Pentagon says U.S. ships harassed by Iranians.
Pentagon says U.S. ships harassed by Iranians.
“In what is being called a serious provocation, Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz,” Pentagon officials said. According to one official, “Five small [Iranian] boats were acting in a very aggressive way… and causing our ships to take evasive maneuvers.” The AP reports:
“There were no injuries but there very well could have been,” he said, adding that the Iranian boats turned away “literally at the very moment that U.S. forces were preparing to open fire” in self defense.
He said he didn’t have the precise transcript of communications that passed between the two forces, but the Iranians radioed something to the effect that “we’re coming at you and you’ll explode in a couple minutes.”
UPDATE: A White House statement in response to the incident: “We urge the Iranians to refrain from such provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the future.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
wrong place wrong time?
yep.
bushies are foaming at the mouth for any excuse to bomb bomb bomb, bomb iran….
January 7th, 2008 at 10:22 amCheney wants his own “Remember The Maine!!” moment.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:22 amTonkin Gulf redux.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:22 amFive small boats!! Run!! I mean swim!!
January 7th, 2008 at 10:25 amI think we all saw this coming.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:25 amas if u.s. navy ship being in the straits of hormuz isn’t in and of itself serious provocation to the iranians.
imagine it the other way:
our presence there is an extreme form of harassment, yet we have the gall to claim it’s them harassing us.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:26 amwwwhhhaaaaaaaaa….what a bunch of babies…
Let’s start a nuclear war!!!
January 7th, 2008 at 10:26 amI used this same tactic against my older sister when I was a child.
Provoke her into physical conflict, then cry for help and get her in trouble.
Worked until my parents figured out my scheme.
Why are the majority of Americans so dumb and gullible?
January 7th, 2008 at 10:26 amWhy are the majority of Americans so dumb and gullible?
Comment by DieNowForPeace
Because the majority of Americans are dumb and gullible.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:28 amHappy New Year and Best Wishes for 2008.
Sincerely,
January 7th, 2008 at 10:28 amThe Office of the Vice President, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith et al
re #3: You took the words out of my mouth.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:29 amLet’s hope it doesn’t happen.
We’ve had a major “strike group” parked right off of their coast, for months now, and THEY are the ones provoking us?
January 7th, 2008 at 10:30 amThe Strait of Hormuz (Arabic: مضيق هرمز – MadÄ«q Hurmuz, Persian: تنگه هرمز – Tangeh-ye Hormoz) is a narrow, strategically important waterway between the Gulf of Oman in the southeast and the Persian Gulf in the southwest. On the north coast is Iran (Persia) and on the south coast is the United Arab Emirates and Musandam, an exclave of Oman.
NOpe…nowhere near the US.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:31 amFACTBOX: Strait of Hormuz: economic effects of disruption
Mon Jan 7, 2008 9:24am EST
(Reuters) – Any military action in the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf would knock out oil exports from OPEC’s biggest producers, cut off the oil supply to Japan and South Korea and knock the booming economies of Gulf states.
Here are some key facts on what passes through the international waterway and some of the direct economic consequences of any attack on merchant shipping.
[...]
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0715685920080107
…
and with dubby on his way over there… ugh…
January 7th, 2008 at 10:32 amnothing will surprise me… get ready for the worst…
Is this to help Giuliani in another commercial ?!
January 7th, 2008 at 10:34 amHe used the death of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan for commercials and in his debate to scare Americans.
Hmmmm, very interesting. . . . since the transcript wasn’t precise, how do we know what the Iranians said? Perhaps it was something like, “How do you like our little boats?
January 7th, 2008 at 10:40 amthe Iranians radioed something like
Nothing like starting another war based yet again solely on conjecture.
“Nice doggy, especially that actively wagging tail!”
January 7th, 2008 at 10:44 amhere it comes.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:47 amour presence there is an extreme form of harassment, yet we have the gall to claim it’s them harassing us.
Comment by lonesomerobot
Nahhh. Remember, there are a different set of rules…
If you behead somebody and broadcast it on TV, you are a lawless barbarian.
If you wipe out entire villages with bombs, you are spreading freedom and goodwill.
That’s how it works. UK citizens thought that the Chinese, Indians and Africans were barbarians that needed to be educated. Nazis thought that Gypsies, Polish, Jews and Euroasians were a cancer to the world. Ahhh, but we still don’t learn…what a great species we are.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:51 amU.S. military ships have re-enforced bows for this very reason. Next time, no “evasive manueversâ€, simply run the provocatuers down.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Good thing they have training to guide their decisions, and not just a diaper full of sh*t like you.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:54 am“Iran finances and exports terrorism.”
operation ajax, o bigfoot. operation ajax.
look it up.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:55 am#20 please do fill us in on this history of provocation. Also who exactly invited us? As I recall Reagann sennt our navy over there during the Iran/Iraq war to keep the shipping channnels open.
Like I said in another thread I’ll wait a bit and see what the facts are. Seems like you have made up yyour mind already. Me? Nope i need more proof than the adminsitraiont saying “trust us this happened”
January 7th, 2008 at 10:55 amdon’t ask the cultist bigfoot to look anything up; he has no interest in facts, just the stuff he pulls out of his ass. Shock And Awe were merely a request for an “invitation” to murder thousands and displace millions of our friends the Iraqis. bigfoot gave his mind to the Mormons, and he has lost the ability to think for himself. thus, Republican.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:58 amWhy do Progressives assume the troops are lying?
Comment by good_golly — January 7, 2008 @ 10:57 am
what do the troops have to do with the brass? not even a good strawman, gg. and you know the administration lies; they have bragged about it.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:59 amUPDATE: A White House statement in response to the incident: “We urge the Iranians to refrain from such provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the future.â€
Hmmm… I wonder if anyone in the White Padded Room has though of refraining from poking a stick at a hornet’s nest?
January 7th, 2008 at 10:59 amMany, many Iranians are pro-Western.
Just like the USA, they have some bad apples in government. We should be reaching out to moderate & pro-Western Iranians right now.
Will we?
No. It would be more likely to see Bush using inflammatory rhetoric to Suadi Arabia & Israel this week, trying to stoke the flames of war to distract Americans from the real problem…him.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:01 amYou people are incredible in your ignorance, and hatred for your own nation. It appears your very lives revolve around desparaging your own nation with your “blame the United States first†attitude.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 10:51 am
I am sick of judgmental attacks on my patriotism such as this. I love my country, but I am extremely angry at some of the policies and actions by some of my fellow Americans in my name as an American. And people who make comments like this are “America does no wrong” jingoists who make my list as well.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:03 amStrait of Hormuz is now the hottest flashpoint on this planet to start a war.
It does not take much for a big war to erupt.
The outcome will be devastating to world economy and will send the whole area exploding like a volcano.
It does not take much to start a war…but it takes thousands of lives and trillions of dollars and long years to end it , and decades to heal the wounds.
Millions will suffer as a result of a big military conflict with Iran.
It is foolish to underestiame the outcome of such a big war…
I hope wisdom will prevail…but it is in short supply these days among politicians…
January 7th, 2008 at 11:03 amA White House statement in response to the incident: “We urge the Iranians to refrain from such provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the future.â€
Poor US…so isolated from the rest of the world.
Iran has made bold diplomatic moves by befriending the Araba countries. Russia and China are backing Iran with business and weaponry.
Global markets belong to China.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:04 amGlobal software belongs to India
Global Energy belongs to Russia
Global soil products are belonging to Brazil…
And why do you hate our Navy so?
January 7th, 2008 at 11:04 am* * *
Bullshit conclusion. Centcom’s Adm. Fallon and Joint Chiefs Chair Adm. Mullen saved our asses by blunting Cheney’s push to attack Iran. God bless the U.S. Navy!
I think the real reason any intelligent person would even lean towards another Gulf of Tonkin incident is because since the Nazi Chimp and his Cohorts in Crime have presided in Washington — there has been nothing but
lies, cover-ups, more lies, Federal Crimes committed, more smoke and mirrors.
Why wouldn’t anyone with a operating respitory system think that we are further opening Pandora’s Box in the Middle East?
January 7th, 2008 at 11:05 amtrying to stoke the flames of war to distract Americans from the real problem…him.
Shrub, the common denominator for the last 7 years of troubling US foreign policy…
January 7th, 2008 at 11:06 amo bigfoot, you are incredible for your ignorance of history, and for your tired and ridiculously generalized attack. there is such a thing as loving your country but hating the government and its policies. seems i heard a lot of that coming from the right wing in the 90s.
american foreign policy has been a singular attempt to enforce our dominance and hegemony across the world since the 1950s. once again, i encourage you to look up operation ajax in iran. sorry to inform you, but america ALSO has a documented history of provocation in the middle east and elsewhere.
your blind nationalism contributes to an arrogant projection of american power that creates more problems than it solves. we are a great nation, but merely going through life as a blind babe in the woods with utter faith that america always does the right thing is foolish and allows our often misguided leaders to continue insane policies of acquisition and domination unfettered. merely saying “we’re great” does nothing to hold our leaders accountable for their mistakes, and contributes to the loss of american prestige and respect throughout the world. you can’t lead if no one will follow.
but such is the republican way.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:07 amI hope wisdom will prevail…but it is in short supply these days among politicians…
Comment by tarazan
I think it is not wisdom what drives diplomatic actions, I think it is benefit. Reading the WH statement on this issue, it is easy to see that Russia and China and Arab support towards Iran is putting US somewhat down.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am“But, officer, I was just minding my own business on my neighbor’s front porch. and he came out and demanded that I leave! Then he almost shoved me! Luckily I took evasive action and didn’t get touched. But somethin bad could happen next time. I’m just warning you.”
January 7th, 2008 at 11:07 amThere has already been a great deal of talk on this thread about who was right, who belongs in those waters, etc. etc. And the thread has now bogged down into who’s patriotic and who isn’t.
I’d just like to take a moment and applaud the skippers of the three U.S. Navy ships involved in the incident. They reacted with level heads instead of trigger-happy bravado. As a result, nobody was hurt, and this did not become a lit fuse for greater confrontation.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:10 amit’s neighbors invited guests
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 10:51 am
Who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz?
It appears your very lives revolve around desparaging your own nation with your “blame the United States first†attitude.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 10:51 am
Your blind devotion is troubling to an imperfect nation, run by imperfect people, in an imprefect world is troubling. Then again, things are usually easier when one doesn’t waste all that time thinking critically about a situation.
Again, who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
I don’t expect answers. You’re a tool of the pro-war, pro-death, ultra militaristic establishment. You can’t honestly answer these questions, you’d lie to justify your immorality.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:11 am40.
Repeated “is troubling” twice…but I think you all know what I mean.
O. Bigfoot is a war monger and a fraud, just like his favorite president.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:12 am35. Good point. I guess it isn’t disloyalty or America-hating when the bigfeet among us attack a Democratic President.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:13 amI was in the Navy back in the 60’s on a ship that sat off the coast of Havana Cuba. They would ‘test’ us all of the time by sending out missile-load patrol boats and Russian MIGs. They would also impact their land-based missile radar on us and run the countdown to 4 or 5 before stopping. It was part of the game. We were spying on them and they were responding just as we would. I’m very thankful that our destroyer escort never fired on the Cubans. That would be an entirely different history.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:14 am38. I’d just like to take a moment and applaud the skippers of the three U.S. Navy ships involved in the incident. They reacted with level heads instead of trigger-happy bravado. As a result, nobody was hurt, and this did not become a lit fuse for greater confrontation.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:16 am* * *
Agree 100%. See my #32.
by the navy’s very actions, we are an entire attack group of elephants sitting on iran’s front door step. please tell me how that is “attemting [sic] to avoid military action.”
if iran had a carrier group sitting just off of miami beach, you’d be crapping yourself and demanding that whoever was running the show immediately attack them.
your problem is that you are only able to look at all situations from the american point of view. step outside of your nationalism and look at the role we actually play in world affairs. it ain’t always pretty, and it ain’t always right.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:17 amI feel so fuzzy all over know that my tax paying dollars are protecting me in in the Strait of Hormuz. Can any Repuke show me on a globe exactly where that is let alone Iran?
