NationStates Jolt Archive

From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050622/ap_on_re_mi_ea/spy_plane_crash

A U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane has crashed in southwest Asia, killing the pilot, the military said Wednesday.

The cause of Tuesday night's crash was under investigation, U.S. Central Command said in a statement.

One official said the location of the crash was not released because "host nation sensitivities" were involved.

The Central Command's statement used the term "southwest Asia," which can be used as a substitute for describing the Middle East.

The pilot was returning to a base from a mission in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.



First: Who the fuck are the Pentagon trying to confuse with the "SouthWest Asia" bullshit. It's the Middle East. Everyone calls it that. Why fucking try to muddy the waters with that alternate fucking description?


Second: Is anyone REALLY gonna believe that the U2 was REALLY flying innocently across someones soverign airspace and just happened to come down in some "sensitive" country? Like how it just happened to be circling Tehran 37 times on it's way back from Kandahar? Or wherever? Give me a fucking break.


Shit. I know that the government doesn't like to admit who they're spying on (the answer to which is: pretty much fucking everyone), but do they also really think that such a thin patina of bullshit doesn't smell enough for people to know to hold their noses?


Come on. Tell it like it fucking is. If the plane came down somewhere fucking sensitive it's not like you can pretend that you weren't flying somewhere you weren't supposed to be anyway. And the people who find the big fucking hole in the ground are gonna figure it the fuck out. You overflew somewhere without permission. You lost the plane. No-one will buy that you just happened to pick that place in the-area-offshore-of-north-east-africa for an overflight for fucking convenience sake.



Sometimes I think it's just fucking pathological with these people.........


All that being said, my condolences to the families of the pilot.

Francis..... Gary...... Powers......

I guess you never heard of the term "national security".

Given that all U2 missions (except for NASA flights) are classified Top Secret, they didn't even tell the Pentagon spokesperson any details.

And given the nature of the area, it is likely that the plane came down in an area where there haven't been people for decades. If it had come down in a populated area, you would see the plane on al-Jazeera right now.

The problem is not that we're overflying somewhere we don't have permission. Apparently, the plane had already finished its mission and was flying back to base over another country.

We DO have overflight permission for virtually every Middle Eastern country except Syria and Iran, so it looks like it crashed in a place where we have permission.

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that the airfields at the southwestern corner of Saudi Arabia are being used for U-2 aircraft to fly to Iran. That way they have plenty of time to get to altitude before crossing the Persian Gulf and entering Iranian airspace.

You need to stop being so sensitive. Every nation has a right not to reveal its national technical means.

Francis..... Gary...... Powers......


Q: So Gary? How high were you flying that day?
A: Not high enough....

Aw I came in here hoping the band had died in some awsome firey way ! (would be way cooler then whatever they have been doing sense ... well for ever)

Q: So Gary? How high were you flying that day?
A: Not high enough....


Ahahaha, so true. I don't think that the US would launch a top secret spyplane from Saudi Arabia, especially one that can fly over the pacific and back.

I remember in the 1980s, having Soviet spy satellites on polar orbits pointed out to me in the night sky over Germany. They are very low altitude, and move very quickly - about 90 minutes for an orbit.

The US and other countries have a large number of satellites dedicated to this purpose - overflying everyone else's country and taking pictures of everything that people are trying to hide.

U2 aircraft are used more in a sniffer role today (although they can get a camera closer than a satellite). They can sniff the air for minute traces of radioactive byproducts - so we can tell if someone is refining plutonium.

I don't hear you crying about the satellites. Why cry about a plane doing the same thing?

Ahahaha, so true. I don't think that the US would launch a top secret spyplane from Saudi Arabia, especially one that can fly over the pacific and back.

The U2 doesn't have that kind of range without refueling.

Ahahaha, so true. I don't think that the US would launch a top secret spyplane from Saudi Arabia, especially one that can fly over the pacific and back.

Southwestern Saudi is where we based the F-117 stealth fighters during the 1991 Gulf War.

Makes a good base - there aren't any humans within 100 miles of the place.

"Southwest Asia"? That's not national security, that's a pathetic attempt to disguise the region where the plane actually went down. I know the citizens of the US aren't exactly famous for their wonderful grasp of world geography, but c'mon, people aren't gonna fall for that. ... Are they?

Even when I was in the Army in the late 1980s, they called the Middle East "Southwest Asia". They never called it the Middle East.

Are you saying that somehow, their selection of the term is a pathetic attempt to cover something up, or is it just the term they've always been using?

The Pentagon has been calling that area "Southwest Asia" for a long time. In fact, "Southwest Asia" is really much more accurate a descriptor than "Middle East," from a geographical point of view. And since I *hope* the Pentagon tries to be accurate as often as possible, I have no problem with "Southwest Asia."

Also, I'd hate to have to replace all my Southwest Asia service medals from the early '90s, if we went ahead and renamed them. It's not a big expense, but I no longer have access to the PX, so it'd be a pain.

I guess you never heard of the term "national security".

Given that all U2 missions (except for NASA flights) are classified Top Secret, they didn't even tell the Pentagon spokesperson any details.

And given the nature of the area, it is likely that the plane came down in an area where there haven't been people for decades. If it had come down in a populated area, you would see the plane on al-Jazeera right now.

The problem is not that we're overflying somewhere we don't have permission. Apparently, the plane had already finished its mission and was flying back to base over another country.

We DO have overflight permission for virtually every Middle Eastern country except Syria and Iran, so it looks like it crashed in a place where we have permission.

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that the airfields at the southwestern corner of Saudi Arabia are being used for U-2 aircraft to fly to Iran. That way they have plenty of time to get to altitude before crossing the Persian Gulf and entering Iranian airspace.

You need to stop being so sensitive. Every nation has a right not to reveal its national technical means.




Excuse me, but where the fuck was I askling them to "reveal technical means?" I wasn't asking them to give access to the film, state the nature of the whole mission, or any such bullshit. I'm just pointing out that bullshit in and of itself raises an odour.

Incidentally, how can you sit there with a straight fucking face and on the one hand say "Oh well, if the PENTAGON said it was so-and-so- it must be the whole truth", whilst also simultaneously saying "shit - you don't expect the Pentagon to have to tell the whole truth now do you? That would reveal SECRETS"


Talk about covering every base with one catchall, cover-your-ass bit of logical inconsistency!!!


I DON'T expect the truth from the Pentagon on statements regarding secret missions. I just find the patent fucking transparency of the statement as given to be laughable and thought it was worth sharing.

I think they're saying that when you make a press release to the world, try calling that part of the world what the majority of the people call it.

http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/sasm.shtml
Southwest Asia Service Medal

Part of your big pathetic conspiracy since 1991...

http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/ima/medals/southasia.jpg

From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8313397/

A U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane crashed and its pilot was killed late Tuesday as he tried to land the craft, the military said Wednesday. NBC News has learned that the pilot had been returning to a U.S. Air Force base in the United Arab Emirates.

The cause of the crash was being investigated, the military said.

The spy plane had been on a surveillance mission over the Afghanistan region, NBC News reported.

I always check alternate news sources.

Southwest Asia includes more than just the Middle East. Regardless of the fact that it most likely crashed in a Middle Eastern country, generalizing the statement reduces the risk of compromising a recovery mission.

Now that they have confirmed the pilot is dead, it's likely they've already sent in Pave Lows to recover whatever they could, bring back the pilot, and thermite the rest.

Wow, from the way the original poster framed his post, you would have thought it went down in downtown Tehran, and that the military was trying to cover it up.

