From AFP:
US warplanes have violated Iranian airspace in the southwestern oil province of Khuzestan, the Arabic language channel of Iranian state television quoted a local military chief as saying on Sunday.
However, a US military spokesman said he had checked into reports of an airspace violation and denied that any took place.
“Two US aircraft trespassed into Iranian airspace northwest of (the port city of) Abadan before flying southwest into
Iraq,” a Revolutionary Guards commander in Abadan identified only as Colonel Aqili was quoted as saying by the Al-Alam channel’s website.“The planes left white vapour trails, attracting the local people’s attention,” he said, without elaborating on when the alleged incursion took place.
The incident happened close to Iran’s border with Iraq, where the US and British military are deployed in force, he said.
A US military spokesman told AFP that he had investigated the Iranian military’s claim and found no evidence to support it.
“There is nothing that we saw that would indicate that that happened,” he told AFP.
The United States is in a mounting diplomatic confrontation with
Iran over its efforts to master the nuclear fuel cycle and Western suspicions that Tehran is bent on developing nuclear weapons, a charge vehemently denied by Iran.Washington says it wants a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff but has never ruled out military action.
Tensions have spiked since Iran’s seizure on March 23 of 15 British marines and sailors for allegedly entering Iranian waters.
Well, if you can believe Rosie O’Donnell, there was nothing “alleged” about it. How else can we provoke a war with Iran if we aren’t willing to invade their waters and poke our jet noses into their air space?
And let’s face it: if you are willing to bring down the Twin Towers for oil, you’re not going to hesitate putting together a multi-country conspiracy in order to invade Iran and depose the mullahs—who you’ve shown a horrifying tendency to label as “evil”—just for kicks Because as we all know, labeling people “evil” is just a way to dehumanize them. And how can we ever have a conversation with people we’ve demonized? Or, if you prefer, how can we ever get Islamic radicals to stop stoning people to death or threatening to wipe entire countries from the face of the earth if we’re going to insult them by insisting such behavior is naughty?
The less rational of us— Zionist-enabling neocons who hate democracy so much that we marginalize “enemies” and dare criticize the smelting science of Truthers—“worry” that it is Iran whose leadership is unstable and a bit crazed, and that their desire to try to provoke a confrontation with the West suggests that they feel like they are holding some kind of trump card.
What that could be I’m not really sure—but I hope it doesn’t produce a mushroom cloud, or cause a plague or some such.
(h/t Dan Collins)
Well,
The Pentagon does seem to have plenty of money to blow on Persian Gulf joy rides.
Something to remember when Bush brushes off his Sally Struthers act and starts talking about starving soldiers in Baghdad.
Won’t you please help?
alphie seems to have an awful lot of time to expend attempting the same whiny threadjackings over and over at this site.
It strikes me that this is a rather sad way to amuse oneself.
Won’t somebody please help?
Back on topic, though, the Pentagon hasn’t denied that the contrails were white.
Jules Crittenden goes all PW-style on Dave “Taliban” Hicks:
Achmed: This man could not outwit a goat turd.
It’s almost as if the Iranians are trying to whip up some sort of pre-invasion hysteria—to what end is anybody’s guess.
(I’m sorry—can I use the term “hysteria” in these post-patriarchal times? The new rules confuse me)
Dan,
Don’t question little “a” after all he is the only true conservative & Republican here, we’re all just confused Christianists & lying to ourselves about the inevitable defeat & superiority of the insurgents, the Iranians & true nature of our betters, the Democrats in Congress, just ask him.
Is it me or is Iran starting to sound a little like Baghdad Bob, but in reverse? I mean it is amazing how their water & air space amazingly enough seems to expanding daily & ships & planes are there vs. not being there. Next up we’ll probably see a lot of downed American fighters, sunk battleships – circa 1946, etc.
To me it seems like the Iranians are attempting to play upon or enlarge a wedge between the real conservatives & smart Americans, like Gleen(s), Rosie O’Donnell, Code Pink & little “a†& utilize their inherent distrust of all things pro-American or military. They seem to believe that if they raise enough of a stink, this will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back & thus force us to either withdrawal from Iraq or allow them to continue to stockpile & produce nuclear weapons & fund terrorist organizations that are geared towards killing innocent civilians & US/ Coalition forces.