January 7th, 2008 at 11:17 amYou people are incredible in your ignorance, and hatred for your own nation. It appears your very lives revolve around desparaging your own nation with your “blame the United States first†attitude.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Here, let me spin your statement the other direction – directed at you: “You people are incredible in your arrogance and hatred of those unlike you. It appears your very lives revolve around disparaging your fellow Americans with your “blame the United States citizens first” attitude.”
Fixed it for you.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:19 amArleigh Burke-class DDG:
1xMk.45 5-inch gun
2XMk.15 Phalanx 20mm CIWS
2xMk.38 25mm automatic cannos
several .50 caliber and M-240 7.62mm machines, as well as Mk.19 grenade launchers, positioned around the deck
Not much of a contest, I don’t think.
(There was also, according to the report, a Tico-class CG and a Perry-class FFG involved, but I won’t get into their weapon systems)
January 7th, 2008 at 11:19 amComment by O. Bigfoot
Maybe if we all shoved our collective heads up our a$$es, we’d better understand your “position” cause what you espouse is wholly chock full of grade *A* crapolla.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:22 amYa know, I really hate Bush and Cheney, and I do not trust them. I could also characterize myself as a ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive
However
I think this thread has gotten rather silly, and I think this sort of knee-jerk reaction can give progressives a bad name in this sense…
The world really is a dangerous place, and there are actually bad people out there that will do things to us. Also, the US does need energy from the Middle East, and having a presence there to ensure the free flow of traffic from the Persian Gulf is actually an important component of our national policy. Furthermore, demonstrating a presence in international waters is also sensible policy, unless you take the position that there are not entities that would like to deny or degrade the free flow of shipping in international waters to the US or our allies.
Recall that Iran took over a British ship in international waters last summer, this is not the first incident. These ships also came within 200 yards of our ships, manuvering between them, were dropping objects in the water before the course of our ships, and expressed threats over the radio. Also note that the ships held fire and complied with their own rules of engagement that resulted in no exchange of fire, though the captain of one of those ships could have indeed seen a clear threat. The commanders of those ships have a responsibility to defend their ships and the crews aboard!
I want to put forth that alternative view, and perhaps we can tone down the breathless conspiracy theories. I have not seen any indication that this incident was contrived, and this seems certainly plausable considering the recent British experience.
I would, however, amplify the concerns expressed on this thread that Bush and Cheney would -use- the tactical mistake of Iran as a basis for an attack on Iran, but what Iran did was indeed provactive and fairly stupid, they should not underestimate the stupidity of Bush/Cheney as much as we should not underestimate the stupidity of our challangers in the region.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:23 amLooks like the chimp was watching PBS and thought that if it worked for Johnson it would work for him. He just doesn’t know where the Tonkin Gulf is located.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:24 amI’m looking to give you a gift of a tattoo on your forehead of the following, so you wont forget:
People who put blind trust in the government, DON’T DESERVE TO LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY.
And since you’re obviously a drooling mouth breather, on your tongue we’ll go with simply the tattoo that reads:
THINK.
You’ll see it every time you look into the mirror, drooling, breathing heavily through the mouth.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:25 amWhile many of you who hate your own nation are rushing to judgement against your own country for it’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz, it would appear that by the U.S. Navy’s very actions, the United States is attemting to avoid military action against Iran at this point.
Comment by O. Bigtroll— January 7, 2008 @ 11:11 am
WARNING!!! Extreme Troll/Strawman Alert! Pure Projection!
Be advised that this particular “antagonist” has no inclination of debate or discussion regarding facts. Engaging only hastens his masturbatory potential. Approach only if in need of “dumbing down”.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread
January 7th, 2008 at 11:26 amI don’t hide my beliefs that we should have taken care of Iran years ago, before they gained any power at all.
Brave words from Chickenhawks carry little weight.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:27 am53. I don’t hide my beliefs that we should have taken care of Iran years ago, before they gained any power at all.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:28 am* * *
We did, you ignoramus–in 1953. Google “Mosaddeq.” How can you type without opposable thumbs?
“If you don’t like being called out for your extreme lack of patriotism, change your attitude and stand with your country.”
let me interpret that:
“if you don’t like a blind chickenhawk with no concept of history and only an amazing sense of mindless bravado calling you out for your extreme lack of corroborating insanity, change your attitude and blindly support any idiotic thing that’s done in your country’s name”
i don’t stand with my country. i stand for my country. i don’t have to accept stupidity just because it comes waving an american flag, bigfoot.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:28 am53
Being a war monger does not make you a fraud.
Avoiding a set a rather simple questions I have posed, in order to get a more complete understanding of your views, is fraudulent to me. You assert things and provide no factual, or even subjective, backing. That is fraudulent to me.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:29 am56
True enough, but I would be thrilled to get O. Bigfoot’s take on our cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia. Home of Osama bin Laden, birthplace of the vast majority of 9/11 hijackers, theocratic and tyrannical, and yet, somehow innocuous in the eyes of the Bush crime family.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:32 amI don’t hide my beliefs that we should have taken care of Iran years ago, before they gained any power at all.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
But you did. You took care of Mossadegh, remember? Years ago…like 50. And? Did that work? Well, for US interests, yeah, for some time, but for people that don´t want to live under a regime installed by a foreign country? Or maybe you are speaking of the whole Persian race…
Nothing fraudulent there.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Whenever you question the patriotism of others, yeah. That’s a fraud, a scam.
The world really is a dangerous place, and there are actually bad people out there that will do things to us.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:32 amComment by DeathOfIrony
Oh, and that simplifying, propagandistic POV of the world, will help the Progressive movement.
Bigfoot,
Again, who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
January 7th, 2008 at 11:32 amYawn! This is not news. This happens every deployment. No worries. IR655?
January 7th, 2008 at 11:33 amcould lead to a dangerous incident in the future.
Let me guess – this “dangerous incident” might just coincide with the 2008 elections.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:34 amI call bull on O.Bigfoot. And I flag him twice for making personal attacks, the same, tired, bullshit that the fools and tools working for Bush’s vision of an American Hegemony in the Middle East roll out every single time.
Patriotism is standing by your country when she is right, and fighting to right her when she is wrong. You know, the old phrase ‘My Country Right or Wrong’ and the part the conservatives, especially Rush Limbaugh fed sycophants such as the numerous tools we get here trying to tell us we’re not patriotic, forget.
I find it choicely ironic that O.Bigfoot and the rest of the Limbaugh Ditto-Heads, that shrinking number that they represent, fight so hard to impugn our choices, given that now roughly 25% of those polled agree with them and almost 75% agree with us. You’d think they’d get the message and realize that at least for now, Right is not right. I’m hoping enough flags and a possible ban for O.Bigfoot will convince him that he needs to lay off the personal attacks and maybe even rethink his position, seeing as he needs personal attacks to have any chance to make that position stick. Notice I’m not holding my breath though.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:34 amFunny how Bigfoot equals Govt with Country.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:34 amfor bigfool et al:
“Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.“
January 7th, 2008 at 11:35 am-Carl Schurz
Funny how Bigfoot equals Govt with Country.
Comment by Juan C.
And like most hairy ape-types, only enjoys flinging feces then runs and hides.
GOOD LITTLE MONKEY, ER, I MEAN REPUBLICAN!
January 7th, 2008 at 11:35 amFALSE FLAG ALERT! ALL HANDS ON DUCK!
January 7th, 2008 at 11:36 am70. Do your own research and you will see where I get my beliefs. You don’t have to like them, you don’t have to agree with them, but they are my beliefs, and they have been formed by decades of life experience.
* * *
January 7th, 2008 at 11:38 amWill you the same for my beliefs? BTW: I’m 56.
Oh, the Iran hostage card… yeah, nothing happened BEFORE that. Political and social events just APPEAR from thin air.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:38 am75. They hate freedom, Juan.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:39 am70.
The fact you assume I will discount your answers is convenient Bigfoot. The only statements I have made to that would constitute personal attacks are that you are a fraud, the reasons for which I have also pointed out as directly related to the content you’ve posted on this thread, and that you are a war monger because it appears you support the continued aggression against sovereign nations.
Why do you refuse to answer straightforward questions?
January 7th, 2008 at 11:40 am“Unlike many on this blog, I was around to witness the black eye Iran gave the United States when they took our diplomats hostage for over a year, and I got to witness the bungling “Jimmah†Carter in his failed, half-hearted attempts to rectify the situation.”
-OBigfoot
Yeah, he should have just sold them a bunch of weapons.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:40 amhey juan, is this the type of discussion you like to protect people from?
January 7th, 2008 at 11:40 amI tell you, I suspect that if whe had the red thumbs-down that subtracts one from your recommend score, and then even better, a filter that could hide negative recommended posts (Say, like Slash-Dot), our Troll Droppings would be MUCH slimmer…like bottom-of-the-cage-out-of-sight slimmer
January 7th, 2008 at 11:41 amI’m just saying that the trolls win….you let them.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:41 amit’s neighbors invited guests, i.e. the United States
O. BigMouth.
Well that invasion was just a hell of an invitation, wasn’t it?!
January 7th, 2008 at 11:42 amAlso, Bigfoot, you have yet to present a fact related to the patrols on the Strait of Hormuz.
Who invited us there?
What is the fleet’s overall purpose? How is it justified?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
More simple questions, to which I expect no answers.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:42 amTroll or not, if one wants to try and duck and dodge simple questions, they more or less get tired of not having any legit response quickly.
Ignoring trolls may be the most effective way to get rid of them, but honest engagement and straightforward questions can do the trick and maybe even provide some laughter as the spin starts to turn to sh!+ once it hits the fan.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:45 amhey juan, is this the type of discussion you like to protect people from?
Comment by Fred
Balance, Fred. You can reply to some of the trolls’ posts, but not make the whole thread about them or diverge from the issue. Like a normal conversation, everyone tends to drift away from the topic, that’s why there are words like: Anyway…Returning to the point…etc.
Don’t worry, we will be fine.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:46 amUnlike many on this blog, I was around to witness the black eye Iran gave the United States when they took our diplomats hostage for over a year, and I got to witness the bungling “Jimmah†Carter in his failed, half-hearted attempts to rectify the situation. Iran should have been taken out then as an answer to their acts of war. Instead, we let them grow stronger and more powerful and now they feel they can threaten us again.
Hopefully, whomever is elected President later this year, that person will have the huevos to confront Iran and it’s disruptive attitude when it becomes necessary.
That is, if our current administration doesn’t decide to take action first.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Typical whiny pseudo-patriotic bombast. And typically, Bigfoot is just so much older and wiser than anyone here — in Bigfoot’s fantasy world.
And a genius who suggests that the correct response to a hostage situation is to “take out” the Iranians. I can just imagine what the “conservative” response would have been when an attack like that caused the Iranians to execute all the hostages.
The “conservative” response to the Iranian hostage situation was typical: personalize the entire encounter (and all subsequent dealings with the Iranians) as an attack on our masculinity.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:46 am85. If a Democrat is elected next time, because the U.S. majority doesn’t trust the Republican candidate, that’s the way it goes. I don’t have to like it, I don’t have to agree with it, but if it happens, it will happen.
