backtop


Print 98 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on May 21 at 4:23 PM

Spy drone is reportedly working, packed with captured technology which Iran reverse engineered

Iran's drone technology has unintentionally gotten a boost from the U.S. The Middle Eastern state tricked a high-tech Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) RQ-170 Sentinel drone into thinking it was at a U.S. Air Force (USAF) post in Afghanistan and landing on an Iranian airstrip.
 
I. Iran Mocks Obama's Pleas to Return Spy Drone
 
The capture has led to many embarrassments for the U.S.
 
First the Obama administration tried to suggest the bold claims might be fake.  When photographic evidence and videos proved the captured drone was real, the administration shifted gears by implying that Iran's claims of jamming and tricking the drone were false, and it was probably just shot down.  Then on Dec. 13, 2011 -- roughly a week after the epic capture -- President Barack Obama (D) asked the Iranians to give America its drone back.  He commented:

We've asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond.

Iran drone
The RQ-170 Spy Drone [Image Source: ABC News]

The Iranians condemned the request.  Gen. Hossein Salami, deputy commander of Iran's military told the semi-autonomous Fars News Agency:

No nation welcomes other countries' spy drones in its territory, and no one sends back the spying equipment and its information back to the country of origin.

But the Iranians didn't send the President's envoys away empty handed.  They sent plastic toy models of the drone, saving a "special pink one" for President Obama in a cheeky gesture.  It would also show fairly definitively that it did capture the drone via electronic trickery, not a crude shootdown as U.S. experts claimed.

Drone toys
Iran sent drone toys in response to the U.S.'s request -- including a special pink one for President Obama. [Image Source: Teribon.ir]

Then last year the state-run Iranian Tasnim News Agency announced that the military "managed to reverse engineer most parts" of the drone.  Some experts and members of Congress expressed skepticism that Iran had the sophistication to crack the drone's data troves, which were being harvested on behalf of the U.S. Cental Intelligence Agency (CIA) at the time of its capture.





Again, Iran embarrassed the critics, in Feb. 2013 releasing footage from the drone, which Pentagon sources eventually acknowledged was likely authentic.
 
II. Does Iran Have a Drone Clone?
 
Now it claims to have yet again achieved something its western rival claimed was impossible.
 
At a special aerospace exhibition in Tehran, Iran on Sunday May 11, the Iranian military unveiled a supposed working replica of the American design.  The unveil was performed at a ceremony honoring Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was in attendance.

Iran drone clone
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei examines the replicated drone at a special ceremony.
[Image Source: Leader.ir]

It's impossible to tell from the photos whether Iran's claims were true, but given how many times Iran has proven its doubters wrong during the drone saga, it's probably foolishly to automatically assume the drone is simply a non-working replica fake.

Iran drone
The original drone was displayed beside the new drone [Image Source: Leader.ir]

Iran's state Tasnim News Agency reports:

The drone was brought down by the Iranian Armed Forces' electronic warfare unit which commandeered the aircraft and safely landed it.


In photos the drone was shown alongside the captured original flier, which survived its landing in relatively good shape.  It's entirely possible that Iran's claims are the real deal, given not only its past successes with the captured drone, but also its long-standing military program which aimed to develop its own drone spycraft, strikecraft, and bombers which it gives creative names to, such as "Angel of Death".

Iran drone
The captured drone was a Lockheed Martin RQ-170 drone. [Image Source: Leader.ir]

The RQ-170 is by no means the most advanced drone that is believed to be in the CIA's arsenal.  At the same time it is a rather important catch, as it was a relatively high tech aircraft that packed much more advanced automation and imaging technology than what is found in more crude, but common U.S. spy drones.  If Iran's claims are accurate, it has likely made significant leaps in its own autonomous surveillance and warfare efforts.
 
From the photos it's clear the drone is not an exact replica, but rather an effort to ostensibly replicate the look and key features of the U.S. drone.  From the outside it looks convincing with overall body styling that mirror its U.S. inspiration.

Iran drone
Another shot of the cloned drone [Image Source: Leader.ir]

Iran also reportedly captured a U.S. Navy drone in Dec. 2012 using similar tricks, but that was a cheaper model -- less of a catch than the valuable RQ-170 spy plane.

Source: CNN



Comments     Threshold


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

Being...
By Hammer1024 on 5/13/2014 12:57:00 PM , Rating: 5
Being in the UAS biz, that "thing" is nothing more than a fiberglass shell. Anyone can create a mold line.

Just another hoax...




RE: Being...
By Samus on 5/14/2014 12:20:09 AM , Rating: 3
I agree.