Funny how our own little trolls, markg8, little “a†& even Iran don’t seem to realize that the Pelosi lead Congress isn’t as popular as they seem to believe – they must read the NYT. I think that this whole funding issue is going to back-fire big time & force the politically maneuverings of Pelosi/Reid to become very, very public; though maybe not as public as the totally legal firing of the USA. The last thing Iran or Pelosi wants is for Joe six-pack to realize that what Pelosi/Reid wants is the same thing that Iran wants, to curb all efforts of Bush vis-à-vis blocking the military. Since to them all, they are one in the same.
At some point, we’re going to have to use the “XXX” method of diplomacy:
“Ok. You do that again and I’m gonna have to throw ya a beating.”
SB Word on the street64
Iranian airspace. That makes me giggle.
Jimmy Carter waited 5 months into his Iranian hostage crisis before he launched a military operation, ee.
Bush is only on day 10 of his Iranian hostage crisis.
It’s a little early is all I’m saying.
Please, please continue to use hysteria. It likely is still valid.
What a wonderful example of success you are advocating as the template to use. I mean it’s not like the British sailors or marines have anything better to do for the 400+ days & apparently you have no problem w/ our allies’ ships being boarded or the Geneva Conventions being completely ignored by Iran. So what if they are being held, questioned & paraded about, quite illegally? Maybe we can convince Bush to pull our athletes from the next Olympics to show up Putin as well.
One day, people will visit this blog and it won’t be about an obtuse contrarian nitwit.
Oh, the fun we’ll have!
As if you would be a useful judge of what is early, timely or late.
Is this Iranian source the same one that cited coordinates that were well within Iraqi waters? If so, since their ability to read a map without hurting themselves is suspect, why you would take this information at face value is sad, but not surprising.
You once again believe any derogatory information implicitly, and ignore anything to the contrary. Meanwhile, 15 people who were in Iraqi waters are being held against international law.
That makes it everyone’s crisis, not just Bush’s. Unless of course you’re simply on the other side.
Rep Rangel admitted using “pork” to get Dems to vote for little a ideas . . . .
. . . little a‘s ideas are that main stream.
I like the way the story is written up:
Iranian spokesmen today indicated that the United States shot a missile which killed a hundred million orphans, scoured the nation of minorities and the handicap, and caused the green cheese of the moon (which comprises the moon’s primary ingredient, BTW) to go off.
The Pentagon denied this account, stating, “we don’t have such a missile to begin with, there aren’t a hundred million people in Iran, much less a hundred million orphans, and the moon isn’t made out of green cheese, for the millionth time, dammit.”
Experts were divided on the issue. One thing remains clear: People in the Middle East and elsewhere are tired of Pentagon equivocating, and maintain their stubborn, nay, heroic resistance, in the face of U.S. imperialism.
Folks, I’ve seen this on a million boards/blogs. When you respond to his cr@p you simply encourage more of it. As a mostly lurker who is new here (and finding the personalities and conversations very interesting), it’s the responses that are making this place occasionally unreadable.
Positive reinforcement – ignore it until it says something suitably intelligent, then lavish praise upon it. You know, like what works with a two year old.
Is there some way to put the identifying information at the top of the post? That’d make it easier to scroll-on-by.
Thanks for tolerating my minirant.
1) To fire up antiwar zealots in the West, such as a certain someone who seems to live to post here.
2) To pump up the price of crude with the dreaded “Middle Eastern tensions”
3) Both.
TW: Even if I had88 more guesses, I’d still be back to those first two, in combination.
Now to a more substantive response…
Given what has a reasonable likelihood of occurring there in the foreseeable future, I’d be kinda angry if we weren’t testing for the Iranian responses to incursions like these.
Welcome aboard Bob,
You are being too kind in regards to little “a” his second birthday won;t be for a few months now & we’re still waiting for the moment we get him on solid food or facts – whichever comes first.
