Sanctions Or Not, Iranian Competition Yields Successful UAVs

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sanctions Or Not, Iranian Competition Yields Successful UAVs

Posted by timothy on Tuesday February 7, 2012 @03:54AM from the force-breeds-resistance dept.

garymortimer writes with word of the result from a high-tech student competition that doesn't come with sponsorship from DARPA or Mobil — far from it. Instead, the sponsors include "military and non-military organizations" within Iran. "In this competition, participants must provide a UAV equipped with a camera to search a 10 square kilometer area for at least 40 minutes to find 3 square meter marks on the ground with different English letters on them. Finding ground targets and reporting the geo location are criterion for choosing the contest winner." (This article updates another from last year, which gives some more details about the competition.)

147 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Episode 1: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:01 · Score: 1

The Drone Wars.
1. Re:Episode 1: by Nationless · 2012-02-07 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  Surely you mean Episode 1: The Phantom Menace? Which is exactly what Iran is.
2. Re:Episode 1: by ThePhilips · 2012-02-07 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  Iran is a "phantom" only to those who didn't bother to read about the country. E.g. Wikipedia has pretty good coverage.
  Iran is a "menace" only to the two groups of people: people who read too much into the public speeches of their president (who can't even mobilize the army; so much for a president) and politicians who want to prevent Iran from becoming a superpower in the region (and potentially in the world).
  OK. I confess. The bashing of Iran become much less interesting to me, once I took time to learn about the country. Talk about the evils of the education.
  
  --
  All hope abandon ye who enter here.
if you were stuck in Iran.. by gl4ss · 2012-02-07 04:02 · Score: 1

you'd have time to hack together UAV's from cellphones too.
(I wonder, does Iran have any motorsports?)

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
1. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by elrous0 · 2012-02-07 04:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  From everything I've heard, Iran is a modern, very prosperous country. It's hard to cut through all the bullshit and propaganda on both sides anytime you're dealing with a country that's at odds with the U.S., but I've known two people who went there who said they were welcomed very warmly as Americans and that quality of life there was pretty much the same as any European country.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
2. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Dexter+Herbivore · 2012-02-07 04:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yup, it's a modern, prosperous country that spouts bullshit and propaganda about its enemies. It does have a dubious government which oppresses the rights of the people as well. Oh, and so does Iran.
3. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, poor us - so oppressed... :(
4. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by ArcherB · 2012-02-07 04:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Yup, it's a modern, prosperous country that spouts bullshit and propaganda about its enemies. It does have a dubious government which oppresses the rights of the people as well. Oh, and so does Iran.
  While what you say is more or less true, comparing the "oppression" from the US government to the oppression from the Iranian leadership is not really accurate. For example, I don't see a whole lot of homosexuals being hung from cranes in the US.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
5. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by tmarsh86 · 2012-02-07 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Do you actually enjoy spouting such BS? Do you wait with bated breath for the moments that you get to throw these rocks of ridiculousness? You have no idea what oppression is, but you are welcome to travel to Iran and experience on a level that is worthy of you.
6. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:36 · Score: -1
  
  Iran hasn't invaded any nations causing a doubling of overall mortality and the deaths of a million people.
7. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:40 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Why is it not accurate to compare? For example, I don't see Iran invading multiple foreign countries, killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people, or capturing, imprisoning, and torturing people from many countries without even minimal evidence of wrongdoing. How is hanging several homosexuals worse than this? Maybe the difference is that the US doesn't oppress white people, so it's ok.
8. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by ArcherB · 2012-02-07 04:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Iran hasn't invaded any nations causing a doubling of overall mortality and the deaths of a million people.
  There is a HUGE difference. First of all, when I served in the military, I was greeted with open arms by the people in the country I was "invading". No matter how hard I tried, I was not allowed to pay for anything. Even if I could convince the vendor to take my money, someone would always step up and pay for whatever I was trying to pay for. I didn't buy a whole lot, not wanting to take advantage of my hosts' hospitality and gratitude.
  Next, any civilian casualties resulting from our "invasion" was purely accidental. The US and her allies went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, even if it sometimes meant letting the target go. You'll also notice that the US military does not hide behind human shields made of women and children.
  So, again, if you think it's the same thing, you are manipulating the facts in your own head to fit what already believe to be true.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
9. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  Is it a numbers thing or do you simply don't care what happens to gays?
10. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by codewarren · 2012-02-07 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Since you've experienced the oppression of Iran, please enlighten us.
11. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, right.
  Very modern country, just like any advanced European country where justice like public: stoning, lashing, mass hanging is practiced left and right. Just Google any one of the above forms of punishment and Iran.
12. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by khallow · 2012-02-07 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  Iran hasn't invaded any nations causing a doubling of overall mortality and the deaths of a million people.
  At least not since the Iran-Iraq war though to be fair there, Saddam Hussein was at fault, like the rest of the wars he was involved in.
  
  Since we're obviously comparing Iran to the US here, it's worth noting that the US has done so, but the last time was during the Vietnam War. The Lancet studies which claim otherwise are remarkably flawed (to the point, I consider it pure deception) and overshoot greatly other estimates of casualties from the Iraqi invasion and the subsequent unrest.
13. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 05:10 · Score: -1
  
  Next, any civilian casualties resulting from our "invasion" was purely accidental.
  So the 100,000+ civilians killed in Iraq was accidental. I'm sure that makes them feel much better.
  
  I was greeted with open arms by the people in the country I was "invading".
  Is that also representative of the family members of some of those accidental deaths?
  
  You'll also notice that the US military does not hide behind human shields made of women and children.
  You have that in common with the 9/11 terrorists.
14. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 05:13 · Score: -1
  
  There is a HUGE difference. First of all, when I served in the military, I was greeted with open arms by the people in the country I was "invading".
  
  So what's with all the people trying to blow up shit in your country?
  
  Next, any civilian casualties resulting from our "invasion" was purely accidental. The US and her allies went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, even if it sometimes meant letting the target go.
  Easy when you define the term civilian and who is and isn't a belligerent. "Oh my god, they're swarthy! TALIBANALQAEDA!!!"
15. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by CanHasDIY · 2012-02-07 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  While what you say is more or less true, comparing the "oppression" from the US government to the oppression from the Iranian leadership is not really accurate. For example, I don't see a whole lot of homosexuals being hung from cranes in the US.
  The Iranian government opresses its own people, which is definitely bad.
  
  The U.S. government also oppresses its own people, albeit far more covertly than Iran, as well as oppressing the entire fucking world.
  
  So, you're right, it is far from an accurate comparison - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a pacifist compared to the masters of our great empire, er, "nation."
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
16. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Lumpy · 2012-02-07 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  "Yup, it's a modern, prosperous country that spouts bullshit and propaganda about its enemies."
  This fit's every single government on the planet except for Sweden and Greenland. Swedes are cool, Greenland is cold.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
17. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-02-07 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and the US is so ahead of everyone with "don't ask, don't tell" repealed not two years ago, herds of religious fanatics bursting with hate toward ways unfamiliar or unknown, wonderful justice system and oh so impeccable record in wrongful executions and where every newborn gets $50k debt as a welcome gift.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
18. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  The Nazis were greeted with open arms and treated well by the people in France too. That doesn't mean that they liked them or wanted them to be there.
19. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by tragedy · 2012-02-07 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  The question there is, if Saddam Hussein was at fault in the Iran-Iraq war (and I'm not saying he wasn't, he wasn't exactly a very nice guy), why was the US on his side at the time?
20. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by debiangruven · 2012-02-07 06:01 · Score: 3
  
  Next, any civilian casualties resulting from our "invasion" was purely accidental.
  So the 100,000+ civilians killed in Iraq was accidental. I'm sure that makes them feel much better.
  
