backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by luseferous.. on Jan 22 at 10:18 AM


  (Source: teribon.ir)
Iran has some fun at the expense of the U.S.

The United States was more than a bit embarrassed when it lost an RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drone over Iran. Although the U.S. government initially claimed that the aircraft malfunctioned and was missing "somewhere near Afghanistan", Iran boldly claimed that it spoofed the Sentinel's GPS feed causing the drone to "think" it was landing at an airbase in Afghanistan instead of its actual landing spot -- an Iranian military base.
 
In a surprise move, President Barack Obama engaged Iran during a press conferencing, stating, "We've asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond."
 
Iran is now humorously responding to President Obama's request in toy form. “He said he wanted it back, and we will send him one,” joked Reza Kioumarsi of the Ayeh Art Group, which is responsible for the production of the 1/80 scale toy that sells for the equivalent of $4 USD.

[Source: teribon.ir]

Iranian officials are quick to point out that unlike most toys sold in the U.S., these won't be made in China. They'll be produced in Iran using Iranian plastic. The toy replicas will come in a number of different colors and will feature a clear plastic stand with the inscription: "We will put America under our feet.”
 
To add insult to injury, the Ayeh Art Group is said to have reserved a pink replica to send directly to President Obama.

Sources: The Washington Post, ABC News, The New York Times



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/17/2012 11:51:54 PM , Rating: 5
Oh yeah, Obama clearly has a firm grasp on this whole foreign policy thing. He's so loved and respected, clearly lol.

I never thought I would say this in my life, but well played Iran. Well played.




RE: sigh
By Dorkyman on 1/18/2012 12:38:47 AM , Rating: 4
But Messiah delivers a good teleprompter speech, acts cool, and got a whole lot of votes from white folks trying to move past their whole "black slavery" guilt trip thing.

Now, in retrospect, it's pretty obvious the guy was never qualified to be Prez. But it will be over soon.


RE: sigh
By Rage187 on 1/18/2012 6:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
Thank God this guy is on his way out. Romney's campaign slogan should be "Change it back!"


RE: sigh
By retrospooty on 1/18/2012 7:27:55 AM , Rating: 1
"Thank God this guy is on his way out. Romney's campaign slogan should be "Change it back!" "

Becasue we were in such great shape in January of 2009 when Obama took office. /rolls eyes


RE: sigh
By MrBlastman on 1/18/2012 3:54:45 PM , Rating: 2
I happen to be sad for anyone voting for Romney in the primaries. Sorry, but if I get a chance to vote in them and they make it to my state, he definitely is NOT getting my vote at all. He's got some extreme views on certain things while at the same time takes far too left of a stance on things such as healthcare.

Okay, I suppose that makes him somewhat moderate but the extreme views he holds in my eyes outweigh any value he can bring to the table. The one thing that he does bring that I have zero respect for is his "private equity" background. That is a tremendous negative in my book.

But wait, people might argue Warren Buffet etc.--the truth is, Romney is no Warren and never was. When I see him talk, hear him speak or listen to what he says, all I find is a slickster trying to pull wool over our eyes to get to what he really wants which is more power and more money.

Sorry, he's not getting my vote now or in the November elections. Obama isn't either so I'll have to vote somewhere else but one thing is for sure--I'm fed up with "settling." Not gonna happen anymore. I'm going to vote how Americans should vote--for people that represent the bulk of their beliefs and values that also can do the best possible job for our Nation.

Oh, did I just suggest people put effort into choosing their candidate before they go and vote? Yes, yes I did! Sadly, most don't do this and just settle for who the media tells them is the most "popular" candidate. In this case, it is Romney.

The only people losing here are the American public.


RE: sigh
By KCjoker on 1/18/2012 5:54:32 PM , Rating: 3
That's the scary part...I didn't think it was possible but Obama made things even worse.


RE: sigh
By seamonkey79 on 1/18/2012 7:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
Why? Romney's slogan of "I'm going to keep changing it, but there will be an R after my name" seems to be working well enough.


RE: sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: sigh
By retrospooty on 1/18/2012 9:30:48 AM , Rating: 3
"Bush left us with a recession. Obama started a depression. "

thats not at all the way the economy works. Its not like a president takes office and immediatley effects the economy. It takes years. Your argument is as if Bush jettisoned the gas tanks and pointed the plane toward the ground, then bailed out, leaving Obama to pilot the plane. It of course crashes and you cry "Obama crashed the plane!!!)".

No, the economy was in a tailspin in the last half of 2008 and there was no stopping it.

I am not defending Obama, I dont think he helped at all and I dont think he is doing a good job, but the economy isnt his fault. It happened long before he took office.


RE: sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/18/2012 9:51:28 AM , Rating: 3
LOL so increasing the deficit from $600 billion to three TRILLION in two years is nothing to do with Obama?

I'm sorry but at some point you have to give credit where it's due. The recession wasn't his fault. But EVERYTHING he did after he took office made it worst. You're trying to wash his hands of the whole thing and, frankly, that tactic is getting old. He's milked the whole "it wasn't me" line as far as it will go and the American people need a leader who can be accountable.

quote:
Its not like a president takes office and immediatley effects the economy.


