Iran 'shoots down unmanned plane'

[cynatnite]

IRAN had shot down an unmanned surveillance plane in the south amid reports that the United States is planning military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, a press report said today.

snip:
It added the Islamic Republic "officials have obtained information from the plane system and recordings", without giving any further details.

US publications reported over the weekend that the White House was studying options for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities to pressure Tehran to abandon its controversial nuclear program.

The US media has reported that the US military has been secretly flying surveillance drones over Iran since 2004 using radar, video, still photography and air filters to detect traces of nuclear activity not accessible to satellites.

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,18766793-5001028,00.html

[LynnTheDem]

1. Good for Iran. Every nation has the legal right to defend itself.

Good to see Iran defending her people by shooting down unauthorized planes in Iranian airspace.

Just as America would do to any unauthorized planes in US airspace.

[file83]

17. "Anti-UAV" weaponry has GOT to be the next big thing in the military

industrial complex. I bet the Russians/Chinese probably have some real kick ass "bug" killing weapons and that Iran is probably testing those out - as seen in this latest article.

[bigtree]

2. It'll be interesting to see if the U.S. acknowledges it

I wonder if there will be evidence that it was an armed one, with Hellfire missiles?

[hlthe2b]

3. Another $billion dollar drone down? How many does that make?

This certainly seems to validate Sy Hersh's story on the pending attack on Iran and it scares the shit out of me.

I've always been amazed at how the WWII generation could "keep it together" despite the risks, the unknown, the horror of a two front war, that was such a marker for their lives. While I never will diminish this "greatest generation" (and I wish dearly my parents were still alive to comment on that perspective), I now realize that they could take solace and place faith in their leadership and its priorities and competency. Sadly, we can not.

That contrast to now, where we can not trust our own government, be confident that their priorities and (hidden agendas) are best for America, and certainly have no faith in their competency, is what is driving me to the edge. Stress kills, so at some point we all have to have faith (hope, determination or whatever) that we will be able to turn this trainwreck around, but it is hard not to give in to a meltdown, now and then. For those with children, the fight and determination should be obvious. For the rest of us, we fight for our friends, our families and most of all, for what is right. I just hope we can turn it around before it is too late....

Gloom and doom on a sunny Sunday morning is tough to take. Time to grab my four-legged hairy "little girl" for a long walk to regain perspective...

[Kailassa]

4. As you say, stress kills.

I managed to get congestive heart disorder through (non-political) stress, so I've had this on my mind.

Too what extent would the neocon bastards do this intentionally, laying on the insults as they kick the population? The population could end up divided into 2 groups, the sheep who suck in the words of authority like suckling babes, and the rest who can see what is happening, and who are sickened and spiritually neutered by the constant stress and heartbreak.

Whether it's intentional or not, it does make the friendship and support we can offer each other absolutely necessary as the basis for any future achievement.

[hlthe2b]

6. I agree... I joined DU in February , 2001 to vent in a supportive

atmosphere...

Now, I'm here to try to keep my perspective keep on track of new developments, seek daily evidence that the Bush* cabal's "gig" is soon to be up, (and, as you say, manage the stress that comes from knowing "too" much.) Those who are blissfully ignorant are a large part of the problem. Yet, on an individual level, they, perhaps, are the lucky ones.

[Kailassa]

7. Yes, I know reluctant Dems who envy the still-repuglicans their

blind acceptance.

But if we support each other, we can get stronger and stronger, until there is nothing they can do to divert us. It's just like growing physical muscles, we grow mental muscles and find we can look the bastards in the eye. Then we realize we are not looking up at them any more, we are looking down on them, we can see their weaknesses and feel pity for them as we leave them behind.

You'll make it, it's the gentle ones who are going to become the warriers and win this war.

:grouphug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Lovely, we are now at war wtih Iran, even if undeclared

international law is claer on this... so any DU'er still with head firmly in sand should understand this... any escalation is just that, ESCALATION, but a state of war now exists between the two countries... under Internatlonal Law.