  I was greeted with open arms by the people in the country I was "invading".
  Is that also representative of the family members of some of those accidental deaths?
  
  You'll also notice that the US military does not hide behind human shields made of women and children.
  You have that in common with the 9/11 terrorists.
  You do realize that civilians are still dying in Iraq and our armed forces are not there. Fact of the matter is insurgents hate the idea of freedom and will kill anyone to try and crush freedom. You are very ignorant when it comes to talking about what our armed forces do in battle. I am an Iraq veteran and I can tell you that in 2005, 99% of all civilian deaths came from terrorists. Maybe you should enlist so that you can see what really happens in a war, or better yet move to Iran because it is such a free democracy and one that values human rights so much.
  
  --
  Stay negative.
21. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by ArcherB · 2012-02-07 06:04 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  So the 100,000+ civilians killed in Iraq was accidental. I'm sure that makes them feel much better.
  No, but it made the families of the MILLIONS killed feel better to know that something was finally being done about it. Also, that 100,000 number is bullshit.
  
  Is that also representative of the family members of some of those accidental deaths?
  No. It's representative of the people whose families were tortured and killed by the previous government ON PURPOSE! You know, like when they would kidnap a mother, rape and kill her and then send the video tape to the family kinda thing. But yeah, it's the same thing as a civilian who dies because the bridge he was driving on was blown up at 3:00 am to avoid civilian casualties.
  
  You have that in common with the 9/11 terrorists.
  Actually, hijackers, by their very nature are hiding behind the civilians on the plane. Notice that no one hijacks a FedEx transport, for example. The passengers on the plane are their human shields.
  Anything else I can answer for you, jackhole? Do you stand idly buy as that drunk beats the shit out of his girlfriend at the bar? Do you still do nothing when moves onto her children? If you hear a woman being raped outside your window, do you just watch and say, "That's unfortunate. She should do something about that"?
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
22. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by cavreader · 2012-02-07 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  No they just bankroll every lunatic extremist Islamic group to do their fighting for them. And it's these extremist groups who create the reasons for interference from other countries. Their various actions are more like invitations for others to come over and join in the fighting while they hide behind their women and children and cry foul when people get killed. Iran was a prosperous and modern country until their glorious revolution created an Islamic government whose first act was to kill or imprison anyone who didn't get with their program. The moronic college students fronting the revolution thought it more important to hold US hostages while the Islamic parties actually organized a government. Before the revolution the Islamists were a minority group but all the liberal and progressive morons got so busy expressing their outrage at the US they ended up losing their country.
23. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Fact of the matter is insurgents hate the idea of freedom and will kill anyone to try and crush freedom
  Fuck, did this come straight from dubya? Are you even capable of critical thinking?
  They hate our FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!!!
  Jesus, you're a fucking idiot.
24. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  I don't even think it's fair to grant that much.
  If your nation suffers a coup and starts sourcing support from an outside military - especially if the source military is already more powerful - then you are pretty much out of options, besides national suicide (in which case you can never recover and never live to get the last laugh..
  But when nighttime comes, you can strike back anonymously, as the French did.
  This is why I totally don't GET France-bashing in the US over WW2, which shows not just a lack of common sense, but a complete ignorance of what happened (and the US role) in the war prior to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor.
25. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  Iraq.
  Weapons to Afghanistan.
  Weapons to Hezballah.
  Weapons to Lebanon.
  Weapons to Syria.
  
  iran is all over the place with continuing loads of warfare. And yes, they have caused a great deal more than a million deaths. Hell, the provide support, money and weapons to AQ.
26. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  You idiot - read your own post.
  Insurgents.
  Were they there during the time of Saddam?
  Fact is, Saddam may have been a bad-ass, but, I would much prefer living under his rule than have been liberated by the US. Cheers buddy, you help destroy the country and helped it descend into anarchy.
  And who were these terrorists you speak of?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basra_prison_incident
27. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  No, but it made the families of the MILLIONS killed feel better to know that something was finally being done about it. Also, that 100,000 number is bullshit.
  Actually, according to the polls, the overwhelming majority of Iraqi's (and the rest of the world) thought it was a complete fucking mistake. Also, the 100,000 number is way too low - how many sources would you like?
  Congratulations, you're a brainwashed moron who kills for other people's profit.
28. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  I'm just going to point out that while you attacked his statement, you did nothing to prove it incorrect.
29. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by HaZardman27 · 2012-02-07 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  This is why I totally don't GET France-bashing in the US over WW2, which shows not just a lack of common sense, but a complete ignorance of what happened (and the US role) in the war prior to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor.
  One of the reasons people bash France's involvement in WW2 is that they built the Maginot Line along the French/German border and got flanked by the Nazis moving through Belgium. What is so ridiculous about this is that the German Army flanked the French Army by moving through Belgium in WW1 as well.
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
30. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-07 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  So long as we're into analogies...
  U.S. going into Iraq is the equivalent of ignoring the woman being raped outside your window (half a dozen oppressive countries sponsoring terrorism that U.S. is best friends with, like Saudi Arabia), and going after a guy who slapped his girlfriend.
31. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  Because it's idiotic and obviously wrong. The very nature of an 'insurgent' is fighting for freedom from some authority they view as invalid. They're fighting for their version of freedom, dumbass, not your version.
  At least dubya was smart enough to say 'they hate OUR freedom', possibly understanding the idiocy of saying someone fighting for their freedom 'hates the idea of freedom'.
  You're obviously an American. PROTIP: this is why the rest of the world hates you - you prattle on about liberty and freedom but don't have a fucking clue what either word means.
32. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  While I wouldn't take the harsh tone others take in their reply (and btw, thank you for your service), I have to remark that it is TOTALLY naive to think the US was welcomed as liberators in Iraq.
  Yes, there was a public show of gratitude for deposing Saddam Hussein... but part of that is relief, and part of that is just for show, as pretty much -every- nation has done when successfully invaded. Also, at that moment, none of those people expected the US to actually occupy them for almost 10 years.
  I actually made this bet with someone who incessantly beat the war drums, and who bet me that the US would be welcomed as liberators. I suggested a different bet, let's see how things are exactly 18 months later. He took the bet, although he couldn't resist making a jibe that as a typical liberal I love Saddam and must hate the US. 18 months later, I dug up the email, and tried to collect on the bet and he was very angry and personally blamed deaths of people he knew on me (he served under Clinton but knew plenty of lifers). But that's exactly how I felt about HIM... his talking points bullshit from Fox is what killed his friends. No one has EVER welcomed occupiers. You get in, you promote a less-brutal general who remembers who promoted him, and you get the fvck out before their problems become your problems. Much of western Europe remained a dictatorship after we drove the Nazis out.
  The point is, wanting something to be true does not make it true. History repeats itself not by chance, but when folks willfully ignore history and perspective. It was quite obvious to me America was walking into a second trap. The US lost the moment Rumsfeld chuckled about uncontrolled looting of the Iraqi civil structure and museums.
  Worst of all.. instead of keeping the Iraqi military infrastructure intact, Rumsfeld dissolved it and then BANNED all the junior and low level Iraqi solders from any civil job. An unemployed military is pretty reckless, and so there was not just one but two competing insurgencies.
  Anyways... yeah, you may have got a flower in your rifle but it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that was ANYTHING but a blip.
33. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  Fact is, Saddam may have been a bad-ass, I would much prefer living under his rule than have been liberated by the US.
  You say that only because you're very ignorant or very stupid.
  The number of deaths and terror put upon the people, even during a fucking war, is LESS than when Sadam was in power.
  Plently, things suck but things can get better for them. The fact is, for most of Iraq, things are better now than they were under Sadam. The major exception is for those who are in the Baath party. Interestingly enough, those are the majority of the people who really hate the new Iraq and complain the most about the changes. After all, not being able to go rape and murder anyone you want for just about any reason, while stealing from families and markets, must really suck for them.
  So many Americans are so fucking ignorant when it comes to reality in Iraq. Again, I'm not saying things are really fucking great, but one thing for sure, in many ways, things are far, far better than they've ever been for a whole lot of people in Iraq right now, and that's 100% thanks to America and NATO.
  Now I'm sure some moron will some and talk about x, y, and z with an extremely ignorant and/or myoptic view, but that does change reality. Which world would you rather live in? Blown up city and hope? Or a so-so house and fear for your life everyday, whereby your extorted, children raped and murdered, and your friends and family are commonly arrested and/or tortured. Oh that's right, you're one of those stupid fucking Americans which like to pretend the world was all roses for Iraq before the war. The fact is, life sucked for the majority of Iraqies before the war started. And the word, "sucked", by far, is an understatement.
34. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by chrb · 2012-02-07 06:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You do realize that civilians are still dying in Iraq and our armed forces are not there.
  Far far fewer now.
  
