree with the fact I thought it was an O.M.G moment.
That site makes both R and D presidents look bad if they're considered to be doing something evil.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 07:48 PM
Interesting that his happened a week ago and we didn't hear about it until now.

I wonder if we've apologized yet.

KChiefer
11-08-2012, 07:51 PM
No you weren't wondering. You already had an opinion and didn't agree with the fact I thought it was an O.M.G moment.
That site makes both R and D presidents look bad if they're considered to be doing something evil.

What's the OMG moment? The Picture??? Because that's what your OMG was tied to. And if it's the picture, as I said, that's a typical smear tactic. Not much OMG about it.

dmahurin
11-08-2012, 08:00 PM
I did two deployments in that area in the navy. I would bet that we had ships in the area, the Iranian's sent out a radio challenge (happens 99% of the time a US ship passes the through the straights of Hormuz or gets to close to Iranian ships), we sent up a drone to "conduct routine maritime surveillance" (circling the Iranian ships) and then Iran decided to push it this time with the election coming up.

stonedstooge
11-08-2012, 08:11 PM
I did two deployments in that area in the navy. I would bet that we had ships in the area, the Iranian's sent out a radio challenge (happens 99% of the time a US ship passes the through the straights of Hormuz or gets to close to Iranian ships), we sent up a drone to "conduct routine maritime surveillance" (circling the Iranian ships) and then Iran decided to push it this time with the election coming up.

And it wasn't reported until now so that we don't give the Iranian's what they want?

dmahurin
11-08-2012, 08:13 PM
And it wasn't reported until now so that we don't give the Iranian's what they want?

Most likely, waiting a week on stuff like this is pretty standard practice, in 2006 we got into a gun fight with pirates off the coast of Somalia, the ship goes radio silence for unclassified communications so you can't email or call home about it until its investigated.

BWillie
11-08-2012, 08:24 PM
The drone was in international airspace.

Yeah only miles away from the Iranian coast. Im sure we would be just fine with Iranian drones flying near the Statute of Liberty

dmahurin
11-08-2012, 08:33 PM
Yeah only miles away from the Iranian coast. Im sure we would be just fine with Iranian drones flying near the Statute of Liberty

The article said it was 16 miles off the coast, 12 miles out is the territorial water line. The chances we entered Iranian airspace is small but to accidentally enter it is possible. The fact that it was so close to the territorial water line makes me think my guess about how it happened is even closer to spot on. The Iranians never ventured far from that line.

Donger
11-08-2012, 08:34 PM
Yeah only miles away from the Iranian coast.

Are you aware of the actual internationally-recognized distances?

Im sure we would be just fine with Iranian drones flying near the Statute of Liberty

No, we wouldn't be, because she is well within our airspace (and waters).

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 09:42 PM
What's the OMG moment? The Picture??? Because that's what your OMG was tied to. And if it's the picture, as I said, that's a typical smear tactic. Not much OMG about it.

Speak for yourself. Apparently you treat opinions as facts. Try to be logical.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 09:44 PM
I wonder if we've apologized yet.

Why would Obama apologize, he's been covertly engaged in war acts in Iran just as Bush was. He's the same as the old boss. He's not a pussy on using drones to kill. So he's not an apologizer.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 09:49 PM
Spare me the outrage NeoCons.

Neo-Con Revenge: Post-Election 'Attack Iran' Machine on Overdrive
Daniel McAdams on November 8, 2012 09:07 PM

US sends drone to spy on Iran, as it has done continuously for years, no doubt collecting targeting data to assist in US/Israeli attack on Iran. Iran reportedly fires at drone gathering targeting data to assist US in bombing Iran. US astonished at Iran's "aggression" toward US drone gathering intelligence to assist a US attack on Iran.

"'There is absolutely no precedence for this,' [Pentagon spokesman George] Little said. 'This is the first time that a (drone) has been fired upon to our knowledge by Iranian aircraft.'"

US shocked that the Iranians would have the gall to respond to US hostile gestures in the region. Oh but it was in international waters!

