SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CNN reports that the US Navy launched four armed F/A-18 fighter jets to intercept two Russian Tu-142 Bear aircraft that were flying near the 100,000-ton aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan while it was participating in a bilateral training exercise with South Korea in the Pacific Ocean. "It is standard operating procedure for U.S. planes to escort aircraft flying in the vicinity of U.S. Navy ships," says Navy Cmdr. William J. Marks. "This type of interaction is not unprecedented. Overall I would characterize the interaction as safe." The Nimitz-class nuclear-powered USS Reagan is essentially a floating airport, complete with an air traffic control center that tracks and communicates with nearby aircraft. When the carrier engages in flight operations, it institutes a carrier control zone, which extends up to 2,500 feet and within a five-mile radius, according to the Navy's flight training instruction carrier procedures.
The lack of communication by the Russian aircraft conflicted with general aviation practice. Even commercial airports of any significant size generally expect two-way radio contact when aircraft fly as close as the Russians did, according to international aviation guidelines. Encounters such as these were common during the Cold War. They subsided with its end but picked up again under current Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Over the last few years and particularly this year and last year, with the start of the Ukraine crisis, Russia has picked up the number of sorties," says Nick de Larrinaga. adding that Putin wants to show Russia is "still a global military power and a force to be reckoned with."
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday November 02 2015, @06:24AM
Feel free to enlighten us.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @07:55AM
We (the rest of the world) are sick and tired of the U.S. pretending to be morally upright, spreading democracy, harmony and white goods across the world when in actual fact it:
I could go on, but I can't be bothered.
(Score: 1) by pk on Tuesday November 03 2015, @04:24AM
I'm sorry, are you describing the United States there, or Russia?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:12PM
Yes
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @08:08AM
Timeline of United States military operations [wikipedia.org]
I have arbitrarily chosen a starting point of Y2000.
Others might have chosen a different year.
USA has been poking its nose into other folks' business for a LONG time.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SanityCheck on Monday November 02 2015, @03:11PM
Well yes, but that is part and parcel with being top dog. People just get giggles from blowing sand in your face.
It doesn't matter if it's anything but annoyance really. Most of the time we get into this crap because if we don't do anything people take offense also. If you do something someone else takes offense. It's a lose-lose. Think about Iraq War part 1, if we didn't attack we would get Saudis in a bunch (yes I understand reason Saddam was so powerful to begin with is our doing, but I don't want to go back in time till 4000 BC). Everything that happened after was totally related to the first war, including the second one.
I mean I don't like running around the world swinging our proverbial member either. But when I look at the EU sitting around doing diddly squat while Russia has all but invaded 4 countries so far in Europe, I really have to wonder if it's a better way to go. Letting Putin get away with things is definitely not a recipe for victory either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @11:44PM
The other day, an AC gave a definition and needed to be corrected. [soylentnews.org]
Reading your post would be a good exercise for him.
(While there is often significant overlap between the subsets of Authoritarian Reactionary and NeoCon, they are not one and the same.)
top dog
By what metric? Infant mortality? Lifespan of its people? Gross National Happiness?
Oh, you mean the gov't that pisses away the most money on weapons because the arms industry is about all we have left of our once-mighty industrial base.
Got ya.
We Soylentils touched on these topics [soylentnews.org] in a previous thread. [soylentnews.org]
if we don't do anything[,] people take offense
Being able to deal with criticism is what we grownups call "maturity".
If you do something[,] someone else takes offense
...because, apparently, being bombed, invaded, and occupied should be considered a natural state of affairs.
It's a lose-lose
Dealing with that is called putting on your big boy pants.
The problem is that some little boys never grow up.
Statesmanship and diplomacy are alternatives to aggression.
If you choose to use weapons, it's because you failed.
You weren't sharp-witted enough to get the other guy to agree to a strategy where he is convinced that he has come out on top.
The wrong people were assigned to the task.
Saddam was so powerful
More NeoCon swill.
Saddam was fought to a standstill by Iran.
It's clear that you didn't see any images of the road back to Iraq that was covered with destroyed vehicles and dead Iraqis because of Allied (read: USA) air power.
In foreign affairs, Saddam was a tinpot.
The few times he went outside his borders, he was contained and pushed back.
No such threat from him existed in 2003[1] (to include his bluff and bluster).
Dubya simply had a hard-on for him because, years before, Saddam had made an idle threat to kill G.H.W. Bush.
...and the thing is that, under Saddam, internally, Iraq was stable and remarkably western.
Way to go solving that problem, USA.
[1] 15 of the 19 perps on 9/11 were Saudi nationals.
