Drone Attack

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 5:39:18 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 1:15:51 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 5:54:21 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 5:02:36 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 3:40:17 AM UTC-4, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 24/06/2019 03:14, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 6:01:52 PM UTC-4, Clive Arthur wrote:

snipped

Maybe there's some embarrassment. AIUI, the *very expensive* drone was
flying at a high altitude yet seemingly was unable to avoid a SAM. Not
good.

Fighter pilots can avoid a missile if they see the light burst on launch. A warning later doesn't give them enough time to dodge a SAM.

So why would you expect a slower and less agile drone to be able to outmaneuver a SAM?

I wouldn't know, but if it can't protect itself then it becomes little
more than an expensive target drone.

Clearly you don't know much about war. There are many different types of war. The drone is pretty effective in the types of war they are fighting against non-national armies. Drones usually fly high enough you don't know they are there unless you are using radar. Since the drone that was shot down was supposedly over international waters, I expect they were using it to monitor the shipping which it would be good at. There was no reason for anyone to shoot it down, especially since that is an act of war.

--


There was good reason for Iran to shoot it down, Trump has been waging war
on Iran for over a year now. Trump has not only embargoed US trade with
Iran, but used the full might of the US to force most companies around
the world to do the same. It's created a depression in Iran, exactly
as it was intended to do. What would the US position be, what would we
do, if some foreign power did that to us?

Your post seems very confused and is mixing two separate things. Are you suggesting that the US and Iran are in a state of war? I'm pretty sure neither of them think so.

--

Rick C.

-+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

I'm saying that Trump has been waging war on Iran. Instead of asking me
questions, why don't you answer the question I posed. Trump has not only
embargoed US trade with Iran, but he has used the might of the US govt to
force most companies around the world to do the same. He's forced them
to cut off trade with Iran. It's caused a
depression in Iran, which was the intended result. If a foreign country
did that to the US, what would we consider it, if not an act of war?
We;d put up with it? What would the American people think?

It's not a relevant question since embargoes are not acts of war. We embargoed Japan and they eventually went to war with us, but the embargo was not an act of war. We are not at war with Iran and Iran is not at war with us.. You seem to be responding to these issues emotionally rather than thoughtfully.

--

Rick C.

-+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 6:47:53 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 6:12:35 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 5:55:28 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 5:39:18 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

If a foreign country
did that to the US, what would we consider it, if not an act of war?
We;d put up with it? What would the American people think?

It's not a relevant question since embargoes are not acts of war.

Heh, I simply asked you what you think the US would do if a foreign power
embargoed us. Can't you dishonest libs ever address a relevant question.
And who gets to decide what an act of war is?

You asked a question and I responded appropriately.

You refused to answer the simple questions I asked and you continue
to do so. Typical for a dishonest lib.

> Nothing dishonest there. You seem like you just want an argument.

If you don't want to hear responses, then don't start off topic posts.

If another country embargoed the US I expect we would have to deal with it. What choices would we have? I would not invade a country because they embargoed us.

Who said anything about invading? And again, you miss the point. It would
not just be a country embargoing us, but a foreign country embargoing us
and using that country's might to force companies and other countries
around the world, who DO NOT WANT an embargo, to embargo us. So, the US is
in a depression, unemployment at 12%, inflation at 40%, that foreign
country is now seeking to force our oil exports to zero to further
punish us. You'd just sit by, take that? And "deal" with it? Sure.

If a foreign power not only
embargoed the US but used it's might to force most of the companies that
we trade with to do the same thing, resulting in a depression, which was
the intended effect, WTF do you think we'd do?

We wouldn't wage war. At least I wouldn't.

Well of course not, you;re a lib and you;d let some foreign country
do it to you. But until recently, even Democrats like Bill Clinton
wouldn't put up with that. Today though, the party has become a bunch
of wusses, so who knows. But it doesn't matter what libs would do.
What matters is what Iran does and you're already seeing what's coming.

We embargoed Japan and they eventually went to war with us, but the embargo was not an act of war.

Do try to keep up. I didn't say the US embargoing Iran was an act of war.
I said Trump embargoing Iran and using the full might of the US to force
most other companies around the world to do the same with the intent of
busting their economy, was an act of war. What pussies would put up with
that and not consider it an act of war?

You are totally emotional about this.

