I'll just concur with all that GrumpyGOP is saying. We're very like-minded on all of this stuff, and there's no point in further rehashing.

1/15/2012 7:08:56 PM

Quote :

"Now, we can take the side track here called "Things worth dying for." I can maybe see a suicidal decision being a rational one -- maybe -- if we're talking about something "worth dying for.""

which necessarily means that you are backtracking from

Quote :

"It might be the righteous decision, but by definition any decision that you know will lead to your destruction is not rational."

1/15/2012 7:16:11 PM

Sigh. I kept emphasizing "maybe" because I don't actually buy it. I was willing to run with it for the sake of argument so that I could show even if suicidal behavior might be rational, it isn't in this case.

I stand by the first statement. Any goal that can be furthered by dying can be better or equally well-served by staying a live, and a person making a rational decision will choose existence.

1/15/2012 7:57:24 PM

Iran engineer claims that they took down US drone with "space technology and tractor beams"
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/iran-ufo-drone/

1/15/2012 10:47:51 PM

that's it, we're fucked now. better nuke those bastards!

1/16/2012 9:43:38 AM

Tractor beams? Welp, guess they finally have a delivery system...

1/16/2012 11:56:30 AM

Uhh, so who is this Mehran Tavakoli Keshe dude? Sounds like a crackpot "scientist" who in no way represents Iran.

[Edited on January 16, 2012 at 12:03 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2012 12:01:15 PM

Hey we are winning the war against Iran. The Irish/English/African-Americans are beating the Iranians YAY.

1/16/2012 12:15:21 PM

Iran to return US secret drone... as a toy

Quote :

"Reports say the US is to get its top secret surveillance drone back from Iran. The catch is, the device, intercepted in December, has been reduced to 1:80 of its original size and is being marketed as a popular toy. ­Iranian state radio was quoted by Associated Press as saying on Tuesday that the US RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drone toy models would soon be on sale in Tehran. They are expected to sell for 70,000 rials – around US$4. One of the models will even make it to the White House in response to a formal request from Washington last month asking Iran to return the top-secret device. State radio reports that the model will be of the original aircraft, but one eightieth of the actual size. The top secret US drone was intercepted over the Iranian town of Kashmar, some 225 kilometers from Iran’s border with Afghanistan, in early December. Engineers with the Iranian military confirmed they had managed to hijack the system inside the craft with ease and bring it to a safe landing without incident. Since then, the Obama administration has asked Iran to return the drone, but Tehran has refused, claiming that its incursion into Iranian airspace had rendered it Iran’s property. Reports also suggest the trophy might be put on public display after a thorough examination, and in a year or two it may be put up for auction."

http://rt.com/news/iran-us-drone-toy-965/



well played.

1/17/2012 8:16:20 AM

...but seriously

Quote :

" The United States is not at war with Iran yet, but just in case,the Pentagon says they want to be prepared. To do so, the Department of Defense has dispatched 15,000 troops to the neighboring nation of Kuwait. Gen. James Mattis, the Marine Corps head that rules over the US Central Command, won approval late last year from the White House to deploy the massive surge to the tiny West Asian country Kuwait, which is separated from Iran by only a narrow span of the Persian Gulf. The latest deployment, which was ushered in without much presentation to the public, adds a huge number of troops aligned with America’s arsenal that are now surrounding Iran on literally every front. In late 2011, the US equipped neighboring United Arab Emirates with advanced weaponry created to disrupt underground nuclear operations. In adjacent Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, American military presence has long been all but enormous. While the US has not placed any boots on the ground in Iran, an unauthorized surveillance mission of a US steal drone in December prompted Tehran to become enraged at Washington. US officials insist that Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weaponry program, despite lacking sufficient evidence or confirmation. During the drone mission, Iran authorities intercepted the craft and forced it into a safe landing. Tensions have only worsened between the two nations in the month since, but Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that stealth missions into Iran will continue “absolutely,” despite ongoing opposition from overseas. In calling for the latest surge to Kuwait, Gen.Mattis said the deployment was necessary to keep Iran in check and keep America prepared for any other threats in the area. It comes only weeks after the last American troops vacated nearby Iraq, where the US still in actuality has an advance presence — the American embassy in Baghdad employs thousands of armed military contractors. The move to build up military presence in Kuwait comes at a time when the foreign government is at odds to a degree with a US. While protesters in America this week have demonstrated against the ten year anniversary of the opening of the Guantanamo Bay prison facility, the Kuwait government has increased efforts to have two of their own men transferred out of Gitmo and sent back home. Both Fawzi al-Odah and Fayiz al-Kandari have been detained at Guantanamo since 2002, although only one of the two Kuwaiti citizens has ever been charged."

