DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on January 07, 2008, 11:10:37 AM
-
What a lucky break. The Iranian Navy "threatening" U.S. warships in "international waters" just in time to boost McCain's campaign way over the top and kill Obama's and Edwards' at the same time. Then it's McCain vs. Hillary. Tough times. Vote for The Warrior. No time for civilians now, esp. of the female persuasion.
What's hilarious is not that the Navy came through for one of its own. What's hilarious is how the sheeple buy this horseshit time after time after time.
It also occurred to me as I watched CNN's announcement of this "event" this morning just how much the MSM are part of the bullshit machine. The "news" is read out by a stern-faced and stern-voiced lady announcer to the "anchor," Heidi Collins or Kollins, who receives the news equally stern-faced, especially the part about "international waters" in fact goes out of her way to emphasize that aspect of it, pointing out that this is not a case like that of the British sailors arrested in questionable areas, this "was" in international waters. All accepted as fact, not a word of doubt or demand for more details, no reminders of past Navy lies meant to lead to war, the Gulf of Tonkin incident being the most memorable. Just the dead-serious demeanour, the stern and serious voices, the unquestioning acceptance of the Navy's version. Scary.
-
I guess since accusing them of making nuclear weapons didn't stick...
-
I guess we have back channel access to the Iranians. How could McLain coordinate the timing of this otherwise.
Or are you saying it didn't happen?
They didn't kidnap the brit sailors either, is that it?
-
<<Or are you saying it didn't happen?>>
BINGO!!!
<<They didn't kidnap the brit sailors either, is that it?>>
They made a lawful arrest after the Brits entered their territorial waters.
But I was thinking more Tonkin Gulf - - they either make stuff up or they provoke it. Purely for propaganda purposes. Please don't deny that. You'll only damage your own credibility.
-
Satellite imagery shows the brits were not in iranian waters.
And you have no proof that mclain had a damn thing to do with the incident today.
-
<<Satellite imagery shows the brits were not in iranian waters.>>
That's bullshit too. In the First Gulf War "satellite photos" were used by the U.S. military to "prove" that "Iraqi troops" were massing on the Saudi border. The St. Petersburg Times proved that the photos were fakes and I believe Colin Powell later had to apologize to the UN for using fake photos.
<<And you have no proof that mclain had a damn thing to do with the incident today.>>
McCain? The little twerp wouldn't go near it. IMHO, this is something the Navy probably cooked up all on their own to help out one of their own. If McCain could ever be proven to have any connection to any of this bullshit, his career would be toast. Bad enough to lie the country into a war for oil, but to risk it for one's own political career advancement must cross some kind of a line that even the U.S. sheeple wouldn't forgive.
-
McCain? The little twerp wouldn't go near it. IMHO, this is something the Navy probably cooked up all on their own to help out one of their own.
Maybe it was the jews
-
<<Maybe it was the jews>>
You bet on the Jews, I'll bet on the Navy.
-
or maybe it happened, like they say it did.
-
Anything's possible, BT. Even that.
-
This is Jesus' General's take on the situation (at least I think it is).
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2008/01/old-man-harrington-has-big-stick-and.html
-
<<This is Jesus' General's take on the situation (at least I think it is).>>
Pretty much a replay of the Gulf of Tonkin. They provoke the incident, then bitch about how they were "almost attacked." Only this time, I think the objective was political only and was aimed at the U.S. election. Gulf of Tonkin, the lying bastards actually succeeded in manufacturing the pretext for a war that took two million Vietnamese lives.
-
Recordings Show Iran-US Clash in Gulf
Jan 8, 4:29 PM (ET)
By SEBASTIAN ABBOT and LOLITA C. BALDOR
WASHINGTON (AP) - Video and audio recordings clearly show Iranian boats confronting U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, and a voice speaking in heavily-accented English can be heard threatening that the American vessels were going to explode, military officials said Tuesday.
The incident, which President Bush denounced Tuesday as a "provocative act," was videotaped by a crew member on the bridge of the destroyer USS Hopper, one of the three ships that faced down five Iranian boats in a flare-up early Sunday.
The recordings were described by several military officials who viewed them. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the recordings were still being reviewed and had not been released to the public.
"It is a dangerous situation," Bush said during a White House news conference. "They should not have done it, pure and simple. ... I don't know what their thinking was, but I'm telling you what my thinking was. I think it was a provocative act."
