Pentagon: Iran fires on U.S. drone

[Chiefspants]

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...one/?hpt=hp_t3

[dmahurin]

I did two deployments in that area in the navy. I would bet that we had ships in the area, the Iranian's sent out a radio challenge (happens 99% of the time a US ship passes the through the straights of Hormuz or gets to close to Iranian ships), we sent up a drone to "conduct routine maritime surveillance" (circling the Iranian ships) and then Iran decided to push it this time with the election coming up.

[stonedstooge]

Originally Posted by dmahurin

I did two deployments in that area in the navy. I would bet that we had ships in the area, the Iranian's sent out a radio challenge (happens 99% of the time a US ship passes the through the straights of Hormuz or gets to close to Iranian ships), we sent up a drone to "conduct routine maritime surveillance" (circling the Iranian ships) and then Iran decided to push it this time with the election coming up.

And it wasn't reported until now so that we don't give the Iranian's what they want?

[dmahurin]

Originally Posted by stonedstooge

And it wasn't reported until now so that we don't give the Iranian's what they want?

Most likely, waiting a week on stuff like this is pretty standard practice, in 2006 we got into a gun fight with pirates off the coast of Somalia, the ship goes radio silence for unclassified communications so you can't email or call home about it until its investigated.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by Donger

The drone was in international airspace.

Yeah only miles away from the Iranian coast. Im sure we would be just fine with Iranian drones flying near the Statute of Liberty

[dmahurin]

Originally Posted by BWillie007

Yeah only miles away from the Iranian coast. Im sure we would be just fine with Iranian drones flying near the Statute of Liberty

The article said it was 16 miles off the coast, 12 miles out is the territorial water line. The chances we entered Iranian airspace is small but to accidentally enter it is possible. The fact that it was so close to the territorial water line makes me think my guess about how it happened is even closer to spot on. The Iranians never ventured far from that line.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BWillie007

Yeah only miles away from the Iranian coast.

Are you aware of the actual internationally-recognized distances?

Originally Posted by BWillie007

Im sure we would be just fine with Iranian drones flying near the Statute of Liberty

No, we wouldn't be, because she is well within our airspace (and waters).

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

What's the OMG moment? The Picture??? Because that's what your OMG was tied to. And if it's the picture, as I said, that's a typical smear tactic. Not much OMG about it.

Speak for yourself. Apparently you treat opinions as facts. Try to be logical.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I wonder if we've apologized yet.

Why would Obama apologize, he's been covertly engaged in war acts in Iran just as Bush was. He's the same as the old boss. He's not a pussy on using drones to kill. So he's not an apologizer.

[BucEyedPea]

Spare me the outrage NeoCons.

Neo-Con Revenge: Post-Election 'Attack Iran' Machine on Overdrive
Daniel McAdams on November 8, 2012 09:07 PM

US sends drone to spy on Iran, as it has done continuously for years, no doubt collecting targeting data to assist in US/Israeli attack on Iran. Iran reportedly fires at drone gathering targeting data to assist US in bombing Iran. US astonished at Iran's "aggression" toward US drone gathering intelligence to assist a US attack on Iran.

"'There is absolutely no precedence for this,' [Pentagon spokesman George] Little said. 'This is the first time that a (drone) has been fired upon to our knowledge by Iranian aircraft.'"

US shocked that the Iranians would have the gall to respond to US hostile gestures in the region. Oh but it was in international waters!

Imagine the US response to an Iranian drone operating in international Gulf of Mexico waters off of Florida.

What does it all call to mind? Remember the pre-Iraq war times, when neo-cons ridiculed Ron Paul and others pointing that Iraq had not attacked us by screaming "OF COURSE they attacked us! They fired on our planes as we were bombing their country!" This is recycled propaganda -- but it works so well why not use it again?

The neo-cons and their partner Netanyahu went all out for Romney to guarantee a US led or at least assisted attack on Iran. The American electorate voted for the other guy. Now it is time for neo-con and Bibi's revenge, delivered by an obedient media. Will the administration swallow the bait, delivered breathlessly by FoxNews airheads?

Wouldn't surprise me if Obama intentionally held off as he told Bibi to hold off until after the election for starting a war. A war would take attention off of things at home.

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Spare me the outrage NeoCons.

Neo-Con Revenge: Post-Election 'Attack Iran' Machine on Overdrive
Daniel McAdams on November 8, 2012 09:07 PM

US sends drone to spy on Iran, as it has done continuously for years, no doubt collecting targeting data to assist in US/Israeli attack on Iran. Iran reportedly fires at drone gathering targeting data to assist US in bombing Iran. US astonished at Iran's "aggression" toward US drone gathering intelligence to assist a US attack on Iran.

"'There is absolutely no precedence for this,' [Pentagon spokesman George] Little said. 'This is the first time that a (drone) has been fired upon to our knowledge by Iranian aircraft.'"

US shocked that the Iranians would have the gall to respond to US hostile gestures in the region. Oh but it was in international waters!

Imagine the US response to an Iranian drone operating in international Gulf of Mexico waters off of Florida.

What does it all call to mind? Remember the pre-Iraq war times, when neo-cons ridiculed Ron Paul and others pointing that Iraq had not attacked us by screaming "OF COURSE they attacked us! They fired on our planes as we were bombing their country!" This is recycled propaganda -- but it works so well why not use it again?

The neo-cons and their partner Netanyahu went all out for Romney to guarantee a US led or at least assisted attack on Iran. The American electorate voted for the other guy. Now it is time for neo-con and Bibi's revenge, delivered by an obedient media. Will the administration swallow the bait, delivered breathlessly by FoxNews airheads?

Wouldn't surprise me if Obama intentionally held off as he told Bibi to hold off until after the election for starting a war. A war would take attention off of things at home.

It would also be astronomically unpopular, no one wants another war.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Speak for yourself. Apparently you treat opinions as facts. Try to be logical.

No logic to what you are saying.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Obama Bombs Yemen Hours After Winning Reelection

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of former United States president George W. Bush. The phrase was first used by Charles Krauthammer in June 2001 to describe the Bush Administration's "unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol".^[1] After 9/11 the phrase described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.^[1][2]

Different pundits would attribute different meanings to "the Bush Doctrine", as it came to describe other elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism; and a willingness to unilaterally pursue U.S. military interests.^[3][4][5] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.^[6]

The phrase "Bush Doctrine" was rarely used by members of the Bush administration. The expression was used at least once, though, by Vice President Dick Cheney, in a June 2003 speech in which he said, "If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush Doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq."<sup>[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine</sup>

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

It would also be astronomically unpopular, no one wants another war.

Not per the posts of some right here on this board. Or some pundits on Fox and in the Republican party....and don't forget Bibi.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

It would also be astronomically unpopular, no one wants another war.

Indeed. Hopefully Iran will come to its senses and comply with NPT safeguards.

[Donger]

After attack on U.S. drone, Iran backs right to defend territory

Washington (CNN) -- Iran said it took "decisive" action after a U.S. drone entered Iranian airspace in the Persian Gulf last week, a commander said.

"Iran will use all its capabilities, including the relevant international agencies, to follow up on this case," Maj. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi said Friday, according to Iran's semi-official news agency ISNA.

The Pentagon said two Iranian jets fired on an unmanned U.S. Air Force drone last week. But the United States said the firing happened over international waters on November 1.

The Iranian action triggered a formal warning by the United States to Iran through diplomatic channels.