Normally this is the case. However Obama IN ONE YEAR increased federal spending by 22%. He DID immediately effect the economy, for the worst.


RE: sigh
By retrospooty on 1/18/2012 10:11:42 AM , Rating: 1
"Normally this is the case. However Obama IN ONE YEAR increased federal spending by 22%. He DID immediately effect the economy, for the worst"

I agree, and I said I dont think he is doing a good job. That 1 trillion dollar stimulus package was aweful. But most of that deficit is due to lower revenue from the poor economy.

When he took office the economy was in a nosedive and nothing could have stopped it. Did he make it worse? Yes, but he inherited a sinking ship.

You always want to blame the left for everything that goes wrong without looking at the real issues... In Jan 2009 when Obama took office the Rep's had the oval office for 20 of the previous 28 years and they had control of Congress for 14 of the previous 16 years. You cannot possibly blame everything on the Dems, when the REpa have had teh majority of control in the modern era. The argument just cannot be made.


RE: sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/18/2012 10:37:25 AM , Rating: 2
I don't believe in a "recession proof" economy. Our economy is cyclical, and recessions are part of that cycle. I'm not "blaming" anyone for the recession man.

quote:
When he took office the economy was in a nosedive and nothing could have stopped it. Did he make it worse? Yes, but he inherited a sinking ship.


That sounds like a cop out though. If you take office, and the economy is in a "nosedive", then that should be your priority.

You just don't want to see the true evil that took place. That our President purposefully and intentionally manipulated the events taking place to gain political power and ram through an agenda. Fixing the economy, like any normal President would have attempted, was NOT his primary concern.

You admit he made it worst, yet still come up with excuses for it. What kind of moral relativist passive crap is that, man?


RE: sigh
By anactoraaron on 1/18/2012 11:54:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You just don't want to see the true evil that took place. That our President purposefully and intentionally manipulated the events taking place to gain political power and ram through an agenda. Fixing the economy, like any normal President would have attempted, was NOT his primary concern.


Wow there's so many things wrong with this statement in this context I don't know where to start. Discussions of it's the Blue leader's fault vs. the Red leader's fault usually are.

The "purposefully and intentionally manipulated the events to gain political power" describes EVERY ELECTED POLITICIAN in our government today. Big surprise there.

"Ramming through an agenda" ...like the war in Iraq? SOPA/PIPA anyone?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't live in a dictatorship. The president doesn't pass laws/policies all by himself. If I recall correctly congress does that. Yes, the same morons trying to "push an agenda" by spewing out PIPA/SOPA right now. Blame the 'figurehead' all you want (it's Bush's fault - no it's Obama's fault) but the reality is that it's the fault of many in the government for the way things are. And the true manipulation of the majority of the American public by the political parties this time of year is to get Joe Q Public to continue to believe that the 'figurehead' is responsible for everything right and wrong in this country. And then vote "all blue" or "all red" on the ballots without even knowing who all those people are. Then the cycle goes on...

But yes, every part of this is evil. Who's actually seeing it?


RE: sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/18/2012 12:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
We're talking about the economy. You're going into a lot of different areas that go far beyond the discussion at hand. If you want to widen the scope of the argument to everything that is wrong about government in general, make a new thread about it.


RE: sigh
By retrospooty on 1/18/2012 12:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
"You admit he made it worst, yet still come up with excuses for it. What kind of moral relativist passive crap is that, man? "

I am not making excuses for it. The facts are the facts. This thread started for me when someone said "change it back"... Well, back where it was under Bush caused the mess. That is my only point. You cant blame Obama for this mess. At best you can say he made it worse, or is just plain inept (and you may well be right), but it wasnt his fault.


RE: sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/18/2012 1:11:18 PM , Rating: 1
Again, even if Bush "caused" the recession it's Obama who is turning it into a depression.

Hence my original statement. What's the problem again?

quote:
You cant blame Obama for this mess


Yes we can and have. Because it IS his fault. He's the President. When it's all said and done, his Presidency will be judged on how effective it was when he was in office, and the status of the nation when he left it.

quote:
At best you can say he made it worse


LOL umm how is that any better? Are you just trying to be ironic? You sound like someone tripping over themselves to blindly defend someone.


RE: sigh
By retrospooty on 1/18/2012 1:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
"Again, even if Bush "caused" the recession it's Obama who is turning it into a depression."

What depression? Its already on its way back up. Damn dood, get some perspective. In the depression we had 25% unemployment and masses of people standing in line for a free bowl of govt. soup. People were hungry, and homeless. How many iPhones and Androids sold in the past 3 years? Depression LOL.

"Yes we can and have. Because it IS his fault. He's the President. When it's all said and done, his Presidency will be judged on how effective it was when he was in office, and the status of the nation when he left it"

If that is your assertion, he took it in a tailspin and (if he is ousted this election) will leave it slowly climbing upward.

" LOL umm how is that any better? Are you just trying to be ironic? You sound like someone tripping over themselves to blindly defend someone."

See posts above. I DONT think he is doing a good job, its just not his fault.


RE: sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/18/2012 1:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What depression? Its already on its way back up.


