True? False?
Iran Revolutionary Guards: Unit engraved emblem on U.S. ship
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
A commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Wednesday that a commando unit has engraved the military organization's emblem into the side panel of an American warship stationed in the Persian Gulf.
Nur Ali Shushkari, the head of the Revolutionary Guards ground forces, told Iranian pro-government news agencies that the symbol was etched onto the ship by the crew of a submarine that had managed to reach the U.S. vessel without detection by radar.
Shushkari did not release specific details about the incident, but claimed that the operation proved that Iranian forces are following American fleet traffic in the region.
Shushkari warned the United States that if a confrontation arises, all American forces in the gulf as well as targets inside the U.S. itself would be targets for attack.
In recent months, the U.S. has increased its forces in the Persian Gulf and has carried out a number of exercise maneuvers which have been viewed by the Iranians as threatening.
Despite this, U.S. President George Bush has insisted that the American army has no plans to invade Iran.
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
A commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Wednesday that a commando unit has engraved the military organization's emblem into the side panel of an American warship stationed in the Persian Gulf.
Nur Ali Shushkari, the head of the Revolutionary Guards ground forces, told Iranian pro-government news agencies that the symbol was etched onto the ship by the crew of a submarine that had managed to reach the U.S. vessel without detection by radar.
Shushkari did not release specific details about the incident, but claimed that the operation proved that Iranian forces are following American fleet traffic in the region.
Shushkari warned the United States that if a confrontation arises, all American forces in the gulf as well as targets inside the U.S. itself would be targets for attack.
In recent months, the U.S. has increased its forces in the Persian Gulf and has carried out a number of exercise maneuvers which have been viewed by the Iranians as threatening.
Despite this, U.S. President George Bush has insisted that the American army has no plans to invade Iran.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by 180A
"And so was I--in 'Nam during Tet; questioning and protesting the war as best I could while assigned to the Office of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. You have no special lock on knowledge, IMO".
So tell me, most in service protestors got a BCD or dishonorable discharge; how did you manage to get an honorable?
You might have forgotten that not every member of the US Armed Forces back then was in favor of the war, including many, many officers, both junior and senior. BTW, had it been easy to get a discharge for protesting, the military would not have had any draftees left to go to 'Nam.
So long as one remained civil and respectful of the military culture, one could protest the CIVILIAN conduct of the war without fear of repercussions.
Please remember that the military is beholden to the Constitution of the United States and not to a particular political party or Administration.0 -
Here's what I know, and I was there.
No one in my combat command was a war protestor.
They were all triple volunteers, there to get a job done to the best of their ability in spite of the politicians and John Kerrys of this world.0 -
quote:Originally posted by 180A
Here's what I know, and I was there.
No one in my combat command was a war protestor.
They were all triple volunteers, there to get a job done to the best of their ability in spite of the politicians and John Kerrys of this world.
Good for them.0 -
Lowrider, don't you start, now. 0 -
DW- Are you talking about me deleting a post with something about me in it? Never happened. I only edited out a couple of personal insults by Hairy and Lowrider at each other and this was done after your post referencing the moderation was made. I never saw anything said about me. If it was deleted I didn't do it.
Also, I didn't seek the moderator job to have more power. I was asked to be a moderator and I never use my ability to edit to influence the debates, remove unflattering comments about myself or suppress anyone with whom I disagree. If you are suggesting that I do any of these things you are mistaken and you owe me an apology.
Hairy- I have to disagree with you about the war being based on "lies." The reasons for the war (as I understood them) were to remove Saddam thus preventing him from being an increasingly destabilizing influence in the Middle East and to eliminate Iraq as a supporter of terror groups. It was said that one of the many reasons Saddam was a threat was because he had or was trying to obtain nuclear weapons.
Many people feel this last part proved false. I am not so sure that Saddam's nuke development material wasn't hidden or moved to Syria before the U.S. forces arrived. Some Iraqi defectors say there was a nuke program. It may have been happening and we just didn't find the evidence.
It's also possible that intel was wrong and there was no nuke development going on. That doesn't necessarily mean Bush lied about it. I think he genuinely believed it was true. Clinton said it was true and so did many military analysts.
If you want to say Bush was mistaken, or foolish to rush in so quickly, then I can't argue with you except to say again that I still think we may have just never proved there was nuke work going on. But I really don't think Bush lied about this and this is just a charge made by people who really hate the president. I have not seen anyone prove Bush lied. It's an accusation thrown around but it's biased opinion based on hatred.0 -
Well jeez, don't be so hard on ol' Hairy. All his buddies at the DemocraticUnderground and MoveOn.org websites were saying the same thing. [:D][:D] 0 -
SaxonPig: When Bush said he had PROOF Saddam had WMD, he lied; when Bush said Saddam tried to obtain yellowcake, that was a lie; when the Administration claimed Saddam's agents met with Mohammed Atta in Prague, that was a lie; when the Brits said Saddam had missiles that could strike Great Britain in 15 minutes; that was a lie; when Colin Powell gave his dog-n-pony show at the UN, he subsequently confessed it was a lie; when Bush said Iraq was a threat to the US, that was a lie since we were containing Iraq if you recall.
