You must have completely misread my post. I said both were wrong. Clearly you have no idea what ethical relativism is, even though you've succinctly expressed its basic teachings. Well done!
yes, but then you ended your statement by saying they were heros and you were proud of what they did
that makes no sense... 'i think what they did was soooo wrong, but still they were heros and i'm proud of what they accomplished!' doesn't make sense, does it?
'i think what hitler did was bad, but still, he's a hero and i'm proud of his accomplishments w/ germany!!'
nope, that doesn't make much sense, either
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
yes, but then you ended your statement by saying they were heros and you were proud of what they did
that makes no sense... 'i think what they did was soooo wrong, but still they were heros and i'm proud of what they accomplished!' doesn't make sense, does it?
'i think what hitler did was bad, but still, he's a hero and i'm proud of his accomplishments w/ germany!!'
nope, that doesn't make much sense, either
Like, I'm not sure whether this is an intelligent conversation or a complete assfuck.
Look, I said I'm proud of the good things that America has done. Obviously, I'm not proud of the few wrong things that Americans have done. That would be opposed to common sense, right?
In general, you seem to be opposed to most of the things America has done. We're always the aggressor and the bad guys while the minorities (i.e. native americans) are generally good people who got hurt by us.
In general, I am proud of what America has done. I think we're the good guys and we usually do the right thing. This is a difference in terms of how we view this country's history. You view it as shameful and embarrassing - I view it as something to be proud of (even if not all of it is good).
The greatest leaders America had were racists too - deal with it. They still did good things.
This brings to mind a good phrase: "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Like, I'm not sure whether this is an intelligent conversation or a complete assfuck.
Look, I said I'm proud of the good things that America has done. Obviously, I'm not proud of the few wrong things that Americans have done. That would be opposed to common sense, right?
then why isn't it just as obviously opposed to common sense that i would not think human sacrifices are bad?
In general, you seem to be opposed to most of the things America has done. We're always the aggressor and the bad guys while the minorities (i.e. native americans) are generally good people who got hurt by us.
the truth is what it is...we have done lots of bad things and taken no accountability for them
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
then why isn't it just as obviously opposed to common sense that i would not think human sacrifices are bad?
the truth is what it is...we have done lots of bad things and taken no accountability for them
You need to point out the bad things that the Indians did if you're going to compliment them. If I compliment the U.S. by saying I'm proud of our history, you immediately point out that the U.S. has done so many terrible things that I should not be proud of.
Your position is inconsistent.
We have not done lots of bad things - we've done only a few bad things.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
You need to point out the bad things that the Indians did if you're going to compliment them. If I compliment the U.S. by saying I'm proud of our history, you immediately point out that the U.S. has done so many terrible things that I should not be proud of.
Your position is inconsistent.
We have not done lots of bad things - we've done only a few bad things.
i'm not a big fan of stating the obvious, but i see it's necessary in some cases...i am anti-human sacrifice and i think violence is wrong
what number constitutes 'some'? i'm just curuious as to what you'd consider being a 'terrible thing', you didn't think shooting down a commercial airliner full of iranian civilians was bad b/c the navy said they thought it was an f-14 <even tho the instruments on the ship that shot it down says it was a commercial aircraft>, you didn't think bombing nicaragua into the stone age and mining their harbors as well as training what congress called terrorists to overthrow their democratically elected government was bad b/c they elected a marxist and somehow posed a grave threat to our safety...
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i'm not a big fan of stating the obvious, but i see it's necessary in some cases...i am anti-human sacrifice and i think violence is wrong
what number constitutes 'some'? i'm just curuious as to what you'd consider being a 'terrible thing', you didn't think shooting down a commercial airliner full of iranian civilians was bad b/c the navy said they thought it was an f-14 <even tho the instruments on the ship that shot it down says it was a commercial aircraft>, you didn't think bombing nicaragua into the stone age and mining their harbors as well as training what congress called terrorists to overthrow their democratically elected government was bad b/c they elected a marxist and somehow posed a grave threat to our safety...
Most of the "bad" things you think we've done are very debatable, with the truth leaning on my side of things. You have a bunch of lousy sources telling you that the U.S. shot a civilian plane out of the sky because we're just a bunch of naughty boys. Nah, that's false. I'm sorry, but that's not what happened and everyone knows this. Things are never that black and white and it's silly of you to presume so.
I know there are certainly evil things perpetrated by people that are not debatable. The holocaust, for example. Purely evil. Shooting down a civilian jet? The intent was not evil at all and it is unamerican for you to imply so. If you truly believe that your country would knowingly murder innocent civilians on purpose, you have no right to be in this country. Why would you continue paying taxes so that they could fund such a corrupt military? If our military was truly capable of that, wouldn't you be disgusted with this country and leave it?
If my country murdered innocent people on purpose, I would not continue living there and paying taxes to fund further murders.
Obviously you are willing to do that?...
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Most of the "bad" things you think we've done are very debatable, with the truth leaning on my side of things. You have a bunch of lousy sources telling you that the U.S. shot a civilian plane out of the sky because we're just a bunch of naughty boys. Nah, that's false. I'm sorry, but that's not what happened and everyone knows this. Things are never that black and white and it's silly of you to presume so.