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-troops-kuwait-iran-741/

1/17/2012 8:23:15 AM

^^
I don't think the Iranian government is in the business of manufacturing model planes. Probably just some company making a buck. Seems like people associate everything that happens in Iran with the Iranian government.

That's pretty damn funny though.

^
and that is not good

[Edited on January 17, 2012 at 8:33 AM. Reason : .]

1/17/2012 8:33:00 AM

i agree. that's terrible we'd put a security presence there.

i say if they want to militarily disrupt world commerce and block trade in their region, then they are free to do so and the rest of the world must pay the cost of economic upheaval and shortages of resources that travel through those regions.

obviously our goals are not to keep the peace or establish trade. they are deeply rooted in irish and english crusades to kill muslims and fight against allah in the name of israel lol

1/17/2012 2:20:08 PM

Your sarcastic point aside, the US obviously has no problems restricting the flow of oil given the eagerness to sanction the oil exports of a top 5 producing nation.

1/17/2012 2:36:03 PM

I think Obama is very hesitant to enact an Oil embargo. This bullshit being peddled that other countries are going to pick up the slack with oil production is unbelievable. They're not, the price of oil will go up, and the last thing Obama wants is 150 dollar crude in November of 2012.

1/17/2012 4:19:30 PM

^yep

Obama wants to make sure any decision about a 'war' will be a GOP presidents decision and not his. His goal is to delay this as long as possible. Car bombs in tehran will only delay the war to stop the nuke production and only further inflame the iranian fanatics.

It's actually a clever strategy and will only deepen the opinion of the masses that only the GOP is the war happy party.

1/17/2012 4:39:35 PM

Sanctions on Iran don't do much to affect the flow of oil. Saudi Arabia has made clear that it can make up for any shortfall in Iran. Blocking off the strait of Hormuz does a bit more to throw in a monkey wrench, because it blocks the shipping access of other major producers, namely Kuwait and Iraq.

1/17/2012 5:59:32 PM

I just don't buy that. If Saudi Arabia can make up for the shortfall, why aren't they doing that now? How long could they keep it up for?

I'm hearing your point loud and clear, but it just doesn't seem reasonable. That the price on a good that is already stretched too thin would be stable, even after a major producer drops out of the market, seems implausible.

1/17/2012 6:35:47 PM

Quote :

"If Saudi Arabia can make up for the shortfall, why aren't they doing that now?"

Saudi Arabia is a member of OPEC, which sets quotas on how much oil members should be producing/exporting. In the past, Saudi Arabia has been pretty good about maintaining the balance. When smaller producers cheated and went over their quota, SA cut back some. When there's a shortfall, it can up production to make up for it. They operate under the assumption that a relatively stable oil market and price benefits them, and work to make that happen. In fact, their willingness to do that is probably the only reason OPEC is still around with any clout at all.

The thing is it really isn't "stretched too thin" yet. The OPEC countries aren't producing at maximum capacity.

Edit: Their would certainly be some instability with the price if there were an embargo or the strait got blocked, but it would have more to do with uncertainty and psychology than it would the actual amount of oil floating around.

