4 ms·

Not by chance. Why is the US Army helicopter flying in another sovereign country? The USA is the Russia of the West nowadays.

spwa4 4mo ago
I think they mean the Apache was there to shoot it down and managed to fly too close while blowing it up. On the plus side: blowing it up successfully. On the down side ... well that's why it's in the news. This is why you don't used manned systems to hunt unmanned ones ...
tristanj 4mo ago
The helicopter in question was flying in Oman, in Omani territorial waters. Why does Iran have the right to fire drones into other countries?
- dmpk2k 4mo ago
  The same Oman Trump was recently threatening to blow up? Heh.
- orwin 4mo ago
  Because the US fired missiles from other countries? It's not a game of mounted tag.
  - tristanj 4mo ago
    Do you believe Iran should not be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons? Why do you think this entire conflict started?
    - rbanffy 4mo ago
      It started because Trump abandoned the agreement Obama signed and that was working, then sanctioned Iran for no good reason. At this point, every country with the ability to do so should be procuring nuclear deterrence capability, if for no other reason than to defend themselves from the US.
      - tristanj 4mo ago
        You dodged the question: JCOPA happened because Iran was developing nuclear weapons. If Iran wasn't pursuing nukes, there would be no JCOPA. Why should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons in the first place?
        zzrrt 4mo ago
        Weird response that does some dodging of its own. Anyone defending JCPOA is obviously in favor of controlling nukes, so why don't you explain more than restating what we already agree with? You're going to have to specifically address why ending the program with no replacement was better than letting it continue. Your other comments about cost, lack of conventional weapon limits, and perverse incentives for other countries doesn't do much for me. (For one thing, other countries aren't very relevant to this discussion, unless the cost of paying them off were to actually become prohibitive.) It was something, it had some positive effect on the "Iran can't have nukes" you keep harping on, and it was replaced with nothing but sanctions. Why wouldn't they resume development?
        tristanj 4mo ago
        Rubio's response to JCPOA in 2015 is prescient https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5dQIVh_QT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5dQIVh_QT4 . Everything foretold in his speech has happened. Continued sanctions were a viable answer, the reason they failed is because Biden relaxed them at the beginning of his term, allowing Iran to resume oil sales and he also paid Iran $5B in exchange for hostages.
        zzrrt 4mo ago
        Everything foretold? Iran is the most dominant in the region, they kicked US out, they possess nukes (or conventional) that can reach the US, and the cost of US stopping them is prohibitive? Wow, Trump had better surrender today then. I don't think it's fair to say he predicted all of its consequences when he also hoped the next president/congress would cancel it, and they did. Did he foresee that it would only last 3 out of the 10-15 years it was supposed to run, but that would be enough to doom us? Or would it have worked out better if it lasted? Maybe you are right that the sanctions lift built them into a threat, but it still feels stupid there was an agreement in effect, Trump destroyed it, and 10 years later the best we can hope for is they agree again to give up their biggest lever and with sanctions this time. I don't think that will go well. Arguably it's a weakness of the US system, or the particular laws in this case, that, whichever of JCPOA or sanctions was best, either can be undone at the next election. Rubio implied that's a strength though. It is prescient that he predicted a lunatic would possess nuclear weapons and act according to apocalyptic religious beliefs, he just didn't say he would be working for the lunatic.
    - zzrrt 4mo ago
      I don't think it's that simple. If it was, why hasn't the administration managed to focus on that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_2026_Iran_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_2026_Iran_wa... And your own comments say they also have a large arsenal of conventional weapons, so presumably they would be a threat without nukes. And the US already claimed to have fixed the nuclear problem last year. And they torched JCPOA – even with your arguments it was weak, it appears to have been more effective than doing nothing for years and then spending billions to stop them when they, completely foreseeably, stop following an agreement that the US broke first. https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Iran-Deal-Works-121924.jpg https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Ira... I'm rambling and don't know all that much, so to the point of your question: the conflict started because Trump and his people wanted to, and it feels sort of pointlessly speculative and hopeful to ascribe your own interpretations beyond that. I guess we'll see, if it really ends, and what the new regime, sanctions, nuclear enforcement, etc look like. If there are any career bureaucrats left, maybe they'll pull off something good.
      - tristanj 4mo ago
        The nuclear problem was never fixed; the nuclear material is still in Iran, and during the months since June 2025 Iran has had adequate time to dig out the buried fuel and move it to a more secure location. The reason JCPOA got torched was because documents stolen by Mossad revealed Iran was caught systematically lying to the IAEA about the depth of its nuclear weapons program for decades. Iran operated multiple sites that Iran denied existed to the IAEA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_infiltration_of_an_Iranian_nuclear_archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_infiltration_of_an_Ira...
        zzrrt 4mo ago
        > The nuclear problem was never fixed https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/irans-nuclear-facilities-have-been-obliterated-and-suggestions-otherwise-are-fake-news/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa... It's kind of a cheap shot at this point, but my point is why should we trust them today if 1 year ago they said the program was set back by years? > Wikipedia: The majority of the documents were created between 1999 and 2003, after which the AMAD Project was halted and Iran's nuclear weapons research program was cancelled > the documents contained no revelations about recent nuclear activity Granted, additional background on the past affects trust levels in the present, but to be clear, AFAICT it was not showing violations of JCPOA. Maybe there is something worse that's classified.
    - orwin 4mo ago
      I believe no country should have access to nuclear weapons. I think this conflict started because the US citizen elected an idiotic warmonger who was led to believe this would take a few weeks.
- wolvoleo 4mo ago
  > Why does Iran have the right to fire drones into other countries? If America hadn't started bombing Iran in the first place this wouldn't have happened anyway. Things would have been peaceful and oil prices would have been fine.
  - tristanj 4mo ago
    And if the US/Israel didn't strike Iran, Iran would have ICBMs with nuclear warheads, which Iran could use for peace. Did you forget the purpose of the war?
    - wolvoleo 4mo ago
      The pretense that has already been debunked you mean. Iran was nowhere near having nuclear weapons. The purpose of the war was keeping Netanyahu in power by having a constant war going on. And Trump went along because he was promised a quick win which he could have used to turn his midterms around.
      - tristanj 4mo ago
        > Iran was nowhere near having nuclear weapons. No, that's outdated. Iran had ~440kg of uranium enriched to 60%, enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons enriched to weapons grade. Given Iran's enormous centrifuge fleet, enrichment to enough material for a single weapons grade nuke would take 2-3 days. To enrich the entire amount would take 2-3 weeks. This comes straight from the 2025 IAEA report. https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enriched-uranium-worth-bargaining-for/ https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enri...
        spiderfarmer 4mo ago
        "Thus, a renewed offer to retrieve Iran’s 60% enriched uranium “under the supervision of the Agency [IAEA],” as stated by Foreign Minister Araghchi, and to down-blend it to lower enrichment, along with a return to IAEA verification and monitoring as well as constraints on Iran’s future enrichment levels, would be extremely valuable and well worth bargaining for. " Or, you could be very, very stupid and start bombing like maniacs. Without a plan, without allies and without justification. During ongoing negotiations as well, making you SO UNBELIEVABLY untrustworthy that NO-ONE will EVER trust this idiotic regime ever again. The stupidity is astounding.
- surgical_fire 4mo ago
  Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because the Israel-US axis decided it was a good idea to start bombing them earlier this year? Could be that? Perhaps, and this is a long shot, they see military equipment close to their border as a threat? People get weird like that when countries start bombing their schoolgirls into minced meat.
  - tristanj 4mo ago
    Or maybe Iran decided to start building nuclear weapons? They already have long range missiles, with enough range to strike most of Europe. Iran can place a nuclear warhead on one of these missiles, and they have an ICBM. This entire conflict was fully avoidable if Iran never pursued nuclear weapons. Why can't Iran just be a normal country, and not pursue nuclear weapons?
    - surgical_fire 4mo ago
      > Or maybe Iran decided to start building nuclear weapons? Is that a good excuse to turn schoolgirls into minced meat? Also, let's not pretend this started in a vacuum. The US has been interfering in Iran for many decades. > This entire conflict was fully avoidable if Iran never pursued nuclear weapons. > Why can't Iran just be a normal country, and not pursue nuclear weapons? If anything, history shows that every country should pursue Nuclear weapons. That is the best insurance policy one can have against the US.
      - tristanj 4mo ago
        Iran would largely be left to itself if it did not pursue hostile foreign policy against countries in the region. Is Iran in a better position after firing missiles at Azerbaijan, Oman, and Turkey? All three of these countries were neutral or friendly towards Iran, until Iran fired missiles at each unprompted. Its current situation is largely self-inflicted, and a result of poor foreign policy choices. > If anything, history shows that every country should pursue Nuclear weapons. Why stop there, we should give every person on Earth nuclear weapons. That policy will lead to world peace, since there will be no world left to live in.
Ekaros 4mo ago
USA has been Russia/Soviet Union of West since WW2...
blitzar 4mo ago
It was a defensive flight deploying defensive missiles and defensive bullets against offensive school children who were threatening other countries by being in their own country. Shooting back is an act of war that must be responded to. (I would add that this is sarcasm, but it is reality for a lot of people sadly)
3683826312819 4mo ago
[dead]
thiagoharry 4mo ago
USA always did far worse things than Russia. Nothing new here.
- grim_io 4mo ago
  Definitely not. You don't seem to know about the wars Russia fought even in the last 30 years, and the ways they did.

spwa4 4mo ago

I think they mean the Apache was there to shoot it down and managed to fly too close while blowing it up. On the plus side: blowing it up successfully. On the down side ... well that's why it's in the news. This is why you don't used manned systems to hunt unmanned ones ...

tristanj 4mo ago

The helicopter in question was flying in Oman, in Omani territorial waters. Why does Iran have the right to fire drones into other countries?

dmpk2k 4mo ago
The same Oman Trump was recently threatening to blow up? Heh.
orwin 4mo ago
Because the US fired missiles from other countries? It's not a game of mounted tag.
- tristanj 4mo ago
  Do you believe Iran should not be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons? Why do you think this entire conflict started?
  - rbanffy 4mo ago
    It started because Trump abandoned the agreement Obama signed and that was working, then sanctioned Iran for no good reason. At this point, every country with the ability to do so should be procuring nuclear deterrence capability, if for no other reason than to defend themselves from the US.
    - tristanj 4mo ago
      You dodged the question: JCOPA happened because Iran was developing nuclear weapons. If Iran wasn't pursuing nukes, there would be no JCOPA. Why should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons in the first place?
      - zzrrt 4mo ago
        Weird response that does some dodging of its own. Anyone defending JCPOA is obviously in favor of controlling nukes, so why don't you explain more than restating what we already agree with? You're going to have to specifically address why ending the program with no replacement was better than letting it continue. Your other comments about cost, lack of conventional weapon limits, and perverse incentives for other countries doesn't do much for me. (For one thing, other countries aren't very relevant to this discussion, unless the cost of paying them off were to actually become prohibitive.) It was something, it had some positive effect on the "Iran can't have nukes" you keep harping on, and it was replaced with nothing but sanctions. Why wouldn't they resume development?
        tristanj 4mo ago
        Rubio's response to JCPOA in 2015 is prescient https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5dQIVh_QT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5dQIVh_QT4 . Everything foretold in his speech has happened. Continued sanctions were a viable answer, the reason they failed is because Biden relaxed them at the beginning of his term, allowing Iran to resume oil sales and he also paid Iran $5B in exchange for hostages.
        zzrrt 4mo ago
        Everything foretold? Iran is the most dominant in the region, they kicked US out, they possess nukes (or conventional) that can reach the US, and the cost of US stopping them is prohibitive? Wow, Trump had better surrender today then. I don't think it's fair to say he predicted all of its consequences when he also hoped the next president/congress would cancel it, and they did. Did he foresee that it would only last 3 out of the 10-15 years it was supposed to run, but that would be enough to doom us? Or would it have worked out better if it lasted? Maybe you are right that the sanctions lift built them into a threat, but it still feels stupid there was an agreement in effect, Trump destroyed it, and 10 years later the best we can hope for is they agree again to give up their biggest lever and with sanctions this time. I don't think that will go well. Arguably it's a weakness of the US system, or the particular laws in this case, that, whichever of JCPOA or sanctions was best, either can be undone at the next election. Rubio implied that's a strength though. It is prescient that he predicted a lunatic would possess nuclear weapons and act according to apocalyptic religious beliefs, he just didn't say he would be working for the lunatic.
  - zzrrt 4mo ago
    I don't think it's that simple. If it was, why hasn't the administration managed to focus on that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_2026_Iran_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_2026_Iran_wa... And your own comments say they also have a large arsenal of conventional weapons, so presumably they would be a threat without nukes. And the US already claimed to have fixed the nuclear problem last year. And they torched JCPOA – even with your arguments it was weak, it appears to have been more effective than doing nothing for years and then spending billions to stop them when they, completely foreseeably, stop following an agreement that the US broke first. https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Iran-Deal-Works-121924.jpg https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Ira... I'm rambling and don't know all that much, so to the point of your question: the conflict started because Trump and his people wanted to, and it feels sort of pointlessly speculative and hopeful to ascribe your own interpretations beyond that. I guess we'll see, if it really ends, and what the new regime, sanctions, nuclear enforcement, etc look like. If there are any career bureaucrats left, maybe they'll pull off something good.
    - tristanj 4mo ago
      The nuclear problem was never fixed; the nuclear material is still in Iran, and during the months since June 2025 Iran has had adequate time to dig out the buried fuel and move it to a more secure location. The reason JCPOA got torched was because documents stolen by Mossad revealed Iran was caught systematically lying to the IAEA about the depth of its nuclear weapons program for decades. Iran operated multiple sites that Iran denied existed to the IAEA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_infiltration_of_an_Iranian_nuclear_archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_infiltration_of_an_Ira...
      - zzrrt 4mo ago
        > The nuclear problem was never fixed https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/irans-nuclear-facilities-have-been-obliterated-and-suggestions-otherwise-are-fake-news/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa... It's kind of a cheap shot at this point, but my point is why should we trust them today if 1 year ago they said the program was set back by years? > Wikipedia: The majority of the documents were created between 1999 and 2003, after which the AMAD Project was halted and Iran's nuclear weapons research program was cancelled > the documents contained no revelations about recent nuclear activity Granted, additional background on the past affects trust levels in the present, but to be clear, AFAICT it was not showing violations of JCPOA. Maybe there is something worse that's classified.
  - orwin 4mo ago
    I believe no country should have access to nuclear weapons. I think this conflict started because the US citizen elected an idiotic warmonger who was led to believe this would take a few weeks.
wolvoleo 4mo ago
> Why does Iran have the right to fire drones into other countries? If America hadn't started bombing Iran in the first place this wouldn't have happened anyway. Things would have been peaceful and oil prices would have been fine.
- tristanj 4mo ago
  And if the US/Israel didn't strike Iran, Iran would have ICBMs with nuclear warheads, which Iran could use for peace. Did you forget the purpose of the war?
  - wolvoleo 4mo ago
    The pretense that has already been debunked you mean. Iran was nowhere near having nuclear weapons. The purpose of the war was keeping Netanyahu in power by having a constant war going on. And Trump went along because he was promised a quick win which he could have used to turn his midterms around.
    - tristanj 4mo ago
      > Iran was nowhere near having nuclear weapons. No, that's outdated. Iran had ~440kg of uranium enriched to 60%, enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons enriched to weapons grade. Given Iran's enormous centrifuge fleet, enrichment to enough material for a single weapons grade nuke would take 2-3 days. To enrich the entire amount would take 2-3 weeks. This comes straight from the 2025 IAEA report. https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enriched-uranium-worth-bargaining-for/ https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enri...
      - spiderfarmer 4mo ago
        "Thus, a renewed offer to retrieve Iran’s 60% enriched uranium “under the supervision of the Agency [IAEA],” as stated by Foreign Minister Araghchi, and to down-blend it to lower enrichment, along with a return to IAEA verification and monitoring as well as constraints on Iran’s future enrichment levels, would be extremely valuable and well worth bargaining for. " Or, you could be very, very stupid and start bombing like maniacs. Without a plan, without allies and without justification. During ongoing negotiations as well, making you SO UNBELIEVABLY untrustworthy that NO-ONE will EVER trust this idiotic regime ever again. The stupidity is astounding.
surgical_fire 4mo ago
Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because the Israel-US axis decided it was a good idea to start bombing them earlier this year? Could be that? Perhaps, and this is a long shot, they see military equipment close to their border as a threat? People get weird like that when countries start bombing their schoolgirls into minced meat.
- tristanj 4mo ago
  Or maybe Iran decided to start building nuclear weapons? They already have long range missiles, with enough range to strike most of Europe. Iran can place a nuclear warhead on one of these missiles, and they have an ICBM. This entire conflict was fully avoidable if Iran never pursued nuclear weapons. Why can't Iran just be a normal country, and not pursue nuclear weapons?
  - surgical_fire 4mo ago
    > Or maybe Iran decided to start building nuclear weapons? Is that a good excuse to turn schoolgirls into minced meat? Also, let's not pretend this started in a vacuum. The US has been interfering in Iran for many decades. > This entire conflict was fully avoidable if Iran never pursued nuclear weapons. > Why can't Iran just be a normal country, and not pursue nuclear weapons? If anything, history shows that every country should pursue Nuclear weapons. That is the best insurance policy one can have against the US.
    - tristanj 4mo ago
      Iran would largely be left to itself if it did not pursue hostile foreign policy against countries in the region. Is Iran in a better position after firing missiles at Azerbaijan, Oman, and Turkey? All three of these countries were neutral or friendly towards Iran, until Iran fired missiles at each unprompted. Its current situation is largely self-inflicted, and a result of poor foreign policy choices. > If anything, history shows that every country should pursue Nuclear weapons. Why stop there, we should give every person on Earth nuclear weapons. That policy will lead to world peace, since there will be no world left to live in.

Ekaros 4mo ago

USA has been Russia/Soviet Union of West since WW2...

blitzar 4mo ago

It was a defensive flight deploying defensive missiles and defensive bullets against offensive school children who were threatening other countries by being in their own country. Shooting back is an act of war that must be responded to. (I would add that this is sarcasm, but it is reality for a lot of people sadly)

3683826312819 4mo ago

[dead]

thiagoharry 4mo ago

USA always did far worse things than Russia. Nothing new here.

grim_io 4mo ago
Definitely not. You don't seem to know about the wars Russia fought even in the last 30 years, and the ways they did.