Back up!!?? With INSANE levels of debt and unemployment? You're looking like a fool now. Don't hand me that "new normal" crap either, those are NOT healthy economic indicators no matter how you guys spin it.

I don't think you realize just how screwed we are. We CANNOT have debt and deficits of this level and pretend our economy is healthy.

quote:
In the depression we had 25% unemployment and masses of people standing in line for a free bowl of govt. soup.


That was the GREAT depression. Just because things aren't as bad doesn't mean we don't have a depressed economy under Obama. Sheesh, come on! Be reasonable here.

Not that it matters. Even if things DID get that bad under Obama, you apparently would still blame Bush lol.

quote:
I DONT think he is doing a good job, its just not his fault.


That might have floated his first year of office. But you're saying that his terms is almost up, and still nothing is his fault?? That's not even possible.

You're nothing but a biased supporter pretending to be objective. I've heard enough out of you.


RE: sigh
By retrospooty on 1/18/2012 2:24:33 PM , Rating: 1
"Back up!!?? With INSANE levels of debt and unemployment? You're looking like a fool now. Don't hand me that "new normal" crap either, those are NOT healthy economic indicators no matter how you guys spin it."

Calm down man, its not as bad as all that. Yes, the debt is bad, but unemployment isnt anywhere near depression levels and is on the way back down. It was 9.3 last year now 8.5 or 8.6ish. New normal? What are you talking about? dont put words into my mouth. I said we are not in a depression anad that is correct.

"That was the GREAT depression. Just because things aren't as bad doesn't mean we don't have a depressed economy under Obama. Sheesh, come on! Be reasonable here."

Oh, OK, so your saying we arent not in a GREAT depression, only a depression? dood, we arent technically even in a recession. We are in recovery mode. A recession is 3 quarters of negative growth. We are growing somewhere between 2-3% per quarter. Not rapid, not great, but not a recession and defintely not a depression. YOU need to be reasonable.

Agreed about the debt. It has to be fixed and fast, the big question is how.

Nevermind man... You are so extreme to the right that you cant even see the middle with binoculars. You are so caught up in blaming the left that you cant even properly identify the issues. People like you are the problem in this country, you are so far to your side that you cant see any issue objectively. You cant even take someone saying that its not Obama's fault without accusing that person of being some closet liberal. You are too far gone from reality. You are no better than Michael Moore or Nancy Pelosi... Exact same only opposite sides. Think about that.

Try and get some perpective. Being that closed minded isnt helping you any.


RE: sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/18/12, Rating: -1
RE: sigh
By retrospooty on 1/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/18/2012 3:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
You're really condescending. I'm going to take the high road and say good discussion (until you turned into Dr. Phil and started judging me), and have a nice day sir.


RE: sigh
By retrospooty on 1/18/2012 3:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
I see I struck a nerve so your done? Thats fine, I am done too. I apologize for being condecending, but try to see past the insulting part to the content part.


RE: sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/18/2012 4:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
A nerve? No you're just straight up personally attacking me constantly and making judgments about my character over this. You shifted from the topic to dissecting me, and if I defend myself then I'm stuck playing your game while also lending credibility to your claims. So I just chose not to.


RE: sigh
By retrospooty on 1/19/2012 9:16:31 AM , Rating: 3
"you're just straight up personally attacking me constantly and making judgments about my character over this. You shifted from the topic to dissecting me"

I apologize if you felt that way... It is just that I think you are full of it. You are more interested in blaming the left than really discussing the issues here. This isnt the first time we have gone at it over politics. You always want to blame everything on the left...

Seriously... Consider this - In Jan 2009 when Obama took office the economy was in a freefall and America was looking like a joke to the international community... The Rep's had the oval office for 20 of the previous 28 years and they had control of Congress for 14 of the previous 16 years. You cannot possibly blame everything on the Dems, when the Reps have had the huge majority of control in the modern era. The argument just cannot be made.

Back to reality - again, we are not in a depression. The depression had 25% unemployment and many middle class Americans standing in soup lines just to get a meal. This "depression" had 10 % unemployment (now down to 8.6%) and during it, we sold 10's of millions of iPhones and Androids, with no mass "feed the hungry" projects required in America. This is nothing anywhere near a depression, and I refuse to run around like Chicken Little and Glen Beck and cry how the sky is falling and its all Obama's fault. That view is so narrow minded that I cannot begin to relate and I admit, I probably do come off condescending against it, because I truly feel it's ridiculous.


RE: sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/19/2012 4:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't know where you get this stuff. You agreed with me that Obama made things worst. You said that several times didn't you? Now suddenly the discussion is all about me and you're twisting everything to nothing being his fault?

quote:
Seriously... Consider this - In Jan 2009 when Obama took office the economy was in a freefall and America was looking like a joke to the international community...


A joke? If you think we were a joke then, how about now? Iran is blatantly trolling us, Obama is being called an assassin, and Europe is collapsing. As far as Obama, are we in better shape today than 4 years ago? You seem to think we are somehow. Let's examine some facts.