I know there are certainly evil things perpetrated by people that are not debatable. The holocaust, for example. Purely evil. Shooting down a civilian jet? The intent was not evil at all and it is unamerican for you to imply so. If you truly believe that your country would knowingly murder innocent civilians on purpose, you have no right to be in this country. Why would you continue paying taxes so that they could fund such a corrupt military? If our military was truly capable of that, wouldn't you be disgusted with this country and leave it?
If my country murdered innocent people on purpose, I would not continue living there and paying taxes to fund further murders.
Obviously you are willing to do that?...
first nice dodge on answering my question.
you say my sources are lousy but my sources are 1> official Navy reports and the actual data recorded by the instruments of the vessel that shot down the airliner and 2> the guy who commanded the vessel that shot down the airliner...i'd think those would be considered good sources, but i guess not. what's funnier is i used the exact same article YOU used...funny that when you use the sources it's iron clad <as long as i stay on the lone paragraph you copied and pasted> but when i bring forth paragraphs further down you cry it's a shitty source!
you are the one who said we take accountability for everything wrong we do. i bring up this iranian airliner we shot down and instead you justify why it was ok. even if they did think it was an F-14 should they not apologize or admit wrongdoing???? no, instead george bush I says he refuses to ever apologize for the US <sounds like you> and then they give medals to the ppl who shot it down. i asked you this before but you failed to reply: if i shot down your whole family and said 'oh well, i thought they were al qaeda so it's ok i killed them and i aint gonna apologize!' would you accept that? would you really think 'well, he thought he was killing someone else so it's all ok'? no, you wouldn't. you can say they thought it was an F-14 all you want, the recordings from the ship say it was a commerical aircraft giving off a commerical aircraft signal flying on a known commerical flight path. but, again, even if they did really think it to be an F-14 they were obviously wrong, they were wrong and took Z E R O accountability for being wrong, instead they say they refuse to apologize for it. also, if you had bothered to read my 'lousy' sources you would see the US had a covert operation going on for about a year prior where they targeted Iranian oil platforms and other things...it seems to me like they were trying to draw Iran into a war or taking some hostile reaction to what we were doing. or do you think we were bombing their oil platforms by mistake?
you keep on about how we take accountability everytime we do something bad...but you ALWAYS fail to give just one example of this, instead you justify why the actions were ok and then take a lame cop out of we haven't really done too many bad things so it's hard to give an example of accountability.
black and white would be you thinking it's ok to kill civilians b/c they elected a 'commie for a president'
second, there is a difference between a country and what it's government does. i have no right to be in this country?? oooooook as long as i live in what is called a democracy i think i will stay and hope and try for change. only a fool would 'throw the baby out w/ the bath water'
i take it you can't answer my question?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Look, you need to understand what makes bad deeds bad. If we had something to apologize for (take accountability for), it rested on whether we purposely shot down a known civilian aircraft like you said we did. That was not what happened at all.
The only person that matters in the story of the iranian civilian airliner was the kid manning the radar and seeing this bogey coming at their ship at high speed. When he tried to contact the ship and it did not respond, he took action. As we saw in 9/11, airliners CAN be used as weapons, yes? Still, the boy at the radar didn't know it was an airliner. The admiral did not give the order to fire - someone else did. He has nothing to do with the actual events of the situation.
"When questioned by BBC journalists in a 2002 documentary, the U.S. government stated in a written answer that they believed the incident may have been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge crew of the Vincennes called 'scenario fulfillment' which is said to occur when persons are under pressure. In such a situation, the men will carry out a training scenario, believing it to be reality whilst ignoring sensory information that contradicts the scenario - in the case of this incident, the scenario was an attack by a lone military aircraft. This hypothesis, if true, could explain why the records of the Vincennes' instruments never indicated a craft resembling an F-14 being detected, whilst a civilian IFF signal was detected."
This would explain why the crew made the mistake.
The U.S. did make reparations for the mistake:
"On November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice ruled that "the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on 19 October 1987 and 18 April 1988 cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."[6] However, the case relating to the airbus downing, "the Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988, (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)", was dropped 22 February 1996 following settlement and reparations by the United States."
Since we did make reparations for the mistake, then we did take accountability for it. Right? Did you read the entire wikipedia article?
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Look, you need to understand what makes bad deeds bad. If we had something to apologize for (take accountability for), it rested on whether we purposely shot down a known civilian aircraft like you said we did. That was not what happened at all.
The only person that matters in the story of the iranian civilian airliner was the kid manning the radar and seeing this bogey coming at their ship at high speed. When he tried to contact the ship and it did not respond, he took action. As we saw in 9/11, airliners CAN be used as weapons, yes? Still, the boy at the radar didn't know it was an airliner. The admiral did not give the order to fire - someone else did. He has nothing to do with the actual events of the situation.
"When questioned by BBC journalists in a 2002 documentary, the U.S. government stated in a written answer that they believed the incident may have been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge crew of the Vincennes called 'scenario fulfillment' which is said to occur when persons are under pressure. In such a situation, the men will carry out a training scenario, believing it to be reality whilst ignoring sensory information that contradicts the scenario - in the case of this incident, the scenario was an attack by a lone military aircraft. This hypothesis, if true, could explain why the records of the Vincennes' instruments never indicated a craft resembling an F-14 being detected, whilst a civilian IFF signal was detected."
