Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '18 00:561 edit
    Originally posted by @vivify to Stevemcc
    Going through with war just to save face is monumentally stupid. True, such a threat shouldn't be made in the first place.
    But going to war over ego is always the wrong path.
    "Going through with war just to save face is monumentally stupid."
    --Vivify

    In fact, the hypocritical troll Vivify has a long record of spewing insults and absurd lies in
    'flame wars' in desperately attempting to save face by not conceding his blatant wrongdoing.
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '18 01:221 edit
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    Thank you. People need to understand why North Koreans distrust the USA so much. Everything is a double standard with the USA.
    Like Duchess rightly pointed out, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and did nothing, just let it happen without complaint. "That and Operation Ajax.
    "That is why the Iranians distrust the USA so much."
    --Metal Brain

    There's another reason. In 1988 (the troll Vivify presumably would argue that it's too old to count)
    the US Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing all 290 persons aboard.
    Afterward, as pointed out by 'Newsweek' in its article 'Sea of Lies', the USA kept lying and
    lying in attempting to cover up the facts and excuse its shooting down the Iranian airliner.
    Contrary to US claims, the Iranian airliner followed a normal mission profile, not threatening the US Navy warship.
    The US scenario of an Iranian airliner (carrying no explosives) making a kamikaze dive to
    attack the advanced US Navy cruiser was an absurd attempt to rationalize the USA's violence.

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

    "Using material from Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Washington Post and
    CBS Evening News, the research found clearly evident framing techniques used to demonize
    and blame the foreign enemy [Iran] .[39] He stated that by "de-emphasizing the agency
    and the victims and by the choice of graphics and adjectives, the news stories about the
    U.S. downing of an Iranian plane called it a technical problem while the Soviet downing of
    a Korean jet was portrayed as a moral outrage".

    The US media perceives the non-Western Iranians as less human than Western victims would be.

    The USA never has conceded any guilt or made any formal apology to Iran.
    Eight years later, the USA grudgingly paid slightly more 200.000 USD on average to the
    Iranian victims' families. If the victims had been Westerners, the USA presumably would
    have been obliged, at least for the sake of public relations, to offer millions per victim.
  3. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    10 Apr '18 12:153 edits
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "Like Duchess rightly pointed out, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and [USA] did nothing,
    just let it happen without complaint. That is why the Iranians distrust the USA so much."
    --Metal Brain

    But the troll Vivify apparently would deny that Iranians have any reason to distrust the USA.
    I began to get the point of international relations in a management development course when the instructor said to replace any instance of “trust” in our dealings with others, with “predictability” as the operative term.

    This is a corollary to the fact that business ethics, which international relations is (especially now) is measured in a different dimension than interpersonal morality. Napalm burning on the skin and chlorine burning in the lungs is collateral damage, if not the point of industrial-scale terrorism.

    Whoever used chlorine gas in Syria is playing the game of predictability, and at this juncture they are betting on how Trump, aka the USA, will react.
  4. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57067
    10 Apr '18 12:48
    Originally posted by @stevemcc
    Only if the US want to be taken seriously when they assert that chemical weapons are unacceptable. Therefore, I say yes
    No.
    Not the yanks.
    Everything they’ve touched the last 55 years has turned into an international disaster and only made things worse.
  5. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57067
    10 Apr '18 12:50
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "That is why the Iranians distrust the USA so much."
    --Metal Brain

    There's another reason. In 1988 (the troll Vivify presumably would argue that it's too old to count)
    the US Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing all 290 persons aboard.
    Afterward, as pointed out by 'Newsweek' in its article 'Sea of Lies', the USA kept lying and
    lyi ...[text shortened]... uld
    have been obliged, at least for the sake of public relations, to offer millions per victim.
    I’m pretty certain the Captain responsible received a meddle for bravery as well.

    Yeah, pretty much sums up the US.
  6. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '18 19:541 edit
    Originally posted by @shavixmir
    I’m pretty certain the Captain responsible received a meddle for bravery as well.

    Yeah, pretty much sums up the US.
    Some of the Americans who shot down the Iranian airliner received decorations or promotions
    by the US Navy for doing so. Iranians construe this as evidence that the USA's never
    been sincerely sorry about killing 290 people.