Looks like Southwest Asia is a standard term for the Pentagon, doesn't it?

Crashing on the runway isn't exactly a Gary Powers scenario, either.

What the heck was Bono doing in the middle east? Can he even fly a plane?

U2 aircraft are used more in a sniffer role today (although they can get a camera closer than a satellite). They can sniff the air for minute traces of radioactive byproducts - so we can tell if someone is refining plutonium.


Well that would certainly support my Tehran guess rather than Afghanistan now wouldn't it?

I don't hear you crying about the satellites. Why cry about a plane doing the same thing?


Who the fuck is crying about the act of espionage?

I'm not!

I'm just laughing at the attempted explanations when they get their hands caught in the cookie jar....

I think someone's a bit paranoid, hmm? Oh my god, they were spying. I don't know what country you're from, but I can garuntee you're spying on the U.S. You have planes running spy missions, you have satellites taking pictures, and you have ground spies living here. So do we. Spying is nothing new; it feels like you're just looking for something to criticize. "They call it southwest Asia, COVERUP!" Of course it's being covered up, it was a top secret spy mission. Jesus Christ, some people are so twitchy.
I know the citizens of the US aren't exactly famous for their wonderful grasp of world geography, but c'mon, people aren't gonna fall for that.
Oh fuck you. I'm getting tired of seeing constant jabs at the U.S. everywhere I turn on this forum. That's considered fine, but if I stereotype I'm a racist.

From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8313397/

I always check alternate news sources.



Hmmmm, I just fucking wonder what large country lies between Afghanistan and the UAE......

Hmmmm, I just fucking wonder what large country lies between Afghanistan and the UAE......

If the Iranians have a working radar, they already know about the U-2.

Big deal.

It does, however, demonstrate that they have no ability to defend their airspace. The U-2 is very easy to shoot down.

Denial is part of military training I think. Officers usually. It would be the same story if it was somebody elses spy plane. Its a bit obvious after all isn't it? Spy planes are meant to spy where they're not supposed to be. Which means that if it does get found you go: "Uh sorry. What plane? That isn't my plane. Nope, never saw it in my life. We don't spy on anyone. No way."

Hmmmm, I just fucking wonder what large country lies between Afghanistan and the UAE......
They probably went around Iran through Pakistan. The modern U-2 has a range of about 4,600 miles.

I live in South-South Asia. :D

If the Iranians have a working radar, they already know about the U-2.

Big deal.

It does, however, demonstrate that they have no ability to defend their airspace. The U-2 is very easy to shoot down.

Unless 'crashed in southwest asia' means 'shot down over Iran'.

Unless 'crashed in southwest asia' means 'shot down over Iran'.
If you read back in the thread, the link to MSNBC says that it means "crashed while landing on a runway at its base in the UAE".

Hardly "shot down over Iran".

If you read back in the thread, the link to MSNBC says that it means "crashed while landing on a runway at its base in the UAE".

Hardly "shot down over Iran".

I see.

I don't hear you crying about the satellites. Why cry about a plane doing the same thing?Because violating the airspace of another nation is an act of war.

Because violating the airspace of another nation is an act of war.

Technically, no.

...And speaking of satellites, why are U2 aircraft still flying when...

...Oh forget it, it makes too much sense.

...Feh.

Technically, no.

It certainly could be considered a provocative, or even belligerent course of action. It could lead to war.

It certainly could be considered a provocative, or even belligerent course of action. It could lead to war.

Which is why you cover up when you are flying spy planes over other countries. :)

...And speaking of satellites, why are U2 aircraft still flying when...

...Oh forget it, it makes too much sense.

...Feh.

Because satellites can't cut through cloud cover.
Nor can you take multiple angles of the same shot.
Nor can you go over an area at different times, to ensure they're not "covering it up" with camo at the right time.

...Feh. :D

It certainly could be considered a provocative, or even belligerent course of action. It could lead to war.
It could be considered a violation of international law, but that depends on who is a signatory to what.

IIRC, overflights are covered by the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea. While the US is party to all four, it is questionable whether or not Iran is. If it is not, then no complaint can be filed for a violation of those conventions by Iran. The US is also not party to the 1982 UNCLOS. It is a non-ratifying provisional party to the 1994 Implementing Agreement to Part XI of UNCLOS, and that the UN does not list the US as party to 1982 UNCLOS. And I'm not sure Iran is a party to either.

If it was, it would have already filed a protest through the Secretary-General of the United Nations - that is the mechanism to be used. As Iran has only complained of overflights in February 2005 in the public media, I am gathering from that lack of official protest through the UN that they are not a party to any of the international agreements concerning the rules of overflight.

They also seem powerless to stop or shoot down anything with any certainty. I'm not even sure they can detect everything that overflies their airspace.

Because violating the airspace of another nation is an act of war.

With the U2's camera range, it's possible it didn't violate anyone's airspace.

The Intelligence Reconnaissance Imagery System III (IRIS-III) is an optical imagery system that uses a high resolution, panoramic camera with a 24-inch focal length. Employing a folded optical path system mounted on a rotating optical bar assembly, the IRIS-III laterally scans through 140 degrees of the total viewing area. This camera covers a 32-nautical-mile swath on both sides of the aircraft.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/u-2.htm

One SOP is to run up and down, just outside the border. Done a lot in North Korea.

http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/sasm.shtml
Southwest Asia Service Medal

Part of your big pathetic conspiracy since 1991...

http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/ima/medals/southasia.jpg

My father has 2 of these :D

From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8313397/



I always check alternate news sources.

Thank you Northrop-Grumman.

My prayers go out to his family.

If the Iranians have a working radar, they already know about the U-2.

Big deal.

It does, however, demonstrate that they have no ability to defend their airspace. The U-2 is very easy to shoot down.

As the one that went down in Soviet territory proved that yea they can be shot down.

Iran I guess has a very bad air defense mechanism if they didn't shoot it down. That is if it flew over Iranian airspace.

As the one that went down in Soviet territory proved that yea they can be shot down.

Iran I guess has a very bad air defense mechanism if they didn't shoot it down. That is if it flew over Iranian airspace.

Not necessarily. It's not like shooting down Powers was easy. Also, Iran isn't the former USSR: it's a lot smaller in terms of real estate. They'd have a LOT less time to shoot something that high...

Not necessarily. It's not like shooting down Powers was easy. Also, Iran isn't the former USSR: it's a lot smaller in terms of real estate. They'd have a LOT less time to shoot something that high...

That is if they even saw the plane and if we even flew over their airspace.

I also doubt that Iran can defend all of its airspace as well.

That is if they even saw the plane and if we even flew over their airspace.

I also doubt that Iran can defend all of its airspace as well.

Also true.

It could be considered a violation of international law, but that depends on who is ...depends who is doing it.

as we all know...US military is exemped..of WarCrime Courts.

lets extend that exemption to spying crimes...

My father has 2 of these :D
Your father kicks ass...he left for Iraq 3 days ago..and he already got 2 medals.

Your father kicks ass...he left for Iraq 3 days ago..and he already got 2 medals.

He's been in the service 32 years. I could count all of his medals and tell you how many he actually has.

Your father kicks ass...he left for Iraq 3 days ago..and he already got 2 medals.

You get one for Desert Shield, and one for Desert Storm.

depends who is doing it.

as we all know...US military is exemped..of WarCrime Courts.

lets extend that exemption to spying crimes...

Actually, I think the reasons were explained already. besides that, we don't know if they actually flew over Iranian airspace to begin with.

