BF2S Forums Watch your ass Iran

PureFodder wrote:

RECONDO67 wrote:

In Nutical Miles How Many Are There In Between?

The narrowest bit is 21 miles apparently. Plus their concern about US vessels being there is justified.

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

Yes, because we know the peaceloving Iranian government is worried about the evil, warmongering Americans, who calously shoot down an airliner that is flying with an F-14 transponder away from commercial air traffic flying in a direct line towrd their ship.  (I remember the story at the time; yes, I am THAT old)

Of course.  No, we wouldn't be worried about the Iranians trying anything shady, would we?  I mean, it isn't like that they would fund and train a terrorist organization in another country, is it?

If the scenario is true, I do not see how this is different then the cold war, the US. flying recon over the Soviets airspace, etc.
I can not take "the Iranian" voice on the video seriously; he sounds like Draco in Rocky IV.....I must break you

NantanCochise wrote:

Well we will just have to agree to disagree. Your claim that Iran is not an agressor in the region cannot be further from the truth. You forget that the Iran Iraq war was because of Iraian Shite influence in Iraq, acted out in many ways through acts of terror.

The Iran-Iraq war was quite blatant opportunism on the part of the US and Saddam Hussein, one wanting to undermine the revolution that took away their influence over Iranian politics and oil and the other a megalomaniac bent on riding roughshod over the entire middle east, ultimately ending up riding into Jerusalem as a modern Saladin.

NantanCochise wrote:

I lived in the middle-east and Gulf States like the UAE, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar are extremely affraid of constant Iranian agression. UAE Islands like Abu Musa and Tunb Islands have been occupied by Iranian forces.

I am aware that they have territorial disputes over various islands in the Hormuz strait. I did say that they do like to exert their influence in the gulf so I don't think there is any great disagreement there.

NantanCochise wrote:

The Iranian Navy constantly threatens International shipping lanes, sometimes taking pot-shots at passing civilian and commercial ships. There was even a hightened threat of invasion of the UAE by Iran in 1994 and 1995. At the time it was the Iranian government that publically confirmed their intentions and was subsiquently threatened by the US and other Gulf State allies.

I will have to take your word for it, but I find the idea of a potential invasion of UAE a little far-fetched.

NantanCochise wrote:

You say you cant blame them for wanting to develop nuclear weapons when they pronounce the will to destroy Isreal. That they have ICBS that now reach Rome and are developing more to reach even further, why?

I can't blame them for wanting to develop them because it will ensure the survival of their country through MAD. Mutually assured destruction ensures survival - and with you having lived in the middle east you can't honestly believe that Muslims are the rabid animals shown on TV ready to sacrifice their entire country just to take a potshot that will barely dent the west. They're not stupid and I don't believe they would ever intend to use them. It was the same in the Cold War. Neither superpower would have used their nuclear arsenal - the beauty of mutually assured destruction.

NantanCochise wrote:

You say that Im overreaching with the assertion that they donate money to Islamic millitants. Really! Dont they interfere with the internal politics of Syria. Arnt the problems in Lebanon directly related to their support for Hizbollah? Are they not covertly supplying weapons to terrorists to fight Americans in Iraq.

Hisb'allah is based in Lebanon and Syria. I explicitly said in my post that they financially support Hisb'allah. Hisb'allah do not have any designs regarding 'bringing down the west'. Their beef is with Israeli occupation of their lands. I was saying you over-reached in terms of the impression you gave of some kind of global network of funding coming out of Iran for any halfwit Muslim that has hold of a Kalashnikov. That simply is not the case. As for what is going on in Iraq: no Iranians have actually been involved directly in the conflict. America supplies weapons to its ally Israel in a rather overt manner - why the double standard with respect to Iranians supplying their Shi'a brethren in Iraq with weapons? It's business at the end of the day. And it has yet to be proven that any of these 'covert arms flows' are government sanctioned.

NantanCochise wrote:

No matter your position in this matter, Im sorry but yes they are aggressors and a major influence in the area. ..and for the record I didnt say they that they donate money to all majority muslim countries (that ironically would be Saudi Arabia). I said that they had claimed that they consider the EU and US are enemies of the Islamic world. Whether that is true or not is besides the point, the point being that they assert a lot of bullshit that comes directly from the mouth of the Ayatollah, the real leader in Iran.

