OBAMA BETRAYS MILITARY SECRTS

[CuteOldGuy]

Well, at least they are starting to alternate excuses. One time it's "All Bush's Fault" and next it's "Hey, he killed bin Laden." Both of which are designed to deflect criticism of President Obama's overwhelming incompetence. It doesn't matter how bad Bush was. Or Clinton. Or Reagan. Or Eisenhower. Or Van Buren. None of that changes the fact that President Obama is in way over his head, and is not up to the job.

[Iaintliein]

Why would piracy not justify an aerial attack of size and scope deemed necessary to destroy the stolen article?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middl...anian-engineer

If this story is confirmed, the drone was not over Iranian airspace and was pirated. Maybe it's time to give Iran what they want . . . a couple of nukes.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Ok. I will admit I know very little about military operations. I also don't know if there is any valuable intel on board a drone which hasn't already been compromised. I agree that it is likely not worth any American lives to recover, and a cruise missile strike could go wrong and kill innocent people.

That being said, if we are going to be sending drones over hostile territory that are carrying sensitive intel, there ought to be a self destruct sequence we can initiate remotely to prevent these issues. It's embarrassing that our President has to ask a hostile government to return a top secret piece of equipment we were using to spy on that government.

This may not be Obama's fault, after all. It is more likely the CIA fucked up the design of the damn thing.

Thank you. That's all I was looking for.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well, at least they are starting to alternate excuses. One time it's "All Bush's Fault" and next it's "Hey, he killed bin Laden." Both of which are designed to deflect criticism of President Obama's overwhelming incompetence. It doesn't matter how bad Bush was. Or Clinton. Or Reagan. Or Eisenhower. Or Van Buren. None of that changes the fact that President Obama is in way over his head, and is not up to the job.

Back to being full of shit again. You start this thread as an example of how far Obama is in over his head, or incompetent, or traitorous, or whatever negative aspect you claim.

After being forced to admit you were wrong on this one instance, you ignore how many times you have been proven wrong about the same subject.

A comparison comes after a statement concerning a subject. You say he sucks. Someone says here is what Bush did, or Clinton did, or Reagan did in the same situation. Comparing is used to put things in perspective and evaluate performance. Of course when you have nothing to back up your claim, you say someone using comparisons is only trying to deflect, not prove your inaccuracies.

And you were an attorney? Obviously not in a courtroom.

[CuteOldGuy]

I don't think I've been proven wrong at all. I did soften my criticism of Obama in this instance, but that doesn't mean he's competent.

I only lost once in court, and that was when my client lied on the stand. Had he been honest with me in prep, we would have won that one.

[dilbert firestorm]

does anyone know what would prevent the drone from being self-destructed?

unless its related to the way it was designed, meaning it lacked redundancy in communications gear.

I see that the U.S. brass was incredibly stupid for not ensuring that the communications were encrypted in all of their drones.

[CuteOldGuy]

It was a gang fuckup.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The drone could have easily been destroyed covertly without starting a war! If you follow the news you would know we already have covert operations going on within their nuclear industry.

It would be nice--shocking but nice--if you had a clue what you were talking about for just ONE post.

But that is asking far too much.

So now you profess everything in the news is true!!!! Except if you don't agree with it, and then it is lies of the liberal news media.

Oh, and if we have a covert spy in a nuclear industry--maybe a construction worker, janitor, or whomever--that person will but on his James Bond suit and secret agent gear and somehow teleport a thousand miles away and blow up a drone.

Even if he could, just maybe the destroying of the drone is not worth exposing the asset in place.

There are at least a half-dozen other errors in your "logic", but those are enough to get the point across.

You are so far out of touch with reality it is almost sad if it wasn't so dangerous.

But no, I forget, your hatred clouds any tiny bit of thinking you may once have posessed.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It was a gang fuckup.

unfortunately, I don't think heads will roll over this.

[jhende3]

How many of you are willing to not only risk american lives but an all out war with Iran over a robot? How many people are willing to leave there good paying jobs and join the army to fight this war? And how many are willing to pay more at the pump and in taxes to fund this adventure over a pilotless robot.


Oh and how many of you wanted Bush to go into China when one of our spy planes with people on board went down there?

[jhende3]

Anyone even knows whats so super secret on this plane that we should send people in for it? And I heard some people say stuff like "They wanted to go in and get it but Obama said No". How would you know what happen or what was said.

We left part of a super secret helicopter in Pakistan going after Bin Laden and didn't go back for that.

You know what I think and this is totally my thoughts. You don't fly secrets around on remote control planes

And the best thing I've heard about this whole situation was said by a retired general I saw on tv. He said " This is the reason we have drones for situations like this, so we don't have to risk anyone"