Thread: Neocons Baiting Iran With Second Strike Group

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Are you under the impression that Cheyney came up with that by himself?
Umm Intel and Joint Chiefs come to my mind friend. Cheyney has not the power to do such on his own and if you know how that process works then your post would not conceed that he did.

Cheyney could not possibly have had ANYTHING to do with Ahmadinejad's election. The clerics would have elected him irregardless because he is under reigns of the clerics and has contempt for the West. The clerics dont want to loose their hold upon their nation so they elect hardliners to keep their people and culture in line. While he answers to the clerics.

Respectfully sir, ... u got that backward. During US bid to control Afghanistan after 9/11, Iran help to stablize the Afghan regime from its side of the border. In the State of the Union speech Bush branded Iran and the two "usuall suspects" as an axis of evil. Frankly, hardline Bush stance against Iran was decisive in the election of Ahamdinejad.

and for your information, Ahamdinejad is nobody but rather represent the powerfull revolutionary guards in the Byzantine's politics. He is their spokeman and his election is directly related to the current administration hard stance against Iran.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Although NOW it has backfired and they are unhappy with him for taunting the West and not doing one dam thing for his nation which he promised upon his election. Things like Jobs, Oppertunity, Housing and improving the lives of his people. Which he hasnt and now they want him out.

I agree with you on this

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

In another view dont you think they could have tried MUCH HARDER to talk to the U.S. instead of telling the World this place needs to be whiped from the earth etc etc. The Holocust was faked.

SO WHAT .....

I believe your best friend Ariel Sharon called on United State to march on Tehran and Baghdad after 9/11. If that is not "wiping out a nation off the map", i dont know what is???

I believe, your Assistant to the Secraty of State threaten to bomb Pakistan back to the "stone age". If that is not "wiping out a nation off the map", i dont know what is???

... and now for your record, in the recent years the only nation to wipe out any nation off the map was the United States in 2003 when it invaded Iraq.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

And ofcourse lets not forget the past and the hostage crisis we had together.
Yeah I can really blame them for not wanting to talk to Iran.

yes ... let us not forget the past .. when CIA overthrow a demoractically-elected government and installed a dictator. When for eight years help Saddam to wage a war against Iran. or when they shotdown an Airbus air liner, but instead of apologizing for it they gave Medals for heroic achievementand. I can blame the Iranian to have hard feelings about their former allies.

I like how American choose remember certain things and forgor other things, depending on their point of view.

Originally Posted by xerxes

... and now for your record, in the recent years the only nation to wipe out any nation off the map was the United States in 2003 when it invaded Iraq.

Unfortunately for the record, the nation of Iraq never ceased to exist, anymore than the United States ceased to exist in 2000 when the Clinton Administration was removed from office.

Originally Posted by xerxes

I like how American choose remember certain things and forgor other things, depending on their point of view.

I don't agree with how you yourself have presented certain things, but I have to agree with you on that one.

Americans in general tend to have short memories on important things and long memories on the non-important things.

The lessons we were taught in airline security on September 11 was quickly forgotten when people realized they'd actually have to stand in line (and deal with an army of clowns known as the TSA) at the airport.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Unfortunately for the record, the nation of Iraq never ceased to exist, anymore than the United States ceased to exist in 2000 when the Clinton Administration was removed from office.

and you would be correct ...

but then again which one is better in a way that harms less people

1) launching an unprovoked military invasion to topple a forgien regime and install your own pro government

2) making vague comments about "wiping out" another nation off the map, even though that nation (Iran) has no capability to do so, and even if they did .. they would simply destroyed themselves ...

it amazes how Americans actually taking Ahmadinejad serious .... big talk-no teeth. But he is doing a fine job for the Americans they way he talks.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

I don't agree with how you yourself have presented certain things, but I have to agree with you on that one.

that is yr opinion ... but be advised that sense the prevailing view on this pro-American forum is always anti-Iranian on most subject ... I will have to balance that with the inverse.

