Well, this strays from the usual silliness and less than credible work over at the Huffington Post and gets closer to a style of treasonous support for our espoused enemies than it does the normal fare. In a posting by one Hooman Majd, an Iranian born writer who dabbles in the music business, we are treated to the absurd conspiracy theory that the U.S. Military manufactured the incident last Tuesday in the Straits of Hormuz involving a few Iranian patrol boats and the the U.S. Navy. Majd seems to imagine that the Pentagon somehow faked the whole thing, and I'm not exaggerating. Catch the title of his posting: It's a Fake. No attempt at subtlety there!
Catch this claim...
The Pentagon's version of the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday morning, involving U.S. Navy warships and Iranian Revolutionary Guard patrol boats is, at the very least highly suspicious. On Tuesday, the Navy released video footage and an audiotape to back its claims that the Iranian boats acted in a threatening and provocative manner, but neither the video nor the audio are particularly convincing as proof that Iran had hostile intentions.
Who is this guy trying to kid? The Iranians have made it a constant practice to buzz around ships of foreign registry. They have done so to the U.S. Navy in the past, and we shouldn't forget the incident just last March with the British ship the HMS Cornwall when the Iranians boarded the ship and forcibly kidnapped 15 British servicemen and held them for a few days.
This guy is outrageously a mere apologist for Iranian aggression. Catch this softpeddling of Iran's aggressive naval actions.
Iranian patrol boats do indeed, as Iran freely admits, check on ships that enter the Persian Gulf...
CHECK on ships? Try harass ships!
Majd also makes a fool of himself by seeming to be amazed that the Iranians "denied" something that the U.S. Navy said.
The fact that the Iranian foreign ministry downplayed the encounter as routine and minor, and that the Revolutionary Guards, not known for their moderation, actually denied the U.S. version of events, is curious.
Huh? It's "curious" that the Iranians would "actually" deny something the U.S. Government claimed? Is it really such shocking news to find out the Iranians tried to deny their own actions? Come on, let's be serious, shall we?
This Majd guy then says that he doubts that the U.S. wouldn't have fired on the Iranian boats because He would have, saying "I would have opened fire at those, wouldn't you?" So, he seems to conclude that this is enough reason to believe that the U.S. manufactured this incident.
Again, can I direct your attention to the HMS Cornwall? The crew of that British ship didn't resist violently. Who can doubt that the desire not to create an international incident was a primary concern to the officers both on the Cornwall and the U.S. ships in this case?
But, let's face the real truth here. Hooman Majd is only looking for a way to attack the Bush administration. He turns this Iranian aggression into OUR fault.
The Bush administration seems to have finally settled on a schizophrenic Iran policy; a policy that requires it to on the one hand send conciliatory messages to its foe, if for no other reason than to keep Iraq from imploding, and the other hand maintain pressure on Iran, threatening it from time to time and raising with a domestic audience as well as with the Arab states the specter of a bogeyman run amok in the world's most dangerous region.
Look, it was the Iranian's who perpetrated this incident, not the U.S.Navy. Only an apologist for the enemy could construe this matter in any other way.
So, the HufPo is going from mere looniness to traitorous support of the enemy by sponsoring this sort of anti-American tripe.
Comments Policy
The Iranian voice on the
January 10, 2008 - 11:48 ET by Roger the ShrubberThe Iranian voice on the tape I saw confused me. I could not decide if the voice was Ahnold or Dolph Lungren...
Shrubbster --
January 10, 2008 - 12:06 ET by Jack BauerShrubbster -- hilarious.
We... will... steal your... women. ..and ....rape...your..goats...
For a second I was thinking BORAT - if you've seen the idiotic movie.
The funniest bit was the American radio operator's response, which merely repeated the Iranian in an incredulous tone. Very cool.
If the Iranian had then said "I'll be back", I would definitely tend to Ahnold.
"I must break you"... I
January 10, 2008 - 12:09 ET by Roger the Shrubber"I must break you"...
I agree, Borat blows.
