backtop


Print 152 comment(s) - last by ekv.. on Dec 14 at 3:40 PM


  (Source: Touchstone Pictures)
"We've asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond" - President Obama

There is no question that a U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drone went down earlier this month. Although U.S. officials confirmed that drone malfunctioned and was missing "somewhere near Afghanistan", they refrained from suggesting that the high-tech plane could be in Iranian hands.
 
However, President Obama opened the floodgates yesterday at a news conference by stating that his administration had been in direct contact with Iran regarding the drone. "We've asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond," stated President Obama.
 
Unfortunately for President Obama, there's likely no chance that Iran would be willing to give back the drone under any conditions to the U.S. government. This is a sentiment that is echoed by military analysts that feel that the U.S. is in no position to request the return the drone that went down in enemy airspace while on a spying mission for the CIA.


[Source: ABC News]
 
"Good luck with that. I think I read this really bad plot line in a cheap novel a few years ago. Life imitating art, or something like that," said Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group.
 
"I'm a little puzzled as to why he even bothered," added Dan Goure of the Lexington Institute.
 
Even former Vice President Dick Cheney jumped on the bandwagon to call into question Obama's handling of incident:
 
I was told that the president had three options on his desk. He rejected all of them.
 
They all involved sending somebody in, you know, to try to recover it or -- if you can't do that, and admittedly, that'd be a difficult operation -- you certainly could have gone in and destroyed it on the ground with an air strike.
 
But he didn't take any of the options. He asked nicely for them to return it and they aren't gonna do that.
 
For his part, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that his people have all the means to control the drone and that he considers it a gift from the U.S. according to CNN. "The North Americans at best have decided to give us this spy plane," said Ahmadinejad. "In the unpiloted planes, we have had many advances, much progress and now we have this spy plane."
 
American officials still haven't confirmed if the images shown on Iranian TV last week are those of the actual downed RQ-170 Sentinel.

Sources: CNN, Defense News, USA Today



Comments     Threshold


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

Lol Cheney
By Connoisseur on 12/13/2011 8:56:09 AM , Rating: 2
I know I shouldn't be commenting on politics on a tech site but this is funny. Assuming how that statement is true, I love how he so casually supported an open act of war. "Well of COURSE he shouldn've simply sent a unit in to recover/destroy the aircraft OR just BOMB the sucker to oblivion. That's just natural."

Our nation isn't nearly strapped enough so we need to declare war on another country ruled by crazies.




RE: Lol Cheney
By luseferous on 12/13/2011 9:12:36 AM , Rating: 1
Look at that idiot's track record. He just loves war, especially if he can make some money out of it.


RE: Lol Cheney
By nafhan on 12/13/2011 9:13:58 AM , Rating: 3
It's too late now, but I don't think bombing it immediately after it crashed would have made the situation any worse from a international politics PoV (at least, if the mission was successful: imagine if a manned jet crashed on a bombing mission into Iran...).


RE: Lol Cheney
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/13/2011 9:15:39 AM , Rating: 4
Someone call Owen Wilson and Gene Hackman! :)


RE: Lol Cheney
By nafhan on 12/13/2011 11:41:27 AM , Rating: 3
A Royal Tenenbaums reunion to celebrate a fighter jet crash would be... awkward. Nevermind, you're probably talking about Behind Enemy Lines, aren't you? :)


RE: Lol Cheney
By FITCamaro on 12/13/2011 9:25:12 AM , Rating: 2
A guided missile into the middle of the desert to destroy our spy plane wasn't going to start a war any more than flying our spy plane.


RE: Lol Cheney
By corduroygt on 12/13/2011 11:42:24 AM , Rating: 3
And how do you know it's in the middle of a desert with no one around it? How do you know there wouldn't be any people around the UAV when the bomb drops? Obviously the President had better intelligence than us, and he concluded the risks were too high.


RE: Lol Cheney
By ekv on 12/13/2011 5:01:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Obviously the President had better intelligence than us
If this President had intelligence he would not have blamed us first. Projecting weakness, let alone bowing, to foreign heads of state is not intelligent, especially when it bolsters the mere impression of ignorance on how their culture works.


RE: Lol Cheney
By garagetinkerer on 12/13/2011 3:54:26 PM , Rating: 5
Spying is common practice, and most nations are aware and it is merely frowned upon. Bombing a sovereign nation is an act of war...

US has in the last century started so many wars. I actually loved Eddie Griffin's joke about it... "Where ever we have gone, we've never left. We make our bases... Is it United States of America, or United Empire of Earth?"


RE: Lol Cheney
By KoS on 12/13/2011 4:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
What wars have we started?

WW2? Korean? Vietnam? Balkans? First Gulf War? "War on Terror"?

If I remember right, all of those with the exception of the terror one were already in motion prior to our involvment.

The first gulf war was because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. And the war on terror we didn't going into Afgan or Iraq until after the attacks on 9/11.


RE: Lol Cheney
By SlyNine on 12/13/2011 5:10:54 PM , Rating: 1
Anti Americanists practice revisionist history on a regular basis. To bad they seem to be the loud minority.


RE: Lol Cheney
By garagetinkerer on 12/13/2011 5:31:49 PM , Rating: 3
You could say all you want that Iraq attacked Kuwait and we were merely helping a poor little country defend itself. However, the reality was that Kuwait was slant-drilling Iraqi oil and selling it cheap. Iraq approached USA and asked them to get Kuwait to stop, or stay out of it. USA agreed to the latter and yet attacked Iraq. "War on terror", guess who founded and funded Taliban. Karma is a proverbial little so and so. What goes around, comes around.

Revisionist history? Well, history books have all been written by victors. Since when does a victor proclaim, "oh, by the by, we were guilty!" So you read a lot of what is written in books with a healthy dose of skepticism.


RE: Lol Cheney
By Solandri on 12/13/2011 8:09:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You could say all you want that Iraq attacked Kuwait and we were merely helping a poor little country defend itself. However, the reality was that Kuwait was slant-drilling Iraqi oil and selling it cheap.

So you think acquiring/defending oil is a legitimate reason for going to war?
quote:
Iraq approached USA and asked them to get Kuwait to stop, or stay out of it. USA agreed to the latter and yet attacked Iraq.

In diplomacy, there are limits to expectations of what the other party will do. Iraq says they'll take care of the situation with Kuwait so please don't interfere. The U.S. assumes this means diplomatically so agrees (I believe the exact words were, "we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts"). Instead Iraq launches a full-scale military invasion of Kuwait.

You're twisting a statement of neutrality under the prevailing peaceful circumstances at the time, into support for war. In the context of the discussion at the time, "conflict" clearly meant the diplomatic row between Iraq and Kuwait. Yet post-revisionsts like you are interpreting it to mean the war which hadn't even started yet at the time the statement was made.


RE: Lol Cheney
By croc on 12/13/2011 10:19:02 PM , Rating: 3
"In diplomacy, there are limits to expectations of what the other party will do. Iraq says they'll take care of the situation with Kuwait so please don't interfere. The U.S. assumes this means diplomatically so agrees (I believe the exact words were, "we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts"). Instead Iraq launches a full-scale military invasion of Kuwait.

