U.S.: Voices on Recording May Not Have Been From Iranian Speedboats

[havocmom]

Source: ABC News

Just two days after the U.S. Navy released the eerie video of Iranian speedboats swarming around American warships, which featured a chilling threat in English, the Navy is saying that the voice on the tape could have come from the shore or from another ship.
...

The Navy never said specifically where the voices came from, but many were left with the impression they had come from the speedboats because of the way the Navy footage was edited.

Today, the spokesperson for the U.S. admiral in charge of the Fifth Fleet clarified to ABC News that the threat may have come from the Iranian boats, or it may have come from somewhere else.

We're saying that we cannot make a direct connection to the boats there," said the spokesperson. "It could have come from the shore, from another ship passing by. However, it happened in the middle of all the very unusual activity, so as we assess the information and situation, we still put it in the total aggregate of what happened Sunday morning. I guess we're not saying that it absolutely came from the boats, but we're not saying it absolutely didn't."

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4115702&page=1

---

cheney may not have all the military brass under his thumb. Someone squealed about the nukes on the B-52 and now the Navy won't say that they are sure where the threats came from the other day.

[alfredo]

1. Will the threat level stay Jolly Olly Orange, or

settle back down to Goofy Grape?

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. LOL! You're showing your age; personally I'm guessing

we'll finally hit Choo-Choo Cherry before Dubya's term is done...

[geardaddy]

33. Yeah, that totally brought me back.

So I looked up Funny Face drinks online. They used to have a couple of really racist names:

Chinese Cherry
Inj*n Orange

[geardaddy]

35. Separated at birth?

[Art_from_Ark]

58. Something tells me we'll never hit

Lefty Lemon-Lime

[alfredo]

65. Hell, I remember Peter Wheat.

This is a Walt Kelly character. You might know him better for Pogo

[shain from kane]

2. As I said the other day, the "I'm comin' to get you" was from Foxey Lady by The Jimi Hendrix

Experience. Probably from an Arab radio station or CD playing in the background. I'm pretty sure they like Jimi over there. Everybody likes him.


YEAH
I'M GONNA TAKE YOU HOME YEAH
I WON'T DO YOU NO HARM NO
YOU GOT TO BE ALL MINE, ALL MINE
FOXY LADY
HERE I COME BABY, I'M COMIN' TO GET YA

[Purveyor]

3. No doubt those pesky Iranians with their own footage/audio of the incident prompted

this 'clarification'.

How dare they have cameras to document their/our actions. :sarcasm:

[gratuitous]

4. If the past is any prologue

It doesn't matter if there was a credible threat, or any threat at all. If Bush wants to invade another country, he'll do it regardless of whether a war has been declared, or if someone else shot first, or anything.

The military brass, more concerned with their position and their pension, won't say a word. It will mean thousands sent to their death (or worse), but what's that in comparison to retiring with a general's pension?

[rodeodance]

5. Topic subject US Protests Iran Harassment of US Ships

Forum Name Latest Breaking News
Topic subject US Protests Iran Harassment of US Ships
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3132797#3132797
3132797, US Protests Iran Harassment of US Ships
Posted by rodeodance on Thu Jan-10-08 12:47 PM

Source: ap


Jan 10, 1:35 PM EST

US Protests Iran Harassment of US Ships

By MATTHEW LEE
Associated Press Writer
AP Photo
AP Photo
Advertisement
Buy AP Photo Reprints

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States has lodged a formal diplomatic protest with Iran over a weekend incident in which Iranian speedboats harassed U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, the State Department said Thursday.

The protest, which repeats public U.S. complaints about the "provocative" action, was sent to the Iranian Foreign Ministry through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, which looks after U.S. interests in Iran, deputy spokesman Tom Casey told reporters. He could not say if the Iranians had actually received and acknowledged receipt of the protest

"We have ... prepared and given to the Swiss a diplomatic note formally protesting this incident," he said. "It reiterates the points that we have made publicly in the last few days."

"We certainly don't want to see the Iranians taking any kind of provocative actions or provocative steps against our ships or against any ships that are transiting what is a primary international waterway," Casey said.

.............

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAN?SITE=PASCR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[rodeodance]

6. so the US once again looks Foolish for the world to see.

[bdamomma]

7. hmm...they are backing up from the rhetoric someone is throwing

a wrench into cheney's diabolical plan.

[rockybelt]

28. Bingo!!!

[Bitwit1234]

8. I read that two difference sources say that the videos seem to be partly false.

Especially the part where they say they are going to bomb the boats. I would not put any damn thing past bush and cheney. They are going to throw us into war with Iran before the slink out of office. Just wait.

[jayfish]

9. Please Digg This Story...

lest it disappear down the memory hole.

http://www.digg.com/world_news/Voices_on_Recording_May_Not_Have_Been_From_Iranian_Speedboat

Jay

[ShortnFiery]

39. Thank you Winston Smith, et. al.

Those of us who choose to not entertain those "five minutes of hate fests" against those wiley Persians are ashamed MOST for
far too many of our democratic leaders' cowardice as Dick and George continue to lead us toward The Rapture.

[Solly Mack]

10. I guess I'm not saying they're absolutely full of shit

but I'm not saying they're absolutely not full of shit

[Jacobin]

82. .............

You made me giggle

[ProgressIn2008]

154. No better way to put it!

[rodeodance]

11. Quelle surprise! Pentagon flip-flopping on Iran Naval Confrontation story....

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Quelle surprise! Pentagon flip-flopping on Iran Naval Confrontation story....
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2652885#2652885
2652885, Quelle surprise! Pentagon flip-flopping on Iran Naval Confrontation story....
Posted by marmar on Thu Jan-10-08 01:50 PM

from ThinkProgress:


Pentagon Backtracks On Naval Confrontation With Iran, Says Threat May Not Have Come From Iranians



Earlier this week, the Pentagon said that three of its Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz had been harassed and provoked by Iranian speedboats. The Navy said it had felt so threatened that it was about to open fire on the boats. A four-minute video of the episode provided to the public by the Pentagon contained one particularly harrowing moment:

“I am coming to you,” a heavily accented voice says in English. “You will explode after a few minutes.”

Navy officials said the voice was recorded from the internationally recognized bridge-to-bridge radio channel.


Some bloggers were immediately skeptical, noting the voice sounded more Arab than Persian. Iran released its own video, arguing the footage did not show any Iranian boats approaching the U.S. vessels, nor any provocation. Today, the Navy acknowledged that the verbal threat made in the tape may not have been Iranian:

“We’re saying that we cannot make a direct connection to the boats there,” said the spokesperson. “It could have come from the shore, from another ship passing by. However, it happened in the middle of all the very unusual activity, so as we assess the information and situation, we still put it in the total aggregate of what happened Sunday morning. I guess we’re not saying that it absolutely came from the boats, but we’re not saying it absolutely didn’t.”


