On Dec 12, 8:55*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

...

ALEX JONES wrote:
OBAMA NEEDS *TO *EITHER GET OUR *RQ 170 *SENTINEL OUT OF IRAN, OR
BLOW IT UP *UNLESS OFCOURSE IT IS A TROJAN HORSE

I understand at least three plans were presented to the president. They
involved bombing the plane or sending in a team of SEAL-types to recover
or
destroy it.

The President vetoed these plans, mainly because each would irritate the
Iranians and cause them not to love us.

Sure. *That's the reason. *So then why did he approve the "hit" on Osama?
Wouldn't that make the Pakistanis not "love us?" *You're not being very
logical. *Or credible.

Of course there is a logical explanation for the above. Virtually
everyone in the USA knew who Bin Laden was and
wanted him dead. Had Obama not OK'd getting him the
repercussions from voters and politicians including his own
party would have been severe. And we have an election
coming next year. The spy drone on the other hand
will be forgotten in a few weeks.



*(What else is new?) *Obama is probably disinclined
to start yet another war before we finish the two we're already going
bankrupt from fighting.

There you go again attributing the country going bankrupt
to the wars. First, maybe you haven't heard, but the war
in Iraq is over with the few remaining US troops leaving in
weeks. And one more time, the national debt is $15tril.
The total cost of both wars, spanning a decade is around
$1.3tril. The deficit this year alone is $1.6tril. Four tril of it
has
been added during the Obama administration. And Obama
just ran around the country with his "Pass it now" tour,
seeking to add another $500bil to that number. So, clearly
the wars are not the major cause of the country going broke.

Also, the above theory did not stop Obama from starting
a new war in Libya, without so much as consulting Congress,
did it?



The intel community once again failed by letting such technology fall into
the wrong hands. *Where was the self-destruct? *We may have saved the
Chinese 10 years of R&D work on sensor technology. *As one journalist wrote:
"There's probably no room left on this week's flights from China and Russia
to Iran."

That is a good question indeed. IMO, it lends credence to the
Iranian claim that they took over control of the vehicle. It's
standard
practice to have self-destruct systems on advanced, sensitive gear
that could harm national security. One would think there would be
a dead-man timer, where if normal flight stops for any reason,
kaboomb!




The president probably vetoed the plans because most grown-ups know about
sovereignty and international law and how even our allies are losing
patience with our constant violations of those laws.

What constant violations? Like taking out Bin Laden without
getting a court in Pakistan involved, for example?
Which allies would those be?


What do you think we would do if the Chinese started flying drones over our
top-secret military labs and we shot one down? *Invite their ambassador by
for tea and muffins while shipped the drone back to China?

No, but that's what some of you libs would do with the Iranians.
Why Obama claimed during the election that all we had to do
was talk to them and we could work it all out. Now, here he
is sending spy planes over their country while each day they
are closer to testing an A bomb. Go figure.



Do you remember what happened when the Russians shot down Gary Powers in his
U-2?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident

Did Ike go in with military force to retrieve it? *Of course not. *When your
spy plane crashes in the country being spied on, you lose.

Apples and Oranges. The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons, long range
bombers,
ICBMs, and a military capable of invading Western Europe.





Do you remember what happened early 2001, at the very beginning of George W.
Bush's presidency, when China forced down one of our spy planes near the
island of Hainan? *You're asking something of Obama that your own former
governor didn't deliver.

Apples and Oranges, see above.





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

In addition to paying for the dismantling and shipping of the EP-3, the
United States paid for the 11 days of food and lodging supplied by the
Chinese government to the aircraft's crew, in the amount of $34,000

The actions of Ike, Bush and Obama are bad things, though. *Both happened to
be smart enough to know what to do in both cases and they both did pretty
much the same thing. *Which sort of proves you're so dead-set hard-on for
Obama even when he does just what a Republican president did in a similar
situation, it isn't good enough for you.

Apples and Oranges.





But wait, there's more. The sane Republican handling of Powers and the
Hainan incident compares quite well to how unsuccessful Democrat Jimmy
Carter was when *he* decided to play cowboy and rescue the Iranian hostages.

Apples and Oranges, unless you're suggesting that Carter
should have bombed the hostages. Bombing one drone
is far simpler than retrieving 50 hostages in a jail alive.

Had Carter dealt with the hostage crisis
correctly back then, it may well have eliminated the nuclear threat
the world is now facing from Iran. But he didn't because he was
a pussy and the Iranians and everybody else knew it.
He focused exclusively on trying not to get any hostages killed, no
matter the cost to the USA in embarrasment, humiliation, and the
resultant potential for a far greater disaster because the USSR,
China, North Korea etc thinks we are in fact pussies and tries
some other aggression, thinking if Iran can kick us around,
anyone can. Oh, wait, it already happened. The first USSR
troops entered Afghanistan a couple months after the hostage
crisis started. Guess the Russians did figure it out.

The correct strategy for dealing with the hostages was
simple. First, you needed a leader that Iran thought was
tough and for real. Second, you needed a leader that realized
that while rescuing the hostages was important, even more
important was the security of the USA. Given the above, you
send a private communique to the Iranians stating in no
uncertain terms that if they harm any of the hostages, you
will use an means necessary to decimate their country
including all military, govt and industrial targets. Then you
start ratcheting up the pressure on them, starting with a
naval blockade of all shipping.

Fortunately we didn't have to get far down that list. The
first step is all it took, with the swearing in of Ronald Reagan.



Obama did the right thing considering the failure of the designers or
operators to scuttle the asset before it fell into enemy hands. *Drones,
just like spyplanes, are going to get shot down or have mechanical failures.
That's a known fact of life. Where was that contingency plan? *(For all we
know, the sensors *are* a melted blob of goo and there was a plan - we'll
see. *It could even be a Trojan Drone, but I doubt it. *Mechanical failure
or jamming is my bet. *We've been flying them in the open long enough that
our enemies have had plenty of time and opportunity to develop
countermeasures.)

We don;t know if Obama did the right thing or not because
we don't have the pertinent data. For example, if we didn't
know exactly where the drone was or it was already at an
Iranian military base, that's one thing. But if it was sitting
somewhere in the open desert for 24 hours and he did nothing,
well that's quite another.




International law clearly isn't your strong suit, HeyBub. *There's actually
quite a bit of law about spy planes, spies and recovery rights. *All part of
the great "rule of law" concept so popular among civilized humans. *Most
sane people try to avoid confrontation. *A few seemingly sane people appear
to go looking for it.

--
Bobby G.

Yep, and those would be those Iranian *******s that have flaunted
every rule the civilized world has going back over 30 years now.
Yet you take their side. I know if the USA or Israel engaged in
sabotage
or an air strike to take out Iran's nuclear bomb development, you'll
be
bitching about that too.