You get one for Desert Shield, and one for Desert Storm.

I wouldn't be surprised if they give one for this operation too as well as Afghanistan.

*shrugs* you never know.

It could be considered a violation of international law, but that depends on who is a signatory to what.

IIRC, overflights are covered by the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea. While the US is party to all four, it is questionable whether or not Iran is. If it is not, then no complaint can be filed for a violation of those conventions by Iran. The US is also not party to the 1982 UNCLOS. It is a non-ratifying provisional party to the 1994 Implementing Agreement to Part XI of UNCLOS, and that the UN does not list the US as party to 1982 UNCLOS. And I'm not sure Iran is a party to either.

If it was, it would have already filed a protest through the Secretary-General of the United Nations - that is the mechanism to be used. As Iran has only complained of overflights in February 2005 in the public media, I am gathering from that lack of official protest through the UN that they are not a party to any of the international agreements concerning the rules of overflight.

They also seem powerless to stop or shoot down anything with any certainty. I'm not even sure they can detect everything that overflies their airspace.


This is for OceanDrive, who can't be troubled to read the thread.

I wouldn't be surprised if they give one for this operation too as well as Afghanistan.

*shrugs* you never know.

They get different medals.

3. Criteria: a. Individuals authorized the Southwest Asia Service Medal must have served in support of Operation Desert Shield or Desert Storm, in one or more of the following areas, between 2 August 1990 and 30 November 1995: Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden, that portion of the Arabian Sea that lies north of 10 degrees North latitude and west of 68 degrees East longitude, as well as the total land areas of Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Individuals serving in Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Syria and Jordan (including the airspace and territorial waters) directly supporting combat operations between 17 January 1991 and 11 April 1991 are also eligible for this award.

b. To be eligible for the award, a service member must be: attached to or regularly serving for one or more days with an organization participating in ground/shore military operations; attached to or regularly serving for one or more days aboard a naval vessel directly supporting military operations; actually participating as a crew member in one or more aerial flights directly supporting military operations in the areas designated; or serving on temporary duty for 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days, except, if a waiver is authorized for personnel participating in actual combat.

Because violating the airspace of another nation is an act of war.

No it's not. Don't be silly. At the most it is a reason to make a fool of yourself at the UN with your shoe.

If you read back in the thread, the link to MSNBC says that it means "crashed while landing on a runway at its base in the UAE".

Hardly "shot down over Iran".


Well, the current CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/22/spy.plane.crash/index.html) states that "The Air Force has not disclosed the location of the crash or any of the circumstances", so WHERE it crashed is still unknown at this time.


Perhaps the MSNBC heard the "while returning to base in the UAE" and translated that to "crashed in the UAE".


Still, I have heard nothing corroberative as to the actual location.


Nor, incidentally, did I ever fucking say that it were shot down.

I will, however, accept the evidence given as to the Militaries insistence on calling the Middle East SouthWest Asia. Why doesn't it surprise me that they, of all fucking people, would feel the need to come up with their own terms for things....

I will, however, accept the evidence given as to the Militaries insistence on calling the Middle East SouthWest Asia. Why doesn't it surprise me that they, of all fucking people, would feel the need to come up with their own terms for things....

I've always wondered why they have to come up with retarded two-word phrases for every "Operation".

And then I worked on the government contract that supports the maintenance and invention of those stupid names.

Yes, you heard it right. A government contract, a bunch of people, and a lot of software just to make sure we use approved names, and don't reuse the same names.

Otherwise, there might be an Operation Colon Blow.

You get one for Desert Shield, and one for Desert Storm.
And another for Southern Watch, if you were there for that.

I will, however, accept the evidence given as to the Militaries insistence on calling the Middle East SouthWest Asia. Why doesn't it surprise me that they, of all fucking people, would feel the need to come up with their own terms for things....

Maybe because that's what it's called?

So are they modular, or something? Can they be combined to make a bigger medal, or to make a GI Joe figure, maybe?

Now THERE's a contract I could have fun on!!!!!


Jim 'Wash Out' Pfaffenbach: Alpha Velveeta Knuckle Underwear, you are cleared for take-off. When you hit that nuclear weapons plant... drop a bomb for me!

Lt. Commander Block: Uh, Sphincter Mucus Layer Ringworm, roger!

:D

So are they modular, or something? Can they be combined to make a bigger medal, or to make a GI Joe figure, maybe?

With most medals, you get one ribbon, and then you get to add "oak leaf clusters". For each additional award of the same ribbon, you get another oak leaf cluster to pin on the ribbon itself.

Hence the common phrase, "The Order of the Purple Shaft, with oak leaf clusters".

I will, however, accept the evidence given as to the Militaries insistence on calling the Middle East SouthWest Asia. Why doesn't it surprise me that they, of all fucking people, would feel the need to come up with their own terms for things....

Its being PC. Middle east made sense in the old days when there was the near east, middle east, east, far east and orient. But people objected to some of those terms in the US. Like some asians don't like being called orientals. So that had to go.

(Also, people didn't like near east for turkey and lebanon. I think they want to be considered Europe.)

So the orient became East Asia, the far east became South East Asia and the East became South Asia. That makes the middle east somewhere in Laos I guess. Anyway it would be hardly fair to describe the arabia as being in the east with that set up. So because it is south of the bosphorus, on the and south west of the center of asia, (as well as west of south asia and south east asia) the new name is the only sensible choice.

With most medals, you get one ribbon, and then you get to add "oak leaf clusters". For each additional award of the same ribbon, you get another oak leaf cluster to pin on the ribbon itself.

Hence the common phrase, "The Order of the Purple Shaft, with oak leaf clusters".some prestigious US medals do come on a Band-Aid

http://www.projo.com/blogs/shenews/photos/purpleheart.jpg

From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050622/ap_on_re_mi_ea/spy_plane_crash

First: Who the fuck are the Pentagon trying to confuse with the "SouthWest Asia" bullshit. It's the Middle East. Everyone calls it that. Why fucking try to muddy the waters with that alternate fucking description?

Second: Is anyone REALLY gonna believe that the U2 was REALLY flying innocently across someones soverign airspace and just happened to come down in some "sensitive" country? Like how it just happened to be circling Tehran 37 times on it's way back from Kandahar? Or wherever? Give me a fucking break.

Shit. I know that the government doesn't like to admit who they're spying on (the answer to which is: pretty much fucking everyone), but do they also really think that such a thin patina of bullshit doesn't smell enough for people to know to hold their noses?

Come on. Tell it like it fucking is. If the plane came down somewhere fucking sensitive it's not like you can pretend that you weren't flying somewhere you weren't supposed to be anyway. And the people who find the big fucking hole in the ground are gonna figure it the fuck out. You overflew somewhere without permission. You lost the plane. No-one will buy that you just happened to pick that place in the-area-offshore-of-north-east-africa for an overflight for fucking convenience sake.

Sometimes I think it's just fucking pathological with these people.........

All that being said, my condolences to the families of the pilot.
Nice rant, oh misinformed one. "Host nation" refers to the nation where the plane was based, not necessarily where it came down. I can think of a thousand reason why countries in Southwest Asia ( which includes far more than what is normally described as the "Middle East," BTW. ) might not want it to become public knowledge that U-2 aircraft were based there.

You need to engage brain before putting your keyboard in gear.

Now now...we all know that in english when you type or write something you don't put fuck at least twice in every sentence.

