Iranian war

@vikorr,

Quote:

Afghanistan? Which appears to actually have had ties to 9-11? (though not as much as Saudi Arabia likely had - but SA was the U.S' main ally in the Gulf, so it wouldn't benefit the U.S. to invade SA...oh wait, there it is again...only invade if there is benefit in it).

Or that wasn't enough for bloodthirsty Americans? The police officer wanted something more substantial, even if had nothing to do with 9-11? So the police officer lied, and invaded a country to satisfy it's bloodlust?

Oh yes, a wonderful, wonderful police officer.

US treatment of Saudi Arabia has always amazed me, I am saying this even though I am a Muslim American but truth needs to be told at all costs.

Trump made a $350 Billion deal with SA back in 2017. Why? So they can have allies against Iran? See link below:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-20/trump-signs-single-largest-arms-deal-us-history-saudi-arabia-350-billion-over-ten-ye

The corrupt police officer sided with SA even after clear evidence that Saudi Prince was involved in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

https://www.israelhayom.com/2018/11/21/trump-says-us-will-support-saudi-arabia-despite-murder-controversy-for-israel/

As you said, invade only if it benefits to spread he corruption, it is never about ethical values.

US killed their own 3,000 innocent people in 9/11 to gain the benefits I mentioned in my another post. Link is below:

https://able2know.org/topic/25915-114#post-6861092

1 Reply

@HabibUrrehman,

HabibUrrehman wrote:

US killed their own 3,000 innocent people in 9/11

We've never invaded anyone. These countries are falsely accusing us of having invaded them as a scam to get people to send them aid.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Australia, and plenty of other countries ordered these on the understanding they would be multi-role capable, including air combat.

Well, it is capable of launching air-to-air missiles.

How well it will perform against a more capable fighter is another question.

The thing is, the F-35 is a STOVL fighter like the Harrier, and STOVL fighters just are not any good at dogfighting.

Once the people who are trying to push the F-35 into an air superiority role realized that the airframe is fundamentally unable to dogfight, they came up with the idea that the F-35 doesn't need to dogfight because it can just detect and shoot down planes from any direction without needing to maneuver.

That sounds good in theory. But in practice, the F-35's systems for detecting planes in any direction only seem to work if the enemy planes are very close to the F-35. Also, the sort of heat-seeking missiles that are compatible with unidirectional detection can only be carried externally, which negates the F-35's stealth.

These are all problems that might be solved of course. But I think it would be wise to wait to see that they are actually solved before counting on the F-35 to serve in any air-to-air role.

If I were in the market for air-superiority fighters, I'd look at the latest European aircraft: the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Dassault Rafale, and the Saab Gripen.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Oh i am not suprised that you would lie

No lies on my end. The only person here who is lying is you.

Olivier5 wrote:

about this embarassing American ****-up.

Nonsense. The F-35 is an excellent ground attack plane. It has all the capabilities of a F-117 stealth fighter, all the capabilities of a ground-attack-configured F-16, and (in the B model) all the capabilities of a Harrier jump jet, all combined in a single plane.

Olivier5 wrote:

The F-35 was designed as a multirole striker AND fighter

Don't be silly. STOVL planes are not meant to dogfight.

Olivier5 wrote:

with the aim of replacing several US and UK aircrafts, the majority of which are F-16s. It will never succeed in doing that, meaning all the nations who bought it, including UK and Canada, will be incapable of aerial fight by the time they were planning to rely on the F-35 for that. This will create a significant gap in these countries' defense, in about 10 or 15 years.

The F-35 will be able to do everything that a F-117 stealth fighter can do, anything that a ground-attack-configured F-16 can do, and anything that a Harrier jump jet can do.

Olivier5 wrote:

I'm happy the Germans and the French had the good sense of not buying it. No need to waste perfectly good euros on this American scam.

Ground attack planes are hardly a scam.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Invade = To violate anothers' territorial boundaries for ANY others means than for preservation or protection.

'Preserve or Protect' 'What' and by 'Which' fashion? Is where the 'blamgame' breaks down.

