never ever
December 6, 2005 6:34 AM Subscribe
I will never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what the facts are As we read of the unfortunate crash of an Iranian military plane, causing at least 119 deaths, it's worth remembering what happened 17.5 years ago. Arundhati Roy has written and spoken about Bush Sr.'s quote but the act itself has often been forgotten. The US did end up going to the International Court of Justice and coughing up some dough, however.
yeah, no kidding. And I thought Cheney played the bad-cop-vp role well.
posted by allen.spaulding at 6:43 AM on December 6, 2005
posted by allen.spaulding at 6:43 AM on December 6, 2005
Come on! This is just plain disrepectful of a tragedy that had nothing to with Bush. More than a hundred people die and you twist into some sort of anti-America/Bush stuff.
The politiziation of everything is making me sick. I going to amend my will so that if anyone ties my deatht to any cause of theirs it will pay for them to join me.
posted by srboisvert at 6:44 AM on December 6, 2005
The politiziation of everything is making me sick. I going to amend my will so that if anyone ties my deatht to any cause of theirs it will pay for them to join me.
posted by srboisvert at 6:44 AM on December 6, 2005
Come on! This is just plain disrepectful of a tragedy that had nothing to with Bush.
But...we're talking about Bush Sr., and it has everything to do with him. Because he, you know, said it.
posted by iamck at 6:46 AM on December 6, 2005
But...we're talking about Bush Sr., and it has everything to do with him. Because he, you know, said it.
posted by iamck at 6:46 AM on December 6, 2005
I agree with srboisvert, the Iranian airbus and the political consequences surrounding it are an interesting and insight-providing example of US positions in international politics but linking this to the latest air disaster is sickening political parasitism.
posted by biffa at 6:49 AM on December 6, 2005
posted by biffa at 6:49 AM on December 6, 2005
Yeah but the tie in is today's crash...which nobody had fuck all to do with. It feels too much like dancing on corpses to make a point...
posted by srboisvert at 6:50 AM on December 6, 2005
posted by srboisvert at 6:50 AM on December 6, 2005
Bill? Bill Oreilly? Is that you posting stories to MetaFilter again?
posted by jmccorm at 6:50 AM on December 6, 2005
posted by jmccorm at 6:50 AM on December 6, 2005
I thought they removed all the facts from Wiki the other day?
posted by R. Mutt at 6:51 AM on December 6, 2005
posted by R. Mutt at 6:51 AM on December 6, 2005
So if I tried to use this situation to attack Bush Jr, I'd understand the parasite comment. Instead, I tried to sidestep a newsfilter post by bringing up a historical situation regarding Iranian crashes that had only been discussed in passing on the Blue. Look, there was a crash in Afghanistan in 2002 that I left that out because I wanted to focus on the events of 1988. I think they're worth discussing. If you want a newsfilter, feel free to start your own.
posted by allen.spaulding at 6:57 AM on December 6, 2005
posted by allen.spaulding at 6:57 AM on December 6, 2005
I think they're worth discussing
Herein lies the problem. Posts should be interesting on their own, not merely a pretext to start a discussion.
posted by caddis at 7:01 AM on December 6, 2005
Herein lies the problem. Posts should be interesting on their own, not merely a pretext to start a discussion.
posted by caddis at 7:01 AM on December 6, 2005
But the two incidents, one evil and the other unfortunate, have nothing to do with each other - and they are seperated by 17.5 years.
posted by R. Mutt at 7:04 AM on December 6, 2005
posted by R. Mutt at 7:04 AM on December 6, 2005
allen I thought the history was interesting (and I certainly don't have the knowledge or inclination to contest it). It is just that it is really really unrelated to the current crash and it strikes me as just wrong to say " Oh look a tragedy - that reminds me of a story.."
And I certainly don't want a newfilter (unless the C-130 was brought down by a missile in which case I would want to read about what people thought about the War 4.0 or whatever version we would be up to.). I would have no problem with the post if you didn't mention the current crash in relation to the history. The History alone is interesting.
posted by srboisvert at 7:08 AM on December 6, 2005
And I certainly don't want a newfilter (unless the C-130 was brought down by a missile in which case I would want to read about what people thought about the War 4.0 or whatever version we would be up to.). I would have no problem with the post if you didn't mention the current crash in relation to the history. The History alone is interesting.
posted by srboisvert at 7:08 AM on December 6, 2005
I don't see any wreckage from today's crash into the apartment building -- the destruction must have been caused by a missile.
posted by docgonzo at 7:20 AM on December 6, 2005
posted by docgonzo at 7:20 AM on December 6, 2005
I agree. The basic post was fine (worth it just for the appalling Bush Sr. quote); dragging in an unrelated crash (for what, "context"?) is pointless. This is what happens when you get a bunch of yahoos yammering about "single-link posts"; people feel compelled to drag in the kitchen sink to cover their asses.
posted by languagehat at 7:20 AM on December 6, 2005
posted by languagehat at 7:20 AM on December 6, 2005
It says they gave the ship's commander a commendation medal for "heroic achievement" and his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire." Even though they weren't under fire and he killed a plane full of innocent people including 66 children. Poise and confidence indeed.
Interesting precedent for Bush's handing out awards to cover up mistakes.
posted by sacrilicious at 7:23 AM on December 6, 2005
Interesting precedent for Bush's handing out awards to cover up mistakes.
posted by sacrilicious at 7:23 AM on December 6, 2005
Oh, I don't know... the American administration gets away with linking two completely unrelated subject matters to further their agenda, why can't we ;-)
I can see were you were coming from Allen but there really was no need to link to a unrelated current news story.
Great Bush quote though.. and so true. They really don't give a damn about facts. Then again, what politician does?
posted by twistedonion at 7:26 AM on December 6, 2005
I can see were you were coming from Allen but there really was no need to link to a unrelated current news story.
Great Bush quote though.. and so true. They really don't give a damn about facts. Then again, what politician does?
posted by twistedonion at 7:26 AM on December 6, 2005
languagehat hit the nail on the head. I had been thinking of this for a few days and instead of watching a single link newsfilter send mine to the wasteland (as has happened before) I used today's events to segue into this. Again, I don't see the problem with using current events to springboard into a different discussion and I'm a little surprised to see this level of reaction.
posted by allen.spaulding at 7:27 AM on December 6, 2005
posted by allen.spaulding at 7:27 AM on December 6, 2005
Who cares about the 119 dead. Let's talk about post ettiquette!
posted by iamck at 7:29 AM on December 6, 2005
posted by iamck at 7:29 AM on December 6, 2005
Great post.
posted by chunking express at 7:34 AM on December 6, 2005
posted by chunking express at 7:34 AM on December 6, 2005
This weekend, King Kong will be released. In other words, I made a giant monkey of myself above by using a tragedy in that way.
Having reflected on a bit, I think the idea of using a current event to discuss older ones isn't bad, but the choice of a plane crash was poor form. Eh, you win some you lose some. Er, I mean, I will never apologize for the United States of Allen, ever. I don't care what the facts are
posted by allen.spaulding at 7:35 AM on December 6, 2005
Having reflected on a bit, I think the idea of using a current event to discuss older ones isn't bad, but the choice of a plane crash was poor form. Eh, you win some you lose some. Er, I mean, I will never apologize for the United States of Allen, ever. I don't care what the facts are
posted by allen.spaulding at 7:35 AM on December 6, 2005
I think the Iranian government should have apologized to the families of the victims for allowing a civilian aircraft to fly within 11 miles of a war zone headed directly at a destroyer, where Iranian ships were fighting American ships. Tragic accident? Yes. Some sort of permanent Casus Belli? No. Since when has the Iranian government valued the lives of civilians (foreign or domestic) anyways?
And yeah, what exactly does this have to do with the plane crash today?
posted by loquax at 7:39 AM on December 6, 2005
And yeah, what exactly does this have to do with the plane crash today?
posted by loquax at 7:39 AM on December 6, 2005
Well, yeah. But - war zone.
Tragic. But it is in fact the proper call for a Captain. Any doubt, protect the ship.
