The Eu butthurt in this thread is amazingly strong.
On topic: Is anyone really surprised that the U.S. is flying drones over Iran? You guys are acting like this means full-scale invasion or some shit. My favorite part of this thread is Kangodo providing zero sources as usual, but hey if it helps your argument and no one calls you on it lying always works!
I'm no more likely to trust US Military sources in this matter than Iranian.
---------- Post added 2012-12-05 at 09:08 AM ----------
The fact is, if it's true, the US is doing something it shouldn't be. You can't masquerade around about freedom and all that other good stuff if you're going to violate another nation's airspace just because you don't want them to have something.
No matter who you are, you shouldn't be able to circumvent the official channels and get away with it.
If Iran was flying drones in US airspace then I'd imagine there would be several air bases in Iran under plumes of smoke by now.
Yeh thats true. but i feel like i should add... You can strike FREELY any target on the planet THAT CANNOT RETALIATE.
Drones and stealth aircrafts are expensive and the loss of a few of them would make your generals think twice.
And dont think Iran can't and won't fight back. As said before, Iran isn't Iraq nor Afghanistan. Its a fully sustainable country full of resources that has been on the alert from you guys a good few years now.
Mind you, i dont doubt the destructive force of the USA army.
I just think you shouldnt get the last 2 events, iraq and afghanistan as an example.
For two reason.
First neither of them had a proper army able to counter your aircraft attacks.
Second because in both cases you showed how, yes, things go amazingly easy when, before a ground invasion, you airstrike the place to oblivion.
BUT
when it comes down to a ground invasion, even a run down iraq, hell even afghanistan, with guerrilla tactics, can hold you in a headlock, while public opinion drops dramatically.
Think how it would drop if you had to fight a proper army, old school ground invasion. People just wont accept it.
---------- Post added 2012-12-05 at 10:16 AM ----------
Yeah... Which ones were the good guys again?
Last edited by mmocea043e1e13; 2012-12-05 at 10:25 AM.
Because of MAD. If Iran even dare to fly near USA even in international space, it would probably lead to invasion.
---------- Post added 2012-12-05 at 11:27 AM ----------
Pulling that arugment again? Pakistan a country that have shitload of terrorists in it didn't "lose" bombs, so why would Iran?
---------- Post added 2012-12-05 at 11:28 AM ----------
Probably US... :P
sadly in this case i would have to disagree with you. america would do what it always does and obliterate everything from afar. 1.5 million dead iraqis, mostly civilians are testament to that. there arent many countries in the world capable of withstanding the firepower they could bring to bear. ofc the ones that could, they wouldnt dare attack. but then not many countries want to waste so much of their GDP on a needless pissing contest either. maybe thats why their economy is going down the toilet and well all be speaking chineese soon.
Someone asked the same question about Iraq, and then went to bomb them. Guess what? No nuclear weapons.
Also, the rules are made by the US for the US. It's kinda ironic that THEY are the ones telling other people to not have nukes. It's like me pointing a gun at someone's head to prevent them from buying guns.
Iran signed on to play by the rules, and they aren't. And before you start whining about Isreal, perhaps you should read who signed the NPT and who didnt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...uclear_Weapons
And what does MAD have to do with invasion? Nothing? Nothing at all?
Oh, by the way... your tinfoil hat has a crinkle on the left side. That is a weakness our Mass Mental Control satellites can exploit. Our Weather Control satellites had been programmed to blow the wind in just the right direction to create that crinkle. Just saying...
Which part of "the rules are made by the US for the US" didn't you understand? Also, there is no proof that Iran has nuclear weapons. Remember Iraq? When US officials said "we have definite proof of WMDs" and nothing was found? Yeah, same thing here, except the US doesn't have money to invade Iran.
Implying that the US 'doesnt have the money' is a foolish assumption. Refusing UN inspectors is breaking the rules, and a cause to be suspicious. Why you think that somehow the US strongarmed every other nation to sign onto this treaty and is the sole voice in enforcing it I have no idea, but your tinfoil hat might need to come off at some point.