Not emotional at all. I'm not Iranian, I have no use for the Iranian govt.
But I know a stupid, foolish act of aggression, an act of war, that will
not get the desired results, when I see it. Trump thinks Iran will just
cave and turn into Jordan or Sweden. They won't. Trump was asked today
by reporters if he has an exit strategy with Iran. He said he doesn't
need one. And one of your Democrat Senators had it right. Menendez
said Trump has created a pressure cooker, there is no relief valve and
we know what happens in that case.


> That is why Trump supporters are so vehement. They aren't thinking, they are feeling. Trump and many conservative commentators wind people up rather than being rational about the facts. Get excited, get angry, get riled up and they can make you do anything they want.

Yeah, sure, and use trumpets as the example. Why not use your lib buddies
as examples? They are far more emotional, they are the ones who right
now won't let go of the Russia collusion crap, that want to keep at it.
How about that dope AOC? She just claimed the holding facilities at the
US border are concentration camps. Why not use her as an example of
"emotional"?

We are not at war with Iran and Iran is not at war with us. You seem to be responding to these issues emotionally rather than thoughtfully.

You seem to be lost in the wilderness, as usual. And try answering the
question next time, instead of diverting to nowhere.

The question is not relevant. It doesn't matter. I've answered it and now I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong in my opinion about that too.

Of course it matters, fool. The Iranians consider it an act of war. Iran
wasn't the aggressor here. They were complying with the nuclear deal
with the US and five other countries. Trump reneged and started the
aggression against Iran. In fact, all those other countries, including
the EU, did everything they could to work with Iran, to try to get
around the US sanctions. In the end, because of the enormous force of
the US, they failed. This isn't six countries against Iran, this isn't
the UN against Iran. This is Trump against Iran. You just watch what happens.

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 6:52:13 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 02:29:54 -0700, trader4 wrote:

You can dispute it all you want, it's a fact. If you need definitions,
consult a dictionary. She said "we came, we saw, he died" and she
laughed.

I admire your fortitude in attempting to debate with these trolls, but my
tip would be to KF them all. You'll be amazed how much time you save on
pointless arguments, because no matter how good your reasoning nor how
sound your logic, you will never, ever win them over to see common sense.
The worst offenders are:

Sloman
bitrex
DLU
whit3rd
Gardner

But I'm guessing you've worked that out for yourself before now!
OTOH, if you enjoy pointless arguing just for the sake of it, you've got
precisely the right crowd to do it with.

Hey! You forgot me!!!

BTW, I printed out one of your posts and gave it to a few friends as a joke. They all thought you were pretty funny. How much do I owe you?

Good luck collecting.

This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

--

Rick C.

-+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 02:29:54 -0700, trader4 wrote:

You can dispute it all you want, it's a fact. If you need definitions,
consult a dictionary. She said "we came, we saw, he died" and she
laughed.

I admire your fortitude in attempting to debate with these trolls, but my
tip would be to KF them all. You'll be amazed how much time you save on
pointless arguments, because no matter how good your reasoning nor how
sound your logic, you will never, ever win them over to see common sense.
The worst offenders are:

Sloman
bitrex
DLU
whit3rd
Gardner

But I'm guessing you've worked that out for yourself before now!
OTOH, if you enjoy pointless arguing just for the sake of it, you've got
precisely the right crowd to do it with.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 6:12:35 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 5:55:28 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 5:39:18 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

If a foreign country
did that to the US, what would we consider it, if not an act of war?
We;d put up with it? What would the American people think?

It's not a relevant question since embargoes are not acts of war.

Heh, I simply asked you what you think the US would do if a foreign power
embargoed us. Can't you dishonest libs ever address a relevant question.
And who gets to decide what an act of war is?

You asked a question and I responded appropriately. Nothing dishonest there. You seem like you just want an argument.

If another country embargoed the US I expect we would have to deal with it. What choices would we have? I would not invade a country because they embargoed us.

If a foreign power not only
embargoed the US but used it's might to force most of the companies that
we trade with to do the same thing, resulting in a depression, which was
the intended effect, WTF do you think we'd do?

We wouldn't wage war. At least I wouldn't.

We embargoed Japan and they eventually went to war with us, but the embargo was not an act of war.