* * *
January 7th, 2008 at 11:47 amLove it or Leave it, Bub.
Troll or not, if one wants to try and duck and dodge simple questions, they more or less get tired of not having any legit response quickly.
Ignoring trolls may be the most effective way to get rid of them, but honest engagement and straightforward questions can do the trick and maybe even provide some laughter as the spin starts to turn to sh!+ once it hits the fan.
Comment by Tweedster
Not from what I have seen. They completely take over and you wind up answering their questions.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:47 amTweedster, great work.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:48 amYo, goonie – we’re not assuming that the TROOPS are lying. That’s a really stupid statement, probably only one of many you’ll make today…
It’s the idiot president and the warmongering chickenhawks who are lying.
You’d think that that particular fact would be OBVIOUS by now, eh?
January 7th, 2008 at 11:48 am“death threats”!?!?!
wow… you really are a pussy (aka, scaredy cat)
you’re scared of words on an anonymous blog???
ah hahaha!
January 7th, 2008 at 11:48 amGood point RickS. It is well known now that the Reagan administration made a deal with Iran to sell them weapons if they held off on releasing the prisoners until after the election.
http://www.juancole.com/2007/12/giuliani-reagan-and-kissing-up-to.html
January 7th, 2008 at 11:49 amBigfoot,
You’re the one who led off with ad hominem attacks on other posters here, accusing others of hating the US.
There were plenty of us around during the Iran hostage crisis of the late 70s, and yeah, we got a black eye. But, some of us also wonder what the backstory is on how those hostages were “coincidentally” released at the same time that RayGun was inaugurated. Did it have anything to do with connections to the oil industry?
Stop being a hypocrite and crying about personal attacks if you’re going to post here.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:49 amI’ve lived and prospered through Lyndon Johnson, “Jimmah†Carter, and “Slick Willieâ€, I can survive another Democrat. Heck, I would even vote for a Democrat if that person was demonstrably more conservative than the Republican.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 11:45 am
Wow. That’s pretty open-minded of you.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:50 amhelpful hint: if you ever need to scare trolls away from your residence, simply deploy “five small boats” and they will run screaming in the opposite direction.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:51 amThe US Navy task forces were sent to the Strait of Hormuze to instigate another war with Iran and the officers aboard knew it before they were sent.
Success for George Bush is making tomorrows failure so much bigger and more devastating then the last disasterous failure, that you can barely see the outline of the old one through the smoke and flames of the new.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:51 am85. If a Democrat is elected next time [...] I don’t have to like it, I don’t have to agree with it, but if it happens, it will happen.
… and i’ll listen and repeat the ditto-head lies the whole time. -bigfool
that’s all for you… such a weenie…
January 7th, 2008 at 11:51 amyou’re no patriot.
I actually vaguely remember the Iran hostage crisis. I was like five when it happened, but I do remember it. Considering that I’m almost 35 now, I’m not too keen on using things from 30 years ago to make my decisions. But I guess Conservatives would do that. The whole thing with Kennedy’s dead girlfriend? What, over 40 years ago? And they’re still obsessing with Roosevelt, who was relevant, what, almost _80_ years ago?
It’s easy to dredge up shit from a quarter century or more ago, because it seems to be that much harder to dredge up the supporting details that explain the hostage situation.
I don’t ‘Blame America First’, but I won’t go to the extreme of not laying fault at my nation’s feet when she deserves it. I believe Lady Liberty would be dis-served with anything else. Our policy of upholding a shah who was hated by his people and who did everything in his power to oppress them had as much to do with the overthrow of the Shah and the replacement by a radical Muslim theocracy as the radical Muslims who were _part_! of the picture. The other part of the revolution were western trained Iranians who wanted the freedom that the US represented and resented that the US’s freedom came at the expense of their own freedom.
I do find it choicely ironic that the people who are screaming about my patriotism here are attempting to recreate Iran’s theocracy here in the United States, only substituting Christianity for Islam.
*snerk* If you can’t beat them, join them?
January 7th, 2008 at 11:52 amcha cha ~ or turn your lyingbastardometer’s alert system on full blast and watch them run when they utter their first sentence…
January 7th, 2008 at 11:52 amI guess Jake never took me off his “ignore” list even after he changed his screenname to Bigfoot.
THANK GOD!
January 7th, 2008 at 11:52 amUnlike many on this blog, I was around to witness the black eye Iran gave the United States when they took our diplomats hostage for over a year,
O. Bigfoot
I was around then.
You appear to still be stuck in the seventies. Do you ever consider the events that lead up to a particular single event? Or do you just gut-react to everything said by those you dislike?
January 7th, 2008 at 11:53 amTweedster:
1. Protect the shipping lanes.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:55 am2. Access to Bahrain, UAE, Dubai, Kuwait, Qatar.
3. Can be navigated w/o incident.
103.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:57 amYou have every right to your beliefs, no matter how wrong they may be.
* * *
I agree exactly. G’bye, Biggie.
However, whenever anyone wants to blame America first, I will counter them.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Which is what we call a kneejerk response. Whenever you perceive that criticism of the US government is “blame America first”, you will accuse others of a lack of patriotism. We’ve seen it plenty of times and really don’t need the warning.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:58 amChe,
So, who invited us to the Strait? I assume your list is just detailing the strategic value of the location, although from what I have heard navigation (with the class of warships we have over there) IS a little dicey.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:59 amHowever, whenever anyone wants to blame America first, I will counter them.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
America? Oh, no…just the US.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:59 am90 Thanks Juan
89 Watch and learn Fred ;)
Ohhhhhh, Bigfoooooot….
Again, who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
January 7th, 2008 at 12:01 pmHowever, whenever anyone wants to blame America first, I will counter them.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
But sometimes the blame is valid and appropriate – so we must accept it. The right side seems to believe that because our intentions are just and moral, we always act in a just and moral fashion, but that is not the case.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:02 pmHowever, whenever anyone wants to blame America first, I will counter them.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
So what happens when America is at fault?
Do you lie? How do you justify your patriotism when the country makes a mistake? Do you support the mistake as some sort of patriotic “God’s will?” How do you counter-act being wrong?
January 7th, 2008 at 12:03 pmHow do you counter-act being wrong?
Wingnuts tactics include, but not limited to:
Blame someone else
Claim you don’t remember
Claim moral superiority
or, in other words
L I E .
January 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pmYou can really hear the neocon prayers for something to happen which would suit their needs.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pmPearl Harbor part III or Gulf of Tonkin II?
You have every right to your beliefs, no matter how wrong they may be.
O. Bigfoot
BWHAHAHAHAHAAAaaaaa…
I can’t even begin to tell you how messed up, self-serving, narrow-minded, self-defeating, paradoxical that statement is.
After all, you believe that our belief that you are wrong is wrong based on what you believe…
Get it now?
Doubt it.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:06 pmSorry guys, I would be interesed in your opinions on things but I don’t really care what republicans think….I have heard it. In fact that is all I have heard for the last several years. I am looking for people with progressive ideas for the future.
These people are here for one reason…to keep us from having those discussions and you are playing their game. This entire thread is a perfect example of you guys addressing ignorant remarks by trolls…..
January 7th, 2008 at 12:07 pmI would like to see more of our Legislators come right out and tell this administration that ANY attack on Iran, without the express, written consent of the Congress is guaranteed to trigger the impeachment process of both President and Vice President.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:08 pmDieNowForPeace,
You forgot, “blame Clinton”.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:09 pmSure sounds like an Iranian drill to test what our Navy’s defensive manuveurs are. They must think we are about to bomb them, so they are planning on attacking our ships where they are most vulnerable, in the straights of Hormuz. Looks like if we bomb them, they will launch many many speed boat attacks similar to what happened to DDG-67, the USS Cole.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:09 pmMight be a good time to remind the Iranians about the USS Vincennes…what an Aegis Cruiser/Destroyer is capable of. I say set the Phalanx guns to battle short next time those Iranian speed boats are in range.
It’s hard to be friends with someone who impugns your patriotism in one breath, and calls you un-American the next, then says whoa, I never personally attack anyone.
geebutz, U.Yeti.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:09 pmIran did take US hostages and Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Iranians to keep them imprisoned so he could use it to win the election. Then our first divorced president sold them weapons illegally. He also raised taxes more then any previous president and put our country in greater debt then any president before him. Sound familiar?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Teddy Roosevelt, 1918
Blame, where blame is due is patriotic.
Cheerleading a lying war criminal in the White House is every bit treason.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:10 pmI have many liberal friends. They are good people, some of whom I would trust with my life. Perhaps some of you cannot be friends with someone based solely on political belief. I have never been that narrow-minded.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
Your arrogance is truly incredible.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:10 pmI gut-react to anti-Americanism whenever I see or hear it. It has nothing to do with whether I personally like or dislike anyone.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
You need to make a gut-check every now and then.
I notice you left out the rest of my post asking whether you take past events and things outside of your gut-reaction – so I’m assuming you didn’t want to answer that because you don’t… I also notice you haven’t answered any questions about events leading up to the current ‘crisis’.
I’m done with you troll. You have earned my contempt.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:12 pmI have many liberal friends. They are good people, some of whom I would trust with my life. Perhaps some of you cannot be friends with someone based solely on political belief. I have never been that narrow-minded.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
he has black friends too
January 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pmFred, broaden your horizons. Some Blogs ignore trolls, others flag them off quickly, a few play with them. There are multiple choices for progressive/liberal blogs…KOS, Americablog, FireDogLake, etc. Navigate to your favorite search engine and search for ‘liberal blog’ (and ignore the hits from conservative sites bashing liberal blogs. ;) )
January 7th, 2008 at 12:15 pmAfter all, you believe that our belief that you are wrong is wrong based on what you believe…
Comment by Technodaoist
Sorry you don’t like it, but it is what it is, nonetheless.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Sorry you don’t get it, but it is what it is, nonetheless.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pmFred, broaden your horizons. Some Blogs ignore trolls, others flag them off quickly, a few play with them. There are multiple choices for progressive/liberal blogs…KOS, Americablog, FireDogLake, etc. Navigate to your favorite search engine and search for ‘liberal blog’ (and ignore the hits from conservative sites bashing liberal blogs. ;) )
Comment by Jeremy in Denver
Hi Jeremy,
January 7th, 2008 at 12:19 pmIs this your polite way of asking me to leave? That everyone likes the way it is here and that I don’t have a right to voice my opinion here?
It’s called, “Trying to provoke a fight to set the world against us.” tactic, they know that we are nearly bankrupt from Iraq and that the world sees us now as the aggressor and any other attacks in the Middle East will set the muslim world against us for decades to come.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
January 7th, 2008 at 12:20 pmAgain, who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
January 7th, 2008 at 12:21 pmYeah, sounds like we’ve been busy “pushing the envelope” (i.e., soliciting a response to justify disproportionate action on our part).
January 7th, 2008 at 12:22 pmdid someone say “teddy roosevelt” and “iran”? any talk of the hostage crisis should mention kermit roosevelt, teddy’s grandson, and his role in overthrowing mossadegh in the ’50s and re-installing the shah.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:23 pmBiggie,
We’re here because we support our country, we just don’t “pass muster” with you because we’re not sycophants.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:23 pmFred,
Could you answer my questions then? This topic does not leave much in the way of coming up with progressive ideas since it basically details the ongoing Middle East blunder this President has launched. What ideas can we come up with regarding this story?
Fred, Bigfoot, anyone who’d like to answer…
Again, who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why (or why not) do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why (or why not) do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
January 7th, 2008 at 12:24 pmDoesn’t faze me in the least, quitter.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Again, who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
Bigfoot, why can’t you engage these simple questions? I want to know how you reached the conclusions about this thread that you have posted and I think answers to my questions will help me follow your logic in this case.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:27 pmWouldn’t one think that 3 war ships would at the least have a few cameras on board so that maybe they could show us the incident.
