gyrofry posted:
Iran is a zionist puppet
Persians have never had beef with Jews until 1979. If anything they hate Arabs more. And Russians.
deadken posted:
i dont think canadians and new zealanders hate the british. americans kinda do but theres a really weird undercurrent of american anglophilia that i exploit the fuck out of
please do, those people are a weak and degenerate race
and this caters to a corporate multinational economic bogeyman trying to appeal to popular opinion on basis of highest literate mass to lowest fictive financial holdings ratio how? everyone knows paper can't represent itself.
Presenter: Pentagon Press Secretary George Little and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations Capt. John Kirby December 08, 2011
DOD News Briefing with George Little and Capt. Kirby from the Pentagon
GEORGE LITTLE: Good afternoon. Just a couple of announcements before we throw it over to questions.
The White House announced today that on Saturday President Obama, Vice President Biden and Dr. Jill Biden will attend the 112th edition of the annual Army versus Navy football game at FedEx field. I wanted to let you know that Secretary Panetta will also attend.
CAPT. JOHN KIRBY: Otherwise Navy versus Army.
MR. LITTLE: (Laughs.) More information will be forthcoming as it is available.
Also, the Air Force, at 4:00 this afternoon in the briefing room, will conduct a press briefing on issues related to Dover and other Air Force matters that you may want to ask about.
With that, I think that's it.
Lita.
Q: Acknowledging that this video only just came out and that you're probably still looking at it, can you give us at least an initial assessment as to whether or not the aircraft in the video is legitimately -- could be a Sentinel or not? And if so, can you give us any idea about whether or not you agree it could have landed somehow -- or somewhat intact?
CAPT. KIRBY: No. (Chuckles.) No, we're just not -- we've -- certainly we've had a chance to look at the images, and there are folks looking at them. But we're not going to comment beyond that.
Q: But --
Q: Do you -- do you believe the Iranians have the drone?
CAPT. KIRBY: Just -- we're not going to comment about this particular topic.
Q: But you did put out a statement last week saying you'd lost a drone, and you thought this might be it.
MR. LITTLE: We said, you know, all week that, you know, we did have a UAV go missing. But you know, when it comes to sensitive reconnaissance missions, we call them sensitive for a reason. So we're not going to add to what we said over the weekend.
Q: But don't you think you at least owe the public at least a general assessment as to whether we should reject out of hand that this is -- you know, that this is -- this could be one of these aircraft, if it's -- looks like a mock-up or a model or -- shouldn't there be at least some truth-telling here that would at least put some reality to the claims?
MR. LITTLE: I don't have anything to add to what John said.
And that is that we're not going to comment one way or the other at this -- at this stage.
Q: But to be clear on that, you're not -- you can't call this a fake; that you can't say categorically what the Iranians have put out is a fake.
MR. LITTLE: I'm not commenting at all.
Q: John, when you said that you have people looking at it right now, what exactly are they looking for?
CAPT. KIRBY: I just mean folks are -- you know, folks are obviously looking at the imagery as well, but -- and we certainly wouldn't even -- no matter what you might end up thinking about the imagery, I don't think you're going to -- you know, you're going to get confirmation one way or another here. I mean, we're just not going to talk about these kinds of missions and these kinds of capabilities.
Q: Why are military personnel looking at Iranian video of a CIA mission?
CAPT. KIRBY: I think it's -- I wouldn't characterize it just as military personnel looking. We've seen the imagery. There are folks that are looking at it. But again, we're just not going to get into the specifics of these particular kinds of missions. We're just not.
Q: You did acknowledge that a drone went missing in Iran. Was the president --
CAPT. KIRBY: No, we did not.
MR. LITTLE: We acknowledged that a drone went missing.
Q: OK. Was the president ever briefed on plans to retrieve or destroy the missing drone?
MR. LITTLE: I'm not going to comment on -- on that either.
Q: Is the drone you reported missing still missing?
CAPT. KIRBY: We haven't recovered the drone that we believe is missing.
Q: Have you asked anyone for it back?
MR. LITTLE: I'm unaware of any request for the return of a UAV that went missing.
Q: On that missing drone, what kind of latent data are you concerned that it possesses?
MR. LITTLE: I'm not going to comment on the specific capabilities and technical aspects of platforms that are tied to sensitive reconnaissance missions.
Q: Do you think that it might get in the wrong hands, the U.S. technology?
