Your Drones are belong to us!

[red_elk]

Like it or not, the US doesn't have rights to violate Iran's airspace and your drone is now Iran's property. You can't even take it back or "send a few tomahawk missiles their way"

 

[asbestos]

Iran is bluffing.

They didn't capture the drone; it malfunctioned. We can be sure of this, because we definitely had more than one RQ drone in Iranian airspace at the time (and we probably still have them in there right now, despite claims to the contrary), and only one went down. If the Iranians had the capability, they would have brought down ALL the drones, not just the one.

Why would the US admit to losing it though, unless they were playing their own spy game?

 

[Flying Pig]

So are you saying that it's grounds to attack or threaten a nation because it no longer follows the treaty?

Well, first of all remember that the treaty is designed to contain nuclear weapons - since banning them is out of the question - because the more people have nuclear weapons, the more likely a nuclear war is. Especially when said treaty-breaker makes a national sport out of picking fights with its incredibly unpopular almost-neighbour, which by the way has its own nuclear arsenal of undeclared size and is equally unafraid to pick fights with its neighbours. Not following the treaty means stockpiling the most horrible weapons ever created, weapons which will, if used, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, and bringing the likelihood that they will be used much closer. So yes, it is grounds to threaten or attack that country!

 

[JollyRoger]

A first step if goodwill would be for nations that have actually used such weapons to accept a ban. They have already demonstrated they are not to be trusted with such weapons.

 

[innonimatu]

Well, first of all remember that the treaty is designed to contain nuclear weapons - since banning them is out of the question - because the more people have nuclear weapons, the more likely a nuclear war is. Especially when said treaty-breaker makes a national sport out of picking fights with its incredibly unpopular almost-neighbour, which by the way has its own nuclear arsenal of undeclared size and is equally unafraid to pick fights with its neighbours. Not following the treaty means stockpiling the most horrible weapons ever created, weapons which will, if used, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, and bringing the likelihood that they will be used much closer. So yes, it is grounds to threaten or attack that country!

So let me see if I got this straight: the nations which do stockpile the most horrible weapons ever created claim the right to attack other nations trying to stockpile said weapons, because stockpiling those weapons is a bad thing and so nations wanting to do it must be attacked?

And they actually expect that logic to be taken seriously?!

 

[r16]

The word is meant to belittle and alienate your(?) religion. So I'm not using it - I'm using the real word - God.
...
If everyone around you is claiming that God has demanded the eradication of the "infidels", then you're not going to get anywhere trying to refute it - you'll just get branded a heretic, a blasphemer.

In our world, God's voice is the voice of priests and rulers, and they use it, often falsely, to their own benefits and goals. The issue becomes when people actually believe it.

anybody around me can claim whatever they want to , and brand whatever brand they want to . Have been a serial killer , effeminate , loser , ruler of the world , according to whatever joke has been making the rounds , heretic doesn't hurt at all .

regarding which side of the world has more religious extremism , ı will avoid too much commentary . Have railed lot against the missionary zeal and funnily enough such posts tend to be the most easily understood , flagged and complained about things ı do .

iran , though a heavyweight in Islamic culture , does not have the right to eradicate anybody , just like people in the West does not have the right to claim moral superiority . Iran has caused lots of problems for this "western security" and things should be discussed in this context , not one of they are proxy Nazis .

 

[Tani Coyote]

Hmm. A heightening of tensions, sure, but short of war, I don't think our relations with Iran can really worsen anymore.

An act of war, sure. But in geopolitics, an act of war is only responded to with actual conflict if you have a chance of winning. This is why the USA and other major powers stomp on other countries so often - they can't really fight back. It's no wonder they want a nuclear weapon, once that's considered. Nukes are the equaliser.

I just hope they don't reverse engineer it.

I also hope they don't make things worse by going through with their threat to say, block the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. We really do not need more military conflict.

 

[r16]

leon Panetta was around and he has brought us gifts , we hear the evil Congress is delaying the sale of armed UAVs to this country while the good old Govmint has been so busy with overcoming the objections . Americans have a certain way of insulting Turkey . Ask why doesn't the coming Turkish drone look like carrying weapons and they immediately come forward to sell things .

oh please , don't sell Hellfires to us .

afterall it escapes me why we should buy drones in the present day . With regards to the title you know .

 

[Flying Pig]

So let me see if I got this straight: the nations which do stockpile the most horrible weapons ever created claim the right to attack other nations trying to stockpile said weapons, because stockpiling those weapons is a bad thing and so nations wanting to do it must be attacked?

And they actually expect that logic to be taken seriously?!

We can kind of ignore those who currently do, because everyone involved wishes that the world's entire nuclear arsenal would disappear overnight. However, that's not going to happen unilaterally, and even if there were an agreement on it the one nation that 'cheated' would soon find itself on top of the food chain. Their interest is in making sure that no more nuclear weapons are given out - it was bad enough when India and Pakistan got them - and this 'containment' is worth fighting for. All those countries who have signed the NN-PT have, in theory at least, committed not to be the first to use weapons of mass destruction - that's definitely not the case for Iran.

