Iran Cracks US Stealth Spy Drone’s Secrets, Shows Proof

[Simon_Jester]

But then bin Laden would have gotten away already and we'd be bombing the crap out of them just to prove that we don't take bullshit. Which would be kind of a waste, compared to actually chasing bin Laden.

Well, it depends on if they believe your threat or not. If they do, it won't come to that.

Very important realization with threats though is they need to believe you when you say you're going to do it.... but they also need to believe you when you say you aren't going to do it.

Well, put it this way.

If it was me, I like to think I could make people believe me like that. I think, if it was you assuming you really stick to your avowed ideas about how to do things... people wouldn't believe your threats. And you'd wind up having to do nasty things just to prove you could, which is probably worse than doing nasty things because someone wronged you.

If they think they're screwed anyway (or of the demands are so outrageous they may as well be screwed), there's no incentive to cooperate.

That's the big problem with President Bush's strategy. He made it very clear that he wasn't going to put up with their bullshit... but, at the same time, he didn't give them much of a way out.

Maybe. I'm not sure what read I'd put on that chain of events in hindsight. And to be honest, I was more worried about eleventh grade and my broken ankle at the time.

Now, I don't know what Realpolitik actually means, but if it is about power, let's put ourselves in their shoes. Suppose you're a powerful guy, or consider yourself to be one.

Frankly, it's about "real politics." That is, politics about things that are real, not things that aren't.

Only ignorant people try to translate it as "burning ambition for ULTIMATE ALL-POWERFUL POWAH at any cost! Do you hear me? ANY COST!"

And a few days later, it became "show us the evidence and your allies can have him" (Oct 17).

Obviously, they were willing to budge in the offers, but they still wanted something out of it.

Refusing to give some kind of face-saving way out misses the pride aspect of power. We should have showed them the evidence and crossed the next bridge when we came to it.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe their budging was just more bullshit, but we should have tried.

To tell the truth, the importance I attach to giving people a face-saving way out depends on how much I think their face deserves saving.

Some countries, yeah, cut them some slack. But for all I care, the Taliban can go spray acid on their faces like some of their guys do to teenage schoolgirls they don't like. I feel the same way about other regimes too, some of them US allies- but I definitely feel that way about the Taliban.

[Zinegata]

No, you idiot. You're demanding evidence. I said asking for evidence was irrelevant because based on the existing evidence the United Nations had already issued a warrant for other terrorism charge.

So a UN warrant allows you to invade a country and instigate regime change to find one man? Seems a little over the top to execute a single warrant.

Actually, I did say that how you execute the warrant is another can of worms entirely that I am not touching .

But to say that there was no evidence is false. You can say "We shouldn't have gone to war", and I wouldn't really mind. But saying there was no evidence to pin mass acts of terrorism against Bin Laden was a lie, plain and simple.

[Zinegata]

You can be homophobic and still not want to be bombed.

Obviously, you can be. But again, because you are employing Wall of Ignorance: Their ambassador was off accusing Jews of bombing the World Trade Center. Based on NO evidence. When they were demanding evidence from the US to hand Bin Laden over. If you're trying to show the world you're actually sane and serious for once, then that ain't the way to do it. Fail to address this again and it's simply concession accepted.

And again, the reality is much simple: They were insane from start to finish. They weren't rational, ever.

They were a bunch of morons who lived in their own sheltered fantasy where extreme interpretations of Holy Books somehow make good basis for running a country, and they simply shot anyone who disagreed with their little echo chamber. There is a reason why the Arab Spring - which is again the event that really overturned the Western-supported dictatorships of the MIddle East - had almost nothing to do with Al Qaeda whatsoever. Their hero ain't Osama Bin Laden. It's Mohamed Bouazizi.

Finally - you do realize that admitting that the Taliban are a bunch of douchebags who didn't want peace either doesn't actually make other objections to the US invading Afghanistan invalid, yes? And I'm not even arguing you're wrong for not wanting the war.

[Simon_Jester]

Whether the Taliban blamed the Jews for 9/11 would be irrelevant if the question was "was the Taliban behind 9/11?"

Whether they blame the Jews for 9/11 is relevant if the question is "are the Taliban in touch with the reality of the outside world, do they grasp the perils and ethics of the situation, or are they using the opportunity to posture and bloviate in their traditional way?"

I have no respect for someone who sees a new event as an excuse to say the same old bullshit. We get enough of that about terrorism in the US- every time some suicidal idiot sets his groin on fire we get people huffing and puffing about the need to tighten security over and over. It's ridiculous.