    My impression is that most Americans today assume that, as usual, the USA was
    was completely right and that Iran's completely wrong to complain about the USA.
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    10 Apr '18 22:06
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Some of the Americans who shot down the Iranian airliner received decorations or promotions
    by the US Navy for doing so. Iranians construe this as evidence that the USA's never
    been sincerely sorry about killing 290 people.

    My impression is that most Americans today assume that, as usual, the USA was
    was completely right and that Iran's completely wrong to complain about the USA.
    No US sailor received decorations or promotions for the shooting down of Flight 655. Having seen video of the USS Vincennes' CIC directly after the incident, I can attest that those on board were horrified when they realized they had shot down a civilian airliner.

    The incident was partially a result of over-aggressiveness' by the Captain of the Vincennes but mostly a result of human and system errors as outlined in this report: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-422-human-supervisory-control-of-automated-systems-spring-2004/projects/vincennes.pdf

    At 6:33 local time, acting without any orders from his superiors, Capt Rogers orders “all ahead flank” and proceeds from about here (point to map) 50 miles northeast (point again) to where the USS Montgomery had reportedly sighted 13 Iranian speedboats in an attempt to get involved in the action. After some explosions are heard, the command center in Bahrain orders Capt Rogers to stay south, but to send his helicopter north on a reconnaissance mission. At 8:40 however, Capt is startled to see that the Vincennes was almost on top of the Omani peninsula, about 40 miles north of where she was supposed to be. Angry, McKenna orders Rogers back to Abu Musa. Unfortunately, Rogers leaves his helicopter behind, whose pilot, Lt Mark Collier, decides to follow the speedboats as they retreat north towards Iran at 8:45. The helicopter eventually takes some fire, and 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 co
    mmand 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, which will prove to have far-reaching implications. At this point, Capt Rogers and the USS Vincennes had just set themselves up for a very bad situation.
    Also, for future reference, this (point) is the airport from which Flight 655 departed, and this (point) is the airport to which they were headed. As you can see, the USS Vincennes lay directly in the airplane’s path

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The majority of the crew members on board the USS Vincennes that day had created an erroneous expectancy of what was happening. This was partially caused by fresh memories of the USS Stark, which was severely damaged a year earlier by an Iraqi fighter jet. Many psychologists call this concept scenario fulfillment. Iran Flight 655 took off from the joint civilian/military airport at Bandar Abbas at about 10:17. As it was climbing to its cruising altitude, five crew members in the CIC on the Vincennes independently believed that the incoming aircraft was descending and
    picking up speed. Anonymous shouts and warnings created a very tense atmosphere in the CIC. Capt Rogers and other officers paid more attention to the shouts, warnings, and emergency signals than to the actual displays and print outs of the Aegis system, which, if carefully analyzed, would have easily shown that the incoming aircraft was a com
    mercial airplane and was in fact simply climbing to its cruising altitude. Probably a very significant factor in all of this was the stress, tension, lack of time, and fog and friction of war. Flight 655 was detected by radar at 10:17
    and was shot down 7 minutes later at 10:24, when it came within 10 miles of the Vincennes. 7 minutes is a short time to make such a critical decision, especially with all that was goin on at the time in the CIC.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And to tell you about what was going on, I would like to talk about the deficiencies of the system itself. And by system, I don’t simply mean the Aegis computer. I mean the complete interaction between man and machine. A little bit of the Human Centered System Approach would have gone a long way in this case. First, the Aegis cruisers were not designed for small-craft battles in the enclosed areas like the Persian Gulf. Instead, they were designed for all-out battles in the open sea with the Soviet Union. So that was a problem, especially when trying to track and fire upon those annoying little speedboats. The CIC also provided no actual view, no actual video, of the area and the situation outside. Dials and displays are nice, but it is also helpful to bring some
    reality to the area where the decisions are made. The CIC was also very dark, and the few lights it did have flickered every time the Vincennes fired at the speedboats. This was of special concern to Petty Officer Andrew Anderson, who first picked up Flight 655 on radar and thought it might be a commercial aircraft. As he was searching in the navy’s listing of commercial flights, he apparently missed Flight 655 because it was so dark. There was a great deal of electronic and verbal confusion in the CIC as well. Capt Rogers and his key commanders where linked on a certain communications circuit. However, over half of the crew on the Vincennes had figured out a way to “tap into” the circuit to listen to everything that was going on. This drained the power on the
    circuit and forced some Lt to switch the frequency every now and then and call out “switch!” as loudly as he could while doing it. One problem that could have prevented the entire disaster alsohad to with Petty Officer Anderson. The first time he had beamed out his IFF query to the departing airplane, he had received back the signature of a com
    mercial airplane. However, after someone had shouted out that it could be an F-14, Anderson used his IFF again, but this time received back the signature of a military airplane. Investigators later figured out that Anderson had forgotten to reset the range on the IFF device that he used and was actually getting back the signature of a military airplane on the ground in the Bandar Abbas airport, which begs the question:
    Why on earth should he have had to manually switch the range on his IFF device? Why couldn’t it automatically switch itself? Nevertheless, that occurred, and then one of the forward guns jammed, and in an attempt to turn the ship around, the rapid movement forced all of the papers, books, and charts in the CIC to go flying off the tables. Two final comments about the system: the radar displays violated the Proximity Compatibility Principle. One device displaying the airplane’s location was in a completely separate place from the device that described the plane’s vertical
    action, adding to the confusion and errors. Finally, it was discovered that although the Aegis system can track several hundred objects in the air, it reuses its tracking numbers and can sometimes switch the tracking numbers of planes without any warning, which is what might have happened to the Vincennes according to a 2001 report by C. W. Fisher.