Propaganda in absentia
January 10, 2008 - 12:08 ET by c5thenUS Navy never said that their intentions were hostile, just that they were unclear and threatening. Remember the British sailors who were kidnapped in intenational waters? Remember the USS Stark which was attacked and seriously damaged by a boat in the Port of Yemen that was about the same size as these "fast-boats"? All military war ships have a defensive zone around them at ALL times. Enter this zone unannounced and in a provacative manner and you will likely be shot or disabled or destroyed or vaporized, depending on location and circumstances.
IMO it is likely that the Iranian boats were looking to provoke an international crisis by drawing small arms fire from the US Navy ships. Hopefully next time they try this, the US Navy activates the Phalanx CIW system. Disintegrating one or more of these boats and all occupants with 4000 rounds per minute of depleted uranium 20mm shells will send a message that even the Iranian Revolutionary Guards cannot misunderstand.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
I like the idea
January 10, 2008 - 12:13 ET by fonzie2178of hitting them with the sea wiz. Nice touch!
Not to be too picky, but....
January 10, 2008 - 12:14 ET by Prester John....the USS Stark was hit by an Exocet missile fired from an Iraqi fighter.
The USS Cole was the ship in Yemen.
Thank You!
January 10, 2008 - 12:20 ET by c5thenOMG! I can't believe I screwed that up...
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Phalanx CIWS is last line of defense
January 10, 2008 - 13:16 ET by mvfreemanWhile it would be neat to see I doubt those frigates and cruiser would have opened up with the phalanx system. It is designed to be a last line defensive weapon against missiles and aircraft and the block 1b can engage surface targets but it is not a primary offensive weapon.
And they use tungsten now instead of depleted uranium.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=800&ct=2
The ships involved in the encounter have these as their primary weapons:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=100&ct=2
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=600&ct=2
I've got a
January 10, 2008 - 12:11 ET by fonzie2178GREAT idea for Hooman Majd! Next time we'll just blow them off the water without asking any questions. This is completely absurd and the fact that ANY American would make public an article written by an obvious terrorist supporter is disgusting and traitorous. Let's rename it the Benedict Arnold Post.
In all honesty, the US Navy
January 10, 2008 - 12:15 ET by Jack BauerIn all honesty, the US Navy should have blown them away the moment they headed towards them.
Agreed,
January 10, 2008 - 12:21 ET by fonzie2178It's time to show these cowardly 3rd world terrorists why we're the lone superpower in the world. Because we're bigger, smarter, faster, and have the best "toys!"
I agree with that JB.
January 10, 2008 - 17:33 ET by KeithI agree with that JB. REMEMBER THE COLE! I'dve blew these scumbuckets straight to the VIRGIN COLLECTION AISLE!
Cute.
January 10, 2008 - 17:52 ET by mvfreemanYour days as a ship's CO would have been over.
If you read the posts by people who were actually in the navy you'd see that our ships commanders did it by the book as they have time and again.
Agreed MV, as for how to
January 10, 2008 - 18:29 ET by LeonAgreed MV,
as for how to handle situations like this or the Cole, I thought the Navy was already developing a great solution.
Focused sound waves (called "sound beam") You just blast whoevers on the boat and cripple them with overwhelming sound. Renders you incapable of action.
Sounds like a simple solution to uncertain situations.
It simply kicks the can
January 10, 2008 - 18:34 ET by BDIt simply kicks the can further down the road til the next event.
And cans that roll down the road do not become easier to handle in the future (See Correlation from original attack on WTC and 9/11)
If, however, everytime a US ship is challenged at sea, it results in the offenders corpses floating face down - it sends a most powerful message. "Don't F___ with Uncle Sam."
This has NO downside in the middle east where strength is particular prized.
BD, I don't disagree with
January 10, 2008 - 18:38 ET by LeonBD,
I don't disagree with you. I'm all for shoot first ask questions later if you're in a Cole like situation.
Who sets the military response guidelines? I doubt it's the politicians.
Leon: The "Military
January 10, 2008 - 18:52 ET by BDLeon:
The "Military Response Guidelines" are created by military staffs following input from the National Command Authority. They are called Rules of Engaement (ROE) and are tailored to the situation on the ground in the area the US forces will be operating.
Generally they are a set of rules laid down by the staffs that codify the various responses and are printed on cardstock for issue to the troops for them to memorize.
