Not at all. But it appears that you consider the Iranian to be more trustworthy. I haven't ran away from any of my claims. I am fairly sure the military is not letting us see all the information they have gathered. But, like I said, if you trust the Iranians more, there is no point in us arguing. I only have my faith in the military as opposed to the Iranians and for me that is not a choice, but a given.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48671319 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/17/us-military-iran-oil-tanker-attacks-new-images-photo ttps://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/06/17/us-releases-photos-to-bolster-claim-iran-attacked-tankers/ ttps://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/17/us-military-releases-new-images-of-japanese-oil-tanker-attack.html etc, etc, etc, etc
Each tanker or group of tankers should have navy (US or other) escorts to prevent approach by any unauthorized vessel. Further attacks could be traced back to their source, and appropriate political, economic or military action could be taken. It seems reasonable to have good vessel protection until and unless the culprit is definitely identified.
It's s shame for you that the only witnesses state that their ship was attacked by a "flying object". But hey, you'll reject that statement too, because after all, the US war hawks never lie
You don't know that the only witnesses state their ship was attacked by a flying object. You only know what the navy is willing to release because of security. Again. Do you trust the Iranians more than the US military? It is not a tough question. Like I said, if that is what you believe, any discussion with me is pointless.
Your right about that! I worked for this big ol black dude once and when ever he told be to do something really shltty and I asked why, he always simply replied with "Someone gosta do it and that be you"
Then I gather that you do trust the Iranians more the the US military. Pathetic, but I will not respond.
You have not been listening. Because I provide one source to support what I said, doesn't mean there is only one source.
Keep in mind, in all these attacks no one has been hurt or killed, no serious damage has been done. Supposedly Iran fired at a drone. Supposedly, they missed. It is almost as if the party behind the attacks doesn't want to hurt anybody or cause serious damage.
Provide a quote from a navy spokesperson that blames Iran for the attacks. A quote, not an article. You need to read more. Who really is doing all the talking?
Why are you attacking US intelligence agencies? Is that cool again now that the Mueller report is done?
In every one of the articles they said the US Military believes Iran did it. Don't you believe the articles's writers? But again. Do you trust Iran more than the US military because there is no doubt the US military believes Iran is responsible?
Are you really serious? A fire at sea is probably feared by sailors more than almost anything. And this was on tankers.
why would you NOT be skeptical of the gov’t? I dont view iran as a good actor in all of this. They do support terrorism in the middle east. They have attacked our troops in iraq through proxies. But guess what, we support terrorists too. Isis, al nusra, al queda all supported by the cia and saudi arabia. We use our terrorists to target iran while iran uses their terrorists to target us. But tell me, who was it that flew planes into the wtc and the pentagon? Who did the 2005 london bombings? Who blew up the uss cole? Who blew up the us embassies in africa in 1998? The govt wants you to believe that iran is an existential threat to american security. But its bull sh*t. Our failed foreign policy in the middle east is the threat to our own security and interests. We are the ones who turned that part of the world into a hellscape and caused all the mass migrations into europe. Iran didnt do any of that. We did. Iraq, libya, syria. We’re slowlying trying to conquer and destabilize the middle east so we can topple iran and get their oil. How is this not obvious?
No we're not. Iran has been killing Americans for 40 years. The worst case was the Marine barracks in Beirut with over 200 dead, but there have been dozens of other situations. We do not respond. We do nothing. We're the policeman for the world? We can't even defend ourselves.
So we're after the oil in Venezueala and Iran, just like in Iraq? Oh, wait. We never did get a drop of oil from Iraq. Maybe we're hoping for a regime change in Venezuela because it's a socialist/communist state which conflicts with our values. Or maybe it's just an evil regime that's killing its own people and it has to go for humanitarian reasons. And maybe we want regime change in Iran because they've been killing Americans for 40 years. Or because the Mullahs run a dangerous, medieval theocracy while trying to develop nuclear weapons. Or because they're vowed to wipe Israel (our ally) off the face of the earth. Or because they're the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet. Lots of good reasons for regime change in Venezuela and Iran, without mentioning oil.
You do realize that juan guiado is a socialist right? Removing maduro from power and replacing him with guaido would literally change nothing except for ending the nationalization of venezeula’s oil. And none of it has anything to do with humanitarianism. If that were the case our govt would be consistant and stand up to saudi arabia who murder journalists and murder civilians in yemen with american weapons.
Why is the US in the middle of all this political BS? Why is the US the world's police? Why do we have the United Nations? Why do many Americans allow the US to be a rogue nation? IMO the talk of wars, the threat of wars, the act of wars, are a sign of 100% failure of the USA...