Without definitive evidence that it was Iran who was making the provocative verbal threats, Bush nevertheless seized on the episode — just hours before he was set to depart for the Middle East — to underscore “his assertion that the Iranians are capable of acting recklessly.” “We viewed it as a provocative act,” Bush said. Yesterday, he warned Iran, “There will be serious consequences if they attack our ships, pure and simple.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/10/iran-gunboats /

[Roland99]

20. US sailors aboard the ships joking around and making banter on the channel?

[Pavulon]

52. Umm no..

If they were at general quarters that is not very probable. Soviet knock off forces use central command structures. A shore transmitter could have been communicating with the boats and transmitting to the navy at the same time.

Who cares. The video shows plenty.

[Uncle Joe]

12. One thing about those voices, they seemed clear and audible to me,

I would imagine on a roaring speedboat, that wouldn't have been the case.

[Hissyspit]

23. Have just posted Iran's video in the Political Videos section, so you can compare the audio:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=82920&mesg_id=82920

[pleah]

13. Well, gee, we didn't see that coming now did we.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. This would be the "Hand in the Cookie Jar" version of retracting

Ouchy ouch ouch ouch.

Yeeeep.

[fascisthunter]

15. It Was Ollie North (nt)

[gateley]

16. It's a good thing I'm already too ashamed to visit other countries --

I wouldn't be able to show my face after this one. :eyes:

[dipsydoodle]

18. Maybe it was somebody rod fishing on the bank

who had a megaphone. :shrug:

[harun]

19. Guess they didn't expect the Iranians to have videotaped and

recorded the whole thing too.

OOPS!!!

[Ian David]

21. The give-away was when the voice said, "Good evening, gentlemen. All your base are belong to us."nt

[BulletproofLandshark]

34. The Admiral with the fifth fleet later added

"Somebody set us up the bomb"

[kitty1]

38. ROFL That was great!!

[Hand]

40. For Great Justice!!! nt

:rofl:

[SydneyBristow]

41. LOL

:freak: :hide:

Oh man that's awesome...

Syd

[Ian David]

22. The voice was from Bill O'Reilly. He was angry that the Navy ship was blocking his shot. n/t

[windoe]

24. Doesn't match the Iranian video of the same incident.

On that tape, the Iranians were just asking for ships'coordinates (with a very thick accent easy to misunderstand) before speaking in Farsi. Where's a translator when you need one, oh yeah they were all fired.

[antiimperialist]

25. This raises the question: Are Bin Laden tapes real? or U.S. manufactured

If the US government is capable of lying to the American people, assigning voices to Iranians that do not belong to them, isn't it the possible that they may have manufactured phoney "Bin Laden audiotapes"?

[Ecumenist]

44. E-X-A-C-T-L-Y!!!!!

That's what I said from the get-go. Especially considering the much too coincidental releases of the tapes whenever the idiot and satan jr find themselves in hot water.

[boricua79]

45. very possible

after all, they manufactured the Gulf of Tonkin incident...

they have devised contigency plans to terrorize the American people (Operation Northwoods, 1960s),

they provoked General Santa Ana in Mexico with cross border raids into attacking the U.S. to justify the Mexican war.

they lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (Downing street Memos)

they've wiretapped us and only revealed it when someone's leaked out the information.

they ran Abu Ghraib and rendition CIA camps all throughout the world, not to mention the FBI's COINTELPRO program and the CIA's anti-leftist campaigns in Latin America?

Can and ARE they willing to lie to us?

Sure...they have, they do, and they will...until we wake up.

[Pavulon]

55. It was jesus..

the speculation is that the transmission is not from the boats, not that is is fake. That does not place their origin.

We have billion dollar resources that can pinpoint any radio transmission from space.

Soviet modeled forces are generally centrally controlled. The controller could be transmitting to the navy. Odd timing. Someone involved in the incident transmitted that message.

You could say it was the gummit' trying to start ww3, or it could be an iranian transmitting on that frequency.

[antiimperialist]

26. Or could it be that whoever planned this did it in order to boost McCain in NH

Since he is seen as tough in foreign policy, and scary times benefit candidates with those perceived qualities?

Or Giuliani perhaps?

[antiimperialist]

27. Israel has the capability and motivation to trick us into war with Iran n/t

[Rockholm]

29. Well, duh.

[QUALAR]

30. Origin

It's obvious that the message originated from Rove Studios at an undisclosed location.

[Gonnuts]

47. or say ...

... from one of OUR ships ... or from the same guys who put together the binLaden tapes, or the phony FEMA press conferences ... or ... anywhere except the Iranians ...

and by God, anyone can see how two 18'ft speed boats would be a big threat to destroyers ... why if they rammed our ships full speed they might chip the paint or something equally as bad ...

[DissedByBush]

59. Please refresh my memory

How big was the boat that took out the USS Cole and killed 17 of our sailors?

The USS Stark was taken out by an Exocet (BTW, fired from an Iranian Mirage fighter without provocation), killing 37 of our sailors, and that only has a 350 pound warhead.

How big of a bomb can an 18' speedboat carry?

[chchchanges]

74. USS Stark was attacked by Iraq not Iran...

The Iran-Iraq war was in full swing at that time.

BTW, now that you mention it. I wonder how big was the American warhead that took out Iran Air Flight 655 Airbus killing 300 innocent civilians without provocation?

[Pavulon]

80. Defenses off line

no phalanx, iff mis-identification. Ship had no defense.

[Thothmes]

143. Nor defenseless

They also have deck mounted 50 cal machine guns and 20mm chain guns. These are probably better in close than the CIWS.

[DissedByBush]

163. Two different animals

Newer CIWS configurations have a surface mode. The Phalanx works by criteria, speed, type of object (aerial, surface), direction (it must be coming at the ship), etc. It fires automatically when these criteria are met. The Phalanx would have automatically shredded any of those closer boats as soon as they turned towards the ship. It doesn't recognize friend or foe, it just destroys everything it considers to be a threat (although its track record against missiles isn't very good).

The other machine guns (in this case, 25mm cannon and .30 machine guns) are perfect for the boats, and would allow the gunner to stop shooting as soon as they retreated, as they'd be instant flotsam with the CIWS. But they're completely useless against an incoming missile.

[DissedByBush]

133. You're right, Iraq

Memory must be going.

But for the Vincennes, that hothead captain and inexperienced crew (tried to contact the plane on frequencies that airliners don't listen to) still paranoid from the Stark incident fired two missiles. It was an Aegis, so it was probably standard missiles. Depending on which version, possibly no explosives: kinetic kill.

I still haven't forgiven Bush Sr. for refusing to apologize. A moral country apologizes for its mistakes. It doesn't act like an immoral corporation that pays off people it hurt in settlements, always with no admission of guilt or responsibility.

[Truth2Tell]

78. But

if any of those speed boats had set a direct course toward any of those warships they wouldn't have come within 50 yards without being destroyed. The Cole was surprised in harbor. Those warships in the Gulf were in no danger at all.