  . I am an Iraq veteran and I can tell you that in 2005, 99% of all civilian deaths came from terrorists.
  Anecdotal claims from a soldier in the conflict are not evidence. Please provide a citation for this "99%" figure. Back in 2004 the Iraqi Health Ministry stated that coalition forces were killing twice as many civilians than the insurgents were: More Iraqi Civilians Killed by US Forces Than By Insurgents, Data Shows.
35. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by chrb · 2012-02-07 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  Also, that 100,000 number is bullshit.
  Not true. The Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said "The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to 'best practice' in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq." And that is coming from a country that was part of the coalition. Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust'
36. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by chrb · 2012-02-07 07:07 · Score: 2
  
  The US and her allies went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties
  ... and sometimes they refused to let civilians leave and then flattened the city with 500lb bombs and heavy artillery.
  It is odd that your military experience of Iraq is so different to that of these guys:
  American soldier "I killed innocent people"
  Amazing speech by war veteran
37. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by ArcherB · 2012-02-07 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Fact of the matter is insurgents hate the idea of freedom and will kill anyone to try and crush freedom
  Fuck, did this come straight from dubya? Are you even capable of critical thinking?
  They hate our FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!!!
  Jesus, you're a fucking idiot.
  You are right. The these guys love freedom and feel that the general public should be free to choose. However, if a citizen makes a choice that these guys disagree with, they kill that citizen and his family, hopefully in that order, but probably not.
  And don't call Jesus an idiot.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
38. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by cforciea · 2012-02-07 07:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What you say is true, but there is always an unfair implication that the two invasions via Belgium happened the same way implicit in the summarized version of the story. War was a much slower moving affair in World War 1. The entire design of the Maginot Line was supposed to take into account invasion from Belgium or Switzerland. Yes, it was supposed to make invasion direct from Germany very difficult, but it was also supposed to make it much easier to hold the line on the German border with less manpower specifically to free up mobilized forces to respond to the presumably slower offensives that could take place from other borders.
  
  Yes, obviously there was a large miscalculation on how quickly the Germans could advance through Belgium (and in hoping that they would respect Belgium's neutral status), but France's was not the only fighting force to be outmaneuvered by the German Blitzkrieg, and France was highly outnumbered to boot. The whole meme of France learning nothing from World War 1 is way overblown. If the Germans had moved the same way that they had in World War 1, France would have been in great shape. The real problem is that they spent too much effort responding to what they learned from World War 1, and war had changed (despite what Ron Perlman would have you believe).
39. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by jopsen · 2012-02-07 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  but I've known two people who went there who said they were welcomed very warmly as Americans and that quality of life there was pretty much the same as any European country.
  I'm pretty sure things have changed in Europe since your ancestors emigrated 200 years ago :)
  
  </flamebait> if by "any European country" you mean the only poor former east block countries, then maybe you're right... Assuming you don't care about human rights.
40. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  Vietnam?
41. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  No they just bankroll every lunatic extremist Islamic group to do their fighting for them
  Are you talking about the US or its bff Saudi Arabia? Or Pakistan?
42. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by MrSteveSD · 2012-02-07 08:04 · Score: 2
  
  "Next, any civilian casualties resulting from our "invasion" was purely accidental."
  
  I suppose it depends on how you define accidental. For example in the siege, bombardment and assault on Falluja, it was a certainty that civilian casualties would be significant. The siege was largely revenge for the killing of four armed Blackwater mercenaries (the term Private Military Contractor does not feature in the Geneva conventions). When you attack a city the size of Fallujah to avenge the deaths of four men, use 2000lb bombs and howitzers and kill many civilians in the process, can you really call the civilian deaths accidental?
  
  In fact, it was largely footage of civilian casualties in the hospital that stopped the first attempted attack on Falluja in April 2004, which is why the hospital was seized immediately in the second assault in November. The Red Cross reported that refugees had witnessed the use of cluster bombs and white Phosphorus.
  
  "You'll also notice that the US military does not hide behind human shields made of women and children."
  
  This is a charge commonly levelled against enemy forces. It's a good way of demonizing them. Whenever enemy forces are entrenched in a city, you can accused them of hiding behind civilians. If US forces ever have to defend a US city against an invading enemy, you can be sure the same accusations will be made against them.
43. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, again, your an idiot. Sorry to have to use a personal remark, but really.
44. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by debiangruven · 2012-02-07 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  You idiot - read your own post.
  Insurgents.
  Were they there during the time of Saddam?
  Fact is, Saddam may have been a bad-ass, but, I would much prefer living under his rule than have been liberated by the US. Cheers buddy, you help destroy the country and helped it descend into anarchy.
  And who were these terrorists you speak of? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basra_prison_incident
  Maybe you should hop on the next boat OUT of this country. Just my 2 cents.
  