-The footage of it "bouncing" down the runway reeks of shopping-cart handling dynamics with a fancy (unpainted) fiberglass fascia.
-No gimbal on the engine thruster and not enough hydraulic actuation to consider it controllable.
-There's no footage of it actually flying. The aircraft carrier landing is obviously imposed.
-The landing gear covers are rectangular for the protrusions on the underbody are curved. Exactly how does the landing gear retract and cover itself?
-Even if it flew, the only technology they demonstrated is a FLiR camera and a LiDAR sensor. It isn't stealth, and it probably isn't very fast or stable.

Nice try Iran, now get back to making that bomb with your friend North Korea, and please try not to blow yourself up.


Ah, the Lada of drones
By Mr Joshua on 5/13/2014 7:26:12 AM , Rating: 5
It will probably have to land 5 times a day to get an software update from Mecca.




RE: Ah, the Lada of drones
By overlandpark on 5/13/2014 9:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
and has to point fly one direction when it's time to pray.


Political Theater
By ralniv on 5/13/2014 2:33:35 PM , Rating: 4
It amazes me that people make everything into political theater. This is a pretty simple series of events...

We had a spy drone flying over the middle east. This happens every day and probably twice on Sundays.

Iran somehow captured it. It's irrelevant to Six Pack Joe if it was shot down, hacked or malfunctioned. Obviously, it's very relevant to the drone manufacturer and US military.

Iran kept it and is trying to reverse engineer it. We would do the same thing if someone else had superior technology. Our loss is their gain.

What are the options available to the US military and POTUS?
1. Threaten Iran with military action if they don't return the plane we used to spy on them
2. Threaten Iran with more sanctions if they don't return the plane we used to spy on them
3. Diplomacy
4. Bribery
5. Ignore it and chalk one up for the other team

What would you propose? Personally, I think options 3 and 5 look best (with option 5 looking better through my 20-20 hind sight glasses)




RE: Political Theater
By jimhsu on 5/18/2014 10:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
1 or 2 + 'accidentally' leak out more military schematics, albeit faulty. After all, it worked for the Russians a couple of decades ago.


Huh
By SunLord on 5/13/2014 1:36:39 AM , Rating: 1
I'm sure the CIA/DoD is thrilled Iran copied the one off drone that "accidentally" got lost/"hacked" to crash in Iran not a change at all this might be a Trojan horse of sorts




RE: Huh
By marvdmartian on 5/13/2014 7:23:28 AM , Rating: 3
What would be really funny is if Lockheed Martin decided to do "an Apple", and sue the Iranians for violating copyrights they have on the RQ-4 design!


Send in the RIAA
By Salisme on 5/13/2014 7:35:21 AM , Rating: 2
What's the fine for illegally copying spy drones?




RE: Send in the RIAA
By Nightbird321 on 5/13/2014 9:20:15 AM , Rating: 2
They have to create a law in Iran saying it's illegal first, then prosecute themselves!


Those crazy terrorists, lol
By overlandpark on 5/13/2014 9:22:11 PM , Rating: 3
Im sure it will be airborne, but supported by wire, and the accompanied doctored video should be quite entertaining




Tsk
By Trisagion on 5/12/2014 11:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
Stop hating zee Iranians. Maybe they want to use it for door to door deliveries a.la Amazon.




Take that
By Divide Overflow on 5/14/2014 11:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
The second this drone was confirmed down in Iran, a cruise missile should have followed in hot on it's heels. It would be better if these things had significant self destruct capability but perhaps that's something to add to the next generation.




The waiting game....
By Joz on 5/15/2014 11:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just waiting for the very instance of the second that Iran attaches a missile or bomb to this. Because an instance of a second after that, Israel won't give a damn what the rest of the world says about its neighbors, and almost neighbors.




Good for Iran
By Mithan on 5/15/14, Rating: 0
US to Iran
By Shig on 5/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: US to Iran
By tayb on 5/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: US to Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/14, Rating: 0
RE: US to Iran
By flyingpants1 on 5/12/2014 7:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think they can hide behind the "sovereignty" argument.


You are actually delusional.


RE: US to Iran
By chµck on 5/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: US to Iran
By FITCamaro on 5/12/2014 8:44:37 PM , Rating: 3
You mean the same Israel that for over 2 decades has been under near constant attack by said neighbors? And has had Iran publicly state that they are for the complete destruction of the state of Israel.

And what news are you reading about them threatening to use nukes recently? Al-Jezeera? Not to say they'd rule it out, nor should they.


RE: US to Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2014 8:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And has had Iran publicly state that they are for the complete destruction of the state of Israel.