Congrats to all the ostriches.

[Kailassa]

8. *straightening up and spitting out the grit*

Is it legal for the US spy-drones to be flying over Iranian air-space?

If not, then shooting one down does not equal the beginning of a state of war.

It's very different to shooting down a passenger plane, and even that has been done in the past without an ensuing war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. You misunderstand

the fact that WE FLEW a spy mission over Iranian Territory IS THE ACT OF WAR.

Capice?

[Kailassa]

12. But that's nothing new, I'm sure the Iranians would have known

that's been going on for years.

And it's not in their interests to start a war over it, better for them to just show America that can't be done safely any more.

Come to think of it, what would the Iranians have to gain by shooting it down? Sure it temporarily stops some surveillance, but it also indicates they have something to hide.

Do you think Buschco would bring it down themselves to indicate just that, to garner support for their next attempt at shock'n-awe? I fear my brain is beoming permanently twisted from trying to unravel the convoluted illogic the neocons work from.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Read PNAC, but this is NOT like tonkin AT ALL

[Neil Lisst]

10. US interests sometimes involve spying on other countries

I'm not troubled by the US using drones to spy on Iran.

If they're shot down, that's unfortunate, but not really important unless we lose important technology.

The Iranians could treat it as an act of war, or they could treat it as an incident, and take it to the UN. I don't know what they'll do it, but they probably won't call it an act of war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I am talking of International Law

not how YOU interpret it... spying is seen by most nations as a hostile act.

But then again I know you are all hot headed for war... and no this is not a personal attack, just my read on your posts. Having been there done that... I personally would be far more careful about your desires under the current administration. Then maybe you might end up doing some of the fighting and the dying in the sand box. You are, iirc, of draft age, and worst case... they will have no choice. When dhey do... I will help anybody who swallows the crap they spout after the last five years, to pack for boot camp

[Neil Lisst]

13. No, you're writing of your understanding.

It's not an act of war if you think it is. It's an act of war if either of the countries involved thinks it is. I'm sure you're aware there is no book that all countries consult to tell them what is and is not an act of war. Each nation decides that on its own.

And for the record, I oppose war with Iran. You're confusing 2002 and 2006. Different points in time, as I aptly noted earlier, which require different strategies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Nations consider spying an act of war

I did not invent that. What they decide to do wtih that is a whole different matter... but that is ok.

By the way... war in 2002 against Iran was still like Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan, oh well when are we invading Canada?

[Neil Lisst]

16. Some nations certainly have. But some have not.

We'll see how Iran treats it.

I have no idea what you're talking about with the Pearl Harbor talk and Iran.

In 2002, we were supposed to be conducting a war on terror, therefore, a decent target would have been Iran, not for invasion, just bombing of military targets.

A state of war exists when's there is a declaration of war by at least one nation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Spying IS an act iof war

most nations tend to shoot spies. Most nations also tend to at the very least make a stink... and only reason why the ruskies did not declare war on the US after the U-2 shoot down was this crazy realization that at that point we were at Mutually Assured Destruction standards... but hey who is countring?

By the way, I have given you FAR BETTER targets in this war on terror, including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. I dunno what you are drinking... nor how you can even trust anything coming from the administration. Yes Iran has been involved in some ahem, hanky panky...but when it comes to terror DIRECTED at the US... the Madrassas in both SA and Pakistan are and have been far more of a problem. Then again, the bin ladin family was NEVER interviewed after 9.11 and lord knows there were plenty of the family here in the US. Hell, they were flown out in special planes before the FBI had any chance to interview them. Yes, going after Iraq was like going after Mexico after Pearl Harbor. Going after Iran is going after Canada... and by the way, the loon THEY ELECTED was elected IN A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION... I guess we don't like democracy when it does not fit OUR GOALS....

By the way, riddle me batman... how do you fight a war AGAINST A TACTIC? Moreover, a TACTIC WE INVENTED.