  --
  Stay negative.
45. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 08:30 · Score: 0
  
  Good argument... especially that part where you said "your" instead of "you're". Good job.
46. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  "Actually, hijackers, by their very nature are hiding behind the civilians on the plane. Notice that no one hijacks a FedEx transport, for example. The passengers on the plane are their human shields."
  Even a FedEx transport wouldn't be a legitimate military target. It's a private corporation with civilian employees. Federal Express is actually no more "federal" than the Federal Reserve.
47. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  Hell, the provide support, money and weapons to AQ.
  No, they don't. And it somewhat shows how subjected to propaganda you are that you would blurt that out.
  They supported the Northern Alliance, you know... those warlords and drug lords that made up the bulk of our allies, before the US had any interest in Afghanistan. Iran doesn't really want a bunch of fundie Sunni's who hope for Iran's destruction on their doorstep.
  You may want to get a clue about the ME before opening your mouth next time.
48. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by rubycodez · 2012-02-07 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  so you haven't seen your daughter or mother being sexually molested by a TSA agent....yet
49. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by rubycodez · 2012-02-07 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  you are the ignorant one, hundreds of thousands were killed because of U.S. purposeless action, far exceeding Sadam's body count
50. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  No, but it made the families of the MILLIONS killed feel better to know that something was finally being done about it. Also, that 100,000 number is bullshit.
  Which millions are you referring to? The ones that died as a result of UN sanctions?
  
  You know, like when they would kidnap a mother, rape and kill her and then send the video tape to the family kinda thing.
  Because the US military would never kidnap someone, torture them, and then release images of it, right?
  
  Do you stand idly buy as that drunk beats the shit out of his girlfriend at the bar?
  Is the US military the drunk beating the girlfriend (Iraq)? Are you trying to make a case for insurgency? Be careful, you could be assasinated for saying that.
51. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by peragrin · 2012-02-07 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  because iran was being a dick and still held how many of our people hostage? a couple of hundred?
  Personally I say let Iran have a nuclear weapon. they are stupid enough to use it, and stupid enough to realize that it doesn't make any difference in how you attack people as you can't actually use it without killing off your own people too.
  Take a target like Tel aviv. YEA we nuked those jews. but where does the fall out go? Aman, Jordon.
  you can't use Nukes any where in the middle east with out massive collateral damage. yet Iran is too stupid to understand that.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
52. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-02-07 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Or had the leaders of YOUR religion told they have a year to comply with violations of basic beliefs.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
53. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-02-07 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Correct- just Catholic Bishops being told "pay for our abortions or we'll throw you in jail."
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
54. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by cavreader · 2012-02-07 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  These days the US is doing it's fair share of it's own fighting when necessary. I think the military and CIA have realized the idiocy of providing weapons to a third parties who can't remember which way to point the gun. It didn't happen in Libya and it won't happen in Syria either. The reduction of US participation in these conflicts is just the start. The only reason the US had to do anything in Libya was that none of the other NATO militaries were capable of taking out the air defense system in a matter of days. The drone program is more than enough to eliminate those attempting to cause problems that directly affect US interests. And I don't give a fuck about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or any other country for that matter. International hand holding and endless negotiating over things that do not directly effect US interests are a waste of time and money. My only wish is for the US to pull out of the entire mid-east and let them kill one another in peace. And as a bonus when the US pulls out Israel can finally finish kicking the shit out of Hamas and all the other militant "palestinian" groups even if it means depopulating the West Bank and Gaza once and for all. It's not like any other country in the world would stop them unless they plan on smothering Israel with meaningless and unenforceable UN resolutions.
55. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  That was probably true in 2004, but that was very early in the war. Since then, the rate of coalition killings went down and the rate of insurgent killings went way up. Have a look at the numbers published by the Iraq Body Count.
  There's also an interesting argument that the numbers of killings went down a few years ago because neighborhoods had been so thoroughly ethnically cleansed that the militias controlling various areas basically ran out of enemies to kill.
56. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  I should actually clarify, I said "insurgents" but I should have said "militias" or "non-state actors."
  A large part of those killings, actually the majority as far as I know, was perpetrated by forces that were actually supposedly on the "same side" as the Iraqi government and US forces.
57. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah about that.... what about Blackwater and private military contractors thare operate above the law? Documented and deliberate attacks on civilians. If you want citations read the book titled 'Blackwater'. As for the military do you mean the same military urinating on dead combatants, good honest god fearing people you got there? Or filmed bombing a camera man by your own aircraft? He has a camera... could be a gun... better bomb him just in case. I call BS on your comment.
58. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by MidGe · 2012-02-07 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  "For example, I don't see a whole lot of homosexuals being hung from cranes in the US."
  That is, probably only because the US has more than twice the incarceration rate of Iran.
59. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by gmhowell · 2012-02-07 13:25 · Score: 2
  
  For example, I don't see a whole lot of homosexuals being hung from cranes in the US.
  I'm pretty sure support of this is in Rick Santorum's campaign.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
60. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by gmhowell · 2012-02-07 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  Correct- just Catholic Bishops being told "pay for our abortions or we'll throw you in jail."
  Boohoo. The law applies equally. What a travesty.
  BTW, birth control =/= abortion. Nice try there with that pre (first) millenial thinking.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
61. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by tragedy · 2012-02-07 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the US does have a pretty good history of working with, arming, rigging elections in favor of, and generally aiding any ruthless dictator who happens to align with their goals.
62. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  "You'll also notice that the US military does not hide behind human shields made of women and children."
  That's because they don't need to, they normally hide behind technology instead.
  I find it strange to hear side A say side B are cowards because they use human shields. When side B is using human shields as a direct counter to side A using technology from afar to strike at side B. Did you think side B would just let side A slaughter them with impunity?
63. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by mr_lizard13 · 2012-02-07 19:14 · Score: 2
  
  For example, I don't see a whole lot of homosexuals being hung from cranes in the US.
  You're right. The US murders innocent civilians abroad instead.
  
  It's just a different brand of evil.
  
  --
  "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
64. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 21:20 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, what a lovely holiday. Did you invade France? In Iraq the soldiers gunned down civilians who were protesting the looting - or rather protesting the fact that the US wasn't doing anything to stop it. We're not blind - we've seen the people condemning the US for the deaths of their loved ones.
65. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Tacticus.v1 · 2012-02-07 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you're talking about the catholic hospitals they don't have to comply they just have to comply if they want to take fed dollars.
  Strings attached is not forcing
66. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 22:46 · Score: 0
  
  But you do see the mentally retarded being electrocuted and poisoned.
  Sodomy was still illegal in parts of the USA as late as 2003. Pick a different high horse.
67. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 23:58 · Score: 0
  
  Yup, it's a modern, prosperous country that spouts bullshit and propaganda about its enemies. It does have a dubious government which oppresses the rights of the people as well. Oh, and so does Iran.
  While what you say is more or less true, comparing the "oppression" from the US government to the oppression from the Iranian leadership is not really accurate. For example, I don't see a whole lot of homosexuals being hung from cranes in the US.
  In a humanitarian failure contest between Iran and the US, I don't think I'd want to bet on or against either. Both have done terrible, tragic things.
  Anyway, on gays specifically, in the US they don't have to hang them from cranes. They can just foster an environment in which they are made to hate themselves, and they will perform the hangings without the need for the government to do it. I've seen it happen.
  It is WAY more efficient, especially with closeted gays, who might otherwise go unhanged in a place like Iran.
68. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 00:43 · Score: 0
  
  Next, any civilian casualties resulting from our "invasion" was purely accidental.
  So the 100,000+ civilians killed in Iraq was accidental. I'm sure that makes them feel much better.
  
  I was greeted with open arms by the people in the country I was "invading".
  Is that also representative of the family members of some of those accidental deaths?
  