-Thank you for your time
-Hamanistan Noob Patrol

some prestigious US medals do come on a Band-Aid

http://www.projo.com/blogs/shenews/photos/purpleheart.jpg
That's not a "medal," it's a bandaid. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Now now...we all know that in english when you type or write something you don't put fuck at least twice in every sentence.

-Thank you for your time
-Hamanistan Noob Patrol

Where the fuck did that stupid fucking rule come from? Thats fucking ridiculous that fucking is.

When I first read the heading, I thought for a second it was going to be about the band U2. I thought maybe the Pentagon had shot down their plane by 'mistake'. But no, my joy was short-lived.

Where the fuck did that stupid fucking rule come from? Thats fucking ridiculous that fucking is.


Yea its pretty fucking stupid but the fucking book says right on that fucking 100th page that you shouldn't fucking use fuck twice in one fucking sentence.

According to CNN:
The pilot, a member of the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing, was returning to Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates after having completed a mission over Afghanistan -- when the plane crashed, the military said.

I have one little question. Why would the US fly a spy plane over Afghanistan anyway??? I mean, they already control this country and fly whatever plane they want over it -- fighters, transports, surveillance. Why send an extra-extra high altitude U2 plane then? To get blurred picture of american bases?

According to CNN:


I have one little question. Why would the US fly a spy plane over Afghanistan anyway??? I mean, they already control this country and fly whatever plane they want over it -- fighters, transports, surveillance. Why send an extra-extra high altitude U2 plane then? To get blurred picture of american bases?

Theory: It has a camera range of some 30+ miles from where it's flying. Taking snaps of the Pakistani side of the border from within Afghan in order to find Bin Laden?

Could be!

That's not a "medal," :rolleyes:that woman is very proud of her medal...and she is making me very proud of America... like all those people with her..wearing that Purple Heart Medal on their faces. God bless America.

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/kerryfirstaid.jpg

http://intellectualize.org/images/kerry-basher.jpg

Honor and Dignity... Bushite style.

According to the BBC, the U2 plane was probably based in the UAE and had been flying a mission over Afghanistan.

Now, what country is located between the UAE and Afghanistan, tell me?
:rolleyes:



PS: An American commercial flight had to perform an emergency landing in this *mystery* country's capital a few days ago, because of a "false alarm in the cockpit". The plane stayed on the runway for 7 hours. And by "chance", it was the day right after elections in this *mystery* country. Is it possible to install short-range (5 km) electronic snooping devices in a commercial airplane? Hmmm.

No it's not. Don't be silly. At the most it is a reason to make a fool of yourself at the UN with your shoe.Violating the airspace of another nation is not an act of war?

If China was flying planes over US airspace, would it be proper for the US to shoot them down?

Violating the airspace of another nation is not an act of war?

If China was flying planes over US airspace, would it be proper for the US to shoot them down?

It's not an act of war. It's a violation of international law, but only if both countries are signatories to all four of the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea, as well as the 1982 UNCLOS, which has the relevant chapters on overflights.

You shoot planes down if you're technically able and willing to do so. The law has little to do with that act.

Nice rant, oh misinformed one. "Host nation" refers to the nation where the plane was based, not necessarily where it came down. I can think of a thousand reason why countries in Southwest Asia ( which includes far more than what is normally described as the "Middle East," BTW. ) might not want it to become public knowledge that U-2 aircraft were based there.

You need to engage brain before putting your keyboard in gear.


Errr.... so that's why this article (as well as others noted in this thread) clearly state that the aircraft are based in the UAE? you are saying that the crash site is being kept a mystery to protect the name of where they are based, when that info was made public right from the start?


Let's think about this for a minute.


You're right - one of us DOES need to engage our brains.....

:rolleyes:

According to the BBC, the U2 plane was probably based in the UAE and had been flying a mission over Afghanistan.

Now, what country is located between the UAE and Afghanistan, tell me?
:rolleyes:



PS: An American commercial flight had to perform an emergency landing in this *mystery* country's capital a few days ago, because of a "false alarm in the cockpit". The plane stayed on the runway for 7 hours. And by "chance", it was the day right after elections in this *mystery* country. Is it possible to install short-range (5 km) electronic snooping devices in a commercial airplane? Hmmm.

I agree, its all very fishy...any bets which american units first rolls into Iran? (I hope I'm wrong with the last thing...)

According to CNN:


I have one little question. Why would the US fly a spy plane over Afghanistan anyway??? I mean, they already control this country and fly whatever plane they want over it -- fighters, transports, surveillance. Why send an extra-extra high altitude U2 plane then? To get blurred picture of american bases?
It's called r-e-c-o-n-n-a-i-s-s-a-n-c-e. It's what we in the military do when we're like ... looking for the bad guys, comprende?

Errr.... so that's why this article (as well as others noted in this thread) clearly state that the aircraft are based in the UAE? you are saying that the crash site is being kept a mystery to protect the name of where they are based, when that info was made public right from the start?

Let's think about this for a minute.

You're right - one of us DOES need to engage our brains.....
Oh, you're a regular laugh riot, you are. That information wasn't included in the original post, as I recall. :p

An American commercial flight had to perform an emergency landing in this *mystery* country's capital a few days ago, because of a "false alarm in the cockpit". The plane stayed on the runway for 7 hours. And by "chance", it was the day right after elections in this *mystery* country. Is it possible to install short-range (5 km) electronic snooping devices in a commercial airplane? Hmmm.
Yes.

Got any links for this we can peruse? :)

Got any links for this we can peruse?

June 16: Iranian elections & Rice-Bush criticism
http://cbs5.com/politics/politicsnational_story_167181601.html

June 17: American airliner lands in Tehran, stays for 7 hours
http://www.heraldonline.com/24hour/world/story/2492006p-10842206c.html

June 22: US Spy plane crashes at the end of a UAE-(Iran)-Afghanistan-(Iran)-UAE flight
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4119344.stm

June 16: Iranian elections & Rice-Bush criticism
http://cbs5.com/politics/politicsnational_story_167181601.html

How many reformers were actually banned from actually running? If you ban someone for running against hardliner policy then yes, it can be seen as illegitament. :rolleyes:

June 17: American airliner lands in Tehran, stays for 7 hours
http://www.heraldonline.com/24hour/world/story/2492006p-10842206c.html

Standard Operating Procedure. Get an indicator, land the plane, check it out, get fuel, then take off again if things are found to be a-ok. Thank God it was only a false alarm. I hate to see what would've happened if it was actually real.

June 22: US Spy plane crashes at the end of a UAE-(Iran)-Afghanistan-(Iran)-UAE flight
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4119344.stm

The subject of this thread.

I agree, its all very fishy...any bets which american units first rolls into Iran? (I hope I'm wrong with the last thing...)Check out what Scott Ritter has to say (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm) about it. It looks like we've already got CIA-backed terrorists, if not actual CIA agents on the ground. And if there are CIA agents already inside, there are probably already US special operations forces there.

June 16: Iranian elections & Rice-Bush criticism
http://cbs5.com/politics/politicsnational_story_167181601.html

June 17: American airliner lands in Tehran, stays for 7 hours
http://www.heraldonline.com/24hour/world/story/2492006p-10842206c.html

June 22: US Spy plane crashes at the end of a UAE-(Iran)-Afghanistan-(Iran)-UAE flight
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4119344.stm
The first link comes as no surprise. The other two seem relatively innocuous and unrelated, especially since the Iranians inspected the civilian airliner.