"Even though they weren't under fire and he killed a plane full of innocent people" - sacrilicious
From the first link (but, y'know, wiki): at the time of the incident, Vincennes, in support of Operation Earnest Will, was within Iranian territorial waters, following combat with and pursuit of Iranian gunboats.
A Bush? Say somethin' stupid? Never would have thought it. Apparently they are not cursed with feelings of compassion.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:39 AM on December 6, 2005
Tragic. But it is in fact the proper call for a Captain. Any doubt, protect the ship.
"Even though they weren't under fire and he killed a plane full of innocent people" - sacrilicious
From the first link (but, y'know, wiki): at the time of the incident, Vincennes, in support of Operation Earnest Will, was within Iranian territorial waters, following combat with and pursuit of Iranian gunboats.
A Bush? Say somethin' stupid? Never would have thought it. Apparently they are not cursed with feelings of compassion.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:39 AM on December 6, 2005
Who cares about the 119 dead. Let's talk about post ettiquette! - posted by iamck
Seriously? It was over 17 years ago. I mean children are starving right now.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:43 AM on December 6, 2005
Seriously? It was over 17 years ago. I mean children are starving right now.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:43 AM on December 6, 2005
Then fine, let's talk about that. But this self indulgent post bashing pissing contest is tired.
/And now I'm indulging in it too, thanks.
posted by iamck at 7:45 AM on December 6, 2005
/And now I'm indulging in it too, thanks.
posted by iamck at 7:45 AM on December 6, 2005
From this transcript, which is WELL worth a read:
So, the truth: inside Iranian waters, steadily gaining altitude, turning away from the Vicennes, civilian transponder only.
It appears that just about everything the government said about that missile attack was blatantly false.
posted by darkstar at 7:53 AM on December 6, 2005
Ted Koppel: [voice-over] That same Sunday, July 3rd, Admiral William Crowe, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met with reporters at the Pentagon to brief them on the incident.In the interview, which took place four years after the incident, Admiral William Crowe admitted on Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it was shot down.
First reports, as Admiral Crowe would later note, are almost always wrong.
William J. Crowe Jr. (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral, U.S. Navy): [July 3, 1988] The suspect aircraft was outside the prescribed commercial air corridor.
Ted Koppel: [voice-over] That was wrong. The aircraft was flying well within the commercial air corridor.
William J. Crowe Jr.: More importantly, the aircraft headed directly for Vincennes, on a constant bearing, at high speed, approximately 450 knots.
Ted Koppel: At the time it was shot down, the Iranian aircraft was actually turning slowly away from the Vincennes. Its top speed, a relatively minor point, was 385 knots.
William J. Crowe Jr.: There were electronic indications on Vincennes that led it to believe that the aircraft was an F-14.
Ted Koppel: [voice-over] The only electronic emission from the plane was its correct transponder signal, identifying it as a commercial aircraft.
William J. Crowe Jr.: Decreasing in altitude as it neared the ship.
Ted Koppel: That, too, was wrong. The aircraft had been steadily climbing from liftoff and was still gaining altitude at the time of missile impact.
“ Ronald Reagan: The plane began lowering its altitude. ”
--“Questions and Answers with President Reagan Regarding USS Vincennes Shooting Down of Iranian Aircraft,” White House, South Lawn, 12:00 P.M. EDT, Monday, July 4 1988, on return from a weekend at Camp David (Federal News Service transcript), AP880704-0133.
Koppel: We know all these things now because the information was later retrieved through a detailed analysis of a tape made by the USS Vincennes’ own Aegis radar tracking system.
And indeed, over the days and weeks to come, corrections would be made.
But two critical issues were never addressed in public, not truthfully, at least.
Where, precisely, was the Vincennes at the time of the shootdown?
And what was she doing there?
The official response to those two questions has been a tissue of lies, fabrications, half-truths and omissions.
So, the truth: inside Iranian waters, steadily gaining altitude, turning away from the Vicennes, civilian transponder only.
It appears that just about everything the government said about that missile attack was blatantly false.
posted by darkstar at 7:53 AM on December 6, 2005
Since when has the Iranian government valued the lives of civilians (foreign or domestic) anyways?
And this is an excuse for what exactly?
Also, since when has the American government valued the lives of civilians anyway?
posted by chunking express at 8:02 AM on December 6, 2005
And this is an excuse for what exactly?
Also, since when has the American government valued the lives of civilians anyway?
posted by chunking express at 8:02 AM on December 6, 2005
darkstar, that transcript can't possibly be real.
it suggests that the american media actually is capable of correcting and combatting government mis- and dis-information instead of just amplifying it.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:02 AM on December 6, 2005
it suggests that the american media actually is capable of correcting and combatting government mis- and dis-information instead of just amplifying it.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:02 AM on December 6, 2005
Smedleyman: Yeah, you're right. It was Operation Earnest Will so that makes it okay. Because they were, you know, earnest.
As we have learned, sending American soldiers across the world into another country's sovereign territory to murder civilians is okay as long as you give it a snappy name.
posted by sacrilicious at 8:07 AM on December 6, 2005
As we have learned, sending American soldiers across the world into another country's sovereign territory to murder civilians is okay as long as you give it a snappy name.
posted by sacrilicious at 8:07 AM on December 6, 2005
And this is an excuse for what exactly?
It's a reason to look at every comment, statement and allegation from the totalitarian government in Tehran with suspicion and disbelief. This is a country that has no qualms about sending suicide bombers to massacre innocent people, and generally funding worldwide terrorism. This is a nation who's president has followed in a long line of leaders in wishing the hasty death of all Israelis. Perhaps if the Iranian government were not so psychotic, their airplanes wouldn't be viewed as threats by American destroyers fighting Iranian gunships.
posted by loquax at 8:15 AM on December 6, 2005
It's a reason to look at every comment, statement and allegation from the totalitarian government in Tehran with suspicion and disbelief. This is a country that has no qualms about sending suicide bombers to massacre innocent people, and generally funding worldwide terrorism. This is a nation who's president has followed in a long line of leaders in wishing the hasty death of all Israelis. Perhaps if the Iranian government were not so psychotic, their airplanes wouldn't be viewed as threats by American destroyers fighting Iranian gunships.
posted by loquax at 8:15 AM on December 6, 2005
Another interesting excerpt from that transcript:
posted by darkstar at 8:20 AM on December 6, 2005
Ted Koppel: Remember the Stark?Interesting, how so many things that seem so confusing at the time become all too clear in retrospect.
The USS Stark, the Navy frigate that was hit by Iraqi missiles the year before the Vincennes incident?
Remember?
Thirty-seven American sailors were killed.
[voice-over] At a memorial service in their honor, President Reagan reminded us how important the Persian Gulf and its oil are to America’s national interest.
Ronald Reagan (U.S. President, Jan. 20 1981-1989 Jan. 20): [May 22, 1987] Peace is at stake here. And so, too, is our own nation’s security and our freedom. Were a hostile power ever to dominate this strategic region and its resources, it would become a choke point for freedom, that of our allies and our own.
Ted Koppel: [voice-over] Peace, security, freedom at stake.
A gloves-off warning to that “hostile power” that it won’t be allowed to dominate the Persian Gulf.
Well, you’d expect the President to be outraged, after Iraqi missiles killed 37 American sailors.
Except that the President’s warning wasn’t directed at Iraq.
Ronald Reagan (U.S. President, Jan. 20 1981-1989 Jan. 20): [May 29, 1987 {copy}] Mark this point well. The use of the vital sea lanes of the Persian Gulf will not be dictated by the Iranians.
Ted Koppel: You heard correctly. Iran. Not Iraq.
In fact, privately, behind the scenes, the Stark incident brought the United States and Iraq closer together, would make them, ultimately, covert allies in the war against Iran.
James H. Webb Jr. (U.S. Secretary of the Navy, 1987-1988): Ironically, it probably brought us closer to Iraq, because after that Iraq allowed American teams to come in and talk about deconfliction and to share intelligence information and this sort of thing.