Inversly, if you were to praise Ahamdinejad, I will probably answer you on that and correct you. It is all about being fair and neutral. For the record, I have no love for the current regime in Tehran. But I am student of history and I am soley intrested in non-biased and not the prevailing-all-loving-America's-vision-is-the-best point of view that is accepted by the majority as I can see in these threads.

While most Americans are proud of and sincerely care about their Constitution more than many peoples of the world caring for their Constitution, the US leaders do not appear to apply the same when dealing with other countries. It possibly makes geostrategic and geopolitical sense to the US leaders not to apply the same yardstick when dealing with knotty foreign policy issues.

If one reads the international newspapers as also the US newspapers, it will be seen that Ahmedinejad is under pressure from within the Iranian politicians to reform and stop adopting the collision course.

That such a fiery person as Ahemedinejad could come to power does indicate an alienation had enveloped the Iranians, call it baiting or needling as per your like. Since the US was the indisputable leader, others too followed suit and hence the Iranians felt isolated and the election of Ahmedinejad was but a reaction.

Now that Ahemedinejad is under pressure from within, it is essential that this pressure is subtly encouraged so that Ahmedinejad reforms.

Going to war will be another disaster as Iraq. Not worth it.

Ahmedinejad has to go ... he may have a PhD in engineering but he is not eligible to be a president in my eyes. His main soure of power was to use Iranian nationalism to fuel his campaign against west, which was fine. But he had failed utterly in his internal reform. Failure is unacceptable.

He himself is not a powerfull figure, but rather represent the powers of the military (IRGC) rather then the clerics as most people on this forum keep saying. Iranian politics is very complicated and has a lot of Byzantine intrigue into it. It is not as simple as putting Ahmedinejad as the new "hitler" of Middle East as the FOX news and Israeli media loves to do.

PHP Code:

Wilkerson is not John Q. Public and either are many other people who have given insight into the inner workings of this administration. There's plenty of information out there to draw logical conclusions as to how things are being run. He got away with it through threats and lies. And the Republican controlled congress and Senate obviously didn't do their job or else he would have been contained 


.

Wooooo drawing conclusions and having the proof you need to accuse the Vice President of thwarting relations with Iran is something you better allow links to not just your own conclusions and prove that this is so. For without it its your opinion against mine so STRAW MAN.

PHP Code:

That is the whole point, they reached out in an attempt to stop moving closer to this confrontation and Cheney basically told them to f-off. If you care so much about these innocent people who are being screwed by their government then you'd agree that we need to work out some deal 


.

Do you call allowing terrorists to transit their borders, terrorists from the fallen regime a place to hide and fund an insurgancy and the republican guards litterally giving these terrorist "shaped explosives" to use against our troops as well as other countries troops reaching out?

Supporting Hezbollah in Lebannon in the shelling of Israel on a daily basis these are not just troops but civilians that have absolutely nothing to do with Israeli armed forces? This is reaching out?

If I could make that call I would tell em to f-off as well beyound a doubt.

As noted above he cannot make that decision on his own and you have yet to prove that he has "on his own" and given evidence to support this claim not drawing conclusions.

PHP Code:

Fitzgerald layed the groundwork yesterday on how he is going to show that Cheney was involved. So, yeah, you bet Cheney will be testifying for the defense. Because he needs to be defended just as much as Libby if he wants to stay in power.
But will he be removed? I doubt it highly. But we shall see wont we. 


PHP Code:

Respectfully sir, ... u got that backward. During US bid to control Afghanistan after 9/11, Iran help to stablize the Afghan regime from its side of the border. In the State of the Union speech Bush branded Iran and the two "usuall suspects" as an axis of evil. Frankly, hardline Bush stance against Iran was decisive in the election of Ahamdinejad 


.

They still allow foreign fighters into the country to oppose U.S. troops and other nations troops and funded and supplied several of their terror groups through their republican guard. U.S. intell has shown this to be true no matter which reports you read or watch.