And of course there wouldn't be any issue here at all if we didn't have a fleet of warships cruising back and forth off the coast of Iran. Talk about harassment.

And if you wanna talk about the USS Stark, I'll call that and raise you one Iran Air Flight 655

Edit for xcerpt:

Iran Air Flight 655, also known as IR655, was a civilian airliner shot down by US missiles on Sunday July 3, 1988 over the Strait of Hormuz... R655 was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 38 non-Iranians, 66 children and one pregnant woman. Both IR655 and the Vincennes were inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the attack.

The U.S. government... never admitted wrongdoing, accepted responsibility, nor apologized for the incident. In August 1988 Newsweek quoted the vice president (Bush) as saying; "I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever, I don't care what the facts are..."

The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Lustig, the air-warfare co-ordinator, won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement," noting his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" that enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure"

[DissedByBush]

134. After the Vincennes

The Navy is very restrained about using lethal force, even to their detriment.

[Truth2Tell]

136. Do you have any examples

of when the Navy's "restraint" has been to their detriment?

[DissedByBush]

156. The Cole

They should have blown that boat out of the water as it approached, but the rules of engagement prevented them from doing so ("Don't shoot unless shot at") without first obtaining permission, and any officer wouldn't want to risk a court martial by giving the order to shoot first.

[Truth2Tell]

157. The DoD USS Cole Commission Report

found that the Standing Rules of Engagement (SROE) were adequate to have protected the Cole had they been followed: http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pdf/usscolecommission01092001.pdf

The actual current SROE are classified (as they were then) so we don't exactly know what they are, but they are very unlikely to include allowances for small craft coming alongside a Destroyer unmolested.

Even Stratfor, who is shilling for the Bush admin on the Hormuz incident, acknowledges that the SROE allow for engagement of approaching vessels: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:nEY18nPIoy0J:www.stratfor.com/analysis/iran_u_s_unusual_details_about_strait_hormuz_incident+naval+rules+of+engagement&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=47&gl=us

...Based on standing rules of engagement, the U.S. surface combatants likely already had the authority to fire at the Iranian boats in self-defense, but the Iranian boats sped away before any shots were fired.

If the Iranian gunboats indeed made it within 600 feet of the U.S. vessels, as reports claim, the latter were in an extremely troubling position...

Well before that distance, standing U.S. Navy rules of engagement probably authorize the use of deadly force. Four 5-inch guns and probably a dozen .50-caliber heavy machine guns were in a position to engage these ships.

A U.S. ship captain, confronted with a threat to his ship, is authorized — and obligated — at all times to act to protect it. In this case, no such action took place. This means one of three things: that the rules of engagement suspended this standing order, that the commanders of the ships involved failed to act in accordance with standing orders or that the incident never rose to the level of threat. (The final scenario is the most likely.)

The only place I ever saw this "inadequate rules of engagement" business regarding the Cole was by the neo-con tabloid disinformation rag Washington Times. Sadly, Wikipedia and others continue to quote a ludicrous and unsubstantiated W. Times anecdote allegedly from a Cole crew member regarding events on the day of the attack. This account was never confirmed by the formal investigations of the Cole bombing and doesn't jibe with any common sense understanding of Rules of Engagement after an attack. In other words, it's total bullshit.

[DissedByBush]

158. CYA

"found that the Standing Rules of Engagement (SROE) were adequate to have protected the Cole had they been followed"

CYA for those in charge. The ones writing the SROE aren't the ones who will be killed by it.

"Even Stratfor, who is shilling for the Bush admin on the Hormuz incident, acknowledges that the SROE allow for engagement of approaching vessels:"

And if they'd fired they'd be risking court martial.

"This account was never confirmed by the formal investigations of the Cole bombing and doesn't jibe with any common sense understanding of Rules of Engagement after an attack. In other words, it's total bullshit."

Yes, shooting back *after* an attack is safe to do. Little to late then, don't you think?

No, it's how our military has been for a while. For example, I personally knew a lot of soldiers who were deployed to Kosovo, interviewed dozens of others and read interviews from hundreds more. The thing they most feared was their "Don't shoot until shot at" rules of engagement. I saw an interview with a sniper in Baghdad who was told not to shoot an obvious target -- a target that later was part of an ambush that killed some of our troops. Every time an innocent is killed is a major PR victory against any US administration, even if those innocents were set up by our enemies. Therefore, they set up rules of engagement to protect the administration from embarrassment, while exposing our servicemembers to harm.

I know Bush will spin this as far as he needs to fuel his aggressive nature, but my concern is for these sailors, and any after them.

[Truth2Tell]

159. If the narrative you want to believe is that our troops

simply don't have enough leeway to shoot at will, then nothing anyone says is going to change your mind. Personally, my observation is that they've been rather trigger happy - especially in Iraq.

"And if they'd fired they'd be risking court martial."

Of all the cases of our forces letting loose on cars full of unarmed civilians at checkpoints, and dropping bombs on residential areas killing women and children, how many court martials have you seen? I find it very hard to believe that our sailors or troops are worried about court martial given the lack of such thing in the last 5 years.

But I'm sure we can agree to disagree.

[DissedByBush]

160. Not changing my mind

"simply don't have enough leeway to shoot at will, then nothing anyone says is going to change your mind"

Your personal observation. Okay. How many veterans do you know. How many have you talked to after they came back? How many Kosovo vets do you know? How many have you talked to? The number is pretty high for me. Are you yourself a war veteran? I am. At least in Daddy's war for oil there were clear ROE, since it was more like the standard war: you here, enemy there, attack. Now we are fighting among civilians. Normally our troops can deal with that, except the enemy dresses as those same civilians and often uses them for protection.

Your car at the checkpoint? It exhibited all of the traits of a approaching car bomb. And notice how much flak they catch from people like you for trying to protect themselves -- that's why the ROE keeps getting restricted. You put the pressure on the politicians, the politicians tighten the ROE, our troops get killed. Thank you. The enemy fires on us from a building, we return fire, escalate fire as we're pinned down, maybe have to bring in air support, innocents in the building are killed and you blame our troops?

And you are deluded if you think our servicemembers would ever purposely drop a bomb on a residential area without reason, like if the enemy yet again is using civilians as a shield. Even then we avoid such things as much as possible.

We know Bush doesn't care about one life lost, Iraqi or American. But don't put that on our troops.

[Thothmes]

142. USS Cole

200-250 lbs of good military grade explosive is sufficient to blow a big hole in the side of a modern destroyer. The shell plating is only 5/8" thick in most places. If they could get close enough to ram one of them, it could do a significant amount of damage.

[Javaman]

147. And how does this address the suspected false message? nt

[Thothmes]

152. Response to statement in msg 47.

[Javaman]

153. Duh, sorry, didn't follow the thread line. :) nt

[rurallib]

31. Heard it was from the North Vietnamese Communists

[lonestarnot]

32. Told you crashcart might have been at the helm of one of them.

[boricua79]

36. backpedaling because the Iranians called their bluff and presented video

Let's hear it for all those who posted here, "Don't trust the U.S. government".