Ted Koppel: U.S. military officers were stationed in Baghdad.
Initially to help keep Iraqi planes from hitting any more U.S. ships.
But the end result was that the United States helped Iraq conduct long-range strikes against key Iranian targets, using U.S. ships as navigational aids.
“We became,” as one senior U.S. officer told us, “forward air controllers for the Iraqi air force.”
The intelligence-sharing relationship between Washington and Baghdad expanded.
In fact, as we reported a few weeks ago, critical targeting information was carried to the Iraqi capital on a weekly basis by U.S. military personnel.
posted by darkstar at 8:20 AM on December 6, 2005
It's a reason to look at every comment, statement and allegation from the totalitarian government in Tehran with suspicion and disbelief.
Ted Koppel is a mole? Well I'll be damned. That lying sonuvabitch. At least you can trust what the US government has to say. The US is a true bastion of truth and justice. It must be great never having to feel bad about anything your country does in your name.
Perhaps if the Iranian government were not so psychotic, their airplanes wouldn't be viewed as threats by American destroyers fighting Iranian gunships.
It must suck to be from Iran, and have your life devalued by Americans because your country has been run by nuts for the past 30 odd years.
posted by chunking express at 8:44 AM on December 6, 2005
Ted Koppel is a mole? Well I'll be damned. That lying sonuvabitch. At least you can trust what the US government has to say. The US is a true bastion of truth and justice. It must be great never having to feel bad about anything your country does in your name.
Perhaps if the Iranian government were not so psychotic, their airplanes wouldn't be viewed as threats by American destroyers fighting Iranian gunships.
It must suck to be from Iran, and have your life devalued by Americans because your country has been run by nuts for the past 30 odd years.
posted by chunking express at 8:44 AM on December 6, 2005
It must suck to be from Iran, and have your life devalued by Americans because your country has been run by nuts for the past 30 odd years.
this has been playing on my mind loads recently. It sucks to be from anywhere outside the first world. Our lives are just worth so much more it seems. 1 westerner = a gazillion poor fuckers these days.
posted by twistedonion at 8:53 AM on December 6, 2005
this has been playing on my mind loads recently. It sucks to be from anywhere outside the first world. Our lives are just worth so much more it seems. 1 westerner = a gazillion poor fuckers these days.
posted by twistedonion at 8:53 AM on December 6, 2005
It must suck to be from Iran, and have your life devalued by the religious fundamentalists who run your country.
posted by caddis at 9:03 AM on December 6, 2005
posted by caddis at 9:03 AM on December 6, 2005
You heard correctly. Iran. Not Iraq.
We've been getting those two mixed up for years. I mean, c'mon, they're right next door to each other and only one letter's different. You can't really blame us if we sometimes bomb or invade the wrong country on accident.
From this account on the USS Stark:
Both missiles were accidentally fired by an Iraqi F-1 Mirage aircraft, killing 37 sailors and wounding 21 others. The pilot later claims that he had mistaken the STARK for an Iranian oil tanker.See, we're not the only ones who make mistakes.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:15 AM on December 6, 2005
That too Cadis, and when someone writes about the Aayatollah sending Iranian boys to die in the Iran-Iraq war, i'll be sure to mention that. But in this thread, I'll just bitch about the Great Satan, America.
posted by chunking express at 9:43 AM on December 6, 2005
posted by chunking express at 9:43 AM on December 6, 2005
Wasn't there something about the Iranians trying to get revenge on the captain of the Vincennes? *checks the wiki* Here we go - an alleged attempt to blow up his wife's car -
Nine months after the incident, on March 10, 1989, Rogers' wife Sharon escaped with her life when a pipe bomb attached to her minivan exploded, while she was driving. The van was in Commander Rogers' name. While many immediately suspected that terrorists were responsible, Associated Press reported later that the most likely suspect had a personal vendetta against Rogers and the FBI denied terrorist activity. To date, the bombing of Rogers' van remains an unsolved case, despite a major investigation involving at some time up to 300 police men and FBI agents. At some stage the case was featured on the TV show Unsolved Mysteries. This led to no further results, either.
posted by longbaugh at 9:46 AM on December 6, 2005
Nine months after the incident, on March 10, 1989, Rogers' wife Sharon escaped with her life when a pipe bomb attached to her minivan exploded, while she was driving. The van was in Commander Rogers' name. While many immediately suspected that terrorists were responsible, Associated Press reported later that the most likely suspect had a personal vendetta against Rogers and the FBI denied terrorist activity. To date, the bombing of Rogers' van remains an unsolved case, despite a major investigation involving at some time up to 300 police men and FBI agents. At some stage the case was featured on the TV show Unsolved Mysteries. This led to no further results, either.
posted by longbaugh at 9:46 AM on December 6, 2005
There's been lots of postings to comp.risks about the Vincennes shooting down the Iranian Airbus.
A couple examples: Summary of a talk by a software developer involved in the Aegis user interface design.
Response with more details about what actually happened on the Vincennes.
It seems that a single junior officer misinterpreted his display to indicate that the aircraft was descending and accelerating on an attack profile towards the Vincennes. He made several call-outs to that effect even though his display showed otherwise. It seems likely that he had mentally fixed on the idea that the unknown aircraft was a hostile threat, and was seeing on his display what he believed would be happening rather than what was happening. A more senior officer accepted these statements and relayed the information to the captain. The senior officer was stationed at a console that also displayed the altitude and mode information, but he did not independently verify it.
The captain was receiving inputs from several sources to the effect that the unknown aircraft was descending and accelerating. He chose to fire on that information. Unfortunately, those sources were all basically the same source -- the statements of the junior officer.
The situation in the ship's combat center must be appreciated to understand this incident. The ship was maneuvering radically and in engagement with highly maneuverable small surface boats. Small bore fire from the boats was impacting the hull of the Vincennes, and fire was being returned. The crew perceived a hostile aircraft threat to be closing on their ship. They thought the aircraft was off of assigned airways as their displays of the airway were several miles off from their correct position (I don't recall the reason why), and they did not have information on the schedules of departures from this airport. The intercom lines were very active and some people were shouting. This was an atmosphere of extreme tension and confusion -- just as we might expect in battle. Even so, at least one officer called "possible com-air" (commercial airliner) several times, but his calls did not gain enough credence to prevent the firing of missiles.
Rules of engagement.
I for one specifically complained that the U.S. Rules Of Engagement, as implemented and acted upon in the Vincennes incident, were in violation of international law. In this context, the comment of retiring ex-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Crowe stated in an interview that the biggest change in the military in his lifetime was the change in ROEs, whereby U.S. ships now fired first instead of waiting for a confirmed attack. He stated that missile technology meant you couldn't risk being hit first any more.
posted by russilwvong at 10:10 AM on December 6, 2005
A couple examples: Summary of a talk by a software developer involved in the Aegis user interface design.
Response with more details about what actually happened on the Vincennes.
It seems that a single junior officer misinterpreted his display to indicate that the aircraft was descending and accelerating on an attack profile towards the Vincennes. He made several call-outs to that effect even though his display showed otherwise. It seems likely that he had mentally fixed on the idea that the unknown aircraft was a hostile threat, and was seeing on his display what he believed would be happening rather than what was happening. A more senior officer accepted these statements and relayed the information to the captain. The senior officer was stationed at a console that also displayed the altitude and mode information, but he did not independently verify it.
The captain was receiving inputs from several sources to the effect that the unknown aircraft was descending and accelerating. He chose to fire on that information. Unfortunately, those sources were all basically the same source -- the statements of the junior officer.
The situation in the ship's combat center must be appreciated to understand this incident. The ship was maneuvering radically and in engagement with highly maneuverable small surface boats. Small bore fire from the boats was impacting the hull of the Vincennes, and fire was being returned. The crew perceived a hostile aircraft threat to be closing on their ship. They thought the aircraft was off of assigned airways as their displays of the airway were several miles off from their correct position (I don't recall the reason why), and they did not have information on the schedules of departures from this airport. The intercom lines were very active and some people were shouting. This was an atmosphere of extreme tension and confusion -- just as we might expect in battle. Even so, at least one officer called "possible com-air" (commercial airliner) several times, but his calls did not gain enough credence to prevent the firing of missiles.