    In short, there were multiple mistakes and system deficiencies but I don't think it's fair to suggest the crew callously shot down a civilian airliner.
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '18 22:365 edits
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    No US sailor received decorations or promotions for the shooting down of Flight 655. Having seen video of the USS Vincennes' CIC directly after the incident, I can attest that those on board were horrified when they realized they had shot down a civilian airliner.

    The incident was partially a result of over-aggressiveness' by the Captain of the Vinc ...[text shortened]... iencies but I don't think it's fair to suggest the crew callously shot down a civilian airliner.
    "No US sailor received decorations or promotions for the shooting down of Flight 655."
    --No1Marauder

    No1Marauder (who, if I recall correctly, served in the US Navy) apparently wants to
    believe that only the US military's explicit admission could confirm it.
    But the facts are more complicated, to say the least. Let's start with:

    In fact, the USS Vincennes (commanded by William Rogers) shot down Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Rogers_III
    "In 1990, Capt. Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit decoration "for exceptionally
    meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ...
    from April 1987 to May 1989" [this period includes shooting down the Iranian airliner]

    "The award was given for his service as the Commanding Officer of the Vincennes,
    and the citation made no mention of the downing of Iran Air 655."

    So Captain Rogers received the Legion of Merit for his "exceptionally meritorious conduct
    in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to
    May 1989". which included shooting down Iran Air 655. Now it's true that the citation
    did NOT EXPLICITLY mention it, but that does not mean that the incident was NOT part
    of Rogers's complete record from "April 1987 to May 1989". The fact that the citation
    prefers to ignore it does NOT make it disappear from history.

    I note that the Legion of Merit was awarded to Captain Rogers for "exceptionally meritorious conduct"
    while ignoring the fact that he had command responsibility for shooting down Iran Air 655.
    It's not unreasonable for Iranians to believe that he was being commended for it.

    "I don't think it's fair to suggest the crew callously shot down a civilian airliner."
    --No1Marauder

    I don't suggest that everyone aboard the USS Vincennes was callous or happy about what it did.

    Not every American buys the Pentagon's official story (cover-up) of what happened.

    http://www.newsweek.com/sea-lies-200118
    "Sea Of Lies" by John Barry and Roger Charles

    "What's more, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters
    at the time of the shoot-down--in clear violation of international law. The top Pentagon
    brass understood from the beginning that if the whole truth about the Vincennes came out,
    it would mean months of humiliating headlines. So the U.S. Navy did what all navies do
    after terrible blunders at sea: IT TOLD LIES AND HANDED OUT MEDALS.
    This is the story of a naval fiasco, of an overeager captain, panicked crewmen, and the
    COVER-UP that followed.

    But the Pentagon's official investigation into the incident, the Fogarty Report, is a
    pastiche of omissions, half-truths and outright deceptions. It was a cover-up approved
    at the top, by Adm. William Crowe, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    Captain Rogers insisted to "Nightline" last week that he had made the "proper decision."
    He opened fire only to protect his ship and crew, he said. But drawing on declassified
    documents, video and audiotape from the ships involved in the incident, and well over 100 interviews,
    NEWSWEEK has pieced together an account that belies the skipper's stoic defense."

