If you cant keep yourself straight.
I am not going to keep trying.
I have already tried once and I get this response.
I dont want to keep repeating myself because you spin my words.
good luck !

I knew it was all my fault before I carefully numbered the topics. That's why I numbered the topics, so we could keep up with them. See the numbers? Just pick one and go at it.

Or, lets get back to why we went to war with Germany.

B

We went to war with Saddam because we wanted to steal his secret of destruction. You know, the one where you put something in someplace and it disappears without trace.

We went in too late. Of course, there is nothing there now. There was something there, that is, unless you believe it just disappeared.

OK, I will try.

I was not trying to talk about going to war with Germany.
You mentioned that Hitlar and Saddam were the same.
And since they were the same, that justified this war.
Or did I missread what you said ?

i doubt I said they were the same. I may have said or implied they shared the same goals. In support of that, I give you Saddam's political party. Check out it's origin, philosophy and goals. Also, the words of Saddam himself, in which he frankly stated, on numerous occasions that he wanted to control M.E. oil so he could control the world. He was absolutely right in his strategic assessment of control of oil. He tripped over a WMD on his way to the throne. Too bad.

Saddam is more like a Hitler or Stalin wannabe in my book. He wanted to be a great evil dictator but was never very good at it, and took over a country incapible of furthering his goals. Also Hitler had the decency to off himself at the end, Saddam did not. Although most regretable he put the gun in his mouth 6 years to late.

Ok
I thought we were talking about the scale of harm done to the planet
by Saddam verses Hitler.

And I do agree that his goal was to try to own the world by trying to own
large oil reserves.

But now we seem to be doing the same thing.
I think we might be in really bad shape when Exxon controls the oil reserves.
And It looks like that is the final goal of this war.
Look at were we are putting military bases in Iraq.
All right next to Iran.
And we seem to be taunting them toward war.
Remember the monkey in the ocean incident ?
We came dam close to having shots fired because of some idiot on the radio.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Filipino_Monkey/

All this just looks like it is shaping up to be a bad bad thing.

Cool blame America first! We are taunting Iran? Thats a good one. Everything is our fualt we should all off ourselves in shame.:rolleyes:

Charge US warships in international waters at your own risk, even in home waters its very clear that they will open fire if you enter the exclusion zone.

O yes that is exactly what I am saying :rolleyes:
We should all kill ourselves in shame.
Get real !
Somehow sarcastic comments from a moderator of a forum seems
a bit inappropriate.

Would it bother you if Iran invaded Canada and started building military
bases on the border of the US.
Same Idea applies with us building them on their borders.

Do you know of the incident I am talking about with the Filipino Monkey.
He has been there for years, doing what he does.
I am not saying it is right.
But I think there is something wrong on both sides.

---------
In January 2008 five Iranian speedboats approached three U.S. Warships in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. warships attempted to contact the Iranians: “This is coalition warship. I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law. I maintain no harm. Over!”
A radio operator on one of the U.S. warships then heard a voice reply, “I am coming to you… You will explode in… minutes.”
At first the U.S. warships believed this message to be coming from the Iranian speedboats. However, it has since been argued that the mysterious threatening message probably came from a “Filipino Monkey” prankster. Supporting this theory is the lack of background ocean noises in the transmission, which one would have expected to hear if the message came from the speedboats.
--------

I don't care what was said over the radio. Have you ever been on a boat? Been on watch? You need to interpret what the other guy is doing based on his actions. The radio contact, who ever was on the other end would have just confirmed what the guys on the bridge were thinking.

The guy on watch saw three Iranian speed boats approaching. No one runs towards a warship of any kind like that, unless they are either dumb or plan on attacking it. Warships have exclusion zones around them, everyone knows this. Every sailor I am sure has the USS Cole in the back of their mind, throw in the fact that they are Iranian. So the scenario is you have three possible hostils approaching at 25 knots off your starboard bow, 2k out. What do you do? Time is short you can't avoid them, you have minutes to decide what to do. First you try to raise them on the radio. As the clock ticks down and they get closer. But as you do so you need to sound general quarters as well, time is short and it takes time to be able to defend yourself. You get a response that they are going to blow you up or what not, so now I am sure they are thinking Cole. All you can go by is the response on the hailing channel. 3 minutes to possible impact and your shipmates death. 2 minutes.. make the call. 1 minute... Naturaly you would open fire.

Regardless of where the message came from its not important until after the fact. Also its impossible to prove either way. The article you link to talks about background noise, but you won't get that if the radio is in the cabin. Since it is impossible to prove one way or the other I'm going to side with the Navy by defualt.

If Iran feels threatened they should stop trying to get there hands on a nuclear device.

.

You argue my point quite well.

We should work hard at not getting ourselves into those kind of situations.
Not put ourselves in harms way intentionally.

It is called baiting.

The perfect way to start a war and be able to say, they hit me first.

-------

If you felt threatened by someone would you put down your weapons ?
Neither would anyone else.
I don't think any reasonable person would expect Iran to disarm given
the situation we have forced onto them.

Do you think the US should disarm if a foreign country took over Mexico
and started building military installments on the US border ?

If we wanted to own the oil reserves in the ME, we would. We'd simply nuke the place, except for oil fields, until it glowed. Bingo.

Clearly, ownership is not on the agenda. Preventing a megalomaniac from controlling the oil is NOT the same thing as owning the reserves themselves. For evidence, I give you Iraq. It would be easy as sin to seize Iraqi oil to pay for our military adventure. We have not done that.

Do you se any indication of US gov seizure of any oil, anywhere?

Look at a map. Since Iran & Iraq share a common border it would be difficult to establish fire bases that were not bordering Iran.

I've served aboard a warship. If you think that a movie camera on deck can tell you what is going on in CIC, you know nothing.

B

If I ran a mullocracy that represses the democratic ambitions of my people I would do everything in my power to convince the people that there was an external threat against which they should band together.

B

I beleive thats the argument that Churchill was using in regard to dictatorships. They need a threat to exist. Without a threat the people would start looking around, realize how much there lives suck, then rise up and overthrow them.

How is a ship steaming in international waters baiting? They were going through a main shipping channel, commerical and military ships from all over the world use it? How is that baiting?:confused:

Iran's military is a joke, you said disarm, I said no nuclear weapons. Life isn't fair not every country gets to have nuclear weapons. Actualy no country that doesn't currantly have them should get to have them.