Oh, you're a regular laugh riot, you are. That information wasn't included in the original post, as I recall. :p


It's hardly uncommon knowledge either (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/dhafra.htm), and has been cited in other articles on this matter given by others in this thread....

Violating the airspace of another nation is not an act of war?

No. It isn't. If it was Mexico, the US and Canada would be at constant state of war.

If China was flying planes over US airspace, would it be proper for the US to shoot them down?[/QUOTE]

If it was detected, and failed to answer/respond to Air traffic guidence. Yes, if the US wished, though shooting it down would not be and act of war either, rather a domestic law and order matter.

Further, it depends what type of airspace the plane was in. Even the UN law of the Sea goes into this a bit. e.g. Article 58(?) on exclusive economic regions.

I thought everyone knew this from the recent flap with china.

Of course, nothing is stopping whoever the US overflew from declaring war, but the overflight itself, while possibly an illegal act under US treaty obligations is not an act of war.

It is however a great excuse to bang your shoe on the table.

Check out what Scott Ritter has to say (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm) about it. It looks like we've already got CIA-backed terrorists, if not actual CIA agents on the ground. And if there are CIA agents already inside, there are probably already US special operations forces there.
Who the hell is Scott Ritter? The actor???

Check out what Scott Ritter has to say (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm) about it. It looks like we've already got CIA-backed terrorists, if not actual CIA agents on the ground. And if there are CIA agents already inside, there are probably already US special operations forces there.

What makes you think the US's agents ever **left** Iran after the Revolution? ;)

He's been in the service 32 years. I could count all of his medals and tell you how many he actually has.


When someone is that freaking smug, dont even bother responding. take it from where it comes. Do you give a shit what a turd thinks of you or your father?
Most of us respect a soldier. And one that has served 32 YEARS is a hero.

Who the hell is Scott Ritter? The actor???

Um... that's John. And he'd suffering from an acute case of death... RIP.

When someone is that freaking smug, dont even bother responding. take it from where it comes. Do you give a shit what a turd thinks of you or your father?

I don't think he realized that my father has been in for a long time actually.

Most of us respect a soldier. And one that has served 32 YEARS is a hero.

I will make sure he knows this when I hear from him. Thank you.

I agree, its all very fishy...any bets which american units first rolls into Iran? (I hope I'm wrong with the last thing...)
A very long time. As in, not during a Bush presidency.

First of all, you curse too much, so please use different words that actually have meanings.

Second, who cares what the planes mission was, unless you were part of the mission, Pentagon, or the government where it fell. A plane going and searching for illegal material (nuclear warheads/factories to build/try to build them) is more of international concern then of just one nation's concern. Especially in that area where terrorists organizations are known to be.

Third, there is nothing wrong with calling the mid east South whatever Asia.

Who the hell is Scott Ritter? The actor???He was the UN's Chief Weapons Inpector in Iraq until 1998, and apparently resigned shortly before the rest were forced out. He's an American who served in Iraq as a Marine captain during Desert Storm. In 2002, he came out hard against the impending invasion of Iraq, claiming that the US lacked the proof to back up the claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

He was the UN's Chief Weapons Inpector in Iraq until 1998, and apparently resigned shortly before the rest were forced out. He's an American who served in Iraq as a Marine captain during Desert Storm. In 2002, he came out hard against the impending invasion of Iraq, claiming that the US lacked the proof to back up the claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

He was joking Battery Charger. As for Scott Ritter, he was also the same person who advocated the use of force and said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

No. It isn't. If it was Mexico, the US and Canada would be at constant state of war.Really? When's the last time any of these nations violated each other's airspace? If planes are permitted, there is no violation
[/quote=Battery Charger]
If China was flying planes over US airspace, would it be proper for the US to shoot them down?
If it was detected, and failed to answer/respond to Air traffic guidence. Yes, if the US wished, though shooting it down would not be and act of war either, rather a domestic law and order matter.[/quote]No, shooting it down would not be an act of war, but the airspace violation is. That is why it is perfectly okay to shoot down the invading aircraft. Violating the airspace is an offensive act, where's shooting down the plane is an act of defense.

Further, it depends what type of airspace the plane was in. Even the UN law of the Sea goes into this a bit. e.g. Article 58(?) on exclusive economic regions.

I thought everyone knew this from the recent flap with china.

Of course, nothing is stopping whoever the US overflew from declaring war, but the overflight itself, while possibly an illegal act under US treaty obligations is not an act of war.

It is however a great excuse to bang your shoe on the table.So, you're saying that violating a nation's airspace is justification enough for a declaration of war, but it's not an act of war itself? Well, I suppose if you support Bush's war, you have no problem with wars of agression.

Can I get some clarification? If the US is violating Iran's airspace, are you saying that would make it okay for Iran to declare war against the US? Or would it be acceptable for Iran to declare war against the US for any reason or no reason at all?

He was joking Battery Charger. As for Scott Ritter, he was also the same person who advocated the use of force and said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.And when did he say that? After leaving Iraq in 1998 he said this: "I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program"It sounds to me that he didn't think Iraq had prohibited weapons at that time. Obviously, his views have changed somewhat over time, but I don't see what's so wrong with that. Nothing he's said since 2002 has been proven false, and most of it has been shown out to be true.

I've always wondered why they have to come up with retarded two-word phrases for every "Operation".

And then I worked on the government contract that supports the maintenance and invention of those stupid names.

Yes, you heard it right. A government contract, a bunch of people, and a lot of software just to make sure we use approved names, and don't reuse the same names.

Otherwise, there might be an Operation Colon Blow.

I think someone, somewhere must have been really bored one day when deciding how to best spend taxpayer money and was really drunk when he came up with that idea.

How much does that department pull in from the budget? If its anything at all like bereaucracy, that would probably be a six digit figure.

No it's not. Don't be silly. At the most it is a reason to make a fool of yourself at the UN with your shoe.

A fool?

Don't get me wrong, the man had issues, but that shoe thing was priceless. Kruschev became my hero for that. I don't like most of the other things he did, but hot damn that was cool (and hilariously funny...I always get this image of an angry Russian man banging a dress shoe on the table...actually, that's what happens, which makes it a lot funnier).

What the heck was Bono doing in the middle east? Can he even fly a plane?

Brian Eno was flying via remote.

I've always wondered why they have to come up with retarded two-word phrases for every "Operation".

And then I worked on the government contract that supports the maintenance and invention of those stupid names.

Yes, you heard it right. A government contract, a bunch of people, and a lot of software just to make sure we use approved names, and don't reuse the same names.

Otherwise, there might be an Operation Colon Blow.

Wasn't that how Colon Powell got to be..? aw never mind.

With most medals, you get one ribbon, and then you get to add "oak leaf clusters". For each additional award of the same ribbon, you get another oak leaf cluster to pin on the ribbon itself.

Hence the common phrase, "The Order of the Purple Shaft, with oak leaf clusters".

A friend of mine got that once, but he never uses condoms.

Really? When's the last time any of these nations violated each other's airspace? If planes are permitted, there is no violation

Every day aircraft from Canada and Mexico fly into US airspace without flight plans or permission. It's no biggie. Usually they are just lost. The same thing happens with flights from the US.

At the most, they just have to respond to civil air control, and vector back to the orginating airspace, or land and go through customs/immigration.

No, shooting it down would not be an act of war, but the airspace violation is. That is why it is perfectly okay to shoot down the invading aircraft. Violating the airspace is an offensive act, where's shooting down the plane is an act of defense.