We will have to agree to disagree because I don't view things in the context of the here and now - I view things in the context of how we arrived at where we are today. From the Pahlavi regime through the CIA overthrow of Mossadeq through to US support for the illegal Iraqi invasion of Iran, all the evidence points to them being the ones aggressed against.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-10 10:44:08)

NantanCochise wrote:

Oh yes Cam I know, I know all too well what you are saying. I think we could be here for months if we wanted to discuss in detail every little attribute to the regional intensions of both the US and Iran. I began writing on this forum due to my frustration by rediculous assumptions of a conspiracy, and even if it was, the facts first please. Irainian intelligence is very well orchastrated and people buy into it so easily, and yes recent actions by western nations have not helped at home nor abroad in these assertions. A few points though, just because Iran has not actually been involved directly in a conflict in the area does not make them any less innocent, if fact it confirms their covert/terroristic manner and looking good at the same time. As for the Iran/Iraq war there is no clear good/bad guy senario, I was refering more to the fact that Saddam had a major preoccupation with Shiate influence coming from Iran. The potential invasion of UAE was not far-fetched at all (at least not locally), many people at that time prepared for war, many expatriates left the country. Many believe the immediate arrival of a US fleet and a squadron from the UK cancelled Iranian intensions for invasion. In all reallity, and I was there at the time, I agree that it was more of a threat than real action. ...and Im definately not assuming that Iran is going to nuke Isreal, the EU nor the US. I was asking the question why they are so eager in the develpment of these weapons and nuclear power. Yes it would be far fetched to say that they would use them. But their regional influence cannot be possitive, its actually frightening to gulf states, Turkey, Jordan and of course Isreal. Furthermore another arms race is not my idea of stability. Im also more cautious about being too appeasing when it comes to Iran. I think international pressure is good for a reason. Im sure you'll agree that no one would want a country like Iran to be the most influencial in the region. Than again, who would be a better candidate?

I think pressure is good. But brinksmanship can be bad. Brinksmanship can accidentally precipitate into unnecessary conflict. But both parties are equally guilty of brinksmanship. The Iranian propaganda/public image machine has surprised me with its professionalism. I never imagined it out of a Muslim country. The stunt with the British prisoners was a masterstroke and even them responding to the US video of the naval incident with one of their own shows a media-savvy side of them I never expected to see. The US's international reputation is at a low ebb and if it locks horns with Iran in a media war it stands a higher chance than normal of losing meaning any diplomatic/economic pressure being exerted on Iran will be weakened. I think the US needs to dampen the situation down a little, take stock and perhaps think of alternative strategies to dealing with Iranian influence in the region. Personally I think they could never really have much influence given that they're the wrong sect of Islam, are not Arabic and do not speak Arabic. So I don't know really what anybody is that worried about. The only ones who should be concerned are Israel, given the rhetoric coming out of Tehran. I am actually puzzled as to what exactly it is that makes Iran a foe of the US, other than the Israel thing.

nothing new then

During the Vietnam War, North Vietnamese intelligence units sometimes succeeded in penetrating Allied communications systems, and they could monitor Allied message traffic from within. But sometimes they did more than that.

On several occasions "the communists were able, by communicating on Allied radio nets, to call in Allied artillery or air strikes on American units."

That is just one passing observation (at p. 392) in an exhaustive history of American signals intelligence (SIGINT) in the Vietnam War that has just been declassified and released by the National Security Agency.

From the first intercepted cable -- a 1945 message from Ho Chi Minh to Joseph Stalin -- to the final evacuation of SIGINT personnel from Saigon, the 500-page NSA volume, called "Spartans in Darkness," retells the history of the Vietnam War from the perspective of signals intelligence.

The most sensational part of the history (which was excerpted and disclosed by the NSA two years ago) is the recounting of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Incident, in which a reported North Vietnamese attack on U.S. forces triggered a major escalation of the war. The author demonstrates that not only is it not true, as Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was "unimpeachable," but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that "no attack happened that night."

Several other important Vietnam War-era episodes are elucidated by the contribution of SIGINT, including the Tet Offensive, the attempted rescue of U.S. prisoners of war from Son Tay prison, and more.

The author, Robert J. Hanyok, writes in a lively, occasionally florid style that is accessible even to those who are not well-versed in the history of SIGINT or Vietnam.

The 2002 study was released in response to a Mandatory Declassification Review request filed by Michael Ravnitzky. About 95% of the document was declassified. (Unfortunately, several of the pages were poorly reproduced by NSA and are difficult to read. A cleaner, clearer copy will need to be obtained.)