March ’07 > March ’11
Unemployment Rate - 4.40% > 8.80%
Gas price (per gallon) - $2.56 > $3.60
National Debt - 8.84 trillion > 14.27 trillion
Monthly deficit - 95 billion > 189 billion
Median House Price - $262,600 > $202,100
S&P 500 Index - 1420.86 > 1332.31
Employment-Population Ratio - 63.3% > 58.5%
Consumer Price Index - 205.532 > 221.309

Yeah that's a great job Obama has done. But you'll just keep towing the party line and blaming Bush and somehow tying in the past 28 years of Republican majority as to somehow causing all this. Go ahead, I know you want to.


RE: sigh
By retrospooty on 1/19/2012 5:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
"I really don't know where you get this stuff".

See all of the points above that you ignored.

March ’07 > March ’11
Unemployment Rate - 4.40% > 8.80%
Gas price (per gallon) - $2.56 > $3.60
National Debt - 8.84 trillion > 14.27 trillion
Monthly deficit - 95 billion > 189 billion
Median House Price - $262,600 > $202,100
S&P 500 Index - 1420.86 > 1332.31
Employment-Population Ratio - 63.3% > 58.5%
Consumer Price Index - 205.532 > 221.309

What are you trying to prove? How bad it is now? Yes, it is bad, not a "Depression" but of course, people are hurting. Do you seriously think the economy works that fast that Obama affected it??? We are still dealing with things that Reagen, Bush, Clinton and Bush2 did (good and bad). You act as if your perfect candidate (lets just say an ideal perfect conservative) could have taken the reigns in Jan 2009 and stopped the umpteen trillion dollar housing crash. Dood, you cant possibly not see that Obama didn't cause this mess. The making of this mess precedes him by years. Not months, YEARS, and not just 1 or 2 years. Several years. The bad thing Obama and the dems did on this, was the stimulus - 1.2 trillion or whatever. You cant possibly imagine that the current deficit is up PRIMARILY because tax revenue is down because too many people are out of work and under employed and that all started WAY before anything Obama did could have taken effect. No, its all the lefts fault, even though they have barely had time to do anything. It just doesn't work that fast. years from now, we will be feeling the effects of Obama and the current congresses actions, and I believe it wont be great... But you? You are so blindly trying to blame the left that you cant see straight. You have lost all sense of perspective and just blindly blame without any logic at all. You are starting to sound too much like Glen Beck for me.


RE: sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/19/2012 6:22:18 PM , Rating: 1
WOW you have pulled a total 180. You DIRECTLY said that you believed Obama made it worst. You said that. Now I'm "Glenn Beck" and we get this....

quote:
Do you seriously think the economy works that fast that Obama affected it???


What kind of flip flopping act is that man? You have no backbone or integrity. You can't even stand by the things you said 24 hours ago.

You've lost all credibility when you completely balk on something that came out of your own mouth, and then resort to making personal attacks on me. What's happened to you? Your entire sentence structure is even falling apart. Run on sentences, bad punctuation. Hell you're not even using paragraphs anymore. Have you been drinking? It's like you're not even the same guy you were yesterday.


RE: sigh
By retrospooty on 1/19/2012 7:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
No I'm not drunk. I was in a super hurry trying to leave work. There is no flip flopping. I think what Obama did will make matters worse, but he didnt cause it, it all happened long before he came and we are now seeing the results. What is so hard to grasp about that? Freegin economics 101. I have been saying it over and over.

Nice avoidance of the issues though. I would just paste exactly the same thing I pasted in the last comment, but you'll just avoid that as well. I think my arguments are sound here and you have no answer.


RE: sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: sigh
By retrospooty on 1/19/2012 8:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
dont put me where you think I am... I am no apologist, I dont give a rats arse about Obama... I dont give a crap about Hitler either , but I dont blame him for world war 1. WW2, sure, but not 1. I am calling you out on your blind one sidedness and again, you avoid the issues. You keep saying nothing to the points I owned you with.


RE: sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: sigh
By retrospooty on 1/19/2012 8:53:48 PM , Rating: 3
"I specifically said it's not his fault."

OK, we agree on that.... Now. In Jan 2009 when Obama took office the economy was in a freefall. The Rep's had the oval office for 20 of the previous 28 years and they had control of Congress for 14 of the previous 16 years. You cannot possibly blame everything on the Dems, when the Reps have had the huge majority of control in the modern era.

What can the paragraph above mean then? Why did the economy tank and who was in charge when it tanked? Go ahead, I know you know, but you really need to say it. Not for me, but for your own self you need to say it.

"If you're hung up on my use of "depression" for dramatic effect"

No, I am hung up on your always blaming everything that is wrong in this country on the left when the left hasnt been in charge hardly at all in recent history. Somehow the reps have had all the power and all the control, yet nothing is their fault. How can that be?


RE: sigh
By mcnabney on 1/18/2012 3:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
You do know that the legislature does all the taxes and spending?

The executive branch does things like send Seal Team 6 into Pakistan to kill Osama. Remember, McCain said in a debate that he would NOT do that exact thing, while Obama said that he would.