At the Pentagon, defense officials were working to release about five minutes of video and audio that show several small boats as well as the U.S. ships involved in the clash. The Hopper was in the lead as the ships were moving through the Strait of Hormuz.
Military officials said the audio recording includes both threats and transmissions from the Iranians, as well as U.S. Navy transmissions. The audio and video recordings were made separately, and initially covered much of the more than 20 minute confrontation, but were pulled together and combined by the Navy, the officials said.
The top U.S. Navy commander in the Gulf said an Iranian fleet of high-speed boats charged at and threatened to blow up the Navy convoy as it passed near but outside Iranian waters on Monday. The Iranian fleet "maneuvered aggressively" and then fled as the American ship commanders were preparing to open fire, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff said. No shots were fired.
In Tehran, Iran's Foreign Ministry suggested the Iranian boats had not recognized the U.S. vessels. Spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini played down the incident. "That is something normal that takes place every now and then for each party," he told the state news agency IRNA.
Cosgriff disputed Iranian claims that the incident was a routine encounter, saying Iran's "provocative" actions were "deadly serious" to the U.S. military.
The confrontation was an unusual flare-up of U.S.-Iranian tensions in the Persian Gulf as Bush prepared to leave Tuesday evening on an eight-day Mideast trip designed in part to counter Iran's influence in the region. Bush is expected to discuss the U.S. posture toward Tehran with Arab allies also worried about Tehran's desire for greater regional power.
Many Arab countries fear the Iranian-American rivalry could erupt into a military confrontation that would put them in the crossfire and hurt vital Gulf oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards said that its high-speed boats never threatened the U.S. vessels during the encounter, insisting it only asked them to identify themselves, then let them continue into the Gulf. A Guards commander defended his force's right to identify ships in the sensitive waterway.
Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. 5th Fleet, which patrols the Gulf and is based in nearby Bahrain, said the American vessels had already been identified by Iranian authorities earlier in the day before the confrontation occurred.
"The group had been successfully queried by an Iranian ship, possibly a Revolutionary Guards ship, and two or three Iranian (shore) stations and an Omani station," Cosgriff told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Tuesday.
The U.S. commander also pointed out that the American ships were clearly marked and the incident took place during the day when they could be seen. "I can't help but conclude that it was provocative," Cosgriff said.
"There is video" of the incident, Cosgriff said. "We're using it as part of our assessment. That will be made available in due course, as well as the audio."
The Pentagon has said the U.S. ships were on the verge of opening fire on the Iranian boats when they fled.
Cosgriff said the five Iranian boats, outfitted with outboard motors and carrying three to four people each, rapidly approached three U.S. warships - the Hopper, cruiser USS Port Royal and frigate USS Ingraham.
Two of the Iranian boats went to the ship's left side, three to the right, he said. The two on the left "were more energetic and made a number of runs toward the lead ship, the USS Hopper."
As the two boats did so, Hopper's crew heard a radio call threatening that the U.S. ships would "explode." The two boats dumped boxes into the water.
However, U.S. military officials, including Cosgriff, said they have not been able to definitively connect the radio call with one of the Revolutionary Guards boats.
"The ships were close enough to shore that the call could have come from a shore station, it could have come from another boat," said Cdr. Lydia Robertson, the 5th Fleet spokeswoman. "But the call did happen while the small boats were there."
Senior Revolutionary Guards commander Ali Reza Tangsiri said Iran had the right to ask any ships to identify themselves upon entering or leaving the Persian Gulf.
"It is a basic responsibility of patrolling units of the Revolutionary Guards to take necessary interception measures toward any vessels entering into the waters of the Persian Gulf," Tangsiri said, according to the Mehr news agency.
Cosgriff objected to Iranian attempts to downplay the incident.
"I hope from this lesson they realize that we are concerned by small, high-speed vessels," said Cosgriff. I hope they understand we will take those actions we deem appropriate to defend our ships and our sailors."
Riad Kahwaji, a Dubai-based analyst with the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, said Iran may have been seeking to send a "political message" to Arab Gulf states to highlight the dangers of military confrontation.
"When somebody gets so close to a big ship then he's very likely asking for trouble or trying to provoke something," he said. "Opening fire means sparking a war ... Does anyone really want to take that risk?"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080108/D8U1UNM80.html
http://clipsyndicate.com/publish/video/487307?wpid=1904
-
Buncha BS. The Iranians say the incident is "normal" and happens "every now and then," but the Amerikan media has the vice-admiral denying that the incident was "routine," a claim the Iranians never made.