We sometimes get ridiculed, and we've been vindicated.

Let me say it again...don't TRUST THIS GOVERNMENT...definitely not under Bush.

[Pavulon]

48. So they took the audio from radio comm

and laid it over the tape. Or some commander on shore transmitted over the channel. It is a mighty damn coincidental event that they were close to those ships and that message just pops up.

Point is the vessels were very close. The video shows vessels to close.

But since it is cool, please give that s try at norfolk. See what they do.

Bush does not control what come Naval staff is doing.

You are not vindicated. You are latching on to a bit of information that supports your position.

[boricua79]

63. and you, sir,

are trying SO hard to believe your government.

Read up on William Blum, and other historians who have documented the blatant LIES we've been told.

This one is not even very covert in nature...it mirrors the Gulf of Tonkin incident incredibly.

If you don't have the "goods" on the enemy, you don't release a video and strut around thinking you're right. Saying, "oops..the audio doesn't match the video" doesn't cut it. You lose legitimacy in that.

It doesn't make rational, common sense either. Why would the Iranians, knowing the have a LOT more to lose than the United States, provoke the United States and give it a cassus belli. I'm sorry, the Iranians are NOT stupid. To risk open war just to taunt American ships would be the most absolutely stupid act of naval activity EVER recorded.

I don't buy it...and with the admission of the fake audio, it smells more like an American lie.

[Pavulon]

66. American?

What American are you speaking of? Bush, Rove, Navy conspiracy? American is a pretty broad brush.

Audio was not fake, only can not be confirmed as transmitted from the speedboats. Soviet knockoffs always use centralized command and control.

Not CB band radio. Someone involved transmitted that. I'm sure a TLA could identify the source to a pinpoint.

The Iranians really are stupid. They mined international waters (an act of war) and we stomped them. They don't like the navy, we used to shoot these little boats over the horizon. They haven't gotten much smarter.

So I choose to believe the navy over the folks who bombed the marine barracks in 83.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

81. Rense. I knew it...

Janes defense is a good source. Rense is the National Enquirer. The KH system was co developed as a drone.

Read up.

There is no reason to look at military capabilities of Iran and the US in a conflict.

The US will not start a war, but just like last time, if Iran provokes an incident we will leave a text book case of how to break toys.

Praying Mantis is still taught in the Naval Academy.

[boricua79]

87. The U.S. will not start the war

that's not their style, if you know you're U.S. history. The U.S. likes to play duplicitous games. It will either create a Gulf of Tonkin, Remember the Alamo event, or it will use Israel as the launch pad, and come to the "defense" of Israel after an israeli strike.

Our "textbook" cases failed miserably in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's all we're good at. Destroying "toys'...and then...we fail in the followthrough. Like a guy who's real good at undressing...and then can't get it up.

Shock and Awe in IRaq...and then...FAILURE in occupation.
Shock and Awe in Afghanistan...and then...resurgent Taliban.
Shock and Awe in Vietnam (more bombs dropped than all of World War II together)....and then...rise of the Vietcong and their Tet Offensive.

I love you types...the U.S. "exceptionalism" and "inevitable superiority" types. I love to see your smirks wash off your faces when things don't go as you projected.

Hey moron...while you've been having masturbatory acts while thinking about our glorious armed forces, our national reputation has gone down the drain, our Constitution has been raped, and our economy is in the shithole. And we're more than a Trillion dollar in the crapper in Iraq. We have no national health care...our public education system is a mess...our housing industry is in shambles...our national infrastructure is crumbling, and our kids are being saddled with a huge debt. Plus, we keep polluting their environment and we've lost our Manufacturing base.

Let me know when you'll stop imagining your Command & Conquer video game battles and come back to the reality that our country is imploding, while we explode other countries.

[Pavulon]

93. BTW

Where are you posting from?

My (maybe your) tax dollars payed for 2 billion in aid to Egypt last year.

Did you know the Hilton in Hanoi (not its current name) takes American Express? Yep..

The US Economy drives the world economy. The scale is really amazing.

[boricua79]

97. I'm right here in the USA, friend

MA to be exact.

And you're attempt to paint me as some sort of Vietnamese Communist is laughable. I'm neither Vietnamese nor a communist.

The U.S. economy does NOT drive the world...and we have no manufacturing base and we're in debt to China up to our noses. The dollar is not even stronger than the Canadian dollar

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/08/bloomberg/08bxbux-web.php

You're perception of our grandiose standing is mistaken. You've been reading TOO much Jane's Defense Weekly, and not enough of other sources.

[Pavulon]

104. Take a drive through Greenwich CT

remind me how broke we are..Take a look at the us GDP and then the rest of the world.

I think some online video games generate more wealth than some nations..

We manufacture plenty. First we hated Japan, now china...

[boricua79]

107. hahaha...even Soviet Russia

had its rich sectiosn

The people who live in Greenwich certainly ain't YOU. They're not "faith-based" types. They're rational types. They make rational decisions to run the companies that OWN you, and they devise RATIONAL systems of deception to make sure YOU faith-based types fall in line and believe the patriotic bullshit. And then you faith-based types end up overseas, fighting under "da Flag" (wave it in the air, like you just don't care), while they get to enjoy the warm stovefire in their rich mansions.

America #1, huh! Yipee! Wave that flag, boy... wave that flag!

[Pavulon]

111. Med takin' time

what sector owns you? If you are in MA, what do you do to free yourself from the oppressive hand of the nation trying to take your vital fluids?

[boricua79]

113. I'm a teacher

I try to give back to my community and work in a profession where I don't have to be a, to use a word you like so much, DRONE of the machine. That "frees" me to the extent possible...though I often have to meet with "pledge allegiance" faith-based types like you in my line of work.

You know...the types that want to make Latino kids dressup as Pilgrims and Indians to "celebrate" Thanksgiving...and teach them nothing of what the Settlers did to the Natives.

THOSE Faith-based types...

[Pavulon]

120. I am an Engineer

and get to travel the world on for free. I work for a small company that sells a specialized product. And no it does not kill people. The evil NG paid for my degree and now I have a fun job I enjoy. Many of the places people post about here I have been, many times.

You seem to have a faith problem. Mine would probably be "lapsed" these days but like my service record, irrelevant to anything we have spoken about.

Shame logic is no longer a required course in most liberal arts degrees.

[boricua79]

126. your "faith" is your fealty to the military apparatus

and you believe everything your government tells you

Because you're a worker bee....a drone...a trained dog that performs the tricks the military taught you to do. You found it easy to have someone bark orders to you and you just do it. Even outside the military structure, you still believe the old wives tales and patriotic mess.

HOw very sad for you.

Let me know what the residents of the parts you visit think about us here in the United States after Bush.

[whopis01]

137. Who's calling you a Vietnamese Communist?

It looks like you are reading a little too much into things...