So…
Any guess as to which potential President we’ll see in the White House in 2009 will be the most ‘hawkish’ and aggressive in their foreign policy?
Wait…Did this clown just say that Bush should follow Carter’s lead on well…anything? I take it back, he IS amusing at times.
BRD – If he runs and wins, I wouldn’t mess with Fred Thompson.
Yeah eLarsen,
Thompson dodged serving the Vietnam with far more skill than Bush or Cheney, then played a key role in bringing down President Nixon while he was trying to fight that war.
His tough guy overcompensation now will be off the charts!
Dem side: Hillary. She’s quite accustomed to getting her way, and unaccustomed to accepting moderation from others. Plus I suspect she’ll think she has a point to prove.
Rep side: Rudy. IMO he would be appropriately aggressive if left to his own devices. Unfortunately, I suspect he’ll be constrained by a “loose cannon” reputation that will be hung on him shortly.
Of course I could be entirely wrong.
Isn’t it about time to start a pool on the timing of airstrikes on Iran? Based on the buildup in and around the gulf, I’m thinking by the end of June at latest, but I’d like to know what the military experts who post here think.
Fred Thompson shows a lot of simple common sense, doesn’t show much patience with the current DC clown show, and seemingly has a clear idea of what’s at stake. (I realize he hasn’t declared but you said potential). I think those qualities would translate into a proactive and forthright foreign policy approach similar to Reagan’s. It lends itself to being described as pragmatic rather than ‘hawkish’ and aggressive, but I think the results would be similat if not identical.
I notice that the US Navy has boats in the same area that the Brits do where they got abducted.
This whole thing with the Iranians right now is so obvious it’s pathetic. They kidnap some brits knowing they won’t defend themselves, and also knowing the worst retaliation they will receive is a “strongly-worded condemnation” from Blair and his cronies at the UN -oh wait, the UN won’t even issue the “strongly worded condemnation” because it uses bad words. So essentially, they know that Britain will do nothing, and they want to push the US in to a confrontation that will force us to shoot back.
The problem is, Iran will fall apart like a stack of cards if they provoke us. The only way they keep support from the Iranian masses if it’s in self defense. If they poke the tiger and we decide to ya know, SHOOT BACK when the Iranians try and take some hostages, they will have no way to score a PR victory.
Another Bob,
Feeding the trolls does encourage them somewhat. alphie has recently admitted that he consideres being called an idiot an honor (as opposed to everyday reality). But we do manage to scoot a few out of here. In the meantime, they provide great entertainment in the form of things like the Balloon Fence Missile Shieldâ„¢
Alphie sez:
Thompson dodged serving the Vietnam with far more skill than Bush or Cheney
Three underlying assumptions: All of the three named did not serve during the Vietnam era.
Three more underlying assumptions: If the above is true, they ‘dodged’ service – i.e. did not have a legitimate exemption, but ginned one up.
Primary argument: Thompson did so with ‘more skill’.
Of the seven assertions you make in your first 13 words, you have no links, no argument, no definitions, and, really, just f-all to convince anyone here that you’re not a random dork generator.
then played a key role in bringing down President Nixon while he was trying to fight that war.
‘Key role’ is a matter subject to argument, an argument I notice you don’t make.
But, as it happens, that’s not really the key problem here, but rather that the Paris Accords were signed some 19 months before Nixon’s resignation. This runs counter to the causation you imply.
His tough guy overcompensation now will be off the charts!
Again, noise without significance. You provide no argument, no evidence, no definition, no context and no point. Be grownup or begone.
Aw jeeze…
MarkG8 is floating about the other thread now. I’m just too irritated to deal with this. Anyone else feel like taking a swing?
BRD, You exhibit way more patience with alphoid Mary and our resident basso profundo, markg8, than they deserve or merit. You really can’t reason with stupidity and obtuseness aggravated by chronic itchy, scaly BDS like this from that thread:
All you can do with something that mind-bogglingly stupid is mock the shit out it. Just pasting that unhinged bile makes me want to take a shower.