Frankly, hardline Bush stance against Iran was decisive in the election of Ahamdinejad.

Thank you as we can see the "Bush" stance reinforces the fact that Cheyney could not have made that call with out Bush's approval. Than point is now validated.

PHP Code:

and for your information, Ahamdinejad is nobody but rather represent the powerfull revolutionary guards in the Byzantine's politics. He is their spokeman and his election is directly related to the current administration hard stance against Iran. 


Frankly I dont care who he is. He is an evil man that does nothing but antogonize the situation there and for one meaning. Hatred. Calling for destruction and hatred against those of a Jewish decent and those who WILL stop him before he becomes in possesion of arms suitable to do the job he would be more then happy to see accomplished.

PHP Code:

SO WHAT .....

I believe your best friend Ariel Sharon called on United State to march on Tehran and Baghdad after 9/11. If that is not "wiping out a nation off the map", i dont know what is??? 


My best friend? Sorry I hardly know the man but not that important.

I

PHP Code:

 believe, your Assistant to the Secraty of State threaten to bomb Pakistan back to the "stone age". If that is not "wiping out a nation off the map", i dont know what is???

... and now for your record, in the recent years the only nation to wipe out any nation off the map was the United States in 2003 when it invaded Iraq. 


Umm excuse me Iraq seems very much still there although it is missing its dictator and his friends.

1) In the very first Gulf conflict the U.S. could have easily taken Bagdad when Saddam first invaded Kuwait and chose not to do so. That basically gave him another chance.

2) The U.S. did nothing to Tehran during the invasion of Iraq except expect it to mind its own business and not allow anybody across its borders. However Tehran opened their arms to Sadaams loyalists and allowed them to fight an insurgancy from within their borders and their republican guard were only to happy to comply by supplying them with arms and money. By arming Hezbollah and funding them in Lebannon they attempt to shake the government and yet dont want Hezbollah to settle their differences with the government causing nothing but chaos and death.

3) The assisant Secretary of State can say whatever the hell he wants but can do absolutely nothing to implement such an action. He falls low on the totem pole as far as giving orders to anybody especially those kind of orders.

When you have a president say this such as in Irans case...He can implement it not just say it. This is also moot in argument.

4) Saddam was given every single chance there was after diplomacy,diplomacy diplomacy and he chose his own path. Saddaam still viewed Kuwait as Iraq's 19th provice. The U.S. would not allow him the chance to go back into Kuwait and annex it unto himself. Saddam would not be forthcoming in nuclear inspections and still taunt the U.S. until the end when he fell from power. He could have remained in power had he been forthcoming but as we all know he wasnt. And its not like he wasnt given MULTIPLE chances.

That is in by no way shape or form "whiping a nation from the map" its removing a dictator that has zero respect for his neighbors and harbors outlawed programs. Outside of killing of numerous thousands by use of biologial/chemical weapons on villages. Yeah he should stay in power.

PHP Code:

I like how American choose remember certain things and forgor other things, depending on their point of view. 


Not just Americans my friend your missing every other nation out there in you above comment including your very own.

And depending on point of view dictates at which time period you wish to discuss.

PHP Code:

2) making vague comments about "wiping out" another nation off the map, even though that nation (Iran) has no capability to do so, and even if they did .. they would simply destroyed themselves 


...

And you know this beyond intelligence services that say different in the very near future? Amazing.

They have no capability to do so? In what sense is this to be taken? They cant produce it or they cant deliver it please clarify? For we already have a good idea they CAN deliver it as far as Israel.

PHP Code:

He himself is not a powerfull figure, but rather represent the powers of the military (IRGC) rather then the clerics as most people on this forum keep saying. 


This "person" says that he represents the Republican guard but his reins are held by the ruling religious theocracy as he as in me has stated before previously.

yes ... let us not forget the past .. when CIA overthrow a demoractically-elected government and installed a dictator. When for eight years help Saddam to wage a war against Iran. or when they shotdown an Airbus air liner, but instead of apologizing for it they gave Medals for heroic achievementand. I can blame the Iranian to have hard feelings about their former allies.