Blaming the Jews for everything is at least that ridiculous. Probably more so.

People who are willing to be that ridiculous in the face of a major disaster... you cannot really trust or rely on them to deal with you in an honest way. There have been so many politicians throughout history who were like this, who had some set of prepared, pre-programmed methods for securing their own power, but who totally failed to cope with the unexpected. Dealing with them in a crisis is often a waste of time, because they'll be so busy trying to secure their own privileges that they won't actually do anything important to help you, even if it would be in their own interests to do so.

Politicians are good at pursuing self-interest when they can do so by following traditional methods that have worked for them in the past, or when they have plenty of time to realize the times have changed. Not all of them handle it well when weird shit is happening- just like regular people.

[HMS Conqueror]

PWR uses 3.5% enriched uranium. CANDU uses natural (unenriched) uranium. If Iran simply bought CANDUs and exported the waste, the whole issue goes away. But that assumes their only goal is to make civil powerplants.

Others have pointed out why thats a political no-go. However another point to consider is that CANDU style reactors IIRC have higher up-front costs which maybe Iran and others don't want to pay?
CANDU reactors also produce tritium. A substance used in Hydrogen/boosted nuclear weapons. I'd wager that even if Iran tried to get CANDU's someone in the West would start screaming that Iran was aiming for h-bombs...

Oh come off it, it's willful self-deceit at this point. If Iran says tomorrow "Ok guys, that bomb thing was a misunderstanding, we just want CANDUs and a bit of money," and this is refused, at that point I will take the American imperialism angle seriously. As it stands, they already rejected subsidised foreign reactor building that leaves them with domestic nuclear power but no access to weapons grade fuel and by-products.

[PeZook]

Oh come off it, it's willful self-deceit at this point. If Iran says tomorrow "Ok guys, that bomb thing was a misunderstanding, we just want CANDUs and a bit of money," and this is refused, at that point I will take the American imperialism angle seriously. As it stands, they already rejected subsidised foreign reactor building that leaves them with domestic nuclear power but no access to weapons grade fuel and by-products.

So, international law and treaties only matter when they're not signed by brown people, correct?

The NPT specifically allows uranium enrichment for the purpose of nuclear power generation and research/medical applications (describes it as an "inalienable right", even!). As long as they don't use it to make nukes, Iran has every right to enrich uranium according to international law. Incidentally, they also have every right to shoot down the fucking drones that regularly violate their airspace.

And funnily enough the US knows that, and knows that it can, at most, ask politely for the wreckage to be returned to them. Which is why they have to do the whole bullshit media circus before they can bomb Iran without causing an international shitstorm...

[HMS Conqueror]

The NPT specifically allows uranium enrichment for the purpose of nuclear power generation and research/medical applications

The whole point is that it is not clear whether this is all they want. If it is, the international deals give them everything they want. If it's not, they're doing something sinister and illegal. If they're just trying to make a point, I can think of a few less worthwhile things about which to endanger thousands if not millions of lives, but not very many.

[PeZook]

The whole point is that it is not clear whether this is all they want. If it is, the international deals give them everything they want. If it's not, they're doing something sinister and illegal. If they're just trying to make a point, I can think of a few less worthwhile things about which to endanger thousands if not millions of lives, but not very many.

The only relevant thing is whether or not they're complying with IAEA safeguards regarding civilian use of nuclear power, as per the fucking treaty. If they are, no amount of whining changes their right to enrich uranium. And it seems like the US itself agrees with me, since they're desperately looking for some concrete evidence that they aren't.

Frankly, Iran has all sorts of reasons for not wanting to rely on western sources of nuclear technology - like, say, the fact the west has supported coups and and armed their enemies with weapons of mass destruction, so who the fuck knows if they'll continue to support the reactors in the future?

[Simon_Jester]

PeZook, may I present this from my point of view?

1) The Iranians totally have the right to shoot down anything we send over their airspace without permission, just as we reserve the right to shoot down anything they send over our airspace without permission. Turnabout is fair play.

2) A country with a meaningful nuclear arsenal becomes unconquerable. The Iranians are a state with many rivals and enemies, both close to their territory and far away from it. They seem to want to (mostly indirectly) expand their sphere of influence over the Middle East enough to bring them into sharp contact with some of those neigbhors. None of this is especially out of line for a nation-state, but it does justify a degree of wariness and preparation for the chance of war with Iran among Iran's neighbors.