  You'll also notice that the US military does not hide behind human shields made of women and children.
  You have that in common with the 9/11 terrorists.
  You do realize that civilians are still dying in Iraq and our armed forces are not there. Fact of the matter is insurgents hate the idea of freedom and will kill anyone to try and crush freedom. You are very ignorant when it comes to talking about what our armed forces do in battle. I am an Iraq veteran and I can tell you that in 2005, 99% of all civilian deaths came from terrorists. Maybe you should enlist so that you can see what really happens in a war, or better yet move to Iran because it is such a free democracy and one that values human rights so much.
  I also was there... twice, matter of fact, as a member of US forces. Your remarks seem to indicate that, even if you were there, you only heard and saw what your leaders wanted you to, or you have been otherwise brainwashed. Not surprising, most of the troops around me exhibited similar symptoms. I guess my mind was so dirty that the standard regimen of brainwashing proved inadequate. :) Anyway, the danger you run into calling someone else ignorant is that it just makes you look ignorant, so I'm going to refrain. (See what I did there?)
  Anyway, insurgents don't hate the idea of freedom. That's some bullshit they tried to spoon feed us from way back. That was the biggest tell-tale in your remarks that suggests you're a brainwashing victim. They hate "Freedom (TM)" that has been imposed from without. You see, they already HAD freedom under Saddam. They were free to fight, (as we did with the Brits those long years ago) and probably die, or to live under his rule. They choose to live under him, exercising their freedom. The "Freedom (TM)" we gave them was essentially our coming in, deposing their government (that they were already free to change if they wanted it bad enough before we showed up) and basically TOLD them to pick a different government.
  Just so you understand how that feels, I'll put it this way. I assume you're an American, living in the US. If I'm mistaken, pretend. So you're living in a state in a country that allows abortion and has the death penalty. Your government shows many signs of corruption, from career politicians taking bribes from so-called lobbyists, to people ordering assassinations of your own citizens to settle personal grudges... widespread corruption at every level, basically.
  Then one day, Canada decides it's had enough, and invades. You see, they have arbitrarily decided that they don't like your government, don't like how it allows the murder of its own citizens, (which is really about right, it's why the VW's draft dodgers ran there...) lets mothers slaughter their own unborn children, etc.
  You may say ours is democratically elected, but let me tell you something... none of the 535 members of the legislative branch, nor the two elected members of the executive, nor any of the members of our federal judiciary were voted for by ME, so I guess we are expected to take it on faith that the people in office were legitimately elected. As far as I'm concerned, none of them were elected, as *I* didn't vote for them... but you can of course insist they were democratically elected, because I had the choice, supposedly. But after all, if they were not, surely the puppet media would have alerted us to this, instead of running stories about Lindsay Lohan's legal troubles, or Kim Kardashian's tits.
  So Canada d
69. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  You idiot - read your own post.
  Insurgents.
  Were they there during the time of Saddam?
  Fact is, Saddam may have been a bad-ass, but, I would much prefer living under his rule than have been liberated by the US. Cheers buddy, you help destroy the country and helped it descend into anarchy.
  And who were these terrorists you speak of?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basra_prison_incident
  Maybe you should hop on the next boat OUT of this country. Just my 2 cents.
  Maybe you should keep your 2 cents. Shove them up your ass.
70. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-02-08 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually late 19th/early 20th century thinking, for those who actually have a half a clue and have read their Chesterton.
  The argument goes something like this: A society that separates sex from procreation, gets used to having enjoyment and fun on credit, without paying for it. That society will soon encourage abortions because of the failure rate of the contraception, but that's not the least of the worries. That society will also start demanding goods on credit, trade on credit, life itself on credit. It will eventually go bankrupt, because nobody has the willpower left to leave enjoyment to tomorrow, to work first then enjoy the fruits of one's labor.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
71. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-02-08 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't just Catholic hospitals. It's the Catholic businessman, who takes no federal dollars, but who has more than 50 employees and is required by the federal government to provide health insurance for those employees. It is the Baptist soup kitchen that has employees, and must also pay. It is the Orthodox Russian Catholic School, who employees schoolteachers, that must also pay.
  Under the new mandate- ALL insurance programs have to cover this. The only exception is for "Houses of worship"- so narrowly defined that while we may not have to pay contraception for the priest, we do for his secretary in the office.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
i have some letters for them by noh8rz2 · 2012-02-07 04:04 · Score: 2, Funny

I can lay down some letters for the iranian drones - "f"..."u"..."c"...
1. Re:i have some letters for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  You should be more careful, otherwise it will happen to you again.
2. Re:i have some letters for them by Bovius · 2012-02-07 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  ...fuchsia? fucoids? I can't tell what you're spelling out.
3. Re:i have some letters for them by JustNilt · 2012-02-07 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  I can lay down some letters for the iranian drones - "f"..."u"..."c"...
  More like "f"..."u"..."D", I suspect.
  
  --
  You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
America wins by Xest · 2012-02-07 04:06 · Score: 5, Funny

I bet America's RQ-170 entry won.
Comment Subject: by Ihmhi · 2012-02-07 04:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is one of the things the Middle East is very good at. The Portuguese have a word for it: Desenrascanco, which basically means the quick and dirty solution that's thrown together at the last minute and/or from what's on hand.
We saw this innovation in Libya, including some humorous military innovations such as the Bread Helmet and some far less humorous things like technicals, anti-air turrets, etc. Iran saw how effective the US's drones were and they want some of their own. They saw how effective stuff like DARPA is, so they do the same thing. Of course, Iran has the advantage of coming late to market so they can get all of the component parts much, much easier.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
1. Re:Comment Subject: by Xest · 2012-02-07 04:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  "Of course, Iran has the advantage of coming late to market so they can get all of the component parts much, much easier."
  Especially when your enemy lands them in your back yard.
2. Re:Comment Subject: by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-07 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  This is one of the things the Middle East is very good at. The Portuguese have a word for it: Desenrascanco, which basically means the quick and dirty solution that's thrown together at the last minute and/or from what's on hand.
  And exactly who do think invented Duck Tape?
  USA! USA! USA!
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:Comment Subject: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  The Portuguese have a word for it: Desenrascanco, which basically means the quick and dirty solution that's thrown together at the last minute and/or from what's on hand.
  I am portuguese, and there are a couple of incorrections with that cracked article. The first one is that the word is "desenrascanço", with a cedilla in the C. For the english speakers out there, this makes "desenrascanço" sound a bit like desenrascan-sue.
  The jab on how portuguese supposedly "value just the opposite" of planning every little thing ahead is simply wrong. The world refers to problems which weren't expected and for which there isn't any contingency plan, but must be solved urgently. For example, the Apollo 13 team did a great job at "desenrascar" a solution to a problem which could easily cost the crew their lives. This doesn't mean that 1960s NASA valued not planning things ahead of time. Think of it as problem solving skills which are based in "out of the box thinking and are adequate for a pragmatic approach to solve urgent problems.
4. Re:Comment Subject: by Ihmhi · 2012-02-07 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that Cracked is a humor site and strives for being funny over being accurate.
  That said, what's the deal with the letter "ç"? It's basically an S every time I've heard it - why the heck don't you guys just use an "S"? d:
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
5. Re:Comment Subject: by painandgreed · 2012-02-07 08:22 · Score: 2
  