[Edited on January 17, 2012 at 7:38 PM. Reason : ]

1/17/2012 7:37:18 PM

^


Additionally,

Quote :

" If Saudi Arabia can make up for the shortfall, why aren't they doing that now?"

What shortfall? There's no blockade at the moment. I'm not quite sure what you're referencing.

Quote :

"How long could they keep it up for?"

I don't think it would much matter...how long do you think that Iran could blockade the strait?

First of all, there's the approach of "Fuck 'em, the Saudis and non-Middle Eastern sources can keep the world moving along for a while...let Iran hang themselves and turn the rest of the region utterly against them.

...and if we took the military option, how long do you really think that Iran could hold the Straits of Hormuz against the U.S. Navy? Any ships taking part would be destroyed almost immediately. They have SSM sites, but I'm sure we could blow those up pretty quickly. They could mine the Strait, but it's a pretty small waterway--I would think that we could clear it out relatively quickly after all the dust settled.

Quote :

" even after a major producer drops out of the market, seems implausible."

The problem isn't just "a major producer", it's that they would be blocking off shipping from many other major producers.





Regardless, even aside from the fact that I don't think they effectively can do this in a meaningful way, I don't think they would ever try. They talk about it once every few years, but they would be hanging themselves in several ways if they tried.

1/17/2012 8:55:25 PM

how long do you think the iranian navy could block the straight for... you know the US navy is just itching for an actually naval engagement.

1/17/2012 9:46:34 PM

Honestly if they did it, we shouldn't do anything. Let the gulf nations (Arab League) deal with that shit. It's not like the US would be the only one hurt by a blockade.

1/17/2012 9:51:25 PM

The speculators will speculate, to make a quick buck, regardless of what the reality of the supplies are.

1/17/2012 10:48:13 PM

Actually, sinking ships is a blockade in itself. If they sit their entire navy in one spot and we sink it those waters won't be navigable for months.

1/17/2012 11:15:23 PM

depends on how big their ships are (they don't have any big carriers or anything, and I don't think they have many--any?--large cruisers), how much the tankers draft, and how deep the Strait is there.

...but just for the sake of argument, only the international shipping lanes through there are only a couple of miles wide. I'm sure the Saudis would allow shipping through their waters for a while if we were nice enough to sink their major rival's entire fleet in the middle of the shipping lanes.

1/17/2012 11:34:42 PM

We go so fast through the Strait of Hormuz, I cant even remember how wide it was. I remember seeing land at some point but not the whole time.

Iranians came out and messed with us a few times, but we just sprayed water on them from the Helos.

1/18/2012 12:03:02 AM

Quote :

"What shortfall? There's no blockade at the moment. I'm not quite sure what you're referencing."

I suspect he's saying, "If Saudi Arabia could produce more, why aren't they producing more already?" Which one could be forgiven for asking, but given the international politics of OPEC and the oil trade in general, it's kind of a silly question. The Saudis understand, partly through experience and partly because they aren't retarded, that fluctuations in oil prices aren't to their benefit. If they go wide open on oil production, prices go down and they run out of their sole bargaining chip faster. If production plummets and prices shoot way up, the rest of the world gets the kick in the pants it needs to develop alternatives to oil.

Quote :

"I don't think it would much matter...how long do you think that Iran could blockade the strait?"

Bob Schaffer (I think it was) had a great comment on this on CBS news the other night. "Iran can close the strait, but only briefly, and only once." Even assuming a straight-up lunatic Tehran government, they have to realize that a blockade is not an endgame or even a victory. Their "fleet" could be annihilated by the USS Stennis and its group in a matter of days if not hours.

But to add onto something I said earlier, even without our intervention I don't think the Saudis would have to keep up accelerated production for long -- Iran would have to realize in short order that the blockade was just funneling money into the pockets of their rivals while leaving their own country in the lurch.

