US Drone Shot Down Over Iran - US acting unlawfully?

[Seth]

On what basis do we actually care? If the Iranians can't control their own air space, fuck 'em.

Interesting reasoning. Do you apply it to all nations equally? Does might make right? Or perhaps you just don't give a fuck about ethics, morality, or legality when it comes to nations you don't like? How far does this unconcern extend?

The most famous, violent and abhorrent aggressive expansionist regimes in history applied very similar lines of reasoning (without going all Godwin).

Moral relativism. We have a right to surveil Iran because it is a hostile, belligerent nation that is threatening world peace and is refusing to prove that its nuclear intentions are benign, and further it's stated objective is to destroy Israel and the US, along with all other non-Muslime non-Caliphate nations. The US has no imperialistic pretensions, but we do have a right to self defense against such nations, and surveillance is all part of the necessary military strategy to contain Iran and prevent it from starting a global thermonuclear war...or even a limited one.

We have this right because our cause is just and the aggressor is evil. It's just that simple.

[Seth]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration has delivered a formal request to Iran for the return of a U.S. surveillance drone captured by Iranian armed forces, but said it is not hopeful that Iran will comply.
President Barack Obama said Monday that the U.S. wants the top-secret aircraft back. "We have asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond," Obama said during a White House news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Monday.
In an interview broadcast live Monday night on Venezuelan state television, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said nothing to suggest his country would grant the U.S. request.
"The Americans have perhaps decided to give us this spy plane," Ahmadinejad said. "We now have control of this plane."
Speaking through an interpreter, Ahmadinejad said: "There are people here who have been able to control this spy plane, who can surely analyze this plane's system also. ... In any case, now we have this spy plane."
He added, "Very soon, they're going to learn more about the abilities and possibilities of our country."
On Tuesday, a semi-official Iranian news agency said authorities have shrugged off the U.S. request. Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi said the United States should apologize for invading Iranian air space instead of asking for the return of the unmanned aircraft.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20111213/D9RJJES01.html

We should just stuff a Stealth-launched bunker-buster through the roof of wherever they have it on display, tonight, and destroy it. Which begs the question of why, if they are so top-secret in their technology, don't they have explosive self-destruct charges that blow them to tiny bits the moment they lose control/contact with their operators?

[Coito ergo sum]

On what basis do we actually care? If the Iranians can't control their own air space, fuck 'em.

Interesting reasoning. Do you apply it to all nations equally? Does might make right? Or perhaps you just don't give a fuck about ethics, morality, or legality when it comes to nations you don't like? How far does this unconcern extend?

The most famous, violent and abhorrent aggressive expansionist regimes in history applied very similar lines of reasoning (without going all Godwin).

Moral relativism. We have a right to surveil Iran because it is a hostile, belligerent nation that is threatening world peace and is refusing to prove that its nuclear intentions are benign, and further it's stated objective is to destroy Israel and the US, along with all other non-Muslime non-Caliphate nations. The US has no imperialistic pretensions, but we do have a right to self defense against such nations, and surveillance is all part of the necessary military strategy to contain Iran and prevent it from starting a global thermonuclear war...or even a limited one.

We have this right because our cause is just and the aggressor is evil. It's just that simple.

Actually, Pord is attempting to reach an objective conclusion, whereas your statement espoused moral relativism.

Don't get me wrong, I think all morals are relative, and there is no such thing as objective morality. However, Pord is attempting to find or apply a consistent morality applicable objectively. You're changing the morality based on point of view and circumstance. That's moral relativism.

[Seth]

On what basis do we actually care? If the Iranians can't control their own air space, fuck 'em.

Interesting reasoning. Do you apply it to all nations equally? Does might make right? Or perhaps you just don't give a fuck about ethics, morality, or legality when it comes to nations you don't like? How far does this unconcern extend?

The most famous, violent and abhorrent aggressive expansionist regimes in history applied very similar lines of reasoning (without going all Godwin).

Moral relativism. We have a right to surveil Iran because it is a hostile, belligerent nation that is threatening world peace and is refusing to prove that its nuclear intentions are benign, and further it's stated objective is to destroy Israel and the US, along with all other non-Muslime non-Caliphate nations. The US has no imperialistic pretensions, but we do have a right to self defense against such nations, and surveillance is all part of the necessary military strategy to contain Iran and prevent it from starting a global thermonuclear war...or even a limited one.

We have this right because our cause is just and the aggressor is evil. It's just that simple.

Actually, Pord is attempting to reach an objective conclusion, whereas your statement espoused moral relativism.

Don't get me wrong, I think all morals are relative, and there is no such thing as objective morality. However, Pord is attempting to find or apply a consistent morality applicable objectively. You're changing the morality based on point of view and circumstance. That's moral relativism.

I'm sorry, you are correct, I meant "false moral equivalency." It's a fallacy to state that because some evil regime takes some military action that any nation that takes a similar military action is morally equivalent to the evil regime. Intentions do matter in such things. Our intention towards Iran is not to conquer, occupy and subjugate it, nor the rest of the world, to install a religious theocracy worldwide, it is merely to contain a bunch of deranged Muslim extremists from obtaining nuclear weapons or starting a nuclear war. Therefore, our cause is just, and theirs is not.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, it's not a "fallacy" really. You're just declaring him wrong by fiat. He hasn't committed a logical fallacy or said anything that necessarily doesn't follow from his premises.

[Coito ergo sum]

Exclusive: Iran hijacked US drone, says Iranian engineer
In an exclusive interview, an engineer working to unlock the secrets of the captured RQ-170 Sentinel says they exploited a known vulnerability and tricked the US drone into landing in Iran.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-E ... n-engineer

[JimC]

It would be quite absurd to expect Iran to hand back a drone that was illegally over its territory. Finders keepers, losers weepers...

But like Seth, I'm surprised they didn't have a self-destruct option, or, if they had it, used it...

[amused]

It was a CIA operation, not US military....so it's okay, we were just taking a peek over the fence!