RE: sigh
By bkrharold on 1/18/2012 5:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
The greatest part of our fiscal dilemma was created by the tax cuts for the rich which Georgy boy put in as soon as he took office. The effect of these cuts alone dwarfs the war in Iraq the TARP and the economic downturn. If you don't believe me just look at this chart

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/bush-tax-...


RE: sigh
By KCjoker on 1/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: sigh
By JediJeb on 1/18/2012 3:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
The sad thing is they say it usually takes 3 years or more for a change in policy to be clearly seen. If the last part of the Bush admin left us with what we have now, what are the next 3 years going to look like(no matter who wins in November)?

The entire world economy is going to hit the "Debt Wall" soon, which is when all of the easily accessible money is borrowed and spent. After that the only place to get money to run world governments will be to physically take what people already have, not just grab a little here and there of what you make. What will it be like if the governments show up at our doors and demand from everyone a set amount of tax money? Could we be headed to a Medieval system of taxation in the near future?


RE: sigh
By Uncle on 1/18/2012 10:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
Don't soften your stance at all. The republicans set everything in motion to raid the treasury before and after the election. By the time the Dems new what was happening, the cupboard was cleaned out.


RE: sigh
By Mint on 1/18/2012 11:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
And what were those indicators when the spending actually began in mid-2009?

No we are not worse off by any of those indicators, and no amount of deceit from you can change that. One can argue that different methods could have done better with lower deficit, like less tax breaks for the rich, but no economist will say economic indicators got worse with ARRA.

I generally lean liberal, but nothing would make me happier than a true fiscal conservative taking power right now and immediately implementing the kind of austerity you demand. When he f***s up the economy beyond imagination, we can finally put this nonsense theory of spending cuts curing high unemployment to bed.


RE: sigh
By gladiatorua on 1/21/2012 10:58:01 AM , Rating: 2
Nononono...
American economy is a big force in world economy balance. Another big f*ck up will break the world economy even more.
As non-American I would advise to wait until China takes over as the bigest economic force and after that you can go nuts and f*ck up anything you want.


RE: sigh
By FITCamaro on 1/18/2012 12:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
Romney has to win the nomination first.


RE: sigh
By FaaR on 1/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: sigh
By Dorkyman on 1/18/2012 10:30:00 AM , Rating: 2
"Racist?"

Man, that has NOTHING to do with it.

I honestly couldn't care less if the guy had brown, green, or yellow polka-dot skin.


RE: sigh
By Orac4prez on 1/18/2012 10:10:49 AM , Rating: 2
I'm surprised they didn't send a LAME DUCK to Obama.

What are you guys complaining about - your guys were suckered by the Iranians while you violated their airspace. Iran 1 USA 0

Rather than focusing on Iran perhaps you should look at the elephant in the room - your world record deficits.


RE: sigh
By bkrharold on 1/18/2012 5:42:58 PM , Rating: 4
Unlike the previous occupant of the White House, President Obama thinks before he acts. Junior would have gone in with all guns blazing, and created a mess that would last another ten years. Then we would have left it for the next Democratic President to get us out of it, and clean up his mess. A drone can be replaced, and our security measures can be updated. So far Juniors war in Iraq has cost more than a $trillion, and we will be paying to heal our soldiers broken bodies and minds for many years.


Goal?
By Warren21 on 1/18/2012 12:19:08 AM , Rating: 4
What does Iran really hope to accomplish with all of this bravado? They've made their point.

Saying things like "We will see America under our feet" doesn't help their cause any. It's one thing to stand up to the U.S., the West et al. It's another thing completely to be an active proponent of their destruction.

As if Ahmadinejad hasn't done a good enough job of being as subtle as a bull in a china shop, this is the proverbial cherry on top.




RE: Goal?
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/18/2012 12:27:05 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
What does Iran really hope to accomplish with all of this bravado? They've made their point.

Saying things like "We will see America under our feet" doesn't help their cause any. It's one thing to stand up to the U.S., the West et al. It's another thing completely to be an active proponent of their destruction.

http://library.thinkquest.org/J002267F/types_of_hu...

Epigram: clever, short saying about a general group. Mostly satire about mankind. Two types, wordplay and thought play.

Irony: a leading part of humor. Irony is using words to express something completely different from the literal meaning. Usually, someone says the opposite of what they mean and the listener believes the opposite of what they said.

Children play with toys under their feet? Under foot means make them your inferior. Nationalistic irony... Get it? I'm sure our leaders never made a nationalistic joke @ Iran's expense (cough cough McCain "bomb bomb bomb" cough cough)....

C'mon, why so serious?

http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/ballmer-serious-dk2.jpg


RE: Goal?
By stimudent on 1/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: Goal?
By villageidiotintern on 1/18/2012 10:50:14 AM , Rating: 2
One brick shy of a full load.


RE: Goal?
By mlmiller1 on 1/18/2012 12:01:42 PM , Rating: 2
Half a bubble off (contractor level)
Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Not exactly the brightest star in the sky
Not playing with a full deck (deck of cards)


RE: Goal?
By Mortando on 1/19/2012 5:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Iran's behavior reminds me of the phrases: 'One short of a 6-pack', 'not firing on all cylinders'. What would other good ones be?