Do try to keep up. I didn't say the US embargoing Iran was an act of war..
I said Trump embargoing Iran and using the full might of the US to force
most other companies around the world to do the same with the intent of
busting their economy, was an act of war. What pussies would put up with
that and not consider it an act of war?

You are totally emotional about this. That is why Trump supporters are so vehement. They aren't thinking, they are feeling. Trump and many conservative commentators wind people up rather than being rational about the facts.. Get excited, get angry, get riled up and they can make you do anything they want.

We are not at war with Iran and Iran is not at war with us. You seem to be responding to these issues emotionally rather than thoughtfully.

You seem to be lost in the wilderness, as usual. And try answering the
question next time, instead of diverting to nowhere.

The question is not relevant. It doesn't matter. I've answered it and now I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong in my opinion about that too.

--

Rick C.

-++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 7:26:23 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 6:47:53 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 6:12:35 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 5:55:28 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

It's not a relevant question since embargoes are not acts of war.

Heh, I simply asked you what you think the US would do if a foreign power
embargoed us. Can't you dishonest libs ever address a relevant question.
And who gets to decide what an act of war is?

You asked a question and I responded appropriately.

You refused to answer the simple questions I asked and you continue
to do so. Typical for a dishonest lib.

Nothing dishonest there. You seem like you just want an argument.

If you don't want to hear responses, then don't start off topic posts.

That is just a weird response. Like "love it or leave it". I said there is nothing dishonest about my answer and tell me I shouldn't discuss the issue????

If another country embargoed the US I expect we would have to deal with it. What choices would we have? I would not invade a country because they embargoed us.

Who said anything about invading? And again, you miss the point. It would
not just be a country embargoing us, but a foreign country embargoing us
and using that country's might to force companies and other countries
around the world, who DO NOT WANT an embargo, to embargo us. So, the US is
in a depression, unemployment at 12%, inflation at 40%, that foreign
country is now seeking to force our oil exports to zero to further
punish us. You'd just sit by, take that? And "deal" with it? Sure.

Ok, not just a country... a FOREIGN county...

What are the choices? Start a war you can't win? Attack shipping that will result in potentially massive responses further crippling the economy?

What do you think we should do in that case?

If a foreign power not only
embargoed the US but used it's might to force most of the companies that
we trade with to do the same thing, resulting in a depression, which was
the intended effect, WTF do you think we'd do?

We wouldn't wage war. At least I wouldn't.

Well of course not, you;re a lib and you;d let some foreign country
do it to you. But until recently, even Democrats like Bill Clinton
wouldn't put up with that. Today though, the party has become a bunch
of wusses, so who knows. But it doesn't matter what libs would do.
What matters is what Iran does and you're already seeing what's coming.

Bill Clinton didn't have this problem because he ran a good economy.

We embargoed Japan and they eventually went to war with us, but the embargo was not an act of war.

Do try to keep up. I didn't say the US embargoing Iran was an act of war.
I said Trump embargoing Iran and using the full might of the US to force
most other companies around the world to do the same with the intent of
busting their economy, was an act of war. What pussies would put up with
that and not consider it an act of war?

You are totally emotional about this.

Not emotional at all. I'm not Iranian, I have no use for the Iranian govt.
But I know a stupid, foolish act of aggression, an act of war, that will
not get the desired results, when I see it. Trump thinks Iran will just
cave and turn into Jordan or Sweden. They won't. Trump was asked today
by reporters if he has an exit strategy with Iran. He said he doesn't
need one. And one of your Democrat Senators had it right. Menendez
said Trump has created a pressure cooker, there is no relief valve and
we know what happens in that case.

This is exactly how we got Iran to negotiate and reach an agreement the first time. Why won't it work again? My only concern would have been getting other countries to join in. The stupid part of Trump's actions was to start this mess in the first place for no identifiable reason. The agreement was fine. Trump said the Iranians weren't living up to it and started the embargo. Now he can't say what they were doing wrong or what he wants them to do before he will end the embargo.

This does make some sense in that it is the way Trump would negotiate in real estate. He would get parties interested in working with them, then once they had some skin in the game he would start tightening the screws to get more and more from them. Meanwhile he had nothing committed other than his name. This won't work in international politics. No one will even come to the table if you can't articulate your goals even if those goals are more aggressive than you will ever achieve.

That is why Trump supporters are so vehement. They aren't thinking, they are feeling. Trump and many conservative commentators wind people up rather than being rational about the facts. Get excited, get angry, get riled up and they can make you do anything they want.