There's another possibility to consider -- even if Tehran gives orders to its fleet, there's no guarantee that they'll all listen. During the Libya war, we made broadcasts to their navy to the effect of, "Don't leave your ports. If you stay in port, we'll leave you alone. If you try to leave, we'll sink you immediately." And to my knowledge, nobody tried to leave. It's one thing to doubt America's military on land -- it's an environment that lends itself to guerilla tactics and defensive war by people on their home turf. It's another thing entirely to doubt our supremacy at sea. You can't set up punji sticks or IEDs for a carrier group, and it's awful goddamn hard to hide a cruiser from our forces.

1/18/2012 3:20:06 AM

Exactly, that's what I was trying to say. Even in dreamworld where Iran could effectively blockade the Strait, it's to their long-term detriment.

1/18/2012 11:30:12 AM

Quote :

"Outside of oil, why do we like Saudi more than Iran?"

I thought of yet another reason:

Back in the 80s, the Reagan administration managed to get the Saudis to raise oil production to suppress worldwide oil prices. With the Soviet economy having a large stake in oil exports, and the fact that we were waging economic warfare against them with an arms race, etc, the Saudi cooperation was a piece of strangling the USSR.

1/19/2012 1:13:21 AM

EU Iran sanctions: Nations poised to ban Iran oil imports

Quote :

"European Union foreign ministers are expected to announce a phased ban on the purchase of oil from Iran at a meeting in Brussels. It would be the latest EU measure to be introduced to punish Iran over its nuclear programme. The EU currently buys around 20% of Iran's oil exports. Tehran denies that it is trying to develop nuclear weapons and says talks and not sanctions are the only way to resolve the dispute. Meanwhile, the Pentagon said the US aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, as well as a British Royal Navy frigate and a French warship, have passed through the Straits of Hormuz at the entrance to the Gulf without incident in the wake of Iranian threats to block the trade route. 'Substantial impact' EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton repeated again on Monday her previous assertion that the sanctions were a way of persuading Iran to take part in talks. "The pressure of sanctions is designed to try and make sure that Iran takes seriously our request to come to the table and meet," she said as she arrived at the meeting in Brussels. She said world powers had yet to receive a reply to an offer made to Iran in October to hold new talks. UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said, as he arrived for the meeting, that the measures were an important way of increasing "the peaceful legitimate pressure on the Iranian government to enter into meaningful negotiations with the international community". EU diplomats agreed last Thursday to impose sanctions on Iran's central bank, but the potential impact of an oil embargo is more substantial. The BBC's Iran correspondent, James Reynolds, says oil is the country's most valuable asset and sales help to keep the Iranian government in money and power. A decision by the EU to stop buying from Iran may damage the Iranian economy - but in itself it won't destroy it, our correspondent says. Rising tensions Iran sells most of its oil to countries in Asia. The EU and the United States are now working to persuade Asian countries to reduce their purchases from Iran as well. It is reported that the EU will immediately prohibit the signing of any new oil contracts with Iran and will bring in a ban on imports in July, to give members time to procure oil from other sources. Iran has already threatened to retaliate by blocking the Strait of Hormuz at the entrance to the Gulf, through which 20% of the world's oil exports pass. The US has said it would keep the trade route open, raising the possibility of a confrontation. Late last year Iran conducted 10 days of military exercises near the Strait of Hormuz, test-firing several missiles. Oil prices have risen already because of the increasing tension and the expected impact of an EU ban on oil supplies to Europe."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16674660

1/23/2012 4:41:20 AM

Quote :

""Outside of oil, why do we like Saudi more than Iran?""

The Saudis never had their leader deposed by a CIA-instigated coup, so they're a little more friendly

1/23/2012 12:17:58 PM

that and we didn't install a dictator next door to them with the express intent of having that dictator start a brutal war against them.