Or, an analogy - "But officer! How can you arrest me for carrying this baseball bat while you carry that truncheon? How can you condemn me for wanting an equaliser? How do I know you're not going to beat me with that truncheon?"

 

[peter grimes]

They didn't capture the drone; it malfunctioned. We can be sure of this, because we definitely had more than one RQ drone in Iranian airspace at the time (and we probably still have them in there right now, despite claims to the contrary), and only one went down. If the Iranians had the capability, they would have brought down ALL the drones, not just the one.

I don't understand why you're so sure. Nor do I understand why you think it's a given they would have had the ability or desire to bring down all the drones.

The United States does have the right to violate Iranian airspace; Iran does not have the right to violate United States airspace.

How do you figure that? Surely it can't simply be for that human rights reason you mentioned - otherwise Iran would indeed have the right to overfly US airspace (the US has violated human rights of just about everyone at Guantanamo, for instance). It's like you're trying to invoke the principle of Universality, but somehow it got confused along the way.

 

[JollyRoger]

Or, an analogy - "But officer! How can you arrest me for carrying this baseball bat while you carry that truncheon? How can you condemn me for wanting an equaliser? How do I know you're not going to beat me with that truncheon?"

Who appointed the United States as policeman?

 

[Flying Pig]

Who appointed the United States as policeman?

Not the United States, the Great Powers of the world - as has always been the case - are 'expected' to intervene on the side of stability, freedom and all the other buzz-words we love to use - something which other countries tend to forget until they're in a sticky situation themselves. As much as I'll be shot down for this, I was reminded of a stanza from Kipling:

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

 

[JollyRoger]

Not the United States, the Great Powers of the world - as has always been the case - are 'expected' to intervene on the side of stability, freedom and all the other buzz-words we love to use -

How does flying a drone into someone else's airspace contribute to stability and freedumb?

 

[Flying Pig]

How does flying a drone into someone else's airspace contribute to stability and freedumb?

Hang on, the point was that nuclear powers are justified in threatening or attacking Iran by conventional means if it insists on producing its own nuclear weapons. As for surveillance, it has already been pointed out that that's just business as usual.

 

[Leoreth]

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

I'm sure that's Obama's reason

 

[.Shane.]

This is why you always put at least 1 character in your password!

 

[aelf]

Not the United States, the Great Powers of the world - as has always been the case - are 'expected' to intervene on the side of stability, freedom and all the other buzz-words we love to use - something which other countries tend to forget until they're in a sticky situation themselves. As much as I'll be shot down for this, I was reminded of a stanza from Kipling:

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

This is hilarious knowing the mess that the Great Powers have wrought while claiming the mandate of heaven.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Technology Tree > Modern Era > "Public Opinion"

• Requires: Mass Media
• Buildings enabled: The 9/11 wonder
• First to discover founds "I believe in rights!!!11" religion

 

[Hehehe]

It's hard to tell for sure, but one could easily make the case that more Iraqi lives have been saved than lost.

One could easily make the case that if US would have never invaded Iraq, we would not be in this mess with Iran.

We can kind of ignore those who currently do, because everyone involved wishes that the world's entire nuclear arsenal would disappear overnight. However, that's not going to happen unilaterally, and even if there were an agreement on it the one nation that 'cheated' would soon find itself on top of the food chain. Their interest is in making sure that no more nuclear weapons are given out - it was bad enough when India and Pakistan got them - and this 'containment' is worth fighting for. All those countries who have signed the NN-PT have, in theory at least, committed not to be the first to use weapons of mass destruction - that's definitely not the case for Iran.

Or, if the few top dogs decide that they, and only they, should have nuclear weapons, then they would find themselves on the top of the food chain.

Hang on, the point was that nuclear powers are justified in threatening or attacking Iran by conventional means if it insists on producing its own nuclear weapons.

I thought Iran was getting nuclear weapons because nuclear powers threatening to attack it by conventional means?

I've said this many times already, but even if Iran gets nuclear weapons, they are not going to nuke Israel or any other country (unless they're attacked first). That would be a suicide, and the Iranians are not stupid and/or irrational

 

[Glassfan]

Um, they are "secretive, hidden, paranoid and underground" because these countries face censure and punishment for having them. If you don't threaten them for having nuclear programmes (while having nuclear weapons or umbrellas of your own), then you can bet that they wouldn't be like that.

A sort of "chicken or the egg" argument". But you have it backwards - they face criticism and sanctions because they are developing nuclear weapons, not the other way around. They are "like that" because they are psychologically like that, and had been - long before we came along. (you can bet that)

Sure, if their military plane with hell-knows-what on board enter your airspace without permission, you will not shoot it down.

We don't truly know the actual location of the drone when it was kidnapped. Iran borders both Iraq and Afghanistan, where the drones operate, and might have been intercepted near a border. Surveillance planes are used tactically in those countries - hunting men. Against Iran, we lean towards strategic assets, like satelites with ground-penetrating radar to find their "secret" underground facilities.

Surveillance aircraft usually operate at high altitudes. The Russian Tupelovs I mentioned flew very high just outside our borders and could look down some tens of miles into the interior of our East Coast, monitoring telecommunications. The Air Force watched them but didn't interfere.