MR. LITTLE: Technology falling into the wrong hands? Well, separate and apart from this specific instance -- I'm not confirming anything -- when U.S. technology falls into the wrong hands, it's always a concern.
Q: Without giving us too much on the technology, can you say if this is a bigger deal than what was lost in the bin Laden raid with the helicopter tail? Is this more sensitive?
MR. LITTLE: I'm not going to make that kind of characterization here.
Q: And just a follow-up of that, Iranians have also claimed that this drone was used for a key -- (inaudible) -- raid. Do you have any comment on that claim?
MR. LITTLE: No.
CAPT. KIRBY: No, we don't.
deadken posted:
yeah but iran really hates the british, like larouche level, they think we're still a superpower lol
my mom has called any white girl who's so much as flirted or hugged me a british whore/honeypot operation
vampirarchist posted:
its pretty interesting how both Iran's satellite (Syria) and Iran's patron (Russia) are feeling the hurt lately, I wonder if this will isolate the government further?
I think the West is trying to compensate for economic decline by taking down its rivals with them, but this will probably only unify anti-Western opposition against them.
vampirarchist posted:
um, i kinda really doubt the U.S. is deliberately doing much in Russia, this is just a happy coincidence for the State Dept
destroying Libya, which provided so much oil to Russia rather than Europe. attempting to destroy Syria, which provides Russia with its only port in the Med. flooding Russia with drugs from Afghanistan and trying to coax them into joining the occupation. counterrevolution in Kyrgyzstan. installing missile shields in the Baltic states, Eastern Europe, Azerbaijan and Central Asia. supporting anti-Putin demonstrations etc. there's a pretty clear pattern there, dont you think?
http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/841/
aerdil posted:
There are multiple problems with this map...to include the fact that many of the bases have zero US presence (PSAB for one). Or the fact that many of them have a bunch of shooters and trucks...but no lift capability. Or places like Manas are just glorified transport hubs...suffice to say this map is crap. Also...there are only about 4k boots on ground left in Iraq.
3 hours ago · Like
Also...bashur in erbil? Used for about 3 weeks in 2003. Mary in turkmenistan? What? Pasni is a cargo port in Pakistan with a small PAF contingent. I'm sure the pakis would be surprised to know we are there. "H-1" in w Iraq has been long abandoned to mother nature...plus it is right near haditha where we are definitely not welcome. Dumb dumb dumb.
3 hours ago · Like
vampirarchist posted:
um, i kinda really doubt the U.S. is deliberately doing much in Russia, this is just a happy coincidence for the State Dept
um, except they totally are
The inseparable common thread between the patchwork of opposition groups now filling Russia's streets is their funding and support courtesy of the United States government and the National Endowment for Democracy. The mainstream Western media refuses to acknowledge this, and has been muted over the fact that the poll monitors reporting "corruption" and "election rigging" in the first place were also US NED-funded, including the frequently cited "Golos." When admissions are made, they are down-played, and words like "independent" are still used despite Golos' foreign-funding by a government clearly siding with Russia's opposition being a matter of record and illustrating an obvious conflict of interest.
blinkandwheeze posted:
vampirarchist posted:
um, i kinda really doubt the U.S. is deliberately doing much in Russia, this is just a happy coincidence for the State Dept
um, except they totally are
The inseparable common thread between the patchwork of opposition groups now filling Russia's streets is their funding and support courtesy of the United States government and the National Endowment for Democracy. The mainstream Western media refuses to acknowledge this, and has been muted over the fact that the poll monitors reporting "corruption" and "election rigging" in the first place were also US NED-funded, including the frequently cited "Golos." When admissions are made, they are down-played, and words like "independent" are still used despite Golos' foreign-funding by a government clearly siding with Russia's opposition being a matter of record and illustrating an obvious conflict of interest.