For one being the history person you are atleast tell the whole story not just "pop" shots without an explanation of what happened and yes they paid repreations to Iran and apoligized even know it wasnt excepted and Iran was paid for all but the airplane itself.

For one being to "even out" your seeming a bit one sided.Your point is not so "black and white".

The incident

The USS Vincennes shot down an Iran Air passenger aircraft similar to this Iran Air Airbus, killing all 290 passengers (including 66 children) and crew on board.The plane, an Airbus A300B2, registered as EP-IBU and flown by captain Mohsen Rezaian, left Bandar Abbas at 10:17 am Iran time (UTC+0330), 27 minutes after its scheduled departure time of 9:50 am. It would have been a 28-minute flight. After takeoff, it was directed by the Bandar Abbas tower to turn on its transponder and proceed over the Persian Gulf. The flight was assigned routinely to commercial air corridor Amber 59, a twenty-mile-wide lane on a direct line to Dubai airport. The short distance made for a simple flight pattern: climb to 14,000 feet (about 4300 m), cruise for a short time, and descend into Dubai.

At that same time, the Vincennes, under the command of Captain William C. Rogers III and fitted with the then-new AEGIS combat system, was nearby in the Strait of Hormuz.


The Vincennes had been rushed to the area after the April 14 mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts by Iranian forces. Iran had purchased Silkworm missiles from China, and an AEGIS cruiser was the only type of vessel that could counter the threat. The Roberts had been operating in the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will, the effort to protect Kuwaiti oil tankers during the Iran-Iraq War.

On the morning of July 3, the Vincennes crossed into Iranian territorial waters during clashes with Iranian gunboats. Earlier in the day, the Vincennes - along with Iranian gunboats - had similarly violated Omani waters until challenged by an Omani warship. The USS Sides (FFG-14) and USS Elmer Montgomery (FF-1082) were nearby.

The event triggered an intense controversy, with Iran condemning the shootdown as a "barbaric act". On the other hand, George H.W. Bush, at the time Vice President of the United States in the Reagan Administration, defended his country at the United Nations by declaring that the shootdown had been a wartime incident and that the crew of the Vincennes had acted appropriately to the situation at the time. He refused to apologize for the shootdown on behalf of the United States.


[edit] U.S. government accounts
According to U.S. government accounts, the Vincennes mistakenly identified the Iranian aircraft as an attacking military fighter. The officers identified the flight profile being flown by the Airbus A300B2 as being similar to that of an F-14A Tomcat during an attack run[1]; the commercial flight had originated at Bandar Abbas, which served dual roles as a base for Iranian F-14 operations and as a hub for commercial, civilian flights.[2] According to the same reports, the Vincennes tried more than once to contact Flight 655, but there was no acknowledgement.

At 10:24 am, with the civilian jet 11 nautical miles away, the Vincennes fired two SM-2MR Surface-to-air missiles. The first missile broke the aircraft in two and damaged the tailplane and right wing. After the engagement, the Vincennes' crew realized that the plane had been a civilian airliner.

This version was finalized in a report by Admiral William Fogarty, entitled Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988.[3] Only parts of this report have been released (part I in 1988 and part II in 1993), which has drawn criticism from many observers.

The unclassified version of a Congressional report of a U.S. Navy investigation headed by Admiral William Fogarty did not accurately show the location of the USS Vincennes some 2 NM (4 km) inside Iranian territorial waters.

When questioned by BBC journalists in a 2002 documentary, the U.S. government stated in a written answer that they believed the incident may have been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge crew of the Vincennes called 'scenario fulfillment' which is said to occur when persons are under pressure. In such a situation, the men will carry out a training scenario, believing it to be reality whilst ignoring sensory information that contradicts the scenario - in the case of this incident, the scenario was an attack by a lone military aircraft. This hypothesis, if true, could explain why the records of the Vincennes' instruments never indicated a craft resembling an F-14 being detected, whilst a civilian IFF signal was detected.


