Drone Attack

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

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

I'm content.

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:

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.

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?

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

Wrong, always wrong.

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.

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

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

How well did that work out for them?

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

ell

l be

er is particularly silly. Only Cursitor Doom and John Larkin don't notice t he absurdities involved.

Sarcozy was the moving spirit behind the air attacks on Gaddafi's forces, a long with the UK. The US just went along with it's NATO allies. The aim was to slow down Gaddafi's terrorist actions inside Libya which had been aimed at frightening the rebellious Libyans out of active rebellions.

Gaddafi's convoy that got bombed just looked like one more of those terrori st expeditions, and Gaddafi's death was just collateral damage.

I saw the interview in which Clinton is claimed to have gloated about Gadda fi's death, and my impression was that she hadn't been expecting to be aske d about it and had to come up with a response at zero notice. Gloating didn 't come into it.

As evidence that she or Obama are any kinds of war-mongers, it sucks, big-t ime.

Wrong. The intitiatve for regime change in Libya came from the Libyans. It was part of the Arab Spring. When Gaddafi started getiing particularly vici ous in trying to suppress the purely domestic rebellion, Sarcozy in France persuaded his NATO allies to use air-power to slow Gaddafi forces down when they trried to terrorise rebellious areas. Clinton and Obama went along, b ut weren't in any way the moving spirits behind what was done.

Gaddafi didn't have enough uranium, or enough experts, to get as far as Nor th Korea, who aready had atom bombs at the time - they wouldn't have learne d anything from Gaddafi's fate.

tell

all be

nger is particularly silly. Only Cursitor Doom and John Larkin don't notice the absurdities involved.

along with the UK. The US just went along with it's NATO allies. The aim w as to slow down Gaddafi's terrorist actions inside Libya which had been aim ed at frightening the rebellious Libyans out of active rebellions.

Poor widdle Obama and Hillary. Sarkozy, a Frenchman, made them do it. ROFL

And what you call "terrorism", was rebels engaged in a war to try to seize power from the govt of Libya.

rist expeditions, and Gaddafi's death was just collateral damage.

I'm sure Gaddafi and more importantly Iran, North Korea, etc didn't see it that way.

dafi's death, and my impression was that she hadn't been expecting to be as ked about it and had to come up with a response at zero notice. Gloating di dn't come into it.

ROFL. That's a good one. Poor widdle Hillary was caught by surprise and the only thing that came to mind was to gloat, joke and laugh about Gadaffi's death. Any excuse for a lib.

-time.

Irrelevant, I never suggested otherwise. Only that Obama and Hillary were all for regime change too.

It was part of the Arab Spring. When Gaddafi started getiing particularly v icious in trying to suppress the purely domestic rebellion, Sarcozy in Fran ce persuaded his NATO allies to use air-power to slow Gaddafi forces down w hen they trried to terrorise rebellious areas. Clinton and Obama went along , but weren't in any way the moving spirits behind what was done.

Poor widdle Obama and Hillary, a Frenchman made them do it. A Frenchman! ROFL

orth Korea, who aready had atom bombs at the time - they wouldn't have lear ned anything from Gaddafi's fate.

Irrelevant, of course. The US and UN demanded that Gaddafi end his WMD programs, end his nuke program, he agreed, he fell for it, he complied. Then OBama and Hillary helped kill him and gloated. Iran, NK noticed and learned. Trump just followed through on the same lesson, by reneging on the nuclear deal with Iran and going to war with them.

Trump isn't stupid, but he has a short attention span and won't sit still f or long enough to get properly briefed on complicated issues, which comes t o much the same thing.

He got to be president because the Koch brother's bought-and-paid for Tea P arty Movement had gutted the Republican Party, leaving him as the least rep ulsive candidate for the Repulbican presidental nomination.

He lost the popular vote by an historically large margin - almost 3 million votes - and won the electoral college with a 77,000 vote margin in three s mall states that turned out to be crucial, where the Russian interventions on social media had been particularly enthusiastic.