See "Spartans in Darkness: American SIGINT and the Indochina War, 1945-1975" by Robert J. Hanyok, Center for Cryptologic History, National Security Agency, 2002.

Some background on the Tonkin Gulf Incident from the National Security Archive with links to related documents may be found here.

imortal wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

RECONDO67 wrote:

In Nutical Miles How Many Are There In Between?

The narrowest bit is 21 miles apparently. Plus their concern about US vessels being there is justified.

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

Yes, because we know the peaceloving Iranian government is worried about the evil, warmongering Americans, who calously shoot down an airliner that is flying with an F-14 transponder away from commercial air traffic flying in a direct line towrd their ship.  (I remember the story at the time; yes, I am THAT old)

Of course.  No, we wouldn't be worried about the Iranians trying anything shady, would we?  I mean, it isn't like that they would fund and train a terrorist organization in another country, is it?

I guess it was a while ago, I'll refresh your memory. It was an Iranian plane in Iranian airspace in a commercial flight corriror, this was supposedly mistaken by the Americans as being a single enemy aircraft making a solo assault on a full US fleet. The Us got busted for it and was forced to pay reparations to the killed Iranians.

In August 1988 Newsweek quoted the vice president as saying; "I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever, I don't care what the facts are." Just to prove Americas fine commitment to the truth of the matter.

When the sailors returned from shooting down an Iranian civilian flight they recieved medals, the commander who ordered the attack got a Commendation medal.

From wiki:

Three years after the incident, Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on American television show Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles. This contradicted earlier Navy statements.

According to Commander David R Carlson of the USS Sides, the Vincennes was not under attack by Iranian forces and "the conduct of the Iranian military forces in the month preceeding the incident was pointedly non-threatening."

Captain David Carlson, commander of the USS Sides, the warship stationed near to the Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers' aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago." His comment referred to incidents on June 2, when Rogers had sailed the Vincennes too close to an Iranian frigate undertaking a lawful search of a bulk carrier, launched a helicopter within 2-3 miles (3.2-4.8 km) of an Iranian small craft despite rules of engagement requiring a four-mile (6.4 km) separation, and opened fire on a number of small Iranian military boats. Of those incidents, Carlson commented, "Why do you want an Aegis cruiser out there shooting up boats? It wasn't a smart thing to do." At the time of Rogers' announcement to higher command that he was going to shoot down the plane, Carlson is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have been thunderstruck: "I said to folks around me, 'Why, what the hell is he doing?' I went through the drill again. F-14. He’s climbing. By now this damn thing is at 7,000 feet." However, Carlson thought the Vincennes might have more information, and was unaware that Rogers had been wrongly informed that the plane was diving.

In case you've misse dthe entire point of just about everything that's happened in the USA-Iran current spat, don't simply believe everything the US media says, it often turns out to be a great big steaming plate of bullshit and chips.

Last edited by PureFodder (2008-01-10 14:57:31)

CameronPoe wrote:

As for what is going on in Iraq: no Iranians have actually been involved directly in the conflict.

Sorry Cam, but they have. In both the North (Qods Force Brig Gen was captured by Coalition forces while trying to cross back into Iran) and in the South (Iranian SOF attacked a building with US and Iraqi forces inside).

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/ … _corps.php
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/T … _activ.asp

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

As for what is going on in Iraq: no Iranians have actually been involved directly in the conflict.

Sorry Cam, but they have. In both the North (Qods Force Brig Gen was captured by Coalition forces while trying to cross back into Iran) and in the South (Iranian SOF attacked a building with US and Iraqi forces inside).

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/ … _corps.php
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/T … _activ.asp

Nice sources. lol. Weekly Standard. Did any reputable news channels carry the story?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-11 03:40:52)

theelviscerator wrote:

You people sound just like those who mollycoddled Hitler into WWII from England.

Never thought about it that way. Very good point.

Kmarion wrote:

The way to avoid the problem and minimize the danger is to swat the fly away--to show the enemy that you won't be diddled with impunity. You don't actually have to shoot at anyone, not when you're driving a 9100-ton cruiser and they have 30 ton speedboats--all you have to do is pass a little too closely while cranking 30 knots, and let your bow wave and wake do the rest. If you're feeling charitable, you can lower a boat and pick up survivors.

I agree with Stuart Koehl. And I hope the US CO has the wisdom (and the guts) to take these measures.