It is the creation of these rules and the participation in this by the various agencies that gets interesting. proposed rules from the State department never look like the proposed rules from the Military.
I currently carry a laminated one one around as a teaching point from the mid-90's for an exercise we conducted in the middle east.
It has some of the following rules laid out:
Etc.
BD, Thanks for the great
January 11, 2008 - 10:21 ET by LeonBD,
Thanks for the great post! I never really understood how those ROEs were developed before. As always, you lay the facts out in a easy to grasp manner (which is good for me :) ! )
So what is the process? How frequently are they updated? I imagine with every new technology you have to change some of the rules of engagements.
And why wouldn't they change the ROEs after an event like the Cole? Or did they? My feeling is that after something like the Cole happens, there's no more messing around. You set the rule, if anyone gets within a certain distance, they are dead. My guess is that this didn't happen. Why not?
Essentially, the rules of
January 11, 2008 - 10:50 ET by BDEssentially, the rules of engagement are in effect until the Intelligence Officer determines that the situation has changed. Then the intelligence officer (G-2) will apprise the Operations Officer (G-3) that something has changed.
The G-3 staff then determines what the necessary change to the ROE is.
These are then vetted through the rest of the staff, particularly through the Judge Advocate General (Lawyers).
When everyone concurs on what the necessary change is, they are presented to the commander who then either implements them, or does not and the process starts a new.
I have no idea what happened in the case of the Cole, sorry.
I agree BD. One vulcan and
January 10, 2008 - 18:42 ET by bassndudeI agree BD. One vulcan and 20 seconds would be my prefered solution.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Yep. Sends a message....
January 10, 2008 - 18:53 ET by BDYep. Sends a message....
A matter of perspective
January 10, 2008 - 19:02 ET by mvfreemanStrength against an equal or greater opponent is certainly laudable.But when people in a 500+ ft ship feel threatened by a 20ft speed boat that is several hundred yards away that just shows that we are easily spooked and trigger happy. No one is impressed with a big tough guy kicking the shit out of some little puny guy.
And their coming in proximity to our ships is not a "challenge". They did not attempt to board or ram our ships, or impede their progress. Not to mention that we are in international waters next to their country.They have as much right to being there as we do. And it's been mentioned this happens quite regularly.
And no down side? What do you think would happen to the price of oil the second we made the busiest oil shipping lane a hot zone?
Talk about pissing off your allies just because we felt we were being dissed!!
There is a line that they can cross where they will be fired upon without hesitation. The Dept. of Defense just thinks it's a little closer than where you would like it to be. And for good reason.
Alan Colmes is Simpatico
January 10, 2008 - 12:14 ET by River CityI was watching Hannity and Colmes last night and Alan Colmes intimated something similar. He said he didn't think we could trust what our government was telling us. He referred to the Gulf of Tonkin. He said we needed to question what we were seeing and what we were being told.
"We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton, 6-28-04 San Francisco
Rosie the O says: "Gulf of
January 10, 2008 - 13:30 ET by motherbeltRosie the O says: "Gulf of Tonkin. Google it."
And we all know, Rosie the O is ALWAYS right.....
Wait a minute. Just
January 10, 2008 - 13:47 ET by Roger the ShrubberWait a minute. Just yesterday Leon said the same exact thing. Leon and Alan Colmes are getting their talking points from the same source?
One could thus logically conclude that Leon is the Alan Colmes of Newsbusters.
No Roger!! No! Tell me it
January 10, 2008 - 13:52 ET by bassndudeNo Roger!! No! Tell me it aint soooo!!!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Trust our Government
January 10, 2008 - 13:48 ET by ThisnThatIs Colmes referring to the Gulf of Tonkin as reason not to trust our Government? Didn't we have a Democrat as President then? Of course you can't trust the Government when Dims are in charge, you Dumba$$ Colmes!
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Now my feelings are really
January 10, 2008 - 12:23 ET by Ruths husband BenNow my feelings are really hurt. I followed the link over to the Huff'n stuff site expecting to find some libs who would have reasonable posts (i.e., telling this man he was an idiot, or at least questioning his conclusions). Much to my dismay, only the Anti-Leon's made any sense (i.e., all the libs fell into "must be part of Cheney's evil plan for world domination/America's bad/Bush sucks" mode. Which begs the question: Are all liberals drain bamaged?
