Remember the Maine!!

[repoman]

Iran is definitely pushing more and more aggression. Attacks on the tankers, having Houthis attack targets (desalination plants, pipelines, airports) within Saudi Arabia itself, now attack a US drone flying in international airspace. The only language the weird beards know is strength. Unfortunately, US is displaying weakness right now.
The aborted limited attack on Iranian targets makes Trump look very weak. I wonder what happened. Maybe Putin called. He and the Ayatollahs are close allies - they are even fighting together in Syria.

On this one you may be right. Trump is Putin's bitch. Probably a long compromised asset. They have the goods on him, and keep him on a tight leash. He'll never cross Putin. Possibly they have the peepee tape. Or something else just as damning.

SLD

And the Israelis don't?

 

[Politesse]

Look at where we are now. We are discussing whether invasion is justified because R2-D2's cousin was blown out of the fucking sky. Imagine if Iran tortured and murdered a US college student. A little bit more perspective is required, I think.

Hey, those things are expensive; a war would help free up funds to replace it with new ones.

If wars were about human welfare, rather than money, we would never wage them. (They generally kill a lot more people than the inciting incident did...)

 

[barbos]

2) Neither side ever fired on a craft that wasn't within it's own space.

We don't know where UAV was during the incident. It's still "she said, he said" situation.
And US did try to sink soviet sub with nukes outside their waters, which was way more dangerous and irresponsible than shooting anything in airspace ever.

 

[repoman]

I find it interesting that as the white population declines (and they at least subconsciously realize that their hegemony is a dead man walking) that there is a red state type white person who is also anti LGBT, anti-affirmative action and anti-immigration that is also anti war. The Babylon Bee (right wing, but not Shapiro type) and Tucker Carlson are an example.

https://babylonbee.com/news/people-who-tweet-in-support-of-foreign-wars-to-be-automatically-enlisted-in-armed-forces

U.S.—A new policy issued by the United States Department of Defense, in conjunction with online platforms like Twitter and Facebook, will automatically enlist you to fight in a foreign war if you post your support for attacking another country.


People who bravely post about how the U.S. needs to invade some country in the Middle East or Asia or outer space will get a pop-up notice indicating they've been enlisted in the military. A recruiter will then show up at their house and whisk them away to fight in the foreign war they wanted to happen so badly.

"Frankly, recruitment numbers are down, and we needed some way to find people who are really enthusiastic about fighting wars," said a DOD official. "Then it hit us like a drone strike: there are plenty of people who argue vehemently for foreign intervention. It doesn't matter what war we're trying to create: Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China---these people are always reliable supporters of any invasion abroad. So why not get them there on the frontlines?"

"After all, we want people who are passionate about occupying foreign lands, not grunts who are just there for the paycheck," he added.

Strangely, as soon as the policy was implemented, 99% of saber-rattling suddenly ceased.

I think that less Christianity will be good for white people to start to actually look after their own interests and not be punks to the Gospels or god forbid Israel.

And this is Tucker Carlson last night:

"John Bolton is a bureaucratic tapeworm...War may be a disaster for America, but for John Bolton and his fellow neocons, it’s always good business."

Somewhere Charles Lindbergh is smiling

 

[James Brown]

About the Babylon Bee:

The Babylon Bee is the world’s best satire site, totally inerrant in all its truth claims. We write satire about Christian stuff, political stuff, and everyday life.

The Babylon Bee was created ex nihilo on the eighth day of the creation week, exactly 6,000 years ago. We have been the premier news source through every major world event, from the Tower of Babel and the Exodus to the Reformation and the War of 1812. We focus on just the facts, leaving spin and bias to other news sites like CNN and Fox News.

If you would like to complain about something on our site, take it up with God.

Unlike other satire sites, everything we post is 100% verified by Snopes.com.

 

[barbos]

Iran does not deny shooting down the drone. They presented obviously false evidence it was over their territory when it was shot down. Thus, despite the fact that I wouldn't believe His Flatulence as far as I could throw him I conclude Iran really did it. This wasn't one of the little drones, either, but a strategic recon drone--a very pricey bird.

Of course they don't deny it, and if you're going to claim "obviously false evidence" you'd have to back that up.