You're twisting a statement of neutrality under the prevailing peaceful circumstances at the time, into support for war. In the context of the discussion at the time, "conflict" clearly meant the diplomatic row between Iraq and Kuwait. Yet post-revisionsts like you are interpreting it to mean the war which hadn't even started yet at the time the statement was made."

There are those that seem to think (and I am among them) that GWH Bush did not think that Saddam would play nice once the US agreed to keep its nose out of the tent. Saddam was getting to be a pain in George's backside (remember, GWHB was for many years the head of the CIA) long before this, so goading Saddam into an actionable miscalculation was... Well, pretty well planned on GWHB's part. Getting the UN to agree to let the US lead a group to take back Kuwait, then actually doing it,.that's all history now. Too bad Dubbya didn't have the nous to realize that Daddy really knew how to play the game, and, like Truman, also knew enough not to bend the rules too far.

OK, one historical re-revision done, now how about we revise Nicaragua?


RE: Lol Cheney
By ekv on 12/14/2011 3:51:52 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
so goading Saddam into an actionable miscalculation was... Well, pretty well planned on GWHB's part.
Your conspiracy theory has (at least) one fatal flaw, you admit it is a re-vision. Think about it, a Liberal ascribing savvy, let alone intelligence, to anybody in the Bush family must've misplaced their tin-foil hat, prima facie.
quote:
now how about we revise Nicaragua?
It must be frustrating to have so much historical knowledge, only to watch a buffoon waste all political capital due to repeating the mistakes of history (ala Santayana). But if you have the time, how about revising Anthony Wiener? Or maybe his wife Huma Mahmood Abedin? Of course, you'd have to get in line behind Hillary to do her. Or perhaps you can revise Holder's Fast and Furious? Regale us with Obama's grand success in Foreign Policy, " please "? [Did you see what I did there? tied it back to the article?]


RE: Lol Cheney
By TSS on 12/13/2011 9:27:55 AM , Rating: 3
Ah politics comes around here on a regular basis don't worry about it. The world simply has changed from a decade ago, politics is now alot more important (mainly because it's failing and usually, that does prelude war).

Actually i'm with cheney on this one. Remember, you're still America. You can project power anywhere in the world within 24 hours, and likely even in 12. This has been your reputation for half a century now. You even show this by spying on iranians. I mean, their halfway across the world if you left them alone what harm could they possibly do to you? yes now they will bomb you but that's after you've been meddling in their affairs for what? 40 years? America might've forgotton they supported saddam vs iran but the iranians sure haven't.

In any case, it is what it is now. To suddenly break from that trend, without warning, on a very vital piece of technology is..well very simply put, a great sign of weakness. A huge sign even. It's like you found your bully smoking behind a shed, and instead of beating you up to make sure you keep silent, he asks you on his knees to keep quiet. Like hell i would, would you?

And this goes further then the iranians. If this is visable to me, what do you think China, or Russia will think of this? China might not invade you, but with a weak president they know they can leverage their still good economic situation and get a better deal. They might now tighten their grip on rare earth metals further because it's obvious the US president is too weak to do anything about it, including waving enviromental concirns and getting mines up and running. Russia might finally decide to put it's foot down on the missle shield matter and threaten with heavyer sanctions if it's installed.

Your leader has just shown to be weak, against an enemy that's much, much weaker then yourself. That's what this is about. If you'd send an airstrike and oblitherate the building that drone is in, no war will happen. You'd have to do far worse things like openly bomb their presidential palace or government.

IMO Obama dropped the ball on this big time. Just on this alone, i would not want him as a wartime commander.


RE: Lol Cheney
By Connoisseur on 12/13/2011 10:40:15 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know. Is it EVER really as simple as sending a missile down their tailpipe? I refuse to believe that I have the whole picture but where did you get that this is a "vital piece of technology"? According to some news articles i've read, even Obama's military advisors indicated that there's nothing really vital about the tech in the UAV that Iran or other countries can use (or really don't already have). I'll look up the article again.

In that scenario, why risk doing something just to "project strength"? Between "projecting strength" across the world the past 10 years and a massive economic crisis, we're in no shape to start taking military action arbitrarily in other coutries.


RE: Lol Cheney
By Dorkyman on 12/13/2011 12:54:13 PM , Rating: 1
I have got to believe that there is some clever reason for putting this device into the hands of the Iranians. I can see people sitting around a desk, trying to figure out a new way to gather intelligence, and someone says, "Well, we could "accidentally" lose one of our drones, and while they are examining it the thing could be collecting data and sending it back. Or we could rig some kind of detonator that we could trigger at the right moment."

Obama is a fool, but the US military is smart. I just can't wrap my head around the concept that a very valuable drone was just plopped down on enemy soil intact.

Finally, I can envision a scenario where Iran GIVES the drone back. They would no doubt much rather have fool Obama for another four years than a fire-breathing republican in the White House. If Iran says, "Okay, here it is, but leave our airspace alone in the future," Obama would be considered a hero by the MSM.


RE: Lol Cheney
By nafhan on 12/13/2011 2:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
The "clever reason" may have been as simple as risk vs. reward. The possibility of losing the drone and the technology it contains may have been relatively minor compared to the value of the intelligence it was gathering. Seems more reasonable to me than a complex conspiracy theory.


RE: Lol Cheney
By Owik2008 on 12/14/2011 3:20:49 AM , Rating: 2
It won't surprise me if the Iranians give the drone back. The same thing happens all the time with pilots who defect to other nations. During the cold war a Mig-17 pilot defected to South Africa from Mozambique and we gave the plant back - by road - in pieces - after learning everything we could from it. It is mentioned on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cold_War_pilo...

While we can all question the level of technology in Iran, the western world has been very surprised by the level of technology that was produced by South Africa during the arms embargo (sanctions). You just have to remember that people are not stupid and when put into bad situations, will find a way around them.


Give it back, pleeeeeeeeeeeeease...
By Arsynic on 12/13/2011 10:04:30 AM , Rating: 1
Obama is such a liberal pussy. As one commentator said yesterday, "We're the United States of America, we don't ask for it back, we demand it!"

I thought once Obama got elected that the Mooslims were supposed to automatically like us and the Europeans would worship us again. What the fuck happened?




RE: Give it back, pleeeeeeeeeeeeease...
By Tuor on 12/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Give it back, pleeeeeeeeeeeeease...
By Arsynic on 12/13/2011 11:00:17 AM , Rating: 3
Just because it crashed in Iran doesn't mean it was intentionally flown in there. They lost communication.

You do know that Iran is next to Afghanistan, right?


By albus on 12/13/2011 11:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because it crashed in Iran doesn't mean it was intentionally flown in there. They lost communication.


Really???


RE: Give it back, pleeeeeeeeeeeeease...
By Tuor on 12/13/2011 11:51:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah. It just accidentally entered Iranian airspace and crashed there. Sure.

Hey, by the way, are you interested in buying some property? I have this bridge I've been meaning to sell... it's in Brooklyn. Let me know if you're interested.


By retrospooty on 12/13/2011 1:47:14 PM , Rating: 5
LOL, ya its like those American "hikers" that got taken by Iran after crossing the border from Iraq.

Hey guys, lets go to Iraq and go hiking. OK. Hey, lets go up in the mountains, near the Iranian border to hike. That sounds like a great place to go hiking doesnt it?


