Iran Attacks UAS (Predator)
 

From CNN:
Two Iranian Su-25 fighter jets fired on an unarmed U.S. Air Force Predator drone in the Persian Gulf on November 1, the Pentagon disclosed on Thursday. The incident, reported first by CNN, raised fresh concerns within the Obama administration about Iranian military aggression in crucial Gulf oil shipping lanes. The drone was on routine maritime surveillance in international airspace east of Kuwait, 16 miles off the coast of Iran, U.S. officials said. The Predator was not hit.

"Our aircraft was never in Iranian airspace. It was always flying in international air space. The recognized limit is 12 nautical miles off the coast and we never entered the 12 nautical mile limit," Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in responding to questions from reporters after CNN reported the incident.

Little said the United States believed this was the first time an unmanned aircraft was shot at by the Iranians in international waters over the Gulf. In December of 2011, a U.S. surveillance drone crashed in eastern Iran. Iranians claimed to have shot it down, and created a toy model of the drone to celebrate its capture.

The Obama administration did not disclose the incident before the presidential election, but three senior officials confirmed the details to CNN on Thursday. They declined to be identified because of sensitive intelligence matters surrounding the matter. The drone's still and video cameras captured the incident showing two Su-25s approaching the Predator and firing onboard guns.

Iran is trouble, but do you think we should go to war with them because they took shots at an unmanned piece of equipment and missed?

Are you upset that Obama didn't hold a press conference to give you detailed information about our ongoing spy operations? Are you upset with the unnamed sources leaking information?

What's your take on all this?

Iran's air force can't hit a slow-moving target, with no flares, that can't turn quickly.

maybe they weren't trying to hit it. maybe they were trying to do exactly what they did, fire at it, but not hit it. there's a lot of breast beating and yelling and scaring in all fights, this is one way nations do it. certainly shooting DOWN the drone would have had much more dramatic consequences than what did happen, probably not a net benefit to Iran. But with what did happen, they could say to somebody who cares, "we shot at it and it flew away" (even if it merely flew on, unhit).

for that matter, if the drone's in international airspace, and the fighters are in international airspace, don't they have equal rights to be there? And if I'm out here in international airspace, why can't I fire my gun and hit nothing? Just playing devil's advocate here. Of course, other devil's advocate could say this was an unprovoked attack, kill kill kill. whatever.

sounds like there were a couple incidents of no significance happening.

It was just a bunch of chicken shit posturing. I'm surprised the pentagon didn't just burst out with derisive laughter and shake their collective head, a la Reagan; "There you go again..."

The Iranians are just looking for attention, they want to be validated by the UAS. Now had they fired on a USA drone, then there'd be a heap of whoopass in store for them. Amirght?

So this one was in international air space? I haven't heard the Iranian version of this story yet but, well, I believe them.

They have already seized a downed UAS and it has never been released if it was shot down. This makes the second incident. Plus, the administration has not been forthcoming on Benghazi. Now Petraeus has resigned a week before he was supposed to testify before te Intelligence Committee. I truly feel things were witheld prior to the election in regard to foreign policy.

As far as my opinion on Iran, they are the axis of evil and have played a significant role in terrorism in Southwest Asia. We need to show them we will not be bullied. They attack our UAS, we need to strike the base the Foxbats were launched from. Note that these aircraft belonged to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Exact same bellicous attitude is called Gulf of Tonkin. You would go to war because someone fired a shot across your bow in international waters? My god. Even George Jr is not that dumb.

Those with respect for the American soldier first learn what is required to go to war. None of those requirements exist. However wacko extremists did want to go to war over a silly spy plane. Because the spy plane and a Chinese fighter had a mid-air sideswipe. Amazing how little justifies a massacre of a few ten thousand troops.

Your logic says we should have invaded Israel for an intentional attack on the USS Liberty. Israel intentionally killed 34 Americans. First with airplanes. And then with Torpedo boats. Your logic: we should have bombed Israel back into the stone age.

Deja Vue Nam. Please learn the lessons.

That would play into their hands. We cannot be sure of Iranian intentions right now but there is reason to believe that they are looking for a small fight.

Iranians are currently very angry at their regime so an American attack could insight a "rally behind the flag" moment, which would be bad for the entire 'regime change' thing.

Respect for the American soldier? Buddy, I have the upmost respect for our troops because I have fought along side them. I have picked up pieces of my bunkmate and 3 other soldiers. I have 2 awards for action during combat. I admit I am a "hawk", but never question my love for my troops and fellow soldiers. I have learned my "lessons" first hand and I am reminded of them everyday.

There is a huge difference between the Iranian Military Guard and the standard forces. They are akin to the "SS Troops" of WWII.

Then you should not be posting the 'big dic' concepts. "Big dic" thinking is the 'worse' respect for any serviceman. Wasting soldiers in fiascos (Vietnam, Mission Accomplished, Koh Tang) demonstrates contempt for soldiers. Having been a solder, then you should have learned that. But not everyone learn from history.

