|
Iranian recon ships probe US Naval Squadron (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lesbianosaur |
| Another non-story propped up by the MSM in my opinion. |
|
|
| Zild |
| So when my buddy levels a mosque with women and children inside using USMC equipment it is considered a lesser evil than a suicide bomber? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
So when my buddy levels a mosque with women and children inside using USMC equipment it is considered a lesser evil than a suicide bomber? |
that depends. was his stated goal the destruction of the mosque? or was it collateral damage? obviously the outcomes are often tragically the same, but assuming it wasn't the expressed desire of your buddy, then yes, i certainly do consider it a lesser evil.
deliberately targeting civilians is different to civilians caught in the crossfire. at least it is to me. |
|
|
| Zild |
| He did it because someone in the unit was killed by a sniper in the area. He was sent to court martial for shooting an unarmed civilian in the face at extremely close range. But he got off on that because the person who was killed by the sniper was his battle buddy and he wasn't given proper R&R after the incident. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
He did it because someone in the unit was killed by a sniper in the area. He was sent to court martial for shooting an unarmed civilian in the face at extremely close range. But he got off on that because the person who was killed by the sniper was his battle buddy and he wasn't given proper R&R after the incident. |
well that's pretty damn awful imo :( and no, i would put that kind of behaviour in the same basket as indiscriminant suicide bombing. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i fail to see how funding groups/individuals that blow themselves up in crowded civilian areas equates to "fighting israeli occupation".
THAT is what is romantic about it, your terms of reference.
I also fail to see how fighting proxy wars via terrorist groups achieves anything but more bloodshed, and an increase in israeli military activity. how well did iran "protect" the people of lebanon (in the most recent israeli atrocities), considering it was a conflict they started?
|
Just as the US has supported rebel militias throughout the entire world, so has Iran. And in the defining conflict of this century (probably), Iran has chosen the side of anti-occupation, whilst the US is on the side of the occupier, and is an occupier. It's not World War II here, these are premeditated occupations, no doubt...
What makes me chuckle is hearing people (not you PKC) wonder why they hate us so much, without ever looking at the ENTIRE picture.
I can turn this quote of yours, "I fail to see how funding groups/individuals that blow themselves up in crowded civilian areas equates to "fighting israeli occupation" and turn it right back around and say... "I fail to see how funding illegal colonization and occupation of an entire nation equates to "defending Israeli national security""
BOTH powers currently providing the backbone behind each side, US & Iran are both wrong in what they are doing, but it's being done by BOTH sides. American nationalists can scream and profess all they want about American ethics, but when it comes down to it, our hands are pretty damn dirty; too dirty to be placing ourselves in the roll as policeman of the world...
| quote: | | just because america is often wrong, does NOT make her enemies right. |
I have never said Iran is right in its ways. US power and influence is far greater than Iran's in every catagory, therefore, actions the US take, take on far more significance and effect than Iran. Let's not lose site of that fact. America was right, and we gained a lot of prestige because of it, but obviously in recent decades, we've been throwing it all away in foreign interventions that have nothing to do with US national security.... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Just as the US has supported rebel militias throughout the entire world, so has Iran. And in the defining conflict of this century (probably), Iran has chosen the side of anti-occupation, whilst the US is on the side of the occupier, both in Palestine AND Iraq.
What makes me chuckle is hearing people (not you PKC) wonder why they hate us so much, without ever looking at the ENTIRE picture.
I can turn this quote of yours, "I fail to see how funding groups/individuals that blow themselves up in crowded civilian areas equates to "fighting israeli occupation" and turn it right back around and say... "I fail to see how funding illegal colonization and occupation of an entire nation equates to "defending Israeli national security""
BOTH powers currently providing the backbone behind each side, US & Iran are both wrong in what they are doing, but it's being done by BOTH sides. American nationalists can scream and profess all they want about American ethics, but when it comes down to it, our hands are pretty damn dirty; too dirty to be placing ourselves in the roll as policeman of the world...
I have never said Iran is right in its ways. US power and influence is far greater than Iran's in every catagory, therefore, actions the US take, take on far more significance and effect than Iran. Let's not lose site of that fact. America was right, and we gained a lot of prestige because of it, but obviously in recent decades, we've been throwing it all away in foreign interventions that have nothing to do with US national security.... |
heh, youre preaching to the converted krypton! i know exactly why everyone (including Oz!) hates the US. i just don't want people losing sight of (as you call it) "the bigger picture" and fall into the trap of forgetting there ARE insidious regimes other than the US of A. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
C'mon, Q you crazy sailor, give us the inside scoop (at least what you can tell us).
Or is there any scoop at all aside from what the press is saying? |
|
|
| Krypton |
Local AM radio show called the "Schnitt Show", I hear today, "We need to do something about those Iranian bastards!!"
The right-wing hate machine at it again..:gsmile: |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lesbianosaur
Another non-story propped up by the MSM in my opinion. |
Of course it is a non-story, just like the Straigts of Tonkin, and the Gulf of Hormuz ... oh wait am I getting something confused?
No matter, the point is the same. The US administration would never declare war on some kind of non-issue on the high seas. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
C'mon, Q you crazy sailor, give us the inside scoop (at least what you can tell us).
Or is there any scoop at all aside from what the press is saying? |
i know those boats. the U.S.S. Port Royal and the U.S.S. Hopper. they are out of Pearl Harbor and complete hunks of .;) just kidding. the Ingraham i'm not familiar with.
these units are there on an International mandate. the only Gulf state that does not want them there is guess who? Iran.
Iran was baiting them to fire on them. it would obviously be a win/win situation for Iran if we had. that, in itself, is the most troubling.
our units probably have a go/no go range (they probably have them in stages). in other words there are different ranges that they will attach different firing priorities to given hostile contacts. if a hostile comes within those range circles at given speeds or angles of attack, there are certain rules of engagement the Captain will specify automatically. obviously the Iranians were outside the "die mutherfukker" range.
you can expect Iran to test them again.
Iran could be doing it for s and grins or they could be doing it to drive up oil prices who knows.
it's way overblown and again, those Units are there on an International mandate. that obviously won't stop the rabble from BLAME AMERICA FIRST!!!!!:rolleyes:
EDIT> i just realized i used "obviously" three times in this post. sweet. |
|
|
|
|