By garagetinkerer on 12/13/2011 4:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
It is never accidental. May be incidental, but never accidental. What happened here was US was caught with its skirt up/ pants down (whatever you'd like). Spying is ok, but when you're caught, you get the rap.


RE: Give it back, pleeeeeeeeeeeeease...
By Strunf on 12/13/2011 12:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
These things are away more complex than that, if they lose communication they either have a defined trajectory in their memory and follow it or they return to base.


By geddarkstorm on 12/13/2011 1:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
What bothers me is that supposed "drone" Iran is showing off (the picture in the article). If that is really our drone, and it crashed, why does it look so pristine? How do you crash a drone and still have the paint shiny enough to shave from?

The whole thing is pretty dang hilarious all things considered. At least this isn't like the manned spy plane incident that crashed over Russia way back.


By karndog on 12/14/2011 10:59:49 AM , Rating: 2
Wow. This just might be the most naive statement i've ever read on DT..and that's saying alot.


RE: Give it back, pleeeeeeeeeeeeease...
By idiot77 on 12/13/11, Rating: 0
By Nfarce on 12/13/2011 10:41:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The last Republican to start a war lied us into it.


A "lie" is knowing what you know at the time to be false. We knew what we knew at the time (and other nations), put that evidence on the table in front of the US Congress and Senate Intelligence Committee (the last time I checked which were comprised of Republicans AND Democrats), and conclusively voted for approval to go into Iraq and remove Saddam from power, which was done.

quote:
At least Obama was "concerned enough" about bin Laden to kill him and his entire organization has been on the ropes since then


Leon Panetta, the CIA, and the US military ran that operation. The latter two had been involved for 8 years on the search. All His Majesty Obama did was stay out of the way and say yes to the missions.

But hey, the way he's run this nation for the last three years, I'd be willing to give you that one out of sympathy. God knows he sure as hell won't be running on his domestic record next year.


By polishvendetta on 12/13/2011 9:23:30 AM , Rating: 2
Iran wants to be a nuclear powered country (and nuclear armed). The US and the UN have a billion and one embargos on Iran. It seems clear to me the US is perfectly capable of negotiating.

Well give you uranium fuel for power plants if you give us back the drone.

Boy that was hard to think of...




By arazok on 12/13/2011 12:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you give them anything?

Give us back our plane, or we'll bomb you into oblivion.

Or how about - we're just going to bomb you into oblivion, cause your a bunch of troublemaking douche bags. Keep the plane.


By jonboy0706 on 12/13/2011 1:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
It never ceases to amaze me at how we look at other countries as being sub-human because they're not Americans. Bomb them, kill them, collateral damage, who cares. Now if one American journalist is arrested, there is countrywide outrage.

Spend one day in a war torn country, lose someone you love because of a conflict that doesn't affect you and then say these things.

We have put financial aid on hold. Hopefully billions of dollars are more important to them than a drone they can't begin to manufacture much less understand. This is the way you handle things, by putting financial pressure on a country, not bombing them. You think he cares more about his citizens and soldiers or his money?


By derricker on 12/13/2011 2:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We have put financial aid on hold. Hopefully billions of dollars are more important to them than a drone they can't begin to manufacture much less understand.


Thought you were against looking at them like subhumans? Rest assured there are not only Iranian but plenty of Chinese and Russian scientists banging the crap out of that thing.


By shabby on 12/13/2011 1:46:11 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Give us back our plane, or we'll bomb you into oblivion.
Or how about - we're just going to bomb you into oblivion, cause your a bunch of troublemaking douche bags. Keep the plane.


You sure you're sane enough to post here?


By edge929 on 12/13/2011 3:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying to give them a crucial component for a nuclear bomb just for a semi-advanced UAV?


What are we, children?
By quiksilvr on 12/13/2011 8:52:41 AM , Rating: 5
U.S.: GIMME BACK MY PAPER AIRPLANE!
Iran: NO TAKESYS BACKSIES! *runs off*
U.S.: :O
Iran: ^_^




RE: What are we, children?
By rs1 on 12/13/2011 5:32:44 PM , Rating: 3
But it's true, there are no takesys backsies if you fly your airplane in someone else's airspace without their consent and it crashes/goes down/whatever.


RE: What are we, children?
By Solandri on 12/13/2011 8:20:32 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, technically the plane is still U.S. property and is supposed to be returned. Salvage rights for military hardware is retained by the country which lost the equipment in perpetuity - there is no statute of limitations.

In the past when this happens, the country in possession completely disassembles the plane, dissects it for every last secret they can glean, then returns it back to the owning country as crates of parts. That way you follow the letter of international law, while screwing over the country which lost possession as much as possible. That's what happened to the Soviet planes defectors flew to the West. That's what happened to the U.S. EP-3 which landed in China.


Mr. Self Destruct
By BioHazardous on 12/13/2011 9:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
'Thank you for pressing the self destruct button. This ship will self destruct in exactly 2 minutes and 45 seconds'

'You gotta help me, I don't know what to do, I can't make decisions, I'm a President.'

Seriously though, why don't they have some sort of explosives on board that can be remote detonated in case of this kind of event..




RE: Mr. Self Destruct
By ShieTar on 12/13/2011 9:55:18 AM , Rating: 2
Because it could be remotely detonated by some hacker while the drone was at its home base.


RE: Mr. Self Destruct
By jonboy0706 on 12/13/2011 10:04:25 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah that was my first question. If you're flying drones that have 24 hours worth of fuel into another hostile country, unannounced and you can't even blow it up remotely?


RE: Mr. Self Destruct
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 12/13/2011 11:10:35 AM , Rating: 1
Seems to me, if you were Iranian military... would you not think the drone as another Trojan Horse and/or capable of self destruction? At some point, someone somewhere had to be thinking: "I wouldn't fuck with that!" And when they do... SURPRISE!! POW, BANG! But we didn't..... and that's why its now considered a gift!!!


Asking for it back is pretty unorthodox
By bigkah624 on 12/13/2011 2:57:23 PM , Rating: 1
But I don't think it's the worst thing. We are so used to doing everything by force and coercion and assuming the worst that we tend to overreact first. Let's assume that the U.S. did deliberately spy on Iran and then lost the drone. The news is out now. The U.S. has options to covertly try to destroy or retrieve it or in some way make the drone useless. Instead of expending resources, no one ever thinks to do the easiest thing first even if you get laughed in your face. We will so obviously go to war on "suspicions" (e.g Iraq) while a proven violator of nuke agreements (North Korea) goes untouched. Hey, who knows, we might get surprised. Is it really so weak to simply ask first and then shoot later? It's not like we have declared war on Iraq...like we declared war on Terrorism (which is pretty laughable since that's a tactic not a friggin enemy).

I could go on and on. Sure it seems a little silly but we've already done worst with trillions of dollars spent, thousands dead, credibility destroyed and very little BENEFIT to show for it. I'm sorry but this doesn't look like the worst thing to do today.




By KoS on 12/13/2011 4:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
Iraq and NK are apples and oranges. Two different circumstances.

NK, would involve China and SK. While Iraq involves....no one else.