Rules of engagement.
I for one specifically complained that the U.S. Rules Of Engagement, as implemented and acted upon in the Vincennes incident, were in violation of international law. In this context, the comment of retiring ex-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Crowe stated in an interview that the biggest change in the military in his lifetime was the change in ROEs, whereby U.S. ships now fired first instead of waiting for a confirmed attack. He stated that missile technology meant you couldn't risk being hit first any more.
posted by russilwvong at 10:10 AM on December 6, 2005
Ted Koppel is a mole? Well I'll be damned. That lying sonuvabitch.
Where is his information coming from? Why is his version of event automatically assumed to be the entire and correct truth? I'm not saying he's a mole, I don't know where you got that from, but I don't know why you'd accept his version of events at face value.
It must suck to be from Iran, and have your life devalued by Americans because your country has been run by nuts for the past 30 odd years.
Agreed. It's sad when it's not out of the realm of possibility that a country would use civilian aircraft as weapons (not saying that happened here, but I wouldn't put it past Mr. Khomeni).
posted by loquax at 10:42 AM on December 6, 2005
Where is his information coming from? Why is his version of event automatically assumed to be the entire and correct truth? I'm not saying he's a mole, I don't know where you got that from, but I don't know why you'd accept his version of events at face value.
It must suck to be from Iran, and have your life devalued by Americans because your country has been run by nuts for the past 30 odd years.
Agreed. It's sad when it's not out of the realm of possibility that a country would use civilian aircraft as weapons (not saying that happened here, but I wouldn't put it past Mr. Khomeni).
posted by loquax at 10:42 AM on December 6, 2005
this has been playing on my mind loads recently. It sucks to be from anywhere outside the first world. Our lives are just worth so much more it seems. 1 westerner = a gazillion poor fuckers these days.
Don't fool yourself: the USA is not a first-world nation by any measure except economic. Start doing a comparison between the laws and practices of third-world countries (say, the death penalty) and first-world countries, and you'll see the USA is frighteningly similar to the third world on many measures.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:42 AM on December 6, 2005
Don't fool yourself: the USA is not a first-world nation by any measure except economic. Start doing a comparison between the laws and practices of third-world countries (say, the death penalty) and first-world countries, and you'll see the USA is frighteningly similar to the third world on many measures.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:42 AM on December 6, 2005
Where is his information coming from?
From the transcript:
We have reconstructed what happened next from audio and video tapes, recorded aboard those two U.S. Navy ships, and from the first TV interview granted by the captain of the USS Vincennes since the incident.
Koppel's information appears to be consistent with the declassified report on the incident. (This copy has lots of editorial commentary by the website owner, in yellow boxes. If you want to see the original, here's a library catalog entry.)
posted by russilwvong at 11:02 AM on December 6, 2005
From the transcript:
We have reconstructed what happened next from audio and video tapes, recorded aboard those two U.S. Navy ships, and from the first TV interview granted by the captain of the USS Vincennes since the incident.
Koppel's information appears to be consistent with the declassified report on the incident. (This copy has lots of editorial commentary by the website owner, in yellow boxes. If you want to see the original, here's a library catalog entry.)
posted by russilwvong at 11:02 AM on December 6, 2005
“Then fine, let's talk about that. But this self indulgent post bashing pissing contest is tired.
/And now I'm indulging in it too, thanks.” -posted by iamck
*smirk*
What’s really ironic is I agree with you.
“As we have learned, sending American soldiers across the world into another country's sovereign territory to murder civilians is okay as long as you give it a snappy name.” - posted by sacrilicious
And that’s what happened? The Captain ordered the FC’s to target and fire at a commercial aircraft he knew was full of civilians in order to - what? Just kill ‘em! Yeah! Those military types get big hard ons just killing innocent people! Yeah! Get some!
My position is, barring that possibilty, the captain acted appropriately as the captain of a ship in a war zone. In all matters relating to the security of the ship when you’re not certain, default to the safety of the ship. Period.
Whether the rules of engagement were appropriate, and whether the policies of the United States at that time were appropriate and whether the response to the tragedy and what was clearly, ultimately, a mistake are different issues. I think you’re right to criticize the U.S response to the tragedy.
But I don’t think anticipating possible air support for the ships you’re currently engaged is an unreasonable conclusion or equates to murdering civilians. Nor would I characterize protecting shipping in that area as sovereign territory.
Nor do I care much that we strayed into Iran’s waters. They were raising a lot of hell there at the time in order to kick over OPECs tea wagon. It was an undeclared war as it was. Hostage crisis? Tanker War? Jimmy Carter saying the oil crisis was "the moral equivalent of war? Any of those pieces fitting together? You think oil suddenly just sort of slowed down there? Or do you think someone stopped it?
Well, gee, I wonder who that someone was. And this was an ongoing problem. (and yeah, us removing the Shah, sucked, and putting in Saddam sucked, I’m well aware of the bonehead plays we pulled, I’m not defending that, just asserting it was a shit sandwich)
That whole region was missle-o-rama for a long while (I know from first hand). And I’m not real happy about that whole Iran-Contra thing. I know a guy who knows a guy who recieved orders to stand down certain missles in Germany that we had earmarked as hot stocks to fight the Soviets (just in case).
I know a guy who knows a guy who was in Germany doing a similar job who says that story is bullshit.
I also know a guy who was at the last helicopter staging area with the guys who were going in to rescue the hostages (Operation Rice Bowl) who says nothing unusual happened and the official story is straight (dust, sand) about the helicopter crash.
Do I then know what the hell went on? No.
So it was political chaos as well as tactical, real chaos and you had no idea if/when/how shit was going to happen.
Yeah, but should we have let them control the oil supply, hold the rest of the world hostage and dictate policy because we shot down a commercial jet by accident?
Meanwhile THEY were sending THEIR soldiers into another country's sovereign territory to murder civilians and tear up infrastructure to grab greater control over oil.
But we knock one of their planes out of the sky by accident and we’re the assholes because we should let them corner the market on oil through sabotage and terrorism and charge us $8 a gallon (in 1988 dollars), never even think about alternative fuels, and only promote industries that benefit them and their corporate and religious fundimentalist cronies.
Yeah, uh, America does have it’s flaws, but we don’t do that as a matter of policy.
Belay that. We didn’t do that as a matter of policy back then. That, to me, is the real problem.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:03 PM on December 6, 2005
/And now I'm indulging in it too, thanks.” -posted by iamck
*smirk*
What’s really ironic is I agree with you.
“As we have learned, sending American soldiers across the world into another country's sovereign territory to murder civilians is okay as long as you give it a snappy name.” - posted by sacrilicious
And that’s what happened? The Captain ordered the FC’s to target and fire at a commercial aircraft he knew was full of civilians in order to - what? Just kill ‘em! Yeah! Those military types get big hard ons just killing innocent people! Yeah! Get some!
My position is, barring that possibilty, the captain acted appropriately as the captain of a ship in a war zone. In all matters relating to the security of the ship when you’re not certain, default to the safety of the ship. Period.
Whether the rules of engagement were appropriate, and whether the policies of the United States at that time were appropriate and whether the response to the tragedy and what was clearly, ultimately, a mistake are different issues. I think you’re right to criticize the U.S response to the tragedy.
But I don’t think anticipating possible air support for the ships you’re currently engaged is an unreasonable conclusion or equates to murdering civilians. Nor would I characterize protecting shipping in that area as sovereign territory.
Nor do I care much that we strayed into Iran’s waters. They were raising a lot of hell there at the time in order to kick over OPECs tea wagon. It was an undeclared war as it was. Hostage crisis? Tanker War? Jimmy Carter saying the oil crisis was "the moral equivalent of war? Any of those pieces fitting together? You think oil suddenly just sort of slowed down there? Or do you think someone stopped it?