Instead we get the Pentagons version of events narrated to us by their personal mouthpiece Barbara Starr.
∞
January 7th, 2008 at 12:29 pm#60 I actually agree with you here. Except now with the current administrations track record I think everything they say has to be treated with a certain amount of skepticism. It has to. To treat information from this administration with anything but skepticism would be negligent.
#70 I too was around back then and thought like you do. Iran was wrong back then. Period, that does not automatically make us right for the duration of humanity whenever we confront Iran. I was a hardcore republican bomb them first sort of guy. Obviously I have changed. But back in those days I had a classmate in college from the UAE and he brought an entirely different perspective to the table. I wish I would have paid attention to him more back then. And you should never ever forget that Reagan empowered the Iranians by negotiating with them prior to the elections regarding the hostages and you should never ever forget how Reagan sold the Iranians arms and spare parts back then. Lets just hope that when Bush launches his war that none of our guys gets harmed by Reagan era weapons…
January 7th, 2008 at 12:32 pmIt’s called, “Trying to provoke a fight to set the world against us.†tactic, they know that we are nearly bankrupt from Iraq and that the world sees us now as the aggressor and any other attacks in the Middle East will set the muslim world against us for decades to come.
Comment by Buckie Boy — January 7, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
As much as I hate to agree with him, Buckie Boy hit this nail right on the head I think. Clearly they know we’re between “Iraq and a hard placeâ€, and they’re egging us on because they think it will turn the world against us if we attack them, and they’re probably right.
I doubt the international community, particular Russia and China, are going to be happy with another US war in their back yard.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 7, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
So how would they be able to provoke us again if we weren’t positioned within 20miles of the Iranian coast? Isn’t that the provocation in this case?
January 7th, 2008 at 12:32 pmquitter.
O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Again, who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
Bigfoot, why can’t you engage these simple questions? I want to know how you reached the conclusions about this thread that you have posted and I think answers to my questions will help me follow your logic in this case.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:33 pmFred, Bigfoot, anyone who’d like to answer…
Again, who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why (or why not) do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why (or why not) do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
Comment by Tweedster
I agree with you on all of these points Tweedster.
No one invited us we are there to provoke.
I do not support violating the soverenty of forign nations…..
Iraq and Iran had nothing to do with 9/11
Bush’s relationship with saud is deplorable. No democracy there.
The hostage crisis is ancient history. Caused by our actions in the 50’s
I don’t think anyone even the repubs running for office now deny that bush has had a negative effect on the US and the world with his forign policy.
No one is better off except his pals the top 1% group who they consider to be America….
January 7th, 2008 at 12:36 pmSo how would they be able to provoke us again if we weren’t positioned within 20miles of the Iranian coast? Isn’t that the provocation in this case?
Comment by Tweedster — January 7, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Indeed. At this point, we have no real information about where the incident occurred and whether the Iranians may or may not have had reason to believe their territorial rights had been violated. It may be foolish adventurism on their part, or it might have been provocative behavior by the US ships.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:37 pmTweedster:
January 7th, 2008 at 12:38 pmVery dicey. My wife jsut returned from there. No comm while they are going through the straight. Invitation? The US invited istself or was invited by those nations listed. I am not saying that it is right.
The greatest responsibility of our Federal Government is the protection of our nation’s people, and that means militarily also, if need be.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Sometimes, protection of our nation’s people requires patience. Notice that the hostages got out alive. One military attempt to extricate them was a disaster (I know, I know, blame Carter not the military, blah blah). Another attempt might have gotten them summarily executed, especially if it resulted in loss of Iranian lives. What then, o brilliant one?
January 7th, 2008 at 12:40 pmI have not seen any mention of this yet but, could all this information from “Pentagon officials” be the prelude to a false flag?
Will one of our capital ships, say an Aircraft Carrier, be sunk intentionally (and made to look like Iran is responsible, by using a Silkworm or Sunburn missile) with a tremendous loss of life, to justify the rational to attack Iran and gain the support of the Sheeple?
They who do not learn from the past….
January 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pmBigfoot,
You are wrong, the greatest responsiblity of the Federal Government is not to protect the public, like some kind of nanny state.
Here is the preamble to the US Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
1. establish Justice
2. insure DOMESTIC Tranquility
3. provide for the common defence
4. promote the general welfare
5. secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
You Chickenhawks ought to stop ignoring the document on which our country is founded…
January 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pmNo one is better off except his pals the top 1% group who they consider to be America….
Comment by Fred — January 7, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
This is entirely correct Fred. Now, the question is, how can this be rectified?
We can all see the writing on the wall that the Republican party will not be in the White House for the next Presidency, but because of that I am almost MORE worried that Bush will throw all caution to the wind and try to maximize his profits (at the same time further crippling our country militarily/politically/economically) without any regard for the mess he leaves to a Dem Pres to clean up after.
So what do we do?
January 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm#145 sorry bigfoot, but the governments greatest responsibility is not to protect its people (I thought you guys were all about doing for yourselves anyway and not involving government?). Anyhow the government’s greatest responsibility is to protect our nation and our nation is embodied in the ideas and word of our constitution. Please don’t come back with one of your arguments assuming I could care less about our people, that is also a responsibility, but the greatest responsibility is to defending the country, the idea of America, that is why every president, every soldier and many more swear an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. There is nothing in their oaths about protecting the people. Nothing. BTW the current administration is doing a piss poor job of living up to its oath of office.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:45 pmChe:
It really seems like a no-win situation there at this point…unless of course, we were to leave the Strait. Is there any overriding reason why we couldn’t have ships around the ends of the strait in Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman? We have destroyers lumbering around in a body of water that, at its widest point, is only 21 miles wide?
January 7th, 2008 at 12:45 pm#
quitter.
O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Again, who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
Bigfoot, why can’t you engage these simple questions? I want to know how you reached the conclusions about this thread that you have posted and I think answers to my questions will help me follow your logic in this case.
Comment by Tweedster — January 7, 200
January 7th, 2008 at 12:46 pmI fear that bush may use this as a diversion for what is going on with the economy.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:49 pmFred:
No, I’m not telling you to leave, but I am telling you that there are venues out there that are closer to what you’re looking for. We’re not the group that just wants to let trolls spew their BS on here without dealing with it. AmericaBlog is more your speed in that regard. Do stay here, but be aware that your quest can be easier served by an already existing venue.
Tweedster: Let me try your questions.
Who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz?
We did. In the name of ‘National Security’. It’s one of many places that we are that the locals have not invited us. It’s almost like we’re playing Civ4 and have forced a unilateral open borders treaty where we can station warships in their territory but heaven help them if they station warships in ours.
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of foreign nations?
I don’t. Oh, why does Bigfoot? OK, let me see if I can get this right. Because America is unfalible and Bigfoot sees nothing wrong with a Unilateral Open Borders Treaty, and it’s all about National Security anyway and we need their oil to maintain our way of life, then we can violate their sovereignty as we please.
Do you support occupying sovereign nations?
Nope. Oh, again for Bigfoot? Well, obviously yes. Why? “Because they harbor terrorists” is the catchall phrase I hear from the likes of Bigfoot. That’s always the excuse. I personally think his idea of terrorist is much different than mine. He sees an arab with a ski-mask that turns into a turbin screaming ‘Death to the Infidels’. I see much more than that….I see OBL, but I also see Bush. In fact, I see numerous presidents and politicians and military men throughout time. I guess he thinks “It’s OK when we do it, but it’s terrorism when the Aye-rabs do it.” :)
“What was Iraq’s involvement with 9/11″
Me: Nothing.
Him: They’re terrorists. (Case Closed) Or worse, parrot the disproved talking points.
“What was Iran’s involvement with 9/11″
Me: They had their twirps who celebrated it, but it was Saudi Arabian involvement that made 9/11 happen.
Him: See Iraq answer.
“How do you feel about the US government’s relationship with the House of Saud?”
Me: We invaded Iraq and want to invade Iran because ‘they’re terrorists’ and we haven’t gone after these guys?
Him: “Who?”
“What does our warships in the Straight have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?”
Me These warships are endemic of what caused the hostage crisis, our beliefs in our superiority. They alienate our friends and empower and anger our foes, which ironically lessens our National Security. Of course, we really only have a rock/hard place choice now. We keep the behavior up, or we take the hit withdrawing our foreign assets would bring.
Him: I can’t even begin to fathom his answer. I suspect it would involve terrorists again…
I suspect he doesn’t want to answer because if he did, he’d get his answers torn apart for the sheer folly they are…
January 7th, 2008 at 12:50 pmthere has been no overwhelming call from those same people to remove him from office any earlier than at the end of his term.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
By overwhelming call do you mean some sort of uprising? As you also pointed out in this post, the Congress has not really tempered any of Bush’s initiatives, which is in direct contradiction to the overwhelming majority of citizens who believe that Bush’s actions warrant impeachment hearings.
Again, who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
January 7th, 2008 at 12:51 pmA couple of posters have mentioned it, but it can’t be stressed enough: Americans need to educate themselves on what we now know to be the facts surrounding the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The military lied about what happened there and used a phony story of an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin to argue for military action against North Viet Nam. The congress was railroaded into authorizing a military action which, at the time, was the worst mistake in modern history. It precipitated a huge build-up in the War in Viet Nam and led to 55,000 dead American soldiers and over a million dead Southeast Asians. All of you conservatives who like to whine about people not trusting the government need to educate yourself on the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:51 pmHowever, here, I must disagree with you. The Bush Administration IS America, well, the United States at least.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Well where were you when Bill Clinton was the US and the repubs set out to destroy him? Don’t say they didn’t if you want to remain credible.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:54 pmThanks Jeremy…I’d have to agree with basically all your points, and I was impressed with the Civ4 analogy. Wonder what Sid Meyer is up to now anyway…
See Bigfoot, it wasn’t hard to answer those simple questions which really do serve as a nice way to outline one’s basic views on the Middle East and we do business in that region.
Again, who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
January 7th, 2008 at 12:55 pmWell where were you when Bill Clinton was the US and the repubs set out to destroy him? Don’t say they didn’t if you want to remain credible.
Comment by Fred — January 7, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
“Remain credible”? When did he start?
January 7th, 2008 at 12:56 pmThe congress was railroaded into authorizing a military action which, at the time, was the worst mistake in modern history. It precipitated a huge build-up in the War in Viet Nam and led to 55,000 dead American soldiers and over a million dead Southeast Asians. All of you conservatives who like to whine about people not trusting the government need to educate yourself on the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
Thanks Colonel! This scenario seems rather recent, no? It was the playbook the neocons used to get W to invade Iraq – and now maybe attack Iran. History does repeat itself – over and over again.
Congress must make it clear any attack – on anybody – without their authorization will be considered an impeachable event.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:57 pm165
Fred,
Bigfoot was probably involved in traitorous ways of thinking. He was most likely supportive of the Republican moves to impeach Clinton (which, btw, wasted lots of time and money in order to get to the bottom of a bj…which, the last time I checked had nothing to do with rolling back civil liberties).
So, Bigfoot, if what I assume about you is true (that you are a republican partisan hack), how could you throw your support in with a group of people who were motivated out their hatred for the elected Leader of our country? Why do you support anti-Americanism?
January 7th, 2008 at 1:00 pmHeh, Fred, I see even you can be riled up enough by Troll Shit to strike back. :) And yes, that was a rather stinky turd.