Imagine the US response to an Iranian drone operating in international Gulf of Mexico waters off of Florida.

What does it all call to mind? Remember the pre-Iraq war times, when neo-cons ridiculed Ron Paul and others pointing that Iraq had not attacked us by screaming "OF COURSE they attacked us! They fired on our planes as we were bombing their country!" LMAO This is recycled propaganda -- but it works so well why not use it again?

The neo-cons and their partner Netanyahu went all out for Romney to guarantee a US led or at least assisted attack on Iran. The American electorate voted for the other guy. Now it is time for neo-con and Bibi's revenge, delivered by an obedient media. Will the administration swallow the bait, delivered breathlessly by FoxNews airheads?


Wouldn't surprise me if Obama intentionally held off as he told Bibi to hold off until after the election for starting a war. A war would take attention off of things at home.

Chiefspants
11-08-2012, 10:40 PM
Spare me the outrage NeoCons.

Neo-Con Revenge: Post-Election 'Attack Iran' Machine on Overdrive
Daniel McAdams on November 8, 2012 09:07 PM

US sends drone to spy on Iran, as it has done continuously for years, no doubt collecting targeting data to assist in US/Israeli attack on Iran. Iran reportedly fires at drone gathering targeting data to assist US in bombing Iran. US astonished at Iran's "aggression" toward US drone gathering intelligence to assist a US attack on Iran.

"'There is absolutely no precedence for this,' [Pentagon spokesman George] Little said. 'This is the first time that a (drone) has been fired upon to our knowledge by Iranian aircraft.'"

US shocked that the Iranians would have the gall to respond to US hostile gestures in the region. Oh but it was in international waters!

Imagine the US response to an Iranian drone operating in international Gulf of Mexico waters off of Florida.

What does it all call to mind? Remember the pre-Iraq war times, when neo-cons ridiculed Ron Paul and others pointing that Iraq had not attacked us by screaming "OF COURSE they attacked us! They fired on our planes as we were bombing their country!" LMAO This is recycled propaganda -- but it works so well why not use it again?

The neo-cons and their partner Netanyahu went all out for Romney to guarantee a US led or at least assisted attack on Iran. The American electorate voted for the other guy. Now it is time for neo-con and Bibi's revenge, delivered by an obedient media. Will the administration swallow the bait, delivered breathlessly by FoxNews airheads?


Wouldn't surprise me if Obama intentionally held off as he told Bibi to hold off until after the election for starting a war. A war would take attention off of things at home.

It would also be astronomically unpopular, no one wants another war.

J Diddy
11-08-2012, 10:51 PM
Speak for yourself. Apparently you treat opinions as facts. Try to be logical.

No logic to what you are saying.

listopencil
11-08-2012, 11:27 PM
Obama Bombs Yemen Hours After Winning Reelection



The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy) principles of former United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) president George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush). The phrase was first used by Charles Krauthammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer) in June 2001 to describe the Bush Administration's "unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol".<sup id="cite_ref-krauthammer2008_1-0" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-krauthammer2008-1)</sup> After 9/11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11) the phrase described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29).<sup id="cite_ref-krauthammer2008_1-1" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-krauthammer2008-1)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-NYT_Weisman_20020413_2-0" class="reference">[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-NYT_Weisman_20020413-2)</sup>

Different pundits would attribute different meanings to "the Bush Doctrine", as it came to describe other elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war), which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventionism) that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East), as a strategy for combating terrorism; and a willingness to unilaterally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilaterally) pursue U.S. military interests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Foreign_relations_and_military).<sup id="cite_ref-Time_Allen_20070502_3-0" class="reference">[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-Time_Allen_20070502-3)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-NationalReview_Levin_20060816_4-0" class="reference">[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-NationalReview_Levin_20060816-4)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-USAtoday_Page_20030317_5-0" class="reference">[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-USAtoday_Page_20030317-5)</sup> Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council) text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.<sup id="cite_ref-NSS_September2002_6-0" class="reference">[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-NSS_September2002-6)</sup>

The phrase "Bush Doctrine" was rarely used by members of the Bush administration. The expression was used at least once, though, by Vice President Dick Cheney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney), in a June 2003 speech in which he said, "If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush Doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the Taliban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban) in Afghanistan, and of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq."<sup id="cite_ref-Cheney_use_of_term_7-0" class="reference">[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-Cheney_use_of_term-7)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
</sup>

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 09:38 AM
It would also be astronomically unpopular, no one wants another war.

