US Stealth UAV RQ-170 downed in IRAN

[longbrained]

longbrained, that was a long but a quality post

Sometimes small does not do it. Great you like it.

 

[500]

WWII was won mainly by Russia and China, US impact was lesser, around 5%.

I am very curious what u are smoking.

 

[Hussein]

harry!

i wish to see you in future ... man!

he said USA contributed only 5% of the victory
what a bullshit statement

it shows only his hatred towards Americans
And people with hatred are not trustable

 

[Arian]

Oh, please, do not get angry. I am not an Iran hater, as you might know. But we have to be truthful with history. Getting emotional will not make us understand history at all. You see, Japan also was not near Germany at the time, but they still kept on fighting longer than Germans did. It is not about neighbors at all. It is about a country's decision to stand up. The truth is Iran had given up fighting for its integrity long ago and not only in WWII. After Imperial Russia defeated Iran and got a large portion of Iran, since that time, Iran never fought a successful war without losing territory or resources till Iran-Iraq war.

I'm not an emotional person, and I know you aren't an anti-Iran person, I follow your posts.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm insisting on. we should be truthful and honest when it comes to history and that's why I say China can't take the glory of being a winner of the WWII. It can have a share of the glory though, but that's it and I should reiterate that I'm a pro-China person.
You shouldn't forget that Russia and Great Britain weren't Japan. Russia has a hidden weapon that has crippled all world powers from occupying it. They defeated Germany not only because they were brave, but because of the secret weapon they got. "THE COLD WEATHER OF RUSSIA". They crippled the Nazi-Germany with that weapon, let alone Iran. Germany at that time was at least a decade ahead of the world in terms of technology and science. The late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century is obviously the golden age for the Germans. Carl F. Gauss, David Hilbert, Dedekind, Emmy Noether, Eisenstein, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg and many other German scientists did the most fundamental works in mathematics and physics. but yet, Germany was defeated by Russia.
I disagree that it is not about the geographic situation and neighbors. We had no neighbor around us that we want to fight them directly.
I believe if Iran had resisted against the Allied forces invading it, not only Iran would've gotten invaded, but their soldiers would've done miserable things to Iranians after invasion. We couldn't stand up against them, not only us, but even Germany couldn't do the same if It were surrounded by Russia and Britain and their colonies.

These are historical facts. Part of the reason for this was that at the time Iranian government had not invested in any kind of technology and science so their army largely depended on Russia and UK for supplies. Japan and to some extent China on the other hand had imported technology instead of supplies, paying hefty salaries to British, American, French and German engineers to work in those countries and teaching them to develop an industrial military complex. By the time WWII had started Japanese had the most advanced industry in the far east. Still not has good as Americans and British but still they were making their own planes and tanks. Iran did not have anything to fight with. Its army was small and already its officers were heavily influenced by Russia and UK. So it is understandable Iran did not have any choice but this does not mean they did not surrender. They did surrender unconditionally. And Iranian resources, food and oil not only supplied British troops in WWII but also in WWI as well, since Iranian crude was the only source of oil UK had at the time. Maybe if Iran had minimal level of technology and could fight back, the course of war would have been completely different. But that is just hypothetical.

I agree with you that Iran didn't have a self dependent military industry and technology, but that doesn't change the fact that in our region the British and Russian forces had all levers against us and we couldn't even count on German support.

You see, when in 1901, British forced Iranians to give up their oil and gas resources for 100 years to Anglo-Iranian oil company for an yearly payment of 16,000 British Sterling Pounds with the agreement extend-able for another 100 years on British demand, Iran had sort of lost part of its sovereignty. In 1914, Churchill Winston at the time an Admiralty convinced British Parliament that Iranian oil was very important to UK since British economy was switching from coal to oil and all modern amenities as well as war machines were running on oil rather than coal. He pushed a law which was later on signed by Queen which nationalized all Iranian hydrocarbon reserves and with this law, all Iranian oil and gas became British public property which Iranians had no share in it what so ever. At time Iranian government was so weak that it could not even lodge a diplomatic protest let alone, take back its resources. British continued to take away Iranian oil for free even after world war I and World war II, right until Mossadeq came and tried to nationalize Iranian oil again for a second time but this time to make it Iranian public asset. His success was only partial as Iran was under sanctions during his tenure as British embargoed Iran for nullifying the earlier agreement with Anglo-Iranian oil company.

It wasn't for free, It was for a very low price. Actually they paid Iran only 25% of the share, but what you're saying is generally true.