If USA was going to bomb a dictatorship in 2003, it clearly chose the wrong one.
while Russia has all but invaded 4 countries
Um, before USA got involved, Ukraine had a democratically-elected gov't.
The fact that USA didn't like its politics and toppled it doesn't count in your book, apparently.
Letting Putin get away with things
I suggest that you study the escapades of USA.gov before pointing fingers.
victory
You seem very obsessed with "winning".
I don't like running around the world swinging our proverbial member
It appears to me that that is exactly what you mean.
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 02 2015, @08:32AM
Because we treat other people like dogs. We have done NOTHING in the mideast that I'm proud of. We have done a hell of a lot that I'm ashamed of.
Are you aware that Iran was a democracy? Five years before my birth, Iran was "The place to be". The people were enlightened, wealthy, educated, and they had a perfectly legitimate democratically elected government. It was as near to perfect as any human endeavor or human institution can be. Things were great.
Then, Operation Ajax. The Wikipedia article on Ajax is pretty accurate. It has plenty of links that you can follow to understand it better. An internet search will find enough more links that you can write a thesis. I invite you to look.
Much of our policy since, many of our actions since, are just as deplorable. How 'bout Iraq? We hated that sumbitch, Saddam. Positively hated him. Our hatred blinded us to who and what Saddam was. As evil as he was, he provided a measure of stability in the region. Few Americans understand what stability means. Take a very good look at ISIS/ISIL/DAESH. THAT is what instability is.
We've spread that instability to Tripoli. We tried to spread it to Syria. We spread it to Ukraine.
Russia said "Enough is enough. Russia is in Syria now, and they are beating DAESH down. And, we hate it. Our candy assed politicians have done everything in their power to destabilize the governments of the region, and Russia has put a halt to it.
Yes, I've skipped over a lot of other crap, only pointing out the high visibility stuff. There's been one hell of a lot of dirty shit in between Ajax and Desert Storm.
Our government is an embarrassment. Good or bad, our government is a supporter of Zionism. Definitely bad, we treat all opponents of Zionism as dogs.
No, the world doesn't love us for our cavalier attitude to the rest of the world. What would you expect? We don't "build nations". We sacrifice humans on the Altar of the Almighty Dollar.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Monday November 02 2015, @09:00AM
Exactly. The Russians are not much (if at all) better, but it is easy to wave the patriotic flag and think we're above such things. Thanks for the wake up call.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @04:07PM
No. The Russians ARE better for now.
For one they are not hypocrites. Russia says they are doing stuff for Russia, not for freedom, not for democracy not for whatever bullshit the US likes to say before they mess things up.
I bet that part of the ocean the US aircraft carrier is in isn't US territory. If it's not Korean territory either but international waters then the Russian planes have the same right to be there as the US planes and ships even if the US military doesn't like it. The US is trying to pretend it owns the ocean. And the US likes to pretend its doing it for defense when aircraft carriers are NOT for defense. Planes flying from airbases on your soil around your territory could be for defense, but planes flying from an aircraft carrier halfway across the world is not defense. It's "projecting power" e.g. swinging your fist. Don't be surprised if other people take offense when you swing your fist near their nose and start putting their fists near your fists as well.
Yes Russia is exerting its power but the US has exerted its power in the Middle East and arguably made things worse. Have all those drone strikes made things better? Did getting rid of Gaddafi or Saddam make Libya better? The US keep supporting the Saudis who are arming the ISIS: https://theintercept.com/2015/10/26/bbc-protects-uks-close-ally-saudi-arabia-with-incredibly-dishonest-and-biased-editing/ [theintercept.com]
Sure the Russians are backing Assad, but think about this if the US had backed Assad or just not got involved do you think Assad would be sponsoring acts of terror in the USA? In contrast the USA is sponsoring the allies of the ISIS in their fight against Assad and others. These allies often switch to joining the ISIS completely. If these allies and/or ISIS win, you'll get plenty more schools for terrorists.
The US plays with fire and feigns surprise or innocence when others or itself gets burned.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday November 02 2015, @09:12PM
Yes, that nice Mr Putin [youtube.com] is just doing what any other self-respecting, red-blooded man would do. What could possibly go wrong?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @04:17PM
And as an outsider I don't even see how most of the bad things the US Gov has done actually would help the US people in the long run.
Destabilizing the middle east and making groups the ISIS get stronger = more muslim extremists and more terrorists.
Swapping a few big bad guys for thousands of bad guys is not a good idea.
(Score: 2) by soylentsandor on Monday November 02 2015, @06:21PM
You might want to read "The Authoritarians" [umanitoba.ca] (online and free) to get a grasp of why some people might think that's a good idea.
The book was discussed [soylentnews.org] on this very site last year, though I think this [goodreads.com] is a better review.