    "The vice president claimed that the Vincennes had rushed to defend a merchantman under attack by Iran.
    By July 14, the day of Bush's speech, the Pentagon knew the truth but failed to share it
    with the vice president. The tapes of the Vincennes's Aegis system, with its combat and
    navigational data, reached the United States on July 5 and what they showed was reported
    to the Pentagon on July 10. The Vincennes had been in territorial waters. The Iranian
    airliner was well within the commercial air corridor and had been ascending, not descending.
    There was no beleaguered merchant vessel.

    The cover-up was compounded by the official report on the incident ...
    The investigation was notable for the questions it failed to ask. The commanders on the
    carrier Forrestal were never interviewed; nor was Captain McKenna, the surface-warfare
    commander in Bahrain whose order Rogers ignored. McKenna's staff mailed a tape of
    his tense exchange with Rogers before the sea battle, but never received a response.
    The report released to the public did not include any chart or navigational data to show
    the Vincennes's position at the time of the shoot-down."

    "The navy might have gotten away with all these deceptions had it not been for the slow
    grinding of international law. A lawsuit by the Iranian government has now forced Washington
    to admit, grudgingly, that the Vincennes was actually in Iranian waters -although Justice
    Department pleadings still claim the cruiser was forced there in self-defense. The admission
    is contained in fine print in legal briefs; it has never received public attention until Crowe,
    confronted with the evidence, conceded the truth last week on "Nightline." Crowe denies
    any cover-up; if mistakes were made, he told NEWSWEEK, they were " below my paygrade."
    Rogers continues to insist that his ship was in international waters."

    ""No US sailor received decorations or promotions for the shooting down of Flight 655."
    --No1Marauder

    FALSE, according to 'Newsweek'.

    "The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Commander Lustig,
    the air-warfare coordinator, even won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement,"
    his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire," enabling him to "quickly and
    precisely complete the firing procedure."
    --John Barry and Roger Charles for 'Newsweek'

    According to 'Newsweek', the US Navy (including Admiral Crowe and Captain Rogers)
    acted far from honestly and honorably in covering up and lying about what happened.
    Of course, most 'patriotic' Americans prefer to believe an official US story that minimizes US guilt.
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '18 22:493 edits
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Some of the Americans who shot down the Iranian airliner received decorations or promotions
    by the US Navy for doing so. Iranians construe this as evidence that the USA's never
    been sincerely sorry about killing 290 people.

    My impression is that most Americans today assume that, as usual, the USA was
    was completely right and that Iran's completely wrong to complain about the USA.
    "Some of the Americans who shot down the Iranian airliner received decorations or promotions."
    --Duchess64

    ""No US sailor received decorations or promotions for the shooting down of Flight 655."
    --No1Marauder

    Here are my sources (none of which seem to have an 'anti-American' bias):

    http://www.newsweek.com/sea-lies-200118
    "Sea of Lies"

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Rogers_III
    "In 1990, Capt. Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit decoration "for exceptionally
    meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ...
    from April 1987 to May 1989." The award was given for his service as the Commanding
    Officer of the Vincennes, and the citation made no mention of the downing of Iran Air 655.[14]"

    While the citation did not mention it explicitly, Captain Rogers was decorated for a
    period of service that included shooting down Iran Flight 655.
  10. Joined
    15 Oct '10
    Moves
    98555
    10 Apr '18 23:57
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    The US has already reacted by condemning Assad and everybody who supports him.

    Do you mean war? With whom exactly?

