Your Drones are belong to us!

[red_elk]

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.

Surveillance using satellites is de-facto accepted international practice. Planes, violating other country's airspace is another matter. Tupolevs flew just outside of the borders. U2s were flying inside Soviet borders at extremely high altitudes until the Soviets started shooting them down in 60-s. Neither USA nor Russia/USSR would accept foreign planes flying over their territory without permission. Iran suppose to have the same rights.

 

[aelf]

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)

Your psychological analysis of those countries are funny at best. Also, if they were free to develop nuclear weapons, they wouldn't need to hide them.

 

[BasketCase]

Like it or not, the US doesn't have rights to violate Iran's airspace

Yes we do.

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

For all I know, the U.S. Air Force is simply waiting for the perfect time to detonate the self-destruct system......

I don't have the answer to that question. Doesn't mean there isn't one. However, the people who know America's game plan aren't talking.

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.

There's forty-eight stealth drones romping around in your airspace. Would you be happy to reduce that to forty-seven?? Of course not. If Iran could bring them all down, it would bring them all down.

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).

Very funny. America's human rights violations are peanuts compared to the unforgiveable list of barbarities the current Iranian regime has committed.

The Iranian government has no rights whatsoever. The United States can fly all the drones it wants through Iranian airspace, and the United States is entitled to shoot down any Iranian drone that tries to do the same.

 

[red_elk]

Yes we do.

No, you don't. Unless you can show me international law according to which you have this right. Self-proclaimed right doesn't count.

What right they have is to shoot down your drones or acquire technology which will help them to do it more effectively (that's probably what they did recently). And you can't prevent them from doing this.

 

[peter grimes]

Very funny. America's human rights violations are peanuts compared to the unforgiveable list of barbarities the current Iranian regime has committed.

I don't think it's funny at all. I'm outraged and ashamed by what our nation's leaders have decided was acceptable in waging the silly-named GWoT. I also don't think any of our violations of the Geneva Conventions are 'peanuts'. Call me an absolutist, fine.

At what point along the sliding scale of human rights abuses does it become OK to allow? On the one hand you think Iran's HR abuses are so dire that it warrants immediate military intervention, while on the other side of the scale is the USA, which is guilty of HR abuses as well (though not as unforgivable). How do you determine which abuses and in which quantities warrant intervention?

Do you think we should invade Russia as well?

There's forty-eight stealth drones romping around in your airspace. Would you be happy to reduce that to forty-seven?? Of course not. If Iran could bring them all down, it would bring them all down.

You speak as if you know that there were more in the air and within range of whatever gadgets Iran may have used. I think it's possible that they got lucky.

It's also possible that this was a legitimate accident on the US's part, and Iran is playing it up:

To accomplish such a cyber coup, at least three and probably many more major technical hurdles would need to be overcome, several US cyberwarfare and drone experts said. While none of these steps is impossible, each is difficult, and taken together, they represent a massive technological challenge for any enemy hacker – one that the US experts suggest is beyond Iran’s capabilities.

Source:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...-US-experts-cautious-about-bold-claims.-Video

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Do you think we should invade Russia as well?

You should, or it would be to late!

 

[innonimatu]

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

I understand that they will try to intervene, and I understand the interest by the great powers of any age in preserving stability - it means preserving their position as great powers.

I simply do not accept that as a valid excuse to attack other countries. Not do most people, which is why we go, time and again, though the whole charade about "freedom", "weapons of mass destruction", or whatever.

 

[Flying Pig]

I understand that they will try to intervene, and I understand the interest by the great powers of any age in preserving stability - it means preserving their position as great powers.

I simply do not accept that as a valid excuse to attack other countries. Not do most people, which is why we go, time and again, though the whole charade about "freedom", "weapons of mass destruction", or whatever.

No, the excuse is 'preserving world peace' (and yes, before you ask, I am a firm believer in screwing for virginity). The 'why us?' is simply 'because we're the big boys and it comes with the territory.

 

[red_elk]

Do you think we should invade Russia as well?

There are targets of higher priority, to attack for the sake of preserving world peace and democracy.
Russia is luckily in a different weight category than Iran or Libya.

 

[peter grimes]

There are targets of higher priority, to attack for the sake of preserving world peace and democracy.
Russia is luckily in a different weight category than Iran or Libya.

If you're looking to preserve world peace and democracy then you have to admit that attacking USA would be the highest priority:
-No other nation has done more to restrict the advance of democracy around the globe in the last 30-40 years.
-No other nation has started more wars in the last 30-40 years.

If you're looking for the highest 'weight' of human rights abuses, then I'd think that China should be at the top of the list of nations warranting military intervention.

But somehow people are focusing on Iran - not a perfect country by any measure.

I posit that it's simply because the powers that be in the USA and Israel don't like the current administration there and have old grudges. Not exactly the best basis for long-term strategic policy, in my humble opinion.

 

[red_elk]

I hope you did notice my location and irony in my post
USA may be not the best nation in terms of preserving democracy, but attacking it is not an option, for obvious reasons. Other nations are mostly concerned how to protect themselves from self-proclaimed sheriff.

 

[Lord of Elves]

If you're looking to preserve world peace and democracy then you have to admit that attacking USA would be the highest priority:
-No other nation has done more to restrict the advance of democracy around the globe in the last 30-40 years.
-No other nation has started more wars in the last 30-40 years.

The only way to maintain your position is that you accept self-determination universally. It is the right of the people to decide that they want to arbitrarily single out members of society to abuse/torture/kill/otherwise disenfranchise. I happen to disagree. Especially when "the people" decide it is the right of the state to abuse/torture/kill/otherwise disenfranchise non-citizens for arbitrary reasons. Other nations can feel free to shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly, but when their massive stockpile of weapons, ammunition, and continuous saber-rattling in every conceivable direction becomes backed up by nuclear power (and therefore a serious threat to their neighbors), they have sacrificed their right to self-determine what kind of nation they want to be.

 

[red_elk]

Other nations can feel free to shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly, but when their massive stockpile of weapons, ammunition, and continuous saber-rattling in every conceivable direction becomes backed up by nuclear power (and therefore a serious threat to their neighbors), they have sacrificed their right to self-determine what kind of nation they want to be.

Military expenditure, 2010

 

[r16]

well , while it is the truth the US could have defeated any country on the map since 1900 in a straight up fight and the Americans tend to be the people who try to change the status-quo , to the detriment of other countries and generally of people who don't deserve the outcome of being "liberated" at all - the notion that US is invincible or at least must be avoided is somewhat wrong .

and it happens to be the reason why the trouble never ends . It is a simple transformation of the British superiority at the end of the Victorian Era . They were the primary power , practically because everybody believed so . Americans end up in the same dead-end street , believing they can do anything . Something the rest of the pack seems to believe after constant re-education by Americans . As soon as cracks appear they are covered but the internal rot is constant .

the Brits went to WW1 believing they would win this thing , because a century ago they had defeated Napoleon . Didn't exactly work out .

mighty Western know how in conventional warfare and the everpresent mass desctruction means just around the corner do not exactly make people go home ; it only leads to "What the" moments , just like this apparent surprise at the recent so called Iranian lasing of satellites . So called , only because America should stop think that they can isolate their enemies and they will still tremble in fear . Chinese are already fed up with this one bite at a time approach , ı would remark in the required true statement .

 

[peter grimes]

I hope you did notice my location and irony in my post

Nope. I missed it

The only way to maintain your position is that you accept self-determination universally. It is the right of the people to decide that they want to arbitrarily single out members of society to abuse/torture/kill/otherwise disenfranchise. I happen to disagree. Especially when "the people" decide it is the right of the state to abuse/torture/kill/otherwise disenfranchise non-citizens for arbitrary reasons.

I don't think you understand me, or perhaps I misspoke above.

To be clear, I do not think that it's the sole right of USA to intervene in support of human rights wherever and whenever it chooses. At heart I'm an internationalist. If the African Union says 'Hey, we don't have the muscle to police one of our own, so can we get a little help here?' then I'm more inclined to begrudgingly accept military action.

But even in that specific case [Libya] I still have grave misgivings. Military action ALWAYS kills innocent people. That is what I would like to see minimized.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

No, the excuse is 'preserving world peace' (and yes, before you ask, I am a firm believer in screwing for virginity). The 'why us?' is simply 'because we're the big boys and it comes with the territory.

Gosh this is so ridiculous. Lets look at the fact, shall we?
1. Iran has not seriously threatened to attack any Nation nor is there a good reason to believe it will in the foreseeable future (for every instance where Iran supposedly calls for the destruction of Israel there is an instance where its peaceful intentions - also regarding Israel - are emphasized. Our media happens to overlook that though - don't give me this propaganda crap as justification).
2. As history and logic substantiate - the ownership of Atomic weapons does not threaten world peace! They actually preserve peace. In this instance peace between Iran and America.
3. If America actually preserves peace, than only by coincidence or maybe as a minor secondary reason. Which to translate means - it doesn't matter in any crucial way. To view the "preservation of world peace" as an actually important agenda of American foreign policy is so ignorant that it is depressing. It is akin to saying the British Empire only wanted to "balance the powers", maybe also for world peace? While it was all about keeping the Empire strong - period.

 

[peter grimes]

2. As history and logic substantiate - the ownership of Atomic weapons does not threaten world peace! They actually preserve peace. In this instance peace between Iran and America.

This is a very important point. The US has never attacked a nuclear armed power. But we've attacked dozens of non-nuclear nations.

I used to be an advocate for 100% nuclear disarmament. But over the years I've read enough analysis that convinced me that small nuclear stockpiles actually help to keep tensions from getting out of control. If neither Pakistan nor India had nuclear weapons it would hard to see how some of the skirmishes over Kashmir wouldn't have spiraled into a regional war.

100% disarmament should be the ultimate goal of the arms control community, but I don't think the current world is ready for that. We all need to mature to more stable national and transnational structures in order to ensure that when the nukes are finally decommissioned there's minimal risk of conventional wars happening.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Military expenditure, 2010

Cute, but you haven't addressed my point. No one else is volunteering to prevent mass slaughter in the Middle-East, and without United State military deterrent, there would be no question about whether or not it would actually happen. But feel free to go ahead chanting to yourself that a nation that institutionalizes people for disavowing the state-sponsored religion is the "victim" of evil, American foreign policy.

And the existence of a modern standing military is apparently the red-handed mark of our profound, mustache-twirling international super-villainy.

 

[red_elk]

Cute, but you haven't addressed my point.

You wrote something about massive stockpile of weapons and continuous saber-rattling. The picture shows which countries actually have the most massive stockpiles. As for saber-rattling, you are probably right, the US doesn't do much of it. It simply attacks.

No one else is volunteering to prevent mass slaughter in the Middle-East, and without United State military deterrent, there would be no question about whether or not it would actually happen.

How many people died in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of this volunteering?
And deterrent of which country? There was balance of power between Iraq and Iran before 2003. The US has itself created this problem, made Iran regional great power by destroying counter-balance.

But feel free to go ahead chanting to yourself that a nation that institutionalizes people for disavowing the state-sponsored religion is the "victim" of evil, American foreign policy.

I don't have any sympathy to Iranian regime. But painting Americans as paladins on white horses, sacrificing themselves for the region's stability is just ridiculous. USA is following its purely pragmatic geopolitical interests there. In fact, destabilizing the region. Stability is mostly concern of countries neighboring to that region, such as India, China, Russia, Israel - not the country on the opposite side of the planet.

And the existence of a modern standing military is apparently the red-handed mark of our profound, mustache-twirling international super-villainy.

That's what you said, actually
Pointing a finger to the country which has "massive stockpile of weapons", forgetting about another one with biggest stockpile on Earth.

 

[Lord of Elves]

If you don't believe leaving Iran to its own devices, free of any international restraint, sanctions or threat of interventions, would be beneficial to the region or the world then blaming the issue on the United States or any concept of American militarism is just being spiteful.

Weather's bad today, YANKEES! I stubbed my toe, THOSE DIRTY YANKEES!