Neither the US, whose hammer is great, indeed - yet neither the hand that grasps that 'hammer', the Arm that swings the fist, nor the brain that triggers the swing - Or the Saudis, Iranians, Israelis etc, are to blame for any of these events.

The 'puppeteers' have NO allegiances - Other than unto themselves.
Nations, Religions, Militaries = Pawns...

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Stonewalling is for losers. It's a grave problem to have such a chink in NATO's armor. The "five eyes" countries are likely to ignore it for as long as they can, because admiting the fuckup would be devastating, and thus you guys will get much disinformation about the F-35 in your newsfeed, phrased in terms of "growing pains normal for an innovative aircraft"... and yet you'll never see that plane in actual combat.

I predict you will not even see it pitted against any Russian or French aircraft in any mock war game. The results would be too embarassing.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Stonewalling is for losers.

I've been complaining for years about the F-35's inability to dogfight (and castigating the politicians who insist that it can).

Olivier5 wrote:

and yet you'll never see that plane in actual combat.

It depends on what sort of combat. It will be an outstanding ground attack plane.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Invade = To violate anothers' territorial boundaries for ANY others means than for preservation or protection.

I would think that the term "invade" would cover cases of preservation and protection as well.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Thats how Hitler saw it too.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

It's how everyone sees it.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

preservation and protection as well.

By killing 400,000 civilians. This is recorded by American media and actual number may be 10 times bigger.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/20/15-years-after-it-began-the-death-toll-from-the-iraq-war-is-still-murky/?utm_term=.2ab6667a2a1c

This is not protection by any stretch, it is called ruthless killing. Imagine if this would have happened in US? And you are still calling US a victim?

2 Replies

@oralloy,

It was not designed to dog fight but to take on enemy fighters from a distance, which is still about "air superiority". I doubt it will ever be able to do that effectively. As for delivering bombs in places that cannot defend themselves from aerial attack, it can do that, but in tiny amounts and over short distances.

1 Reply

Everything comes around again. This is a rock opera about the F104. A "fair weather" fighter sold to West Germany and then used for everything with disastrous consequences.

"You wanna buy a starfighter? Just buy an acre of land and wait."

0 Replies

@HabibUrrehman,

Oralloy is delusional, there's no point talking to him unless you just want to take the piss.

Seriously he's barking mad, you can't reason with him. Many have tried, none have succeeded.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Oralloy is delusional, there's no point talking to him unless you just want to take the piss.

Seriously he's barking mad, you can't reason with him. Many have tried, none have succeeded.

Thanks, I am figuring this out. There are quite a few like him on this forum and they think it is their moral duty to poke nose in every topic and impose their views on others with no evidence and facts to backup their claims.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Correction: Canadian PM Trudeau campained to withdraw from the F-35 programme, and his government may not buy the lemon.

0 Replies

@HabibUrrehman,

I thought you might have worked it out for yourself.

0 Replies

@HabibUrrehman,

HabibUrrehman wrote:

By killing 400,000 civilians. This is recorded by American media and actual number may be 10 times bigger.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/20/15-years-after-it-began-the-death-toll-from-the-iraq-war-is-still-murky/?utm_term=.2ab6667a2a1c

This is not protection by any stretch, it is called ruthless killing.

Islamic State is indeed ruthless. That why were fight against them.

HabibUrrehman wrote:

And you are still calling US a victim?

Yes.

It was wrong for al-Qa'ida to slaughter thousands of innocent Americans.

It was wrong for you to falsely blame us for the attack that we are the victim of.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Oralloy is delusional, there's no point talking to him unless you just want to take the piss.
Seriously he's barking mad, you can't reason with him. Many have tried, none have succeeded.

Your inability to point out a single thing that I'm wrong about speaks for itself.

1 Reply

@HabibUrrehman,

HabibUrrehman wrote:

Thanks, I am figuring this out. There are quite a few like him on this forum and they think it is their moral duty to poke nose in every topic and impose their views on others with no evidence and facts to backup their claims.

I can provide facts and evidence to back up everything that I say.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know