1/23/2012 12:59:46 PM

U.S. officials concerned by Israel statements on Iran threat, possible strike

Quote :

"JERUSALEM — Israeli leaders on Thursday delivered one of the bluntest warnings to date of possible airstrikes against Iranian nuclear sites, adding to the anxiety in Western capitals that a surprise attack by Israel could spark a broader military conflict in the Middle East. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, speaking at a security forum attended by some of Israel’s top intelligence and military leaders, declared that time was running out for stopping Iran’s nuclear advance, as the country’s uranium facilities disappear into newly constructed mountain bunkers. “Whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late,” Barak said. He switched from Hebrew to English for the last phrase: “later is too late.” The language reflected a deepening rift between Israeli and U.S. officials over the urgency of stopping Iran’s nuclear program, which Western intelligence officials and nuclear experts say could soon put nuclear weapons within the reach of Iran’s rulers. Although accepting the gravity of the Iranian threat, U.S. officials fear being blindsided by an Israeli strike that could have widespread economic and security implications and might only delay, not end, Iran’s nuclear pursuits. In a series of private meetings with Israeli counterparts in recent weeks, Western officials have counseled patience, saying recent economic sanctions and a new European oil embargo are pummeling Iran’s economy and could soon force the country’s leaders to abandon the nuclear program. Yet Israelis are increasingly signaling that they may act unilaterally if there is no breakthrough in the coming months, according to current and former administration and intelligence officials. “The Obama administration is concerned that Israel could attack Iranian nuclear facilities this year, having given Washington little or no warning,” said Cliff Kupchan, a former State Department official who specialized in Iran policy during the Clinton administration and recently returned from meetings with Israeli officials. He said Israel “has refused to assure Washington that prior notice would be provided.” Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is one of several administration officials to express concern publicly that Israel is positioning itself for a surprise attack. Last month, the administration dispatched the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, to the Israeli capital for high-level discussions about the possibility of a unilateral Israeli strike. “Israel has indicated they’re considering this, and we have indicated our concerns,” Panetta told reporters Thursday after a NATO meeting in Brussels. Panetta declined to comment on published reports that he thinks the Israelis could carry out a strike this spring, possibly as early as April. Although the Obama administration has not ruled out U.S. military action against Iran, White House officials are worried that a unilateral strike could shatter the broad international coalition assembled in the past three years to confront Iran over its nuclear program, which Iranian leaders have consistently said is for peaceful purposes. U.S. officials fear that an attack by Israel could trigger Iranian retaliation not only against the Jewish state but also against American interests around the world. A prolonged conflict could disrupt oil shipments, drive up energy prices and devastate fragile Western economies, U.S. officials say. Administration officials have hinted that the United States might not intervene militarily in a hostile exchange between Israel and Iran unless the conflict began to threaten U.S. forces or Israeli population centers. In an interview last month on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Panetta said that in the event of an Israeli strike, U.S. military officials’ primary concern would be “to protect our forces.” British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg also expressed concern Thursday that Israel was moving closer to a decision on a potentially destabilizing military strike. “Of course I worry that there will be a military conflict and that certain countries might seek to take matters into their own hands,” Clegg told the House magazine, a weekly British political journal. Clegg, whose government recently imposed new sanctions against Iran’s central bank, said Britain was convinced that “ there are very tough things we can do which are not military steps in order to place pressure on Iran.” At Thursday’s Israeli security conference, in the resort city of Herzliya, Barak and other Israeli officials pointed to recent moves by Iran to begin enriching uranium at a second plant, located in a bunker built into a mountain near the city of Qom. Once that facility is complete, deterring Iran will be far more difficult, they say. “The dividing line may pass not where the Iranians decide to break out of the nonproliferation treaty and move toward a nuclear device or weapon, but at the place .?.?. that would make the physical strike impractical,” Barak said. He rejected criticism that Israeli leaders had failed to consider the full implications of military action. “There is no basis for the claim that this subject.?.?. was not discussed with appropriate breadth and depth,” he said. “The assessment of many experts around the world, not only here, is that the result of avoiding action will certainly be a nuclear Iran, and dealing with a nuclear Iran will be more complicated, more dangerous and more costly in lives and money than stopping it,” he said. Speaking at the same conference, the chief of military intelligence, Gen. Aviv Kochavi, said Iran already has enough fissile material to build four nuclear weapons and could do so within a year if Iranian leaders give the order. U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has adopted a course of gradually gathering the components necessary for nuclear weapons while deferring a decision on whether to build and test a bomb. Although there have been no indications in Israel that a military strike is imminent, Israeli officials have conveyed a sense of urgency, suggesting that a window of opportunity for a military strike is closing. Barak, in a meeting with German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, urged that diplomatic efforts to halt the Iranian nuclear program “be conducted intensively and urgently” and that tougher sanctions target Iran’s financial system and central bank, as well as its oil exports. Israeli officials warn that beyond posing an existential threat to Israel, Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon could trigger a regional nuclear arms race in the volatile Middle East and alter Israel’s strategic position in the region."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-officials-concerned-by-israel-statements-on-iran-threat-possible-strike/2012/02/02/gIQA9gpflQ_story.html?tid=pm_pop