Totally agree, but it's even worst than that. They (Iran) REFUSES to recognize Israel as a nation-state, to this day, altogether.


RE: US to Iran
By wordsworm on 5/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: US to Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2014 9:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of the nations to attack Israel, Iran has never been one of them


Well except for, you know, THE WAR THEY DECLARED ON THEM.


RE: US to Iran
By wordsworm on 5/12/2014 10:53:13 PM , Rating: 1
Iran has never attacked or declared war on Israel. But I suppose that doesn't matter to you.


RE: US to Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 5/13/2014 12:08:27 AM , Rating: 1
Okay kid why don't you spend like 2 minutes reading Wikipedia, this isn't hard.

Iran has been waging war by proxy against Israel since the 1940's.


RE: US to Iran
By Skywalker123 on 5/13/2014 12:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
Kind of like the proxy war we have been waging against Iran since the 50's?


RE: US to Iran
By gamerk2 on 5/13/2014 1:00:09 AM , Rating: 2
The Palestinian voting issue is going to be a BIG one in coming years. They are likely going to eventually pressure the UN to be allowed to vote, and thus force the issue with Israel.

Remember: The Jewish parties would split the vote, so its quite possible a unified Palestinian platform could win an outright majority, or at least enough for a runoff. That's the same reason why moderate parties ALWAYS lose (See Egypt for a perfect example of this).


RE: US to Iran
By ritualm on 5/12/2014 9:43:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
They (Iran) REFUSES to recognize Israel as a nation-state, to this day, altogether.

So does China vis-a-vis Taiwan.

Honestly, I don't care. Why should you? Jerusalem isn't the birthplace of human civilization anyways.


RE: US to Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 5/13/14, Rating: -1
RE: US to Iran
By dashrendar on 5/13/14, Rating: 0
RE: US to Iran
By kattanna on 5/13/2014 1:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm an atheist


ok, now that I did not see coming


RE: US to Iran
By name99 on 5/13/2014 1:15:50 AM , Rating: 3
And the US refuses to recognize Palestine as a state.
Your point is what, exactly?


RE: US to Iran
By BZDTemp on 5/13/14, Rating: -1
RE: US to Iran
By yvizel on 5/13/2014 5:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
Where do you get your facts from?
So I guess that if Mexico will now start firing rockets into the US, targeting civilians, the US will do nothing about it... Right? They won't use "Fighter bombers" and "Attach Helicopters". Yeah, I can see that. And lets say that these Mexicans who will do the shooting will do it from within civilians' areas... The US will just stand still.

The amount of bullshit in this thread is unbelievable. It only shows how little you people know and how you let the media feed you with lies and half truths.

"The German Jews took over the land and put Palestinians in consternation camps"... Really? Learn your history. There was no state in this area of the middle east. Never, ever, in thousands of years, no state. This area was under a Turkish occupation, then under British occupation, then the UN decided to give part of the land to the Jewish people and part of it to the native arabs (that were NOT called Palestinians at that time!!!). The reaction of the Arab nations in this area (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia...) was a declaration of war on the newly formed Jewish state (the 1948 war). Israel won and was under constant attacks till the 1967 war. Regardless, Palestinians were "invented" by the Arab nations as a mean to "destroy" Israel and claim the land. Look it up! The big famous 3 NOs.

On anyhow, I am wasting my time... Haters who know nothing, and make their mind without hitting on a subject, will always exist. Nothing can be done about it.


RE: US to Iran
By BZDTemp on 5/13/14, Rating: 0
RE: US to Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 5/13/2014 9:35:24 AM , Rating: 2
Please show me the difference between a "made up" country and a natural one. There's no such thing, every country by definition is "made up".

This just shows the leaps in logic some are willing to take to support the anti-Jew genocide agenda of Iran.

quote:
However Israel is the state with the tanks, jets, helicopters and advanced weaponry


If they didn't have those, they would have already been complete overrun. A lot of countries can't claim that, especially America which has a massive military and no officially sworn enemies like Israel.

Have you looked at a map? Israel is a tiny country literally surrounded on almost all sides by people who HATE them.

I don't think Westerners in general understand, or comprehend, the radical anti-Semite sentiments of the Middle East and Islamic states. So they try to rationalize it, which is your first mistake. There is NO rationalization, or excuse, for it.


RE: US to Iran
By BZDTemp on 5/14/2014 3:10:47 AM , Rating: 1
I'm pretty sure that if Israel had been less aggressive things could be different. As it is now then it is pretty logical that those which grow up under the Israeli oppression is gonna hate them, so what Israel has been doing for decades is making damn sure people hate them.