The Russians don't seem to have wanted him specifically, but they do seem t o have thought that Trump would be much less of a threat to them in White H ouse than Hillary Clinton would have been.

The pathetic mess that the Founding Tax Evaders set up to elect their presi dent.

The electoral college turns out to have been a bug rather than a feature, a nd no subsequent constitution has been silly enough to copy it. The idea of an executive president is equally dumb. The nearest thing in a modern cons titution is the one De Gaulle wrote for France in 1958 with the idea that h e'd be that politically powerful president, but even there the executives i s run by a prime minister, who can be kicked out as soon as he loses the co nfidence of the elected represntatives.

Probably not. He's already President, whereas Hillary had things to prove. That was clever of him, to call off an attack because it would kill innocent people.

The horrible humanitarian mess in northern africa and europe resulted from Hillary's positioning, and it didn't even get her elected.

e:

She certainy grimaced, but it didn't look like a laugh to me.

My reading was that she'd been hit with an unexpected question, had improvi sed a response, and wasn't too happy with what she'd come up with. Gloating didn't come into it.

They didn't bomb to get regime change per se. The Arab Spring had persuaded a lot of Libyans that they wanted regime change, Gaddafi had been particul arly vicious in his attempts to change their minds, and Sarkozy had persuad ed his NATO partners (incldung the US) that air-strikes to discourage Gadda fi's terrorist activities were a good idea.

Bombing one of Gaddafi's military convoys lead to the situation that allowe d some rebellious Libyans to kill Gaddafi, thus effecting a regime change, but the trail of cause and effect is somewhat tangled.

Obama and Clinton weren't the moving spirits behind the process.

ily

age

ry

Clinton and Obama didn't directly kill Gadaffi, and I don't see any evidenc e that they ever gloated about it. The people who first turned on Gaddafi w ere his subjects, and his having nukes wouldn't have helped him there. Obam a and Clinton just got sucked into the international reaction to Gaddafi's subsequent errors of judgement.

Whereas you sound like what you always sound like - somebody too stupid to understand what actually happened, and too convinced about your own bizarre story to ever realise that you'd got it wrong.

Yes, how very clever. After ordering air strikes, when the planes were in the air, ten minutes from bombs away, only then did Trump ask about casualties. What does that tell you about Trump and his fitness? And if true, it also tells you that something is seriously wrong in the chain of command, when a president gets briefed for an op like this and that briefing doesn't include casualty estimates. But then the chain of command is in constant chaos, we have no permanent sec of defense. The acting who Trump picked and who was going to be permanent, just withdrew after it was learned there was a 911 domestic violence call for trouble between him and his wife and another incident where his kid hit his mother with a bat. Another fine vetting job by team Trump.

And yet Trump is in the process of making an even worse mistake, reneging on the nuclear deal agreed to by 6 countries, that Iran was complying with and waging war on Iran and I don't see you complaining about that.

for long enough to get properly briefed on complicated issues, which comes to much the same thing.

Party Movement had gutted the Republican Party, leaving him as the least r epulsive candidate for the Repulbican presidental nomination.

on votes - and won the electoral college with a 77,000 vote margin in three small states that turned out to be crucial, where the Russian intervention s on social media had been particularly enthusiastic.

to have thought that Trump would be much less of a threat to them in White House than Hillary Clinton would have been.

sident.

and no subsequent constitution has been silly enough to copy it. The idea of an executive president is equally dumb. The nearest thing in a modern co nstitution is the one De Gaulle wrote for France in 1958 with the idea that he'd be that politically powerful president, but even there the executives is run by a prime minister, who can be kicked out as soon as he loses the confidence of the elected represntatives.

We don't tell you how to hump kangaroos, why do you persist in trying to te ll us what we should do? The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doi ng with the electoral college process and it works fine. It's just that libs like you don't like one result, where they lost, so now any excuse will do, let's change the rules, etc.

e:

't tell

d all be

monger is particularly silly. Only Cursitor Doom and John Larkin don't noti ce the absurdities involved.

s, along with the UK. The US just went along with it's NATO allies. The aim was to slow down Gaddafi's terrorist actions inside Libya which had been a imed at frightening the rebellious Libyans out of active rebellions.