Not per the posts of some right here on this board. Or some pundits on Fox and in the Republican party....and don't forget Bibi.

Donger
11-09-2012, 10:15 AM
It would also be astronomically unpopular, no one wants another war.

Indeed. Hopefully Iran will come to its senses and comply with NPT safeguards.

Donger
11-09-2012, 10:20 AM
After attack on U.S. drone, Iran backs right to defend territory (http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/world/meast/iran-fighter-jets/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

Washington (CNN) -- Iran said it took "decisive" action after a U.S. drone entered Iranian airspace in the Persian Gulf last week, a commander said.

"Iran will use all its capabilities, including the relevant international agencies, to follow up on this case," Maj. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi said Friday, according to Iran's semi-official news agency ISNA.

The Pentagon said two Iranian jets fired on an unmanned U.S. Air Force drone last week. But the United States said the firing happened over international waters on November 1.

The Iranian action triggered a formal warning by the United States to Iran through diplomatic channels.

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 10:21 AM
Indeed. Hopefully Iran will come to its senses and comply with NPT safeguards.

Not when shill like you keep buying the same half-truths and false reports from the NeoCon wing.
That's a false report right here. I also don't see how breaking an agreement is a cause for a war either.
The Soviet Union didn't keep to their treaties and we didn't start one. We only do it on country's that can't really defend themselves lately if you haven't noticed.

Donger
11-09-2012, 10:23 AM
Not when shill like you keep buying the same half-truths and false reports from the NeoCon wing.
That's a false report right here.

Yes, I know. You refuse to acknowledge that Iran is in violation of NPT safeguards, and that is why the UN have told them to stop enrichment and we (and others) have supported sanctions. It's actually mildly amusing, so please do continue.

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 10:25 AM
A warmonger is someone who would start a war over a country not keeping to safeguards and be trigger happy over a poor wandering drone. That's you Donger. Even if there's no evidence for many of your claims. Israel and the US just don't want them developing nuclear energy period.

Donger
11-09-2012, 10:33 AM
A warmonger is someone who would start a war over a country not keeping to safeguards and be trigger happy over a poor wandering drone. That's you Donger.

I'm not trigger happy over the drone incident at all. Have you not been paying attention again?

Even if there's no evidence for many of your claims.

What claims are those, kitten?

Iran is in violation of NPT safeguards? Check.

Iran continues to enrich in violation of UN requirement that they stop? Check.

Iran has enriched to 20%? Check.

Iran already has more than enough 20% to power their medical reactor? Check.

Iran refuses to allow IAEA inspectors access to Parchin, where suspected single-use testing has occurred and has attempted to sterilize the area? Check.

Please feel free to dispute any of those facts.

Israel and the US just don't want them developing nuclear energy period.

I would imagine that both countries accept Iran's development of peaceful nuclear power per NPT. Unfortunately, Iran is in violation of NPT safeguards which REQUIRE them to prove that their efforts are peaceful.

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 10:35 AM
Did you say something?

Donger
11-09-2012, 10:42 AM
Did you say something?

Yes, facts that you and your ilk conveniently choose to ignore, because they don't fit your agenda.

As always, I'm happy to point them out whenever you pop your head out of the sand.

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 10:43 AM
Huh?

( probably the same NC stuff )

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 12:06 PM
It would also be astronomically unpopular, no one wants another war.

Donger does if they don't comply with NPT safeguards. What a reason!!

Donger
11-09-2012, 12:32 PM
Donger does if they don't comply with NPT safeguards. What a reason!!

That isn't my position at all.