This would explain why the crew made the mistake.
The U.S. did make reparations for the mistake:
"On November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice ruled that "the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on 19 October 1987 and 18 April 1988 cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."[6] However, the case relating to the airbus downing, "the Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988, (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)", was dropped 22 February 1996 following settlement and reparations by the United States."
Since we did make reparations for the mistake, then we did take accountability for it. Right? Did you read the entire wikipedia article?
yes, did you???
The payment of compensation was explicitly characterised by the US as being on an *ex gratia* basis, and the U.S. denied having any responsibility or liability for the incident.
The process of compensation itself proved a major cause for controversy, again by comparison to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. The Washington Post reported on August 13, 2003 with the headline "Deal Reached with Libya on Pan Am Bombing" [1]:
"Lawyers representing the families of the victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing struck a deal with Libyan officials last year involving a $10 million payment to each victim's family. An initial $4 million would be paid once U.N. sanctions have been formally lifted. An additional $4 million would be paid once the United States lifts its sanctions. The final $2 million would be delivered if Libya is removed from the State Department's list of states allegedly sponsoring terrorism."
Theoretically, this deal stated that the family of each adult victim on board Pan Am 103 would receive 33 times the equivalent sum of the family of each victim on Flight 655, whilst each child or senior citizen on Flight 103 would receive 66 times the amount received by the families of their counterparts on Flight 655.
Ex gratia (sometimes ex-gratia) is Latin (lit. 'by favour') and is most often used in a legal context. When something has been done ex gratia, it has been done voluntarily, out of kindness or grace. In law, an ex gratia payment is a payment made without the giver recognising any liability or legal obligation.
so, you're saying you can take accountability w/o ever taking responsability???
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Yeah, I mean, we paid money for a reason. Responsibility for the incident goes to the Iranians for starting the conflict.
yeah, that'll teach them to fly established commercial flight routes in their own territory!!!!!
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
The US was there supporting Iraq (read Sadam Hussein) under the pretext of protecting oil supply lines.
The U.S. was attacking Iran because Iran almost sank one of our ships named the USS Samuel B. Roberts by mining it. They started the conflict with the U.S. We may have supported Saddam in other ways, but the Iranians started direct conflict with us.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
The U.S. was attacking Iran because Iran almost sank one of our ships named the USS Samuel B. Roberts by mining it. They started the conflict with the U.S. We may have supported Saddam in other ways, but the Iranians started direct conflict with us.
so the mining of a **military** vessel <and how many died from that? oh, right, NONE> justifies the downing of a **civilian** aircraft??? isn't that kinda thinkin like al qaeda or suicide bombers??
also, we did get back at them for that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Samuel_B._Roberts_(FFG-58)
Four days later, U.S. forces retaliated against Iran in Operation Praying Mantis, a one-day campaign that was the world's largest surface engagement since World War II. U.S. ships, aircraft, and troops destroyed two Iranian oil platforms used to control Iranian naval forces in the Gulf, sank one Iranian frigate, damaged another, and sent at least three armed powerboats to the bottom.
or...is it just acceptable now b/c it's their civilians and not ours?
and i thought you were ok w/ mines? didn't you rationalize why it was perfectly reasonable to mine the harbors of Nicaragua when they had no real navy, but just to decimate their economy, sedning it from one of the richest in the region to poorest in the world, all b/c of the obvious threat they posed on the safety of every american, a threat so obvious you won't even waste your time explaining?
oh, and btw,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis#Aftermath
On November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice ruled that "the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on 19 October 1987 (Operation Nimble Archer) and 18 April 1988 (Operation Praying Mantis) cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
so the mining of a **military** vessel justifies the downing of a **civilian** aircraft??? isn't that kinda thinkin like al qaeda or suicide bombers??
or...is it just acceptable now b/c it's their civilians and not ours?
and i thought you were ok w/ mines? didn't you rationalize why it was perfectly reasonable to mine the harbors of Nicaragua when they had no real navy, but just to decimate their economy, sedning it from one of the richest in the region to poorest in the world, all b/c of the obvious threat they posed on the safety of every american, a threat so obvious you won't even waste your time explaining?
It's only okay to mine someone if you know you can beat them militarily. We could beat Nicaragua. We could beat Iran. We could've wiped both of the face of the map if we wanted to. This is what you fail to understand about foreign policy: in the end, it goes to who's got the stronger military. The threat of communism is great, Kabonkers, and I think you should reassess the threat the communism poses (unless you're a communist, of course )
I'll reiterate: the airliner did not respond to repeated attempts to contact it. We didn't know it was an airliner until it was too late. We've been over this.
You're going over points we've already discussed and acting like you're winning some grand debate. This discussion is going nowhere.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
It's only okay to mine someone if you know you can beat them militarily. We could beat Nicaragua. We could beat Iran. We could've wiped both of the face of the map if we wanted to. This is what you fail to understand about foreign policy: in the end, it goes to who's got the stronger military. The threat of communism is great, Kabonkers, and I think you should reassess the threat the communism poses (unless you're a communist, of course )
I'll reiterate: the airliner did not respond to repeated attempts to contact it. We didn't know it was an airliner until it was too late. We've been over this.