Yes, it's a surveillance drone. Chances that US surveillance drones are not penetrating Iranian airspace, and are instead dutifully patrolling international waters? Slim to none. Especially when one considers that there's an element in the regime - the American one, not Iran - that is openly itching for war. Trump's National Security Advisor has been advocating war with Iran for decades, and is one of the architects of the "Don't have an excuse? Then make one up" strategy which led us into Iraq.

Which brings us to the price of the bird. Bolton thinks that the Iraq War, which cost us north of a trillion dollars and over four thousand soldiers' lives, was a relative bargain. If you think he's worried about the loss of one expensive drone, I've got a degree from Trump University I'd like to sell you.

The drone costs about $4million. That's about 80,000bbl of crude oil, or about half a supertanker worth.

Actually Global Hawk costs about $200mil.

 

[ZiprHead]

The drone costs about $4million. That's about 80,000bbl of crude oil, or about half a supertanker worth.

Actually Global Hawk costs about $200mil.

According to Northrop Grumman, unit cost is $131 million, $222 including r/d. I imagine that also includes the pilot command/control system.

 Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk

 

[bilby]

The drone costs about $4million. That's about 80,000bbl of crude oil, or about half a supertanker worth.

Actually Global Hawk costs about $200mil.

According to Northrop Grumman, unit cost is $131 million, $222 including r/d. I imagine that also includes the pilot command/control system.

 Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk

Meh. That's OK, Iran still has plenty of oil.

 

[Derec]

The drone was an armed US military asset, within close striking distance of Iranian targets. Their use of force to discourage such provocative placement of enemy forces is justified by that precedent.

I have noticed you are openly supporting the Iranian theocratic regime here. How much are they paying you to troll on their behalf?

 

[repoman]

The drone was an armed US military asset, within close striking distance of Iranian targets. Their use of force to discourage such provocative placement of enemy forces is justified by that precedent.

I have noticed you are openly supporting the Iranian theocratic regime here. How much are they paying you to troll on their behalf?

You are way out of line to say that of Bilby.

According to the USAF, the superior surveillance capabilities of the aircraft allow more precise weapons targeting and better protection of friendly forces.

So, no weapons but information gathering is a kind of weapon.

 

[Derec]

Of course they don't deny it, and if you're going to claim "obviously false evidence" you'd have to back that up.

Any reason why we should trust anything these theocrats have to say?
At least US provided GPS data. What have Iranians offered?

Yes, it's a surveillance drone. Chances that US surveillance drones are not penetrating Iranian airspace, and are instead dutifully patrolling international waters? Slim to none.

Any evidence for that assertion?

Especially when one considers that there's an element in the regime - the American one, not Iran - that is openly itching for war.

Of course the Iranian theocratic regime is not itching for war. They would lose it. What they want is to continue doing what they are doing - wage proxy wars through their proxies such as Hezbollah, Houthis and Islamic Jihad. And rely on useful idiots in the West like the US Senate which voted to end US involvement in Yemen or the British court which decided that UK arms sales to KSA are "illegal".

Which brings us to the price of the bird. Bolton thinks that the Iraq War, which cost us north of a trillion dollars and over four thousand soldiers' lives, was a relative bargain. If you think he's worried about the loss of one expensive drone, I've got a degree from Trump University I'd like to sell you.

Still, Iran should either compensate US for the price of the drone or we should bomb $200,000,000 worth of IRGC assets. Eye for an eye and all that.
Was Obama not so quick to return $400,000,000 to Iran in 2016 we could have taken the damages out of that piggy bank.

 

[Bomb#20]

The US has no moral right to restrict ownership of nuclear weapons by other nations. Development of WMDs is not, in itself, a just reason for war (although the use of them is).

When you have the world's largest nuclear arsenal, it's incredibly hypocritical to tell other nations that they aren't allowed one at all.

No moral right?!? The Iranian government has no moral right to own nuclear weapons; and everyone in the world has a moral right to restrict ownership of nuclear weapons by the Iranian government. First, because Iran is a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has a commitment to the rest of the world not to acquire nuclear weapons. And second, because nations don't have weapons, governments do. Iranian elections are rigged; it's rulers are therefore not the legitimate government of Iran. They are an organized crime gang, and everyone in the world has a moral right to restrict ownership of nuclear weapons by gangs of criminals.