[edit] Iranian government account
The Iranian government believes that the shooting down of IR 655 by the Vincennes was an intentionally performed and unlawful act. Even if there was a mistaken identification, which Iran does not accept, this amounted to such gross negligence and recklessness that it still amounted to an international crime, not an accident.[4] In April 1988, the US Navy carried out Operation Praying Mantis against Iran and directly attacked Iranian Naval vessels and installations and Iranian off-shore oil facilities. In effect, Iran and the USA were in outright military conflict. Iran thus regarded the USA as being an open military ally of Saddam Hussein's Iraq and feared that the US would expand its naval war with Iran into attacks on Iran's soil. The Iranian government believed at the time of the incident that the attack was intended as a warning to Iran that if it did not agree to some form of armistice with Iraq, the USA would itself directly attack the Iranian mainland and Iranian civilians in order to assist Iraq.[citation needed]


[edit] Independent sources
Newsweek reporters John Barry and Roger Charles wrote that Rogers acted recklessly and without due care. Their report accused the U.S. government of a cover-up.[5] An analysis of the events by the International Strategic Studies Association described the deployment of an Aegis cruiser in the zone as irresponsible and felt that the expense of the ship had played a major part in the setting of a low threshold for opening fire.[6]. The Vincennes had been nicknamed 'Robo-cruiser', both in reference to its AEGIS system, and to the supposed aggressive tendencies of its captain. The US fighter base in Bahrain had refused to provide supporting aircraft to cover the Vincennes — the commander of the base stated that his decision was based on a fear that the Vincennes would accidentally shoot down one of his aircraft.

On November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice ruled that "the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on 19 October 1987 and 18 April 1988 cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."[7] However, the case relating to the Airbus downing, "the Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988, (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)", was dropped 22 February 1996 following settlement and reparations by the United States.[8]

Three years after the incident, Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on American television show Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles.[9] This contradicted earlier Navy claims.

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

According to the BBC documentary of 2002, Carlson identified IR655 as a civilian craft based on its radar signature, its 'squawk' (IFF) code, and the fact that it was ascending at low speed - an attacking military aircraft would be descending towards the Vincennes at high speed. At first Carlson thought that the 'Iranian Tomcat' identified by the Vincennes was actually another craft that he could not identify, as it was surprising to Carlson that the Vincennes crew would mistake a Tomcat (with which one would expect the US Navy to be familiar) with a civilian aircraft. The Vincennes' warnings were on a military channel, addressed to 'Iranian Tomcat'. When Carlson concluded that the Vincennes was referring to IR655 in its warning to turn away or receive fire, he urgently warned IR655 on a civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a military craft and should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a trajectory away from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. Carlson expressed the view that the incident was a mistake brought about by an overly aggressive approach by the captain of the Vincennes.

Craig, Morales & Oliver, in a slide presentation published in M.I.T.'s Spring 2004 Aeronautics & Astronautics, as the "USS Vincennes Incident," commented that Captain Rogers had "an undeniable and unequivocal tendency towards what I call 'picking a fight.'" On his own initiative, Rogers moved the Vincennes 50 miles northeast to join the USS Montgomery. An angry Captain McKenna ordered Rogers back to Abu Musa, but the Vincennes helicopter pilot, Lt Mark Collier, followed the Iranian speedboats as they retreated north, eventually taking some fire:

"...the Vincennes jumps back into the fray. Heading towards the majority of the speedboats, he is unable to get a clear target. Also, the speedboats are now just slowly milling about in their own territorial waters. Despite clear information to the contrary, Rogers informs command that the gunboats are gathering speed and showing hostile intent and gains approval to fire upon them at 0939. Finally, in another fateful decision, he crosses the 12-mile limit off the coast and enters illegally into Iranian waters."13

The Fogarty report concluded, "The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [Iran Air Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from takeoff at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down." The fault in the USS Vincennes lying directly in the airplane’s pathway is Captain Rogers'.