You're going over points we've already discussed and acting like you're winning some grand debate. This discussion is going nowhere.
are you serious? so it's ok to kill civilians if you are stronger?? it's okay to do that to so many millions of ppl in jus tthe case of Nicaragua b/c they elected someone who was a 'commie' in a DEMOCRATIC election...?
if the threat of communism is so great why do we suck COMMUNIST china's dick?
you are still acting like it was ok that we shot that airliner down, that it's not our fault...nevermind we were in THEIR water, not iraq's, not kuwaits, not international, but IRANS waters. so, the ships instruments says it's putting off a signal of a commercial aircraft flying on an established commercial flight route, but gee, they didn't reply to an invading military right away so it's .....all their fault...?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I'll reiterate: the airliner did not respond to repeated attempts to contact it. We didn't know it was an airliner until it was too late. We've been over this.
The only person that matters in the story of the iranian civilian airliner was the kid manning the radar and seeing this bogey coming at their ship at high speed. When he tried to contact the ship and it did not respond, he took action. As we saw in 9/11, airliners CAN be used as weapons, yes? Still, the boy at the radar didn't know it was an airliner. The admiral did not give the order to fire - someone else did. He has nothing to do with the actual events of the situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_flight_655
The Fogarty report concluded, "The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [Iran Air Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from takeoff at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down." The fault in the USS Vincennes lying directly in the airplane’s pathway is Captain Rogers'.
*note Mode III is for civilian radio traffic, Mode II is for military
The Vincennes' warnings were on a military channel, addressed to 'Iranian Tomcat'. When Carlson concluded that the Vincennes was referring to IR655 in its warning to turn away or receive fire, he urgently warned IR655 on a civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a military craft and should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a trajectory away from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. Carlson expressed the view that the incident was a mistake brought about by an overly aggressive approach by the captain of the Vincennes.
*so, in essence they tried to warn them but on the radio frequency
http://www.history.com/exhibits/military_blunders/mb_iasd.html The United States claimed that the aircraft was outside the commercial jet flight corridor, flying at only 7,000 feet, and on a descent toward the Vincennes. One month later, U.S. authorities admitted that both the Vincennes and the airbus had been within a recognized commercial flightpath, and that the Iranian jet was flying at 12,000 feet and not descending. The U.S. Navy's final report blamed crew error caused by psychological stress on men in combat for the first time.
*so, they initially lied?
as for the admiral didn't give the order to fire...
U.S. Navy Captain Will C. Rogers III ordered a single missile fired from his warship, which hit its target and killed all 290 people aboard the commercial airbus.....
looks like you are wrong, once again
and you will still blame it on the Iranians, right?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
U.S. Navy Captain Will C. Rogers III ordered a single missile fired from his warship, which hit its target and killed all 290 people aboard the commercial airbus.....
looks like you are wrong, once again
and you will still blame it on the Iranians, right?
It says "Captain" Will C. Rogers.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Nonetheless, I've spoken with people who work for the CIA and lived during the time of the bombing. They're liberal as hell. But, they disagree emphatically with you about the information.
The simple problem is, the information you are using is bogus. The accepted government account is factual and yours' is not. I'm sorry that it's so hard to believe the government is right.
I can tell that you sympathize heavily with anyone who has ever been attacked by the United States. That is not because of anything we've done wrong, but because you're anti-American. My hunch is that you're a communist. In which case, you don't really belong in this country.
Good discussion.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
The simple problem is, the information you are using is bogus. The accepted government account is factual and yours' is not. I'm sorry that it's so hard to believe the government is right.
The United States claimed that the aircraft was outside the commercial jet flight corridor, flying at only 7,000 feet, and on a descent toward the Vincennes. One month later, U.S. authorities admitted that both the Vincennes and the airbus had been within a recognized commercial flightpath, and that the Iranian jet was flying at 12,000 feet and not descending. The U.S. Navy's final report blamed crew error caused by psychological stress on men in combat for the first time.
The Vincennes' warnings were on a military channel, addressed to 'Iranian Tomcat'. When Carlson concluded that the Vincennes was referring to IR655 in its warning to turn away or receive fire, he urgently warned IR655 on a civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a military craft and should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a trajectory away from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. Carlson expressed the view that the incident was a mistake brought about by an overly aggressive approach by the captain of the Vincennes.
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_flight_655
Captain David Carlson, commander of the USS Sides, the warship stationed near to the Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers' aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago". His comment referred to incidents on June 2, when Rogers had sailed the Vincennes too close to an Iranian frigate undertaking a lawful search of a bulk carrier, launched a helicopter within 2-3 miles (3.2-4.8 km) of an Iranian small craft despite rules of engagement requiring a four-mile (6.4 km) separation, and opened fire on a number of small Iranian military boats. Of those incidents, Carlson commented, "Why do you want an Aegis cruiser out there shooting up boats? It wasn't a smart thing to do." At the time of Rogers' announcement to higher command that he was going to shoot down the plane, Carlson is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have been thunderstruck: "I said to folks around me, 'Why, what the hell is he doing?' I went through the drill again. F-14. He's climbing. By now this damn thing is at 7,000 feet." However, Carlson thought the Vincennes might have more information, and was unaware that Rogers had been wrongly informed that the plane was diving.