RE: US to Iran
By Schrag4 on 5/15/2014 2:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
If Israel was less aggressive and didn't "make their neighbors hate them," as you put it, they wouldn't exist. You're basically saying they should roll over and die rather than stand up and fight for their own existence. Would you roll over and die when confronted by someone who claims he's going to kill you (and has tried many times in the past)?


RE: US to Iran
By eBob on 5/16/2014 4:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
While it is possible for an Iranian to be anti-Semitic, it would be difficult for an Arab unless he or she were self-hating.


RE: US to Iran
By tayb on 5/13/2014 9:28:28 AM , Rating: 1
Who cares? Israel is an invented country by the UN with no real stake to the land they are currently occupying. They have no moral high ground.

So, again, who cares if Israel is being shot at during a war with their neighbors? Let Israel handle their own business. Let's stop spending billions propping them up and losing billions of technology in the process.

And Israel is so grateful for our help that they spy on us and steal our technology relentlessly. Cut them off.


RE: US to Iran
By yvizel on 5/15/2014 6:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, Israel does spy on the US, and the US does not spy on Israel. Israel is such an ungrateful country.
And it seems Israel really needs to steal tech from the US. After all, note the incredible Patriot anti-missile system, and other such American systems... All are so advanced. Way better than the Israeli Iron Dome, Arrow and David's Sling (Magic Wand).............
[BTW, news from today, the US asked Israel not to sell David's Sling to Poland, Israel agreed obviously, losing billions of dollars - but yeah, this is the most problematic country in the world].


RE: US to Iran
By DougF on 5/13/2014 9:11:57 AM , Rating: 2
Let's see...working to subvert the entire Gulf region, waging non-stop war against Sunni Muslims in a variety of nations, threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz and kill off the world economy, backing Assad in Syria and helping kill tens of thousands and displace hundreds of thousands of people? You mean besides those?


RE: US to Iran
By peterrushkin on 5/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: US to Iran
By chµck on 5/12/2014 7:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
i really dont understand the iran hatred, and i'm pretty far right politically and socially


RE: US to Iran
By Jim_Liquor on 5/12/2014 7:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is not with the Iranian people, which most of I would gather are just trying to make a decent living and take care of their families.

The problem is that the Iranian government is run by the lunacy of Islam and wish to destroy anything that is not exactly like them.

Well, when you have that mindset and control a big military and start getting WMD's ... its a huge problem. Not just for their neighbors ... but for American forces in the area, and ultimately, the world.


RE: US to Iran
By ritualm on 5/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: US to Iran
By Jim_Liquor on 5/13/14, Rating: 0
RE: US to Iran
By tamalero on 5/19/2014 1:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
The old testament actually had lines like that.
Including selling your kids, stoning women to death, owning slaves for conquered nations..etc


RE: US to Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/14, Rating: 0
RE: US to Iran
By Jeffk464 on 5/12/2014 8:02:37 PM , Rating: 3
So if you are upset with Russia causing problems in the Ukraine does that mean you hate all Russians?


RE: US to Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: US to Iran
By ritualm on 5/12/2014 10:02:30 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, there is door #3 here: your support of Israel is independent of your love/hate of the Jews.

You're wrong.


RE: US to Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 5/13/2014 12:21:13 AM , Rating: 1
Nope you guys love throwing around the race card on everyone else. So I'm dealing it from my deck now.

Support Israel or you're a Nazi.

They're our allies. They have a legal and recognized state by everyone BUT Iran. They're a member of the UN.

There's no reason to carry on this stupid bigoted campaign against them. You've been spoonfed a bunch of Liberal nonsense for decades that Israel is the cause of all the problems in the Middle East, and that they've been behind every incident. Time to take the blinders off!

Iran has openly pledged that their expressed goal, their entire cause, is the "full annihilation of Israel".

So you be an idiot and support genocide, be my guest.


RE: US to Iran
By Skywalker123 on 5/13/2014 12:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
You are really simple or a ignorant fool, there is no door #3 here.


RE: US to Iran
By BZDTemp on 5/13/2014 3:37:35 AM , Rating: 1
Hating Israel and being anti-Semite is two very different things. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being Jewish just as there is nothing wrong with being Muslim, Christian, Atheist or having any other religion or non-religion.


RE: US to Iran
By Jeffk464 on 5/12/2014 8:00:49 PM , Rating: 3
I think the more realistic fear is that as more and more countries develop nukes a nuke will fall into terrorist hands. Think about the movie "Sum of all Fears" I can't imagine Iran is crazy enough to launch an out in the open nuclear strike.