One drone short of a fleet. (too soon...?)


RE: Goal?
By Ryrod on 1/18/2012 1:10:57 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
What does Iran really hope to accomplish with all of this bravado? They've made their point.


Iran is playing out of the authoritarian regime playbook. Each and every authoritarian regime doesn't want to look weak in front of it's own people, so it will ridicule and insult specific powers to maintain an air of superiority. They specifically pick powers that are generally unwilling to go to war over simple slights. However, they know that their people will hear these slights and view the government as a great and powerful protector that is willing to stand up against "bullying" or "evil" nations.

Authoritarian regimes are incredibly efficient at limiting the information available to its people and will always pick and choose information that places the government in the best light possible. When you see things like "We will see America under our feet" and "America is the source of all evil in the world", these countries are not talking to the nations leaders, but instead are providing a rally cry to their own people.

However, Iran will still come to the bargaining table to ensure that they are not crushed on a whim. Self-preservation is the primary goal of an authoritarian regime because they are not elected and do not enjoy the support of the people in a democracy like the US, Canada, and many European nations. In this type of balancing act, Iran must appear all powerful to its people while still maintaining the channels of diplomacy with other nations in the back rooms. This is all done on the assumption that the US and other nations will act in their own best interests, and currently, going to war with Iran is not in the US's best interests.

Personally, I think Bush had it wrong going to war with Iraq. Iraq was not the great security threat that everyone made it out to be. Instead, I think we should have hit Iran in 2003 and gotten rid of the radical influence it has in the Middle East. But that is just my two cents and as they say, hindsight is 20/20.


RE: Goal?
By Jedi2155 on 1/18/2012 2:56:13 AM , Rating: 3
Before we even went to War in Iraq, most people I knew said the same thing. Iraq was not doing much to the US, while Iran had clear anti-US hostilities. The reasoning why we went after Iraq first?

It was easier, and we already beat them once leaving a crushing blow to their will to fight. While Iran was far more heavily fortified and did not suffer such a defeat. Bush took the easy way out. Most intellectuals then saw the danger from Iran and North Korea, but only the Bush administration was really seeing Iraq.


RE: Goal?
By shanomacadaemia on 1/18/2012 8:31:50 AM , Rating: 5
Ok, but you're completely ignoring the fact that previous US involvement in Iranian affairs is what has led to their strong anti-US sentiment. A CIA-led coup in the 50s led to the overthrowing of Premier Mossadeq, a much-loved and progressive leader of a parliamentary government, and placed an authoritarian puppet "Shah" in his stead, who brutally ruled the land while serving US interests.

The 1979 revolution was the result of an Iranian nation tired of having a brutal dictator thrust upon them by a foreign power.

Believe it or not, Islamic Extremism and the prominence is enjoys today in the Middle-East is a direct by-product of US intervention in the Middle East and Africa.

Do you honestly believe that further meddling is going to improve the situation?


RE: Goal?
By armageddon51 on 1/18/2012 8:47:42 AM , Rating: 3
Absolutely. It surprising how the Americans easily forget history when it comes to foreign policy. The US/CIA involvement in other countries is littered with legitimate regimes destituted and replace with US manipulated puppets. No wandering that US is much hatred in many countries. They are after all the most aggressive country in the world. That said their is a big difference between the government and their people which is sadly manipulated by the medias.
p.s. Where can I buy the figurine again ?


RE: Goal?
By tamalero on 1/18/2012 10:19:24 AM , Rating: 2
and have you tried to think why they're hated that much?
because they move, middle, bomb, corrupt, steal..etc.. on them.
most people in every country just want to live their life.
getting their family members killed just because your little oil tycoon wants a new yatch.. is just why your country is the most hated in the world.


RE: Goal?
By Ryrod on 1/18/2012 6:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Absolutely. It surprising how the Americans easily forget history when it comes to foreign policy. The US/CIA involvement in other countries is littered with legitimate regimes destituted and replace with US manipulated puppets. No wandering that US is much hatred in many countries.


The US has done a lot to affect the world and quite a bit of it has come about due to the economic interests in the US. Much of it derived from the saying "What's good for business.." and much of what the US is dealing with now is the blowback from those decisions. I'm not blind to the fact that we have chosen the wrong horse on many occasions, but some of what the US has done wasn't done entirely to promote US interests. For example, in Iran, we deposed a democratically elected Prime Minister to support the economic interests of the British. We tried to do something similar for France in Vietnam and that blew up in our face.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the hatred the Middle East and other regions have for the West. Now I'm not trying to say that the US is blameless, because like I said, we have chosen the wrong horse quite a bit. By the way, I am well versed in the history of the world during and after World War II. When I made my statement about invading Iran, as opposed to Iraq, I didn't make the statement in an intellectual vacuum.

quote:
They are after all the most aggressive country in the world.


You could have said the same thing about the British before the 1920s and the Spanish prior to them, or you could mention the Papacy during the Crusades or even the Roman Empire. Each hegemon during any given period of time has been aggressive because they seek to maintain the system that has been put in place. The US is only as aggressive as it needs to be to maintain its position in the world as the leader, and recently, the US has attempted to be a benevolent leader, which is a marked change from the past. With that being said, you can't really blame a dog for a behavior that it learned from its former master, but you should at least try to appreciate the attempt to change.