3) The Iranians have excellent strategic reasons to want a nuclear arsenal. For the moment, no sane country would attack someone with nuclear-tipped long range missiles if they had any choice. Having a nuclear arsenal would make the Iranians almost unattackable. They would be immune to enemy aggression. They would also be practically immune to threats of retaliation for small provocations, just as the US is today. It makes perfect sense if they do aim at a nuclear bomb program.

4) The Iranians have denied having a nuclear weapon program, but I'm not sure how convincing that is. They keep a lot of their program secret and do not reliably cooperate with the IAEA (seriously, read IAEA reports on this). That's what I know I'd do if I wanted to keep a side-program to make nuclear bombs hidden while I worked on it. So unless we simply copy-paste their press releases and call it news- which is surely foolish when we do it while talking about Western countries- we should think twice about believing the Iranians' assurances.

5) While the Iranians have the right to enrich uranium for atoms-for-peace, exactly what they choose to do with this right provides information about their intentions. If all they want is a string of nuclear power plants, they would accept an offer to help them build those plants, even if it denies them access to bomb-grade fissiles.

If there is some quibble, some detail about the agreement that they don't like, they would negotiate. Say, they want the right to run one or two research reactors at a higher enrichment, or for purposes of nuclear medicine. They might reasonably say "we will keep this one facility running to provide high-enrichment uranium." And others might say "we want to be able to inspect that facility to be sure it's being used peaceably." And the Iranians, if they're really not into nuclear bombs, might say "okay."

But if they do none of this, treat the inspectors as a violation of their sovereignty like so many Arizonans, and stand firmly on their right to do whatever the hell they want... well. That suggests that they're using their rights to do something the rest of the world wouldn't be too happy about, if it found out.

Does that justify invading Iran? In my opinion, no. But I think people who insist that Iran has no nuclear bomb program because Iranian state TV says so are deluding themselves.

[PeZook]

I actually suspect much the same. While the CIA doesn't think they're making bombs, they might want to have all the relevant technology so they can build a device quicklish ; My issue is actually with Conqueror saying that they should just submit entirely to the West, buy Western reactors and stop complaining, as if they don't have any reason nor right to develop their own nuclear sector.

[Simon_Jester]

If all they want is reactors, they "should:" it would be smarter, cheaper, and get them what they want. If they want to beat their chests about the superiority of fundie science, or quietly develop a nuclear bomb without anyone noticing, then obviously they'd be fools to take the offer. But in that case they (and we) really should accept widespread suspicion as part of the price they have to pay.

When the US keeps things secret and refuses to tell people what it's doing, people get suspicious and attribute evil motives and secret crimes to the US. Why should Iran be treated any differently?

[HMS Conqueror]

The whole point is that it is not clear whether this is all they want. If it is, the international deals give them everything they want. If it's not, they're doing something sinister and illegal. If they're just trying to make a point, I can think of a few less worthwhile things about which to endanger thousands if not millions of lives, but not very many.

The only relevant thing is whether or not they're complying with IAEA safeguards regarding civilian use of nuclear power, as per the fucking treaty. If they are, no amount of whining changes their right to enrich uranium. And it seems like the US itself agrees with me, since they're desperately looking for some concrete evidence that they aren't.

They are getting into a position where they can produce a bomb at short notice, doing as much as possible within the letter of the law until there is nothing left that can be done, then they decide whether to go for broke - if they make a bomb before the West attacks, it will not attack, and they 'win'. 20% enriched uranium is used for very few peaceful purposes, totaling a few millions (not billions) of dollars of imports. The real purpose is to obtain a large number of centrifuges which can be used to produce material for a bomb when they are ready to do so.

Frankly, Iran has all sorts of reasons for not wanting to rely on western sources of nuclear technology - like, say, the fact the west has supported coups and and armed their enemies with weapons of mass destruction, so who the fuck knows if they'll continue to support the reactors in the future?

And why? Because Iran is not a liberal democracy. This is part of their campaign to remain not a liberal democracy. I regard that as a bad thing.

[Aaron MkII]

Democracy is not a magic wand, they've been guilty of quite a few atrocities. Iraq happened under a "liberal democracy".

[Simon_Jester]

Frankly, Iran has all sorts of reasons for not wanting to rely on western sources of nuclear technology - like, say, the fact the west has supported coups and and armed their enemies with weapons of mass destruction, so who the fuck knows if they'll continue to support the reactors in the future?

And why? Because Iran is not a liberal democracy. This is part of their campaign to remain not a liberal democracy. I regard that as a bad thing.

This appears to me to be a non sequitur. I get that you believe what you are saying, but it doesn't seem like a logical reaction to what he said.

[HMS Conqueror]

Frankly, Iran has all sorts of reasons for not wanting to rely on western sources of nuclear technology - like, say, the fact the west has supported coups and and armed their enemies with weapons of mass destruction, so who the fuck knows if they'll continue to support the reactors in the future?

And why? Because Iran is not a liberal democracy. This is part of their campaign to remain not a liberal democracy. I regard that as a bad thing.

This appears to me to be a non sequitur. I get that you believe what you are saying, but it doesn't seem like a logical reaction to what he said.

Really?

The reason we are worried about Iran having the capacity to make a bomb, and the alleged reason they want a bomb, is we think they might do Bad Things that we might want to stop, and if they have a bomb we will not be able to. We also worry they might do something crazy with the bomb. If we were dealing with some sort of mega-Belgium in central asia it might raise eyebrows and probably would be protested, but people wouldn't be that worried. Nor would mega-Belgium have much reason to fear being attacked to prompt it to make a bomb, at least not by the West.

The root cause of the problem is that Iran is a nutty quasi-dictatorship that publicly hangs gays and political dissenters from cranes mounted to the back of trucks.

[Aaron MkII]

No if Iran aspires to the bomb its because the Western nations have fucked about with them for decades. So they get nukes, big fucking deal, their less crazy then Pakistan whose had them for what, 30 years? And they backed the Taliban, branches of their government still do.

Dial down your fear dude, lest you have a heart attack.

[HMS Conqueror]

Fear is a useful defence mechanism. These kids would have been better served by being more afraid of the iran government than they were:

Disturbing photo here.

But fuck them imperialist amereichkkka must not be allowed to oppress this beautiful indigenous culture.

Photo placed in a link. Don't pull this again - SCRawl

[evilsoup]

You realise that the only way for real change to come about on that stuff is through internal movement, right? We can (and should) help in certain ways - help setting up education and infrastructure, and push to end censorship... but trying to force change will, if anything, make things worse (because the people there would react in a kneejerk way against imperialism, and that would force the issue to become even more ingrained).

And like Destructinator wrote, Iran is actually one of the less-bad countries in the middle east. I would certainly prefer to live there as a citizen than Saudi Arabia.

[Simon_Jester]

Frankly, Iran has all sorts of reasons for not wanting to rely on western sources of nuclear technology - like, say, the fact the west has supported coups and and armed their enemies with weapons of mass destruction, so who the fuck knows if they'll continue to support the reactors in the future?

And why? Because Iran is not a liberal democracy. This is part of their campaign to remain not a liberal democracy. I regard that as a bad thing.

This appears to me to be a non sequitur. I get that you believe what you are saying, but it doesn't seem like a logical reaction to what he said.

Really?

The reason we are worried about Iran having the capacity to make a bomb, and the alleged reason they want a bomb, is we think they might do Bad Things that we might want to stop, and if they have a bomb we will not be able to. We also worry they might do something crazy with the bomb. If we were dealing with some sort of mega-Belgium in central asia it might raise eyebrows and probably would be protested, but people wouldn't be that worried. Nor would mega-Belgium have much reason to fear being attacked to prompt it to make a bomb, at least not by the West.

The root cause of the problem is that Iran is a nutty quasi-dictatorship that publicly hangs gays and political dissenters from cranes mounted to the back of trucks.

What I don't get is the connection, why what you said is a response to what he said. Iran has reasons not to want to rely on outside sources for even peaceful nuclear technology.

Your counterargument seems to be "well, Iran is evil, so of course outsiders mess with them!"

Does that mean you think it is not true that Iran has reasons not to want to rely on outside sources? Or... something else? Or should your statement not actually be viewed as connected to the one you quote?

BTW: here's something that might blow your mind... Iran's policy toward transsexuals is relatively progressive, even when compared to most the United States. The government helps with the surgury costs and you can have all legal documents reassigned.

Do you know why? Because they regard it as a process of turning gay men into women, and they'd rather have a (conventional, oppressed) Iranian woman around than a gay Iranian man.

What's their policy on female-to-male transsexuals?

You realise that the only way for real change to come about on that stuff is through internal movement, right? We can (and should) help in certain ways - help setting up education and infrastructure, and push to end censorship... but trying to force change will, if anything, make things worse (because the people there would react in a kneejerk way against imperialism, and that would force the issue to become even more ingrained).

And like Destructinator wrote, Iran is actually one of the less-bad countries in the middle east. I would certainly prefer to live there as a citizen than Saudi Arabia.

