72 replies to this topic

[SpikySprinter]

See? He called America an empire. This is another reason why we don't care what other countries think of us.

[Bethani]

See? He called America an empire. This is another reason why we don't care what other countries think of us.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, et cetera.

Edited by Eon, 12 December 2011 - 11:31 PM.

[SpikySprinter]

It doesn't just apply to America. Why should, say, Canada care what Americans want them to believe. It's their own country, not ours, so my opinion really has no relevance in that respect.

[Flyboy Fox]

Guys, just a warning... posts consisting of nothing more than an image macro are against the rules. I've removed a couple, and if I see them again after this warning, there will be consequences. It's been stated quite clearly numerous times that macro-only posts will be treated as spam. So don't do it.

[Bethani]

It doesn't just apply to America. Why should, say, Canada care what Americans want them to believe. It's their own country, not ours, so my opinion really has no relevance in that respect.

Maybe it's difficult for you to understand, given the strength of your country's military and the financial clout America wields on the global stage, but for other countries, it matters a great deal what your neighbours think of you. If I lived nextdoor to the most powerful country in the world, I'd do my best to get along with them. If Canada started acting in ways that the United States strongly disapproved of, the Canadians would soon feel that disapproval, whether it was through souring of trade relations, to an outright boycott of Canadian goods, or to bombs falling on their cities from American jets. Moreover, I seem to recall a certain Iraqi dictator who didn't much care what the world thought of him, and that didn't end too well, thanks to the United States. So, your argument there is utter bullshit.

The rest of the world has to care what America or other powerful nations think of them, because those powerful nations can do things that will have dramatic effects on them; everything from crippling them through economics to devastating them with nuclear weapons. And America is not free of this, given its trade and diplomatic relations with nations around the world. America is far from self-sufficient and, while it can afford to thumb its nose at the global community on occasion, it is not a practical long term approach to international relations, especially when it is entirely possible that another country may one day end up being more powerful.

[SpikySprinter]

If we did something drastic enough for other countries to boycott us, then the citizens would elect a new leader.

[Bethani]

If we did something drastic enough for other countries to boycott us, then the citizens would elect a new leader.

So you concede that it does matter what other countries think of America then. Cheers.

[ChaosSupremeSonîc]

See? He called America an empire. This is another reason why we don't care what other countries think of us.

A little piece of wisdom I'm sure you're not going to take anyway: Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. I'm pretty sure that people held that attitude right before shit hit the fan hard.

China lost Hong Kong with that attitude, among a lot of other things I'm pretty sure they lost to the UK before they became the way they were. Do we need a list of countries in the past that have fallen because of that?

Edited by ChaosSupremeSonic, 13 December 2011 - 12:16 AM.

[Hogfather]

It isn't a national embarassment because:

No no....

It is a national embarassment... it's a national embarassment because of the following.

Compared to how Iran has treated the UK and several other countries, this is nothing, captured navy personel outside it's teritorial waters, threattening to put them on trial for espionage the punishment of which is death, attacking and destroying an embassy and beating up the people who work there...

But... America decided to accidentally land it's super top secret drone in Iran and now because some people in America have right wings which are so large they probably wouldn't be able to fly much better than this drone did, they wanna try and cover up this embarassment by more or less threttening to bomb Iran for it's own stupid mistake.

It's like kicking a football into your neighbours garden, your neighbour putting a sign beside it, your neighbour refusing to give it back... so the next logical step... "Well lets burn their house down!"

If the whole 'we'll bomb them!' 'we should threatten to destroy them!' Isn't trying to save face then I don't know what is.

[Kevin]

But... America decided to accidentally land it's super top secret drone in Iran and now because some people in America have right wings which are so large they probably wouldn't be able to fly much better than this drone did, they wanna try and cover up this embarassment by more or less threttening to bomb Iran for it's own stupid mistake.

This right here. I'd like to know why the drone was in Iran's airspace to begin with. I have a hard time buying our excuse of "We don't know how it got there." This is supposed to be a top secret spy drone, and it would take a serious fuck up or someone who was incompetent at keeping track of the thing to not know it entered Iran's airspace.

[SpikySprinter]

Then again, what if my neighbor was building nukes in preparation to murder that Jewish family down the block? You know how Kennedy prevented Cuba from shitting nukes all over America? He THREATENED Castro that we would bomb the shit out of his country. There was no "diplomacy" as Liberals envision it. This was hardcore muscle-flexing, and it worked perfectly.

Eon, you don't seem to understand what I mean. The world is ALREADY pissy about every move America makes. The populace cares even less than the government does. What I'm getting at is that we can smell injustice for ourselves, so the outside world's opinion is entirely inconsequential. Am I saying that we shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII? No. All I'm saying is that we have no reason to care what the world thinks about our actions regarding awful countries like Iran. We know what's right. When the Republicans and Democrats in Congress approved of the Invasion of Iraq, we didn't need the world to tell us it was wrong. We knew it was a stupid dumbfuck move to invade the wrong country.

[Tornado]

You know how Kennedy prevented Cuba from shitting nukes all over America? He THREATENED Castro that we would bomb the shit out of his country.

What the fuck? No he didn't.

In fact, he did the exact opposite of that (he went straight to Khrushchev and talked it out with him, completely bypassing Castro entirely, and got Russia to remove their missiles in Cuba so long as the U.S. removed the ones they had in Turkey); to the extent that members of his cabinet were actually putting plans in place to get him out of the way so they could bomb the shit out of Cuba. In other words, the American military was planning to stage a coup on Kennedy because he was against the thing that you said that he did.

Edited by ChristmasJack, 13 December 2011 - 03:52 AM.

[ChaosSupremeSonîc]

I'm kinda wondering how bloated the troll is after being stuffed with this stuff. I don't believe for a second SpikySprinter is being serious. He really sounds like he's pulling our legs here, and we keep buying it.

[Metal Gear (sting)RAY]

As I understand it, it was an unarmed drone. In the language of international diplomacy (especially with countries you're not on good terms with) putting explosives on board, even for self-destruct purposes, would probably raise its status to an armed drone, which could be interpreted (deliberately, mind you) as an attack, not just as spying. After all, let's not forget that the V-1 "Buzz Bomb" was essentially a UAV with a warhead.

Oh yeah, and just because it "self destructs" doesn't mean it has to explode. It could just mean remotely frying the circuits something so it or the information it contains can't be studied.

[Patticus]

Oh yeah, and just because it "self destructs" doesn't mean it has to explode. It could just mean remotely frying the circuits something so it or the information it contains can't be studied.

But that would still allow the technologies it houses, the materials it uses to be so stealthy, to be studied, reverse engineered and sold off to the highest bidders. Even if they don't know what it saw, or what kind of software it used, they can still use it on a basic level to advance their and their allies' technical abilities. Lord knows Russia and China are going to want in on this.

[pooshoes]

Turns out that those pesky Iranians might have hacked the drone after all, using GPS spoofing.

http://www.rawstory....u-s-drone-down/

[Patticus]

Turns out that those pesky Iranians might have hacked the drone after all, using GPS spoofing.

http://www.rawstory....u-s-drone-down/

But I thought they were still using kit from the 1980s and hadn't the first clue about any of this modern "hacking" business?

I think that Iran is actually a lot more capable and technologically inclined than people give them credit for.

[Tornado]

But I thought they were still using kit from the 1980s and hadn't the first clue about any of this modern "hacking" business?

I think that Iran is actually a lot more capable and technologically inclined than people give them credit for.

This would be a lot more clever if anyone in this thread had actually given justification for that opinion before this broke. Or had Iran not initially claimed that they shot it down and then changed their story when people didn't believe it.

Edited by ChristmasJack, 18 December 2011 - 03:20 PM.

[Patticus]

This would be a lot more clever if anyone in this thread had actually given justification for that opinion before this broke.

So, what, it's just somehow better to assume that American stealth technology is indestructible? That secondary and tertiary powers cannot possibly ever overcome the weapons of the primary powers? That there's no way that the drone could have been brought down by towel-head cave-men? Arrogance in the face of a wily and resourceful opponent has lain many a great power low, and defied the conventional wisdoms of many ages, and America would do well to heed those numerous historical lessons.

I think that it's wrong to assume that, just because the country still uses certain weapons from the 1980s and earlier, which don't compare to the equivalents of today's great powers, that it's entirely stuck in that age, and that it is unable to combat any modern weapon sent its way. It's watching the technological advances of the west and east carefully (just like Turkey, China and Russia are), and at least in certain areas it is striving to match those advances with its own.

And consider this: If Iran can successfully hack a US spy drone, what else could it do that the west and east thinks it incapable of?

Or had Iran not initially claimed that they shot it down and then changed their story when people didn't believe it.

They probably thought that the PR coup for shooting down America's supposedly undetectable spy in the sky would be greater than that for hacking it.

[Tornado]

So, what, it's just somehow better to assume that American stealth technology is indestructible? That secondary and tertiary powers cannot possibly ever overcome the weapons of the primary powers?

This is clearly what has been happening in this thread. Because remember:

There are countries that could probably jerry-rig something together to detect American spy equipment (if only by exploiting loopholes in it, like countries used to do against the F-117 to try to shoot it down) and try to down it. There are even countries in that region that don't particularly like America who could probably do it.

No one EVER said this. Not even when I said that exact thing.

That there's no possible way that the drone could have been brought down by who the towel head cave men?

Grow up. That's all I can tell you. I explained in detail why I found Iran's claims unbelievable. Far greater detail than Eon did when he said (basically) that everyone in this thread was being stupid for not believing what Iran said about the matter. If the only thing you can come up with in response is "stop being so racist" and shitty strawman arguments, then you really have no reason to act as if you were right all along.

Arrogance in the face of a wily and resourceful opponent is hardly any better than giving credit to them without solid justification.

I don't think it is too much to ask for an explanation behind an opinion when:

• Iran completely changed their mind about how they even got the thing, which also throws the validity of this "oh, we hacked the GPS signal of the drone" statement into question. I'd have a far easier time believing what they are saying if the first thing they said wasn't such an obvious lie.
• The U.S. government said Iran didn't do what Iran said that they did. Not the most objective of sources, I know; but neither is Iran.

No one; not you, not Eon; had actually explained (until you stealthed it into your post) why one should believe Iran possessed the capability to do what they said they did (as soon as they got around to choosing the story they wanted to tell). You just repeated a variation of "stop being so arrogant" and expected everyone to assume that was enough to justify "Iran can totally do this."







And I'd really prefer it if, in these political topics, you'd stop using your moderation powers to make those who disagree with you look foolish (even though you are probably doing it on accident). It is getting rather annoying trying to debate you on something, only to have you delete the post I'm responding to or greatly change the overall contents of the post after I finish up a response through a stealth edit.

Edited by ChristmasJack, 18 December 2011 - 04:22 PM.