Bigfoot’s engaged in a typical Conservative game. “U don’t support teh Prezident!” This only applies when the President is Republican. Since he says he’s old enough to remember the Iran hostages, I can almost guarantee you he was one of the ones screaming for Clinton’s impeachment. And the sad thing is he sees absolutely nothing wrong with the hypocrisy. That’s just how they work.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:00 pmFurthermore, Iran has declared itself an enemy of the United States. It is our government’s responsibility to protect us from our enemies on a national level. If Iran attacks the United States, or representatives of the United States, wherever they may be, then retaliation of some form is in order.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
I know WE placed Iran in the ‘axis of evil’, but I am having a hard time finding any reference (besides William kristol) that indicates Iran declared the US an enemy. Maybe they did so AFTER W put them in the ‘invade at a later date’ club. If so, their response would be appropriate considering the jingoistic threats made by W and his henchmen.
We must stop pushing all the countries of the world around. Very soon, we will be vastly outnumbered and the push back will be severe.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:02 pmStratRat & Tweedster ~ agreed in # 117…
January 7th, 2008 at 1:02 pmMany but not all. I’m also old enough to remember that.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Furthermore, Iran has declared itself an enemy of the United States.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Got a link for this?
O. Bigfoot, I had no idea you spoke Farsi and/or Arabic!
What about the assistance they tried to provide us in regards to OBL? What about the recent NIE? Where do you get your information?
Oh yeah…here are some more questions that don’t require a paragraph of semantic BS and puffery to answer. Give them a shot!
Who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
January 7th, 2008 at 1:03 pmSpeaking strategically, instead of jingoistically, would anyone expect Russia and China, major trading partners of Iran, to sit by and allow the US to attack Iran without some sort of devestating counter measure, either political, economic or military??
U.Yeti?
January 7th, 2008 at 1:03 pm#166 Our nation is greater than the sum of its people. If it were just the people that make up our nation we could be Russia, China, Somalia, Pakistan etc… No our nation is based on the constitution and keeping it alive and well is the greatest responsibility. I’m not at all surprised that you don’t understand this though. Is the current republican battle cry about fighting to preserve our lives? Or our freedom? (though what Iraq has to do with our freedom I will never understand)
January 7th, 2008 at 1:04 pmFrancine? care to respond to # 177???
January 7th, 2008 at 1:04 pmBigfoot,
You’re correct in that, if attacked by Iran, our government has an obligation to respond. The problem is that the current administration has abused the trust of the American public and also has an obligation to prove whether an attack occured.
You are also incorrect in that the nation does not consist merely of its people. The people of this nation are bound by our ideals, which are embodied in our Constitution.
“Fool me once, shame, shame on me. Fool me twice…don’t get fooled again”.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:05 pmI would like to see more of our Legislators come right out and tell this administration that ANY attack on Iran, without the express, written consent of the Congress is guaranteed to trigger the impeachment process of both President and Vice President.
Comment by RUCerious — January 7, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
This is what should happen, but then again, I’m worried that if it comes to that point the Congress might capitulate anyway and then it will also be backed by their seal of approval. This is really tenuous.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:05 pmBTW Biggie when did Iran proclaim semelves enemies of the US and what were the circumstances surrounding this declaration? Also You people (R’s) put way too much stock in their president, he has less power than the govenor of Texas has within Texas.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:06 pmBring it on.
Comment by Frank M — January 7, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
What’s the name of last goofball that gave this quote?
It looks like O. Bigfoot retired to give his alter ego Frank a spin at the keys. More hot air.
Frank, care to indulge me with some answers here?
Who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
January 7th, 2008 at 1:07 pmBig O.,
Point of disagreement, for many of us here the Bush Administration is antithetical to the core values of the United States. Some of those values:
We don’t torture
We don’t operate secret gulags for political prisoners
We don’t expose our own agents for personal or partisan gain
We don’t start unnecessary wars
We don’t hide behind Executive Privilege to keep the chips off the table
We don’t pretend that 25% agreement is a mandate to steamroll the other 75%.
Bush’s War in Iraq is, in my opinion, was Bush’s self serving attempt to become a War President. A clear and treasonous abuse of his position.
I am proud to be an American, and I am disgusted to be represented by this pitiful charade of a pResident.
I agree with good_golly in his previous post that the government is not always right nor is it always wrong. This administration has shown that they are not to be trusted and I think that the proper starting point would be to distrust anything Bushco says until proven otherwise.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:08 pmTonkin Gulf Incident II/Apocalypse Again
As if going through all this crap once before wasn’t enough.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:09 pmBring it on.
They attack us and we’ll bury them. It’s as simple as that.
Comment by Frank M
You mean like we did in nam and osama bin laden?
January 7th, 2008 at 1:09 pmFrank M #176,
Are you going to volunteer? If not, take your cheerleading and stick it where the oil doesn’t flow.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:10 pmNow that you know that, perhaps you can come to some sort of understanding.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
My take on your response is that you feel because bush is our president – he is the united states. If that is your position – it is wrong. Bush is an employee of US, we don’t work for him. Bush is obligated to listen to our concerns and do his best to deal with our concerns – even if he disagrees with those concerns. He should bow down to our wants and wishes.
Bush is an elected representative – not our leader. Nazi germany had leaders. Venezuela has a leader. Iran and Mo. Korea both have leaders – not the United States. It seems that your reverence for an imperial presidency is the oposite of what the founding fathers had in mind.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:11 pmRussia? China? Trolls??
January 7th, 2008 at 1:11 pmSorry, Tweedster, if I havn’t make it plain enough that I don’t support your apparent anti-Americanism. Now that I have said it directly, you should have no trouble undertanding further.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Tsk, tsk Bigfoot, your description of me constitutes a personal attack. I guess your code of conduct fluctuates depending on the target?
By the way, I never asked for your support, I merely wanted to know the logic you have used to come to your conclusions regarding this post and related issues. So, if you could please indulge a fellow citizen, a fellow countryman as I exercise my right to free speech, and please answer my simple questions you I would appreciate it. It may enlighten me to your self-professed “more” patriotic way thinking.
Who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
January 7th, 2008 at 1:13 pmFrank?
Bigfoot?
Why the complete aversion to answering a few simple, pertinent questions?
Why engage with those that trade nothing but barbs with you when all I want, nay all I crave, is insight into your worldview?
Please, gentlemen, if you would enlighten me:
Who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
January 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pmNo-one listens to the American people at a negotiation table. They listen to the administration. No-one listens to the little people when we’re talking war or peace abroad. They listen to the administration. Get the point?
Comment by Frank M
And if you were to ever wonder why the US is almost bankrupt financially and certainly bankrupt moraly, here is your reason. Maybe the world should listen to the citizens of the US and not the incompetent administration currently squatting in our WH.
70% of Americans DO NOT agree with the administration – do you?
January 7th, 2008 at 1:18 pmBring it on.
They attack us and we’ll bury them. It’s as simple as that.
Comment by Frank M
You mean like we did in nam and osama bin laden?
Oh yeah….those were both republicans…….
January 7th, 2008 at 1:20 pm“Tsk, tsk Bigfoot, your description of me constitutes a personal attack.
Comment by Tweedster — January 7, 2008 @ 1:13 pmâ€
Sorry you feel that way. Guess you are just going to have to live with it.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Bigfoot, the last thing I worry about is the view of someone who cannot answer simply and direct questions that were borne of nothing more than intellectual curiosity. You respond with malice and bigotry and assume the worth of my patriotism for some unknown reason and avoid answering simple questions. I think the problem here is really yours to live with.
Who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
January 7th, 2008 at 1:23 pmAs O. Bigfoot said, Bush administration IS United States.
Comment by Frank M — January 7, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
And you are both wrong.
Government and country are two different things; you can love your country and wholeheartedly disagree with your government, as is the case for most posters here concerning the Bush administration.
You can criticise your government, as well as your political leaders, and still remain patriotic.
Of course, none of this makes any sense to you because I am describing a democracy, which you have called “a mistake”.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pmDamn 201, you come on strong and then end it with sincerely……that kinda surprised me…..not that I disagree with you.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pmBigfoot,
Do you support multiple wars of indeterminate duration along multiple fronts around the globe as a preemptive means of fighting terrorism?
(Even terrorism that could well be produced by our wars of preemption?)
How do warships in the Strait of Hormuz protect our homeland?
January 7th, 2008 at 1:26 pmIn full display in this thread is the authoritarian, fascist mentality of the hard-core Bush supporters who equate leader with nation and patriotism (yes, I am talking about you Frank M and Bigfoot).
For them, disagreeing with the Supreme Leader is tantamount to treason to their country.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:26 pm“On what subject do the 70 percent not agree with the administration? Immigration? I don’t agree with the administration. Iraq policy and the war on terror, I agree with the administration.
Ask enough question, about enough subjects, and you can get whatever percentage you wish.”
Weak, just weak…
The subject is:
“In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing in handling the situation in Iraq?”
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
It’s not quite 70%, but its close enough to make you irrelevant.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:31 pmO. Biggie – I shall wait with bated breath for you to express your undying support for the next DEMOCRATIC president of the United States.
But I ain’t holding my breath.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:31 pmNixon left nam with his tail beween his legs
bush has yet to catch a 7 foot tall osama who requires dialisis once every two weeks
repubs really arent warriors they just talk like they are.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:37 pmno seriously repubs aren’t warriors. How many in the bush admin were actually in action? None….
January 7th, 2008 at 1:39 pmThe Bush Administration IS America, well, the United States at least.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
As O. Bigfoot said, Bush administration IS United States.
Comment by Frank M
THese have to be the dumbest posts ever…
Iran has declared itself an enemy of the US? How so? When? What statement are you using? You mean after all the diplomatic approaches Iran has sent towards the US?
This is beyond stupidity.
BTW, I notice Bigfoot haven’t answered to the questions repeatedly posted by Tweedster. mmm…quitter.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:41 pmFor them, disagreeing with the Supreme Leader is tantamount to treason to their country.
Comment by Gregor Samsa
Which is why impeachment is necessary. A message must be sent to any future ‘unitary executives’ that they are not above the law – even if Bigfoot and Frank M think they are. Why is the right side so frightened? I thought R’s were brave and courageous – guess not.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:41 pmIf they choose defeat in Iraq and in the war on terror, they will not have my support on that issue. If they choose victory, then they will have my wholehearted support on that issue.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
Bigfoot, can you define what victory in the War on Terror will look like?
January 7th, 2008 at 1:41 pmIf they choose defeat in Iraq and in the war on terror, they will not have my support on that issue. If they choose victory, then they will have my wholehearted support on that issue.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
don’t need it anymore….dems are going to be running things soon with or without your support
January 7th, 2008 at 1:41 pmAsk enough question, about enough subjects, and you can get whatever percentage you wish.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Once showed the facts, what does the right side do? They lie.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pmJuan,
Bigfoot cannot answer simple questions that do not allow for semantic games and general evasiveness. Or he can, but refuses to because his answers will uncover contradictions and fabrications.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:43 pmBigfoot,
You present a false choice:
“If they choose defeat in Iraq and in the war on terror, they will not have my support on that issue. If they choose victory, then they will have my wholehearted support on that issue.”
First of all, no one in the administration has defined “victory” yet. Since “Mission Accomplished” nearly five years ago, we have not been told what the current military objective is to end this conflict. One can only assume that the mission to to keep the conflict going for as long as possible.
Is that what you stand for?
January 7th, 2008 at 1:43 pmBigfoot, can you define what victory in the War on Terror will look like?
Comment by Tweedster
The Warsaw Ghetto after the 1944 uprising.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:46 pmTo the extent a Democrat president’s actions warrant my support, they will get it.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
And how do you square this lame excuse with “the president IS America”?