He did persuade them, and the UK goverment, that it was an idea worth actin g on.

No. The rebels were engaged in a war. Gaddafi engaged in terrorism in an un succesful attempt to persuade them to give up rebelling.

rorist expeditions, and Gaddafi's death was just collateral damage.

Gaddafi was killed by being sodomised by rebel-wielded bayonet. I doubt if he saw much US involvement in that.

addafi's death, and my impression was that she hadn't been expecting to be asked about it and had to come up with a response at zero notice. Gloating didn't come into it.

Like I said, it didn't look remotely like any kind of gloat. It was an ad l ib because she clearly wasn't expecting the question. The "joke" and the "l augh" are your inventions. I couldn't see them in the interview. You are du mb enough to imagine that you could see them, if you were primed with the r ight kinds of expectations.

ig-time.

So provide a link to some kind of evidence that they saw it as anything oth er that the inveitable consequence of Gaddafi's misjudgements.

vicious in trying to suppress the purely domestic rebellion, Sarcozy in Fr ance persuaded his NATO allies to use air-power to slow Gaddafi forces down when they trried to terrorise rebellious areas. Clinton and Obama went alo ng, but weren't in any way the moving spirits behind what was done.

What's so special about him being French? He isn't even all that French.

"Born in Paris, he is of 1/2 Hungarian Protestant, 1/4 Greek Jewish, and 1/

North Korea, who aready had atom bombs at the time - they wouldn't have le arned anything from Gaddafi's fate.

He didn't have alot of choice.

The held they provided to the people who killed him was pretty indirect, an d the gloating seems to be entirely a product of your imagination.

Not that there was anything new to learn.

He hasn't gone to war with them yet, and imagining that Trump's grasp of di plomacy is in the same league as Obama's or Clinton's is a trifle unrealist ic, even for you.

Like I said, that he's clever. And that he's not a war monger or a murderer.

The challenge to not being a war monger is to not default to being a doormat.

the

ll for long enough to get properly briefed on complicated issues, which com es to much the same thing.

ea Party Movement had gutted the Republican Party, leaving him as the least repulsive candidate for the Repulbican presidental nomination.

lion votes - and won the electoral college with a 77,000 vote margin in thr ee small states that turned out to be crucial, where the Russian interventi ons on social media had been particularly enthusiastic.

em to have thought that Trump would be much less of a threat to them in Whi te House than Hillary Clinton would have been.

resident.

e, and no subsequent constitution has been silly enough to copy it. The ide a of an executive president is equally dumb. The nearest thing in a modern constitution is the one De Gaulle wrote for France in 1958 with the idea th at he'd be that politically powerful president, but even there the executiv es is run by a prime minister, who can be kicked out as soon as he loses th e confidence of the elected represntatives.

tell

You don't know enough to realise that trying to hump a langaroo wouldn't be a great idea. You also don't know enough to realise that your political ar rangements are decidedly primitive, and clearly do need to be told that tha t better political arrangements have been invented since 1788.

Rubbish. Alexander Hamilton said - in Federalist 68 - that it was designed to stop people like Trump becoming president. He was lying. It was designed as one more sop to the smaller states, and has served no useful purpose si nce it got them over the line.

ow any excuse will do, let's change the rules, etc.

Minority presidnets have been bad news from way back. Trump is even worse t han Dubbya. That particular rule should have been changed a long time ago.

Grow up. The founding tax evaders weren't a particularly bright bunch - the y took care to squeeze out Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine who were quite bri ght - and the constitution they stuck you with wasn't too bad for its time, but we now know how to do much better.

MD

d.

ging

asualties.

He's not clever enough to listen to good advice. And he certainly has sound ed more like a war monger than any of his predecessors. He may not be a mur derer, but he does seem to have been a money launderer for some decidedly m urderous regimes, and he does come across as amoral imbecile.

For somebody whose grasp of detail is as sketchy as Donald Trump's. There a re almost always a lot more than two choices, if you know enough to recogni se them.