If you have any respect for the American soldier, then you even know Koh Tang.

US Navy routinely fires a shot across bows of any boat in the Persian Gulf that gets close. Iranians apparently did same to a drone. So you would waste American soldiers to appease your penis? Because only the US Navy is permitted to do that? That >buddy< is least respect for the American soldier.

Next time, you call an officer "sir". Is that clear?

tw - I originally responded with a blistering post. I apologize. I ask you not to trifle with me when it comes to sacrifing my troops. If you indeed were an officer, then you will understand. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.

Now let's get ready to have a great Veteran's Day.

I did not see anything blistering. But essential for military deployments are some basic and fundamental requirements. Top of the list is a smoking gun. To execute a military conflict on anything less is total disrespect for the American soldier.

He must be deployed for *egregious* reasons. Other requirements also must exist. No smoking gun exists in the Persian Gulf. It remains an event intended for and only addressed by diplomats. That (and not the military) are responsible for solving what does not even constitute a bruise. A smoking gun is always required to justify military action.

Of course, military can be used as part of diplomatic action. Examples are numerous. For example, Clinton successfully averted military tensions between China and Taiwan. By sailing two carrier groups through the Straits of Taiwan. Point was clearly understood by all. Clinton also averted war in the Balkans by using military accordingly. And even got Baby Doc in Haiti to 'surrender' by simply putting a battalion of the 82nd Airborne in the sky.

Obama is currently doing same at the Senkaku Islands. Diplomacy without putting American servicemen at risk.

British Marines did same in Liberia. An event that everyone should know because of how those Marines were used so effectively. Resulting in all parties negotiating rather than use military conflict.

In every case, problems are best solved by diplomats because deploying servicemen without a 'clear and present' danger is, well, the president in that Clancy book also had massive disrespect for servicemen. He had no smoking gun to justify a 'clear and present' danger. He had contempt for servicemen.

They could not shoot down a propeller driven surveillance drone? The point is all but obvious. They want diplomats to start talking.

I deleted the post and replaced it with trying to be more agreeable. I understand your point. I simply differ. I guess I would be far more pleased with Teddy Roosevelt as president.

Tomorrow is Veteran's Day. Let's get ready to spend time with other veterans and drink a toast to those who await us in Valalla

If memory serves, outside of Panama, TR showed restraint, something no President since has exhibited. Our armed forces are too powerful for the type of person we elect.

Retold this month is an event 50 years ago: Missiles of October. We did not learn until 1990 how close we came to destroying the entire world. Greatest threat to this world was not Kennedy or Krushchev. Greatest threat were the 'big dics' on both sides who absolutely wanted war. Who only saw solutions in military conflict. A perfect example was Gen Curtis LeMay who said that we are already at war with the Soviet Union. The American people did not yet know it.

LeMay had to be in the Oval Office when he was exposed by Kennedy as lying. Essential so that everyone here could be alive. Robert McNamara literally had to sit constantly in the Pentagon because Kennedy needed someone to keep the Joint Chiefs in line. We know Generals, who could not understand the bigger picture (not the Russians leaders), were the greatest threat. We also know of Russians who did similar actions to stop their 'big dics' from killing us all.

Missiles of October demonstrated a danger. People who routinely see solutions only in military conflict. Who do not understand that we massacre a million servicemen so that only ten people will go back to a negotiation table. Best leaders go to and solve problems at that table without killing any soldiers.

We would not be here if Kennedy had not shown restraint that only great leaders understand.

In that he did but he also sent more than 10,000 American troops into Vietnam.

Kennedy did not deploy combat troops. He sent advisors, trainers, and supply personal. And had already ordered 1000 troops withdrawn in 1963. Johnson reversed those orders. Gulf of Tonkin was 1964. First American combat troops were 3500 Marines deployed by Johnson in 1965.

Westmoreland, a prefect example of an incompetant general, was eventually given 500,000 troops. And asked for another 500,000. Johnson asked him what the enemy would do. Westmoreland said they would match our 1 million deployment. Johnson then realized this war was probably was not winnable. Johnson eventually sued for peace in 1968.

Along comes Nixon who sent N Vietnam a secret message. Do not make a peace settlement with Johnson. Nixon promised better terms. Unknown how that affected history. But then Nixon escalated Nam massively. Including deployment of B-52s armed with nuclear bombs to the USSR border. To highlight his intents in Vietnam.

Kennedy insisted Vietnamese fight their own war. Johnson deployed combat units. Then learned three years later that the war could not be won. Nixon deployed everything - even spending money we did not have - to protect his legacy. Under Nixon, we even lost 10% of our strategic bombers (B-52s) over N Vietnam. He was that wacko about a war that America could not win. Could not win was well documented even in 1963 before Westmoreland took command. Anyone with military knowledge appreciates the significance of Ap Bac in Jan 1963. Kennedy refused to send combat troops.