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. - Ben Franklin
Wow!
January 10, 2008 - 12:31 ET by fonzie2178Such language over there! That was my first visit to the H.R. Huff'n'stuff site! You can't pay for better entertainment! Funny how libs can't see how ridiculous they actually are. You can't help but laugh at them! Cute little things, those libs!
Cute yes, but don't try to
January 10, 2008 - 12:35 ET by Ruths husband BenCute yes, but don't try to pet one. They have sharp teeth. An evolutionary adaptation to aid them in eating their young and biting the hand that feeds them, no doubt.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. - Ben Franklin
Ruth, you should know that
January 10, 2008 - 12:39 ET by balboaRuth, you should know that that isn't an evolutionary adaptation; it's intelligent design! ;-)
No, Intelligent Design
January 10, 2008 - 12:43 ET by Ruths husband BenNo, Intelligent Design applies to conservatives, liberals come from Non-intelligent Design (pond scum via monkeys, don't ya know), even God thought that was so obvious He didn't need to mention it.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. - Ben Franklin
Wouldn't it be hilarious
January 10, 2008 - 12:43 ET by fonzie2178if they had a zoo for liberals? They'd have center stage, just like they always want, they'd be behind bars (where they belong) and they had quarter vending machines with tofu bits or soy chicken nuggets to feed them? The feature shows would be awesome! I'm getting carried away but if you don't tackle libs with that mindset they will make you crazy. :-)
fonzie...
January 10, 2008 - 12:47 ET by Clear thinkerThey have a zoo. It's called the DNC!
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
Ah yes,
January 10, 2008 - 12:51 ET by fonzie2178Good point!
I wonder if during the DNC,
January 10, 2008 - 13:45 ET by bassndudeI wonder if during the DNC, national, could we build a big fence to keep them in while they are in there? And maybe get a few of the vending machines so we can throw them snacks? And let them have one of those new TA TAs to drive around in and do tricks.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
That reminds me of when I
January 10, 2008 - 12:52 ET by Ruths husband BenThat reminds me of when I was a kid and my grandmother took us to the St. Louis Zoo. We were standing at the Chimpanzee cage when one of them flung poo all over her. We thought it was funny (being kids), but she was unimpressed. Speaking of the St. Louis Zoo.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. - Ben Franklin
OMG!
January 10, 2008 - 13:11 ET by fonzie2178What is this world coming to? Maybe at the lib zoo they could throw hanging CHADS at you.
Huffington Post
January 10, 2008 - 12:33 ET by iveseenitallHuffington Post--- this while we are at war. Disgusting!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Are all liberals drain
January 10, 2008 - 13:14 ET by Dan The Man 2Are all liberals drain bamaged? But first you have to have a brain.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
The "It's fake" contention
January 10, 2008 - 12:33 ET by QueenMumThe "It's fake" contention would make more sense if the Iranian boats had been fired upon. As it is, the fact that the Iranian vessels were warned off and deterred from carrying out their threats, is proof that they were the ones trying to "create" an incident. It is also a fact that had the boats approached closer, no one would have a reasonable argument to criticize the U.S. for firing upon them - unless you're the sort of lib who also feels that a police officer should never fire upon a suspect unless or until that suspect shoots first. Funny. The libs are all about decrying the loss of military lives. But heaven forbid that the military confront an imminent threat for the sake of saving lives.
Power to the people!
lib logic...it's everywhere...
January 10, 2008 - 12:41 ET by vrwc13"The libs are all about decrying the loss of military lives. But heaven forbid that the military confront an imminent threat for the sake of saving lives."
v
if conservatives are the "right", liberals must be the "wrong"
And this surprises you?????
January 10, 2008 - 12:35 ET by planetrepublicanHuffPo is not alone in this...Alan Colmes of Hannity & Colmes said basically the same thing last night on his show, that Bush & Co. are blowing this incident up out of proportion, that we should never fire on high speed boats if they are approaching war ships in the Straits of Hormuz or anywhere else for that matter, because to do so would escalate the situation and cause war. And he was arguing the point AGAINST Geraldo Rivera, for God's sake!!!!! Geraldo Rivera!!