[Truth2Tell]

94. "The US will not start a war"

Really? You sure about that? And are you sure about your statement that the "audio had to have come from someone involved in the incident?" Where do you get your certainty about such things? How do you know the audio wasn't added at a later time?

Wait, I know the answer: Nowhere. You don't actually have any clue. You berate others for speculating, but your blind faith in Dick Cheney is based on even more specious speculation. How rich.

[Pavulon]

103. Blind faith in Dick..

scary. I am no more sure than you are. But common sense has has its place. Well the audio had context in what was going on.

Unless you think it is a complete fake..

[Truth2Tell]

127. Well, I certainly wouldn't

rule it out as a complete fake.

[DissedByBush]

161. Please explain

Nobody's tried to explain my question in #135. We see two different conversations, so the conversation from aboard the USS Hopper is not countered.

[TheWatcher]

37. Well, you have to admit.

Their video is a hell of a lot more believable than ours.

How ANYONE could take ours seriously is beyond me. I simply do not understand how people can be so gullible.

"I am coming to you............You will blow up....."

Give me a fucking break. Maybe we should hire their video producer. It would at least make our propaganda look less pathetic.

[Ecumenist]

42. No kiddin'? I'm sure that I couldn't have been the only one

who was a wee bit dubious when I heard that "recording".

[OwnedByFerrets]

43. In this "post" monkeyboy world, we believe NOTHING anymore...nt

[Judi Lynn]

46. Hey, but Bush said they are fishing in troubled waters! Woooooo!

How he adores making his nasty threats. What a shame this one fell through for him before he could get off some other nasty, ominous, potentially scary remarks to get them all shaking in their boots.

[Pavulon]

49. Rent a boat at norfolk

and give that a try. If you live you will be jailed. Audio or no audio that video shows small craft very close to naval warships.

If the transmission originated from shore (soviet model militaries are ground controlled) or from a vessel is not the point.

That act on video is dangerous.

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. You must be joking.

Did you watch the Iranian video? Or even the US video?

In both the boats were several hundred yards off, and sure, they were in the path of the ships, but they were also moving MUCH faster than the ships and at no time in either vid was there an indication that they were rushing the ships. The real difference between the vids is that from the Iranian perspective they are OBVIOUSLY several hundred yards - meaning like half a fucking mile - off, while from the Navy tape, looking down from a big ship at little boats, they look like they could be as close as a couple hundred yards.

[Pavulon]

57. Ok drive up to Virginia Beach

and put your boat in. Find a warship putting out and try it. Let me know how that works out for you..

The Navy and Iran have a long history. The tape shows vessels close and on collision course.

The commander did the RIGHT thing by not firing. But they are obviously pushing their luck.

[tabasco]

60. Yeah, the navy and Iran do have a long history.

As I recall, our Navy shot one of their civilian airliners out of the sky one day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[Pavulon]

61. Right AFTER

they mined international waters (a REAL act of war) which damaged a navy ship. SO the navy executed praying mantis (sinking and damaging several capitol ships) then we continues to sink their speed boats. Like the ones you see in video. Except we did it miles away with radar guided cannons.

655 is a regrettable incident. I am quite familiar with the incident.

[boricua79]

68. they mined the harbor

because they were at war with iraq

and the United States took sides in that war and actively attacked Iranian forces.

Despite that, attacking a civilian airliner is a warcrime and there is NO excuse for that.

The U.S. profited by selling weapons to Iran to fight Iran, and attacking Iran indirectly.

We were involved in that war...and we were on the Iraqi side.

As for today's conflict...I wouldn't be so cocky about our Navy's capabilities. The Iranians have Russian-made Sunburn missiles. In an U.S. - Iran conflict, one thing is for sure: our ships would end up at the bottom of the Strait of Hormuz. If Iran has one advantage on us, it's their capability to sink our fleet in the Strait.

With modern missile technology, the Navy would be the branch of the armed forces that would suffer the most losses in a direct conflict, especially one where forces will be exposed to enemy fire. Of course, ground forces would be vulnerable.

[Pavulon]

72. To much rense, light on Jane's

"for sure" is an ignorant position. Even IF they managed to sink vessels the dog pile they would suffer from a first strike would be appalling. In the event of a first strike by them, they would be reduced. For example every dam in the country would be blown at the EXACT same time. You think that would have an impact? If you look at the scale of death inflicted in ww2 from strategic bombing and then look at the modern air force (100k payload on strait bomber)
you think third has been reduced?
A first strike by Iran on US interests is insane.

BTW:
the KH platform (nato sunburn) was a us drone. co developed with russian and us companies. A ramjet device. that means we used it for target practice.

Iran is a 3rd world nation. We spend more in defense than their gdp. In a real war they have no chance.

Iran has a long history with the US. France bombed the republican guard by the way. After they murdered their personnel as well.

[boricua79]

76. Iran is a 3rd world nation. We spend more in defense than their gdp."

Yeah, we said that about Iraq too...tell it to the 20,000 or so American soldiers who ride around in wheelchairs, or who are missing half their heads from roadside bombs. Arrogance got us into Vietnam and this war...and in both cases, it netted us losses. Humility is in order.

Don't like Rense...how about this?

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1048

What France did with Iraq's Republican Guard is irrelevant.

A little reading from that Rense article, since you're too lazy to read it. The Iranians have a missile even more powerful than the Sunburn (Yakhonts), and they have hundreds of Exocents (the same missiles that the Argentinians used to sink 2 ships from Britain.

"The US ships in the Gulf will already have come within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulf's northern shore. Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field.

Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I've mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although we've never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf.

Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline?

In 2001, Jane's Defense Weekly reported that Iran was attempting to acquire anti-ship missiles from Russia. Ominously, the same report also mentioned that the more advanced Yakhonts missile was "optimized for attacks against carrier task forces." Apparently its guidance system is "able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts." The numbers were not disclosed."

[Pavulon]

84. They used ASM in mantis

we squished them. If Iran STARTS a war they will set into effect a chain of events that has been planned for decades.

You are aware the KH platform was used as a drone by the navy right?

The UK did not have the ability to establish complete air superiority over their enemy. We do.

We are not the uk, we do not have one aircraft carrier, we have immense resources.

Iran has no interest in any conflict with the US.

[boricua79]

91. you mean

we have multiple carriers that will be just more targets for the sunburn and Yakhonts? Can you guarantee we will be able to knock out all launching sources for these missiles before they sink our fleet? I'm willing to bet you can't make that guarantee.
Your air superiority is worthless if it can't guarantee the safety of our Navy

As for "planning for decades", if you're talking about those geniuses that are running the Iraq war, I have a bridge I want to sell you...