Hmm…
Kelly, with your response, I see that I can only reasonably respond in one fashion to their comments.
Who’s among the rest of you folks is getting the first round?
Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) was the Senate Watergate Committee’s chief minority counsel in 1973 and 1974.
I believe Thompson also came up with the famous phrase “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”
I’d call that a “key role” in bringing down Nixon while he was trying to fight the Vietnam War, wouldn’t you, BRD?
Alphie!
Hooray!
You made a point.
Well done!
I’m not finding any hard confirmation of the source of the quote you give, either, but that doesn’t detract from the main point you’ve made.. The basic assertion that the role played was significant is something you’ve provided evidence for.
Now, to the other half of my query about your statement:
But, as it happens, that’s not really the key problem here, but rather that the Paris Accords were signed some 19 months before Nixon’s resignation. This runs counter to the causation you imply.
Any thoughts on this?
BRD
Jeez, it’s like he doesn’t even bother to read anymore…
Techie,
You might be right about that, but at least he actually responded to a question, and dug up some information, and had the great decency and civility to provide an honest-to-god point.
I ain’t going to look this particular gift horse in the mouth.
BRD
Don’t know much about history,
Don’t know much biology,
Don’t know much about the science book,
Don’t know much about the French I took.
But I do know that Bush is bad,
And if Saddam woulda killed his dad
What a wonderful world this would be.
So you’re saying the fall of South Vietnam was completely Richard Nixon’s doing, BRD?
That would run counter to current neocon mythology (see Jeff’s latest post).
Alphie,
In what, way, shape, or form did I say anything to this effect?
According to your posts, you note “Thompson dodged serving the Vietnam with far more skill than Bush or Cheney, then played a key role in bringing down President Nixon while he was trying to fight that war.”
I note that the Paris Accords were signed well before Watergate came to a head. Therefore, Thompson was not trying to bring down a President while he was trying to fight the Vietnam War.
Do you propose a different chronology?
Different causation?
What the hell are you on about?
BRD
Counsel is not allowed to address witnesses or reply to questions in Senate hearings. They are hearings held under strict rules that are not the same as courtrooms. Counsel is limited to advisory role only. Sometimes counsel for the person in the hot seat will address the Senators and it get a pass, but more often admonished to let the person in the hot seat to reply.
Thompson did not serve in the Senate for another 20 years, so he could not have said what jihadi boy says he said.
I believe it was Howard Baker who said it, but it may have been Erskine.
Alternate reality, BRD.
Let’s sing a song about it!
Well if the mentally challenged twins are here in force that must mean they are on spring break. It also means mommy and daddy didn’t front either of them the money to get out of town and get shifaced drunk with some real girls. Not the internet kind.
Let me see if I understand alphie correctly.
Either contributing to the end of the war was a bad thing…
Or contributing to the downfall of Richard Nixon was a bad thing…
Or, the Vietnam War was wrong and Nixon did need to go, but we right-wingers are logically compelled to deplore Fred Thompson for his part in undermining a sitting president in time of war.
(Cause, you know, we all demand reflexive obedience to the President at all times.)
Granted, I’m not at my most logical just now, but I don’t see any other way to read this argument.
Seriously BRD, let it go man.
alphie is basking in the attention that he gets like any other insecure web trollop. We’re really just encouraging him at this point.
Best to let sleeping idiot dogs lie.
That or teletubbies is a re-run
Oh, for fucks sake.
Nixon’s plan—Vietnamization—was to transfer the primary war-fighting responsibility to the South Vietnamese. He did so, and the Paris accords were signed with the understanding that upon resumption of hostilities, the US would continue to support the South.
Then Watergate, Nixon’s resignation, and the post-Nixon Congress that voted to end all support for the South Vietnamese. Thereby letting them fall to the knives of the North Vietnamese. Thereby leading to mass slaughter and a massive refugee crisis.