Yeah, sure, and use trumpets as the example. Why not use your lib buddies
as examples? They are far more emotional, they are the ones who right
now won't let go of the Russia collusion crap, that want to keep at it.
How about that dope AOC? She just claimed the holding facilities at the
US border are concentration camps. Why not use her as an example of
"emotional"?

When you call me a "dishonest lib" that's an emotional response. When you ask what I would do (I assume as supreme commander and president for life of the US) if the tables were turned, that's an emotional response. When I give you an answer and you tell me I'm not being honest, that's an emotional response.

In this conversation I've tried to be factual about the issue we are discussing.

We are not at war with Iran and Iran is not at war with us. You seem to be responding to these issues emotionally rather than thoughtfully.

You seem to be lost in the wilderness, as usual. And try answering the
question next time, instead of diverting to nowhere.

The question is not relevant. It doesn't matter. I've answered it and now I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong in my opinion about that too.


Of course it matters, fool. The Iranians consider it an act of war. Iran
wasn't the aggressor here.

Now you are shifting gears again. You asked me what I would do if someone did that to us. Now you are back to asking about the Iranians.

They were complying with the nuclear deal
with the US and five other countries. Trump reneged and started the
aggression against Iran. In fact, all those other countries, including
the EU, did everything they could to work with Iran, to try to get
around the US sanctions. In the end, because of the enormous force of
the US, they failed. This isn't six countries against Iran, this isn't
the UN against Iran. This is Trump against Iran. You just watch what happens.

Yes, I totally agree with the issue that Trump started this without clearly identifying what the Iranians were doing wrong and what his goal would be to resolve the problem.

When you say, "what what happens", I don't think I have any other choices. Most of us in this country are passive observers with our only ability to be involved the act of voting. We screwed that up a couple of years ago and now are paying the price.

--

Rick C.

+--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 2:54:21 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

There was good reason for Iran to shoot it down, Trump has been waging war
on Iran for over a year now.

Oh, but that's not the reason. The reason is, Iran has attacked (with limpet
mines) Saudi shipping, and a few other nations' vessels, and probably
can get away with it if no one films their work. The US DID film. Iran knows
their piratical attacks will continue to be revealed to the world
unless they shoot down surveillance aircraft. Even if the aircraft aren't
over their soil.

Saudi Arabia vs. Iran has kept Yemen smoldering for some time, the US
sanctions aren't the acts of agressive shooting war that are relevant here.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 26/6/19 12:37 pm, whit3rd wrote:

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 2:54:21 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

There was good reason for Iran to shoot it down, Trump has been waging war
on Iran for over a year now.

Oh, but that's not the reason. The reason is, Iran has attacked (with limpet
mines) Saudi shipping, and a few other nations' vessels, and probably
can get away with it if no one films their work. The US DID film. Iran knows
their piratical attacks will continue to be revealed to the world
unless they shoot down surveillance aircraft. Even if the aircraft aren't
over their soil.

You are assuming that the attacks weren't faked by the US, in order to
get the US media and population on-side to re-elect Trump.

Conspiracy theory? Absolutely. Precedented? Yes. Likely? Fairly likely.
Iran had no good reason to attack those freighters, but Trump did.

The Iraq war was started over just such pretenses. They knew there were
no WMDs but lied to the American people, and got away with it.

Clifford Heath.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:c7743d29-f2e7-4b63-a902-0cd19f417b1d@googlegroups.com:

If you don't want to hear responses, then don't start off topic
posts.

Electric cars are on topic in this electronics design group, you
retarded piece of shit.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 26/06/19 00:04, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 6:52:13 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 02:29:54 -0700, trader4 wrote:

You can dispute it all you want, it's a fact. If you need definitions,
consult a dictionary. She said "we came, we saw, he died" and she
laughed.

I admire your fortitude in attempting to debate with these trolls, but my
tip would be to KF them all. You'll be amazed how much time you save on
pointless arguments, because no matter how good your reasoning nor how
sound your logic, you will never, ever win them over to see common sense.

And that's a good illustration of why common sense /isn't/.

The worst offenders are:

Sloman
bitrex
DLU
whit3rd
Gardner

As they say, "You can tell a lot about a person by the
company they keep".

I'm content.