[edit] Radio frequencies
Throughout its final flight IR655 was in radio contact with various air traffic control services using standard civil aviation frequencies, and had spoken in English to Bandar Abbas Approach Control seconds before the Vincennes launched its missiles. The Vincennes at that time had no equipment suitable for monitoring civil aviation frequencies, other than the International Air Distress frequency. Subsequently U.S. Navy warships in the area were equipped with dialable VHF radios, and access to flight plan information was sought, to better track commercial airliners.

The official ICAO report stated that 10 attempts were made to contact Iran Air flight 655: seven on military frequencies and three on commercial frequencies, addressed to the supposed "unidentified Iranian aircraft" and giving its speed as 350 knots.

However IR655 was arguably not "unidentified" as its commercial 'squawk' code was active and it was travelling at an airspeed of 300 knots. The reference to "350 knots" was its speed over ground, as observed by radar. IR655's flight instruments would have recorded the airspeed.

International investigations concluded that the crew of IR655 assumed that the three calls that they received before the missiles struck must have been directed at an Iranian P3 (see below).

Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable.
Please check for inaccuracies, and modify and cite sources as needed.

[edit] Potential factors
The ship's crew did not efficiently consult commercial airliner schedules, due to confusion over which time zone the schedules referred to. The airliner's departure was 30 minutes later than scheduled. "The CIC was also very dark, and the few lights that it did have flickered every time the Vincennes fired at the speedboats. This was of special concern to Petty Officer Andrew Anderson, who first picked up Flight 655 on radar and thought that it might be a commercial aircraft. As he was searching in the Navy’s listing of commercial flights, he apparently missed Flight 655 because it was so dark." 13
An Iranian P-3 was in the area some time before the attack, providing a potential (albeit unlikely) explanation for the lack of target acquisition radar interrogation[10]
It was first claimed that Flight 655 deviated from the centre of its air corridor - an unusual occurrence with commercial flights - namely that it was 3.35 NM off the 20 NM-wide corridor at the time of being shot down. It is further claimed that this deviation had it bearing straight at the Vincennes. It is unclear how much of this deviation was true, and how much was claimed to obscure the Vincennes' position within Iranian territorial waters.
It is claimed that a Mode II IFF signal of 21100 was attributed to the Airbus track, identifying it as an Iranian military aircraft (commercial aircraft respond with Mode III signals). According to the official military report, the flight was in fact using the correct 'squawk' mode. The Vincennes either heard it incorrectly or believed it to be a military aircraft using Mode III 36760 to deceive them. It has since been assumed that the tracking device used to identify IFF squawks was left in the original position of Flight 655 when first sighted (at take-off), confusing the Flight 655 squawk with that of an Iranian F-14 fighter within the area. The Bandar Abbas airport was shared between commercial and military aircraft at that time.
The crew of the Vincennes' Combat Information Center (CIC) confusingly reported the plane as ascending and descending at the same time (there were two "camps"). This seems to have happened because the Airbus' original CIC track, number 4474, had been replaced by the Sides' track, number 4131, when the computer recognised them as one and the same. Shortly thereafter, track 4474 was re-assigned by the system to an American A-6, several hundred miles away, which was following a descending course at the time. Apparently not all the crew in the CIC realized the track number had been switched on them.
This incident took place just over a year after the USS Stark was attacked in the Persian Gulf by an Iraqi Mirage F-1, killing 37.
The psychology and mindset after engaging in a battle with Iranian gunboats[11] might have contributed to the mistakes made. The actual reasons for the Vincennes' engagement with gunboats is not so clear to this date.
Software development expert Steve McConnell claimed:
“ Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the USS Vincennes' Aegis system in 1988, killing 290 people. The error was initially attributed to operator error, but later some experts attributed the incident to the poor design of the Aegis user interface.[12] ”