By Iketh on 12/13/2011 4:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
I get confused at the comparisons of Iraq with Iran/NKorea. Of the 3, Iraq is the only one that actually attempted to invade a neighboring country. Saddam brought the attention to himself. If Iran/NKorea do the same thing, you better believe they'd get the same treatment.


Pointless
By rs1 on 12/13/2011 5:12:05 PM , Rating: 3
If you're flying your drone inside of another sovereign country's airspace without their knowledge or consent and it happens to go down, then they can do whatever the hell they want with it. Technically you shouldn't have been violating their airspace in the first place.

Do people seriously think that the U.S. would return Iran's drone if the situation were reversed?




RE: Pointless
By EricMartello on 12/13/2011 9:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
True that. The US is really at the mercy of Iran for this one. Kinda funny that this is front-page news...


QA problems as another one goes down in Seychelles
By jonboy0706 on 12/13/2011 10:54:33 AM , Rating: 2
By ShieTar on 12/13/2011 11:07:32 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, maybe Obama will get an e-mail from some Iranian engineers, telling him

"We found out why your probes keep crashing. Here is what you need to change ..."


...
By Quadrillity on 12/13/2011 11:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
By chance did anyone stop to think that the plane didn't "crash land" by accident? Maybe they did it on purpose so that the Iranians would reveal their research facilities?




By smitty3268 on 12/13/2011 11:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's just something he can point out later to make the Iranians look bad, when he's asking Europe to support sanctions or some other action against Iran.

Cheney needs to start thinking more than 1 step ahead of the game, or he'll get left behind. :)




North America is Not a Country
By Tuor on 12/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: North America is Not a Country
By ShieTar on 12/13/2011 10:12:21 AM , Rating: 2
He probably knew that, and thus did not say it was. What is your point?


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Tuor on 12/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: North America is Not a Country
By albus on 12/13/2011 10:21:20 AM , Rating: 1
He was correct. Don't we refer to Chinese as Asians?


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Tuor on 12/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: North America is Not a Country
By ShieTar on 12/13/2011 10:37:24 AM , Rating: 3
Wow. Do you give the same speech to a person that tells you he owns a european car?


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Tuor on 12/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: North America is Not a Country
By Strunf on 12/13/2011 12:31:54 PM , Rating: 3
"It's like we're supposed to identify ourselves by what continent we're part of instead of what nation we are a citizen of."
So you are completely fine with calling yourself American when America isn't a country? what about Canadians? aren't they Americans too since after all they live in the Americas???

Europeans are no different than Americans, Americans hijacked the name of the landmass called America and the Europeans did the same with Europe.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By MrBlastman on 12/13/2011 12:59:49 PM , Rating: 3
Semantics aside, I think it is a joke that our President asked for the drone back. If I were Ahmadinejad, I'd have rolled over laughing, kicking and screaming over that. Our leader has just made a farce out of his (and our) position in the world.

The only brilliance in this whole situation is the Iranians placing the drone in a high school. They have successfully prevented all attempts we might make to bomb/destroy the drone--because if we do, the Iranians can come out and say on an International level--"Oh look, the Americans have attacked our innocent school children!"

Pure brilliance. That's also about the only complement I think I have for the scumbag Iranians. Ain't the Cold War great? :)


RE: North America is Not a Country
By JonnyDough on 12/13/2011 3:11:10 PM , Rating: 3
The president did so to seem like it was accidental and to be diplomatic. The Iranian people need to hear about that. Of course, it won't matter because the Iranian government is feeding their people propagandist lies. That is why the plane is in a high school.

"See what our enemies abroad are doing? We should wage war."

That's about the jist of it. They feed their people lies about us, like how we drink blood and worship Satan, etc. Not everyone in the world has liberation and freedom of information. They live in a very dark world.


By MrBlastman on 12/13/2011 3:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt it is in a high school to just show the people--the reason as I see it is to keep us from bombing it--that is all. It has nothing to do with propaganda. It is brilliant military strategy at work. The Iranian government needs the cash and has to keep their trophy intact until they can sell it to the highest bidder.

As far as lies--yeah, they feed them tons of those. It is a sick country where its citizens are forced to live in fear and can not even have a single free thought because, if they do and it is not approved, they can be shot or executed.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Tuor on 12/13/2011 1:06:31 PM , Rating: 1
Canadians are Americans, too?

Really? Try telling a Canadian that he's an American and let me know how that goes for you. I have lots of Canadian relatives, and spent a lot of time in Canada when I was growing up. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't like that much.

"American" is the name of my nationality. It has been for over 200 years. "American" means: Citizen of the United States of America. It doesn't mean Citizen of Canada or Citizen of Mexico. I might reside on the North American continent, but North America is not a political entity (it's not a nation-state), so it is impossible to be a citizen of North America.

You might as well call someone from Brazil an Amercian; after all, Brazil is in South AMERICA. But someone from Brazil is called a Brazilian, not an American.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By BillyBatson on 12/13/2011 4:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
How do you explain South America then?
Wasn't this whole area called the "America's" at some point? Mexico and so forth is considered south America and the US, and yes, Canada, would be the North America's. Canadian's may not be American but they are in North America.
How is it any different from the terms Europe and Europian's?
He was clearly referring to the region and purposely didn't want to single out the US specifically in his speech.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By ClownPuncher on 12/13/2011 4:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
Mexico is not in South America.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By BillyBatson on 12/13/2011 4:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever is considered south America lol, I wouldn't know I would never visit any of those countries


By ClownPuncher on 12/14/2011 1:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
Mexico is in North America, a country like Panama would be Central America, and Brazil is in South America.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By KoS on 12/13/2011 3:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
Dipping toe into the waters...

United States of AMERICA . America is name of the country made up of individual states. We are the only country with America in the name, in North America or even South. Hence people in the USA called Americans!


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Gondor on 12/13/2011 4:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
FYRO Macedonia is the only country with former in its name yet its people are not called 'Formers :-)


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Morvannec on 12/13/2011 4:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think that says what you think it says. The USA as a country is a set of "United States" in the "Americas". A lot like the UK is a set of "United Kingdoms" in "Europe".

It's just that only Americans from the USA call themselves American, so that's what everyone thinks of when they hear "American". You've taken the name and made it your own (and that's perfectly fine), but technically everyone in the Americas is an American just like everyone in Europe is a Europian or Asia an Asian.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Reclaimer77 on 12/13/2011 4:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
You're an idiot. A Canadian is NOT an "American", for example. And they would call you an idiot as well. Everyone on this Continent is a North American. The one under us is, you guessed it, SOUTH AMERICA. Only people from the United States of America are Americans.

There is no such place as "The Americas". That's a slang term for both North and South American continents, not a real place. Maybe you should look at a goddamn world atlas sometime and get a clue.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By SlyNine on 12/13/2011 5:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
He's technically right, and so are you. This is the difference between connotation vs. denotation. But thats what you get for arguing semantics.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Reclaimer77 on 12/13/2011 6:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
Except North and South America are completely different continents. So technically, he's wrong.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Strunf on 12/14/2011 4:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
It depends how you define a continent... if for you a continent is a landmass surrounded by water then there isn't North and South America but just America, the fact is that the 4 to 7 continents that exist (depends on who you talk to) were defined more or less arbitrarily. If you split the world based on the tectonic plates then you have like a dozen continents!