According to the BBC documentary of 2002, Carlson identified IR655 as a civilian craft based on its radar signature, its 'squawk' (IFF) code, and the fact that it was ascending at low speed - an attacking military aircraft would be descending towards the Vincennes at high speed. At first Carlson thought that the 'Iranian Tomcat' identified by the Vincennes was actually another craft that he could not identify, as it was surprising to Carlson that the Vincennes crew would mistake a Tomcat (with which one would expect the US Navy to be familiar) with a civilian aircraft. The Vincennes' warnings were on a military channel, addressed to 'Iranian Tomcat'. When Carlson concluded that the Vincennes was referring to IR655 in its warning to turn away or receive fire, he urgently warned IR655 on a civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a military craft and should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a trajectory away from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. Carlson expressed the view that the incident was a mistake brought about by an overly aggressive approach by the captain of the Vincennes
Craig, Morales & Oliver, in a slide presentation published in M.I.T.'s Spring 2004 Aeronautics & Astronautics, as the "USS Vincennes Incident," commented that Captain Rogers had "an undeniable and unequivocal tendency towards what I call 'picking a fight.'" On his own initiative, Rogers moved the Vincennes 50 miles northeast to join the USS Montgomery. An angry Captain McKenna ordered Rogers back to Abu Musa, but the Vincennes helicopter pilot, Lt Mark Collier, followed the Iranian speedboats as they retreated north, eventually taking some fire:
"...the Vincennes jumps back into the fray. Heading towards the majority of the speedboats, he is unable to get a clear target. Also, the speedboats are now just slowly milling about in their own territorial waters. Despite clear information to the contrary, Rogers informs command that the gunboats are gathering speed and showing hostile intent and gains approval to fire upon them at 0939. Finally, in another fateful decision, he crosses the 12-mile limit off the coast and enters illegally into Iranian waters."
but, i know it doesn't matter to you if your government lies to you or not
I can tell that you sympathize heavily with anyone who has ever been attacked by the United States. That is not because of anything we've done wrong, but because you're anti-American. My hunch is that you're a communist. In which case, you don't really belong in this country.
Good discussion.
i'm anti-american??? i am against crimes perputrated by our government. and thankfully it's not for you to decide where i belong
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Nonetheless, I've spoken with people who work for the CIA and lived during the time of the bombing. They're liberal as hell. But, they disagree emphatically with you about the information.
I can tell that you sympathize heavily with anyone who has ever been attacked by the United States. That is not because of anything we've done wrong, but because you're anti-American. My hunch is that you're a communist. In which case, you don't really belong in this country.
Oh, barroom, you are such a funny little man. Why come back to the AMT after so long? Did ya get lonely?
I said that the Admiral you spoke of did not give the order to fire. I was correct.
Wrong again, chum.
yes, the admiral i spoke of only investigated it...how would he be in a position to give the order...?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
yes, but then you ended your statement by saying they were heros and you were proud of what they did
that makes no sense... 'i think what they did was soooo wrong, but still they were heros and i'm proud of what they accomplished!' doesn't make sense, does it?
'i think what hitler did was bad, but still, he's a hero and i'm proud of his accomplishments w/ germany!!'
nope, that doesn't make much sense, either
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Like, I'm not sure whether this is an intelligent conversation or a complete assfuck.
Look, I said I'm proud of the good things that America has done. Obviously, I'm not proud of the few wrong things that Americans have done. That would be opposed to common sense, right?
In general, you seem to be opposed to most of the things America has done. We're always the aggressor and the bad guys while the minorities (i.e. native americans) are generally good people who got hurt by us.
In general, I am proud of what America has done. I think we're the good guys and we usually do the right thing. This is a difference in terms of how we view this country's history. You view it as shameful and embarrassing - I view it as something to be proud of (even if not all of it is good).
The greatest leaders America had were racists too - deal with it. They still did good things.
This brings to mind a good phrase: "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
-Enoch Powell
then why isn't it just as obviously opposed to common sense that i would not think human sacrifices are bad?
the truth is what it is...we have done lots of bad things and taken no accountability for them
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
You need to point out the bad things that the Indians did if you're going to compliment them. If I compliment the U.S. by saying I'm proud of our history, you immediately point out that the U.S. has done so many terrible things that I should not be proud of.
Your position is inconsistent.
We have not done lots of bad things - we've done only a few bad things.
-Enoch Powell
i'm not a big fan of stating the obvious, but i see it's necessary in some cases...i am anti-human sacrifice and i think violence is wrong
what number constitutes 'some'? i'm just curuious as to what you'd consider being a 'terrible thing', you didn't think shooting down a commercial airliner full of iranian civilians was bad b/c the navy said they thought it was an f-14 <even tho the instruments on the ship that shot it down says it was a commercial aircraft>, you didn't think bombing nicaragua into the stone age and mining their harbors as well as training what congress called terrorists to overthrow their democratically elected government was bad b/c they elected a marxist and somehow posed a grave threat to our safety...