RE: Goal?
By Ryrod on 1/18/2012 5:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok, but you're completely ignoring the fact that previous US involvement in Iranian affairs is what has led to their strong anti-US sentiment. A CIA-led coup in the 50s led to the overthrowing of Premier Mossadeq, a much-loved and progressive leader of a parliamentary government, and placed an authoritarian puppet "Shah" in his stead, who brutally ruled the land while serving US interests.


I'm well aware of the history of Iran, but there's a few things that I want to correct about your statement. The Shah was already in power for over a decade when Mossadeq was elected to the Prime Minister position.

Mossadeq wasn't really a huge progressive, as much as he was a nationalist. Mossadeq hated western influence in Iran, especially the influence of Britain and the AIOC. There were also strong feelings of hatred that came from the occupation of Iran during World War II, which was at the hands of the British government, along with Russia.

When Mossadeq decided to nationalize the oil industry, we did what we've always done in the past, protect our economic interests and those of our allies. The US moved in to capture Mossadeq, which left a power vacuum in the nation and Mossadeq assumed the powers of the Prime Minister and used his secret police, the SAVAK, to cripple and destroy any resistance to his rule. We never really put the Shah in power, it was the British and the Russians that did that during World War II because they thought his father supported the Nazis. All the US did was to solidify his power at the top.

However, you are correct that the brutality of the Shah is what led the Ayatollah Khomeini to take power in Iran and turn it into an Islamic Republic. This did lead to an anti-US and anti-western feeling in the country as Khomeini attacked western influence in Iran and labelled it part of the problem.

quote:
Believe it or not, Islamic Extremism and the prominence is enjoys today in the Middle-East is a direct by-product of US intervention in the Middle East and Africa.


This isn't entirely true and I think you are trying to simplify the situation. Islamic Extremism derives primarily from the feeling of displacement (economic and social) in the world. Most extremist leaders are well-educated individuals who feel like the world has turned its back on them so they find other people who feel displaced and recruit them. You could blame the US for that, but you should blame the Bretton Woods pact and globalization more than anything, but I do see the appeal of saying the US is at fault, as opposed to the economic system the US has created and maintained with the help of other nations.

quote:
Do you honestly believe that further meddling is going to improve the situation?


Yes, I do believe that. There are a large number of moderate Muslims in Iran and around the world. Iran is not homogenous in its view that the US and western powers are horrible. There is a reasonably large group of moderate Iranians that would like to see the country return to the time of the Shah when it was more prosperous than it is now. The US would only need to tap into that base of moderate Iranians and provide the support necessary for the country to thrive. This would probably include overthrowing the current government, allowing general elections, providing money and aid to the new government, and allowing the government to maintain its nationalization over the oil fields.

However, given the debacle that we had in Iraq (which don't get me started on), I doubt the US would be willing to give aid to a new Iranian government nor would the US government, under pressure from business interests, would be willing to allow Iran to keep its oil fields under national control.


RE: Goal?
By nafhan on 1/18/2012 1:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
It's not "Iran" doing it. It's Iranian politicians doing what politicians everywhere do: stupid crap that they think will be effective in keeping them in power.


RE: Goal?
By aepurniet on 1/18/2012 10:04:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What does Iran really hope to accomplish with all of this bravado? They've made their point.


who is 'they' in that sentence? this is a toy maker operating in iran. if he said anything other than that he would be in jail. i recall someone getting sent to death for participating in the creation of a video game last week.


RE: Goal?
By JediJeb on 1/18/2012 3:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
There is also an Iranian citizen who has been sentenced to death simply because he is a Christian and will not convert to Islam. Officially his crime is listed as Apostasy.


Hate on Iran All You Want...
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/18/2012 12:13:29 AM , Rating: 5
But you can't say they don't have a good sense of humor.




RE: Hate on Iran All You Want...
By Egglick on 1/18/2012 12:28:38 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. They're not hurting anything, and I'm actually quite amused.


RE: Hate on Iran All You Want...
By kleinma on 1/18/2012 1:23:08 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe Iran should have considered having them made in China considering they get 4 spots (including top billing) of most air-polluted cities in the world this past year.

China didn't even make the list.


RE: Hate on Iran All You Want...
By Ticholo on 1/18/2012 7:43:20 AM , Rating: 2
That's because China's pollution is now in the earth and water.


By Jackson-DKMG on 1/18/2012 1:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
well, not yet at least. Problem is that their government is behaving like a child with military equipment ; some day they will cross the line and the US/UN will have no other choice than crack down on them (e.g., if they actually blockade the Strait of Ormuz). Unfortunately, in that case civilians will die, as it happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am working with some people in this area, and I can tell you that they will be resentful against the USA for a few decades.

this said, that toy drone is actually a rather funny idea ; the writing on it makes it a lot less amusing.


So what? Toy vs Machine
By priusone on 1/18/2012 7:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, so Iranians are making cute little toy depictions of a multimillion dollar stealth unmanned vehicle controlled, for the most part, by a country halfway around the world. Let them make all the cute little toys they want. Fat chance Allah will allow them to fly a drone with the Beasts capabilities over any other country on Earth.