If the president “is America” you should support him, regardless of his political affiliation. Otherwise, you become unAmerican by your own standards.
Of course, understanding the above requires some critical thinking skills -the same you seem to be sorely lacking…
January 7th, 2008 at 1:52 pmAnd how do you square this lame excuse with “the president IS America�
If the president “is America†you should support him, regardless of his political affiliation. Otherwise, you become unAmerican by your own standards.
Of course, understanding the above requires some critical thinking skills -the same you seem to be sorely lacking…
Comment by Gregor Samsa — January 7, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
And bingo. This is typical of the hypocrisy of the Right: anyone questioning the President is a traitor, so long as the President is a Republican. A Democratic President is owed no real allegiance, especially if his policies don’t meet the Right Wingers standards: the very criterion rejected by them when applied by Progressives.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:54 pmRussian response to our attack on Iran>? Chinese response to same attack? Trolls?? U.Yeti? Frank iMbecile?
January 7th, 2008 at 1:56 pmAre we done with this guy (Bigfoot) yet? It is clear that he cannot answer any substantive questions.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:56 pm“Bigfoot, can you define what victory in the War on Terror will look like?
Comment by Tweedster — January 7, 2008 @ 1:41 pmâ€
Yes.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
Is there some type of online award for the most vapid response post ever?
January 7th, 2008 at 1:58 pm#226,
Then define it, you smug charlatan.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:58 pmAnd where exactly this incedent happend? In California waters??? No?! Ah… near Iranian waters! So who is provoking who??!!! Yet another atempt from the US into geting Iran to respond to ‘US provocation’ in other to find an excuse (Like Iranian Nuclear Energy project) to retaliate. Lets just remember the images of British soldiers who were captured inside Iranian waters, and compare those images with US’s prisioners in Abu Graib or Guantanamo Bay. As per Iran persuit of Nuclear Energy, just how many nuclear bombs israel has?!!!
January 7th, 2008 at 1:59 pmOf course, understanding the above requires some critical thinking skills -the same you seem to be sorely lacking…
Comment by Gregor Samsa
Gregor, try to picture Bigfoot and other blind Bush supporters as amusements. Trying to argue with them is like explaining children quantum theory.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:02 pm229
I’m done Optimistic, although I’m still curious as to how Bigfoot would answer my questions.
Anyway, how do you see this playing out?
January 7th, 2008 at 2:03 pmHow do warships in the Strait of Hormuz protect our homeland?
Comment by Tweedster — January 7, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
Haven’t you been paying attention??? We’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here, ya know! Why, if we don’t have warships in the Strait of Hormuz, then these small Iranian craft will be chugging up the Mississippi River before we know it, threatening to blow our midwestern heartland to smithereens! Only by keeping our ships in the Strait of Hormuz are we averting this serious threat!
/sarc off
January 7th, 2008 at 2:04 pm236
Thanks for the clarification missmolly!
For a second I thought that maybe Bush confused the name and thought that he was sending ships to protect the Strait of Hormel. You know how he loves his chili!
January 7th, 2008 at 2:08 pmok, TROLLS. Since you didn’t answer the first question, how about this.
Why not just cut the middleman completely out and attack Russia and China?? That would fit well with the pre-emptive policy adopted by the BushitCo.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:14 pmI would not put anything past this current administration. They have blown the lid on just about any measure of decency in this country.
Iran, on the other hand, knows that the President is in the ME this week and I don’t trust their leadership at all either.
My biggest source of optimism in this situation is my faith in the professionalism of our armed forces. We have the finest men and women serving in extraordinarily difficult times and they have performed exceedingly well. Let’s just hope the Blackwater Navy isn’t nearby…
January 7th, 2008 at 2:15 pmAnyway, how do you see this playing out?
Comment by Tweedster
Can I jump in? I read from a political analyst that, according to Israel sources, Iran and Saudi Arabia, are making a strong relationship, just after Annapolis. This means that the 1st and 2nd oil and gas world producers, respectively will dictate the energy avenues of the future. After Annapolis, and all the war rethorical against Iran, Amhadinejad proposed the Gulf Pact in exchange of stopping its nuclear pursues, which seems a master move after Iran was the pariah state among all the Arab countries.
But…ironically, this will seem as a success of the catastrophic Bush administration.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:19 pmThank you OMF, I was wondering the same thing myself. However he did ATTEMPT an answer in
But, at the end of the day failed to provide an intelligent or substantial answer, so I will reiterate it: “define what victory in the War on Terror will look like?”
Define meaning – “explain”, “describe”, “specify distinctly”, “to make or write a definition”.
We are all waiting….
January 7th, 2008 at 2:19 pmComment by gummitch — January 7, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
The contradiction was just too glaring for me to ignore it.
Some people would call it hypocrisy, as you did. I am more inclined to call it sociopathic behavior.
(And I thought personality cults were buried with the Soviet Union or Mao’s China. How wrong I was.)
January 7th, 2008 at 2:20 pmTrying to argue with them is like explaining children quantum theory.
Comment by Juan C. — January 7, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
That’s true, but their posts are great to illustrate flawed thinking, strawman arguments, and general logical fallacies…. ;-)
January 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pmIran plays down Gulf incident with US
January 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pmIn Bush’s case, the successes do, indeed, outweigh the negatives. And Bush’s personal integrity is impeccable.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
It would be off-topic here to ask you to provide examples of Bush’s “successes” and his “personal integrity” — so I won’t. However, if you make these assertions in a thread where it’s on-topic, please elaborate. I will be interested in your justification that these assertions are valid.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:24 pmAnd Bush’s personal integrity is impeccable.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
Keep the laughs coming Bigfoot! Your school of surrealist humor may be one of the things the terrorists hate about us the most. Keep sticking it to them, to make sure they know they aren’t winning!
January 7th, 2008 at 2:26 pmI answered the question as it was asked. I can, indeed, define what a victory in the war on terror will look like.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Funny, one of the only answers I was able to get from Bigfoot was a game of semantics. Through context I am pretty sure that most people, especially if they wanted to lend credence to their answer would actually go further than a one word response. Nice dodge!
January 7th, 2008 at 2:28 pmComment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
It doesn’t matter what you have or have not called for.
You have been carefully explained how a lot of people in this forum disagree with Bush’s policies, and it was you who chose to call them unpatriotic due to their lack of support for a cause you deem worthwhile.
With that standard, anyone else can call you unpatriotic for your lack of support of a president with whose initiatives they agree.
Again, your long-winded post to me shows how this basic fact went over your head.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:29 pmWhatever sister, you can hide behind your semantics if it makes you feel better. Since you did not address one topic of discussion that I put forward to you, your response is laughable.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:30 pmIn Bush’s case, the successes do, indeed, outweigh the negatives. And Bush’s personal integrity is impeccable.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Man, this guy needs some chenycare, he’s delusional.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:40 pmGlad to have made you laugh. As I have repeatedly stated, I am not obligated to answer yours, nor anyone else’s, question. I answer what I want, when I want, and I state what I want, when I want. Like it or not, your choice.
Comment by O. Bigfoo
Actually it does make me laugh to think you repubs still think you can tell us anything. We don’t really care what you think, we’re just humoring you like the child that you are. Your days of telling us how it is are over…..get ready cause the winds of change are blowin
January 7th, 2008 at 2:43 pmWhen Bush stands for a free Iraq…
Yeah, that’s right, freedom = occupation.
Looks like I’m on U.Yeti(Jake)’s ignore list…
January 7th, 2008 at 2:47 pmBush does NOT have a honest bone in his body. nor do any of the skeletons in his closet.
By definition of the Nuremberg tribunal, Bush et al, DOES deserve to be hanged for their war crimes. Planning and waging a war of aggression is the SUPREME war crime(crimes against peace). And, let’s not forget torture(crimes against humanity).
Yup, I’d love to be the one who puts the noose around their necks. They are WAR CRIMINALS.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:48 pmElimination of anti-American terrorists through either death, or education.
And when causing their deaths, you create 10 more for every one killed, that’s really gonna win a war.
You are living proof the war on drugs was lost.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:49 pmTweedster owned Bigfoot.
Thread closed.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:49 pmAs I have repeatedly stated, I am not obligated to answer yours, nor anyone else’s, question. I answer what I want, when I want, and I state what I want, when I want. Like it or not, your choice.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
To paraphrase a great movie…
Fear is a stinky cologne on you Bigfoot.
It is your prerogative to post whatever you like. Yet, your complaint of being victimized by invective and personal attacks from other posters is not only a reflection on them, but on you as well. The differences aren’t merely ideological Bigfoot. Your decorum on this board is lacking. Your arrogance adds nothing to your arguments.
I’m sure if you asked most of us “liberal” posters on here to explain our views, the logic or thinking we use to arrive at out conclusions, we could do that. The fact that you are so dismissive just goes to diminish everything you post and by extension, everything you stand for.
So yea, Bigfoot does what Bigfoot wants and we can take it or leave it. In the end all you have done is invalidate your “points.” Bravo. You’ve somehow discovered the alchemy needed to create BS golems out of your arguments that follow your posts around everywhere.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:51 pmHow do warships in the Strait of Hormuz protect our homeland?
I’d have to characterize that as a naive question. If the flow of oil was blocked in the Strait of Hormuz, it would result in the shutdown of the US economy and launch a general war in the Middle East.
The larger question is about the freedom of the seas. Back in pre-WWII there was a quote about the pacifists in the US hiding behind the gunboats of the US Navy, and regrettably, that turned out to be too true. I wish that this sort of naive world-view could be exercised out of the progressive mind-set.
In other words, I think this incident is what it is, and we seem to be ignoring the fact that the ships in this little fleet had rules of engagement in place that prevented the otherwise certain outcome, e.g. a bunch of Iranian boats at the bottom of the gulf, and an opening for Bush/Cheney to launch a strike on Iran. In other words, the whole conspiratorial notion is false on its face.
I do, again, share the suspicion of what Bush and Cheney would do with the incident if they could, I think the worst of them, and they should be watched like a hawk, but i want to separate that from what seems like a prudent action on the part of the Navy, and from the reality that the navy maintains freedom of the seas for us, and really for the world, which goes a long way towards promoting peace.
Why can’t progressives see that?
With all sincerity, I’m usually right along with much of these threads, but here’s a case where I’d submit that the TP consensus is wrong..
Irony
January 7th, 2008 at 2:52 pmThanks Juan.
I’d like to dedicate this victory to intellectual frauds everywhere who think they can emulate TROLLS like Bigfoot and get away with it.
Simple questions can have complex answers, but if you can’t begin your answers simply, you simply have nothing to say.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:55 pmArn:
I actually have to side with Bigfoot here. Yes, you didn’t call for Cheney’s death — but the charge leveled by O.Bigfoot does stick. You _wish_ for his death, and on that day, you will celebrate. Not a very honorable position you take, but one of the beauties of living in the United States is that you have the right to treat the passing of someone anyway you wish, as long as you don’t endanger your neighbors (so, you have to put away the Cheney Dolls, the Gas Cans, and the lighters…)
That said:
O.Bigfoot, Arn is not ‘the New Left’. Like your movement, the Liberal side has its kooks. Congratulation, you’ve found one of our kooks. Republicans Hate Facts is another. You can find yet others. But you’ll find the majority of us are no where near as radical as those kooks.