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Cypherdude1 on 12/13/2011 12:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
This is a ridiculous conversation, not even worth posting here. Let's try to return to the subject, the President asking for the drone's return and Iran rejecting it.

Hardliners, such as ex-Vice-President (thankfully) Cheney are implying that President Obama should have gone in with B-2's and bombed the drone which is idiotic. While GPS-guided bombs are accurate, they aren't accurate enough to prevent killing persons around the drone. Furthermore, the B-2 operators cannot pinpoint the exact location of the drone to destroy it since it's likely inside a building. What I don't understand is why we are even hearing from Cheney since he and most people in the Bush43 Administration IMHO misled us into Iraq under false pretenses. IMHO, why doesn't he and, for that matter, John Bolton shut the hell up already. I am sick of hearing their IMHO crap.
http://tinyurl.com/jrbolton

We hear Republican Presidential candidates such as Newt Gingrich talking about starting a war with Iran, pandering to the Republican Religious Right base. Iran is twice as large as Iraq. Even without a war going in Afghanistan, we still would not have enough troops to occupy Iran. Moreover, the USA is broke. We simply do not have the money to be fighting another major war.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Tuor on 12/13/2011 1:09:43 PM , Rating: 1
Honestly, Cypherdude1, there was previously several more threads on this subject. I don't know what happened to them. I suspect that someone intended to delete this thread and leave the rest intact, but instead ended up doing the opposite.

And yes, Dick Cheney is pretty crazed. The only good thing I can think about as far as he is concerned is that he isn't Vice-President anymore.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By SlyNine on 12/13/2011 5:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't in a building when it first crashed... I think most people that were for destroying it are talking about when it first hit the ground. Not after it was taken to a population center.

Its the occupation (taking care of the Iraqis, Iran would never consider if it managed to take over Iraq) that's costing us money, going in and kicking the crap out of Iran and leaving would be easy (I believe).


RE: North America is Not a Country
By albus on 12/13/2011 10:43:31 AM , Rating: 2
Well... There is no race called Asian. What's more, you don't even know that technically you are North American coz America is in North America.

Ahmadinejad was not referring to the nationality of the plane. He was merely pointing out its point of origin.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By borismkv on 12/13/2011 10:52:11 AM , Rating: 1
Why are you defending the obvious stupidity of a Middle Eastern Dictator?


RE: North America is Not a Country
By albus on 12/13/2011 10:54:12 AM , Rating: 2
I am not defending anyone. I am merely pointing out the habit of finding faults where there aren't any. If more people understand these things, the world would be a happier place.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Tuor on 12/13/2011 10:57:40 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, Asian is a race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_people

I'm not North American when it comes to nationality. There is no nation called "North America". I am an American, and it was (the United States of) America that sent the drone. The drone was American and the people that sent it were Americans.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By albus on 12/13/2011 11:01:53 AM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_...

Asian is not a race. And neither is North American. Both are words used to describe someone/something originating from the respective continents.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Tuor on 12/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: North America is Not a Country
By albus on 12/13/2011 11:18:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Canada, the US, and Mexico do have military forces, and it was one of these military forces that sent the drone.


That is precisely what I intended to say. Thank you for wording it so well.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By albus on 12/13/2011 11:24:49 AM , Rating: 2
The word you are looking for is Mongoloid. Commonly known as the yellow skinned. Just like Caucasians & Africans are called whites & blacks, respectively.


By JonnyDough on 12/13/2011 3:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
Actually you can be a person of "Asian descent". Who cares about race anyway? What the dictator meant was "the western way of thinking", which is basically any line of thought outside of his own. Funny how ethnocentrism works both ways...


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Invane on 12/13/2011 12:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
This is perhaps one of the most ridiculous arguments I've seen on DT. Where do you think these words 'Asian', 'European', or 'African' originated from? They describe a group of people from a distinct geographic location. They typically also share distinct genetic traits and are typically of a particular race, but this is by no means a requirement unless using those words in a very pedantic and specific connotation. This is why we have such groups as 'Texans'...unless you also believe people from Texas are their own race as well.

Using a place of geographic origin to describe a group of people is a perfectly valid and, historically, a well used method of identifying a particular group.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Tuor on 12/13/2011 1:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
Invane,

That's because this argument has spiralled well beyond where it started. It started with Ahmadinejad saying, "The North Americans at best have decided to give us this spy plane." However, it wasn't a North American drone because North America doesn't have a military. It was an AMERICAN drone, which means it was sent by AMERICANS. Not Canadians. Not Mexicans. Americans.

If he had said, "The people of the Western Hemisphere at best have decided to give us this spy plane." Would that have made sense? Maybe, "The New Worlders"? People of the Americas?

Using a geographic origin to describe a group of people is only valid when the whole region is involved with what is being discussed. Ahmadinejad is describing who owned the spy plane and was responsible for sending it to Iran, and that was done by a specific country, not the people of a geographical region, but of a policial entity.

I wonder if Canadians like being implicated in being involved in sending a spy plane to Iran. Probably not.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Invane on 12/13/2011 6:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
I agree it is not a North American drone. The argument of geographic location vs. race was splitting hairs at best. In any case, I understand where you're coming from on this point.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By bigkah624 on 12/13/2011 2:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
Tuor,

I understand your argument but I don't think you should stick to it because it is a little picky. You are American. And you are also North American because America is IN North America in the same way that a Lybian is also African and a Chinese is also Asian. Africa is not a nationality neither is Asia but that does not negate the fact that their nations are indeed on those continents. So please just accept it and quit arguing because you're only half right. You are wrong about not being North American because you ARE North American.

:)


RE: North America is Not a Country
By kingmotley on 12/13/2011 2:33:53 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't claim North America is a country. You seems to be rather particular on always identifying people by nationality. The "people" that sent that you are arguing shouldn't be identified as North Americans because there is a more specific grouping that he could have used. Why stop at Americans? I didn't send it. Perhaps he should have said Washington DC-ians. Or better Pentagonians. Why not just say Dick Cheney sent it as a present?

People are parts of many groups. He can choose whatever group he wants to, and it would be correct, and as long as not 100% of the people in that group are responsible for it, you are going to be upset.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By Tuor on 12/13/2011 4:04:24 PM , Rating: 2
Why stop at Americans? Because America actually has a military, and it is the American military that sent the plane. North America doesn't have a military. North America is not a country, it is a place. If you call me a North American, you are describing (very broadly) where I live. If you call me an American, you are describing not just where I live, but what country I am a citizen of, which involves things like the kind of government and what sort of society I am in.

Since the US military represents all Americans, and it sent the drone, then I don't have a problem with being included by calling it an American drone: my tax dollars, at the very least, helped make that possible. Mexican tax dollars had nothing to do with it at all.

But you're right. I'm being pretty nationalistic here. I have never been a fan of globalism (or internationalism, if you want to call it that). It's only been in the past 10ish years or so that I've seen this growing tendency to refer to "North Americans". It's a trend I *do not like*. Then you get people talking about how Canadians are Americans, too, and Mexicans are Americans, too. And how "United Statians" somehow stole the term "Americans" and we should now give it back. It makes me wonder if this sort of idea is being taught in schools, kind of like how now Christopher Columbus is an evil, horrible guy and we should be ashamed that we ever celebrated Columbus Day in school.