 

[bilby]

The US has no moral right to restrict ownership of nuclear weapons by other nations. Development of WMDs is not, in itself, a just reason for war (although the use of them is).

When you have the world's largest nuclear arsenal, it's incredibly hypocritical to tell other nations that they aren't allowed one at all.

No moral right?!? The Iranian government has no moral right to own nuclear weapons; and everyone in the world has a moral right to restrict ownership of nuclear weapons by the Iranian government. First, because Iran is a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has a commitment to the rest of the world not to acquire nuclear weapons.

That's not a moral right, it's a legal one. And the NPT is supposed to be a two way street - in exchange for not developing weapons, the non-weapons holding signatories are supposed to be supported in their efforts to develop nuclear power and nuclear medicine. The cancellation of the deal brokered by the Obama administration represents a breach of that treaty by the USA.

And second, because nations don't have weapons, governments do. Iranian elections are rigged; it's rulers are therefore not the legitimate government of Iran. They are an organized crime gang, and everyone in the world has a moral right to restrict ownership of nuclear weapons by gangs of criminals.

That's a genuine moral right - but not a point of difference between the USA and Iran. Hence my charge of hypocrisy.

Theocratic shitholes with illegitimate governments in power through electoral manipulation should not have nuclear weapons. But the US does have them, nevertheless.

 

[Ford]

The Iranian government has no moral right to own nuclear weapons; and everyone in the world has a moral right to restrict ownership of nuclear weapons by the Iranian government. First, because Iran is a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has a commitment to the rest of the world not to acquire nuclear weapons. And second, because nations don't have weapons, governments do. Iranian elections are rigged; it's rulers are therefore not the legitimate government of Iran. They are an organized crime gang, and everyone in the world has a moral right to restrict ownership of nuclear weapons by gangs of criminals.

Well, there's certainly a lot to unpack here. You start by referring to the Iranian government as if it were legitimate, then wind up referring to them as not a government at all, but a gang.

This is disingenuous to put it mildly. Also irrelevant. Because whether you accept them as legitimate or not, the fact is that they ARE the government of Iran. Yet you want to have it both ways. They're the government when you want them to comply with a treaty. They're a gang of criminals when you want to deny them something. It's a bit like Trump throwing a hissy fit if Iran stops complying with an agreement he unilaterally pulled out of.

You really get into the weeds when you insist that Iran has no "moral right" to nuclear weapons. What makes a country worthy of such weapons? If a rigged election makes a nation unworthy, then perhaps you can show us your equivalent indignation over China's nuclear weapons? Or Russia's? Do India and Pakistan have a moral right to them? Of course there's Israel, which simply lies about the existence of their arsenal. Is that moral?

As Bilby has noted, it is awfully hypocritical of the nation with the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet to be lecturing other nations on the morality of nukes, especially given that said nation is the only one that has used them in war. It is also worth noting that the US is funneling nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. An absolute monarchy with an abysmal human rights record that is also the source of arguably the most virulent strain of Islamic fundamentalism.

Does Saudi Arabia have a moral right to acquire nuclear weapons? I'm gonna say no, but we're not banging the drums of war over their nuclear program. We're encouraging it.

In a very real way, we're also guilty of encouraging Iran's nuclear ambitions. We (well, the government of the US) abandoned the deal with Iran. A deal with which they were in full compliance. Compliance was in exchange for sanctions relief. Not only did the US reimpose sanctions, but set about forcing other signatories to the deal to get in line as well through threats and intimidation.

We didn't just walk away from the deal. We imposed our dear leader's choice on other nations who were signatories to the deal. Is that moral as well? Should Germany or France be bound by our government's tantrum?

As for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is is worth pointing out that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, has never had a nuclear weapon, and have in the past not just abandoned their nuclear weapons programs, but opened their facilities up to inspection.

Over the next decade, CBO estimates that the US will spend about a half a trillion dollars maintaining and upgrading their nuclear arsenal.