Well, gee, I wonder who that someone was. And this was an ongoing problem. (and yeah, us removing the Shah, sucked, and putting in Saddam sucked, I’m well aware of the bonehead plays we pulled, I’m not defending that, just asserting it was a shit sandwich)
That whole region was missle-o-rama for a long while (I know from first hand). And I’m not real happy about that whole Iran-Contra thing. I know a guy who knows a guy who recieved orders to stand down certain missles in Germany that we had earmarked as hot stocks to fight the Soviets (just in case).
I know a guy who knows a guy who was in Germany doing a similar job who says that story is bullshit.
I also know a guy who was at the last helicopter staging area with the guys who were going in to rescue the hostages (Operation Rice Bowl) who says nothing unusual happened and the official story is straight (dust, sand) about the helicopter crash.
Do I then know what the hell went on? No.
So it was political chaos as well as tactical, real chaos and you had no idea if/when/how shit was going to happen.
Yeah, but should we have let them control the oil supply, hold the rest of the world hostage and dictate policy because we shot down a commercial jet by accident?
Meanwhile THEY were sending THEIR soldiers into another country's sovereign territory to murder civilians and tear up infrastructure to grab greater control over oil.
But we knock one of their planes out of the sky by accident and we’re the assholes because we should let them corner the market on oil through sabotage and terrorism and charge us $8 a gallon (in 1988 dollars), never even think about alternative fuels, and only promote industries that benefit them and their corporate and religious fundimentalist cronies.
Yeah, uh, America does have it’s flaws, but we don’t do that as a matter of policy.
Belay that. We didn’t do that as a matter of policy back then. That, to me, is the real problem.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:03 PM on December 6, 2005
Smedleyman, are you talking out of your ass one purpose, or out of ignorance?
...and yeah, us removing the Shah, sucked, and putting in Saddam sucked...
First of all, the Shah ran Iran, and Saddam ran Iraq, which are two different countries. Second, the US actually staged the coup which ousted the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh, replacing him with the tyrant that was the Shah. It was Kohmeni and the people of Iran disposed of the Shah themselves. (I wonder if they still would have had they known how Kohmeni would turn out.)
Meanwhile THEY were sending THEIR soldiers into another country's sovereign territory to murder civilians and tear up infrastructure to grab greater control over oil.
Well maybe they would have had a harder time doing that if the US wasn't selling them weapons. Just saying.
(Also, are you trying to be funny here, because I just noticed you could be talking about the US in that paragraph.)
But we knock one of their planes out of the sky by accident and we’re the assholes because we should let them corner the market on oil through sabotage and terrorism and charge us $8 a gallon (in 1988 dollars)
Yeah, not feeling sorry for killing civilian would make you an asshole. Shocking I know. And second, it's Iran's oil, they can charge whatever they damn please for it. One of American's problems is that they think oil buried in the Middle East belongs to them.
posted by chunking express at 12:35 PM on December 6, 2005
...and yeah, us removing the Shah, sucked, and putting in Saddam sucked...
First of all, the Shah ran Iran, and Saddam ran Iraq, which are two different countries. Second, the US actually staged the coup which ousted the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh, replacing him with the tyrant that was the Shah. It was Kohmeni and the people of Iran disposed of the Shah themselves. (I wonder if they still would have had they known how Kohmeni would turn out.)
Meanwhile THEY were sending THEIR soldiers into another country's sovereign territory to murder civilians and tear up infrastructure to grab greater control over oil.
Well maybe they would have had a harder time doing that if the US wasn't selling them weapons. Just saying.
(Also, are you trying to be funny here, because I just noticed you could be talking about the US in that paragraph.)
But we knock one of their planes out of the sky by accident and we’re the assholes because we should let them corner the market on oil through sabotage and terrorism and charge us $8 a gallon (in 1988 dollars)
Yeah, not feeling sorry for killing civilian would make you an asshole. Shocking I know. And second, it's Iran's oil, they can charge whatever they damn please for it. One of American's problems is that they think oil buried in the Middle East belongs to them.
posted by chunking express at 12:35 PM on December 6, 2005
Meanwhile THEY were sending THEIR soldiers into another country's sovereign territory to murder civilians and tear up infrastructure to grab greater control over oil.
It was Iraq that invaded Iran, not vice versa.
An ugly war all around. Article on the Iran-Iraq war, from the Crimes of War project.
posted by russilwvong at 12:42 PM on December 6, 2005
It was Iraq that invaded Iran, not vice versa.
An ugly war all around. Article on the Iran-Iraq war, from the Crimes of War project.
posted by russilwvong at 12:42 PM on December 6, 2005
“Smedleyman, are you talking out of your ass one purpose, or out of ignorance?” - chunking express
Nope. Misspoke. “Installing the Shah,” should have been. Good lord. I made an error. Yeah, that completely invalidates my position.
“Well maybe they would have had a harder time doing that if the US wasn't selling them weapons. Just saying.” - chunking express
Well I directly referenced the Iran-Contra thing. Just saying’
“Yeah, not feeling sorry for killing civilian would make you an asshole” -posted by chunking express
Strange. I can’t find where I said I supported that and that it wasn’t a tragedy. In fact I seem to have reiterated it and condemned our response. I guess that’s why I’m an asshole.
“And second, it's Iran's oil, they can charge whatever they damn please for it. One of American's problems is that they think oil buried in the Middle East belongs to them.” -posted by chunking express
Gosh, I thought that going and sabotaging another countries oil refineries, shipping and pipelines was wrong. I’d’ve thought that maybe crippling all the industry the U.S. relies on and threatening a huge part of the world with starvation might be a bad thing (lots of agriculture depends on petroleum).
Gee, I guess it’s just good capitalism there Hobbes.
(Are erudite references even worth it? Anyone? Anyone reading this and getting them? I probably won’t stop, I’m at least amusing myself. Just curious).
Look, I didn’t put that problem of oil dependence there. I don’t agree with it. I’m strongly in favor of scaling down our dependence on oil and working on alternative fuels. But you work with what you have at hand and you’re looking at.
For some crazy reason I think a group of radicals who are willing to threaten the world’s oil supply and make demands probably aren’t the best to trust with that resource.
Just picture if tomorrow all the oil from the middle east stopped.
I’m not pointing the finger at who started what or whatever, just that reality. They aren't just heroin dealers. If they play that game too rough millions die. Period.
“(Also, are you trying to be funny here, because I just noticed you could be talking about the US in that paragraph.)”
-posted by chunking express
I believe the term I used to describe the situation caused in the Middle East by U.S. foreign policy was ‘shit sandwich.’ I didn't think it was hard to see.
I’d advise you to re-read what I said, not what you think I said. And yes, I’m aware Iran and Iraq are different countries. Been there. Done that. Bought the T-shirt. Ate the MRE. Have the original cast recording. Etc.
“It was Iraq that invaded Iran, not vice versa.” - posted by russilwvong
Yeah. And it was a spur of the moment thing. There was no background history (like I mentioned). No tensions there among OPEC nations. It just occurred in a vacuum. Bang! They invaded. No covert warfare going on before then. No “terrorism” in the middle east before then. No asymmetric warfare. No use of oil as political pressure, etc.
Doesn’t anyone have a sense of history anymore?
Or are we so into this “I care so much more about these dead people than you” self-righteous bullshit that we can’t see the reality for the idealism?
I’ve criticized the hell out of Bush for his delusional disconnections in trying to nation build and override field commanders advice, but this really takes the cake.
What then, exactly, should we have done at that moment in history?
Bear in mind - again - I’ve conceded the point that the downing of that civilian aircraft was tragic. Never should have happened. It was a mistake. It was poorly handled by the U.S.
Since there is insistence to predicate our strategy in the middle east on this mistake, what do we do?
From there - since what’s our new foreign policy from say 1988 to say 94-95, since y’all have such a handle on middle east and geopolitical realities like the amazing fact Iran and Iraq are two different countries?
Leave the Israelis to hang? *coughSCUDmisslescough*
Ask politely that Iran stop sabotaging other OPEC countries’ infrastructure?