Obviously the Iranians got it right and the media and/or the Navy are trying to massage this into another "attack" on the U.S.A. by Iran.
That the incident was probably provoked by the U.S. Navy is given away in this little nugget: <<The top U.S. Navy commander in the Gulf said an Iranian fleet of high-speed boats charged at and threatened to blow up the Navy convoy as it passed near but outside Iranian waters on Monday.>>
"near but outside" my ass. The day that those lying bastards ever tell the truth about one of their provocations will be the day that Hell freezes over.
Also if anyone heard the tape with the strangely distorted and (IMHO) altered voice threatening explosion in a slow-motion, almost stoned manner, it's almost impossible to accept this as the product of an emotion-charged edge-of-combat situation, delivered from a small attack boat charging full speed at the U.S. Navy. Wanna bet that at least the audio tape will turn out to be a manufactured artefact, and that it was Amerikan-made at that?
Had the vice-admiral simply agreed with the Iranians that incidents like that happen every now and then, the whole thing would have stayed in perspective but McCain wouldn't have gotten the bounce that this little charade delivered.
Just goes to show ya - - bad politics make bad theatre.
-
Recordings Show Iran-US Clash in Gulf
Jan 8, 4:29 PM (ET)
By SEBASTIAN ABBOT and LOLITA C. BALDOR
WASHINGTON (AP) - Video and audio recordings clearly show Iranian boats confronting U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, and a voice speaking in heavily-accented English can be heard threatening that the American vessels were going to explode, military officials said Tuesday.
The incident, which President Bush denounced Tuesday as a "provocative act," was videotaped by a crew member on the bridge of the destroyer USS Hopper, one of the three ships that faced down five Iranian boats in a flare-up early Sunday.
The recordings were described by several military officials who viewed them. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the recordings were still being reviewed and had not been released to the public.
"It is a dangerous situation," Bush said during a White House news conference. "They should not have done it, pure and simple. ... I don't know what their thinking was, but I'm telling you what my thinking was. I think it was a provocative act."
At the Pentagon, defense officials were working to release about five minutes of video and audio that show several small boats as well as the U.S. ships involved in the clash. The Hopper was in the lead as the ships were moving through the Strait of Hormuz.
Military officials said the audio recording includes both threats and transmissions from the Iranians, as well as U.S. Navy transmissions. The audio and video recordings were made separately, and initially covered much of the more than 20 minute confrontation, but were pulled together and combined by the Navy, the officials said.
The top U.S. Navy commander in the Gulf said an Iranian fleet of high-speed boats charged at and threatened to blow up the Navy convoy as it passed near but outside Iranian waters on Monday. The Iranian fleet "maneuvered aggressively" and then fled as the American ship commanders were preparing to open fire, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff said. No shots were fired.
In Tehran, Iran's Foreign Ministry suggested the Iranian boats had not recognized the U.S. vessels. Spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini played down the incident. "That is something normal that takes place every now and then for each party," he told the state news agency IRNA.
Cosgriff disputed Iranian claims that the incident was a routine encounter, saying Iran's "provocative" actions were "deadly serious" to the U.S. military.
The confrontation was an unusual flare-up of U.S.-Iranian tensions in the Persian Gulf as Bush prepared to leave Tuesday evening on an eight-day Mideast trip designed in part to counter Iran's influence in the region. Bush is expected to discuss the U.S. posture toward Tehran with Arab allies also worried about Tehran's desire for greater regional power.
Many Arab countries fear the Iranian-American rivalry could erupt into a military confrontation that would put them in the crossfire and hurt vital Gulf oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards said that its high-speed boats never threatened the U.S. vessels during the encounter, insisting it only asked them to identify themselves, then let them continue into the Gulf. A Guards commander defended his force's right to identify ships in the sensitive waterway.
Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. 5th Fleet, which patrols the Gulf and is based in nearby Bahrain, said the American vessels had already been identified by Iranian authorities earlier in the day before the confrontation occurred.
"The group had been successfully queried by an Iranian ship, possibly a Revolutionary Guards ship, and two or three Iranian (shore) stations and an Omani station," Cosgriff told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Tuesday.
The U.S. commander also pointed out that the American ships were clearly marked and the incident took place during the day when they could be seen. "I can't help but conclude that it was provocative," Cosgriff said.
