Were not the US we used to be

[Dave2]

So, if the Chinese or the Russians fly a drone over the US and we get our hands on it, we should give it back, right?

Yeah, sure, after we clone the electronics and make sure we know how to defeat any stealth ability it might have.

[VMI77]

So, if the Chinese or the Russians fly a drone over the US and we get our hands on it, we should give it back, right?

Yeah, sure, after we clone the electronics and make sure we know how to defeat any stealth ability it might have.

Well, maybe that's what the Iranians will do. But fact that they illegally violated our air space is OK with you?

[Charles L. Cotton]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/mea ... ?hpt=hp_t2


The article says "We asked for it back" Are you kidding me? How about we take it back or put a crater where it now sits? I can't believe those pansies in Washington.

So, if the Chinese or the Russians fly a drone over the US and we get our hands on it, we should give it back, right? And if we don't, you're good with them putting a crater wherever we're keeping it?

No we don't give it back and if they bomb us, we retaliate 10 fold. That's the way the world works; those with the bigger guns make the rules.

Chas.

[Dave2]

So, if the Chinese or the Russians fly a drone over the US and we get our hands on it, we should give it back, right?

Yeah, sure, after we clone the electronics and make sure we know how to defeat any stealth ability it might have.

Well, maybe that's what the Iranians will do. But fact that they illegally violated our air space is OK with you?

No, not ok, but not worth starting a war over either. Plus, being a citizen and resident of the most powerful country on earth, I'd feel a bit insulted if they weren't trying (and I'd feel let down if our government ever left top secret stuff laying around where an aerial drone could find it).

It's not like they'd be able to use their drone again, anyway. IMHO they'd be fools to even turn it on outside of a Faraday Cage, considering that we'll have had the chance to modify it however we want.

[speedsix]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/mea ... ?hpt=hp_t2


The article says "We asked for it back" Are you kidding me? How about we take it back or put a crater where it now sits? I can't believe those pansies in Washington.

So, if the Chinese or the Russians fly a drone over the US and we get our hands on it, we should give it back, right? And if we don't, you're good with them putting a crater wherever we're keeping it?

No we don't give it back and if they bomb us, we retaliate 10 fold. That's the way the world works; those with the bigger guns make the rules.

Chas.

...COTTON FOR PRESIDENT!!! that sneakweasel we have now wouldn't protect us...he'd apologize and give 'em the info they were trying to get...he and his spouse have been at Ft. Bragg, sucking up to the troops, this morning...lying out of both sides of their mouths...as usual...

[Dave2]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/mea ... ?hpt=hp_t2


The article says "We asked for it back" Are you kidding me? How about we take it back or put a crater where it now sits? I can't believe those pansies in Washington.

So, if the Chinese or the Russians fly a drone over the US and we get our hands on it, we should give it back, right? And if we don't, you're good with them putting a crater wherever we're keeping it?

No we don't give it back and if they bomb us, we retaliate 10 fold. That's the way the world works; those with the bigger guns make the rules.

Chas.

I'll agree that the world does work that way, but I don't necessarily believe it should. In this case it does us no harm to give the drone back (after we've learned all we can) and it lets a potential enemy save face (thus reducing the chances of them becoming an actual enemy). Unless there's some secret in the drone that we can't figure out, and we can't put it back together in such a way that they wouldn't detect our failure, there's no reason not to do the gentlemanly thing and return their property.

[pcgizzmo]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/mea ... ?hpt=hp_t2


The article says "We asked for it back" Are you kidding me? How about we take it back or put a crater where it now sits? I can't believe those pansies in Washington.

So, if the Chinese or the Russians fly a drone over the US and we get our hands on it, we should give it back, right? And if we don't, you're good with them putting a crater wherever we're keeping it?

Your not talking Apples to Apples. If we were a country like Iran that were trying to build nuclear weapons against the International communities pleas against it. If we said the holocaust never happened and stated that Israel shouldn't even have the right to exist. If we were a danger to countries around us and sophisticated technology fell into our hands from another country that might make us more of a danger to those countries then "Yes" I would expect that whoever lost that technology would come looking for it or destroy it.

[VMI77]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/mea ... ?hpt=hp_t2


The article says "We asked for it back" Are you kidding me? How about we take it back or put a crater where it now sits? I can't believe those pansies in Washington.

So, if the Chinese or the Russians fly a drone over the US and we get our hands on it, we should give it back, right? And if we don't, you're good with them putting a crater wherever we're keeping it?

No we don't give it back and if they bomb us, we retaliate 10 fold. That's the way the world works; those with the bigger guns make the rules.

Chas.

Really, I would have thought you believed in the rule of law. That's like saying the biggest thugs make the rules. The US government has the biggest guns, for sure --not the American people-- so by your logic, the Constitution, which has no guns, is irrelevant, and the US government should be able to do anything it wants, using it's superior force to have it's way. That's thug rule, not the rule of law.

So, might makes right, the ends justify the means, and we should escalate to all out nuclear war if a country like Russia or China does the same thing we do. And you must have supported both Saddam's invasion of Kuwait AND our war to drive him out, since obviously, Saddam had bigger guns than Kuwait and we had bigger guns than Saddam. Which means, logically, that should any nation ever acquire bigger guns than ours, you'd support them doing whatever they want with us.

[VMI77]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/mea ... ?hpt=hp_t2


The article says "We asked for it back" Are you kidding me? How about we take it back or put a crater where it now sits? I can't believe those pansies in Washington.

So, if the Chinese or the Russians fly a drone over the US and we get our hands on it, we should give it back, right? And if we don't, you're good with them putting a crater wherever we're keeping it?

Your not talking Apples to Apples. If we were a country like Iran that were trying to build nuclear weapons against the International communities pleas against it. If we said the holocaust never happened and stated that Israel shouldn't even have the right to exist. If we were a danger to countries around us and sophisticated technology fell into our hands from another country that might make us more of a danger to those countries then "Yes" I would expect that whoever lost that technology would come looking for it or destroy it.

You're absolutely right, I'm not talking about fruit or even vegetables, I'm talking about legal principle, moral principle, and the rule of law. The FUNDAMENTAL basis of morality and law is reciprocity. I think your logic and invocation of the "international community" is going to come into to conflict for you, and perhaps very soon. There's a gun ban right now being contemplated by the "international community." Somehow though, I'm guessing that if the "international community" votes in the UN to deny certain gun rights to you, you're not going to be advocating that our government comply. But by your logic, if the "international community" decides Americans shouldn't have small arms, then they should have the same right to enforce their desires against the US that they have to enforce them against Iran.

I also suspect that if China got caught flying a drone over the US you'd be screaming about their violation of OUR airspace and international law and wanting retaliation. Furthermore, if they came into our country to get it back it would be an act of war. Might makes right and the rule of law are incompatible. You either have the rule of law --and while it's somewhat shaky, there is something called international law-- or you don't.

And by the way, there are people in the US, and the countries of our allies, like the UK, that say the holocaust never happened. Should they be arrested, imprisoned, executed? Should the government be able to enter their homes at will and look around because they believe something false and reprehensible? Should they be banned from the internet? What does looney talk about the holocaust have to do with violating international law and flying drones over another country's airspace without their consent? And what about something like global warming --the international community believes in global warming and equates those who disagree with holocaust deniers. So, not believing what a lot of other people believe is a crime in your opinion?

[MasterOfNone]

Maybe this drone does have a remote destruct capability still intact. It'd be a shame if it happened to go off inside an Iranian intelligence facility.

[pcgizzmo]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/mea ... ?hpt=hp_t2


The article says "We asked for it back" Are you kidding me? How about we take it back or put a crater where it now sits? I can't believe those pansies in Washington.

So, if the Chinese or the Russians fly a drone over the US and we get our hands on it, we should give it back, right? And if we don't, you're good with them putting a crater wherever we're keeping it?

Your not talking Apples to Apples. If we were a country like Iran that were trying to build nuclear weapons against the International communities pleas against it. If we said the holocaust never happened and stated that Israel shouldn't even have the right to exist. If we were a danger to countries around us and sophisticated technology fell into our hands from another country that might make us more of a danger to those countries then "Yes" I would expect that whoever lost that technology would come looking for it or destroy it.

You're absolutely right, I'm not talking about fruit or even vegetables, I'm talking about legal principle, moral principle, and the rule of law. The FUNDAMENTAL basis of morality and law is reciprocity. I think your logic and invocation of the "international community" is going to come into to conflict for you, and perhaps very soon. There's a gun ban right now being contemplated by the "international community." Somehow though, I'm guessing that if the "international community" votes in the UN to deny certain gun rights to you, you're not going to be advocating that our government comply. But by your logic, if the "international community" decides Americans shouldn't have small arms, then they should have the same right to enforce their desires against the US that they have to enforce them against Iran.

I also suspect that if China got caught flying a drone over the US you'd be screaming about their violation of OUR airspace and international law and wanting retaliation. Furthermore, if they came into our country to get it back it would be an act of war. Might makes right and the rule of law are incompatible. You either have the rule of law --and while it's somewhat shaky, there is something called international law-- or you don't.

And by the way, there are people in the US, and the countries of our allies, like the UK, that say the holocaust never happened. Should they be arrested, imprisoned, executed? Should the government be able to enter their homes at will and look around because they believe something false and reprehensible? Should they be banned from the internet? What does looney talk about the holocaust have to do with violating international law and flying drones over another country's airspace without their consent? And what about something like global warming --the international community believes in global warming and equates those who disagree with holocaust deniers. So, not believing what a lot of other people believe is a crime in your opinion?

All good points but when you say " Legal principle, moral principle, and the rule of law" who's are you talking about? Even the best legal principle and laws have outside influence and emotional influence and morality is subjective. Legally, we as a nation are part of the UN. If they pass a law banning guns and we vote against it but majority rules then legally we need to follow it since we joined the UN and agreed to the terms of joining. My guess is that we would find a way not to comply. I as a person won't comply even though legally I should. What kind of person does that make me morally? In the end it's all semantics. Government's and men will find a way to do what they want to do. In particular countries with influence, money and military power. As Charles stated the big dog wins. It's just a fact of life. It's not always legally or morally right but that's the way it is. I don't always like it but sometimes I do.

[Charles L. Cotton]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/mea ... ?hpt=hp_t2


The article says "We asked for it back" Are you kidding me? How about we take it back or put a crater where it now sits? I can't believe those pansies in Washington.

So, if the Chinese or the Russians fly a drone over the US and we get our hands on it, we should give it back, right? And if we don't, you're good with them putting a crater wherever we're keeping it?

No we don't give it back and if they bomb us, we retaliate 10 fold. That's the way the world works; those with the bigger guns make the rules.

Chas.

Really, I would have thought you believed in the rule of law. That's like saying the biggest thugs make the rules. The US government has the biggest guns, for sure --not the American people-- so by your logic, the Constitution, which has no guns, is irrelevant, and the US government should be able to do anything it wants, using it's superior force to have it's way. That's thug rule, not the rule of law.

So, might makes right, the ends justify the means, and we should escalate to all out nuclear war if a country like Russia or China does the same thing we do. And you must have supported both Saddam's invasion of Kuwait AND our war to drive him out, since obviously, Saddam had bigger guns than Kuwait and we had bigger guns than Saddam. Which means, logically, that should any nation ever acquire bigger guns than ours, you'd support them doing whatever they want with us.

I believe in the rule of law within the United States. Your analogy of the U.S. government v. U.S. Citizens is hardly on point. Comparing a rogue country that has vowed to destroy an entire country and annihilate its people (Israel) with the United States and its citizens borders on the absurd.

There are no laws between countries. Most countries pay lip service to so-called "international law" but it is illusory outside the commercial/contract arena. When it comes to military action, there is no rule of law beyond who can defeat the other on the battlefield.

Don't presume to state what I do and do not support.

Chas.

[Oldgringo]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/mea ... ?hpt=hp_t2


The article says "We asked for it back" Are you kidding me? How about we take it back or put a crater where it now sits? I can't believe those pansies in Washington.

So, if the Chinese or the Russians fly a drone over the US and we get our hands on it, we should give it back, right? And if we don't, you're good with them putting a crater wherever we're keeping it?

No we don't give it back and if they bomb us, we retaliate 10 fold. That's the way the world works; those with the bigger guns make the rules.

Chas.

...COTTON FOR PRESIDENT!!! that sneakweasel we have now wouldn't protect us...he'd apologize and give 'em the info they were trying to get...he and his spouse have been at Ft. Bragg, sucking up to the troops, this morning...lying out of both sides of their mouths...as usual...

...and speedsix for VP

Me, I'll do the Secretary of Defense thinghy. Bombs away over everybody that don't act right. And yes, I will be the judge of what's right and what's wrong.

[speedsix]

...it'd be nice to see some old grey hair making important decisions in Washington again...

[Dave2]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/mea ... ?hpt=hp_t2


The article says "We asked for it back"

Maybe they'll give it back soon, when they're done making a copy.