And then you have the globalists that would like to dissolve these parochial concepts like national loyalty (and sovereignty) and turn everything into political and economic blocks... like Europe is in the process of doing (or trying to do) with the EU. Some people view NAFTA as a step in that direction as well. The idea that the political boundries between ourselves, Canada, and Mexico will gradually fall away until we incorporate into one big bloc on par with Europe and, perhaps, Asia... all along the route to having a single World Government that we all embrace with loving hearts, maybe with John Lennon's "Imagine" song as a the anthem.

Anyway, I've rambled on long enough. And I also found out that the AP translation of Ahmadinejad's words uses the term "American", not "North American", so possibly there was a translation issue somewhere.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By publicspace on 12/13/2011 8:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
You're all misinformed. Depending on where you're born will determine what you consider to be a continent. Those born in what we consider to be Central America are taught in school that there is only one continent called the americas and not north or South America. This occurs in many other countries. Despite what geography taught you there are not 7 continents, there are probably 20+ continental plates. That being said we arbitrarily divided them up based on land masses, isthmus' and mountain ranges.

Second of all this was obviously a translation issue. (not that the Canadians and Mexicans aren't necessarily US allies against Iran) The guy barely ever speaks english.

Thirdly, while I encourage debate and awarene of political issues, this forum is for technology, not geopolitical national tensions or intercultural interpretations. There are so many neo-liberal doctrine people on this forum I'm surpried you aren't following your own mantra of specialization creating efficiency--- speaking on something you have no academic knowledge on, on what is supposed to be a forum for the development of technological knowledge, is counter to most of your own beliefs. Just sayin' Act the part or admit that economic models ignore too many externalities (such as this conversation) to apply in the real world. Then continue your conversation.

Cheers.


RE: North America is Not a Country
By idiot77 on 12/13/2011 8:34:59 PM , Rating: 1
What? People in foreign countries speaks English!?

This is America, and we speak American! If you want to talk to us speak our language, even if we want something from you!

or alternatively we can start calling ourselves Amerixinooks and prove him right.


What a pansy for a President....
By Pneumothorax on 12/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: What a pansy for a President....
By jonboy0706 on 12/13/2011 9:08:46 AM , Rating: 5
So if Iran/Germany/China flew a drone into our airspace, it crashed, then they started bombing the crash site, you'd be ok with this?

You drop bombs inside their border you're going to kill someone and you're going to start a war. Haven't we been begging for the end of these wars for years? Now you want to start another one with a potential nuclear foe?


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By FITCamaro on 12/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: What a pansy for a President....
By jonboy0706 on 12/13/2011 9:24:58 AM , Rating: 5
The point is what did they do exactly (in this instance) to provoke bombings and is bombing a drone worth another war that could cost us 1,000s of American lives?

Just because we're bigger and stronger doesn't mean we should run around picking fights. WE are at fault in this instance, not Iran.

/Is this analogy so hard to comprehend. Replace Iran with Mexico or Canada.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By FITCamaro on 12/13/11, Rating: 0
By Dr of crap on 12/13/2011 10:04:30 AM , Rating: 3
While true,
You know that those people over there don't think right.

They'll put some crazy spin on it and then it'll be 9/11 all over again. Not to mention the other countries that won't like us bombing Iran, and getting involved somehow.

It's best to not launch bombs into Iran for the sake of taking out this plane. Better to send in some covert OP to find and destroy it without loss of any Iranians.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By garagetinkerer on 12/13/2011 4:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
It is nice to see someone with common sense. I've learned one thing speaking to people(including some Vietnam, and Korean war veterans) here in USA. Not many want any wars and most want all existing ones to end. However administration backed by corporate greed is just thrusting the country and its citizens in one war after another for over 60 years now.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By ekv on 12/14/2011 4:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However administration backed by corporate greed is just thrusting the country and its citizens in one war after another for over 60 years now.
Only a child would think there are no enemies out there. So looking back 70 years [Pearl Harbor Attack, Dec. 7, 1941] ... FDR, LBJ, WJC ... and now BHO, have "thrust" us, your words, into undesirable wars. Are you insinuating BHO is bought and paid for?


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By ShieTar on 12/13/2011 9:51:45 AM , Rating: 2
And it's not like there are any americans anywhere closer to Iran, right? Like in the neighboring states of Iraq and Afghanistan?


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By BruceLeet on 12/13/2011 9:59:23 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see your evidence supporting their inability to do such a thing.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By SlyNine on 12/13/2011 3:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the burden of proof lies with you. How could anyone ever prove that Iran isn't capable even if it were not.

That's like proving there isn't a god, you cannot.

I love how people like you take US action like invading Iraq as proof of how bad the USA is when in fact its that "invasion" that proves the US is the good guys. The amount of effort to protect human life on our end was not displayed by their government, and in fact they showed they didn't give a crap about there people.

Was the reason for going to war questionable, yea the reason they gave, but there were plenty of other GOOD reasons too. Don't forget they kicked out our inspectors and that's what started this whole thing in the first place as if committing genocide on their own people wasn't enough of a reason to make a change to that regime. And what did the big bad guy the USA do after they assumed power, gave it too the people. Ya the USA really evil.

People want to bandwagon on this stuff so much that they are willing to portray a country like Iran as the good guys, I mean, WTF is wrong with you people, I would have bombed the drone and not cared if Iran had a problem with it, If the tables were turned Iran would not hesitate to be the aggressors.

I realize most of this has nothing to do with your post, but we both know this is where the debate was going anyways.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By albus on 12/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: What a pansy for a President....
By KoS on 12/13/2011 4:20:32 PM , Rating: 1
Unprovoked aggression??? Really? That is laughable.

Lets see....attacked a country, Kuwait. Doesn't hold to the terms of the cease fire on many fronts. Fires upon planes enforcing the no fly zone. Has terrorist training camp(s), Salim Pak. Assassination plot of the first Bush. The list goes on.

Yes there was WMDs in Iraq. It's still matter of debate how many and where they are or went to. Went to Syria? Buried somewhere in country? Etc...

Was all about oil? Again, really....the last I saw, the vast majority of oil contracts Iraq signed with foreign companies were non-American.

And don't forget Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people. I guess that is ok, since it wasn't the US doing it!


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By SlyNine on 12/13/2011 5:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
He likes to ignore the fact the USA didn't really benefit at all from the oil. We had no plans to actually seize anything other then their regime.

Not only that but we let the Iraqi people vote for their leader. If he wants to say we installed a puppet government then he should at least have a SHRED of solid evidence to back it up. Of course I'm sure they think the burden of proof lies with us to prove they didn't. Kinda like proving god isn't real.

Just like how this whole thing got started, He thinks the burden of proof lies with the people not making the claims. He's no better then the moon hoax believers.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By SlyNine on 12/13/2011 5:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't vote for nor did I want Bush to become Pres. But at least I can see all sides of the coin. I've been blasted on this site for being too liberal as well.

But you my friend in vision events only in ways that help your views and your arguments. Just like most Anti USA people I hear spouting their lips these days.

Let me give you an example of your blind anti Americanism
quote:
Do you think that the American press will tell you the truth?