Well, actually you are not supposed to just shoot it down. You have to give it the opportunity to come under civil ATC first. What if it is just lost? Also, how can you tell who are what it is? You are not supposed to go in guns blazing. By no standards though is "violating" airspace an act of war in normal circumstances. I think international agreements have made this pretty clear.

Now, you can choose, as a nation to exclude all foreign traffic from your airspace, and then it would become an act of war to overfly. But that would mean dropping out of all kinds of treaties, and I am not aware that anyone in the M.E. has made this type of declaration. And world opinion my look dimly upon it.

So, you're saying that violating a nation's airspace is justification enough for a declaration of war, but it's not an act of war itself? Well, I suppose if you support Bush's war, you have no problem with wars of agression.

As I say repeatedly, absent treaty obligations, anyone can declare war on anyone else at anytime for any reason. It's not a good justification, but it's not an obsticle either.

But no, it's not an act of war to overfly either, and certianly you couldn't claim that you were acting in self defense, because someone overflew your country. (If they do it repeatedly, and ignore warnings, and you exclude them from you airspace maybe it is, but a single overflight, no).


Can I get some clarification? If the US is violating Iran's airspace, are you saying that would make it okay for Iran to declare war against the US? Or would it be acceptable for Iran to declare war against the US for any reason or no reason at all?

I imagine as we do not have a treaty with them to the contrary, the later. They won't do it though. (Though didn't they already declare war against the US in the 80s, and everyone ignored them then too.)

Also, as Iran's government has the habit of issuing death sentences on foriegn nationals who have never even been to Iran, I wouldn't take them to seriously.

When someone is that freaking smug, dont even bother responding. take it from where it comes. Do you give a shit what a turd thinks of you or your father?
Most of us respect a soldier. And one that has served 32 YEARS is a hero.

What if he's an Iraqi soldier?

I remember in the 1980s, having Soviet spy satellites on polar orbits pointed out to me in the night sky over Germany. They are very low altitude, and move very quickly - about 90 minutes for an orbit.

The US and other countries have a large number of satellites dedicated to this purpose - overflying everyone else's country and taking pictures of everything that people are trying to hide.

U2 aircraft are used more in a sniffer role today (although they can get a camera closer than a satellite). They can sniff the air for minute traces of radioactive byproducts - so we can tell if someone is refining plutonium.


So why didn't they sniff out weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Can I get some clarification? If the US is violating Iran's airspace, are you saying that would make it okay for Iran to declare war against the US? Or would it be acceptable for Iran to declare war against the US for any reason or no reason at all?

Usually, violation of airspace does not lead to war.
Otherwise, Greece and Turkey would be constantly at war, because Turkish fighters routinely fly over Rhodes and annoy they Greek people & vacationers alike.

What can lead to war, is shooting down the said plane.
Or, if the plane drops any explosive on the ground.
Dropping propaganda doesn't seem to be a sufficient reason.

By the way, there is no such thing as an "automatic declaration of war". You can't make someone declare war by any of your actions. It's always a (sensible) choice. Otherwise, it would be too easy to force things.

(Well it used to be like that during Renaissance. I slap you & you're forced to ask a duel against me.)

Usually, if you want a war so badly, you can always:
1) force the other country to shoot the first round (US-Mexico war in Texas: the US made incursions in disputed territory, Mexico lost its nerves first)
2) pretend you were attacked or make up some "proofs" (the Nazis parachuted dead guys with Polish uniforms near their border)
3) use an accident/sabotage/error as a pretext (the Maine incident in Cuba)
4) ignore the warnings until the enemy has attacked you (Pearl Harbor)

I guess you never heard of the term "national security".

Given that all U2 missions (except for NASA flights) are classified Top Secret, they didn't even tell the Pentagon spokesperson any details.

And given the nature of the area, it is likely that the plane came down in an area where there haven't been people for decades. If it had come down in a populated area, you would see the plane on al-Jazeera right now.

The problem is not that we're overflying somewhere we don't have permission. Apparently, the plane had already finished its mission and was flying back to base over another country.

We DO have overflight permission for virtually every Middle Eastern country except Syria and Iran, so it looks like it crashed in a place where we have permission.

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that the airfields at the southwestern corner of Saudi Arabia are being used for U-2 aircraft to fly to Iran. That way they have plenty of time to get to altitude before crossing the Persian Gulf and entering Iranian airspace.

You need to stop being so sensitive. Every nation has a right not to reveal its national technical means.

Well said, I second this.

Well said, I second this.

Maybe I should be spamming your threads.

“The Iranian people deserve a genuinely democratic system in which elections are honest—and in which their leaders answer to them instead of the other way around,” Bush said

And I guess you'll be pointing to the 2000 U.S. presidential election as an example?

Thousands of would-be candidates, and all women, were arbitrarily barred from running, Rice said at a news conference.

“I can’t see how one considers that, quote, a legitimate election,” Rice said.



And how many U.S. Presidents have been anything other than wealthy anglo saxon protestant males?

Thousands of would-be candidates, and all women, were arbitrarily barred from running, Rice said at a news conference.

“I can’t see how one considers that, quote, a legitimate election,” Rice said.



And how many U.S. Presidents have been anything other than wealthy anglo saxon protestant males?

In CT last election, there were 7 different Presidential candidates to choose from on the ballot... and I recall a women running for VP in 1984.

Also, our governor is a woman (Rell).

In CT last election, there were 7 different Presidential candidates to choose from on the ballot... and I recall a women running for VP in 1984.

Also, our governor is a woman (Rell).

And the governor of Minnesota was a former wrestler.

And the governor of Minnesota was a former wrestler.

Right. But the point is that the US doesn't bar anyone from running from office (except for Prez if they're not a native). In Iran, they just barred people at whim.

Right. But the point is that the US doesn't bar anyone from running from office (except for Prez if they're not a native). In Iran, they just barred people at whim.

They don't bar people, they just use an exclusive electoral system to prevent anyone who will digress from corporate agenda from getting into a position of power.

They don't bar people, they just use an exclusive electoral system to prevent anyone who will digress from corporate agenda from getting into a position of power.

It's not really exclusive, now is it? Otherwise, how did Arnie & Jesse Ventura become Governors? Or take any number of Congressmen, such as Obama or Gopher from the Love Boat...

As for corporate agenda, that's a lovely (but as usual false) conspiracy theory. Yes, there are PACs. Yes, corps do influence politicians IN office. But if you think Microsoft, GE, GM, and Pfizer have the same agenda, think again...

It's not really exclusive, now is it? Otherwise, how did Arnie & Jesse Ventura become Governors? Or take any number of Congressmen, such as Obama or Gopher from the Love Boat...

As for corporate agenda, that's a lovely (but as usual false) conspiracy theory. Yes, there are PACs. Yes, corps do influence politicians IN office. But if you think Microsoft, GE, GM, and Pfizer have the same agenda, think again...

Arnie, Jessie, Ronnie, Georgie and Georgie Jr, got into power because they were willing to be spokesmen for multi-national corporations.

With regards to conspiracy theories, I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to say that executives from Raytheon, Lockhead-Martin, Bell Helicopter, Monsanto and the Carlysle Group were opening bottles of champagne when Bush the sequel was elected.

Arnie, Jessie, Ronnie, Georgie and Georgie Jr, got into power because they were willing to be spokesmen for multi-national corporations.

With regards to conspiracy theories, I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to say that executives from Raytheon, Lockhead-Martin, Bell Helicopter, Monsanto and the Carlysle Group were opening bottles of champagne when Bush the sequel was elected.