"There is video" of the incident, Cosgriff said. "We're using it as part of our assessment. That will be made available in due course, as well as the audio."
The Pentagon has said the U.S. ships were on the verge of opening fire on the Iranian boats when they fled.
Cosgriff said the five Iranian boats, outfitted with outboard motors and carrying three to four people each, rapidly approached three U.S. warships - the Hopper, cruiser USS Port Royal and frigate USS Ingraham.
Two of the Iranian boats went to the ship's left side, three to the right, he said. The two on the left "were more energetic and made a number of runs toward the lead ship, the USS Hopper."
As the two boats did so, Hopper's crew heard a radio call threatening that the U.S. ships would "explode." The two boats dumped boxes into the water.
However, U.S. military officials, including Cosgriff, said they have not been able to definitively connect the radio call with one of the Revolutionary Guards boats.
"The ships were close enough to shore that the call could have come from a shore station, it could have come from another boat," said Cdr. Lydia Robertson, the 5th Fleet spokeswoman. "But the call did happen while the small boats were there."
Senior Revolutionary Guards commander Ali Reza Tangsiri said Iran had the right to ask any ships to identify themselves upon entering or leaving the Persian Gulf.
"It is a basic responsibility of patrolling units of the Revolutionary Guards to take necessary interception measures toward any vessels entering into the waters of the Persian Gulf," Tangsiri said, according to the Mehr news agency.
Cosgriff objected to Iranian attempts to downplay the incident.
"I hope from this lesson they realize that we are concerned by small, high-speed vessels," said Cosgriff. I hope they understand we will take those actions we deem appropriate to defend our ships and our sailors."
Riad Kahwaji, a Dubai-based analyst with the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, said Iran may have been seeking to send a "political message" to Arab Gulf states to highlight the dangers of military confrontation.
"When somebody gets so close to a big ship then he's very likely asking for trouble or trying to provoke something," he said. "Opening fire means sparking a war ... Does anyone really want to take that risk?"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080108/D8U1UNM80.html
http://clipsyndicate.com/publish/video/487307?wpid=1904
One of those dangerous boats was powered by two Mercury outboards.l
Only Bush could use the word "provocative" in the face of such absurdity.
To gain perspective, perhaps Bush could sit down and watch "The Mouse That Roared."
-
Doubt this is reason to go to war with Iran.
But i also doubt that McCain has a long enough reach to get Iranians to provoke the Navy.
-
One of those dangerous boats was powered by two Mercury outboards.l
Only Bush could use the word "provocative" in the face of such absurdity.
To gain perspective, perhaps Bush could sit down and watch "The Mouse That Roared."
To gain perspective, perhaps you should remember that a similar type of boat did the below damage to the USS Cole, killing 17 service members and wounding 39 others.
Sometimes, mice do roar.
(http://timrileylaw.com/images/USS%20Cole%20LNG.jpg)
-
One of those dangerous boats was powered by two Mercury outboards.l
Only Bush could use the word "provocative" in the face of such absurdity.
To gain perspective, perhaps Bush could sit down and watch "The Mouse That Roared."
To gain perspective, perhaps you should remember that a similar type of boat did the below damage to the USS Cole, killing 17 service members and wounding 39 others.
Sometimes, mice do roar.
(http://timrileylaw.com/images/USS%20Cole%20LNG.jpg)
Only if you are asleep.
All that artillary to pop a little boat and all those devices to make the aim accurate.
This knowledge allowed our ships to let them roar.
Those commanding the Navy ships at least knew the extent of the threat.
Bush's reaction was pathetic, seems to suggest he has chosen outboard motor boats as the latest threat of a weapon of mass destruction.
-
Only if you are asleep.
Or if you discount small boats as not being threats.
They weren't asleep on the Cole, either.
-
Perhaps this helped Hillary too.
-
<<Doubt this is reason to go to war with Iran.>>
Let's keep this in perspective here. The Navy wasn't trying to provoke a war - - this time. They just wanted to give McCain a nice little boost. The bonus was, it would also give Hillary a helping hand with Obama too. Both Hillary and Obama are sell-outs (IMHO) but the Navy and the military-industrial establishment they serve know that Hillary's a sell-out and they aren't all that sure about Obama. The uppity little n****r actually went and voted against the war in the beginning. What kind of a way is that for a man to ingratiate himself with the ruling class?