I can’t speak for the other bloggers, but I don’t want to see Bush or Cheney die. For one thing, deaths of either of them make them into martyrs. Second, it puts our country in peril, and contrary to your opinion of me and mine, I love my country way too much to see it fall to the chaos of such an event. Yes, I want to see Bush and CHeney impeached by the House. I think they both need their days in court. I will be happy if the Senate convicts them, but if it doesn’t, I’ll simply be happy with the containment of damage that Bush could have visited on the country in the last year of his term. I also know well enough that once they leave office, they become virtually untouchable. Hopefully they fade off into the obscurity of history afterwards. Honestly, of all the things that could happen to those two vile men, fading away into the shadows of history is the one I most desire for them.
I ain’t interested in the bad karma for wishing death on them.
But you won’t take my post as a main-stream moderate-liberal as the example of the majority of our cause. Instead, you’ll keep holding up our kooks as a strawman that you can attack.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:01 pmWith all sincerity, I’m usually right along with much of these threads, but here’s a case where I’d submit that the TP consensus is wrong..
Irony
Comment by DeathOfIrony — January 7, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
DOI…I am glad that the Navy didn’t “bite” at the chance to initiate action against Iran. I am not happy that they have been put with their backs against the wall by an administration that would most likely welcome the opportunity to expand conflict in the Middle East to Iran.
The thing is, the framing of this story and the continuous antagonization of Iran on the part of our government go hand in hand, and to dismiss that facet of the story out of hand because the Navy did the right thing is a little naive as well, don’t you think?
January 7th, 2008 at 3:11 pmDOI,
Also, I’m pretty sure that those entities selling the oil, along with the consumer (us), has a vested interest in the safety of the cargo. Why deploy destroyers in one of the hardest bodies of water to navigate in the Middle East? Is this the only, the best way, to protect our interests there?
We couldn’t station ships in the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf? Why the Strait of Hormuz, 20 miles at its widest point, with threatening proximity to Iran?
January 7th, 2008 at 3:14 pmDeathOfIrony,
Generally well put, but what makes you so sure of your conclusion that “Progressives” can’t see that “the Navy maintains freedom of the seas for us, and really for the world, which goes a long way towards promoting peace.”
On the contrary, I would argue that most people here sincerely appreciate the efforts of our military in general and the Navy in particular. (OK, as a former Marine I’m biased toward the Navy) The conspiracy, as you point out, would be attributed to the potential response by the administration. From the Progressive side, you could argue that the military presence in the Middle East constitutes a failure in foreign policy as well as our energy policy and is a signal that we should be shifting our policies toward energy independence. Thus, the question of “How do warships in the Strait of Hormuz protect our homeland?” could be answered as short term gain, long term loss.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:15 pmI knew if I stuck around long enough, I would draw out more of the “new left’s†death cult. And they have the gall to call conservatives Nazis.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
Don’t give yourself too much credit Bigfoot. For all we know you created the user names and posted the stuff from the “death cult.”
Anyway, I’m pretty sure you aren’t responsible for this. You couldn’t even answer simple questions…the lack of substance in your posts wouldn’t, by themselves, illicit such visceral responses. In short, you’re rather inconsequential to the goings on here and the whole “I’ll do what I want, when I want” schpiel just seems to be bluster produced to cover up the fact you have NOTHING to say.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:18 pmBigfoot…
Take note of the exchange between Death of Irony and OptimisticMF. This is referred to as “intelligent discourse.” Take notes.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:22 pmThe thing is, the framing of this story and the continuous antagonization of Iran on the part of our government go hand in hand, and to dismiss that facet of the story out of hand because the Navy did the right thing is a little naive as well, don’t you think?
A fair point, and I’d agree up to a point, that point being the baseline that we do send our ships in ‘harms way’ to fly the flag, letting antagonists know that the seas are indeed free. The policy of maintaining the freedom of navigation in the gulf, or more broadly on the high seas, has been a reality for hundreds of years, and it’s not a new development. An open strait means peace and stability, period. It’s what we want and that’s what it takes in this world to maintain it, that’s all I’m trying to say.
The other point is that the military is often the last group pushing for a war, and the commanders of these vessels probably risked their ships to err on the side of not touching off the powder keg, it’s not how we’re portraying things.
Beyond that, Tweedster, I’m down with what you are saying. An attack on Iran would be counter-productive, and if you think Katrina was bad, the blowback on that attack could have a similar effect on yours and mine too. I think most of the folks at the Pentagon share the viewpoint too, which gets to the point I’m trying to make.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:22 pmO. Bigfoot,
I didn’t forget you…
“But the short, simple version of it is this: Elimination of anti-American terrorists through either death, or education. Preferrably the latter, however, barring that, the former is entirely acceptable.”
Do you understand that your goal is unachievable with our current policy? We’re making terrorists faster than we can kill them. The only way to eliminate “Anti-American” terrorists is to remove the reasons why they are anti-American.
“Glad to have made you laugh. As I have repeatedly stated, I am not obligated to answer yours, nor anyone else’s, question. I answer what I want, when I want, and I state what I want, when I want. Like it or not, your choice.”
If you don’t have the courage of your convictions, then why are you here making a fool of yourself? You certainly don’t have to answer to me, but have a little pride, if not in yourself, then in your ideals.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pmO. Bigfoot,
“I applaud you for differentiating yourself from them, but why does it take someone like me, calling you all out, to cause anyone to disassociate yourselves from the kook “death cult†of “militant liberalismâ€?”
You have nothing to do with it, you are applying your labels to all of us. I’m not associating with left wing kooks by posting here any more than I’m associating with right wing kooks because you’re here.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:27 pmThen you’re not paying attention, Bigfoot. Everywhere people gather, kooks will gather too. Unlike you, we know what they want. They want attention, and a chance to voice their opinions. They only become relevant when you make them relevant, like you did with Arn. Honestly, he grates on my nerves with his bold print and swearwords. If you looked, you’d notice I did chew on him, without yours or anyone elses prompting, simply cause I got tired of his bullshit…same with Republicans hate Facts (in fact, I actually chewed accidently on The Republic of Stupidity because I got their names mixed up)…but that doesn’t match your agenda.
As for not considering our elected leaders to be traitors, the only place you’ll find that is on a conservative Blog, and only until Congress is brought up. And I’d take your desire to find a neutral ground alot more seriously if your first words on this thread didn’t attack mine and every other liberal bloggers patriotism. You contribute to the monster you lament about in your post every time you spew Rush Limbaugh’s nonsense, so don’t lecture me about our kooks, capiche?
January 7th, 2008 at 3:29 pmOh, goodie. With the writers’ strike and no new episodes of THE OFFICE, I’ve been bored out of my mind. This should do it, but what will they call it?
This event probably happened months ago but they’re only mentioning it now that it’s obvious a Democrat will win the White House. I don’t trust any of those a-holes anymore.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:38 pmFunny how everyone keeps saying that the blogs should be about the issues, not the personalities involved, yet people keep talking to, and about, me, and that’s what keeps the threads going.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 7, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
In case you missed it Bigfoot….
Who invited us to the Strait of Hormuz? The Iraqis? The Saudis? Who?
Why do you support violating the sovereignty of other countries?
Why do you support occupation of sovereign countries?
What was Iraq’s involvement in 9/11?
What was Iran’s involvement in 9/11?
How do you feel about the U.S. governments relationship with the House of Saud?
What does our warships in the Strait have to do with the hostage crisis in 1979?
Since you turned this into something other than the issues (and the questions I asked you pertaining to the issues), feel free to address the thread with some substance at any time.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:40 pm“You people are incredible in your ignorance, and hatred for your own nation. It appears your very lives revolve around desparaging your own nation with your “blame the United States first†attitude.”
These are your convictions? Yet, when pressed to defend your assertions, you retreat to yet more rhetoric. You’re not going to “educate” anyone with such a flaccid defense of your point of view.
Oh well, good luck with your work and best of luck to you and yours.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:41 pm276
I think we are in a general agreement here DOI. Although it does open that other issue of where/why we intervene and if purely military solutions (even it is simply the tacit threat of force) is the best way to achieve what we need in terms of security.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:43 pm“Yup, I’d love to be the one who puts the noose around their necks. They are WAR CRIMINALS.
Comment by Uncle Ho — January 7, 2008 @ 2:48 pmâ€
I knew if I stuck around long enough, I would draw out more of the “new left’s†death cult. And they have the gall to call conservatives Nazis.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
The difference is…….please pay attention. there would be a trial. Not guantanamo style justice which is your choice.
They are criminals. Just not caught, tried and hanged yet.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:56 pm287
Nicely done Optimistic…
January 7th, 2008 at 3:57 pmActually, OptimisticMF didn’t say anything that I wouldn’t have. I’ll say it again, and then add some, O.Bigfoot.
“Edward Kennedy, murderer that he is”
You wonder why we ride you so hard. It’s because you keep shoving this over and over again, this idea that Kennedy unlawfully and willingly took the life of that girl back in ‘69, contrary to the findings of the court, to boot. You rant on about Arn calling Bush a swearword while wishing for Cheney’s death, and then get all bent out of shape when we call you on your own bullshit. You can’t draw the parallel between promising celebration over the death of the VP and bringing up the same tired old argument about Ted Kennedy, for an event that took place before I was born. You and Arn are cut out of the same cloth, O.Bigfoot…that’s why we show such derision for your beliefs, and the only reason you think Arn is being treated better than you is because your eyes are blinded by your partisan beliefs that we hate all Conservatives equally and severely, and love all Liberals equally and severely as well. Grow up, the world isn’t black and white.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:01 pmFarmington? I would have guessed Flora Vista or La Plata.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:05 pmComment by Southern Man — January 7, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
The USS Cole was a disaster and was handled poorly. However, the responsibility for that was claimed by OBL and al-Qaeda with aid from the Sudanese government.
Where is Osama by the way? What does he have to do with Iran?
January 7th, 2008 at 4:08 pmAdios TROLLS!
January 7th, 2008 at 4:13 pm#242 Bush’s Personal integrity is impeccable? That has to be the single funniest thing I have ever read on this site.
#290 Ted Kennedy is a murderer? When was the trial and conviction? I must have missed that one in the papers. It goes back again to the discussion last week about innocent until proven guilty. I guess innocence until proven guilty only applies to republicans who are accused of crimes. Democrats are guilty for the next 40 years and beyond even with no trial. But since you want to dredge up the distant past lets see now lets look into who were Hitler admirers and Nazi Supporters and what political party they belonged to…Lindbergh, ford, Bush etc… Boy those oldies but goodies never lose their flavor.
#293 What exactly does the USS Cole being bombed in Yemen (Many many hundreds of miles away from Hormuz) by Sunni extremists Al Queda, have to do with Shiite Iran? As to the Cole and whether there were armed men on deck…do you favor armed foreign sailors on deck of ships in our ports? Anyhow how do pentagon rules of engagement have anything to do with Clinton…though it it nice to see that old chestnut of an excuse brought out once more. Never gets old does it? I’d bet that if you searched through the origins of the rules of engagement that were in place that day you might find that some of your current heroes drafted them up. But why bother, blaming Clinton is so much easier than thinking, isn’t it?
But you ask who remembers the Cole Bombing? I do. Who remembers that in response to the Cole bombing Clinton’s team had plans drawn up to attack Afghanistan and AlQueda but the new administration was not interested in those plans until after 911? I do.
#296 have you been attacked by Iran? Just wondering. Besides the whole point was about negative political blow back, try reading sometime.
#301 you are the gift that just keeps on giving aren’t you? OK so at least you admit that the war is about control of Iraq’s oil, at least you hold your PNAC credentials high. So many of your kind absolutely are in denial about what their true beliefs are all about. But exactly what Islamic extremists were we attacking in secular Iraq? You lost me there big guy.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pm243
Juan,
Sorry I blew by your post. Interesting though, I haven’t read much about the Gulf Pact. I will have to look into that.
Peace!