  Keep in mind that Cracked is a humor site and strives for being funny over being accurate.
  That said, what's the deal with the letter "ç"? It's basically an S every time I've heard it - why the heck don't you guys just use an "S"? d:
  Because the S in english is a voiceless alveolar fricative and the ç is a voiceless palatal fricative, a sound english doesn't even have. You can substitute the S for the ç but you'll sound like some guy with an accent to a native speaker.
6. Re:Comment Subject: by Ihmhi · 2012-02-07 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, okay. That's the first legitimate answer I've ever gotten, ha.
  There's a place in my city called "Café Opçao". (Pretty sure I'm missing the accent over the A.) I asked a Brazilian friend how to pronounce it and then how to pronounce it if you replaced the ç with an s. It sounded essentially the same. Maybe he's been in America for too long.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
7. Re:Comment Subject: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  AFAIK (and I am a native speaker with some knowledge of the History of my language) the "ç" being different from the "s" is something that was lost before even the XVII century. The reason why the "ç" is kept nowadays is because it happens to appear where a foreign cognate words would have a "t" or (in Spanish), a "z". It is an etymological reminder, just that. Examples: "opção" is cognate with "option", "açúcar" is cognate with "azúcar". Sometimes "ç" is kept because inflected forms featue a "t" or a "d". Examples: "peça" (imperative of "ask for" or "request") with "pedir' ("to ask" or "to request"). The general rule is that "ç" appears where Portuguese has changed any Latin consonant into "s": "mala" = "maçã" (apple), "fuçar" = "fodere" (to excavate or to "nose in"), "coração" = "cordis" (heart), etc.
8. Re:Comment Subject: by gmhowell · 2012-02-07 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  I've heard that with sounds of that nature, it can be hard to even hear the difference if you weren't raised with them. Like Chinese with "l" and "r". (I could be wildly off base here.)
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
9. Re:Comment Subject: by Ihmhi · 2012-02-07 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting note on that that most people don't hear, but Japanese (which also has the L/R distinction problem) also has an issue with B/V. Any English loanword that has a "V" in it will have a "B" instead. Example: bampaia (bam-pie-ah)
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
X-Prize by aero2600-5 · 2012-02-07 04:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Nice, the Iranian version of the Ansari X-Prize.
What people don't realize is that even with all the sanctions, hostility, and generally crazy behavior, Iran IS NOT Iraq or Afghanistan. Right now, American casualties are seen as unacceptable, which is leading our drive towards more drones. If we pick a fight with the Iranians, or let them pick a fight with the US, there will be American casualties. They have the ability to sink U.S. war ships. That have the support of Russia and China. Granted, they probably didn't ground that RQ-170, but that doesn't mean it isn't feasible in the near future.
We all know that quite a large chunk of the young adults in Iran don't like the current regime, but do you know what they like even less? The United States. Whether we start the fight or they do, it will cause Iran to solidify behind that common dislike of the U.S., and we will have a real fight on our hands.

--
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
1. Re:X-Prize by js3 · 2012-02-07 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  I really could give a shit about who likes what. If someone is a threat, they are gonna have to answer to the rest of us.
  
  --
  did you forget to take your meds?
2. Re:X-Prize by CanHasDIY · 2012-02-07 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I really could give a shit about who likes what. If someone is a threat, they are gonna have to answer to the rest of us.
  Typical government lapdog mentality: If we rattle a saber at someone and they don't flinch, they are a threat and must be cowed.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
3. Re:X-Prize by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  My personal opinion is that wars involving world economic powers are going to become less and less likely over the next 50-100 years. There is too much at stake at home, and I don't just mean troops' lives. The global economy is a reality, and we're quite entangled with the economies of pretty much any other country of economic significance - by that I don't just mean the G8, but well beyond that. With the other large economies, we have a lot to lose on exports/imports of finished goods if we go to war, but with the middle 50%, we lose access to inputs - sometimes critical ones, like oil - if we go to war. Even beyond the idea that killing each other is so 20th century, there's too much to lose economically in a hot war in probably 75% of the cases. With Iran, we're talking a global oil price spike affecting us, while Iran's exports virtually grind to a halt because they can't get out of port. In the coming decade, I think we're going to get smart enough to realize that a hot war is not the solution to an ideological divide, and by we, I mean everyone - not just the US. Even though I personally think the cost of lives is too high a price, our leaders (on both sides) often don't, but the last thing anyone wants is to lose power due to an avoidable economic catastrophe.
  Of course, we can look at history and point out many examples of wars that happened despite it being a poor economic decision to do so, so maybe my thinking is just wishful. As an economist (by education at least), I think we tend to think economics can solve anything.
4. Re:X-Prize by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  Ironic, given that Ansari was Iranian!
5. Re:X-Prize by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  The United States is a serious threat to Iran and several other countries. Who do they have to answer to?
6. Re:X-Prize by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Gee, yes, promoting/funding terrorism (the kind that kills people on a daily basis), and producing materials needed to build terrible weapons, while producing deeply antisemitic rhetoric. Sounds JUST like lacking a flinch reflex. Or... [warning, Godwin ahead]
7. Re:X-Prize by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  Typical emotional guided timebomb nut with a superiority complex. That will lead to war and actually make the world an unsafe place to live.
  In reality motivated by the change of petrodollars to other currencies by these countries (Iraq, Libya, Iran..)
8. Re:X-Prize by aekafan · 2012-02-07 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and then what does Iran do?
9. Re:X-Prize by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  If the over numbered Americans had so much of problems in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting a bunch of farmers. Now in an economic crisis, wanting to pick a fight with Iran, in reality lead by the nose by Israel which doesn't care what happens to the Americans or America.
  For I will be heading to the nearest shelter once this starts waiting for their east coast reaching missiles. In reality most of the world hates us and are not rooting for us; if given a chance, will take us down when we're most vulnerable.
10. Re:X-Prize by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  We all know that quite a large chunk of the young adults in Iran don't like the current regime, but do you know what they like even less? The United States. Whether we start the fight or they do, it will cause Iran to solidify behind that common dislike of the U.S., and we will have a real fight on our hands.
  I'm not worried. We have the Hope and Change president now. There's no way he's going to get us involved in another war in the middle-east. He even won the Nobel Peace Prize.
  What could go wrong?
11. Re:X-Prize by X.25 · 2012-02-07 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  I really could give a shit about who likes what. If someone is a threat, they are gonna have to answer to the rest of us.
  So, when will USA answer to the rest of us, eh?
12. Re:X-Prize by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  THAT'S what Iran said!
13. Re:X-Prize by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  -1, missed the perfect pun
  Irany!
14. Re:X-Prize by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  You seem to forget that Bin Laden and the Taliban were trained and funded by the United States government and Saddam Hussein was once a US ally against Iran.
  