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Most of the "bad" things you think we've done are very debatable, with the truth leaning on my side of things. You have a bunch of lousy sources telling you that the U.S. shot a civilian plane out of the sky because we're just a bunch of naughty boys. Nah, that's false. I'm sorry, but that's not what happened and everyone knows this. Things are never that black and white and it's silly of you to presume so.
I know there are certainly evil things perpetrated by people that are not debatable. The holocaust, for example. Purely evil. Shooting down a civilian jet? The intent was not evil at all and it is unamerican for you to imply so. If you truly believe that your country would knowingly murder innocent civilians on purpose, you have no right to be in this country. Why would you continue paying taxes so that they could fund such a corrupt military? If our military was truly capable of that, wouldn't you be disgusted with this country and leave it?
If my country murdered innocent people on purpose, I would not continue living there and paying taxes to fund further murders.
Obviously you are willing to do that?...
-Enoch Powell
first nice dodge on answering my question.
you say my sources are lousy but my sources are 1> official Navy reports and the actual data recorded by the instruments of the vessel that shot down the airliner and 2> the guy who commanded the vessel that shot down the airliner...i'd think those would be considered good sources, but i guess not. what's funnier is i used the exact same article YOU used...funny that when you use the sources it's iron clad <as long as i stay on the lone paragraph you copied and pasted> but when i bring forth paragraphs further down you cry it's a shitty source!
you are the one who said we take accountability for everything wrong we do. i bring up this iranian airliner we shot down and instead you justify why it was ok. even if they did think it was an F-14 should they not apologize or admit wrongdoing???? no, instead george bush I says he refuses to ever apologize for the US <sounds like you> and then they give medals to the ppl who shot it down. i asked you this before but you failed to reply: if i shot down your whole family and said 'oh well, i thought they were al qaeda so it's ok i killed them and i aint gonna apologize!' would you accept that? would you really think 'well, he thought he was killing someone else so it's all ok'? no, you wouldn't. you can say they thought it was an F-14 all you want, the recordings from the ship say it was a commerical aircraft giving off a commerical aircraft signal flying on a known commerical flight path. but, again, even if they did really think it to be an F-14 they were obviously wrong, they were wrong and took Z E R O accountability for being wrong, instead they say they refuse to apologize for it. also, if you had bothered to read my 'lousy' sources you would see the US had a covert operation going on for about a year prior where they targeted Iranian oil platforms and other things...it seems to me like they were trying to draw Iran into a war or taking some hostile reaction to what we were doing. or do you think we were bombing their oil platforms by mistake?
you keep on about how we take accountability everytime we do something bad...but you ALWAYS fail to give just one example of this, instead you justify why the actions were ok and then take a lame cop out of we haven't really done too many bad things so it's hard to give an example of accountability.
black and white would be you thinking it's ok to kill civilians b/c they elected a 'commie for a president'
second, there is a difference between a country and what it's government does. i have no right to be in this country?? oooooook as long as i live in what is called a democracy i think i will stay and hope and try for change. only a fool would 'throw the baby out w/ the bath water'
i take it you can't answer my question?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Look, you need to understand what makes bad deeds bad. If we had something to apologize for (take accountability for), it rested on whether we purposely shot down a known civilian aircraft like you said we did. That was not what happened at all.
The only person that matters in the story of the iranian civilian airliner was the kid manning the radar and seeing this bogey coming at their ship at high speed. When he tried to contact the ship and it did not respond, he took action. As we saw in 9/11, airliners CAN be used as weapons, yes? Still, the boy at the radar didn't know it was an airliner. The admiral did not give the order to fire - someone else did. He has nothing to do with the actual events of the situation.
"When questioned by BBC journalists in a 2002 documentary, the U.S. government stated in a written answer that they believed the incident may have been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge crew of the Vincennes called 'scenario fulfillment' which is said to occur when persons are under pressure. In such a situation, the men will carry out a training scenario, believing it to be reality whilst ignoring sensory information that contradicts the scenario - in the case of this incident, the scenario was an attack by a lone military aircraft. This hypothesis, if true, could explain why the records of the Vincennes' instruments never indicated a craft resembling an F-14 being detected, whilst a civilian IFF signal was detected."
This would explain why the crew made the mistake.
The U.S. did make reparations for the mistake:
"On November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice ruled that "the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on 19 October 1987 and 18 April 1988 cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."[6] However, the case relating to the airbus downing, "the Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988, (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)", was dropped 22 February 1996 following settlement and reparations by the United States."
Since we did make reparations for the mistake, then we did take accountability for it. Right? Did you read the entire wikipedia article?
-Enoch Powell
yes, did you???
The payment of compensation was explicitly characterised by the US as being on an *ex gratia* basis, and the U.S. denied having any responsibility or liability for the incident.
The process of compensation itself proved a major cause for controversy, again by comparison to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. The Washington Post reported on August 13, 2003 with the headline "Deal Reached with Libya on Pan Am Bombing" [1]:
"Lawyers representing the families of the victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing struck a deal with Libyan officials last year involving a $10 million payment to each victim's family. An initial $4 million would be paid once U.N. sanctions have been formally lifted. An additional $4 million would be paid once the United States lifts its sanctions. The final $2 million would be delivered if Libya is removed from the State Department's list of states allegedly sponsoring terrorism."