    I personally would prefer independent fact finding to determine if such an attack took place. It would seem a senseless thing for the Syrian government to do at this time, but I'm open to evidence.
    I certainly mean more than a condemnation. I am thinking of a military strike sufficiently forceful that Assad and Putin get the idea.
    The thread has produced the shedding of tears and gnashing of teeth all having to do with the horribleness of America, which argument we have all heard a million times and which is not without merit.
    If some other entity wants to make it clear to Assad et al that chemical weapons use comes with an extravagant cost, I'm all for it. Don't hold your breath waiting for England or France or Russia or Iran or the UN to do this.
    Our interlocutors in the thread do not register an objection to Assad's use of these weapons. Does that default into approval? Close enough for this reader.
    I do respect your call for evidence given you are skeptical.
    I believe such an attack took place here and has taken place before. I believe that Obama, whom I like, make a gross mistake, in drawing a red line and having his bluff called.
    I think that only the United States can demonstrate to Assad that he has no choice but to abandon this strategy. I think they should deliver a cost he will find utterly unmanageable
    and I don't think in the face of this that Russia or anyone else is going to think that Assad is worth this risk. If the message is clear enough, they will read it correctly.
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    11 Apr '18 01:051 edit
    Originally posted by @stevemcc to No1Marauder
    I certainly mean more than a condemnation. I am thinking of a military strike sufficiently forceful that Assad and Putin get the idea.
    The thread has produced the shedding of tears and gnashing of teeth all having to do with the horribleness of America, which argument we have all heard a million times and which is not without merit.
    If so ...[text shortened]... hink that Assad is worth this risk. If the message is clear enough, they will read it correctly.
    First, Stevemcc writes as though the USA should act according to its supposed moral principles and
    then he prefers to ignore the writers pointing out these 'principles' are hollow and hypocritical.
    And I have noticed no writer expressing any approval of using chemical weapons in Syria.

    So let's shift now to pragmatic considerations. Stevemcc wants to send a message to Putin.
    Is Stevemcc ready to have US air strikes kill Russians in Syria? If so, then how many?
    If that happens, does Stevemcc imagine that Putin will respond by saying, "I give up! You win!"
    Or will Putin think of ways to retaliate (perhaps not immediately) by killing Americans somewhere?

    And why now? The USA has done little beyond rhetoric to support Ukraine in its conflicts
    (including an undeclared war by proxy) against Russia. Would Stevemcc approve of the
    USA sending military forces to help Ukraine 'liberate' Crimea from Russia?

    How eager should the USA be risk escalating conflict, perhaps into war, with Russia?
  12. Joined
    15 Oct '10
    Moves
    98555
    11 Apr '18 02:18
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    First, Stevemcc writes as though the USA should act according to its supposed moral principles and
    then he prefers to ignore the writers pointing out these 'principles' are hollow and hypocritical.
    And I have noticed no writer expressing any approval of using chemical weapons in Syria.

    So let's shift now to pragmatic considerations. Stevemcc wants t ...[text shortened]... Russia?

    How eager should the USA be risk escalating conflict, perhaps into war, with Russia?
    Morality is, in international affairs, an utterly empty concept. People who refer to it do not understand much. I make no reference to moral principle at all beyond the rejection of chemical weapons. Don't put your utterly empty words into my mouth.
    That you have noticed no writer expressing approval of Assad's use of chemical weapons only highlights your favorite complaint against those who dare disagree with you, that your reading comprehension skills are non-existent.
    I grant you the intelligence not to say you approve of this use. You are not perfectly stupid. It is your failure to condemn that reveals you for what you are. And you do decline to condemn unless it is the US that you can condemn.
    Perhaps you think that goes unnoticed.
    Lets go to your pragmatic considerations, since you have no better argument.
    I am perfectly prepared to kill Russians if need be. As many as it takes. Which in no way separates me from the Russian gambit in Syria.
    Putin would love weak asses like you to believe that he will never say "I give up"
    You do his bluffing job for him.
    Tell him once that you will go to the mat with him and watch how he behaves.
    Fail to provide some resistance and you will see the chemical war escalate.
    You live in a world more real than you are. Grow a pair.
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    11 Apr '18 02:183 edits
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "Some of the Americans who shot down the Iranian airliner received decorations or promotions."
    --Duchess64

    ""No US sailor received decorations or promotions for the shooting down of Flight 655."
    --No1Marauder

    Here are my sources (none of which seem to have an 'anti-American' bias):

    http://www.newsweek.com/sea-lies-200118
    "Sea of Lies"

    "Th ...[text shortened]... tain Rogers was decorated for a
    period of service that included shooting down Iran Flight 655.
    They were not awarded such decorations for the shooting down of the AirBus as you claimed as the Wiki article makes clear. Rogers was not punished as he should have been, but he surely would have got the Legion of Merit anyway (there is zero indication that the shoot down helped him get it):

    Despite the mistakes made in the downing of the plane, the men of the Vincennes were awarded Combat Action Ribbons for completion of their tours in a combat zone. The air-warfare coordinator on duty received the Navy Commendation Medal,[11] but The Washington Post reported in 1990 that the awards were for his entire tour from 1984 to 1988 and for his actions relating to the surface engagement with Iranian gunboats.[56] In 1990, Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989." The award was given for his service as the commanding officer of the Vincennes from April 1987 to May 1989. The citation made no mention of the downing of Iran Air 655.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#cite_note-ICJ-Aerial-Incident-30

    Captain Rogers was left in command of the Vincennes for only another 10 months and never commanded another ship. He got a desk job and then "retired" from the Navy a few years later at the age of 52.