Then operation Ajax comes in and a new agreement is signed with US, France and UK becoming new share holders in Iranian reserves with Iran getting 10% of the share of the oil revenue which helped Iran to develop some modern infrastructures, non-existent till then, under an Iranian program dubbed white revolution. This helped Iran to come to 20th century in 1960's and started to become modern and advanced. Then Iranian revolution happens and the new Iranian government in an undiplomatic way kicks out all foreign companies including oil interests out of Iran. Then the Iraq attacks begin in addition to sanctions, which cause Iranian oil production to go down and Iran to lose some one trillion dollars in direct and indirect costs of war. After the war oil prices plummet to all time lows, since US had won cold war and they were in a position to dictate new economic order of the world. At its lowest point in mid-1990's a barrel of oil was going for around 7 dollars barely making any profits after taking out the cost of extraction and exploration. It was at this time that SUV's became popular in US.

True, but that 10% share hasn't been mentioned in any reputable sources as far as I know, but again it's generally true. so? How is that related to our discussion?

Iran needing money for reconstruction after the war compensated by printing even more money than during the war starting an inflation which continues till today. In 2000's due to some luck or some stupid decision by US government, geopolitical scene changed. Oil prices started to go up and Iran started to get the benefit of the investments they had in education and healthcare during 1980's and 1990's as Iranian population was more healthy and more educated. This allowed Iran to develop its own science and technology base as well as make new investments in key industries and infrastructure. Infact you can say, it was only recently that Iran became a player in realpolitik and science and technology. Back in WWII, things were very different, but we can not just deny Iran did not surrender unconditionally without any fighting, despite all these facts. History can not be changed. But it can be learnt with a critical eye so that it does not repeat itself.
Cheers!

Actually in 1970's, Iran had a car industry, a military industry that was really advanced in regional terms, a TV manufacturing industry, a nuclear reactor that was about to get inaugurated in less than 5 years had the revolution not erupted and many other high-tech and advanced industries. If you study today's successful Iranians, you see that many of them have studied in Iranian schools in 1950's and 1960's. so I can't say that Iran wasn't a player in real politics until 1990's. Iran was the sole player in the region in 1970's and even Saddam, our rival, had accepted that.
As I said, any other country in the shoes of Iran would've surrendered to the Allied forces. Your analysis is partly true but what about many European countries that were highly educated and fairly advanced in technology but yet they were defeated and even occupied during the WWII?

Cheers! (If you want to continue this discussion, we can do it on somewhere else, It's interesting for me but we're off topic now).

 

[Harry_Thomason]

he said USA contributed only 5% of the victory
what a bullshit statement

it shows only his hatred towards Americans
And people with hatred are not trustable

You should study history more and watch less Hollywood movies What I say is pure history, with filtered BS of "winners write the history". US indeed eventually dropped neutrality, and participated in WWII, including the Pacific War. They had 416k casualties, thats 0.5% of all deaths during WWII. US did quite some bombing and provided much needed supplies and support in some missions, thats why their impact is greater than 0.5% would indicate, and neutral historians agree its about 5%. However US played both sides, and its why common sense to say US positive impact minus help for nazis equals less than 5%.

Btw, I dont hate any nation, however I'm not blinded by what they do. My country suffered a LOT from Russians, and I hate Stalin and most of Russian governments, but I give credit where its due. You should try it as well.

 

[longbrained]

I'm not an emotional person, and I know you aren't an anti-Iran person, I follow your posts.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm insisting on. we should be truthful and honest when it comes to history and that's why I say China can't take the glory of being a winner of the WWII. It can have a share of the glory though, but that's it and I should reiterate that I'm a pro-China person.
You shouldn't forget that Russia and Great Britain weren't Japan. Russia has a hidden weapon that has crippled all world powers from occupying it. They defeated Germany not only because they were brave, but because of the secret weapon they got. "THE COLD WEATHER OF RUSSIA". They crippled the Nazi-Germany with that weapon, let alone Iran. Germany at that time was at least a decade ahead of the world in terms of technology and science. The late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century is obviously the golden age for the Germans. Carl F. Gauss, David Hilbert, Dedekind, Emmy Noether, Eisenstein, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg and many other German scientists did the most fundamental works in mathematics and physics. but yet, Germany was defeated by Russia.
I disagree that it is not about the geographic situation and neighbors. We had no neighbor around us that we want to fight them directly.
I believe if Iran had resisted against the Allied forces invading it, not only Iran would've gotten invaded, but their soldiers would've done miserable things to Iranians after invasion. We couldn't stand up against them, not only us, but even Germany couldn't do the same if It were surrounded by Russia and Britain and their colonies.