RE: So what? Toy vs Machine
By luseferous on 1/19/2012 7:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
Lol...you forget they have a real one along with the technology to hijack them.

So what exactly is stopping them from replicating what they have already.

Let me guess they are a bunch of goatherds that couldn't possibly understand any tech beyond a rock tied to a stick.

Remove your head from the sand and wake up.


RE: So what? Toy vs Machine
By priusone on 1/21/2012 2:08:09 AM , Rating: 2
A bunch of goat herders? Is Iran cloning them too? Here are some points that you may have overlooked.

1) The technology could be reverse engineered, but it will take a substantial amount of time to do this unless they have the ability to reverse engineer microchips or have access to the similar ones.

2) This system is far more than just the craft. Sure, it can operate autonomously, but what good is that unless Iran is able to have command and control of the cloned drone.

3) Before you go throwing around insults, try to think logically and not defensively, if possible.

4) Let's just wait and see what Iran is actually capable of, then we can debate on who needs to have their heads relocated to the outside of ones rectum.


RE: So what? Toy vs Machine
By luseferous on 1/21/2012 7:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but you stated that they couldn't do it or at least strongly implied it. Now it will take them a long time...

Reverse engineering microchips is not that hard. If you want an example ask Compaq. If a private company can do it then why not an entire nation.

Also They really don't have any need to replicate every system on the thing to make a working drone. I'm sure they have plenty of their own tech that can be adapted.

Are you trying to imply that Iran has no C&C infrastructure
or are not capable of producing the systems needed to talk to and guide such a craft ?

quote:
Before you go throwing around insults, try to think logically and not defensively, if possible.


That was the entire point of my post to you and yes lets wait four or five years and see what they come up with shall we.


RE: So what? Toy vs Machine
By priusone on 1/22/2012 12:22:28 AM , Rating: 2
How about we compromise...

Your "If Compaq can do it, why not an entire nation" argument might seem valid, in reality, they probably have a deal worked out with China or Russia. Heck, they were probably approached by them for all we know.

http://www.ieimil.ir/


RE: So what? Toy vs Machine
By luseferous on 1/22/2012 10:18:07 AM , Rating: 2
Fair enough.
I was actually going to mention China and Russia but thought it was going a little off the central point.


General content of posts
By vicarious1 on 1/18/2012 3:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
Reading through here it feels as if most DailyTECH readers are a bunch of GOP loving Red Necks.
One President be he a D. or R. can do NOTHING, or very little while Congress somehow has managed to get into a opposition position. The Rep. have no other agenda but getting Pres. Obama out. With this and their RIDICULOUS GOP candidates they will shoot them selves in their big bush boots.
Just pray that your Rep. devotees not start a war against Iran.
Counting the current recalls of beloved Rep. in some states the wind seems to be blowing more in a Democratic direction when it comes tot he 99%. I predict a storm of the same sort for the elections but then I am no one.
Anywhere tinkering with the people the way Congress does can not end in a growing success rate. A plaintiff becomes party leader in PRC.
USA and the rest of the western world should expect to be saved by its people and not by an opposition hand and mouth bound President.
Buy local, produce local, refuse to shop imports when possible and go vote instead of sitting on a fat behind.




RE: General content of posts
By Dorkyman on 1/18/2012 7:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
I voted R the last time. I have nothing personally against Messiah, but I believe he is (a) a zealot with socialist tendencies, and (b) an inexperienced person promoted way beyond his level of competence in large measure because of the color of his skin (some folks call that Affirmative Action). Fine.

As for trends, we must be reading different polls. There has been an enormous shift towards conservatism in the past few years. People are disgusted by the attitudes of the current Prez and want him out. Even Hillary would be better, though I hope a Republican gets the slot.

In balancing the state budget, Scott Walker in Wisconsin broke the back of the public-employee unions and they are not happy about it. We'll see if union hysteria carries the day later this year. I don't think it will.


i want one
By laweijfmvo on 1/18/2012 8:05:25 AM , Rating: 3
is it wrong that i want one? :)




This is hilarious
By waryman on 1/18/2012 2:09:12 PM , Rating: 1
Fuck you CIA faggots




RE: This is hilarious
By Dorkyman on 1/18/2012 7:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you used two offensive words in a single short sentence. I guess this means that we should really pay attention to what you have to say.


hmm
By smithb115 on 1/18/2012 4:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
This will make a nice souvenir so that I can show my children what is left of Iran later on down the road.




Link please
By ralniv on 1/18/2012 5:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
Where can I buy one of these toys? Would be a fun conversation piece.




I want one!
By titanmiller on 1/18/2012 5:34:28 PM , Rating: 2
I want one of these! Where can I buy it in the US?




Iran goes up in my estimation.
By luseferous on 1/19/2012 7:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike most totalitarian regimes they have a sense of humor.




They know the Messiah is a woos
By Beenthere on 1/18/2012 11:36:11 AM , Rating: 1
Pink should suit The Messiah nicely.




“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki