I do not think either Iran or Russia would benefit if there is war. Maybe Russia as far as influence in the long run, depending on the outcomes. As to the documentation of the attack, who can say? As usual, the layman like ourselves really have no way to judge who is telling the truth. The lies have become so commonplace and so convincing... We have been lied to in order to start wars repeatedly and with impunity. Why are we supposed to believe the story this time?

Basically, unless it involves our borders, which should be 100% secure, I am against this and or any other foreign war. They all seem to be about an agenda that does not include the betterment of the people of the United States.

@James the shooting down of the drone is just one more provocation in a long series of provocations coming from Iran - I can not say this definitively but it is what I believe at this time. In order to change my opinion on this I would have to see some hard evidence that contradicts it. Then I would change my opinion.

Smells like the old NeoCon agenda that we go to war in Iran. Assuming for a moment the drone was not in their airspace (not taking it for granted but for the sake of discussion), is it reasonable to bomb them? Occupy their land and take their oil? What do you think we should do about a drone?

@James I do not think it is wise to start WWIII over the shooting of the drone. But that act was just the latest in a long series of provocations from Iran against USA...I fear Iran is being emboldened and encouraged by Putin to keep poking at USA...and that is a scary thought - no?

Agreed. Violence begets more violence and that is a powder keg that can easily get out of control.

Clearly. I'd even argue running drones or planes up the border is provocative. But, stuff is more complicated than these shallow arbitrary binaries that are hopelessly mired in fantastical idealism. It's all an illusion, because everything reduces to violence or the threat of violence. That's one of the west's Achilles heels. We like to pretend that's not the case, and then we have a hard time explaining why we have a constant military presence in volatile regions. Personally, I'd pull away entirely and let the middle east pound each other back to the stone ages, but for hanging Israel out there. But, even that's not simple. Should we feel something about the traditionalist barbarism, killing women and gays? How far does sovereignty go? We've never really answered this question. It's a moral dilemma, where you're clearly going to lose on either side. So, what do we do with that? Things are always more complicated than the talking points people use to stop their thinking.

@chuckpo can't afford to abandon the region - the shipping lanes are critically important for strategic and commercial reasons and we cannot allow Iran or any other country to harass or to attack vessels afloat in those waters.

@iThink, kind of like saying we can't afford to let someone block our access to African diamonds. It''s all complicated, but ultimately we want things to work out well for us, and we're willing to kill people to ensure it. Now, how would things work out if everyone just fought over everything? Well, that's been done before. Worked out great for some societies, not so well for others. I think we have the same basic setup now. We just don't want to think about it like that. We're protecting our interests somewhere else, rather than we just conquered them and made that place us. Do you see that part in the way I do?

@chuckpo
The African diamonds analogy is not valid. No country needs diamonds in order to keep it's economy working.

For all our advanced technologies (and by "our" am including the entire industrialized world - not just USA) it is oil and natural gas that makes it all possible.
Literally every aspect of the global economy depends upon fossil fuels for continued prosperity and in fact basic survival.

Think about agriculture and production of potable water for a moment. We can be certain that without fuel (fossil fuels) those two things would come to a grinding halt - then you have mass starvation, disease...societal collapse really.

Without fossil fuel you will not have refrigeration, central heating or air conditioning. You will not have mass communication systems...and on it goes. But you might very well have some diamonds...good luck eating those and using them to warm your home in winter.

To cut off the flow of oil and natural gas would send global civilization back to the pre-industrial age. Buggy whips might once again make for a lucrative investment.

Wind farms, algae farms and solar panels can not possibly provide power sufficient to sustain the global population as it stands today.

No objective minded person would think of the theocratic regime of Iran to be anything other than a rogue regime. It is almost as bad as that of N. Korea and now I fear Putin has his tentacles manipulating and encouraging and supporting Iranian belligerence. I fear we are getting dangerously close to reanimating the "cold war" at best; at worst we could see WWIII in short time from now - God forbid!

@iThink, meh, we disagree on this one. If only we knew of a fossil fuel producing country that was closer to us. Hmmm...wait, I know I've read someone around here produces fossil fuels.

There's always excuses to kill people. It was just more honest before. This is the dilemma. Do we take what we want, or do we take what we want and put a pretty label on it?

I'm not even saying which way we should go. I'm just pointing out that calling it other than what it is doesn't really fool all of the adults at the table.

So, world's policemen or no?

@chuckpo
Like it or not - for better or for worse USA has been carrying the burden of being "the worlds policeman" since the end of WWI IMHO.

@EdNason The simple answer is yes . If Iranian aircraft , drone or spy plane , were in our air space we would have the right to either force it to land or shoot it down . As for the speed boats remember a few years ago they attacked a U.S. war ship in international water and killed crewmen . Any ship in international waters has the right to protect itself .

@iThink, true, so should we be defenders or not? Countries want their sovereignty, but with it they may violate human rights. Do we kill off our mostly sons to right the wrongs, or do we respect sovereignty. We can't seemingly do both. Are we going to impose our morality on the world and take away sovereignty, or are we doing to allow atrocity to exist and deal with the moral implications of that? Damned if we do, damned if we don't. What's the answer? 1) Conquer, 2) Isolate, 3) do some kind of hypocritical in-between thing? Seems to me like we're number 3. Okay, but let's not forget we're where we are. We can't escape guilt.

@chuckpo
It is a fact of reality (and historical knowledge) that you either project your power (economically, culturally and via military strength) or your power will fade leaving your country and your people to the whims of some other entity who will project their own power.
It is either lead or follow - you can't do both and there will always be positive and negative eventualities that come with it.

Perpetuating feelings of guilt is generally unhelpful. Which is not to say we don't acknowledge our mistakes. We do acknowledge mistakes, seek forgiveness in recompense and move forward having shed the guilt.

Somehow I think these dynamics are analogous to being the biggest toughest guy in school. Maybe this proverbial big tough guy is benevolent maybe not. Nevertheless, it is counterintuitive to think his big bad status really means he will have to fight on a regular basis because there will be a continuous stream of other men who will challenge him for that status.

There can be no permanent peaceful existence in the dynamics of human culture. There will always be the factor of hierarchical structure. There will always be those who are stronger, smarter, vs those who want to supplant them.

Objectively I believe this is the way progress is made. Competition is a mechanism by which the species works its way to becoming stronger, more resilient, more technologically advanced.

It would be nice to think these basic human dynamics are or can be tempered with an overarching morality but that in and of itself is a tenuous and elusive thing.

There are always more questions than there will be answers. We slog along trying to become better all the while carrying that intrinsic, implicit question - Why - what is it all about. Why are we here.

@chuckpo What do gays have to do with it? The only reason anybody cares is because Iran has oil and we want to steal it before they can finish developing their nukes and defend themselves.

@jwhitten, a dark view. And, I think there's some truth to it. But, I don't think that's all of it. That would be a lot simpler. And honest. That's sort of my whole conversation. Admitting to ourselves that structure, law, free speech, anri-free speech, grouping exist on violence or the threat of violence. Including all of the new stupid stuff by the left. But, they wrap themselves blindly in morality, even though they've changed the words so it wouldn't look like they are as bad or worse than religion.

Just as a point of interest we don't get any oil from Iran . The biggest importer of Iranian oil is China

@chuckpo >> a dark view. And, I think there's some truth to it. But, I don't think that's all of it.

We don't much care about gays (or anybody else) in, say, New Guinea, or Guatemala, or Laos, or in Fernando Po... (excerpted from the long list of places with people we don't give a rat's ass about...) It's only in western countries and in places that have some identifiable resource we can exploit. Our "concern" provides a 'wedge' that we can use to leverage our way in and claim that we have some morally superior reason for our actions. Somehow that lets us sleep better at night and let's us deny our naked aggression.

IMO, of course.

@chuckpo, @beekeeper >> Just as a point of interest we don't get any oil from Iran .

We don't anymore. No doubt the reason we care is because we'd like to. And it could also be because we see them as a potential rival in the reason and thus threatening the resources that we are exploiting right down the street, say in Iraq. [en.m.wikipedia.org]

@jwhitten, the point is well-taken. I asked that question earlier in another place on IDW. We're the world's policemen SOMETIMES. I'm not sure it's just about resources. We're also talking about places that have vastly different worldviews/value systems. Easy to conflate those two aspects--or hard to parse them.

@jwhitten Actually I think we are more concerned about a stable world economy than the actual oil as the U.S. is the largest oil producer in the world . [en.wikipedia.org] .If Iran halted the oil flow from the middle east Europe and Asia would be hit the worst . Which are our trading partners . Iran and Iraq though at the top of the list only produce around 25% of what the U.S. or Saudi Arabia produces . Also the U.S. only imports 29 % from all the Opec countries combined while importing 43% from , of all places , Canada . [eia.gov] .

@chuckpo >> We're the world's policemen

More moralizing and Nation-State Naval-Gazing while politicos Drone on and on.

@beekeeper >> Actually I think we are more concerned about a stable world economy than the actual oil

While I agree with you that the actual motivator might be a level or two deep, I think it's not so much about a stable economy as much as it is an exploitable economy. I put zero dollars down on the bet that any of those wall street banker types has an altruistic bone in their body. Turmoil makes the markets move. Which if you're not in the know is a bad thing. If you're the ones moving them however, it's a good thing. You know where to put your chips.

@jwhitten I think we're saying the same thing . If you have a stable economy you can take an educated guess as where you want to place your chips , as opposed to a chaotic situation where nobody knows what is to happen next . I though agree that it about the money , but it always is no matter which side of the fence you are on . The U.S. wants the money but so does Iran where a unstable condition would raise oil prices and benefit Iran and hurt industrialized countries. Always follow the money