  That's the problem with the US government, they are backstabbing snakes. They try to play all of the sides against each other, then they cry and whine when one of them gets pissed off and strikes back. You can thank the US government for all of the deaths on 9/11.
15. Re:X-Prize by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  I really could give a shit about who likes what. If someone is a threat, they are gonna have to answer to the rest of us.
  Similar to the "could care less" statement, but even more obviously absurd sounding.
16. Re:X-Prize by JDG1980 · 2012-02-07 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  My personal opinion is that wars involving world economic powers are going to become less and less likely over the next 50-100 years. There is too much at stake at home, and I don't just mean troops' lives. The global economy is a reality, and we're quite entangled with the economies of pretty much any other country of economic significance - by that I don't just mean the G8, but well beyond that. With the other large economies, we have a lot to lose on exports/imports of finished goods if we go to war, but with the middle 50%, we lose access to inputs - sometimes critical ones, like oil - if we go to war. Even beyond the idea that killing each other is so 20th century, there's too much to lose economically in a hot war in probably 75% of the cases.
  Norman Angell made the same argument in 1912, in his book The Great Illusion. He noted that any kind of large-scale war among European powers would be economically destructive and futile, and that even the "winners" would lose more than they gained in blood and treasure. He was right, of course, but it didn't stop World War I from happening anyway only a few years later. I think you overestimate the rationality of humans and underestimate the power of tribal ideology.
17. Re:X-Prize by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  'The rest of us" thought the same about the US when they started bombing the shit out of countries for completely made-up reasons... turns out we were wrong :O
18. Re:X-Prize by MMInterface · 2012-02-07 10:19 · Score: 2
  
  Iran IS NOT Iraq or Afghanistan. Right now, American casualties are seen as unacceptable, which is leading our drive towards more drones. If we pick a fight with the Iranians, or let them pick a fight with the US, there will be American casualties. They have the ability to sink U.S. war ships. Granted, they probably didn't ground that RQ-170, but that doesn't mean it isn't feasible in the near future.
  Whether we start the fight or they do, it will cause Iran to solidify behind that common dislike of the U.S., and we will have a real fight on our hands.
  Iran isn't Iraq. But where exactly are you getting this idea that their armed forces are so much better? Their equipment is equivalent to what the Iraqis had for their time, and they both fought each other to a standstill. Furthermore, the Iraqis had the ability to strike US warships and they did. The Iranians ability to sink warships is irrelevant. During a conflict, US warships aren't going to be in range until most of those threats are neutralized by long range strikes. The only risk is a surprise attack on a US warship before a conflict starts and the Iraqis already did that. Also, it doesn't matter if Iranian people solidify because the US wouldn't go for an occupation. Solidarity doesn't help air defenses.
19. Re:X-Prize by gmhowell · 2012-02-07 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  I really could give a shit about who likes what. If someone is a threat, they are gonna have to answer to the rest of us.
  So, when will USA answer to the rest of us, eh?
  As soon as the rest of the world nuts up and makes us. I suggest you figure out a way to get China to quit selling us cheap plastic crap in exchange for our Weimar-esque currency.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Don't tell anyone... by srussia · 2012-02-07 04:21 · Score: 1

but the Ansari family is Iranian.

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!
1. Re:Don't tell anyone... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-02-07 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure Anousheh even migrated from Iran.
  Plus, the X-Prize program isn't just funded by her money - there have been lots of other X-Prizes that got funding from other sources.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
For spotting evac attempts? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:27 · Score: 0

Hmm, let's see, don't squads trapped/downed behind enemy lines use similar 'flags' to signal their location to passing friendly aircraft? Could one of these UAVs be 'let loose' in an area known to contain a pinned down squad or downed aircraft, to try and identify the personnel's evac. attempts? Maybe I've been watching too much 24...
1. Re:For spotting evac attempts? by HeckRuler · 2012-02-07 04:51 · Score: 2
  
  I think the more direct use would be for spotting, targeting, and destroying tanks and other vehicles. Most armies stencil on the name of the thing in big bold letters. Slap on a brick of C4 and you have a pretty smart missile that hover around till needed and can choose to come home and not detonate.
What are "English letters"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:37 · Score: 1

Did the English have an alphabet of its own before the Romans introduced the Latin one?
1. Re:What are "English letters"? by elrous0 · 2012-02-07 04:46 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I think they meant the American alphabet.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
2. Re:What are "English letters"? by CanHasDIY · 2012-02-07 05:32 · Score: 2
  
  Next thing you know, Americans will start labeling things with Arabic numerals!
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
3. Re:What are "English letters"? by rmstar · 2012-02-07 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Next thing you know, Americans will start labeling things with Arabic numerals!
  I'm mystified - why don't we call them Freedom numerals instead?
4. Re:What are "English letters"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe they meant that within the zone there are letters in an Old English font style.
5. Re:What are "English letters"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  Letters used to write messages in the English language of course!
  English is used as a primary language by millions, and as a secondary language by billions of people The English Language. So specifying the type of lettering to be detected as those used in the english language is sensible. And I suspect a convoluted pedantic description of the characters to be recognised would fly over the heads of the students.
  So, the phrase "english letters" was used because
  a. Its probably a concept familiar to the target audience
  b. The ultimate targets for these UAVs are probably going to be US vehicles with "english letters" on their roofs for military ID purposes.
  c. Anything with "english letters" on its roof is going to be a target.....
  d. BOOM!!!!!!
6. Re:What are "English letters"? by sonamchauhan · 2012-02-08 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  Its the French alphabet without the accents.
Despite sanctions? by HeckRuler · 2012-02-07 04:45 · Score: 1, Informative

Despite sanctions? Dude, all the parts come from China. And China isn't part of the embargo. 10^2 km is a little wide for the smaller RC fliers out there, but for the larger ones that have a gas engine, it's completely do-able. That's retail store level technology. That hard part is flying it out of sight. Sensors, cameras, communications, all these little modules are made in china and are hobbyist stuff.

Long story short, it's impossible to embargo technology any more. It used to be that areospace technology was unatainable by anyone outside the industry. Serious engineers with serious companies with serious money. Now it's cheap. Kids are launching their own satellites.

Embargoes work for bulk goods, regulated and controlled substances, and money. And they usually work very badly. UAV technology doesn't fall under those categories.
1. Re:Despite sanctions? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  No.
  One word: ITAR.
The Bible warns the US will NOT defend Israel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:46 · Score: -1