I'll flip it on you...the U.S. has no interest in a conflict with Iran. But draft-dodgers like Bush and Cheney, who have absolutely nothing to lose, do. That's why our generals have threatened to quit if we start a war. A few more articles for you.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

and I quote,

"“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

Read that last set of words... "question whether such an attack would be EFFECTIVe or EVEN POSSIBLE". Where's your SUPERIORITY NOW, tough guy? That's your own Generals thinking that.

and how about this article, detailing "no military option for Iran" from experts...even from RIGHT-WING thintanks like Heritage Foundation.

http://thinkprogress.org/iran-military-option

You've been pwned! Off to the kiddie table with you....

[Pavulon]

98. Read RENSE

it is THE resource..

The Navy does not be in the range of that waepon system to inflict massive damage. That is after the black jets kill AA targets.


Our (where ever you are posting from) generals will take DEFENSIVE action against any nation.

Are we playing counter strike here? You going to break out l33t?

[boricua79]

101. where's your Navy ships now?

are they in range or not? You're assumption is that they will be out of range...but as we speak, Navy ships are INSIDE the Strait...easily within range.

We haven't taken a DEFENSIVE action since Pearl Harbor, buddy. Read up on American history. We like to fake incidents, overturn governments covertly, assassinate political rivals domestically and in foreign nations, and do things BEHIND the scenes. Nobody's attacked the U.S. since then...yet we've fought countless wars. Read "A Country Made by war" or William Blum's "Killing Hope".

Your vision of a virginal, maiden-like U.S. which only fights in "DEFENSE" is completely wrong. It's the other way around. We've been very imperial in nature.

Your jingoistic fantasies do not match up to reality. I don't know nothing about Counterstrike. It doesn't apply to our discussion.

[Pavulon]

105. Well That would require one of those

fancy drones going off first. That would be a first strike.

That would be bad for Iran. Everyone operates behind the scenes.

Imperial, do we have some new stars on the flag??

[boricua79]

110. um...Puerto Rico...Guam

and we still have the Bay of Pigs, which the Cuban government has been claiming as their sovereign territory for decades.

Plus our army is sprawled out in numerous military bases around the world. we're also physically occupying two Muslim nations at the moment (Iraq and Afghanistan).

Show me another nation that has a comparable "empire of military forces" around the world?

Somebody hasn't been doing they're history reading...read up on the U.S. in Latin America while you're at it. Let me help you out with a short list.

Overthrow of Juan Bosch in Dominican republic
overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala.
Bay of Pigs attempt in Cuba
Dirty war against nicaragua (Contra War)
INvasion of TINY Grenada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor - Operation Condor.

And if you REALLY want to educate yourself on this, check out William Blum's "Killing Hope"

[Pavulon]

114. Funny

Who was running the show when we killed communists in LA. George Bush? Nope.

We killed them in Greece too.

We killed lots of communists, seems to have been a consistent foreign policy.

You are talking about territories that have been around a while. Not like we just grabbed them last year.

[boricua79]

115. as if "having them around for a while"

makes their colonial nature any different.

George Bush isn't, hasn't been, and will not be the only Right-wing barbarian, faith-based type to be in our government. Before him, we had Reagan and others, who were equally brutal, imperial murderers.

and what' with the communist thing. I don't know if you read in the other post...I'm not a communist.

You sound very freeperish...enjoy your stay

[Pavulon]

118. Okley dokley

my stay has been quite a while. Just because I dont see eye to eye with you does not me a freeper make.

Hit the library, Janes is free there, you can read all about the sorted history of the US and Iran on the high seas.

Then, after reading something other than rense, come to a rational conclusion.

This is an old circus, we swap monkeys every few years, but the circus changes on its own time.

cheers.

[boricua79]

125. or we FORCE the circus out of town

that's more my style.

[Pavulon]

129. Good Luck..

Let me know how that works out for you.

[whopis01]

138. Cuba has been claiming the Bay of Pigs as their sovereign territory for decades?

I would expect so. That's kind of like saying the US has been claiming San Francisco Bay.

Perhaps you are getting confused with Guantanamo Bay. Perhaps you should brush up on your history reading, particularly in regards to the U.S. in Latin America.

[tabasco]

86. Lest we forget, Saint Ronnie gave Saddam nerve agent, etc.

When they screech, "he gassed his own people", they forget to mention he got the gas from the USA.

Saddam Hussein used those chemical weapons used extensively against Iran, resulting in massive, awful casualties.

http://www.democracyrising.us/content/view/30/74/

http://www.alternet.org/story/15322/

[Pavulon]

90. They made it there.

Not a terribly complex formulation. Simple OP chemical, raid for people. We did help Iraq bleed Iran.

[Truth2Tell]

99. bleed Iran

Is that your euphemism for using poison gas on children? Are you proud of that?

Oh wait, they were Islamo fascist children so it's all OK.

[tabasco]

75. Regrettable incident, huh?

Stubbing your toe is a regrettable incident. Shooting down an airliner full of civilians is an act of terror.

[boricua79]

77. well said! NT

[ConcernedCanuk]

148. Excellent link TB - could've posted a bit of the info - I did - here it is

.
.
.

Iran Air Flight 655, also known as IR655, was a civilian airliner shot down by US missiles on Sunday July 3, 1988 over the Strait of Hormuz, to wards the end of the Iran Iraq War. Operated by Iran Air from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai, UAE, the aircraft flying IR655 was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 38 non-Iranians, 66 children and one pregnant woman. Both IR655 and the Vincennes were inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the attack.

According to the US government, an inexperienced crew mistakenly identified the Iranian airbus as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter. However, the Iranian government has maintained that the Vincennes knowingly shot down a civilian aircraft. The event generated a great deal of controversy and criticism of the US, particularly among Arab nations sympathetic to Iran's Islamic government. Some analysts have blamed US military commanders and the captain of the Vincennes for reckless and aggressive behavior in a tense and dangerous environment.<1><2>

__________________________________________________________________

I read the whole article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

I suggest that anyone that wants to argue with the documentation at Wiki supply links to help me change my opinion of the USA War-Machine as just one "legal" killing machine

Better yet, try to convince the people in the Middle East

Good Luck

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. Again, ALL the tapes show the speedboats were not close enough

to be considered a threat.

Could they be a threat? Of course, if they were packed to the gunnels with C4 and got within spitting distance, which they didn't do because they KNEW that would be considered a threat and they would be shot out of the water.

There is no way a speedboat is a threat to a warship at 700 yards.

Period.

[boricua79]

64. if what you say is true.

why aren't those speedboats at the bottom of the Strait of Hormuz?

Sounds to me like it was not that threatening to those ships, since they didn't do what the "Norfolk" folk would do.

Remember the Maine
Remember the Alamo
Remember the battleships in the Strait of Hormuz!...oh shit...sorry...our audio doesn't match the video.

Forge the last one...but the first two worked excellently to whip up our populations into jingoistic frenzy!

"You provide the pictures, and I'll provide the war" - William Randolph Hearst

"Give me video of them patrolling around our ships, and I'll provide the war" - Bush/Cheney

Any questions?

[Pavulon]

67. "Praying Mantis"

read, learn, speak in context. Iran fucked around and had its pants pulled down by the navy.