Looking a little further down the road, in a Hillary-McCain contest, they can always count on the sheeple going for The Warrior as opposed to The Woman, particularly if they stir the pot a little more at similar strategic intervals in the campaign. If the sheeple haven't twigged to their shenanigans by now, odds are they never will.
<<But i also doubt that McCain has a long enough reach to get Iranians to provoke the Navy. >>
Yeah. Like McCain would be caught dead anywhere in the vicinity. As I said previously, in response to the same inane argument, the little twerp wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Besides which, this has nothing to do with the Iranians provoking the Navy, it's more likely the Navy provoking the Iranians. And McCain would have nothing to do with it anyway. This was the Navy's unsolicited little gift to their boy - - and to the military-industrial complex which they both serve.
-
The uppity little n****r actually went and voted against the war in the beginning. What kind of a way is that for a man to ingratiate himself with the ruling class?
So, what was the date of Obama's vote against the war?
-
He didn't vote against it, he spoke out against it very early. He said in October 2002:
<<Senator Barack Obama (D-Il), then an Illinois state senator, delivered these remarks in October 2002 at the Federal Plaza in Chicago.
<<"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
<<I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.
<<I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
<<I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
<<What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
<<That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.>>
(from www.usliberals.com)
Now ask me which particular admiral called him an uppity little n****r.
-
which particular admiral called him an uppity little n****r.?
-
My challenge was purely sarcastic and rhetorical, more of a comment on the nit-picking tendencies of my conservative friends to pick up on a piece of humorous paraphrasing as if I had been putting it forward as an actual historical quotation and then challenging me on it.
Here's a historical fact, though: Did you know that the lies and mendacity of the U.S. Navy aren't limited to just the Straits of Hormuz and the Tonkin Gulf? They actually managed to provoke the Spanish-American War by blowing up their own ship, the Maine, and their own sailors, in Havana harbour. We saw the anchor and other relics of the Maine in a museum in Havana, where the guide explained to us that all of the ship's officers "just happened to be" off the ship when it exploded. Hundreds of sailors but not a single officer were killed in the explosion.
-
Throw in the US Navy testing radiation on her own sailors. The USS Iowa turret explosion in which the Navy falsely accused the dead sailor of being a suicidal homosexual who crafted an explosive device and destroyed the turret himself (ignoring the fact that he was a last minute replacement for the duty station that day). When scientists looked over the data they found that inadequate training, a new turret captain, and the use of a fast burning propellent (as opposed to the typical propellent used) were to blame for the accident.
-
And now you can add using fake audiotapes to their long list of lies and bullshit. I previously pointed out in this thread my own view that the tape sounded really phony. Here's more:
<<The audio tape is even less convincing, mainly because the person speaking doesn't have an Iranian accent and moreover, sounds more like Boris Karloff in a horror movie than a sailor in the elite branch of Iran's military. (The tape is also separate from any video.) Any Iranian can immediately identify Persian-accented English, particularly if the speaker has had little contact with the West, as is the case with Revolutionary Guardsmen and sailors. Iranians, you see, have difficulty with two consonants such as "p" and "l" next to each other; even Iranians who have lived in America for years will often pronounce "please" as "peh-leeze", or in this case, "explode" as "exp-eh-lode". On the tape, "explode" is pronounced perfectly, albeit as if the speaker was a villain addressing a superhero. Further, it is unimaginable, given what is known about the Revolutionary Guards (and I have met many), that one of its corps would speak in a such a manner, even if the accent were correctly Persian.>>
If you want to read the whole article, it's here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hooman-majd/its-a-fake_b_80682.html
-
Here's a historical fact, though: Did you know that the lies and mendacity of the U.S. Navy aren't limited to just the Straits of Hormuz and the Tonkin Gulf? They actually managed to provoke the Spanish-American War by blowing up their own ship, the Maine, and their own sailors, in Havana harbour. We saw the anchor and other relics of the Maine in a museum in Havana, where the guide explained to us that all of the ship's officers "just happened to be" off the ship when it exploded. Hundreds of sailors but not a single officer were killed in the explosion.
Since a number of ship's officers were killed when it sank, and the Captain was on board making preparations for making way for New Orleans, I'd say that the guide was pretty much full of shit.
The National Geographic investigated this sinking not too long ago; they came to the conclusion that it was sunk by an outside explosion, most likely a mine placed by the Spanish.
-
So the guide had his sources and the National Geographic had theirs. I wonder though if the National Geographic ever did an investigation of the Tonkin Gulf incident or the alleged WMD that never were found. Just askin.