And when Bush's master, Cheney, said that Iraq was involved in 9/11, that was a lie.
Those aren't "misstatements" but deliberate lies designed to generate fear among the American people to allow him to go to war.
Please note that the few people who had the SAME intelligence as Bush DID NOT INVADE IRAQ; they could comprehend and understood the caveats on the intelligence.
Also, please read current events about the Office of Special Programs, run by Feith, to give cover to the lies. It was in the news this past week.
Get over it, your boy won.0 -
I have to admit that I didn't follow every word and every event so I can't comment on most of what you claim. Except for the "yellowcake" thing. Weren't there, in fact, confirmations from African sources that agents working for Saddam had been trying to buy this material in Niger? I am pretty sure I have heard testimony saying that was true. I can't imagine anyone being absolutely convinced that Saddam didn't have nukes and wasn't trying to get them. Of course he wanted them and I have no doubt he was trying or at least thinking about trying to get them.
And when you make comments like "Bush's master, Cheney" you weaken your credibility. Such disparaging comments simply illustrate your personal bias more than support your arguments. I respect Dick Cheney even though I disagree with him about 50% of the time. I like him a lot more than I do Bush. But he's certainly not a puppetmaster pulling Bush's strings. That's just another of the popular Liberal insults.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I have to admit that I didn't follow every word and every event so I can't comment on most of what you claim. Except for the "yellowcake" thing. Weren't there, in fact, confirmations from African sources that agents working for Saddam had been trying to buy this material in Niger? I am pretty sure I have heard testimony saying that was true. I can't imagine anyone being absolutely convinced that Saddam didn't have nukes and wasn't trying to get them. Of course he wanted them and I have no doubt he was trying or at least thinking about trying to get them. You may have no doubt but the intelligence experts did; and over 3,000 American servicemen and women are paying the price--not you. quote:
And when you make comments like "Bush's master, Cheney" you weaken your credibility. Such disparaging comments simply illustrate your personal bias more than support your arguments. I respect Dick Cheney even though I disagree with him about 50% of the time. I like him a lot more than I do Bush. But he's certainly not a puppetmaster pulling Bush's strings. That's just another of the popular Liberal insults.It might be an insult in your mind but it is the truth as well. Both Bush and Cheney ought to be impeached, IMO, for their high crimes and misdemeanors.
If this country is fortunate, it might just happen.0 -
Perceived blunders are not crimes. Real blunders are not crimes. Lying is not a crime (unless it's done under oath). What actual crimes have Bush or Cheney committed? 0 -
False.
They would have attached a bomb.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
Lying is not a crime (unless it's done under oath).
Wrong. NUNN tell them why they are wrong...0 -
quote:Originally posted by mateomasfeo
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
Lying is not a crime (unless it's done under oath).
Wrong. NUNN tell them why they are wrong...
Because they can use it against you in divorce court? Don0 -
OK, making a false police report is is a crime and I guess that's lying.
These people who want to impeach Bush amaze me. he'll be gone in less than two years and do they really want to spend a majority of that time involved in impeachment proceedings that will paralyze the government?
Wait a minute. Maybe it's not such a bad idea, after all.0 -
There are a few people whose actions have actually changed the course of history. Pompidoir and Lloyd Jorge prevented actions that would have would have prevented a war in Europe twenty years later. FDR and Harry S for nothing Truman's support of French Imperialism in SE Asia and mishandling the whole China situation set the stage for Communism in China and a war in Vietnam.
I suspect the four of them have had very small heat bills in their current residences.
As for the present efforts at humanitarianism in the Arab countries; the main focus is to stabilize it. If the process fails and militants continue the terrorist format of warfare, I suspect the next change in the course of history will be a more final solution to that problem, which won't be kind to the civilian residents, but when military/terrorist actions are the course of the rulers, then the subjects reap the consequences.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
OK, making a false police report is is a crime and I guess that's lying.
These people who want to impeach Bush amaze me. he'll be gone in less than two years and do they really want to spend a majority of that time involved in impeachment proceedings that will paralyze the government?
Wait a minute. Maybe it's not such a bad idea, after all.
SaxonPig, perhaps I have a higher regard for our Constitution than you do because I would support the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, even if it "paralyzed" the government.
IMHO, justice needs to be served and impeachment is the way to carry it out. To let these two off simply tells the rest of the politicians that degrading the Constitution is okay.
Richard Nixon tried it and left office under the threat of impeachment; William Clinton was impeached for far less an offense than these two.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
46 comments