 

[Bomb#20]

The Iranian government has no moral right to own nuclear weapons; and everyone in the world has a moral right to restrict ownership of nuclear weapons by the Iranian government. First, because Iran is a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has a commitment to the rest of the world not to acquire nuclear weapons. And second, because nations don't have weapons, governments do. Iranian elections are rigged; it's rulers are therefore not the legitimate government of Iran. They are an organized crime gang, and everyone in the world has a moral right to restrict ownership of nuclear weapons by gangs of criminals.

Well, there's certainly a lot to unpack here. You start by referring to the Iranian government as if it were legitimate, then wind up referring to them as not a government at all, but a gang.

You know, if you're going to put words in somebody's mouth you should at least have the sense not to quote what he actually wrote. There's a lot less to unpack than you think. You do not see me referring to the Iranian government as if it were legitimate. "Then", you do not see me referring to them as not a government at all. They are an illegitimate government. All my comments are consistent with them being an illegitimate government. "Illegitimate government" and "gang" are not mutually exclusive categories.

This is disingenuous to put it mildly.

You just forfeited standing to engage in this discussion. Go crawl back under your rock.

Yet you want to have it both ways. They're the government when you want them to comply with a treaty. They're a gang of criminals when you want to deny them something.

Take your mind-reading act elsewhere. You are not competent to tell me what I want.

It's a bit like Trump throwing a hissy fit <mostly irrelevant rant snipped> the US will spend about a half a trillion dollars maintaining and upgrading their nuclear arsenal.

There was a bit in there that would have been worth responding to if you were willing to keep a civil tongue in your head, but you aren't; and no loss, I think. Bilby can handle it. You should let him. You aren't as good at this as he is.

 

[Ford]

Go crawl back under your rock.

Ah a personal attack.

You are not competent to tell me what I want.

And another one.

.. if you were willing to keep a civil tongue in your head, but you aren't;

And irony.

 

[Bomb#20]

That's not a moral right, it's a legal one.

There's no moral right to make people fulfill their legal obligations?

And the NPT is supposed to be a two way street - in exchange for not developing weapons, the non-weapons holding signatories are supposed to be supported in their efforts to develop nuclear power and nuclear medicine.

It is a two-way street. Iran has gotten plenty of help developing its civilian nuclear program. Mostly from Russia and Western Europe, but that satisfies the treaty. The NPT doesn't require every single nuclear-weapons state to help every single non-nuclear-weapons state.

The cancellation of the deal brokered by the Obama administration represents a breach of that treaty by the USA.

You say that as though the NPT depends on the Obama deal. The NPT is a treaty commitment to the entire world, minus the half-dozen-odd countries that haven't signed on. It doesn't go away just because two member countries have a falling out.

In any event, the Obama deal only existed in the first place because Iran had already breached the NPT.

everyone in the world has a moral right to restrict ownership of nuclear weapons by gangs of criminals.

That's a genuine moral right - but not a point of difference between the USA and Iran. Hence my charge of hypocrisy.

What's your point? Hey, you want to accuse the U.S. government of hypocrisy, knock yourself out. If you ever come across a government that isn't hypocritical, let the world know miracles are real. And if you want to argue that our government is a criminal gang too and others have a moral right to stop the U.S. from having nuclear weapons, I won't dispute it. But those claims hardly support your contention. What, does being a hypocrite and/or a criminal mean you lose the right to stop other criminals from their wrongdoing? What kind of morality is that?

Theocratic [bad places] with illegitimate governments in power through electoral manipulation should not have nuclear weapons. But the US does have them, nevertheless.

... and has the moral right to restrict ownership of nuclear weapons by Iran, nevertheless.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ah a personal attack.

It was a personal reprisal. You attacked me first, Mr. "This is disingenuous to put it mildly.".

.. if you were willing to keep a civil tongue in your head, but you aren't;

And irony.

But I did keep a civil tongue in my head, right up until you chose not to. It's the guy who throws the first punch who is in the wrong.

 

[Ford]

It was a personal reprisal. You attacked me first, Mr. "This is disingenuous to put it mildly.".

That was a criticism of your argument, not you.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

People in this thread should respond to points and refrain from discussing attributes, real or imagined, of fellow posters.

Let's keep the discussion civil and on topic.