    Yes, the top brass and politicians made false statements in the immediate aftermath but the true story came out reasonably quickly. A US apology to Iran would have been politically suicidal in the 1980s and 1990s but the US did accept ICJ jurisdiction and did pay out $131 million in damages, hardly the acts of a country that truly believed the shooting down of the civilian airliner was justified.
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    11 Apr '18 02:433 edits
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    They were not awarded such decorations for the shooting down of the AirBus as you claimed as the Wiki article makes clear. Rogers was not punished as he should have been, but he surely would have got the Legion of Merit anyway (there is zero indication that the shoot down helped him get it):

    Despite the mistakes made in the downing of the plane, the ...[text shortened]... 5.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#cite_note-ICJ-Aerial-Incident-30

    lli.
    No1Marauder prefers to ignore the fact that I cited this reputable American magazine as my source.
    http://www.newsweek.com/sea-lies-200118
    "Sea of Lies"

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

    Now if 'Newsweek' reported anything that was incomplete or inaccurate, it's not my responsibility.
    I was not an editor at 'Newsweek' or paid to fact-check its stories.

    The flag-waving No1Marauder does his disingenuous best to make excuses for the USA.

    "Yes, the top brass and politicians made false statements in the immediate aftermath
    but the true story came out reasonably quickly."
    --No1Marauder

    When 'the true story' emerged, it was NOT because the USA wanted it.
    It was only because the USA's cover-up had failed.
    (Would No1Marauder try the same spin to excuse the Watergate cover-up?)

    "A US apology to Iran would have been politically suicidal in the 1980s and 1990s"
    --No1Marauder

    An irrelevant excuse. As far as I know, the USA never has formally apologized to Iran.

    "The navy might have gotten away with all these deceptions had it not been for the slow
    grinding of international law. A lawsuit by the Iranian government has now forced Washington
    to admit, grudgingly, that the Vincennes was actually in Iranian waters -although Justice
    Department pleadings still claim the cruiser was forced there in self-defense. The admission
    is contained in fine print in legal briefs; it has never received public attention until Crowe,
    confronted with the evidence, conceded the truth last week on "Nightline." Crowe denies
    any cover-up; if mistakes were made, he told NEWSWEEK, they were " below my paygrade."
    Rogers continues to insist that his ship was in international waters."
    --Newsweek

    "but the US did accept ICJ jurisdiction ..."
    --No1Marauder

    Grudgingly, as 'Newsweek' points out.

    " -- and did pay out $131 million in damages, hardly the acts of a country that truly
    believed the shooting down of the civilian airliner was justified."
    --No1Marauder

    The USA (grudgingly) paid much less for every dead Iranian than Libya paid for the
    Westerners who died in the airliner that went down in Lockerbie.

    No1Marauder's extremely disingenuous. No1Marauder's like a lawyer whose client
    (the US government or US military) lied and lied in attempting to cover up the facts.
    Then when finally the facts emerge (despite his client's lying to cover up) and the other
    party would prevail in court, No1Marauder bestows moral congratulations upon his
    client for being compelled to pay some financial compensation.

    No wonder many diverse people are disgusted by American arrogance and lying.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    11 Apr '18 02:49
    Originally posted by @stevemcc
    Morality is, in international affairs, an utterly empty concept. People who refer to it do not understand much. I make no reference to moral principle at all beyond the rejection of chemical weapons. Don't put your utterly empty words into my mouth.
    That you have noticed no writer expressing approval of Assad's use of chemical weapons only highlights your ...[text shortened]... ou will see the chemical war escalate.
    You live in a world more real than you are. Grow a pair.
    "I am perfectly prepared to kill Russians if need be. As many as it takes."
    --Stevemcc

    Is Stevemcc prepared to do so in person? Some Russians may like to return the favor.

    "Grow a pair."
    --Stevemcc

    Stevemcc's sexism noted amidst his macho posturing.
Back to Top