Yeah, I’m an asshole for knowing a thing or two about tactic and larger strategic goals and trying to avoid such accidents like shooting down commercial aircraft in the first place, it’s so much better to show that we all care so very very much more about those poor victims of U.S. imperialism by - well, what exactly was your position?
Ah yes, we assume the oil is ours, we go there and take it and randomly shoot down civilian aircraft.
Um, That’s not reactionary? The obvious response to that is that it is bad and we should stop doing that.
But replace it with what? Isolationism? Again - the more I see metafilter described as “liberal” the more I see details like this.
*mimicry*:“I’m a liberal - so I want things the way they were in 1909”
I mean, huh?
But perhaps I’m misreading your intent for the strategic response here. Do we shut the country down?
Did I mention I abhor this tragedy? Did I mention we should have reacted better? Should have made restitution? Be contrite? Mea Culpa? Did I say all that? Just checking.
I would have handled it differently. I would have gone for engagement diplomatically and stepped up the tempo of naval operations. I would have brought the U.N. in sooner and tried to entice the Russians into looking at it from our terms, but either way included them in dealing with Middle East stability as a way to stablize themselves after the collapse (money always works).
Actually, a lot of what I posted about what Sokolski (here http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/47279) had in mind would have worked well then, and would have been sooner. It’s not like we didn’t know Iran would eventually seek nukes.
And a multination DMZ for the Straits of Hormuz would have eliminated the problem of taking the whole burden on our shoulders and risking shooting down commercial aircraft.
But, y’know, WTF do I know, I don’t even know Iran and Iraq are separate countries.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:56 PM on December 6, 2005
Nope. Misspoke. “Installing the Shah,” should have been. Good lord. I made an error. Yeah, that completely invalidates my position.
“Well maybe they would have had a harder time doing that if the US wasn't selling them weapons. Just saying.” - chunking express
Well I directly referenced the Iran-Contra thing. Just saying’
“Yeah, not feeling sorry for killing civilian would make you an asshole” -posted by chunking express
Strange. I can’t find where I said I supported that and that it wasn’t a tragedy. In fact I seem to have reiterated it and condemned our response. I guess that’s why I’m an asshole.
“And second, it's Iran's oil, they can charge whatever they damn please for it. One of American's problems is that they think oil buried in the Middle East belongs to them.” -posted by chunking express
Gosh, I thought that going and sabotaging another countries oil refineries, shipping and pipelines was wrong. I’d’ve thought that maybe crippling all the industry the U.S. relies on and threatening a huge part of the world with starvation might be a bad thing (lots of agriculture depends on petroleum).
Gee, I guess it’s just good capitalism there Hobbes.
(Are erudite references even worth it? Anyone? Anyone reading this and getting them? I probably won’t stop, I’m at least amusing myself. Just curious).
Look, I didn’t put that problem of oil dependence there. I don’t agree with it. I’m strongly in favor of scaling down our dependence on oil and working on alternative fuels. But you work with what you have at hand and you’re looking at.
For some crazy reason I think a group of radicals who are willing to threaten the world’s oil supply and make demands probably aren’t the best to trust with that resource.
Just picture if tomorrow all the oil from the middle east stopped.
I’m not pointing the finger at who started what or whatever, just that reality. They aren't just heroin dealers. If they play that game too rough millions die. Period.
“(Also, are you trying to be funny here, because I just noticed you could be talking about the US in that paragraph.)”
-posted by chunking express
I believe the term I used to describe the situation caused in the Middle East by U.S. foreign policy was ‘shit sandwich.’ I didn't think it was hard to see.
I’d advise you to re-read what I said, not what you think I said. And yes, I’m aware Iran and Iraq are different countries. Been there. Done that. Bought the T-shirt. Ate the MRE. Have the original cast recording. Etc.
“It was Iraq that invaded Iran, not vice versa.” - posted by russilwvong
Yeah. And it was a spur of the moment thing. There was no background history (like I mentioned). No tensions there among OPEC nations. It just occurred in a vacuum. Bang! They invaded. No covert warfare going on before then. No “terrorism” in the middle east before then. No asymmetric warfare. No use of oil as political pressure, etc.
Doesn’t anyone have a sense of history anymore?
Or are we so into this “I care so much more about these dead people than you” self-righteous bullshit that we can’t see the reality for the idealism?
I’ve criticized the hell out of Bush for his delusional disconnections in trying to nation build and override field commanders advice, but this really takes the cake.
What then, exactly, should we have done at that moment in history?
Bear in mind - again - I’ve conceded the point that the downing of that civilian aircraft was tragic. Never should have happened. It was a mistake. It was poorly handled by the U.S.
Since there is insistence to predicate our strategy in the middle east on this mistake, what do we do?
From there - since what’s our new foreign policy from say 1988 to say 94-95, since y’all have such a handle on middle east and geopolitical realities like the amazing fact Iran and Iraq are two different countries?
Leave the Israelis to hang? *coughSCUDmisslescough*
Ask politely that Iran stop sabotaging other OPEC countries’ infrastructure?
Yeah, I’m an asshole for knowing a thing or two about tactic and larger strategic goals and trying to avoid such accidents like shooting down commercial aircraft in the first place, it’s so much better to show that we all care so very very much more about those poor victims of U.S. imperialism by - well, what exactly was your position?
Ah yes, we assume the oil is ours, we go there and take it and randomly shoot down civilian aircraft.
Um, That’s not reactionary? The obvious response to that is that it is bad and we should stop doing that.
But replace it with what? Isolationism? Again - the more I see metafilter described as “liberal” the more I see details like this.
*mimicry*:“I’m a liberal - so I want things the way they were in 1909”
I mean, huh?
But perhaps I’m misreading your intent for the strategic response here. Do we shut the country down?
Did I mention I abhor this tragedy? Did I mention we should have reacted better? Should have made restitution? Be contrite? Mea Culpa? Did I say all that? Just checking.
I would have handled it differently. I would have gone for engagement diplomatically and stepped up the tempo of naval operations. I would have brought the U.N. in sooner and tried to entice the Russians into looking at it from our terms, but either way included them in dealing with Middle East stability as a way to stablize themselves after the collapse (money always works).
Actually, a lot of what I posted about what Sokolski (here http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/47279) had in mind would have worked well then, and would have been sooner. It’s not like we didn’t know Iran would eventually seek nukes.
And a multination DMZ for the Straits of Hormuz would have eliminated the problem of taking the whole burden on our shoulders and risking shooting down commercial aircraft.
But, y’know, WTF do I know, I don’t even know Iran and Iraq are separate countries.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:56 PM on December 6, 2005
Incidentally it was Anthony Lake (Clintons’ Nat’l Security Adviser) who said: "The successor to a doctrine of containment must be a strategy of enlargement.of the world's free community of market democracies."
And it was the Clinton administration that started the “dual containment” policy of Iran and Iraq. Just sayin’
posted by Smedleyman at 3:15 PM on December 6, 2005
And it was the Clinton administration that started the “dual containment” policy of Iran and Iraq. Just sayin’
posted by Smedleyman at 3:15 PM on December 6, 2005
Are erudite references even worth it? Anyone?
They're totally worth it.
It was Iraq that invaded Iran, not vice versa.
That was just a minor detail--I probably shouldn't even have brought it up....
I agree with your main point, namely that oil dependence on the Middle East is a serious problem with no simple solution, and there were good reasons for the tanker war in the Gulf.
Historian Bruce Kuniholm summarizes the history of US foreign policy in the Middle East.
The United States cannot afford to let events in the region escalate out of control, any more than it could in the Persian Gulf in 1990 or in Afghanistan in 2001, where the prohibition on direct U.S. involvement evaporated overnight on September 11. Indeed, Afghans (with the exception of the Taliban), Indians, Pakistanis, Palestinians, and Israelis have all requested a larger, not a smaller, U.S. role in helping to resolve their differences. The inevitability of such a role (and this is part of the message delivered by 9/11) makes it imperative that the United States and President Bush, in developing a doctrine in the long tradition of statements of American policy in the region, carefully consider the rules of the new games being played lest we be sucked into a whirlpool of commitments and fall victim to what might loosely be called messianic globaloney.
posted by russilwvong at 3:46 PM on December 6, 2005
They're totally worth it.