Um, Jesse was an Independent.
Arnie was voted in on a recall.
Reagan really had little opposition in 1980's primary, but he was most certainly not a pawn of anyone's.
As for the Bush's, you have a case there. :)

All true. But that's no surprise. Electric Boat & Newport News were estatic when Carter was elected, as were most agriculture firms. Clinton's election I'm sure brought a lot of happiness to HMOs and the Telcos.

Um, Jesse was an Independent.
Arnie was voted in on a recall.
Reagan really had little opposition in 1980's primary, but he was most certainly not a pawn of anyone's.
As for the Bush's, you have a case there. :)

All true. But that's no surprise. Electric Boat & Newport News were estatic when Carter was elected, as were most agriculture firms. Clinton's election I'm sure brought a lot of happiness to HMOs and the Telcos.

There was no corporate agenda during the Reagan/ Bush administration? Look up the names of the think tank during the Iran-Contra scandal and you'll see their only hiatas from the White House was during the Clinton administration. But then Clinton wasn't exactly clean either.

(Then why were corporations celebrating when Bush was elected?)

Because Democrats like hide and seek while Republicans like the big bang.

There was no corporate agenda during the Reagan/ Bush administration? Look up the names of the think tank during the Iran-Contra scandal and you'll see their only hiatas from the White House was during the Clinton administration. But then Clinton wasn't exactly clean either.

Immaterial... Reagan hardly had to get corporate permission to run, which is what we're debating. I've already agreed that of course corp/PACs influence officials once they are IN office.
True and True.

(Then why were corporations celebrating when Bush was elected?)

Because in general Republicans are seen as pro-business, though all Presidents have their "pet" industries.

Because Democrats like hide and seek while Republicans like the big bang.

Huh?? :confused: Not sure what you're addressing here.

Immaterial... Reagan hardly had to get corporate permission to run, which is what we're debating. I've already agreed that of course corp/PACs influence officials once they are IN office.
True and True.



Because in general Republicans are seen as pro-business, though all Presidents have their "pet" industries.



Huh?? :confused: Not sure what you're addressing here.

I figured to pose an obvious question in (parenthesis) to save time. What I was essentially try to say is that; "Since Clinton isn't clean, why would corporations be more supportive of Bush than Clinton?"

Then answering my own question: "I don't think it is because Republicans are seen as pro business, I think it is because Republicans are seen as pro-conventional warfare, whereas the Clinton administration was more inclined to conduct covert operations. In the end the military industrial complex makes less money with a bunch of green berets sneaking around the amazon or a Ranger assault in Somalia then they do in a situation like Operation Desert Storm or Operation Enduring Freedom.

First: Who the fuck are the Pentagon trying to confuse with the "SouthWest Asia" bullshit. It's the Middle East. Everyone calls it that. Why fucking try to muddy the waters with that alternate fucking description?


Second: Is anyone REALLY gonna believe that the U2 was REALLY flying innocently across someones soverign airspace and just happened to come down in some "sensitive" country? Like how it just happened to be circling Tehran 37 times on it's way back from Kandahar? Or wherever? Give me a fucking break.


Shit. I know that the government doesn't like to admit who they're spying on (the answer to which is: pretty much fucking everyone), but do they also really think that such a thin patina of bullshit doesn't smell enough for people to know to hold their noses?


Come on. Tell it like it fucking is. If the plane came down somewhere fucking sensitive it's not like you can pretend that you weren't flying somewhere you weren't supposed to be anyway. And the people who find the big fucking hole in the ground are gonna figure it the fuck out. You overflew somewhere without permission. You lost the plane. No-one will buy that you just happened to pick that place in the-area-offshore-of-north-east-africa for an overflight for fucking convenience sake.



Sometimes I think it's just fucking pathological with these people.........


All that being said, my condolences to the families of the pilot.



Just an honest question: Could you possibly make ONE post without profanity? I mean, I'm not asking you to do it....I'm asking you if it's physically possible for you to do it.

Immaterial... Reagan hardly had to get corporate permission to run, which is what we're debating.

Candidates don't need corporate permission to run, but it definitely helps to have their support. What motivated my initial sarcastic responses to statements made by Bush and Rice is how hypocritically they profess to bring democracy to other nations when they benefit from the flaws in the democratic process in the U.S.

Candidates don't need corporate permission to run, but it definitely helps to have their support. What motivated my initial sarcastic responses to statements made by Bush and Rice is how hypocritically they profess to bring democracy to other nations when they benefit from the flaws in the democratic process in the U.S.

It's not a flaw, nor are they benefitting any more or less than any other Prez/Cabinet...

It's also not being hypocritical, since it actually *is* what they're standing for. It's just got a money tinge to it. And one can easily point to other examples (ie: Carter and farm subsidies) that are just as distasteful.

It's not a flaw, nor are they benefitting any more or less than any other Prez/Cabinet...

It's also not being hypocritical, since it actually *is* what they're standing for. It's just got a money tinge to it. And one can easily point to other examples (ie: Carter and farm subsidies) that are just as distasteful.

There are several political leaders who succeed depite flaws in the democratic system and others who struggle to correct those flaws. ie. Ingrid Betancourt, Nelson Mandela, Hugo Chavez, Pandit Nehru and Juan Jose Arevalo to name a few.

These leaders struggle to fight corruption in nations that have a history of exclusive governments, either because of race or economics. Whereas leaders from the nation that is supposed to be the beacon of modern democracy act as puppets for a corporate agenda. (If you review the financial background of most U.S. elected leaders you'll see a common trend)

As for the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy. If the U.S. is really so concerned about making the world safe for democracy why didn't they go into Zimbabwe or Angola? Why does the Pentagon support terrorist organisations like the Contras, Mujahideen and the AUC, while trying to topple democratically elected leaders? (ie. Arbenz, Chavez and Ortega)

My problem with people like Rice and Bush and any one who supports them is that they use terms like "Operation Enduring Freedom" When they should be using terms like "Operation Secure the Oil Fields"

There are several political leaders who succeed depite flaws in the democratic system and others who struggle to correct those flaws. ie. Ingrid Betancourt, Nelson Mandela, Hugo Chavez, Pandit Nehru and Juan Jose Arevalo to name a few.

These leaders struggle to fight corruption in nations that have a history of exclusive governments, either because of race or economics. Whereas leaders from the nation that is supposed to be the beacon of modern democracy act as puppets for a corporate agenda. (If you review the financial background of most U.S. elected leaders you'll see a common trend)

As for the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy. If the U.S. is really so concerned about making the world safe for democracy why didn't they go into Zimbabwe or Angola? Why does the Pentagon support terrorist organisations like the Contras, Mujahideen and the AUC, while trying to topple democratically elected leaders? (ie. Arbenz, Chavez and Ortega)

My problem with people like Rice and Bush and any one who supports them is that they use terms like "Operation Enduring Freedom" When they should be using terms like "Operation Secure the Oil Fields"

Yawn. You're just repeating what you've already said, and has been said on TV and in Op-Ed pages. And it's fine for you to have your opinion. But rephrasing the same point over and over again is of no value.

Ill just jump in and point a few things out...

As far as I know, a countrys 'soverign airspace' only goes up so far. U2's fly on the edge of space, which is not (according to international agreement, or something, regardless of whatever local authorities say) technically part of a countries airspace.
U2 flights are classified, the military doesnt have to tell anybody anything, ever.
The military likes to use terms like 'Southwest Asia', this is the official term for the Middle East, and the military is in to official terms. Its a sort of reflex.
Its the govornments JOB to spy on 'Pretty much fucking everybody', it is, in fact, the purpose of the body known as the CIA.
The military also likes to keep secrets secret. THAT is the purpose of the little patch of ground known as Area 51 ;)

This little 'operation' couldnt have been too sensitive though, otherwise they would have used a satilite, or one of thoes flying saucers, manned by gnomes from Mars.