RE: US to Iran
By ritualm on 5/12/2014 9:36:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Come off the moral relativism please. With everything Iran has threatened to do, and has tried to do, I don't think they can hide behind the "sovereignty" argument.

Do you honestly think they're going to attack the US?

It's merely sabre-rattling. Iran isn't going to attack us just because it successfully reverse-engineered one of our spy drones. If anything, WE are the problem - it was the US who sent the spy drone flying over Iranian airspace to begin with. If we sent a U-2 over the area, they wouldn't be able to do a damn thing.
quote:
We should have just blown the thing up when we had the chance.

And trigger World War 3? Oh yeah, that's going to really help bring peace to the Mideast.

You're an idiot.


RE: US to Iran
By peterrushkin on 5/12/14, Rating: 0
RE: US to Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 5/13/2014 9:40:56 AM , Rating: 2
I don't mind him calling me an idiot. But I DO mind him making up things I never said or implied to argue against me with.

Not sure where he got "attack the US" from my post...


RE: US to Iran
By ritualm on 5/13/2014 12:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I DO mind him making up things I never said or implied to argue against me with.

You get your panties in a tight wad when someone else does it to you... only to turn around and do the same thing unto others!
quote:
Not sure where he got "attack the US" from my post...

quote:
We should have just blown the thing up when we had the chance.

tsk tsk.


RE: US to Iran
By tamalero on 5/19/2014 12:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oh the Irony.
did you know that all the problems with Iran was due of the removing the older more stable government and setting up a puppet-dictator?
Puppet who ended causing a revolution and the setting of a very strong religious based nation?


RE: US to Iran
By littlebitstrouds on 5/13/2014 12:42:15 AM , Rating: 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdimK1onR4o
If you want to see how America treats sovereign nations, look at how they continue to treat the Native Americans. Reducing people to less than human, sure makes it easy to destroy their way of life, doesn't it?


RE: US to Iran
By DougF on 5/13/2014 9:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, you mean the ones making an absolute fortune off their captors and "masters" through various tax-free business and banking enclaves, and casinos; buying up more lands than when they had under the original treaties? Those people?


RE: US to Iran
By tamalero on 5/19/2014 1:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
You actually have to give the Natives a point.
they have learned the white man game and they are USING the white man game to profit and reinstate their lands/power structure.
Yet I'm pretty sure they're still locked out of real representation in the US GOV.


RE: US to Iran
By inperfectdarkness on 5/13/2014 2:44:47 AM , Rating: 4
I'm not buying it. Maybe Iran was "proven right" about having some US drone, but a working prototype reverse-engineered from it? ROFL. Did we already forget their "brand-new-uber-awesome-mega-super-fighter-jet" that was nothing more than a photochop hack job & which NUMEROUS aerospace engineers testified that it would not fly?

Iran, if you want to be taken seriously by the world here's how:

1. Stop pointing the finger at every other country's "human rights abuses" (eg. Norway), when you yourself murder your citizens via Takfiri agenda every chance you get. Not to mention capital punishment for homosexuality, women without burka/hijab, free-speech, etc. Furthermore, if you're going to whine about how muslims are treated by other countries--then you need to take a long hard look at how NON-MUSLIMS are treated in Iran.

2. A national slogan that is "death to" ANYTHING isn't going to win friends and influence people--least of all on the world stage.

3. Denying the soverignty of Israel, declaring holy war on the entire population thereof, and denying the entire existence of the Holocaust--doesn't win you any favors. You'd be mocked less for denying the moon-landings than you are for denying that 6 MILLION jews died during WWII.

4. CBRN weapons in the hands of ANY state led by radical wacko-nutjobs is dangerous to the entire world. Don't take it personally that everyone is trying to stop your nuclear programs. Ahmadinejad was 3 fries short of a happy meal. And he was arguably one of the more "sane" leaders you've elected. Khomeini was an entire juice-box & cheeseburger short of a happy meal. We're talking people who make Pol-Pot look like Ghandi.

5. Grow a vagina--something that can take a pounding. If you can't endure someone poking fun at your expense--and immediately resort to Fatwah against said country/individuals (Salman Rushdie, Theo VanGogh, etc). No one will take you seriously (as a country or as an individual) if you feel that you are entitled to mock and denigrate everyone--but that no one else is entitled to do the same to you. Frankly it just pisses people off and further tarnishes the image that Islam has in the western-world.


RE: US to Iran
By Dr of crap on 5/13/2014 10:26:54 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm
Reading your 5 posts sounds like something a bully would do.
To bad they have no muscle to back up that bully face they put on!