A lack of training contributed to the disaster. "It was, however, a known fact that many of the senior officers on board the Vincennes knew very little about computerized warfare. The tactical officer for surface warfare, Lt Cmdr Guillory, knew so little that he routinely used his computer screens as a surface for sticky notes instead. Petty Officer Anderson, who missed Flight 655 on the schedule because it was so dark, also later claimed that he confused by the gulf’s four different time zones, something proper training could have easily helped with. Lt Clay Zocher was the boss of Air Alley, which was responsible for air warfare, but he had only stood watch at that post twice before and had never fully learned and mastered the console routines. In fact, when he was finally given the green light to fire upon the incoming aircraft, he pressed the wrong keys 23 times, until a veteran petty officer leaned over and hit the right ones. Nerves were shattered, and the training seemed nonexistent." 13

[edit] Medals awarded
The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human life but never admitted wrongdoing, accepted responsibility, nor apologised for the incident. Officially, it continues to blame Iranian hostile actions for the incident. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Lustig, the air-warfare co-ordinator, won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement," noting his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" that enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure."[13] The Legion of Merit was presented to Rogers and Lustig on 3 July 1988, according to a 23 April 1990 article in The Washington Post. The citations did not mention the Iran Air flight. It should be noted that the Legion of Merit is often awarded to high-ranking officers upon successful completion of especially difficult duty assignments and/or last tours of duty before retirement.

The incident overshadowed U.S.-Iran relations for many years. Following the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 six months later, the British and American governments initially blamed the PFLP-GC, a Palestinian militant group backed by Syria, with assumptions of assistance from Iran in retaliation for Iran Air Flight 655.[citation needed] The cause of the crash was later determined to be a bomb associated with the Libyan intelligence service, though an Iranian group had claimed responsibility for it.[citation needed]

The Flight 655 incident has often been compared to that of Korean Air Flight 007 interception by the Soviet Air Force in 1983.


[edit] Compensation
On February 22, 1996 the United States agreed to pay Iran US$ 61.8 million in compensation ($300,000 per wage-earning victim, $150,000 per non-wage-earner) for the 248 Iranians killed in the shootdown, but not for the aircraft, which was estimated to be worth approximately US$30 million. This was an agreed settlement to discontinue a case brought by Iran in 1989 against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice.[14] The payment of compensation was explicitly characterised by the US as being on an ex gratia basis, and the U.S. denied having any responsibility or liability for the incident.

The process of compensation itself proved a major cause for controversy, again by comparison to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. The Washington Post reported on August 13, 2003 with the headline "Deal Reached with Libya on Pan Am Bombing" [1]:

"Lawyers representing the families of the victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing struck a deal with Libyan officials last year involving a $10 million payment to each victim's family. An initial $4 million would be paid once U.N. sanctions have been formally lifted. An additional $4 million would be paid once the United States lifts its sanctions. The final $2 million would be delivered if Libya is removed from the State Department's list of states allegedly sponsoring terrorism."

Theoretically, this deal stated that the family of each adult victim on board Pan Am 103 would receive 33 times the equivalent sum of the family of each victim on Flight 655, whilst each child or senior citizen on Flight 103 would receive 66 times the amount received by the families of their counterparts on Flight 655.

^^^

it is good that you did some search in wikipedia ... what are you trying to say anyways i am quite aware of those events .... i think this part is important to know

Three years after the incident, Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on American television show Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles.[9] This contradicted earlier Navy claims.

In anycase, copy pasting off wikipedia will submerge to thread into whose fault was the incident, and I can see that that is what you are trying to do by showcasing the "evil iranian gunboats" roaming the high seas and causing trouble from this article

as a rule of thumb.. for every action and there is a reaction. The case of "evil iranian gunboats" roaming the high seas is quite related to something else - to a war mind you -, and you by showcasing this part only, you are guilty of ...
atleast tell the whole story not just presenting "pop" shots without an explanation of what happened.

Everything is inter-related and it goes back quite a while if we were to look for a source