Theoretically, this deal stated that the family of each adult victim on board Pan Am 103 would receive 33 times the equivalent sum of the family of each victim on Flight 655, whilst each child or senior citizen on Flight 103 would receive 66 times the amount received by the families of their counterparts on Flight 655.
Ex gratia (sometimes ex-gratia) is Latin (lit. 'by favour') and is most often used in a legal context. When something has been done ex gratia, it has been done voluntarily, out of kindness or grace. In law, an ex gratia payment is a payment made without the giver recognising any liability or legal obligation.
so, you're saying you can take accountability w/o ever taking responsability???
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Yeah, I mean, we paid money for a reason. Responsibility for the incident goes to the Iranians for starting the conflict.
-Enoch Powell
yeah, that'll teach them to fly established commercial flight routes in their own territory!!!!!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
This was during the Iraq-Iran war (uhmm... not US) which Iraq started by attacking Iran.
The US was there supporting Iraq (read Sadam Hussein) under the pretext of protecting oil supply lines.
The U.S. was attacking Iran because Iran almost sank one of our ships named the USS Samuel B. Roberts by mining it. They started the conflict with the U.S. We may have supported Saddam in other ways, but the Iranians started direct conflict with us.
-Enoch Powell
so the mining of a **military** vessel <and how many died from that? oh, right, NONE> justifies the downing of a **civilian** aircraft??? isn't that kinda thinkin like al qaeda or suicide bombers??
also, we did get back at them for that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Samuel_B._Roberts_(FFG-58)
Four days later, U.S. forces retaliated against Iran in Operation Praying Mantis, a one-day campaign that was the world's largest surface engagement since World War II. U.S. ships, aircraft, and troops destroyed two Iranian oil platforms used to control Iranian naval forces in the Gulf, sank one Iranian frigate, damaged another, and sent at least three armed powerboats to the bottom.
or...is it just acceptable now b/c it's their civilians and not ours?
and i thought you were ok w/ mines? didn't you rationalize why it was perfectly reasonable to mine the harbors of Nicaragua when they had no real navy, but just to decimate their economy, sedning it from one of the richest in the region to poorest in the world, all b/c of the obvious threat they posed on the safety of every american, a threat so obvious you won't even waste your time explaining?
oh, and btw,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis#Aftermath
On November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice ruled that "the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on 19 October 1987 (Operation Nimble Archer) and 18 April 1988 (Operation Praying Mantis) cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
It's only okay to mine someone if you know you can beat them militarily. We could beat Nicaragua. We could beat Iran. We could've wiped both of the face of the map if we wanted to. This is what you fail to understand about foreign policy: in the end, it goes to who's got the stronger military. The threat of communism is great, Kabonkers, and I think you should reassess the threat the communism poses (unless you're a communist, of course
I'll reiterate: the airliner did not respond to repeated attempts to contact it. We didn't know it was an airliner until it was too late. We've been over this.
You're going over points we've already discussed and acting like you're winning some grand debate. This discussion is going nowhere.
-Enoch Powell
are you serious? so it's ok to kill civilians if you are stronger?? it's okay to do that to so many millions of ppl in jus tthe case of Nicaragua b/c they elected someone who was a 'commie' in a DEMOCRATIC election...?
if the threat of communism is so great why do we suck COMMUNIST china's dick?
you are still acting like it was ok that we shot that airliner down, that it's not our fault...nevermind we were in THEIR water, not iraq's, not kuwaits, not international, but IRANS waters. so, the ships instruments says it's putting off a signal of a commercial aircraft flying on an established commercial flight route, but gee, they didn't reply to an invading military right away so it's .....all their fault...?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_flight_655
The Fogarty report concluded, "The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [Iran Air Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from takeoff at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down." The fault in the USS Vincennes lying directly in the airplane’s pathway is Captain Rogers'.
*note Mode III is for civilian radio traffic, Mode II is for military
The Vincennes' warnings were on a military channel, addressed to 'Iranian Tomcat'. When Carlson concluded that the Vincennes was referring to IR655 in its warning to turn away or receive fire, he urgently warned IR655 on a civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a military craft and should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a trajectory away from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. Carlson expressed the view that the incident was a mistake brought about by an overly aggressive approach by the captain of the Vincennes.
*so, in essence they tried to warn them but on the radio frequency
http://www.history.com/exhibits/military_blunders/mb_iasd.html
The United States claimed that the aircraft was outside the commercial jet flight corridor, flying at only 7,000 feet, and on a descent toward the Vincennes. One month later, U.S. authorities admitted that both the Vincennes and the airbus had been within a recognized commercial flightpath, and that the Iranian jet was flying at 12,000 feet and not descending. The U.S. Navy's final report blamed crew error caused by psychological stress on men in combat for the first time.
*so, they initially lied?
as for the admiral didn't give the order to fire...
http://www.history.com/exhibits/military_blunders/mb_iasd.html
U.S. Navy Captain Will C. Rogers III ordered a single missile fired from his warship, which hit its target and killed all 290 people aboard the commercial airbus.....
looks like you are wrong, once again
and you will still blame it on the Iranians, right?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
It says "Captain" Will C. Rogers.
