DescentBB

Well well, now that the election is over out comes this little tid-bit:

"Two Iranian Su-25 fighter jets fired on an unarmed U.S. Air Force Predator drone in the Persian Gulf on November 1, the Pentagon disclosed on Thursday.

The Obama administration did not disclose the incident before the presidential election, but three senior officials confirmed the details to CNN on Thursday. They declined to be identified because of sensitive intelligence matters surrounding the matter.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/0 ... ?hpt=hp_t3"

First we have Benghazi and now Iranians firing on our aircraft. Yup, Obama's foreign policy working as intended...or is it?

four more years! You'll get over it.

Yep!

All this proves is that the Iranians wanted Romney elected. Or something. I'm trying to imagine what a partisan hack would say in this situation.

Let's see.......a partisan hack would say that if Romney had been elected, HE'D have been the one to start a preemptive war with Iran, all under the pretense of getting rid of those future WMD's. Not that I'M saying it.........

Honestly, That's why I voted Obama, not because I'm for him and I'm not against him either, but I was completely and entirely against Romney. The one thing that Obama really had against for me was the Benghazi incident, but the fact that Romney didn't seize on it made me wonder why not. I think Obama is a better statesman hands down. It's like this reputation he has for being anti-Israel, while at the same time, giving more support to Israel than any president before him. That's not letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing and in a complicated game that Obama is in, that's smart. After watching that video of Romney, I knew he would be easily controlled and he's disconnected from reality, more than the rest of us

tunnelcat wrote:Let's see.......a partisan hack would say that if Romney had been elected, HE'D have nominated GW as his minister of warmongering and been the one to start a preemptive war with Iran, all under the pretense of getting rid of those future WMD's. Not that I'M saying it.........

Fixed it for ya

Same here. I voted not for Obama, but against Romney. Neither choice was good, but the one choice I thought was dangerous was Romney.

You're right flip, that Romney would have been lead around by the nose or waffled when it came to deciding foreign policy. He could never keep his positions straight, or consistent, even during his own campaign. The only reason I think he would've been a war hawk is that he wanted to increase defense spending by quite a bit, even with our massive debt.

Lol, two Iranian jets couldn’t take down an unmanned aircraft…lol.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Let's see.......a partisan hack would say that if Romney had been elected, HE'D have nominated GW as his minister of warmongering and been the one to start a preemptive war with Iran, all under the pretense of getting rid of those future WMD's. Not that I'M saying it.........

Fixed it for ya

Hey, that is better! Didn't Romney have a whole bunch of old Bush cronies, like Dan Senor, running his foreign policy machine during his campaign? Wanna bet he'd have kept them on if he'd been elected president?

Take a gander at all those names straight from the Bush era neocon cabal.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... gn-policy/

Spidey wrote:Lol, two Iranian jets couldn’t take down an unmanned aircraft…lol.

ROFL!

Spidey wrote:Lol, two Iranian jets couldn’t take down an unmanned aircraft…lol.

But it is so tiny!

Maybe woodchip forgot about this: Iran sends toy drone to Obama [Video]

The video is hilarious, I just laughed for the second time. Maybe we should keep our robots away from Iran and not get mad when they try to shoot them? Though it is pretty funny they missed. Kind of embarrassing for both sides.

I wonder why were flying drones over Iran and not Canada?

Spidey wrote:Lol, two Iranian jets couldn’t take down an unmanned aircraft…lol.

Yeah, that is pretty damn sad.

Honestly, I'm all for Obama metaphorically telling Netanyahu to shove it. That guy's a nutjob, or at least dangerously incompetent.

So, by the sounds of it, some of you don't mind when Iran crosses the nuclear Rubicon? And Top Gun, the real nut jobs run Iran...not Israel.

I heard a commentator the other day make a good point, that as soon as Iran is allowed nuclear arms, every other nation on earth would feel entitled to do the same. Before there can be any reduction in nuclear arms, the proliferation must be stopped. Unless anyone can think of a good reason for more nukes

Let Iran have a bomb. It's only fair if Israel and Pakistan have one. And since we don't put any pressure on Israel and Pakistan to get rid of their bombs, then it's pretty hypocritical to single out Iran.

One thing I never understood was why we don't try harder to repair relations with Iran. We have more in common with them than other Arab nations. After all, it was Saudi Arabia that birthed Osama Bin Laden and all the 9/11 hijackers. Iran hates Al-Qaeda with a passion. Iran is also way more modern and moderate than most countries in the Middle East. It's a darn shame that they get all this negative attention when it's Saudi Arabia who are the bigger bastards.

Yeah, I agree with that. I was thinking just the same thing last night. It has no downside really, you are either "keeping your enemy closer" or better yet, making a new friend. Iran, being such a small country and on the outs has alot to be worried about.

EDIT: Not about the nuke though, it's counter-intuitive to think you can decrease them while allowing others to create them. That's probably naive optimism on my part, Pandora's box and all.

vision wrote:One thing I never understood was why we don't try harder to repair relations with Iran. We have more in common with them than other Arab nations. After all, it was Saudi Arabia that birthed Osama Bin Laden and all the 9/11 hijackers. Iran hates Al-Qaeda with a passion. Iran is also way more modern and moderate than most countries in the Middle East. It's a darn shame that they get all this negative attention when it's Saudi Arabia who are the bigger bastards.

Agreed, but the problem with official relations with a country is, you have to deal with the leadership…not the people.

And don’t think I’m splitting hairs here but, Iran is not technically an Arab nation.

woodchip wrote:So, by the sounds of it, some of you don't mind when Iran crosses the nuclear Rubicon? And Top Gun, the real nut jobs run Iran...not Israel.

Oh, the bag of mixed nuts is plenty big enough to encompass both sides. (See: Israel announcing a resumption of home construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank the other day.) Netanyahu may not be as verbally outrageous as Ahmadinejad, but he's every bit as dangerous in his own right. I don't want Iran to have a bomb by any stretch of the imagination, but at the same time, I don't think them having one would set us on a path to nuclear armageddon...rhetorical bluster aside, Iran is smart enough to know what mutually-assured destruction is.

I think you under estimate a religious fanatic TG. These are the people who flew planes into a building taking their own lives in the process. Add to that people who hate living here on this earth or worse, think they can usher in the end of the world, and I just say stop anyone at all costs from getting nukes. Nobody seems to have N Korea in their sights on this matter either, just as or more dangerous in my opinion.

Spidey wrote:Agreed, but the problem with official relations with a country is, you have to deal with the leadership…not the people.

And don’t think I’m splitting hairs here but, Iran is not technically an Arab nation.

You're right again. Iranians are Persian and Shia, Saudis are Arab Sunis. They are completely different peoples, really. I don't think a lot of Americans understand the distinctions and the diverse dynamics in the Middle East. My guess most people just see them as "brown terrorists." Sad really. Iran has so much to offer, including a budding space program and - lest we forget - oil! I feel like a lot of our problems with Iran should have died with the Soviet Union, had we been a little more thoughtful.

Also, Iran isn't a little country, flip. Check a map.

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:So, by the sounds of it, some of you don't mind when Iran crosses the nuclear Rubicon? And Top Gun, the real nut jobs run Iran...not Israel.

I don't want Iran to have a bomb by any stretch of the imagination, but at the same time, I don't think them having one would set us on a path to nuclear armageddon...rhetorical bluster aside, Iran is smart enough to know what mutually-assured destruction is.

They are not smart enough when you figure in their religious zealotry.

Lol, nm, vision. LOL. I meant comparitively but I just have to assume you knew that .

Abaminajad, whatever I'm not looking it up, is a very conservative secularist.