They are unhappy with the navy.

That is not patrolling, it is dangerous. They have everything to loose.

Believe what you want.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

79. Psst. Argentina Lost

Nuclear sub made its first kill in that war. Old, out dated technology killed by modern technology. Modern technology flew the Jolly Rogers. We developed that technology. We have it in the gulf. Sunburn is not a hitleresque wonder weapon that the navy is unprepared for. We developed the KH platform with the russians, as a drone. Try Jane's at the library.

I hope no conflict occurs, but the military is built around traditional wars. Braking toys and killing massed equipment and people. Not green zones.

In the event of a conflict the navy will use air power to inflict death on a massive scale. Well out of range of soviet era weapon systems we spent TRILLIONS to develop counter measures against.

cheers.

[boricua79]

83. your "drone"

cannot be verified as being an exact match to the Sunburn. No one knows how well these perform except the Russians who tested them. American can only guess...and one question...do you want to be on an American ship when the Sunburns start to fly. Put your "faith" where your mouth is. If you believe they are no threat...you would have ABSOLUTELY no worry about stating, publicly, that you'd be willing to be on the deck of the USS Nimitz when the Sunburns, Yakhonts, and Exocets start flying. I'd like to see some documented proof of actual 'results' of your Trillions spent on countermeasures...because, so far, it seems the Sunburns and Yakhonts are unstopabble.

The enemy doesn't play by your 'traditional war' rules. If you can't fight a modern war, the army is useless. The U.S. Army cannot successfully run an occupation. Brute force cannot convince an occupied people to not resist. Brute UNEDUCATED force cannot understand the cultural and political nuances to pacify dissent and resistance. This is why in Iraq we're failing miserably. We broke everything "traditionally", and then didn't know how to address the problems that came after. and when, inevitably, insurgents sprung up, we had no other solutions but to resort to abusive raids into civilian homes, thereby digging our initial hole deeper, and deeper, and deeper.

Your faith in your armed forces is very misplaced. By the way, what you doing here in the U.S. of A? Shouldn't you be enlisted? They need you, soldier!

[Pavulon]

88. Been there..

MY armed forces stopped a european genocide. Maybe stopped a wider war. Definite benefit to the residents of the former Yugoslavia. Spent a year deployed, fucking sucked then. Bye bye college, new wife, family. Not that that is relevant to this discussion.

Has a sunburn been fired in combat? Has the navy (any navy) lost a ship to this weapon?

In the event of a first strike on a navy target(s) the punishment payed out from the air alone would be horrible. The army is not required to contain and kill a target. That could be floating vessels, equipment, or a city. There are a few countries in the world that can do that, the US is one of them.

My point is very clear. Iran has a long history with the Navy. They play games, like the USSR did. So long as the rules are observed, everyone lives.

[boricua79]

95. hey, if you're willing to give away

a wife and child and college, you drank the Kool-Aid and lost that lottery game. You sure you felt you were "defending" me and my "radical ilk" who "hate" the troops? I hope that trade off was worth it.

The sunburn has been tested by Russian forces against targets of the same size and speed as American carriers. Unless they're lying (and I don't the Iranians and Chinese are going to pay for products that do not produce results), they'll do what they were made to do. The Russian Army is also equipped with them, so I doubt they'll skimp on their own weaponry.

you're response is the standard, arrogant one: we have the capability to unlease massive destruction. Great...and what will that accomplish? You'll commit mass murder and accomplish absolutely NOTHING. The Iranian people will become inflamed and you will have doomed the United States reputation with a yoke of war crimes. But...we destroyed their cities...excellent.

We have the capability to launch nukes, but we can't realistically (unless others brandish nukes against us). We ahve the capability to use poison gas, but we won't. We have the capability to use biological weapons...but we won't unless others usei t first.

Your massive destruction weaponry is useless without a PURPOSE for it. we have targets all over Iran.. But what's the purpose....what's the solution...what's the hoped for ending? And will we achieve it by massive destruction? Will the American people stand idly by while we destroy civilian cities in Iran?

You have not considered these questions.

[Pavulon]

100. Distilled

Iran rations gas. It is a 3rd world nation. It has no interest in a war with any western nation.

The KH drone is not a threat.

Iran is not a direct threat. If they do choose to start a conflict, as they did in the 80's, we will just squash them again.


The only question is in regards to intent. Does Iran intend to start a war, no. Do we, no. So we play games.

I have no regrets, other than the cost of alcohol, which was verboten, in yugo.

[boricua79]

106. no...we DO intend to start a war

you haven't done your reading regarding the ideas of the Project for A New American Century, and the Bush/Cheney cohorts. They've WRITTEN about how they want a war with Iran. and they rule the nation RIGHT now. They get to send faith-based types like you to go get your heads or limbs blown off by a roadside bomb for their Halliburton-type companies. And as an added bonus, they also get you faith-based types to smile and whistle all the way to your "work". And as an added, ADDED bonus, they get you faith-based types to DEFEND their policies after the fact. neat deal, huh? When you're thinking about the family, children, and college you missed out...think about Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush having their martinis while playing golf in some rich, country club while you sacrificed everything to "defend" them. Let that thought fester in your head a while.

And if that doesn't bother you, than by all means, why don't you enlist, scan your enlistment papers, and post them on DU to prove you've re-enlisted. Money where mouth is, I always say.

[Pavulon]

108. Umm

you are off by 10 years or so, genius. None of those people were around in the ifor/kfor day.

Your post is obnoxious and ignorant. You know dick about me. I did not re-enlist.

Bush owned a baseball team when I was in, moron.

Ad-hominem bad..

[boricua79]

112. #1

you need to learn how to type...because your posts do not make sense.

Number two...I'm asking if you're going to re-enlist...since you're so gung-ho about our military. No Yellow Elephants allowed here in DU.

Don't understand your "Bush owned a baseball team when I was In" comment. Doesn't make sense.

and the people I mentioned are the people who either provided the intellectual rationales for our current wars, or are PROSECUTING them. I'd say they're relevant.

[Pavulon]

117. Yellow dogs?

you need to put down that glass dick you are smoking. That crack is a bitch. 10 years ago bush owned a baseball team. He was probably snorting coke off a hookers ass while I was driving all the fuck over the remnants Yugoslavia hoping not to hit an old AT mine.

You don't understand a whole lot.

[boricua79]

119. Yellow Elephants

Elephants = Republican, Yellow = Cowards.

If you're not willing to re-enlist NOW in the middle of these wars and under the Bush administration, can the jingoistic, macho militarist attitude. It doesn't impress ANYONE on DU.

About Bush, exactly. he's enjoying the hooker, and you're avoiding mines. Who was the smarter guy?

The cokehead...sadly.

Who doesn't understand a lot now?

[Pavulon]

121. Me..

I am proud of what I did. Made lifelong friends. Helped people out here after hurricanes, and looking back, may have helped out there. Paid for my education and learned a good bit.