So let's see even after the USS Cole, we are not to fire on any craft approaching any war ship for any reason. Seems like a recipe for disaster to me. Then what? Why then HuffPo and Colmes would blame Bush for not reacting forcefully enough.
We are serious trouble if 40% of us can't and won't see a real threat even if it's staring them in the face. This means the people they want to be in the Oval Office won't or can't see it either, which means the terrorists will get a leg up on us. Bin Laden wants an American Hiroshima. If he gets it, these pinheads would be talking about beefing up the"first responders" or some such nonsense. Hillary would be crying on national TV, the MSM would talk about her compassion. Congress would pass laws to make sure survivors with radiation burns got free medical care, Edwards would sue the doctors who let burn victims die.
I for one am really going to miss Bush.
planet
January 10, 2008 - 12:54 ET by candanceSeems like a recipe for disaster to me. Then what? Why then HuffPo and Colmes would blame Bush for not reacting forcefully enough.
We want to know who knew what before 9/11 and why the White House dropped the ball!
Isn't that all we heard from libs for two years after it happened?
Iran Incident
January 10, 2008 - 12:51 ET by candanceMy brother used to be stationed on the USS Ingraham (they pronounce it ING-ra-HAM) and I got to tour it a few year ago. When I heard it was involved in that I was like "awesome!!"
We had Baghdad Bob, Now it's Tehran Tom
January 10, 2008 - 12:57 ET by Six String SpiffWe had Baghdad Bob, Now it's Tehran Tom.
Hey! That's catchy! I
January 10, 2008 - 14:25 ET by dabalHey! That's catchy! I like it.
Thanks!
I made my feelings about
January 10, 2008 - 13:14 ET by ConservativeRexI made my feelings about this incident known on this site when it was first reported. I stand by what I said then. The Commander of that squadron should be brought in for questioning and if the order came from the Pentagon not to shoot these Persians out of the water then there needs to be an investigation.
There was a time in our history that insolence such as this would not have been tolerated. They should have been blasted out of the water with no further questions asked, no other explanation needed.
As for the Huffington post blog by that other Persian, if he made those comments from America he needs to be hunted down and imprisoned. The owners of this blog, if based in America need to be shut down, run out ,or bulldozed down which ever can be done the fastest.
You can scream First Amendment all the live long day for all I care, but this is not covered by that, and if there are people who think that it is, in very short order they will be shown the error of their ways.
Nation not there yet
January 10, 2008 - 13:28 ET by planetrepublicanWell, truth be told, you need a few more American deaths to get to the point you describe. If Bin Laden is successful and gets his American Hiroshima and we get about 10 MILLION dead Americans, you might get this kind of reaction. In fact I think you would get more than you describe. Realistically though, where are we? The Dems hardly even mentioned terrorism in their debates. They want us to go back to the PRE 9-11 days and they might just do it. I think the Iranians and Islamo's have other plans though, and it might just spoil the Dem's plans...
the navy has ROE
January 10, 2008 - 13:30 ET by mvfreemanAs often as our ships traverse those waters you don't think our navy has well rehearsed ROE for just such a scenario?
Our officers are highly trained professionals and know not to be goaded into opening fire.
I saw this take from an ex-navy guy posted on another forum:
"
Highroller48
2008-01-09 06:34:05 PM
"Wow, lots of people with zero Navy experience in here giving their "expert" analysis of a Naval encounter.
First off, in international waters, and especially in a major shipping lane, exclusion zones generally aren't always enforced by most navies except in time of war or when hazards exist (such as missile tests, target practice, etc.), because you have no right under any international law or convention to halt other shipping so you can transit a waterway. While you probably don't want to sail right at an Aircraft Carrier, on the high seas, this isn't a motorcade, people. "Proximity" (unless they're on a collision course or attempting to board you) is not a reason by itself to shoot.