be that as it may isn't this election actually worth protesting about? idunno
vampirarchist posted:blinkandwheeze posted:
vampirarchist posted:
um, i kinda really doubt the U.S. is deliberately doing much in Russia, this is just a happy coincidence for the State Dept
um, except they totally are
The inseparable common thread between the patchwork of opposition groups now filling Russia's streets is their funding and support courtesy of the United States government and the National Endowment for Democracy. The mainstream Western media refuses to acknowledge this, and has been muted over the fact that the poll monitors reporting "corruption" and "election rigging" in the first place were also US NED-funded, including the frequently cited "Golos." When admissions are made, they are down-played, and words like "independent" are still used despite Golos' foreign-funding by a government clearly siding with Russia's opposition being a matter of record and illustrating an obvious conflict of interest.be that as it may isn't this election actually worth protesting about? idunno
no, of course it is - but the problem is that the worthwhile opposition, the party that arguably has legitimate claim to the majority of votes, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, (which, i mean, to the best of my knowledge lacks NED funding) is not presented as a face of the protests, rather these have been coopted by a western backed colour revolution ... leaving your doubts that the U.S. are actively working to destabilize the nation false, this is absolutely what they are up to
more here, obviously there is something worth protesting but the idea U.S. imperialists are not already taking advantage of the opposition for the purpose of national destabilization is deluded
Edited by blinkandwheeze ()
Iran is just protecting themselves from neocon Israeli preemptive ruination. And pragmatic people in government know this, but there are still plenty of neocon scumbags who cum all over themselves in hope of dropping cluster bombs on tehran and seeing arkansas kids get their legs blown off by mines.
So threatening to attack Iran is Israeli style brinksmanship in america, it's like we're so tough, we'll beat anyone, vote for us cause the other guys aren't as tough as us, they won't kill everyone. so then they join in and say HEY we'll do a humanitarian attack and also promote lgbt and minority rights after we do a small amount of bombing.
aerdil posted:
yeah while theres no doubt that the NED is trying to step in and co-opt liberal movements that have the potential to be more friendly to the US, the elections were definitely rigged. and to paint all opposition groups as having "funding and support courtesy of the US" is pretty ludicrous... yes, limonov: the u.s. puppet
The taint of the color revolutions is so thick. Like all these poor people who just want good lives getting roped into garbage banker friendly garbage. So now the challenge of opposing a defacto dictator oligarchy thing is made more difficult by the easy american puppet insinuations!~ Stupid jerkoffs
America, Israel and Iran - no way out
US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta made some perhaps unintentionally interesting remarks regarding US policy toward Iran earlier this month, and it is fair to suppose that the venue in which he made them was not accidental.
Each year, the Brookings Institution, a prominent US think-tank, hosts the Saban Forum, a gathering of US and Israeli officials, along with the usual retinue of journalists, academics and observers, to discuss issues of common interest and concern. This year's theme was "Strategic Challenges in the New Middle East", and participants sought to focus thought and discussion, in the Saban Centre's words, "... on historic shifts... and their implication for US-Israeli security and interests in the Middle East region".
Of course, the tacit assumption that US and Israeli interests in the region are somehow mystically conjoined is an increasingly dangerous one, and a fallacy that the Saban Forum, like other such Washington confabs, does much to promote.
Other "strategic challenges" in the Middle East notwithstanding, the threat posed by Iran's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons hung like an incubus over this year's proceedings, and in addressing those concerns in his keynote speech, Secretary Panetta delivered the sort of mixed message which Israeli officials have come to expect from the Obama administration.
Standing before huge Israeli and US flags, the secretary delivered prepared remarks in which he strongly asserted that "determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons" was one of three "pillars" of US policy in the region. And while he extolled the importance and encouraging efficacy of diplomatic and economic sanctions, and carefully noted that resort to military force must be a last, and not a first option, Panetta also pointedly stressed that the administration had "not taken any options off the table".
His department, he said, would be charged with preparation of a military option if so requested by the commander in chief, and would not shrink from doing so. All in all, it was a vigorous, straightforward restatement of administration policy, designed to reassure an Israeli audience.
But in response to questions, the defence secretary said perhaps more than he intended, revealing more of the administration's true thinking than would have passed muster in his cleared remarks. A military strike on Iran, he said, would not destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions, but only delay them - perhaps a year or two at best. The relevant targets, he added "are very difficult to get at".
Obama wedded to containment?
And against such limited and tenuous gains, one would have to weigh some daunting unintended consequences: a regional backlash which would end Iran's isolation and generate popular political support for its clerical regime both at home and abroad; attacks against US military assets and interests in the region; and "severe economic consequences" - read: sharply increased oil prices - which would undermine fragile economies in the US and Europe. Finally, he said, initiation of hostilities could produce "an escalation... that would not only involve many lives, but ... could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret (emphasis added)".
Hardly a ringing call to arms, that.