Bottom line is that a military is REQUIRED. That is why all nations have them. You don't have to like it, you don't have to serve in it.

I am 41 and happily married. I have no reason, short of world war, to be part of the military.

You logic is sadly flawed.

[boricua79]

123. Costa Rica has no army

nobody's invading it.

A defense-oriented military is needed. An imperial presence around the world in the form of countless military bases, and different fleets in all the oceans is abusive and imperial. That's not defense. That's perpetual threat offense.

no reason to be in the military, huh? Yeah..right...I smell Yellow Elephant.

[Pavulon]

124. Dog,,Yellow Dog

I think we have reached the end of polite discussion here.

[boricua79]

128. and what does Yellow Dog mean?

you ended the discussion on a meaningless symbol.

I agree. We can end the discussion here. I'll be sure to look for you on DU when the Iran war starts.

[Pavulon]

130. That means

no matter who wins the convention. Hillary, Obama, or Edwards..They have my vote. All the silly shit people are talking, rigged vote in NH, hillary vs Obama. Saves me the trouble.

Basically I would vote for a yellow dog before a republican.

[boricua79]

139. further proves my theory

that somewhere along the way, you gave up your ability to critically think and instead, you vote for the "party line". What if Lieberman or Zell Miller was the Democrat...you'd still vote Democrat?

Faith-based thinking gets you no where. You let OTHERS do the choosing and thinking for you, and you, in faith-based fashion, approve of it...because you believe the Democratic party on faith alone.

I, on the other hand, demand good candidates and analyze them well, and if the Democratic party puts out a piece of crap, I'll stay home and not vote.

but you know...thinking and choosing...that's for silly people. Believing and rubber-stamping...now THAT's the act of a real patriot! :sarcasm:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

155. Yo tu no perdería mi tiempo.

You're talking to a guy who thinks killing impoverished civilians is some kind of game, because they're supposed commies. Having read his crap before. I have to tell you that you make a good point. A lot of his posts don't make sense. Here I was thinking it was just me.

[Pavulon]

109. Dupe

Dupe

[RaleighNCDUer]

132. Iraq, through our protoge Saddam, started the war in the 80s.

Just so you know.

[raebrek]

146. Silk Worm

I'd be more afraid of the French weapons Iran has then the Russian weapons for just that reason. We have seen how well the Soviet weapons in Iraq worked during the first Gulf war.

Raebrek!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

131. It's not that they have everything to lose.

It's that they have nothing to gain.

As you repeatedly pointed out above, if Iran were to go head to head with the US it would get squashed. They'd do a lot of damage on the way down, but that would only help justify us nuking them, like Bush has wanted to do for 5 years.

That being the case, WHY would they be trying to pick a fight? Who would gain by it?

Only Bushco, who could disrupt the coming election with FearFearFear and get their man in office.

So WHO do you think was trying to pick a fight?

[pinniped]

50. No doubt, this is the way the Minster of Propaganda wanted it to be viewed.

The Navy never said specifically where the voices came from, but many were left with the impression they had come from the speedboats because of the way the Navy footage was edited.

[Pavulon]

51. Well I am sure the NSA

could triangulate that transmission's origin from space, real time.

Is the origin of the transmission relevant?

[Truth2Tell]

102. could triangulate that transmission's origin

Not if it was overlaid on the tape by Doug Feith on his iBook using his best Borat imitation - which is about what it sounds like.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

53. "Ve are lookink for nucular wessels."

[JPZenger]

145. Great Line

For anyone who missed the reference, that was said by Checkov in the Star Trek movie where they went back in history to save the whales, in order to save themselves. They were in a US Navy base during the Cold War.

What is significant about the US audio version is that it was supposedly said by guys on open speedboats, but there was no background noise.

[truthisfreedom]

54. Translation: "We have no idea what the f*** was going on, and we're sticking to it."

Gawd, what a bunch of nonsense.

[Chulanowa]

70. If it came from the shore...

Then wouldn't the Navy Fleet had to have been in Iranian national waters to hear it?

[Pavulon]

89. NO.

Radio transmissions can easily carry 100km.

[Chulanowa]

116. Thanks

For some reason I was under the impression that it was loudspeakered.

[Thothmes]

144. The communications in this incident

were bridge to bridge VHF. These are pretty much a line of sight(15-20 km) radio freqs. While certain atmospheric conditions will duct VHF further than line of sight, they are pretty rare occurrences.

[Richard Steele]

71. I'm just so goddamn WEARY of all the bullshit. K&R without comment. nm

[superconnected]

85. This is the administration that released the nick berg video

[Magleetis]

92. Doesn't really matter

where it came from. Iran is darn lucky that the all powerful US (which can do no wrong BTW) didn't unleash its mighty death star and wipe Iran off of the map. Our brave naval officers should be commended for their restraint in what was obviously a premeditated attack to destroy our entire Navy by shooting a single .22 caliber round up the exhaust pipe of one of our warships which would set in motion a chain reaction resulting in total inhalation of our Navy if not the entire US armed forces.

Meanwhile back at mission accomplished we dropped 40,000 pounds of bombs on Iraq (a war that has already been won)

I am so impressed with our military and our government.

[smalll]

96. Betcha it was the latest stunt from the "iron my shirt" guys. /nt

[pinniped]

122. One dude wants to know why these alleged suicide bombers....

were wearing life jackets.

[jordi_fanclub]

140. LOLLLL... we have a winner!!!

BINGO!!!!
That's it! :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Judi Lynn]

149. Oh, YEAH! What's the point, after all? Outstanding! n/t

[DissedByBush]

135. Two different conversations?

I watched the Iranian video on YouTube and someone made an interesting comment. The calm conversation from the Iranian video was with the USS Port Royal, but the conversation from the American tape is on the USS Hopper (BTW named after one of my idols, Admiral Grace Hopper).

Can someone get the stories straight?

[MinM]

141. Blogger debunked | Democracy Now

"George Washington" at OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5557

gives credit to this blogger for debunking the story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hooman-majd/its-a-fake_b_80682.html

More here ..
http://www.attytood.com/2008/01/tonights_history_lesson_the_gu.html
http://www.attytood.com/2008/01/iron_my_shirt_did_the_us_navy.html
http://www.atlargely.com/2008/01/so-do-you-take.html
http://www.atlargely.com/2008/01/straits-of-horm.html

and Democracy Now this morning.
http://www.democracynow.org/

[Judi Lynn]

151. Thanks for posting the links. Very helpful, most interesting.

Welcome to D.U., MinM. :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[kineneb]

150. listened to both on Dem. Now- US version not a Iranian accent

it sounded like some kind of doctored audio, as when voices are disguised "to protect the identity of the witness".

The version from the Iranian tv sounded far more authentic.

I have heard Iranian-accented English since I was a small child; my step-father is from Iran.

[humbled_opinion]

162. DUH....

Exposing the man behind the curtain... :hide: