American held hostage in Iran

[Deleted]

This is the US trying to make Iran look nasty after they "hacked & stole" their Drone.

Personally the UN & EU should intervene with military force and sort out Iran fast. The entire area is becoming VERY hostile, and with Nuclear power on the horizon for them, I don't want it to be to late for an intervention.

I know we're not in a perfect world, and I sure as hell am not prepared to put my big stick down because someone might find a bigger stick, but we're not talking about democratically peaceful countries, we're talking extremist insanity.

I agree, I dont want to see a state ruled by fanatic islamists to be able to nuke half of the western world.

[TobyKenobi]

Ye In my original edit I noted that they most likely have their own biases.

However I'm inclined to believe that conventional soldiers on average create more terrorists than they can kill, because they aren't as sophisticated as special forces. Or as good at the culture as, let's say, the Green Berrets. This is just personal speculation ofcourse.

Already the fact that the conventional troops are so visible in the area makes the US a good target to blame for all things bad.

I think you get both the 'culturally aware' types and the 'just want to fight' types in any unit, regardless of beret color. And to be honest, it's not really a bad thing to have both. Depending on the mission you'll use different tactics, a good leader will know the strengths and weaknesses in their soldiers and apply their abilities appropriately.

As far as conventional troop visibility. Sometimes it can hurt, and other times it can help. Early in the war it clearly hurt us, as Iraqi's simply did not know what was going on and who the 'bad guys' were. U.S. Forces quickly became an easy target for blame like you say. However, in post-surge Iraq, the presence of U.S. Forces helped legitimized Iraqi Police and Iraqi Military, and absolutely necessary piece in solidifying a national government.

[Iron Dome]

San Franciso Chonricle had an interesting op-ed. Here is a segment of it:

Now the most important discussion is under way in Europe. Over the past week, European leaders have been debating whether to impose an oil embargo on Iran. The EU imports 450,000 barrels of Iranian oil each day, about 20 percent of Iran's output.

At a meeting of EU foreign ministers this month, several states, including Britain, France and Germany, advocated an oil embargo, but others balked. Greece, for example, complained that while the state's economy is in crisis, it can't go prospecting to replace Iran's oil. The EU said it would make a decision next month, and statements from Tehran last weekend show the regime is terrified of an embargo.

But now Saudi Arabia - Iran's hated enemy - is ramping up production, specifically to replace Europe's Iranian oil. Sen. Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican, said he won a commitment from the Saudi ambassador in Washington to increase production, his spokesman told me. And in fact, every day now, Saudi Arabia is pumping 600,000 barrels above normal production - the highest output in decades - causing some refineries to throw up their hands and say they can't take any more.

"Asian refiners are not taking extra Saudi barrels," energy analyst Alex Yap told Reuters. A South Korea refinery said it was actually cutting its output because of poor economic conditions in the region.

What's more, Libya is increasing output now that the fighting there is over, and the International Energy Agency reported that during the third quarter of this year, Iraq produced 540,000 more barrels per day than it had a year earlier.

In other words, the world is awash in oil - even as weak economies are reducing demand worldwide. Europe can impose a total oil embargo on Iran and easily replace that oil from other producers.

As if to underscore the point - and to prod the West to act - Saudi Arabia hinted recently that it would consider building its own nuclear weapons if the time comes that both Iran and Israel have them.

---------- Post added 2011-12-19 at 07:47 PM ----------

Pakistan is one of the most curious cases in the middle east. Their government went against everything that was good for them to get money from the US. The Taleban was the best possible neighbour in Afghanistan, but Musharaf sent their soldiers to fight the talebans which resulted in the deaths of thousands. The people in Pakistan hate their government more than ever for supporting the US.

Actually, I'm very very concerned with Pakistan's nuclear reactor.

Pakistan is an unstable country. What happens if the government falls into the hands of crazy radicals?

What if al-Qaeda, or another terrorist group, takes control?

What if a terrorist group manages to smuggle out a nuclear bomb to do the next 9/11?

100%, we should be very concerned. Agree with you.

---------- Post added 2011-12-19 at 07:51 PM ----------

Probably due to the average american soldier is 20years old, a kid.

Nothing to do with it. There are countries with required drafts for 20 year olds. Some of them even have great training, are serious about it, and are hardly considered "kids" in the army. It may be different with a country like the U.S., where you grow up worrying about what college you'll go to and not which army unit you'll fight in, so that may make a difference, but I'm just pointing out that statement isn't necessarily true.

---------- Post added 2011-12-19 at 07:53 PM ----------

Stop the presses, an american is hold somewhere. *tinfoilhat*

Now seriously, there are several threads about this already.

I actually haven't really found much media coverage about this. It depends on the mindframe of the country - it doesn't generate much news in the U.S., because U.S. policy is not to negotiate with terrorists, even if a speical operation to rescue that person is impossible. It has advantages and disadvantages. At the end of the day, it revolves around the mindframe of the country.

---------- Post added 2011-12-19 at 08:01 PM ----------

Siigh, I laughed at that. Maybe countries don't care about the actions, but they care about their allies.
That still doesn't change the fact that the majority of the world does NOT see them as terrorists.

How deep is the alliance connection? Most countries that are allies are just trading and economic partners, and sometimes hold military training together and may share military info. In a case like Africa, most countries aren't so invovled in the U.S. political system other than to get food and water that they don't care about Hizbollah. Russia said they didn't list them as terrorist, because Hizbollah isn't a direct threat to Russia, and many other countries also follow this. It's impossible to take that last sentnece and somehow claim that means most of the world doesn't view them as terrorist. On the contrary, most of the world probably hasn't given it thought or hold a debate on it, because Hizbollah may not be relevant towards them! So it's up to individual people to decide whether the 1994 bombing of the cultural civilian AMIA center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 and wounded 100+ is terrorist or not. Some people have tougher times deciding on this; others take longer at looking at common definitions of terrorism and seeing if this fits the description; still, some unfortunates are so blinded by hate for a country that they'd praise any terrorist organization against that country and say they're not terrorist.

Again, most of the world may not view them as terrorist or not terrorist. And you don't need an explicit resolution to state an opinion, in an article, in the media, in a speech...

But I don't give a fuck

Until your cultural civilian center in Buenos Aires is blown up.

because they aren't terrorists according to the majority of the world.

Again, false, but as we all know, the world is such a perfectly just place, where genocide can take place and no one will stop it until too late (Armenian Genocide, Holocaust, Rwanda genocide, Darfur...), where Gaddafi can lead the U.N. Human Rights High Council, where North Korea can give a conference on disarmament..... Oh, but the world said it, the world said it, and I'm a mindless zombie who can't form his own opinion! But the world said it, even though they really didn't say it, because they never said, "We don't view them as terrorists."

Label them any way you want, it stays nothing but your opinion.

And if every single country in the world labeled Hezbollah as terrorists, you'd still say, "Well that's irrelevant, it's just an opinion." You'd be right - it is an opinion. But it's obviously relevant to those countries.

[Deleted]

Actually, I'm very very concerned with Pakistan's nuclear reactor.
Pakistan is an unstable country. What happens if the government falls into the hands of crazy radicals?
What if al-Qaeda, or another terrorist group, takes control?
What if a terrorist group manages to smuggle out a nuclear bomb to do the next 9/11?
100%, we should be very concerned. Agree with you.

Another example how the US has made a government more unstable, this time the government happens to have nukes. GG again.

But seriously, nothing to lose your sleep over. If you live in constant fear of "terror attacks", then the terrorists have succeeded.

[Iron Dome]

Another example how the US has made a government more unstable, this time the government happens to have nukes. GG again.

But seriously, nothing to lose your sleep over. If you live in constant fear of "terror attacks", then the terrorists have succeeded.

Nah, I don't have anxiety disorders over it. I just feel that the world should definitely do something about it.

It's like living before WWI and saying, "The world needs to do something about this system of alliances, nationalism, militarism, and Balkan troubles." or WWII, "The world needs to do something about Germany." Doesn't mean they won. Just means you should do something.

Btw, I urge everyone to check out this interesting analysis published in the Hudson Institue. It's too long for me to quote here, so I'll just post the link here and hope everyone who decides to comment will check it out. Link is here.

[Deleted]

Nah, I don't have anxiety disorders over it. I just feel that the world should definitely do something about it.

"Do something about it". Do you have any proposals aside from offensive action towards Pakistan?

How about you just leave Pakistan alone and monitor the situation?

[Iron Dome]

"Do something about it". Do you have any proposals aside from offensive action towards Pakistan?

How about you just leave Pakistan alone and monitor the situation?

I do not have any proposals, nor do I recommend offensive actions, but rather that there should be concern, and as you said, make sure to monitor the situation and prepare for a worst case scenario. I certainly can recommend that something is done, whatever this "something" is, that could still be formulated.

[goki]

9 pages of warmongering, nice, you despicable human beings. Imagine (lol Ron Paul) some random forumgoers in China calling for YOUR death, war on YOUR country, not so fun?

[Iron Dome]

9 pages of warmongering, nice, you despicable human beings. Imagine (lol Ron Paul) some random forumgoers in China calling for YOUR death, war on YOUR country, not so fun?

Indeed, that wouldn't be very nice. That's one of the reasons I don't find it nice that Iran chants "Death to America."

And actually, it's been about 9 pages of me saying we should enforce tougher sanctions and only as a last resort use military option. /shrug some people can't read

[goki]

Indeed, that wouldn't be very nice. That's one of the reasons I don't find it nice that Iran chants "Death to America."

And actually, it's been about 9 pages of me saying we should enforce tougher sanctions and only as a last resort use military option. /shrug some people can't read

It has been 9 pages of you passing judgement on millions of people, I am glad you have no real power to do anything.

[Iron Dome]

Stop making up retarded things because of your inability to make a decent point.
If the entire world called them like that, or even a majority, then you'd have a point in arguing that Iran is supporting terrorists.
But the majority doesn't see them as that, so it's a bad argument.

Does the majority see them notas that? No, so it's really irrelevant when they're sending missiles via Sudan to Hamas terrorirists to intentionally aim at schoolbuses and hospitals.

---------- Post added 2011-12-26 at 06:12 PM ----------

It has been 9 pages of you passing judgement on millions of people, I am glad you have no real power to do anything.

Such as?

I've actually stated throughout these 9 pages that I support the Green Movement (which makes up a lot of Iranian citizens) and I am passionately against the IRI government.

If you reread it, you'd see the multiple times I call for tigher sanctions before military option. On the other hand, there are those like Matthew Kroenig who state we should strike now. /shrug

Here's what top general Dempsey said.As Gen. Martin Dempsey toured around the globe over the last eight days, one issue was prominent -- Iran's nuclear intentions.

Dempsey, in an exclusive interview with CNN, warned that Iran is playing a dangerous game that could ensnare the Middle East, the United States and others into conflict and a renewed nuclear arms race. From Iraq to Afghanistan, Kuwait to Saudi Arabia, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff heard about growing concerns about Iran's ambitions.

"My biggest worry is they will miscalculate our resolve," Dempsey said in an interview conducted during a stop in Afghanistan. "Any miscalculation could mean that we are drawn into conflict, and that would be a tragedy for the region and the world."

The recent loss of a U.S. spy drone over Iran exposed part of America's espionage efforts against the country. CNN recently reported that the drone was sent into Iran to conduct surveillance of possible nuclear sites. In perhaps the most candid comments yet from an American official about the spying efforts, Dempsey said the loss of the drone is not the end of U.S. efforts to figure out what Iran is doing.

"If you are asking, 'Are we gathering intelligence against Iran in a variety of means?' the answer is of course," Dempsey said. "It would be rather imprudent of us not to try to understand what a nation who has declared itself to be an adversary of the United States is doing".

Behind the scenes Dempsey is quietly leading the ongoing military planning for an attack against Iran's nuclear weapons in the event the president gives the order to do so.

"We are examining a range of options," Dempsey said, echoing the "all options on the table" line used by administration officials.

Dempsey, the highest-ranking officer in the U.S. military, said the military options are achievable.