William A Galston, a Senior Fellow at Brookings who attended this year's Forum, has written perceptively for The New Republic about Israeli reactions to it. Apparently, the studied ambiguity which the administration is attempting to maintain regarding its willingness to employ military force against Iran is not having the intended effect on its chosen audience - which is not the Iranians, but the Israelis.
According to Galston, among the many Israelis of differing political stripes with whom he spoke at the conference, no one - not one - believed that the Obama administration would ever exercise a military option to prevent Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon. Obama, they have concluded, is wedded to a containment policy; if Iran were nonetheless to acquire a nuclear capability, they are convinced, his administration would reconfigure its containment policy to suit.
As Galston points out, this is completely unacceptable to the Israelis. For them, a nuclearised Iran poses an existential threat which they - unike the Americans - literally will not tolerate. This fact is recognised within the administration, and particularly within the US Department of Defence, with which potential hostilities with Iran, however initiated, would be its responsibility to deal.
No one really paying attention should be surprised by this. Just days before the Panetta speech at Brookings, General Martin Dempsey, the US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, gave a notable interview in which he made clear that, while the US sees sanctions and diplomatic pressure as the prudent course to pursue vis-a-vis Iran, "I'm not sure the Israelis share our assessment of that. And because they don't and because to them this is an existential threat, I think probably that it's fair to say that our expectations are different right now."
Asked whether he thought Israel would inform the US before striking Iran, Dempsey responded, "I don't know." That is political-military speak for "No".
In short, current US policy, as the Israelis understand it - and as opposed to how it is being articulated by the administration - is unacceptable to Israel. This is no doubt troubling to them, but not a grave concern, for two reasons. First, the Israelis need not rely on the US to initiate hostilities with Iran, if it should come to that. They can do so themselves, confident that the US will then be forced to deal with the consequences, including the Iranian retaliation which Panetta described and all would expect.
Weakened by rhetoric
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the Israelis know that they can pursue such a course, in extremis, without serious fear of repercussions, including a cutoff of US support - diplomatic, military, or otherwise. They know that, where Israel is concerned, policy is not made in the White House, and still less at the Pentagon. It is made in Congress, which stands in thrall to Israel.
Remember, this is an administration which thought it could pressure Israel into abandoning its illegal settlement programme and making a just peace with the Palestinians; it has since been taught a political lesson which it is unlikely to forget.
And so, in this as in all other instances, the White House, bereft of effective sticks, is reduced to importuning the Israelis, trying to convince them of the seriousness of US purpose in confronting Iran and the effectiveness of its current sanctions policy, while hoping against hope that the Israelis would not take the sort of precipitate action which all would eventually come to regret.
In making its case to the Israelis, moreover, the White House' domestic political position is being further weakened by its own rhetoric. The president and senior administration officials know that Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel, and that the Iranians are anything but impervious to the overwhelming nuclear retaliatory threat which Israel poses.
In fact, the Iranian drive for a nuclear weapons capability has relatively little to do with Israel, and much to do with the threat posed by Washington, whose ability to intervene at will in the region with overwhelming conventional force has been amply demonstrated three times in the past 20 years.
The White House dares not say this, however, lest it convey weakness to Iran and a lack of resolve both to Israel and to its political critics in the US. Indeed, Secretary Panetta was back at it in his address to the Saban Forum when, after making reference to Iran's support for terrorists, he asserted that "... a nuclear weapon would be devastating if they had that capability".
Having hyped the Iranian threat incessantly for the past three years, asserting that an Iranian nuclear weapon would have devastating and unacceptable consequences for US interests, the administration has put itself politically in a position from which it cannot escape on its own.
The president's Republican adversaries are parroting the same rhetoric, and fairly slavering at the chance to brand him as soft on the Iranian threat; even his Democratic colleagues would quickly abandon him if forced to make a choice, as the recent Senate vote on toughening Iran sanctions, which went considerably further than the administration wanted, has made clear.
Thus does Obama find himself effectively in a corner.
He has bet everything on the efficacy of a sanctions policy toward Iran, and while it may succeed, very few experts believe it can. The putatively most powerful man in the world is now hostage to the whims of Israel and Iran, foreign countries neither of which he can control. Unless one of them chooses to release him, there is no way out save moving forward, on a direct path to war.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/20111211143819690801.html
This helps to explain the olive branches Iran has been extending vis a vis the release of the "hikers".