I agree with you that Iran didn't have a self dependent military industry and technology, but that doesn't change the fact that in our region the British and Russian forces had all levers against us and we couldn't even count on German support.


It wasn't for free, It was for a very low price. Actually they paid Iran only 25% of the share, but what you're saying is generally true.



True, but that 10% share hasn't been mentioned in any reputable sources as far as I know, but again it's generally true. so? How is that related to our discussion?



Actually in 1970's, Iran had a car industry, a military industry that was really advanced in regional terms, a TV manufacturing industry, a nuclear reactor that was about to get inaugurated in less than 5 years had the revolution not erupted and many other high-tech and advanced industries. If you study today's successful Iranians, you see that many of them have studied in Iranian schools in 1950's and 1960's. so I can't say that Iran wasn't a player in real politics until 1990's. Iran was the sole player in the region in 1970's and even Saddam, our rival, had accepted that.
As I said, any other country in the shoes of Iran would've surrendered to the Allied forces. Your analysis is partly true but what about many European countries that were highly educated and fairly advanced in technology but yet they were defeated and even occupied during the WWII?

Cheers! (If you want to continue this discussion, we can do it on somewhere else, It's interesting for me but we're off topic now).

Yeah, I agree, we should not derail the thread. Just some points. Things you say are generally true, but still, my points stand. I am not saying Iran would not have suffered if it had fought. All wars bring suffering. I am sure Iran suffered when it fought Iraq, but it was better than being occupied by Saddam or losing a portion of its territory. Your point is valid that Iran had no chance winning, but still alot of countries fight despite having no chance. Germany was squeezed but kept on fighting. So did Japanese. The greatest draw back for Iran was that it did not have any industry back then. As for 25% of oil price, I do not think that is true. Since after Iranian oil was nationalized by British Parliament, it had become a British property and you can check that. And as for 10% claim, again that is true. I had read the whole agreement and the white revolution thing in a book of history, I had taken out of University of Toronto library, cant remember the name though, since it was many years ago. But I am sure official documents must still be available in some archives either in Iran or UK.

And I did not say Iran was no player before 1980's. It was, but it was not a realpolitik player as it is today. See also here about great game. Iran was a power had some industries but all those were being run by foreign workers much like how Saudi Arabia is run today. Even you would be amazed to know alot of Pakistani doctors and engineers were working in Iran since Iran did not have enough qualified doctors and engineers for the job. This is not to say that Iran did not have educated people, it did, but it still was not a sort of independent state you imagine it to be. If you go over WHO data Iranian maternal and child mortality rates were not very much different than African continent at the time.

There were developments but mostly it was in large cities and still most Iranians could not attend universities. In fact universal access to university and college education is something new in Iran. But we have to remember that without the foundation of those institutions laid in 1960's and 70's, Iran could not have progressed under sanctions after revolution. Already a core of science and technology had developed by the time of Iranian revolution but it was small and not independent. As for if revolution had not happened, I am not sure what would have happened. True Iran could have progressed and maybe it would have been like Saudi Arabia is today, prosperous but not as independent as Iran is today. Nuclear reactors, are not really a bench mark of how Iran was doing back then. Pakistan nuclear reactor back in 1960's even before Iran despite Pakistan not having any oil money as did poorer India. In 1970's Iran was trying to develop but its development was the way Americans wanted it to be.

Today Americans want Saudi Arabia to have nuclear reactors. It was the same for Iran back then. In 1979, India launched its first satellite into space. Iran did not even have a practical space program. In short Iran was still a client state without its own strategic vision of how things should be. Now let me explain why I am not sure how things would have turned for Iran if revolution had not happened. Ofcourse it is easy to say, Iran could have developed more and it is certainly possible for such a thing would have happened. After all who cares if you are truly independent or not as long as you are prosperous. Japan and South Korea are the examples. But such a model has some fundamental flaws. The political systems which revolve around a single personality are inherently vulnerable to quick changes in fortune. Iran at time was very much dependent on Shah and his visions. He was the embodiment of Iran as Iranian history shows, clearly, weak kings have always brought misfortune for the whole of Iran. Now Shah was not that weak, but he had an incurable cancer by the time of revolution. He would have died anyways with or without revolution in 1980's and back then with Russian influences in Iran and so many underground political groups running around in Iran, things might not have been as rosy as you think.