RE: US to Iran
By tamalero on 5/19/2014 1:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
for #1, I actually think they are mentioning the West hypocrisy in blasting many nations's human rights records, when they have incredible amounts of violations as well.

Like the US blasting certain nations for racism.. yet they had one of the biggest racism problems of the world, (a problem that still seems to keep going).

Or like blasting Russia for their interventionism on Crimea and Ukraine, while the US pretty much blasted their way via missiles, proxy wars and outright invasions in the entire middle east and other nations for DECADES.


RE: US to Iran
By inperfectdarkness on 5/21/2014 4:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
You're joking right? You think racism is a problem in the US? Ok, sure it exists...but so what? Do you see ETHNIC CLEANSING going on here? And you want to compare that to RUSSIA?

You know why the USA has had better fighter jets since WWII? Because Stalin purged all the talented engineers. True story. The USA may look dirty because it's record is an open book--but anyone who thinks that makes them the "dirtiest" target is completely unversed in world history.


RE: US to Iran
By overlandpark on 5/13/2014 9:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
I"m sure you believe that, but I'm surprised you had the time to post in between troop stabbings and flag burnings. STFU


Weak ...
By Jim_Liquor on 5/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: Weak ...
By Ktracho on 5/12/2014 8:49:32 PM , Rating: 4
Or maybe it's the Republicans' fault for not having a candidate (or party, whichever the case may be) appealing to the majority. To take things further off topic, perhaps a system that allowed more than two viable parties would help.


RE: Weak ...
By peterrushkin on 5/12/2014 9:02:19 PM , Rating: 3
Isn't this really a system of 1 party but 2 heads?

Bush brought in patriot act and Obama extended it.

I'm sure there are many other examples out there.

But has anything really changed in the last 10 years?

No, I didnt think so.


RE: Weak ...
By geddarkstorm on 5/13/2014 9:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
Not for the better, that is. Some things have changed, such as the US foreign power diminishing remarkably. We're still top dog though, by far and a way, but the other dogs are starting to get bolder to the detriment of those we can't mount much defense.


RE: Weak ...
By stmok on 5/13/2014 9:43:27 AM , Rating: 4
NOTE: I'm looking at this from an outsider (Australian) perspective.

Its not that simple...If you bothered to look at what is happening within the Republican party itself.

At this time, the party has 2 distinct groups:

(1) The Entrenched .
and
(2) The Tea Party .

(1) does NOT like (2) simply because (2) threatens (1) in terms of status quo. (1) likes the power and privileges of being career politicians. In fact, (1) are getting their well-financed buddies to undermine those in (2) for Mid-term and Primary. (1) is filled with people like McCain, Bush's, etc.

(2) is copping flack from all sides. It has to fight (1) as well as Democrats. The latter has painted them in all sorts of negative light with their media/Hollywood friends. They've been so effective such that people react to the label "Tea Party" without even really knowing what they stand for.

(Democrats see Tea Party as a huge threat to their power. Their (failed) equivalent was the "Occupy Movement"...Which they publicly endorsed. When one looks at Occupy, one should be very concerned about who was driving the anarchist/entitled behaviour that killed their public support over time.)

Now (1) prefers to team up with Democrats on most social issues. It seems appeasement and fear of the political correctness culture. When push comes to shove, they don't really stand for the values they supposed to represent. There is no strength in character.

In fact, this behaviour comes from the nonsensical belief that one should "go for the Political Centre". Its stupid because it alienates most Americans who are annoyed by this situation. ie: Republicans don't even act like Republicans any more. And its the reason why most Americans feel like its analogous to one big political party with two heads.

The Presidential Election 2012 showed that most people just didn't turn up to vote. While the Democrats did everything possible in order to just skim themselves to victory. It was pretty close. (Obama was doing everything. Pandering to Feminist groups, grabbing the gay vote with gay marriage, pandering to the Latino vote by turning up on their TV channels, etc.)

Overall, it honestly felt like Romney didn't know how to counter the Left and the political games they play to win. He really didn't know how to counter-punch Obama's snark remarks. (I watched all three debates and how he handled himself regarding his "47%" comment.)

In fact, I find some American Conservatives are just too accommodating to the Left. They really don't know how to call the Left's bluffs and smartly counter them.

(Come to Australia, look at the politics, and you see its a completely different story. The Australian Left take their plays straight out of the American Democrats play-book. In fact, they even employ the same consultants and fly them in country!...It doesn't work well because the Australian Right stand by their values. Something the Republicans don't do.)

Overall, I'm not surprised American people want to start a third political party that actually listens to the people instead of special interest groups and corporate lobbyists...The belief is that if one voted for "the right person", everything will turn out fine.