It was Iraq that invaded Iran, not vice versa.
That was just a minor detail--I probably shouldn't even have brought it up....
I agree with your main point, namely that oil dependence on the Middle East is a serious problem with no simple solution, and there were good reasons for the tanker war in the Gulf.
Historian Bruce Kuniholm summarizes the history of US foreign policy in the Middle East.
The United States cannot afford to let events in the region escalate out of control, any more than it could in the Persian Gulf in 1990 or in Afghanistan in 2001, where the prohibition on direct U.S. involvement evaporated overnight on September 11. Indeed, Afghans (with the exception of the Taliban), Indians, Pakistanis, Palestinians, and Israelis have all requested a larger, not a smaller, U.S. role in helping to resolve their differences. The inevitability of such a role (and this is part of the message delivered by 9/11) makes it imperative that the United States and President Bush, in developing a doctrine in the long tradition of statements of American policy in the region, carefully consider the rules of the new games being played lest we be sucked into a whirlpool of commitments and fall victim to what might loosely be called messianic globaloney.
posted by russilwvong at 3:46 PM on December 6, 2005
smedlyman, respectfully, I think you're going a little far afield in your defense.
You know, surely, that no one in this thread is saying that the Iranians are lily white while the US is a bunch of murderous thugs. Nor is anyone really suggesting (I think) that the Captain of the Vicennes did willfully, and with malice aforethough, conspire to murder a planeload of Iranians. Becoming indignant at such suggestions is tilting at strawmen.
It seems to me that the issue here is the US government cover-up - a systematic and persistent effort - to completely lie about the facts surrounding the shoot-down after the fact.
I might well have made the same call as the Captain in that circumstance. I don't begrudge him the acknowledgement that he was in a crappy situation (an almost classic Kobayashi-Maru, if I can use that allusion).
The thing that is inexcusable has nothing to do with what Iran was doing vis-a-vis oil, or who did what with the Shah. The meat of this crap sandwich is that the US government systematically lied about virtually every aspect of what happened, in order to avoid culpability for what had happened. That is grossly dishonorable, in my opinion.
Others might have an axe to grind, I guess, but I think this was the rather limited focus of the initial reference to the shoot-down, from what I read.
posted by darkstar at 4:17 PM on December 6, 2005
You know, surely, that no one in this thread is saying that the Iranians are lily white while the US is a bunch of murderous thugs. Nor is anyone really suggesting (I think) that the Captain of the Vicennes did willfully, and with malice aforethough, conspire to murder a planeload of Iranians. Becoming indignant at such suggestions is tilting at strawmen.
It seems to me that the issue here is the US government cover-up - a systematic and persistent effort - to completely lie about the facts surrounding the shoot-down after the fact.
I might well have made the same call as the Captain in that circumstance. I don't begrudge him the acknowledgement that he was in a crappy situation (an almost classic Kobayashi-Maru, if I can use that allusion).
The thing that is inexcusable has nothing to do with what Iran was doing vis-a-vis oil, or who did what with the Shah. The meat of this crap sandwich is that the US government systematically lied about virtually every aspect of what happened, in order to avoid culpability for what had happened. That is grossly dishonorable, in my opinion.
Others might have an axe to grind, I guess, but I think this was the rather limited focus of the initial reference to the shoot-down, from what I read.
posted by darkstar at 4:17 PM on December 6, 2005
The meat of this crap sandwich is that the US government systematically lied about virtually every aspect of what happened, in order to avoid culpability for what had happened. That is grossly dishonorable, in my opinion.
Not sure what you're referring to. You're saying there was a deliberate coverup? The initial reports were wrong, but they often are; I thought that was confusion, not deception.
posted by russilwvong at 4:20 PM on December 6, 2005
Not sure what you're referring to. You're saying there was a deliberate coverup? The initial reports were wrong, but they often are; I thought that was confusion, not deception.
posted by russilwvong at 4:20 PM on December 6, 2005
See, Kuniholm didn't use the term shit sandwich though...probably not professorial..I guess.
*scuffs dirt*
The Hezbollah during the Lebanese war (well,and all the other times too) were a huge pain in the ass, highjacking, kidnapping, torture, hostage taking, suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy, etc. (I'd call attacking military targets fair game, but I don't have to like it. The embassy isn't.).
Hell, it's like people forgot "Iranian" was synonymous with terrorist there for a while instead of "Arab" or "Islamic" (not justifying it or condoning any case of it, just pointing out the lost memory of that zeitgeist). The used to call us "The Great Satan" with Russia being the "little Satan" even though they were in Afghanistan.
Coupled with Iran trying to export their revolution to other Arab countries while attacking Israel (obliquely) their war with Iraq was pretty much just the strategic rationale to their ideology (kicking the sunni's in the ass, - anyone remember that t-shirt "I just stepped in some Shi'ite" anyone? Bueller? “The way to Jerusalem goes through Kerbala” Anyone?) Can't explicate the whole thing, but yeah. Pretty tense. Really chaotic with the Soviet collapse. Sorta thought the world might end there. Bit scary.
It's gratifying to see people get those jokes russilwvong.
Man, I was ready to stop criticizing PP for trolling here....well, that's hyperbole, but you take my meaning.
Funny, Robert Baer was on NPR today talking about how friggin fractured and chaotic the whole situation was - as a promo for the movie Syriana. In case anyone is sure they know exactly how things should have been going out there. (Well, I think I do, but I'm just some shithead on a blog man)
posted by Smedleyman at 4:39 PM on December 6, 2005
*scuffs dirt*
The Hezbollah during the Lebanese war (well,and all the other times too) were a huge pain in the ass, highjacking, kidnapping, torture, hostage taking, suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy, etc. (I'd call attacking military targets fair game, but I don't have to like it. The embassy isn't.).
Hell, it's like people forgot "Iranian" was synonymous with terrorist there for a while instead of "Arab" or "Islamic" (not justifying it or condoning any case of it, just pointing out the lost memory of that zeitgeist). The used to call us "The Great Satan" with Russia being the "little Satan" even though they were in Afghanistan.
Coupled with Iran trying to export their revolution to other Arab countries while attacking Israel (obliquely) their war with Iraq was pretty much just the strategic rationale to their ideology (kicking the sunni's in the ass, - anyone remember that t-shirt "I just stepped in some Shi'ite" anyone? Bueller? “The way to Jerusalem goes through Kerbala” Anyone?) Can't explicate the whole thing, but yeah. Pretty tense. Really chaotic with the Soviet collapse. Sorta thought the world might end there. Bit scary.
It's gratifying to see people get those jokes russilwvong.
Man, I was ready to stop criticizing PP for trolling here....well, that's hyperbole, but you take my meaning.
Funny, Robert Baer was on NPR today talking about how friggin fractured and chaotic the whole situation was - as a promo for the movie Syriana. In case anyone is sure they know exactly how things should have been going out there. (Well, I think I do, but I'm just some shithead on a blog man)
posted by Smedleyman at 4:39 PM on December 6, 2005
See, Kuniholm didn't use the term shit sandwich though...probably not professorial..I guess.
True, although I liked the "messianic globaloney."
Richard Clarke talks about planning for a war with Iran (over the Khobar Towers bombing) in Against All Enemies. He says the Iranians backed off after the US ran some kind of intelligence operation against them. (He doesn't say what, of course.)
I'm looking forward to seeing Syriana.
posted by russilwvong at 4:46 PM on December 6, 2005
True, although I liked the "messianic globaloney."
Richard Clarke talks about planning for a war with Iran (over the Khobar Towers bombing) in Against All Enemies. He says the Iranians backed off after the US ran some kind of intelligence operation against them. (He doesn't say what, of course.)
I'm looking forward to seeing Syriana.
posted by russilwvong at 4:46 PM on December 6, 2005
Hey Smedleyman. Why do you think Iran might call the US "the Great Satan"? Hm?
Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that the US removed Iran's democratically elected leader and replaced him with a corrupt, murderous thug who spent the next thirty years oppressing freedom and torturing people? Or maybe because the US gave support to Saddam Hussein (who must have been a good guy then) in waging his war that killed a million Iranians, including selling him chemical weapons to use against Iran?
Nah, Iran is just evil. Evildoers. Axis of evil. That explains it.
Think about it next time you hear talk of establishing the first democratically-elected government in the middle east. There already WAS one in Iran in 1952. The US destroyed it for oil.
posted by sacrilicious at 6:36 PM on December 6, 2005
Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that the US removed Iran's democratically elected leader and replaced him with a corrupt, murderous thug who spent the next thirty years oppressing freedom and torturing people? Or maybe because the US gave support to Saddam Hussein (who must have been a good guy then) in waging his war that killed a million Iranians, including selling him chemical weapons to use against Iran?
Nah, Iran is just evil. Evildoers. Axis of evil. That explains it.
Think about it next time you hear talk of establishing the first democratically-elected government in the middle east. There already WAS one in Iran in 1952. The US destroyed it for oil.
posted by sacrilicious at 6:36 PM on December 6, 2005
Did anyone else hear the weird rumor that the Iranian plane was full of semi-dressed embalmed corpses, and that the whole thing was some sort of setup?
I don't think it's true, but I admire the sheer wackiness of the claim.
It must suck to be from America, and have your life devalued by Iraqi insurgents because your country has been run by nuts for the past 30 odd years.
posted by craniac at 8:19 PM on December 6, 2005
I don't think it's true, but I admire the sheer wackiness of the claim.
It must suck to be from America, and have your life devalued by Iraqi insurgents because your country has been run by nuts for the past 30 odd years.
posted by craniac at 8:19 PM on December 6, 2005
Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that the US removed Iran's democratically elected leader and replaced him with a corrupt, murderous thug who spent the next thirty years oppressing freedom and torturing people? Or maybe because the US gave support to Saddam Hussein (who must have been a good guy then) in waging his war that killed a million Iranians, including selling him chemical weapons to use against Iran?
And yet Iran managed to reconcile itself with Iraq.
Chemical weapons reference? (IIRC, the most important US support was satellite information. Saddam bought most of his weapons from the Soviet Union.)
My impression is that Khomeini's regime wasn't any improvement over the Shah's in terms of brutality; and that the Iranian people are generally much more pro-American than people in nominal US allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
posted by russilwvong at 9:14 PM on December 6, 2005
And yet Iran managed to reconcile itself with Iraq.
Chemical weapons reference? (IIRC, the most important US support was satellite information. Saddam bought most of his weapons from the Soviet Union.)
My impression is that Khomeini's regime wasn't any improvement over the Shah's in terms of brutality; and that the Iranian people are generally much more pro-American than people in nominal US allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
posted by russilwvong at 9:14 PM on December 6, 2005
You're right, it was mainly the Soviet Union and other countries that sold him chemical weapons, although many American corporations were also guilty. And then the US government gave Saddam satellite information to tell him where the Iranian troops were so he could use the chemical weapons. So are you saying it's okay to knowingly help Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against people? In that case, you're right.
For the most part, the Iraqi soldiers were fighting against Iran because Saddam made them. So Iran may reconcile itself with the Iraqi people, but they aren't big fans of Saddam or his government. Similarly, the Iranian people are pro-American in terms of the people and the culture. They aren't big fans of the US government or its heavy handed foreign policy.
Maybe Americans could consider making a similar distinction between a people and its government. Or maybe the world should just assume that all Americans deserve their government and are responsible for its actions. Because that's the kind of thinking the Bin Laden was doing.
posted by sacrilicious at 10:02 PM on December 6, 2005
For the most part, the Iraqi soldiers were fighting against Iran because Saddam made them. So Iran may reconcile itself with the Iraqi people, but they aren't big fans of Saddam or his government. Similarly, the Iranian people are pro-American in terms of the people and the culture. They aren't big fans of the US government or its heavy handed foreign policy.
Maybe Americans could consider making a similar distinction between a people and its government. Or maybe the world should just assume that all Americans deserve their government and are responsible for its actions. Because that's the kind of thinking the Bin Laden was doing.
posted by sacrilicious at 10:02 PM on December 6, 2005
So are you saying it's okay to knowingly help Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against people?
WHAT??
posted by russilwvong at 11:53 PM on December 6, 2005
WHAT??
posted by russilwvong at 11:53 PM on December 6, 2005
Well, it may be that "the most important US support was satellite information", but what do you think the satellite information was used for? Just sayin...
posted by sacrilicious at 12:39 AM on December 7, 2005
posted by sacrilicious at 12:39 AM on December 7, 2005
To answer your question, no, I'm not saying it's okay to help Saddam use chemical weapons. That's what annoyed me about your question. Where the hell did I ever say anything like that?
I just asked you why you said that the US was selling Saddam chemical weapons to use against Iran, which it wasn't.
Of course the fact that the US supported Iraq against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, during which Iraq killed a lot of Iranians, means that Iranians have a big reason to dislike and distrust the US. But as the Economist points out:
The opinion polls suggest that most Iranians like America. After September 11th 2001, some Arabs could scarcely conceal their delight, or at least their Schadenfreude; by contrast, hundreds of Iranians took part in a spontaneous candle-lit demonstration of solidarity in Tehran. America is host to about 1m Iranian émigrés, whose families back home do not understand why they should, as an article of faith, hate the Great Satan. Iran can, apparently, hold talks with Iraq, an enemy that has slaughtered Iranians on a vast scale, but it cannot with the United States, which, 50 years after the British-and-American-promoted coup against the government of Muhammad Mosaddeq, is an increasingly unconvincing bogey.
And conversely, the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein didn't cause any tears to be shed in Iran.
posted by russilwvong at 12:33 PM on December 7, 2005
I just asked you why you said that the US was selling Saddam chemical weapons to use against Iran, which it wasn't.
Of course the fact that the US supported Iraq against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, during which Iraq killed a lot of Iranians, means that Iranians have a big reason to dislike and distrust the US. But as the Economist points out:
The opinion polls suggest that most Iranians like America. After September 11th 2001, some Arabs could scarcely conceal their delight, or at least their Schadenfreude; by contrast, hundreds of Iranians took part in a spontaneous candle-lit demonstration of solidarity in Tehran. America is host to about 1m Iranian émigrés, whose families back home do not understand why they should, as an article of faith, hate the Great Satan. Iran can, apparently, hold talks with Iraq, an enemy that has slaughtered Iranians on a vast scale, but it cannot with the United States, which, 50 years after the British-and-American-promoted coup against the government of Muhammad Mosaddeq, is an increasingly unconvincing bogey.
And conversely, the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein didn't cause any tears to be shed in Iran.
posted by russilwvong at 12:33 PM on December 7, 2005
“...Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that the US removed Iran's democratically elected leader and replaced him with a corrupt, murderous thug...”
- posted by sacrilicious
Yeah, uh, I mentioned that. Pejoratively.
*tap tap tap*
Is this thing on? You can read right?
Or - what the fuck is it you’re on about?
“The US destroyed it for oil.” - posted by sacrilicious
Yeah that explains it.
Feel free going on debating with the arguments and perspective you’re assigning me. This way I don’t have to insult you myself.
“Where the hell did I ever say anything like that?”
- posted by russilwvong
Yeah, I gave up on reasoned debate with sacrilicious a bit back.
Nice talking with you though russilwvong
posted by Smedleyman at 1:52 PM on December 8, 2005
*tap tap tap*
Is this thing on?
Okay, that was funny.
posted by russilwvong at 8:45 PM on December 8, 2005
Is this thing on?
Okay, that was funny.
posted by russilwvong at 8:45 PM on December 8, 2005
« Older Understanding Islam. | The Doctor Who Cuttings Archive Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by iamck at 6:39 AM on December 6, 2005