U2 flights are classified, the military doesnt have to tell anybody anything, ever.In what sense do you mean this? Are you okay with never knowing what the military is up to? Are you saying that we can't make the military tell us anything because they have all the bombs? I guess I'm asking whether you think it's legitimate for the military to keep secrets indefinately or that it's merely within their power to do so.

How about if I take $300 from you and use it for some secret purpose for your own good?

In what sense do you mean this? Are you okay with never knowing what the military is up to? Are you saying that we can't make the military tell us anything because they have all the bombs? I guess I'm asking whether you think it's legitimate for the military to keep secrets indefinately or that it's merely within their power to do so.

How about if I take $300 from you and use it for some secret purpose for your own good?
I never said I liked it.
However, you have to admit that the military requires some measure of secrecy in order to function.
Imagine if the press had heard about D-Day. WWII might have turned out a bit differntly, hey?

Determining exactly how much secrecy the military requires is a bit beyond me.

I never said I liked it.
However, you have to admit that the military requires some measure of secrecy in order to function.
Imagine if the press had heard about D-Day. WWII might have turned out a bit differntly, hey?

Determining exactly how much secrecy the military requires is a bit beyond me.

Yea it would've turned out differently. The USSR would've taken all of Europe and the Cold War would've been very different.

Um, Jesse was an Independent.
Arnie was voted in on a recall.
Reagan really had little opposition in 1980's primary, but he was most certainly not a pawn of anyone's.
As for the Bush's, you have a case there. :)Reagan was bought, although his price was much higher than that of the Bushes. I think his presidency would've been a lot different 'somebody' didn't try to kill him.

Immaterial... Reagan hardly had to get corporate permission to run, which is what we're debating.
Reagan's friends managed to derail a secret deal made by Carter with the Iranian hostage takers -- the hostages would have been released 1 month before elections. This way, Carter wouldn't achieve anything. After the deal had failed, Carter tried one last thing -- a rescue operation, which ended up in a disaster.

Reagan has really manipulated the situation in order to discredit Carter and get elected. If Carter is so much hatred today, and such a source of shame for many americans, it's mostly thanks to Reagan's "magic touch".

Ref.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

BTW, this "deal sabotage" thing has been acknowledged by former Reagan administration officials. It was dubbed the "October Surprise" by insiders.
The "deal sabotage" work was performed by George H W Bush (Bush Sr).

Reagan's friends managed to derail a secret deal made by Carter with the Iranian hostage takers -- the hostages would have been released 1 month before elections. This way, Carter wouldn't achieve anything. After the deal had failed, Carter tried one last thing -- a rescue operation, which ended up in a disaster.

Reagan has really manipulated the situation in order to discredit Carter and get elected. If Carter is so much hatred today, and such a source of shame for many americans, it's mostly thanks to Reagan's "magic touch".

Ref.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

BTW, this "deal sabotage" thing has been acknowledged by former Reagan administration officials. It was dubbed the "October Surprise" by insiders.
The "deal sabotage" work was performed by George H W Bush (Bush Sr).

HAHA!! Oh I love this. Please. There was no way George H W Bush could've pulled this off. He wouldn't have had the time to do it. :rolleyes:

Now prove that a former Reagan admin official acknowledged it. You do realize that it would've been blasted all over the media if he did. Since I haven't heard a peep on it, I guess not.

Its a nice conspiracy theory though.

Excuse me, but where the fuck was I askling them to "reveal technical means?" I wasn't asking them to give access to the film, state the nature of the whole mission, or any such bullshit. I'm just pointing out that bullshit in and of itself raises an odour.

Incidentally, how can you sit there with a straight fucking face and on the one hand say "Oh well, if the PENTAGON said it was so-and-so- it must be the whole truth", whilst also simultaneously saying "shit - you don't expect the Pentagon to have to tell the whole truth now do you? That would reveal SECRETS"


Talk about covering every base with one catchall, cover-your-ass bit of logical inconsistency!!!


I DON'T expect the truth from the Pentagon on statements regarding secret missions. I just find the patent fucking transparency of the statement as given to be laughable and thought it was worth sharing.

The only patent fucking transparency is the odor of the stink you are attempting to create to further your own warped views of the US. You are really making yourself look bad.

Its a nice conspiracy theory though.
I'm glad you appreciate it. :D

You can do a search on Google with "October Surprise" for more references. Who knows. Maybe one of theses sources will prove to be serious. I, for myself, don't care much about Reagan or Carter. LOL.

I was surprised at how much the expression "October Surprise" has been used in the last years in American politics.


More details about the "October Surprise" thingie:

"" (...) The phrase "October Surprise" seems to have been invented by George Bush père. On Oct. 2, 1980, at a campaign appearance in Eugene, Ore., Mr. Bush warned that President Carter, then struggling in an ultimately unsuccessful re-election campaign, might spring such a surprise. "When you are a president, you have an ability to shape things to some degree," said Ronald Reagan's running mate.

In 1991 Gary Sick, a Carter administration official in the National Security Council, published a New York Times op-ed piece, and later a book titled "October Surprise," in which he claimed that "individuals associated with the Reagan-Bush campaign of 1980 met secretly with Iranian officials to delay the release of the American hostages until after the Presidential election."

Bipartisan congressional investigations found no credible evidence to support Mr. Sick's allegations--but the results weren't made public until after the 1992 election, thus avoiding an October Surprise that might have helped Mr. Bush in his re-election bid.

The term "October Surprise" has become an American political cliché, applied, among other things, to Iran-contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh's indictment of Caspar Weinberger in October 1992, Ross Perot's re-entry into the campaign the same month, and Lyndon Johnson's last-minute Vietnam peace efforts in 1968, which columnist William Safire retroactively dubbed an "October Surprise" in 1991. Just this Sept. 3, onetime independent counsel Michael Zeldin, in a Washington Post op-ed criticizing current independent counsel Robert Ray for appointing a new grand jury to hear evidence against President Clinton, declared: "I would hope we are not in for an October Surprise." In the strictest sense, though, the phrase applies to how a President can use his powers to make things happen, but with electoral impact in mind. (...)""

Ref.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/oct_surprise.html

Yawn. You're just repeating what you've already said, and has been said on TV and in Op-Ed pages. And it's fine for you to have your opinion. But rephrasing the same point over and over again is of no value.

It is for those willing to address the issues.

It is for those willing to address the issues.

Yep. Even issues that don't exist. :D

/done with thread

Yep. Even issues that don't exist. :D

/done with thread

You shouldn't dismiss something just because you don't understand it, or because it conflicts with a belief you were raised to accept as the truth. If you would indulge the possibility that someone with a perspective that conflicts with your own might be correct, then you might learn that you have more to gain from a discussion than just the last word.

You shouldn't dismiss something just because you don't understand it, or because it conflicts with a belief you were raised to accept as the truth. If you would indulge the possibility that someone with a perspective that conflicts with your own might be correct, then you might learn that you have more to gain from a discussion than just the last word.

And you shouldn't think that dismissal on my part isn't thought out. :p

And you shouldn't think that dismissal on my part isn't thought out. :p

"/done with thread " - Markreich