TL;DR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pDII78IRG5o



[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2012 6:01:30 PM

Leave it to the apartheid terrorist nation to bark of committing terrorist actions soon.

Quote :

"[Israeli officials warn that] Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon could trigger a regional nuclear arms race in the volatile Middle East and alter Israel’s strategic position in the region.""

WTF?

It is EXACTLY because of Israel's possession of nuclear weapons that Iran (and Iraq and perhaps Syria in the past) wants to get them as well. So if there is any regional nuclear arms race, it is Israel's fault. But of course, Israel would never look at itself or blame itself for any consequences in the region. Far from that... they are God's chosen people! Strategic position? Who the fuck are you? Fuck off.

2/4/2012 3:29:32 AM

If I were Israel and Iran had a nuclear weapon, you're absolutely right that I would get one.

If I were Iran and Israel had a nuclear weapon, you're absolutely right that I would get one.

To think (like Gingrich) that we can just force another country's leader out of power is ridiculous.

To think that we have the right to tell Israel that they don't have a right to preemptively attack Iran is ridiculous.

While they may not, we do not.

2/4/2012 9:30:27 PM

Quote :

"I would have liked this poll more if it had asked "Should be attack Iran?" rather than "Should we attack Iran to keep them from having a nuclear weapon?" But the conclusions are sorta the same: Quite a few Americans are either not tired of war yet or are really really scared of Iran."

those numbers are going to go up, unfortunately.

Most Americans, apparently, don't realize that they're being fed propaganda about Iran. At any rate, Netanyahu is going to use the US elections as an opportunity to attack Iran (as has been previously suggested in the War with Iran thread), and force Obama on the defensive about his "tough on terror" rhetoric in order to get re-elected. The Republicans, on the other hand, will use it to wrangle control for political points. It's so fucking transparent, it's disgusting.

Gotta get that AIPAC and defense contract lobbyist monies, though, if you want to win in our system of politics. And this is exactly why it's dangerous to equate money with speech, as it gets everyday Americans dragged into wars we don't need to be dragged in to.


Glenn Greenwald has been all over this topic lately, and he literally shows where we are recycling the same bullshit talking points with Iraq in order to get popular support for attacking Iran.










http://www.salon.com/2012/02/03/iran_is_the_root_of_all_evil/singleton/

2/6/2012 7:37:14 PM

2/7/2012 9:05:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q4oajwWZkW4

2/14/2012 5:07:07 AM

2/14/2012 7:46:22 AM

wow. excellent work

15000 years of annoyed humanity at that region gives you a hearty 'thanks'

2/14/2012 11:02:00 AM

JesusHChrist, were your parents muslims or something? you have this huge draw to protect all these middle eastern clerics and sharia law run govts for some reason. we're all just trying to figure out why

2/14/2012 11:05:09 AM

I'm Jewish

2/14/2012 11:10:03 AM

alright man. you're free to continue your pro muslim bot status

2/14/2012 11:22:07 AM

Who here is actually pro Muslim? It's a shitty religion with it's a shitty culture. I'm pro not wasting American money and lies in the middle east.