Besides, you can be guaranteed there were at least .50 calibers and likely deck guns trained on these boats very early on in the encounter. You can, at one point, hear the order passed to clear the upper decks of non-essential personnel - an indication that the guns are being cleared away for possible use. These boats never appear to get within less than several hundred yards of any of the ships, but you can be certain that a sudden change of direction right at them from close range would have resulted in a pretty significant lead shower.
On the bridge, the procedures followed seem to be professional, by the book, and exactly in accordance with Maritime law. The whistle is sounded in a manner which means "Danger: I do not understand your intentions". The radio calls are exactly as prescribed and used by navies the world over.
The Captain put his vessel in a position where, if needed, it would be perfectly entitled and able to defend itself, without resorting to unnecessary or premature force, and he did so wholly within the limits of Maritime Law. He avoided an international incident without placing his own ship at risk.
The man deserves a Bravo Zulu."
We should of faked blowing
January 10, 2008 - 13:28 ET by bigtimerWe should of faked blowing all five of those cute little enemy speed-boats right out of the water....POOF...problem solved.
JMHO
How bout if we nuke Tehran,
January 10, 2008 - 13:55 ET by bassndudeHow bout if we nuke Tehran, and say we dident?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Keith?, Keith? Where are you?
January 10, 2008 - 13:51 ET by kg"warships and Iranian Revolutionary Guard patrol boats is, at the very least highly suspicious"
Yes, almost as suspicious as those same boats capturing British soldiers and holding them hostage. Gee I wish this government would quit making this stuff up.
Keith?, Keith? Where are you? We need you!
Slap your hands kg! Never,
January 10, 2008 - 13:54 ET by bassndudeSlap your hands kg! Never, never, ever mention that name in the same paragraph as "need".
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
This woman is either dingy
January 10, 2008 - 13:55 ET by lotrThis woman is either dingy (a la Vera on the old '70s sitcom "Alice" -- where's Mel when you need him: "Stow it, Huffy!"), or she's a turncoat.
My heart goes out to the sailors who, in their line of duty, had to endure the hostile provocation by U.S. enemies. My first reaction was "They should've unleashed Hell," but then again, they probably have nerves of steel, far better than mine.
Only idiots would provoke a rattlesnake, although that's assuming the rattlesnake has venom...
Iranian apologists are
January 10, 2008 - 13:59 ET by rbosqueIranian apologists are really creative folks. Tough job wiping the asses of mindless animals.
Shill for the ayatollahs
January 10, 2008 - 15:26 ET by greenfairieThere are plants among the Persian immigrant community who wholeheartedly support the ayatollahs. This "writer" might be one of them.
U.S. makes incidents up?
January 10, 2008 - 15:51 ET by IAmCanadianFor those who think it's preposterous, might I remind you of Bush's shifty suggestion to fly an aircraft over Iraq painted in UN colours to provoke Saddam into an attack to help justify the oncoming war.
IAC... Haven't seen you
January 10, 2008 - 16:01 ET by bigtimerIAC...
Haven't seen you for ages here....see you haven't changed a lick.
Same ol' same ol'.
Happy New Year!
hey
January 10, 2008 - 21:49 ET by IAmCanadianyou too man, happy 2008 election!
hey
January 10, 2008 - 21:49 ET by IAmCanadianyou too man, happy 2008 election!
Canuck makes with the stoopid
January 10, 2008 - 16:03 ET by Jack BauerFor those of you who think this jerk has anything useful to say...
Might I remind you that the US and the UK maintained a No-Fly Zone in the North and South of Iraq from 1991 to 2003... ON BEHALF ON THE U.N.
So that ALL their aircraft were operating on behalf on the U.N.
And that they were attacked on many occassions during that time. That they constantly had missile radar LOCK ONTO THEM.
So they wrere already justified in taking military action.
Come armed with some actual facts next time CanucKID
name calling?
January 10, 2008 - 21:37 ET by IAmCanadian"The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.
Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.
Consistent Remarks
Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process.""
Just one of dozens of articles on the memo.
IAMCANADIAN 1.) What
January 10, 2008 - 16:07 ET by BDIAMCANADIAN
1.) What are UN colors? For better than ten years we flew missions over Iraq as part of the UN mandate. Those aircraft were never painted in anything but US military schemes. As of this time I have never seen ANY nations aircraft sporting UN colors- and do not know what those would look like.