-
So the guide had his sources and the National Geographic had theirs.
Yeah, I guess no one looked for bullet holes in the back of the skulls of the dead officers, huh?
-
Yeah, I guess no one looked for bullet holes in the back of the skulls of the dead officers, huh?
========================================
Let me guess, you were there and did see the holes?
The usual version I have heard was that the Maine blew up as a result of a coal dust fire, which set off the ammo in the hold.
Spain would not have had any reason to provoke a war with the US. They knew their navy and military was utterly pathethic.
-
Let me guess, you were there and did see the holes?
No, I just believe the reports of the people who buried 'em at Arlington. Died from wounds sustained in the explosion or drowned. It was Mikey who said that no officers were killed in the explosion, yet officers were buried because of it. They must have died of *something*.
The usual version I have heard was that the Maine blew up as a result of a coal dust fire, which set off the ammo in the hold.
So, you believe the Admiral Rickover version? I think that National Geographic did a good job with their computer simulation, and also explaining why the previous theory is incorrect. Rickover's theory, for example, does not explain why the bottom hull was bent inward.
-
So, you believe the Admiral Rickover version? I think that National Geographic did a good job with their computer simulation, and also explaining why the previous theory is incorrect. Rickover's theory, for example, does not explain why the bottom hull was bent inward.
=====================================================
I didn't say I had a position on the cause of the destruction of the Maine. I was unaware that one was required. The coal dust theory sounded plausible.
Later, I read the National Geographic as well, and see where that might make sense as well. I think I will reserve judgement, since it is unimportant to me.
But why would the Spanish have had mines floating about Havana harbor, though? I imagine that the Spanish would welcome scholars checking out ancient Spanish naval records, as the current Spanish government has no political axes to grind, and historical research fascinates them a lot more than it seems to fascinate those who keep the records of the US.
The important fact is that it was not blown up intentionally by anyone. Not the Spanish or the Americans.
The Americans were not connaiving enough to blow it up then (this was before the days of the Dulleses), and the Spanish were stupid, but not stupid enough to blow up the Maine, which could not have been to their advantage in any way.
I have found that it is always wise to assume that incompetence exists everywhere, and it is always a more likely reason than conspiracy.
I think that we can discount anything said by any tourist guide, anywhere. They tend to not indulge in scholarly research. If there were dead officers on board, we can assume they died as a result of the explosion.
-
But why would the Spanish have had mines floating about Havana harbor, though?
Harbor defense. It's known that there were mines in the harbor, placed by the Spanish.
The important fact is that it was not blown up intentionally by anyone. Not the Spanish or the Americans.
There is no indication that either of those did it - it would not have been in either of their interests. The two most plausible theories are that a mine broke free of it's mooring and drifted into the Maine, or that Cuban insurgents intentionally used the mine, in an effort provoke a US reaction against the Spanish.
-
<<Since a number of ship's officers were killed when it sank, and the Captain was on board making preparations for making way for New Orleans, I'd say that the guide was pretty much full of shit.
<<The National Geographic investigated this sinking not too long ago; they came to the conclusion that it was sunk by an outside explosion, most likely a mine placed by the Spanish.>>
FROM THE EDITORIAL PAGE OF TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOT EXACTLY A HOTBED OF LEFTWING ANTI-AMERICAN POLITICS:
Iran's Provocation
by Walter Russell Mead
<< . . . The widespread (though probably erroneous) U.S. belief that the U.S.S. Maine had been destroyed by a Spanish mine in the harbor of Havana, Cuba, forced . . . McKinley to launch the Spanish-American War in 1898.>>
-
FROM THE EDITORIAL PAGE
That's all that needs to be said. Editorials don't generally include much scholarly research.
-
<<That's all that needs to be said. Editorials don't generally include much scholarly research.>>
In a reputable newspaper, they do try to state facts that are generally accepted as fact by the authorities of the day. If the WSJ twists the facts, they generally try to twist them in a way favourable to American interests and to a laudatory view of America, past and present.
-
In a reputable newspaper, they do try to state facts that are generally accepted as fact by the authorities of the day.
Last time I checked, the editorial section of most (if not all) newspapers is not fact checked. I can find plenty of editorials that contain factual errors. Many times I write to the paper in question to point out factual errors in the editorials, and a significant number of those times the paper publishes my letter.
Editorial sections contain opinion pieces - opinions need not be fact checked.
-
Maybe you should write the Wall Street Journal.