-Enoch Powell
well argued.
Nonetheless, I've spoken with people who work for the CIA and lived during the time of the bombing. They're liberal as hell. But, they disagree emphatically with you about the information.
The simple problem is, the information you are using is bogus. The accepted government account is factual and yours' is not. I'm sorry that it's so hard to believe the government is right.
I can tell that you sympathize heavily with anyone who has ever been attacked by the United States. That is not because of anything we've done wrong, but because you're anti-American. My hunch is that you're a communist. In which case, you don't really belong in this country.
Good discussion.
-Enoch Powell
yes, it does....
http://forums.pearljam.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4041941
that same time, the Vincennes, under the command of Captain William C. Rogers III and fitted with the then-new AEGIS combat system, was nearby in the Strait of Hormuz.
you know, you don't have to be an admiral to command a ship, don't you??
oh?
http://www.history.com/exhibits/military_blunders/mb_iasd.html
The United States claimed that the aircraft was outside the commercial jet flight corridor, flying at only 7,000 feet, and on a descent toward the Vincennes. One month later, U.S. authorities admitted that both the Vincennes and the airbus had been within a recognized commercial flightpath, and that the Iranian jet was flying at 12,000 feet and not descending. The U.S. Navy's final report blamed crew error caused by psychological stress on men in combat for the first time.
The Vincennes' warnings were on a military channel, addressed to 'Iranian Tomcat'. When Carlson concluded that the Vincennes was referring to IR655 in its warning to turn away or receive fire, he urgently warned IR655 on a civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a military craft and should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a trajectory away from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. Carlson expressed the view that the incident was a mistake brought about by an overly aggressive approach by the captain of the Vincennes.
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_flight_655
Captain David Carlson, commander of the USS Sides, the warship stationed near to the Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers' aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago". His comment referred to incidents on June 2, when Rogers had sailed the Vincennes too close to an Iranian frigate undertaking a lawful search of a bulk carrier, launched a helicopter within 2-3 miles (3.2-4.8 km) of an Iranian small craft despite rules of engagement requiring a four-mile (6.4 km) separation, and opened fire on a number of small Iranian military boats. Of those incidents, Carlson commented, "Why do you want an Aegis cruiser out there shooting up boats? It wasn't a smart thing to do." At the time of Rogers' announcement to higher command that he was going to shoot down the plane, Carlson is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have been thunderstruck: "I said to folks around me, 'Why, what the hell is he doing?' I went through the drill again. F-14. He's climbing. By now this damn thing is at 7,000 feet." However, Carlson thought the Vincennes might have more information, and was unaware that Rogers had been wrongly informed that the plane was diving.
According to the BBC documentary of 2002, Carlson identified IR655 as a civilian craft based on its radar signature, its 'squawk' (IFF) code, and the fact that it was ascending at low speed - an attacking military aircraft would be descending towards the Vincennes at high speed. At first Carlson thought that the 'Iranian Tomcat' identified by the Vincennes was actually another craft that he could not identify, as it was surprising to Carlson that the Vincennes crew would mistake a Tomcat (with which one would expect the US Navy to be familiar) with a civilian aircraft. The Vincennes' warnings were on a military channel, addressed to 'Iranian Tomcat'. When Carlson concluded that the Vincennes was referring to IR655 in its warning to turn away or receive fire, he urgently warned IR655 on a civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a military craft and should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a trajectory away from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. Carlson expressed the view that the incident was a mistake brought about by an overly aggressive approach by the captain of the Vincennes
Craig, Morales & Oliver, in a slide presentation published in M.I.T.'s Spring 2004 Aeronautics & Astronautics, as the "USS Vincennes Incident," commented that Captain Rogers had "an undeniable and unequivocal tendency towards what I call 'picking a fight.'" On his own initiative, Rogers moved the Vincennes 50 miles northeast to join the USS Montgomery. An angry Captain McKenna ordered Rogers back to Abu Musa, but the Vincennes helicopter pilot, Lt Mark Collier, followed the Iranian speedboats as they retreated north, eventually taking some fire:
"...the Vincennes jumps back into the fray. Heading towards the majority of the speedboats, he is unable to get a clear target. Also, the speedboats are now just slowly milling about in their own territorial waters. Despite clear information to the contrary, Rogers informs command that the gunboats are gathering speed and showing hostile intent and gains approval to fire upon them at 0939. Finally, in another fateful decision, he crosses the 12-mile limit off the coast and enters illegally into Iranian waters."
but, i know it doesn't matter to you if your government lies to you or not
i'm anti-american??? i am against crimes perputrated by our government. and thankfully it's not for you to decide where i belong
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Oh, barroom, you are such a funny little man. Why come back to the AMT after so long? Did ya get lonely?
I said that the Admiral you spoke of did not give the order to fire. I was correct.
Wrong again, chum.
-Enoch Powell
Yer damn right because you'd be living in Cuba if it were up to me, getting a taste of what your socialist crap is all about!
-Enoch Powell
yes, the admiral i spoke of only investigated it...how would he be in a position to give the order...?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way