Iranian royal family was a small one, and besides Shah there was no other personality that could take over him. As per Iranian constitution back then Shah's eldest son was to take over, but he was barely old enough to do so and young kings as history of Iran shows are very vulnerable to manipulation and exploits. It is very safe to imagine, Iranian army would have become even more involved with politics and SAVAK would have been more powerful. Now what would happen from there with all those factions in Iranian underground politics from Communists and MKO to Islamists and Liberal democrats, no one can really say for sure. But one thing deducible is that Iran would not have been as stable as it was in 1970's. Monarchy might have survived or not but the progress would have suffered. Iranian military or power centers in Iranian government would have become increasingly more dependent on western powers to protect them and this would have meant more concessions for them in Iranian resources. In short I do not see, Iran would have been as independent or advanced as today.

PS. By the way if Shah had not cancer things could have been much better in 1980's but by 1990s still Iran would have been in trouble because of low oil prices. Since Shah was used to high oil prices during his rule which helped him a great deal. In 1990s even Saudi Arabia had to take out international loans to run the country so Iran would not have been any different. Anyways it is all fancy speculation unless we could have time travel options all these are none-sense since things have happened and we have to make best of what is available now.
Cheers!

 

[Pfpilot]

WWII was won mainly by Russia and China, US impact was lesser, around 5%. However US wants to erase from the history the fact they played for both sides, not all was rosy, neither was dropping atom bomb on the Japanese civilians.

Even if we would forget the history and go with "in any country there is some bad and some good", their current policy is anything but decent. How many millions more they would have to kill for you to see that? Unless US changes its ways (which wont be allowed to happen by power groups), they cant be a friend of any truly independent, resource-rich country.

My good sir, you have twisted history into oblivion. World War II victory was a direct result of US involvement. Before ever getting directly involved, they provided huge amounts of supplies, military and humanitarian, that allowed the British to keep fighting. Once they declared war, they did the same for Stalin...a fact he exploited to his own benefit.
If it wasn't for US involvement, the Japanese would have potentially conquered the sea lanes that the British projected all their power through. The only reason Hitler invaded the Soviet Union was because he wanted a land power that was self sufficient and thus, immune to a US/British blockade...from the very beginning, he had conceded he could not match the British and the US at sea. The Americans played their part in bolstering the Royal Navy, to prevent the Germans from undertaking any such adventures.
All the allies played a part in the victory, but to try to marginalize the US involvement is making a mockery out of history. Were the British left to their own devices and Stalin not supported, were Japan not systematically beaten from island to painstaking island...today the world may have been a very different place.

 

[longbrained]

what about many European countries that were highly educated and fairly advanced in technology but yet they were defeated and even occupied during the WWII?

Now this is an entirely different question of highest importance which I think even history researchers would have difficulty to answer. You see it is not all about science and technology. It is also about the culture of that nation, whether it is a warrior culture and it depends on the commanders on the ground and alot more. US and Russia had all the technology in the world, but they could not win a war with troglodytes in Afghanistan. Because Afghanistan is a warrior culture and even if there is no outside enemy to fight with, they will fight among each other as they have for thousands of years. That is an extreme case but illustrative enough. Native Australians were not a warrior culture and they do not exist any more. That is another extreme example.

Most nations lie somewhere in between. Some other nations like Germans or Japanese had very good commanders. Germans invented the military concept of Blitzkrieg, when the rest of the world' commanders did not have any idea about how to fight a modern war. Germans invented 3rd generation warfare when they were up against an enemy superior in number and resources. They had a science and technology ten years ahead of every one else. But every one has a short fall. The Germans shortfall was that they were being led by a mad man whose ideology was crazy. Lots of German scientists like Einstein had to run away and take refuge in enemy countries fighting Germans. Not only that, but also other factors play. Germans had no resources of their own, since it was not a colonial power. British had India, Iranian oil and lots more. US was too far away and no bomber could reach in WWII, so its cities remained quite safe. There were alot of factors. But at the end, as I said, in my previous post, it does not matter. Since any nation that stands up for its rights, even if it loses, will get benefits regardless.

The nations that never fight will disappear with time. This is the biggest lesson of history. As you can see all those countries that even lost WWII are doing quite well too. Those nations that were slaves are still not doing compared to those who fought regardless of the outcome. I would refer you to an excellent book about the same subject which is enlightening about why some nations do better than others, why Somalia is the way it is and why Germans are the way they are. Here is the book: Guns, Germs, and Steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Harry_Thomason]

My good sir, you have twisted history into oblivion. World War II victory was a direct result of US involvement.