"I am satisfied that the options that we are developing are evolving to a point that they would be executable if necessary," he said.

Dempsey said there is no guarantee that Israel will give the United States warning if it decides to attack Iran. But America is sharing intelligence with Israel, Dempsey said.

"We are trying to establish some confidence on the part of the Israelis that we recognize their concerns and are collaborating with them on addressing them," he said.

[goki]

Does the majority see them notas that? No, so it's really irrelevant when they're sending missiles via Sudan to Hamas terrorirists to intentionally aim at schoolbuses and hospitals.

---------- Post added 2011-12-26 at 06:12 PM ----------


Such as?

I've actually stated throughout these 9 pages that I support the Green Movement (which makes up a lot of Iranian citizens) and I am passionately against the IRI government.

If you reread it, you'd see the multiple times I call for tigher sanctions before military option. On the other hand, there are those like Matthew Kroenig who state we should strike now. /shrug

Here's what top general Dempsey said.As Gen. Martin Dempsey toured around the globe over the last eight days, one issue was prominent -- Iran's nuclear intentions.

Dempsey, in an exclusive interview with CNN, warned that Iran is playing a dangerous game that could ensnare the Middle East, the United States and others into conflict and a renewed nuclear arms race. From Iraq to Afghanistan, Kuwait to Saudi Arabia, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff heard about growing concerns about Iran's ambitions.

"My biggest worry is they will miscalculate our resolve," Dempsey said in an interview conducted during a stop in Afghanistan. "Any miscalculation could mean that we are drawn into conflict, and that would be a tragedy for the region and the world."

The recent loss of a U.S. spy drone over Iran exposed part of America's espionage efforts against the country. CNN recently reported that the drone was sent into Iran to conduct surveillance of possible nuclear sites. In perhaps the most candid comments yet from an American official about the spying efforts, Dempsey said the loss of the drone is not the end of U.S. efforts to figure out what Iran is doing.

"If you are asking, 'Are we gathering intelligence against Iran in a variety of means?' the answer is of course," Dempsey said. "It would be rather imprudent of us not to try to understand what a nation who has declared itself to be an adversary of the United States is doing".

Behind the scenes Dempsey is quietly leading the ongoing military planning for an attack against Iran's nuclear weapons in the event the president gives the order to do so.

"We are examining a range of options," Dempsey said, echoing the "all options on the table" line used by administration officials.

Dempsey, the highest-ranking officer in the U.S. military, said the military options are achievable.

"I am satisfied that the options that we are developing are evolving to a point that they would be executable if necessary," he said.

Dempsey said there is no guarantee that Israel will give the United States warning if it decides to attack Iran. But America is sharing intelligence with Israel, Dempsey said.

"We are trying to establish some confidence on the part of the Israelis that we recognize their concerns and are collaborating with them on addressing them," he said.

Who are you to call sanctions on country inhabited by millions of people? Do you know that economic sanctions lead to unemployment and starvation? This is what I mean by you passing judgement. You, like so many others on this forum, has this unreal attitude towards global problems, your solutions are so inhumane and inconsiderate they only make sense in call of duty. Just stop, be a little more humble and a little more respectful towards human life.

[Iron Dome]

Who are you to call sanctions on country inhabited by millions of people? Do you know that economic sanctions lead to unemployment and starvation? This is what I mean by you passing judgement. You, like so many others on this forum, has this unreal attitude towards global problems, your solutions are so inhumane and inconsiderate they only make sense in call of duty. Just stop, be a little more humble and a little more respectful towards human life.

Freedom of speech, no?

Who am I? Well, I'm not Congress or the EU, but both have put sanctions on Iran. They're the best option on the table. It's regrettable, but we're also dealing with a country whose leaders are invovled in a major embezzlement scam and who take loads from the population anyway, regardless of sanctions or not. You have to choose some option - and I'd hardly believe that you'd prefer military option over sanctions.

Sanctions semi-led to the Green Movement, which should've been supported so we wouldn't have to deal with this today. It can lead to another revolt. Furthermore, sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran and their oil could very well lead them to abandon nuclear weapons (for now).

Sometimes you have to make tough decisions.