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ]

2/14/2012 11:29:05 AM

^^ per your request:



Iran sent pink drone to Obama

Quote :

" An Iranian man shows a miniature toy model of the US drone RQ-170 with a slogan quoted by Iran’s late founder of Islamic Republic Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini reading in Farsi, "we will step on the United states" in Tehran ..................................................................... After tough sanctions imposed by the United States and the West, Iran has given into the demands of President Obama, well some demands. Iran is returning the RQ-170 drone that was hacked back in December of last year. There are some differences though: it's pink, it's about one eightieth the original size and being marketed as a toy in Iran. According to some reports the toys have already hit shelves In Tehran and carry a $4 price tag. The display of silliness has many US officials irate at the charade, but no need to get upset. President Obama will be receiving his very own custom built toy drone as well. “We wanted for Mr. Obama himself to have these toys and know that Iranians don't leave anyone's requests unanswered. We made the 'RQ' in pink as it is Mr. Obama's favorite color and we will send it to him via the Swiss embassy," said Seyyed Saeed Hassan-pour, head of the cultural department of the Aaye Company, to Reuters. The day of arrival was set for February 1, but no official word of Obama getting the toy has been confirmed. Back in December the drone was all over Iranian State TV. Footage of the drone surrounded by anti-American banners prompted the White House to officially submit a request to return the drone after it was captured near the Afghan border. As RT reported, the US originally denied they lost a drone over Iran before changing their story and insisting that they lost contact with the craft during a surveillance mission over neighboring Afghanistan. According to the US, the aircraft was flying around Eastern Afghanistan, but Iran argues it was well within the Iranian territory. Iranian engineers hijacked the multi-million dollar stealth drone’s system and managed to ease the craft down to a safe landing. Iranian ambassador Mohammad Khazaee submitted a complaint to the UN Security Council saying “the provocative and covert operations against the Islamic Republic of Iran by the US government, which have increased and intensified in recent months.” Khazaee went on to say the “American RQ-170 unmanned spy plane, bearing a specific serial number, violated Iran’s airspace.” He added Iran “strongly protests such hostile and aggressive moves and warns about harmful consequences of the repetition of such actions.” Iran's ambassador demanded a US apology for the incident, but has yet to receive it.So Iran has decided to take matters into their own hands. "We decided to show that we can deal with this issue in a very friendly and peaceful manner and put it in the playful hands of the children of Iran to pursue a 'soft war' with Mr. Obama and the US. This was the aim of producing this aircraft," Hassan-pour concluded."

http://rt.com/usa/news/iran-us-drone-obama-933/

2/14/2012 11:32:01 AM

lol that's pretty clever.

hey you know what else is funny... the fact that their brother muslim obama is stabbing them in the balls by cutting off 30% of their entire economy and surrounding them with carrier fleets

2/14/2012 11:46:40 AM

Well maybe if they didn't have such a shitty culture and shitty religion we wouldn't have to constantly fuck with them now would we

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 11:52 AM. Reason : .]

2/14/2012 11:52:34 AM

2/14/2012 12:22:51 PM

Wait so is it the Islam that is shitty or the culture or the government? Or all three? If she's not that different from us that means we're shitty too, waddaya know.

2/14/2012 12:42:51 PM

The U.S., on the aggregate, does have a shitty culture. Haven't I said as much on multiple occasions? This a country where faith and ignorance are celebrated, knowledge and reason are looked down upon.

It's all three, I guess. The political class uses religion to galvanize the people. Religion values faith over evidence. This bleeds over into daily life.

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 12:49 PM. Reason : ]

2/14/2012 12:47:47 PM

^maybe we should just gas out those with this defective 'faith' gene as you put it. since it's obviously counterproductive to our race and survival in your eyes.

2/14/2012 1:05:15 PM