It won't. Given enough time, it'll come back around full circle. The root cause is the culture. The "checks and balances"; the mechanisms that make America work well are being ignored or circumvented. The rules need to be changed such that even the bad politicians must do good by the people. To actually be a public servant who serves the public.

Now, as for this "Obama is weak" comments.

Well, it comes from how he responds to serious foreign matters.

You see, the world (despite all those who criticise America), expects the USA to step in and stand by their values. Why? Because NO ONE else would!

When you have a President that doesn't decisively act to back his own words, its not surprising that people see him as weak.

(1) Remember how Obama NEVER visited Israel (his first term) or have never really had something nice to say about it?

Israel has concerns about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability. (Not surprising given the way Iran behaved towards Israel.)

You expect America to back Israel by keeping the relationship tight. Obama's own behaviour shows he does not...As far as Israel is concerned, its largely on its own. So I'm not surprised that one finds an occasional air-strike from IDF on some militant or the heavy development of advanced air defense systems. (Anti-artillery or anti-ballistic missile solutions).

(2) Remember Syria chemical weapons use and the "red line" comment? Obama backed out of that one in about week of saying it! He didn't draw the red line, the world did! (That's his excuse.)

Seriously, when you draw a line and someone takes a piss on it. Then, comes right up to your face and say "What line?" ...And you don't do anything but walk away, how else is anyone watching from the side lines going to look at you?

(3) Remember how Obama's own actions showed he backs the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt over the previous pro-American dictator? (Here's the problem: America is backing the wrong side! There's a reason why the Egyptian people forced the Muslim Brotherhood out of power through protest and by the Egyptian military! Believe it or not, the military backs the people of Egypt. Its Generals are Pro-Western. That's why America sells them F-16s and M-1 Abrams tanks! Everyone knows the Egyptian Military and Govt are two distinct entities.)

Just think about this...
=> Obama doesn't back its Allies.
=> Obama doesn't back his words with actions.
=> He treats everything as political matters. ie: What would damage his public image or popularity.

Look at this from Putin's perspective. He has his own ambitions. This guy is a hard-liner from the Cold War. He wants to restore Russia to its glory. He has observed Obama. Is Obama inept or resolved? What is he really going to do if I (Putin) take Ukraine?

Putin has predicted right, Obama does NOTHING when push comes to shove. In fact, he has not taken this issue on personally like a real, genuine, principled leader should. Instead, he sends Kerry to try to clean up the mess.

You see, Ukraine gave up its strategic assets (bombers and nuclear weapons stock) in return for American support and backing. Clinton and Bush continued that promise. As a result Russia never laid a finger on the Ukraine. But now? Where is America?

This has repercussions.

China is eyeing the South China Sea region. Japan is concerned if something happens, America won't back her. (Given the behaviour of Obama not backing the Ukraine.)

I seriously suspect Obama has never really dealt with a situation of being bullied in real life. Or stand by the principles that has made America what it is.

In fact, Obama doesn't seem to have any cohesive, strategic plan when it comes to anything outside of America.

Within America he is "fundamentally transforming it" through his policies. (I don't agree with any of them. They don't make much sense if one understands America and its strengths).

Heck, his own policies are causing America to sit in this economic stagnant position of mass debt/deficit.


RE: Weak ...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/13/2014 9:55:17 AM , Rating: 2
A +6 post if there ever was one.


RE: Weak ...
By Jim_Liquor on 5/13/2014 10:22:25 AM , Rating: 1
Someone +6 this boomerang flinging, knife-wielding, crocodile hunting Aussie


RE: Weak ...
By Dr of crap on 5/13/2014 10:38:24 AM , Rating: 2
"Overall, I'm not surprised American people want to start a third political party that actually listens to the people instead of special interest groups and corporate lobbyists...The belief is that if one voted for "the right person", everything will turn out fine.

First, the two parties would never allow a third to join in, just look at who CAN be in on the debates. The entranched two party system will go on so that you can point a finger at the other as the bad one, the one that should be booted out of office, the one that is to blame for everything.

Second, if you think ANY CHANGE could be made by electing a particular person, you are so lost. As such I don't vote any longer. What the point? In fighting, blaming the other party for what wrong, NEVER making change, or doing what the people want, ONLY looking out for themselves, and getting reelected, taking money from PACs! No thank you, not voting.


RE: Weak ...
By djc208 on 5/13/2014 3:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Second, if you think ANY CHANGE could be made by electing a particular person, you are so lost. As such I don't vote any longer. What the point?