"Russia fears Israel will push the United States into a military conflict with Iran which could retaliate by blocking oil shipments from the Gulf, a confidant of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said. 'There is a likelihood of military escalation of the conflict, towards which Israel is pushing the Americans,' Nikolai Patrushev, who heads the Kremlin’s Security Council, told Interfax news agency."
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/12/russia-afraid-israel-will-push-u-s-into-war-with-iran-vladimir-putin-ally-says/
"Any new sanctions or a possible strike against Iran 'will be perceived by international community as an attempt at changing' Tehran’s regime, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov stated on Saturday."
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012/01/14/63852396.html
Those are the expected reactions. But this?
"The Bible warns Russia, Iran, Turkey, and a coalition of allies (including Libya and Sudan) will go to war, and will attack and will invade Israel. In Ezekiel 38-39 the Bible warns this coming war between Iran (Persia) and Israel will take place sometime after Israel has been re-gathered into Her land as a nation (which was fulfilled on May 14, 1948) ... this prophetic war has never yet taken place ... the only time in history Persia (Iran) has ever gone to war against Israel was to help Israel throw off the yoke of the Byzantine Empire around 614 AD. The Bible warns the US will NOT defend Israel. According to the Bible, Israel must stand alone ... with God."
http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/Warning%206%20Russia%20Iran%20Invasion.html
"Growing up in Kuwait, Asif Balbale thought he wanted to become a chemical engineer. He never imagined enlisting in the U.S. Navy, much less becoming an imam. Balbale got his engineering degree after immigrating to the U.S. at age 21. With jobs hard to come by, he tried to enlist in the Army, but didn't weigh enough. Instead, he met the Navy's minimum requirements. He was sworn in as a U.S. citizen in 2005 while deployed aboard the USS Boxer. Intending to apply for an officer program, Balbale, 31, mistakenly emailed a recruiter for the chaplain corps. 'God, I think, had better plans for me,' Balbale said, looking back."
"Although he grew up nominally Christian, it wasn't until he was 21 that he 'became a Jesus follower.' Wherever his Army deployments took him, he would attend Sunday services and assist the chaplain. He soon realized that the 'gifts God had given me for leadership would allow me to lead spiritually.' In 2005, he enrolled at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, returning to Army duty in 2009. Stationed at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, Odell, 38, said more than half of the soldiers he sees don't share his religion."
"As a student at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., Aaron Kleinman was the "Jew who did Jewish stuff." Although he served two years as president of the academy's Jewish Midshipmen Club, becoming a rabbi had never really entered his mind. If he hadn't experienced deployments on two carrier ships that didn't have onboard Jewish chaplains, it might have remained that way."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/chaplains-serve-god-military_n_1258592.html
What The Fuck?!
Are those people for real?
1. Re:The Bible warns the US will NOT defend Israel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  I wish I could mod you "+1 Crazy"
2. Re:The Bible warns the US will NOT defend Israel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  What The Fuck?!
  My thoughts exactly.
rut roh by koan · 2012-02-07 04:57 · Score: 0

Iranian drones that look for English letters, not farsi, English letters.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
1. Re:rut roh by Johann+Lau · 2012-02-07 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if their hexadecimal uses the latin alphabet, as well? The nerve!
  I wonder what English letters are though?
So the more people you kill and torture by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 05:10 · Score: 0, Troll

the better it is? The numbers of atrocities by the USA is higher than that produced by Iran.
Or do you simply not care what happens to humans, *unless* they're gay?
Repeat by jeffmeden · 2012-02-07 05:34 · Score: 1

I saw this a few weeks ago on an episode of Rocket City Rednecks. Not that I have anything against Iranians, but building a RC plane and fitting it with a camera and transmitter is something not challenging for a teenager, not to mention you can buy them on the internet (unencumbered by any military hardware restrictions) if you aren't even a hobbyist. What is the real story here? That those darn Iranians are "at it again"?
1. Re:Repeat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  I saw this a few weeks ago on an episode of Rocket City Rednecks. Not that I have anything against Iranians, but building a RC plane and fitting it with a camera and transmitter is something not challenging for a teenager, not to mention you can buy them on the internet (unencumbered by any military hardware restrictions) if you aren't even a hobbyist. What is the real story here? That those darn Iranians are "at it again"?
  Which just makes me wonder why the US Government is so happy to spend millions of dollars to get *its* solution in the air! Oh, wait, maybe the contractors make campaign contributions...
English letters? by jdc18 · 2012-02-07 05:38 · Score: 1

Please explain what are english letters, as far as I can remember it is the greco-roman alphabet
1. Re:English letters? by rubycodez · 2012-02-07 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Greco? The greeks never used it for greek, though the Latin alphabet did evolve from one particular greek one, the Cumaean.
What country again?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 05:49 · Score: 0

Wait, are you talking about America, Israel, or Iran? Because the last time I checked, the US and Israel seem to be among the top exporters of terrorism in the world.
People are good at that everywhere by Shivetya · 2012-02-07 06:02 · Score: 1

this is not just a trait of those in one region of the world, though living in constant threat of your life from your government and those around you does tend to spur innovation. Even Slashdot has been replete with stories of people creating their own drones, shooting off rockets, and the like.
The difference comes down to scale and integration. Anyone can put up a model plane and find things they are supposed to find. Now, having the ability to do so in varied weather conditions, varied terrains, and coordinate the search and response with related elements is there the process bogs down. It bogs down because of dependencies, something this contest did not cover. (Besides there is a good number of small drones out there in the hands of many countries)
The are two messages here. First, smart and innovative exist world wide, and second the pace and spread of technology is outstripping the ability for many people to comprehend.
Well there is a third reason, Iran's government needs to impress. Impress their own people more than others btw.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
1. Re:People are good at that everywhere by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2012-02-07 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's a feature of life in less affluent societies. People learn to make do with what's on hand, and not rely on ready made(expensive) tools and equipment.
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
2. Re:People are good at that everywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  It's a feature of life in less affluent societies. People learn to make do with what's on hand, and not rely on ready made(expensive) tools and equipment.
  Yep, and no matter what you need, someone knows someone else who has it. Although, it's usually a short, bumpy truck ride away.
I bet they all use american GPS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:33 · Score: 0

It is nice to see Iranian students getting into building model Airplanes... They are a lot of fun.
Not UAVs by Corson · 2012-02-07 06:49 · Score: 1

I looked at the pictures, those are not UAVs but air models. We used to make and pilot such toys in grade 6. They are radio-controlled and require a clear line of sight and proximity for decent maneuvering. In any case, they are pretty expensive even for an amateur.
1. Re:Not UAVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  RC airplanes are easily made into UAVs, and look the same. I have several UAVs in my garage that can go distances far beyond visual sight, and even send back video and telemetry in real time. http://www.diydrones.com
2. Re:Not UAVs by wmac1 · 2012-02-07 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  In 6th grade you used to build models which tracked a 10 square kilometers to find an alphabet and send back the photo?
  
  You are a shameless lair Mr.
  
  It does not matter how small is the plane, the communication and navigation makes it valuable.
Innovation from crowdsourcing by charliehotel · 2012-02-07 08:12 · Score: 1

While people are joking and laughing at the Iranians for making their little toy models of the crashed drone, they are rapidly catching up in the UAS department. A UAV competition means they have realized that the amateurs and students are where the real innovation lies.
1. Re:Innovation from crowdsourcing by wmac1 · 2012-02-07 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  Iran sent its 3rd satellite to the orbit this week and will send the 4th satellite next week. I'd prefer everyone to make jokes and laugh at them but let them do their job.
Fight the Mexican and Colombian cartels by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 08:32 · Score: 0

Fight the Mexican and Colombian cartels.
There you have a REAL, lethal problem.
Leave that fucked up Iranian alone and he will leave you alone.
OK, the Mexican and Colombian cartels are too close for your comfort. Maybe you are already under threat from them? I would be more scared of the cartels in my own country than some religious dude on the other side of two oceans.
Alfred Nobel too by KingAlanI · 2012-02-07 10:25 · Score: 1

Alfred Nobel saw dynamite as having a sort of mutually-assured-destruction effect (in addition to the civil engineering uses). Right idea, but a few decades too early.
More recently, this economic argument was part of Tom Friedman's _The World Is Flat_.

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
far from it.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 10:56 · Score: 0

..doesn't come with sponsorship from DARPA or Mobil — far from it.
Eh, isn't the exact same, just the Iranian one?
They're probably hunting for... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 21:01 · Score: 0

.. the Mahdi! The 12th imam of the Shias, who's supposed to come out of a well in Qum, after the Iranians manage to accelarate the final judgement day, when Issa (the islamic version of Jesus) will accompany him and either kill all Christians or convert them to Islam.