Here's a perfect example of circler logic, your supporting sentences only work if the first sentence is true and are in no way validated by the supporting sentences
quote:
The USA installed its stooges. Do you think the war in Iraq was for democracy and freedom? It was about oil.


In fact not one of your sentences is filled with cogent thinking or good logic.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By danobrega on 12/13/2011 12:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
Your argument is, they don't have nukes, lets bomb the shit out of them?

Smart of them to try to get nuclear then.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/13/2011 12:20:54 PM , Rating: 1
I think he was talking about surgically destroying the drone. Come on, we're not talking about carpet bombing Iran over this thing lol.

I'm actually really surprised these things don't have some type of self destruct mechanism.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By SlyNine on 12/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: What a pansy for a President....
By ebakke on 12/13/2011 10:43:46 AM , Rating: 2
If you don't think the war's already started, you're living in fantasy land.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By masamasa on 12/13/2011 11:07:01 AM , Rating: 1
If they flew it over Iran then they have no case to request it back.

If the article is correct and it landed "somewhere near Afghanistan" and not in Iranian airspace, then yes it should be returned. Of course, they wouldn't return it anyway since they're a bunch of knuckleheads.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By Etsp on 12/13/2011 12:00:32 PM , Rating: 4
You know what's "somewhere near Afghanistan" ? Iran.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By Nyu on 12/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: What a pansy for a President....
By Flunk on 12/13/2011 9:13:15 AM , Rating: 1
So, you're interested in starting world war 3 then? I nominate you and all your family members for front-line duty. I'm sure you and yours would be willing to give your lives for what you believe in.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By FITCamaro on 12/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: What a pansy for a President....
By jonboy0706 on 12/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: What a pansy for a President....
By FITCamaro on 12/13/2011 9:29:05 AM , Rating: 3
Osama wasn't in Iran you dumb ass. He was in Pakistan.


By jonboy0706 on 12/13/2011 9:34:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah my bad but your point is equally stupid and more thought out.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By Nyu on 12/13/2011 11:35:01 AM , Rating: 1
No need for front-lines, have all the foreign citizens get the hell out of there then bomb it all down out of the map once and for all.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By ShieTar on 12/14/2011 4:44:05 AM , Rating: 1
Way to expensive. Just let them get their nuclear bomb.

Remember how everybody hated North Korea before they had a bomb, and just one test explosion later they mostly just get ignored?

Just give one A-Bomb to every country, and there will obviously be peace everlasting.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By FITCamaro on 12/13/2011 9:14:37 AM , Rating: 1
Exactly. This used to be standard procedure. You don't let the damn enemy get their hands on our tech if you can in any way prevent it. You bomb the hell out of the area with a guided missile or you send a team to blow it up.

This is pathetic.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By juserbogus on 12/13/2011 9:21:09 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, cause that's exactly what we've done each time before... /sarcasm


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By FITCamaro on 12/13/2011 9:23:55 AM , Rating: 2
There's been very few "before"s. But yes in the past when a fighter jet has crashed or something else like this, we've destroyed it if we couldn't retrieve it.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By bigdawg1988 on 12/13/2011 9:58:05 AM , Rating: 1
... you mean like that spy plane that landed in China a few years back? I don't remember us destroying that one. And didn't they give it back eventually? After they took all the good stuff, of course. And we apologized for that incident.

Funny how Cheney seems to have forgotten that.... Why doesn't he make like Bush and live out the rest of his life quietly? The more I hear from Cheney the sorrier I feel for Bush.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By ekv on 12/13/2011 4:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't remember us destroying that one.
Actually it was destroyed ... after we got it back. Protocol in such a situation is to destroy sensitive information / equipment. I wasn't in the debriefing so I can't tell you if protocol was accomplished. And yes the Chinese did steal as much as they could.

If the Chinese are our friends then why didn't they let us land? Why did they steal our equipment? Etc. Answer: They are not our friends.
quote:
Why doesn't he make like Bush and live out the rest of his life quietly?
Why doesn't Clinton do that? Or Carter? Seems to me Obama is doing it already, lol 8) "Can I have my toy back, wahhh."


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By juserbogus on 12/13/2011 10:14:52 AM , Rating: 1
you seem to be not be really knowledgeable about these things.

how about the U2 that was downed over the USSR?


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By mcnabney on 12/13/2011 11:28:31 AM , Rating: 1
That is exactly what I thought too.

We didn't go bombing the U2 crash site because we damn well knew that bombing another country is an act of war.

In fact, the U2 spyplane could have been called an act of war and the Soviets could have retaliated for it instead of just making political hay over it.

Frankly, I am amazed that we would use some of our top technology over a declared enemy nation. If the remote vehicle is shot down or crashes, not only is it a major diplomatic incident, but they get to keep the tech. A stupid move by the military in this situation to even risk that asset.

Just what kind of info could a drone get that spy satelites aren't already seeing? It isn't an armed drone that can take action, it is just a spy plane.


By Chernobyl68 on 12/13/2011 12:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
There's no point in building a drone with stealth if you don't use it where the stealth comes in handy. That being said, the cost/benefits of losing a drone like that ought to have been weighed.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By Dr of crap on 12/13/2011 12:26:54 PM , Rating: 1
So we develope this tech, that should be used for drone planes, but then NOT use them to fly over other coutries "in case" the crash. Boy that sounds like a plan!

Where SHOULD we use the tech?


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By mcnabney on 12/13/2011 5:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
This could be used in Pakistan where we ARE waging a limited war. Stealth would keep the Pakis from warning/retaliating, much in the same way that our stealth helicopters and fighters were used to get Osama.

Iran is a completely different sitution. We are worried about nuclear facilities which can be tracked by satelite. We don't need up to the minute recon to provide tactical intelligence, because we aren't going to send the Marines in even if the drone spots a parade with Iran's first nuke sitting on the biggest float. Using this drone over Iran is stupid.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By ekv on 12/13/2011 7:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This could be used in Pakistan where we ARE waging a limited war.
Interesting that Obama treats our enemies all nice and buddy/buddy, bows down before them, says "please" [devalue the yuan, return our plane], but then treats our friends and allies as well as he treats Republicans.

War on Pakistan?! Obama's war is Afghanistan ... and he's going to lose it along with all the investment (money but especially lives). Pakistan is ostensibly an ally, no?

Iran is certainly not a friend or ally. It is the place where you want intelligence gathering capability. You do not want to take any option off the table where they are concerned. [I won't even mention Obama's lack of support for the democracy movement there]. Drones take the place of boots-on-the-ground. Losing a drone is stupid, but it's better than losing a life. If you're arguing that nothing should be over Iran because they are a hostile nation, then why do you advocate satellites over them?


By juserbogus on 12/13/2011 10:22:28 AM , Rating: 1
I also want to point out that this craft IS NOT among our most advanced... they will get little from it. which of course is one of the reasons Obama choose the path he did. Arm chair quarterbacking without full knowledge of the situation is folly.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By wiz220 on 12/13/2011 10:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
Did the Russians give us back the U-2 spy plane they shot down in 1960? Did we bomb that one?