To me the answer is not less voting but more. Not the right person but maybe the right people. You want change, stop electing the same guy for 30 years. If we voted out even 25% of the incumbents, it would be quite a shock, and if we had a decent turnover it wouldn't be so hard to get people into the position.

It's kind of sad that we can get a million "likes" for some facebook meme, but can't get enough people together to push for term limits with any conviction.


RE: Weak ...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/13/2014 4:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
Oh that's going to happen. Republicans are taking back the Senate next election, guaranteed.

50% of the seats in the Senate are up for grab next election. With 25% of those being in Republican districts.

The Democrats are going to be feeling the Obamacare backlash for many elections to come.

quote:
It's kind of sad that we can get a million "likes" for some facebook meme, but can't get enough people together to push for term limits with any conviction.


"The People" are largely left out of those decisions, that's most of the problem. When exactly were we given the option to vote on that?

The Republicans DID try though:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/1...


RE: Weak ...
By Just Tom on 5/15/2014 3:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
50% of the seats in the Senate are up for grab next election. With 25% of those being in Republican districts.


Your analysis would hold more weight if you knew how American elections work. It is not 50% of Senate seats up for election, it is a third (well actually 36% since there are 3 special elections). And Senators do not run in districts, they run in states.


RE: Weak ...
By Jeffk464 on 5/13/2014 8:06:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
To me the answer is not less voting but more


Or like the previous poster stated, maybe the answer is to move to Australia.


RE: Weak ...
By Jeffk464 on 5/13/2014 8:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the US is swirling the drain at this point.


RE: Weak ...
By dashrendar on 5/13/14, Rating: 0
RE: Weak ...
By NellyFromMA on 5/13/2014 1:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
As an American, I appreciate your detailed assessment.

In my opinion, what we need are free-thinkers who aren't confined to generalized stereotypes, but the party system and the electorate punish said free-thinkers / moderates.

An ideal approach (IMO) would borrow certain tolerances as observed by democrats (that is, tolerance unless you aren't a democrat), conservative views from a security and economic standpoint (without the abuse, corruption, and worn-out old world views), and the reasonable-minded libertarian approach on almost everything else.

In an imaginary America where that candidate could run and win, I have a hard time imagining ineptitude.

Unfortunately, that won't happen without the creative use of technology to supplement the corrupt strangle-hold on all assets necessary to win over the electorate in the first place.


RE: Weak ...
By justsomeone on 5/13/2014 2:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
I logged in just to support the +6 nomination.


RE: Weak ...
By WLee40 on 5/13/2014 3:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you nailed it!!!!


RE: Weak ...
By geddarkstorm on 5/13/2014 10:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
This really is a fantastic post, and detailed analysis. Thank you for your insight, and from an outside perspective.


RE: Weak ...
By jabber on 5/14/2014 10:11:50 AM , Rating: 2
So would you 'send in the troops' if you were in his position.

Think long and hard about that one. You don't play fast and loose with your own young peoples' lives.

Some have in the recent past and look where it got them.


RE: Weak ...
By tamalero on 5/19/2014 1:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
Was the Syria chemical attack even proved to be by the Syrian's state troops?
online they say a lot that the own revels (Al Quaida) actually used them and then blamed it on the State troops.

Syria as almost burned all their stocks.


RE: Weak ...
By NellyFromMA on 5/13/2014 1:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybes its the people of America's fault for not caring more about their political process to make a difference in the first place.


RE: Weak ...
By WLee40 on 5/13/2014 2:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
No, I think we should abolish parties. All it does is cause polarization and gridlock. George Washington (or was it Thomas Jefferson?) was apposed to parties, in his great wisdom and insight. Probably wouldn't make a difference though as clicks would soon form...


RE: Weak ...
By wordsworm on 5/12/14, Rating: 0
RE: Weak ...
By mik123 on 5/13/2014 1:02:06 AM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about?
Did Putin back down from invading Ukraine and grabbing a huge chunk of land recently?


RE: Weak ...
By coburn_c on 5/13/14, Rating: 0
RE: Weak ...
By tamalero on 5/19/2014 1:39:47 PM , Rating: 1
It doesn't help that President Obama as the most nutjob group of bas**ds in the congress, trying to block absolutely everything he does..
and even blasting him when he passes a plan that was born under Republican viewpoints (Obama care which is actually an undercut of Romneycare)

A president will never look strong if you have the entire opposition block campaigning all their effort in making sure the black president loses at everything and never can pass a single proposal.
Just saying...


So Obama is arming " " terrorists
By Shadowmaster625 on 5/13/14, Rating: -1
"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)














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