Had the Congress not cut off support for the South, chances are the North would not have won, and possibly the North would not have even invaded:
The Democrats’ insane hatred of Nixon—not entirely undeserved, but massively out of proportion to what he did—led them to repudiate his word to South Vietnam, and as a result they repudiated the word of the US as a nation. In the end, their blind hatred and stupidity led to a million in prison camps and a couple hundred thousand dead.
The amazing thing is the Talking Telephone Pole keeps crowing about being a “conservative,” yet every goddamned argument it tries to make is out of the leftard handbook.
Not to mention the inability to connect events according to their chronological sequence. See, for example, the occasional Australian leftard declaring that Bali was “blowback” for Australia’s involvement in Iraq…
Congress voted to cut back funds to South Vietnam a few months before the North Vietnamese troops rolled into Saigon. A few more bucks wouldn’t have changed anything.
March 28, 1973 – U.S. Senate Watergate hearings (starring Fred Thompson) begin.
March 29, 1973 – The last remaining American troops withdraw from Vietnam as President Nixon declares “the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come.”
No connection between Thompson’s Watergate antics and Vietnam at all. No way!
Because everyone knows you can move entire armies in 24 hours! It takes no planning whatsoever!
Oh dear, someone here is completely unfamiliar with the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy
Wonder who?
I’m familiar with it, Jim.
Jimmy Carter is solely responsible for the rise of radical Islam, right?
JPT: You are correct, Baker was the speaker of the famous line.
Back to the old threaderoo – Let me get this straight – the Iranians, who are as fond of UFO sightings as any X-Files devotee, say that they saw contrails, and it was US aircraft intruding on their airspace….and someone believes the Iranians?
BRD observes:
To which jihadi boy replies:
BRD, you’ve been cutting this asshole slack in several threads trying to give him the opportunity to address your points with some level of cognition above lalalalala. You are wasting your time. Jihadi boy is a one trick pony.
With all due respect and understanding the offended sense of logic and rational debate that drives folks to engage this asshole directly, anyone addressing jihadi boys drivel as points to debate is playing his game. Instead of reasonable and informed people tossing ideas back and forth this snickering fool hijacks discussions again and again. The cognitive noise level on the site is rising every day as result.
Major John,
Maybe it was another test of the Iranian, super secret, stealh flying boat…
No, Reagan bears some responsbility for his Lebanese misadventure. But then again, if the mullahs had been properly dealt with in 1979, they wouldn’t have been so eager to prop up the scumbags that bombed the barracks, Hezbollah.
Bush I and Thatcher also deserve a good brickbat for letting the Rushdie affair to go so wrong, as well. That was a good reason to send a Tomahawk up the ayatollah’s ass, too.
To be fair, the Iranians are unfamiliar with horizontal contrails since their airplanes crater because of lack of spare parts.
Of course, that’s our fault, too.
Great Satan and all that, you know.
I think you could take it all the way back to Nixon. In hind sight, we should have reacted to Munich much more forcefully. Arafat should not have been allowed to live.
Here’s hoping that the Iranians get to see lots more US warplanes invading their airspace in the very near future.
Iran has been the center of Islamic terrorist activity and its ideological home for the past 28 years. We have had ample reasons prior to this to bomb them into pre-history. In 1979, we were singing “Bomb Iran” to the tune of Barbara Ann. If we had done that then, or after the Beirut bombing, or after 9/11, we wouldn’t be having this problem now. It’s not too late though. Today is the first day of the rest of this war, and we can still win it if we can just relocate our collective cojones.
You’re asking that question of the a-bot?
BRD, you know it’s not nice to tease like that!
If it wasn’t us, Major John…and it wasn’t scout craft from the Romulan Star Empire…then who could it be?
Hmmm. Now who would have an incentive to enter Iranian airspace with warplanes? Who has done these type of lightening raids before? Who has been threatened with obliteration by Iran? Whose name would it be fun to toss into the Iranian military-paranoia complex just to watch the reactions?
Heh. A Joooo-FO?
Hmmm. What was that skit from the end of that Mel Brooks movie…?
Salman Rushdie?
Hmmm.
Good point Robert.
Okay, who hasn’t been threatened with obliteration by Iran?
al-Qaeda