Thats not only untrue, but a mockery of what Russia/China did, even with zero US involvement alies would have won, just it would have taken longer.

Lets see:

US casualties ~0,5%

Bombing <1%. They had to ship planes with carriers, limited sorties, etc. Their greater impact than bombing was providing some planes tech and spare parts.

Supplies, food - ~1% of total, it was a great help.

Helping convoys, cutting supplies for Japan, etc. <1%.

Even Russia had greater impact on Japan than US, what to speak of China, which killed millions of Japanese soldiers. How many US did?... They killed more civilians than soldiers.

All in all, as neutral historians say, it was about 5%, nothing like US pictures itself now - as pretty much the reason why alies won Non-bias history tells us different picture, including US helping nazis too, and using nuclear bombs on civilians.

 

[500]

Thats not only untrue, but a mockery of what Russia/China did, even with zero US involvement alies would have won, just it would have taken longer.

The main reason why Hitler attacked Russia is to stop Britain from leading the war against him.

Bombing <1%. They had to ship planes with carriers, limited sorties, etc. Their greater impact than bombing was providing some planes tech and spare parts.

Germany spent simply enermous resources to stop bombings. In 1943 out of 16 Jagdgeschwaders (fighter divisions) 12 were fighting on West front and protecting Germany. Only 4 were fighting on East front. Imagine what would happen if all 16 Jagdgeschwaders were fighting on East front instead of 4.

Supplies, food - ~1% of total, it was a great help.

Most of trucks and cars which Russia possessed were supplied by US. And they were tenfold better quality. It's simply impossible to lead a mobile war without trucks.

Most of aluminium which Russia had was supplied by US. U need it for planes and even tank engines.

And this is only a portion of aid.

Helping convoys, cutting supplies for Japan, etc. <1%.

Germany buit over 1000 submarines to fight the convoys. Each sumbarine costs more than 40 Panther tanks. Imagine what would happen if Germany sent 40,000 additional Panther tanks to east front (they started Barbarossa with 4 thousand tanks!),

Resources were only reason why Japan started the war at all.

And you say that these altogether give 1%?

 

[gambit]

Thats not only untrue, but a mockery of what Russia/China did, even with zero US involvement alies would have won, just it would have taken longer.

Lets see:

US casualties ~0,5%

Bombing <1%. They had to ship planes with carriers, limited sorties, etc. Their greater impact than bombing was providing some planes tech and spare parts.

Supplies, food - ~1% of total, it was a great help.

Helping convoys, cutting supplies for Japan, etc. <1%.

Even Russia had greater impact on Japan than US, what to speak of China, which killed millions of Japanese soldiers. How many US did?... They killed more civilians than soldiers.

All in all, as neutral historians say, it was about 5%, nothing like US pictures itself now - as pretty much the reason why alies won Non-bias history tells us different picture, including US helping nazis too, and using nuclear bombs on civilians.

And not one reputable historian and statistician is going to support this argument.

 

[longbrained]

Iran summons Afghan ambassador over US drone intrusion

Iran summons Afghan ambassador over US drone intrusion - The Washington Post

TEHRAN, Iran &#8212; Iran has summoned the Afghan ambassador to protest the violation of its airspace by a U.S. surveillance drone that took off from neighboring Afghanistan.

The official IRNA news agency says Obeidollah Obeid was called to the Foreign Ministry to receive Iran&#8217;s protest and demand explanations from the Afghan government over the pilotless spy plane.

Iran&#8217;s state TV broadcast video Thursday of Iranian military officials inspecting what it identified as the RQ-170 Sentinel drone, and offered the first evidence that Tehran had captured the aircraft. The beige-colored drone appeared intact and undamaged.

Iranian state radio has said the unmanned aircraft was detected over the eastern town of Kashmar, some 140 miles (225 kilometers) from the border with Afghanistan.

 

[pakdefender]

The fiercest battles were definitely fought on the eastern front. The Germans took 5 million casualties on the Eastern Front and 5 million were taken prisoner by the Russians ... if the Russians hadn’t engaged the Germans effectively , the Nazi's would have swallowed Britain and any chance of an allied victory would have vaporised

 

[VelocuR]

See RQ-170 on the right sides...very classified stealth and secret information !

 

[longbrained]

See RQ-170 on the right sides...very classified stealth and secret information !

Wow. It is a good thing Americans in 2010 at least declassified the name of this drone (RQ-170), otherwise today Iranians would have been forced to give it a new Iranian name as well.