2.) Those aircraft were repeatedly engaged by Saddams aircraft, and in fact he had a bounty on captured air crew if they were successfully downed. He was unsuccessful in this effort.
I realize that the fact that Canada does not have substantial force to allow it to deploy a signifant military has probably allowed you to become unfamiliar with the issues, but you have to try HARDER!
Oh please! Canadian. Thats
January 10, 2008 - 16:53 ET by bassndudeOh please! Canadian. Thats the problem with you french boys. You belive anything. So gulliable.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
French boy?
January 10, 2008 - 21:42 ET by IAmCanadianI'm not even sure how to respond to that. I'll leave it to one of your like-minded peers to correct you.
-
January 10, 2008 - 23:07 ET by dahliatraversNot necessarily like-minded. Definitely in the spirit of your initial silly comment.
Canadian demographics:
23% - French
Balance - Inferior races
what did you expect
January 10, 2008 - 19:24 ET by oregon_jiimCanadians are half French, half draft dodger.
"an endorsement of communism is an endorsement of slavery"
WTH, Why would members of
January 10, 2008 - 15:57 ET by LeonWTH,
Why would members of the Iranian navy have Arab accents?
Aren't Iranians Persian?
The person that was recorded saying the following, which the Navy used to bolster there case for Iranian provocation, isn't even an Iranian:
“I am coming to you,” a heavily accented voice says in English. “You will explode after a few minutes.”
Here are the facts
WTH, Even the Navy
January 10, 2008 - 16:04 ET by LeonWTH,
Even the Navy disagrees with your level of certainty.
Do you think the Navy are just a bunch of Iranian Apologists?
Check the Navy hedging their bets.
WOW!
January 10, 2008 - 16:10 ET by MassConservLeon, you've really nailed that one. Proof positive that the US Navy is E-V-I-L!!!
It's not at all possible the transmission came from another location other than the speedboats.
Please tell me why you are so easily convinced that the Iranian version is true and your own country's is fake?
BDS...simple and plain
January 10, 2008 - 16:13 ET by vrwc13"Leon - Please tell me why you are so easily convinced that the Iranian version is true and your own country's is fake?"
v
Mass, I'm not, I'm merely
January 10, 2008 - 18:30 ET by LeonMass,
I'm not, I'm merely pointing out that the original version from the Navy has been severely scaled back since the real facts came out.
Ask the Navy why they're backpeddling.
1.) Q: Has Iran
January 10, 2008 - 16:12 ET by BD1.) Q: Has Iran misbehaved at sea in the same area before?
Answer: Yes, repetitively including the seizure of sailors from UK vessels last year, the seizure of oil stations, firing weaponry from said stations, and open harrassment of US forces.
All faked - signed Leon BDS
January 10, 2008 - 16:14 ET by vrwc13All faked - signed Leon BDS
Good to know. I assume
January 10, 2008 - 16:17 ET by BDGood to know. I assume that the Gulf of Tonkin, the North Korean incursions into the DMZ and the 38th parallel, and Saddams invasion of Kuwait were also faked by the Bush administration.
...all true and previously
January 10, 2008 - 16:28 ET by vrwc13...all true and previously only known to a select few in the VRWC.
v
Wrong BD, Gulf of Tonkin
January 10, 2008 - 18:31 ET by LeonWrong BD,
Gulf of Tonkin was a lie, but it was Democrats doing the lying that time.
What was lie about it? In
January 10, 2008 - 18:37 ET by BDWhat was lie about it?
In the first event US ships WERE challenged by NV navy patrol boats and responded to.
The second event is murkier, being that the NV navy ships engaged actions are unclear (Possibly being towed to maintenace shops, or could be coming out for agressive action, etc.)
But there was NOTHING false about it.
In the first event US
January 10, 2008 - 18:40 ET by JasonCIn the first event US ships WERE challenged by NV navy patrol boats and responded to.
I wonder what sort of 'challenge' the US would extend to a hostile country's warship cruising through, say, Long Island Sound or the Connecticut River...
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
leon: Just to clue you
January 10, 2008 - 19:01 ET by BDleon:
Just to clue yo