But I'm guessing you've worked that out for yourself before now!
OTOH, if you enjoy pointless arguing just for the sake of it, you've got
precisely the right crowd to do it with.

Hey! You forgot me!!!

BTW, I printed out one of your posts and gave it to a few friends as a joke. They all thought you were pretty funny. How much do I owe you?

ÂŁ10 by the look of his footer. Make sure you pay it by
interbank transfer so that it reaches his account directly
and without PayPal taking a cut.

You could offset the costs by creating your own book,
say "The Collected Wisdom of Cursitor Doom". It wouldn't
take long, especially since there are handy templates available:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Collected-Wisdom-Sarah-Palin/dp/1453806784
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Words-Collected-Wisdom-Donald/dp/1973445816

Good luck collecting.


This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 9:46:54 PM UTC-7, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 26/6/19 12:37 pm, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 2:54:21 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

There was good reason for Iran to shoot it down, Trump has been waging war
on Iran for over a year now.

Oh, but that's not the reason. ... Iran knows
their piratical attacks will continue to be revealed to the world
unless they shoot down surveillance aircraft.

You are assuming that the attacks weren't faked by the US, in order to
get the US media and population on-side to re-elect Trump.

Oddly, that isn't relevant to Iran's reason for shooting down a reconnaissance
craft. So, I'm not in need of such an assumption. Both sides DO agree
it was a reconnaissance drone, shooting it down is likely to prevent... reconnaissance.

 

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 10:37:58 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 2:54:21 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

There was good reason for Iran to shoot it down, Trump has been waging war
on Iran for over a year now.

Oh, but that's not the reason. The reason is, Iran has attacked (with limpet
mines) Saudi shipping, and a few other nations' vessels, and probably
can get away with it if no one films their work. The US DID film. Iran knows
their piratical attacks will continue to be revealed to the world
unless they shoot down surveillance aircraft. Even if the aircraft aren't
over their soil.

Saudi Arabia vs. Iran has kept Yemen smoldering for some time, the US
sanctions aren't the acts of agressive shooting war that are relevant here.

When you not only cut off US trade with Iran, but force much of the world
to do the same against their will, over an agreement that Iran was
complying with, that results in a depression in Iran, what would you call it? If a foreign power did that to the US, what would we call it, if not
aggression and an act of war?

 

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 1:31:38 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:c7743d29-f2e7-4b63-a902-0cd19f417b1d@googlegroups.com:

If you don't want to hear responses, then don't start off topic
posts.



Electric cars are on topic in this electronics design group, you
retarded piece of shit.

The thread you are posting in is about Iran attacking the US drone.

Wrong, always wrong.

 

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 5:57:18 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 9:46:54 PM UTC-7, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 26/6/19 12:37 pm, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 2:54:21 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

There was good reason for Iran to shoot it down, Trump has been waging war
on Iran for over a year now.

Oh, but that's not the reason. ... Iran knows
their piratical attacks will continue to be revealed to the world
unless they shoot down surveillance aircraft.

You are assuming that the attacks weren't faked by the US, in order to
get the US media and population on-side to re-elect Trump.

Oddly, that isn't relevant to Iran's reason for shooting down a reconnaissance
craft. So, I'm not in need of such an assumption. Both sides DO agree
it was a reconnaissance drone, shooting it down is likely to prevent... reconnaissance.

Iran thinks we have only one drone? And no other assets, like satellites?
I agree, there is some value in destroying an intel asset, but Iran is
also attacking ships, so clearly their intent goes well beyond interfering
with just drones. And expect more of it, as they continue to test Trump
in the very dangerous game that he has started.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:1e670973-f429-4f37-955f-c20e33a08d76@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 10:37:58 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 2:54:21 AM UTC-7,
tra...@optonline.net wrote:

There was good reason for Iran to shoot it down, Trump has been
waging war on Iran for over a year now.

Oh, but that's not the reason. The reason is, Iran has attacked
(with limpet mines) Saudi shipping, and a few other nations'
vessels, and probably can get away with it if no one films their
work. The US DID film. Iran knows their piratical attacks will
continue to be revealed to the world unless they shoot down
surveillance aircraft. Even if the aircraft aren't over their
soil.

Saudi Arabia vs. Iran has kept Yemen smoldering for some time,
the US sanctions aren't the acts of agressive shooting war that
are relevant here.