January 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pm#303 my last comment S/B directed to #302
January 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pm303
It did slip my mind how the Repub completely derided Clinton for trying to attack the root of the Cole bombings…
In any event, the trolls on this thread have been thoroughly shown to be just that, TROLLS. SouthernMan is just trying to inject some of his own trademark lunacy into the mix by trying to pull threads of different topics together to weave a tapestry of BS.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:28 pmOf course Bush didn’t pull the trigger or set off the IED, but he is responsible for the deaths of the soldiers in Iraq. Religious extremists are a serious problem but Iraq had nothing to do with islamic extremists before Bush’s War and you know it SM. Bush created the vacuum of power and created the opportunity for extremists to kill Americans in Iraq. And he is their best recruiter. Bartlebee’s right, the 4,000 dead soldiers and the 40,000 wounded are directly the result of Bush’s actions.
And how many more Americans will die due to the swelling of the jihadists ranks? Their blood is on Bush’s hands too.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:29 pm#306 can you buy a rug woven with those lies from an open air market in Baghdad?
January 7th, 2008 at 4:31 pmThe leadership in Iran wants to eliminate Israel and the U.S.
Comment by Southern Man
Show us proof of that, please. I mean solid proof.
They agree with OBL, thats why
January 7th, 2008 at 4:40 pmComment by Southern Man
And in the greatest come back of the year, the most stupid post goes to…
It’s a fight for oil, and it should have been labeled as such.
I knew that sooner or later, one of the trolls would slip up and spill the pinto beans.
Who’se oil? To whom does the oil belong? Why would we invade another nation to procure their oil>/??
January 7th, 2008 at 4:42 pmHi gang.
I’m afraid I don’t feel up to sifting through the troll scat, so, this point may have been made.
If the officers on our ships had believed the Iranian boats posed a credible threat? They would have blown them out of the water.
This story is, actually, good news. Our commanders in the field are still more sensible than the Bush administration and are exercising good judgment in the performance of their duties. I think that this will become a non-story, (except to the neocon chicken-(bleep)s), fairly quickly. I think it’s fair to say that most of us, rightfully, just aren’t afraid of Iran.
Save your fear, and contempt, for the criminals in our own government. Let the trolls piss themselves. Their time is coming to an end.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:43 pmHey Obigidiot; It is NOT a death cult, but justice-the same type handed to the defendents at Nuremberg. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:50 pm#309 faulty logic there big fella. It is akin to saying that since they have not found Jimmy Hoffa in spite of the rewards and the searching that 300 million Americans must approve of his murder. It just does into make sense unless you are entirely xenophobic. Nope OBL is safely hidden away in the mountains of Pakistan, but remember Bush doesn’t really think about Bin Laden anymore why do you his loyal follower think about Bin Laden?
January 7th, 2008 at 4:59 pm308
No. Only in Farmer’s Markets in Indiana.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:01 pm#314 Huh??????
January 7th, 2008 at 5:02 pmAlso, there is some doubt about whether this incident occured in “international waters. Iran claims the entire Straits of Hormuz as part of it’s “contiguous zone”. One could make a strong argument that they have every right to approach, and challenge, any foreign naval vessels passing through the straits.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:05 pm“Sounds to me like OBL and his supporters are serious about Jihad(The deaths of anyone who does not adhere to Muslim belief)”
Comment by Southern Man — January 7, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
This may sound like nitpicking, but “jihad” is merely the Arabic word for “struggle” or “strive”. It doesn’t mean “kill non-Muslims”. Admittedly some dictionaries list that as a meaning, but real Muslims will tell you that the term is used to describe one’s personal struggle to “go in the way of God” or to improve oneself on a daily basis in the manner that God wants one to be.
There are a few extremist crackpots (such as the 9/11 terrorists) who have their own peculiar meaning of “jihad”, interpreting it as a “holy war”. These are not views of mainstream Islam.
I say this only because the term is used frequently by Muslims, even here in the United States. If you hear a Muslim speaking about their “jihad”, they are speaking about their own internal struggles. They are NOT speaking about blowing you up.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:10 pmFrom Reuters:
The US says it won’t protest the incident, which means that they concur it wasn’t an intentional provocation from Tehran.
It’s a non-story.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:15 pmAlso, there is some doubt about whether this incident occured in “international waters. Iran claims the entire Straits of Hormuz as part of it’s “contiguous zoneâ€. One could make a strong argument that they have every right to approach, and challenge, any foreign naval vessels passing through the straits.
Comment by Impolitics — January 7, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Iran making such a claim may lead to a border war of sorts. About 20% of the world’s oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz, and for Iran to lay claim to that area (and the control of the flow of oil it implies) as their property will get a great deal of argument from other countries in return.
Yes, if it’s theirs, they do have every right to approach and challenge anybody in the strait. They also will have the right to grant or deny passage to any craft going through the strait. I doubt seriously this “right” will go unchallenged.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:19 pmJeremy in Denver; hanging Bush/Cheney et al for their war crimes would not make martyrs of them any more than Herman Goering, Hans Frank, Julius Streicher, or Ernst Kaltenbrunner did for the Germans.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:20 pmSouthern Man; But we already ARE taking Iraq’s oil against their will. Most Iraqis believe we are occupying their country to steal their oil-and they are right. The Bush/Cheney neocon policy is the same as Hitler’s-that might makes right. Is this the program you want to defend?
January 7th, 2008 at 5:31 pmSM you say that we should be allowed to purchase oil at a fair market price, yet you also say or seem to say that invading Iraq for the oil is the right thing to do. OK now how exactly does that work and who are the extremists preventing us from buying oil on the open market, and how exactly does that relate to Iraq? You see It appears that there is no shortage of oil and that the price is being driven up by speculation of fear. Fear of the instability of the middle east, instability caused by the presence of our military in Iraq.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:31 pmI doubt seriously this “right†will go unchallenged.
Comment by missmolly — January 7, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
True.
I don’t pretend to understand the complexities of “territorial waters”, “contiguous zone” and “international waters”; and things get really complicated in narrow seas. However, countries do have the right to challenge foreign naval vessels which approach their shores within weapon range. It would be silly to consider the straits equivalent to “the high seas”.
In fact, they have an implicit right to approach, challenge, and even search merchant vessels under some circumstances; though they are not allowed to halt legitimate merchant traffic.
I can’t help but wonder what the U.S. response would be if Cuban naval, or merchant, vessels decided to pass between Key West and the tip of Florida. Or, if Russian vessels tried to pass between the Offshore Islands and the California coast.
The point is that countries have the right to approach and challenge foreign vessels which may be considered a threat. Though, if accurate, threat’s to blow up said vessels is provocative.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:36 pmComment by Southern Man — January 7, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
Um. If we follow Southern Man’s “logic”; Iran has the right to use military force to insure that we will sell them commodities, including nuclear technology and weapons, at a “fair market value”. And they have the right to establish bases, in foreign lands, to insure their defense and access to these markets.
NEWS FLASH: No country is beholden to sell anything to anybody. If the world decides that we should “starve in the dark” we would have no legal recourse.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:43 pmIf we are somehow pushed aside from this market, what are we to do without oil. Imagine every store closed because we cannot get the oil to drive the goods to the store. The country would starve and the great deppression would be childs play compared to what would happen today. Every single product you buy is shipped to the store by vehicles that use fossil fuels. Imagine all the products we would be without?
Comment by Southern Man
Oh my god…..the fear….danger will robinson
you just remain calm southern man and the adults will be back running things soon so it will be ok.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:44 pmsouthern man, if you need to you might cut back on your meds just a little so that you can feel the wind as the dems go by …….feel that breeze. conservatism is damaged badly and a thing of the past for a while at least.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pmComment by Southern Man — January 7, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
Yes, I knew what you meant. I was only bothered by your parenthetical definition after the term “jihad” — stated as if that’s what the word means.
Unfortunately, there are too many people who believe this is THE meaning of the word, and this is a major hassle to Muslims who freely use the term in the way they worship, with no violent meanings whatsoever. A friend of mine was harrassed coming back to the United States from hajj (the annual pilgrimage most Muslims take at some point) because he had religious pamphlets in his carry-on luggage containing the word “jihad”. The pamphlets talked about the struggle to get closer to God, not about waging any kind of war.
It is for this reason that I take every opportunity to educate people about that word (and about Islamic practices in general) so they don’t go berzerk if they hear a Muslim use it.
Now to your questions:
1) “Why do some people in the U.S. try to discount the fact that some muslims around the world want to destroy our way of life?”
I think it’s because there’s a big difference between a small percentage of a major world religion out to “get us” and all one billion practitioners of that religion doing the same. Al Qaeda represents a very small percentage of Muslims, and the only reason they are growing greater in number is because of our actions — we’re the best recruiting tool they have. Remember that most Muslims have no desire to destroy our way of life — anymore than we wish to destroy theirs. It’s not discounting so much as regarding it as less a threat than our fearmongers have inflated it to be. Naturally, we should do what we can to prevent those who wish us harm from harming us. This goes for Al Qaeda, Timothy McVeigh, crazed gunmen in general, people who wish to bomb abortion clinics, racist hate groups of ANY kind within our borders (KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, etc.), and anyone else who advocates violence against us — regardless of nationality, race, or religion. But we should be able to protect ourselves without invading countries who haven’t attacked us, or keeping the American people in a constant state of fear.
2) “And why is it when you bring up 9/11, some people don’t seem to care about it anymore?”
This one’s easy. The simple answer is that the term “9/11″ has been so cheapened and exploited for political purposes (yes, Rudy, Bush, Cheney — I’m talking about you) that a lot of people are just plain weary of it. Which is a shame, because 9/11 was a significant event that deserves to be remembered, not cheapened. However, let’s put 9/11 into some perspective. In 2001, about 3,000 people in the United States died as a result of terrorism (9/11 deaths, plus I’m throwing in the anthrax victims as well). You probably agree with me that’s tragic. That same year — 2001 — 17,448 people were killed in the United States (almost 6 times as many!) as a result of drunk driving. This is also tragic. Yet we haven’t gone to war over this, have we? Do we live in cowering fear of drunk drivers? Do we invade other countries over drunk driving? Of course not. But we do work to eliminate the problem where we can in order to make our streets safer. So should it be with any threat that affects our safety.
January 7th, 2008 at 6:23 pmToo bad we can’t believe today’s report about the supposed incident in the Strait of Hormuz. Just so happens that all media attention is directed at New Hampshire. Gulf of Tonkin, anyone??
January 7th, 2008 at 7:06 pmSM @#328 You say some Muslims want to destroy our way of life (I guess if more than two do you are correct, but your thoughts show a basic right wing misunderstanding about what they are really going for)
But @#309 you say that the majority of Muslimms around the world support OBL (wrong again)
I guess a majority is some, but really now could you do some splainin and tie these disjointed thoughts together for us all?
January 7th, 2008 at 8:09 pmWe should all be frightened that the crackpots running our government are going to be in office for another year. Our representatives in Congress have failed to recognize the danger that our country is in and are failing to act.
The President and Richard Cheney need to be put on trial immediately and be prevented from hatching any more imperialistic wars. Failure of this Congress to impeach these criminals will come back to haunt us all if we don’t do it soon.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:56 amIf that’s the reason you can’t believe this incident, was there a similar news diversion that allowed you to disbelieve every other coalition nation with a navy reporting the Iranians doing the same thing to them for several years ?
Comment by Kilo
you must mean poland?
January 8th, 2008 at 10:04 amFunny that this story, which actually happened a couple of days ago, breaks the day before a Presidential primary.
And then Ghouliani gets on TV today repeating his usual 9/11 mantra.
These guys are sooo predictable.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:19 pm