The Iranian government has gotten good at blaming foreigners for things whether they really happened or not- it works on the Iranian people because they really have been interfered with in the past by foreigners so much, including events that took place before the US had even the slightest interest in the region.

I'm not at all sure that helping them improve their well-being on their government's present terms would be effective at shaking up that government's control. If you want to do it for other reasons fine, but don't pitch it as a way to bring democracy to Iran.

[Aaron MkII]

Fear is a useful defence mechanism. These kids would have been better served by being more afraid of the iran government than they were:



But fuck them imperialist amereichkkka must not be allowed to oppress this beautiful indigenous culture.

Who the hell said anything about "beautiful indigenous culture"?

But go ahead and demonstrate that hanging homosexuals means they'll be nuking people.

Edit; sorry didn't want to quote the image.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Also, thanks for posting the image. I really didn't want or need to see that. Asshole.

Ultimately, Iran is only going to be bombed to oblivion by the US/Israel if they attack first with nukes. And I seriosuly doubt anyone is that insane. Fundie or otherwise.

[SCRawl]

I've turned that photo into a link, so future generations won't have to see it if they don't want to be disturbed. Let's at least try to make things look like they're civilized here.

[Aaron MkII]

I'm enjoying this thread, I must say. First HMS pulls out "if they are innocent then they have nothing to fear", clearly proved false by Iraq. Now we believe that Iran has a beautiful and unique culture that can't be destroyed because we're liberals.

Maybe we just don't want another shifty war? And no I don't trust Iran, nor do I trust the US.

Shifty=shitty.

[evilsoup]

I'm not at all sure that helping them improve their well-being on their government's present terms would be effective at shaking up that government's control. If you want to do it for other reasons fine, but don't pitch it as a way to bring democracy to Iran.

I'm thinking quite long-term. Once people are sure where there next meal is going to come from, they can start arguing about gay rights and women's rights. When they have a higher level of education, you'll see more people making arguments for gay rights and so on; and with a more educated general population there will be a better chance of a hearing for those views. Contact with the outside world will speed up this process.

Trying to directly force them, while appealing (because we can see results right away), probably would be counter-productive because it would legitimise the reactionary anti-western elements in Iran. Homophobia-as-badge of anti-imperialism would not be a good outcome.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm enjoying this thread, I must say. First HMS pulls out "if they are innocent then they have nothing to fear", clearly proved false by Iraq. Now we believe that Iran has a beautiful and unique culture that can't be destroyed because we're liberals.

Maybe we just don't want another shifty war? And no I don't trust Iran, nor do I trust the US.

Shifty=shitty.

That's pretty much how I feel about the war-avoiding. I don't think it's wise, desirable, or right to fight a war with Iran specifically over their nuclear bomb program, even though I think they have such a program.

Because fighting a war over that comes down to "we might not be able to fight a war with you later at our convenience, so we'll fight a war with you now." Which is a horrible attitude.

But if you look at the position D-13 is staking out, I do not think he's really that far from "don't damage Iran's beautiful culture." I get that he's antiwar, but he's way too ready to take the Iranian side of stories in a way that would seem ridiculous to most of us if he took the US side the same way.

If you care more about being right than you do about an ideology, it's very dangerous to say "X lies, therefore people X hates are trustworthy." Or even "therefore people X hates are good."

But see, I don't think you and D-13 actually think the same thing about this.

I'm not at all sure that helping them improve their well-being on their government's present terms would be effective at shaking up that government's control. If you want to do it for other reasons fine, but don't pitch it as a way to bring democracy to Iran.

I'm thinking quite long-term. Once people are sure where there next meal is going to come from, they can start arguing about gay rights and women's rights. When they have a higher level of education, you'll see more people making arguments for gay rights and so on; and with a more educated general population there will be a better chance of a hearing for those views. Contact with the outside world will speed up this process.

Trying to directly force them, while appealing (because we can see results right away), probably would be counter-productive because it would legitimise the reactionary anti-western elements in Iran. Homophobia-as-badge of anti-imperialism would not be a good outcome.

Suffice to say that your model makes sense if all civilizations are evolving along the same track in the same direction, from "religious despotism" towards "secular democratic neoliberalism."

I'm not sure I buy that model. So I'm not so sure that if you just pile money into a civilization that is now brutal and relatively poor, you'll get something that doesn't have anything... "wrong" with it from our perspective. Adding money to a Shi'ite theocracy will not necessarily create a clone of a secular Western democracy, even assuming that's the outcome you'd want.