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By jimbojimbo on 12/13/2011 10:35:16 AM , Rating: 2
One night during a tour in Iraq I was in the COC and a recon team's humvee got disabled by an IED and they were taking fire. Other vehicles picked up the units and then they called in an air strike from an overhead AC130 to destroy that humvee. Yes, the military does destroy tech rather than let enemies obtain them it'd be stupid not to. Like now.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By albus on 12/13/2011 10:39:02 AM , Rating: 2
Not always... The F-117 was not fully destroyed. Rumors abound that the Chinese got their hands on it.
The grounding of a plane on Hainan island was another scenario where the plane was not bombed.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By Salisme on 12/13/2011 10:58:16 AM , Rating: 1
Times have changed.

Since America does little to no manufacturing anymore, there is a good chance this drone was built in China anyway, so I'm sure China is fully aware of its capabilities. Bombing the site to keep it out of their hands is moot.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By KoS on 12/13/2011 12:54:49 PM , Rating: 1
We didn't bomb the aircraft, but we did bomb the Chinese Embassy. Which we said was a accident...hahah, right!


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By wiz220 on 12/13/2011 10:44:41 AM , Rating: 3
Yes but that was in Iraq, an area that we were already engaged in. Not a neighboring country that would just love to have the propaganda tool of bombs being dropped on their territory from the "Great Satan". I don't think that this is comparable.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By Tuor on 12/13/2011 10:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
I love the smell of jingoism in the morning!

It smells like... victory.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By jvillaro on 12/13/2011 10:29:33 AM , Rating: 2
The attitude that you're wisjing for is exactly why the US is hated in so many ways in so many countries specially over there.
First of all, you shouldn't be over there. You shouldn't have your noses all over the place. The US is freaking spying and you loose a plan and you think you have the right to reclaim it as nothing ever happened? Like you have a God given right to do what ever you want?
Sorry, I'm weary of what goes around all over the world as much of the next guy, but this is just stupid.
The last time the US put it's noose where nobody invited them was in Irak because of the "WMD"... Where were they again?
Pure arrogance. Sorry but it's true.
Take it like a man, you fucked up? pay the consequences...


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By darkhawk1980 on 12/13/2011 12:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
While I won't disagree that we should really start to not care about the rest of the world and fix the many problems we have 'in the motherland', it becomes difficult simply because we know that even if we did that, it wouldn't mean terrorists would just give up and go home. If we pulled out of Iraq (spelled correctly....something you seem to be unable to do throughout your post, and it matters simply because it shows how educated you are, or are not) and all the other many various middle eastern countries we currently occupy or provide protection, it wouldn't change the terrorist's decision to still attack the US.

What makes you think we're the ONLY ones spying? You think the Chinese aren't doing the same over the internet? You think Russia isn't doing something similar? Personally, I'm with Fitcamaro, but in a different way. Keep a small explosive in the plane so we can blow it up, whenever we want. That way, if it malfunctions, we can still make sure as little as possible is usable to whoever catches/gets it.

Lastly, Obama still needs to go. And all his banker friends with him. This country isn't getting any better, and won't, until he's gone and we have a president with a pair of steel balls instead of 2 fuzzy dice.


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By jvillaro on 12/13/2011 9:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we pulled out of Iraq (spelled correctly....something you seem to be unable to do throughout your post, and it matters simply because it shows how educated you are, or are not)


If you would like to compare educations we could do so, I can't guarantee yours would be better than mine.
English is not my first language so Iraq for you, is Irak in Spanish for me. Unfortunately we don't have an edit button here. And although you say I was unable to spell it correctly "THROUGHOUT" my post, I actually only used it ONE time.
Here is another word I got wrong: "wisjing" I was trying to spell "wishing". God forgive that because of that you'd think I didn't even have opposable thumbs.

quote:
If we pulled out of Iraq and all the other many various middle eastern countries we currently occupy or provide protection, it wouldn't change the terrorist's decision to still attack the US.


Really? Do you really believe your there providing protection? Now I'm the one who's going to say, that no matter how good your grammar is, you're either naive or dumb. You're protecting alright... your own interests, not the people or any other excuse your going to come up with.
Spying? Of coarse any country with the capacity to do so is spying. And are going to keep doing so.
EVEN IF you don't pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan or what ever... that won't stop terrorist wanting to attack you either. The threat is always going to be there

I was just saying that it's stupid to either whine about the lost spy plane like it was a ball you kicked over the neighbors fence or starting a war over it.
When the US goes to war it suffers loses of their soldiers (their families suffer) but the other country(ies) loses soldiers, civilians, infrastructures, etc. To many innocent suffer. If the tables were turned some wouldn't be so eager to go to war.

On a more personal note... I would actually like to see somebody kick the sh!t out of Ahmadinejad...


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By ekv on 12/14/2011 4:12:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you really believe your there providing protection?
Of course. Sure we are protecting our own interests, but that protection carries over. Like a police force anywhere, they protect their own first and foremost. That citizens behave can be attributed to police presence. You know this. But you want to say corporate greed lured US there and is keeping us there. That argument is so failed, dumb and lazy.
quote:
EVEN IF you don't pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan or what ever... that won't stop terrorist wanting to attack you either. The threat is always going to be there.
EVEN if you try to appease terrorists the threat will always be there. But appeasement will embolden those terrorists. A bloody nose, not so much.

I've heard that Iran may have a nuclear bomb in about 8 months. You don't think that'll influence the US presidential election do you? Of course, a spaniard wouldn't know anything about bombs influencing elections, would he?


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By kozedub on 12/14/2011 11:51:33 AM , Rating: 2
Well... Obama does make himself look weak. I guess he's trying to justify his peace Nobel prize he gotten who knows what for in the beginning of his wonderful presidency. It’s just funny that people in the oval office of the most powerful country in the world don’t realize that being a peacemaker and being strong doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive… Whatever- they should have done what’s best for the country, and that’s not begging the head of the dictatorial state for a piece of hardware developed for and by the people of US… I could only see him pronouncing that speech while the group of spec. ops. guys already had infiltrated the facility where the drone being kept. The embarrassments happen to everyone, even the smartest- but the wise ones choose the best course of action and not to wait for days even to acknowledge the actual happenstance… But if he (Obama) wanted to be a peacemaker- don’t sent the freaking drone to begin with… if you’ve done that- then play the ball…( and return the money for a Nobel prize? ) not dance around and say that we are so nice. But I guess I am just trying to look for reason and consistency where the political decisions are made, and not even sound ones… anyway – I am amazed that the self distraction did not work- I guess someone forgot to change a battery in the unit ( that’s when little mistakes make big news ? ) …


RE: What a pansy for a President....
By ekv on 12/14/2011 3:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'm trying to think of something to disagree with you about regarding BHO ... and having a hard time.
quote:
peacemaker and being strong doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive
Hence the term 'peace through strength'. I don't know too many people who want to go to war. I can't remember a conservative that likes conflict [though they do not bow down to it if that's what comes their way].
quote:
But if he (Obama) wanted to be a peacemaker- don’t sent the freaking drone to begin with
I'm sure that's how BHO thinks, but the reality is not necessarily limited to just that choice. If you threaten me, ought I not keep closer watch on you? I'll tell you that up front. There is no surprise in this. The US is peaceful and are trying to preserve peace, whereas Iran's intentions have led to UN sanctions. Iran says "peace, peace" but there is no peace.


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














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