When you not only cut off US trade with Iran, but force much of
the world to do the same against their will, over an agreement
that Iran was complying with, that results in a depression in
Iran, what would you call it? If a foreign power did that to the
US, what would we call it, if not aggression and an act of war?

No one here remembers the reason Japan decided to attack the US?

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:85b80650-b5e6-434a-a911-cdb901b12ba4@googlegroups.com:

Wow! If you have time to write all the above, you have far too
much time on your hands.

I just want the fucktard to admit that he is at least a hundred
pounds overweight as well.

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 7:21:09 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:1e670973-f429-4f37-955f-c20e33a08d76@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 10:37:58 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 2:54:21 AM UTC-7,
tra...@optonline.net wrote:

There was good reason for Iran to shoot it down, Trump has been
waging war on Iran for over a year now.

Oh, but that's not the reason. The reason is, Iran has attacked
(with limpet mines) Saudi shipping, and a few other nations'
vessels, and probably can get away with it if no one films their
work. The US DID film. Iran knows their piratical attacks will
continue to be revealed to the world unless they shoot down
surveillance aircraft. Even if the aircraft aren't over their
soil.

Saudi Arabia vs. Iran has kept Yemen smoldering for some time,
the US sanctions aren't the acts of agressive shooting war that
are relevant here.

When you not only cut off US trade with Iran, but force much of
the world to do the same against their will, over an agreement
that Iran was complying with, that results in a depression in
Iran, what would you call it? If a foreign power did that to the
US, what would we call it, if not aggression and an act of war?


No one here remembers the reason Japan decided to attack the US?

How well did that work out for them?

--

Rick C.

+-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 7:21:09 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:1e670973-f429-4f37-955f-c20e33a08d76@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 10:37:58 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 2:54:21 AM UTC-7,
tra...@optonline.net wrote:

There was good reason for Iran to shoot it down, Trump has been
waging war on Iran for over a year now.

Oh, but that's not the reason. The reason is, Iran has attacked
(with limpet mines) Saudi shipping, and a few other nations'
vessels, and probably can get away with it if no one films their
work. The US DID film. Iran knows their piratical attacks will
continue to be revealed to the world unless they shoot down
surveillance aircraft. Even if the aircraft aren't over their
soil.

Saudi Arabia vs. Iran has kept Yemen smoldering for some time,
the US sanctions aren't the acts of agressive shooting war that
are relevant here.

When you not only cut off US trade with Iran, but force much of
the world to do the same against their will, over an agreement
that Iran was complying with, that results in a depression in
Iran, what would you call it? If a foreign power did that to the
US, what would we call it, if not aggression and an act of war?


No one here remembers the reason Japan decided to attack the US?

Why are you addressing that to me, instead of to Rick?

 

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 9:29:15 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 7:21:09 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:1e670973-f429-4f37-955f-c20e33a08d76@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 10:37:58 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 2:54:21 AM UTC-7,
tra...@optonline.net wrote:

There was good reason for Iran to shoot it down, Trump has been
waging war on Iran for over a year now.

Oh, but that's not the reason. The reason is, Iran has attacked
(with limpet mines) Saudi shipping, and a few other nations'
vessels, and probably can get away with it if no one films their
work. The US DID film. Iran knows their piratical attacks will
continue to be revealed to the world unless they shoot down
surveillance aircraft. Even if the aircraft aren't over their
soil.

Saudi Arabia vs. Iran has kept Yemen smoldering for some time,
the US sanctions aren't the acts of agressive shooting war that
are relevant here.

When you not only cut off US trade with Iran, but force much of
the world to do the same against their will, over an agreement
that Iran was complying with, that results in a depression in
Iran, what would you call it? If a foreign power did that to the
US, what would we call it, if not aggression and an act of war?


No one here remembers the reason Japan decided to attack the US?

How well did that work out for them?

Irrelevant, of course. How well did it work out for the USA?
And note there was a huge difference. Prior to that embargo, Japan
had invaded China and signed an alliance with Hitler. Japan was clearly
the aggressor. Iran was complying with the nuclear agreement, the
five other countries were opposed to what Trump did. And the US joined
the UK in embargoing Japan, we didn't force the UK or anyone else to
embargo Japan. If any country did to the US what Trump is doing to Iran,
we'd consider it an act of war and even you know it.