Iran Air 655 Incident- ACI last night.
Jakey, or whom-so-ever you may be.
Nice of you to pop up here all of a sudden as someone with very few posts and a ver clear single-issue-fanatacism. Strange that this should crop up at a time like this. Pure coincidence, I'm sure.
I have no idea what you hope to gain from this and I think the majority of responses show very clearly that you are not preaching to the choir.
Suddenly you poke in with an incident from 1988, which many of of us would judge very differently to you, and expect us all to agree how terrible it was. You are clearly not viewing this from a military perspective, so you must have some other motive for doing this. And, of course, your evidence is only a NatGeo video (or part thereof) so I think you are batting from a very dubious position.
You are not military...
I shall not even comment right now about the incident itself, but you need to understand that this is not the place to pick a one-man fight for an undertermined cause.
Courtney
Nice of you to pop up here all of a sudden as someone with very few posts and a ver clear single-issue-fanatacism. Strange that this should crop up at a time like this. Pure coincidence, I'm sure.
I have no idea what you hope to gain from this and I think the majority of responses show very clearly that you are not preaching to the choir.
Suddenly you poke in with an incident from 1988, which many of of us would judge very differently to you, and expect us all to agree how terrible it was. You are clearly not viewing this from a military perspective, so you must have some other motive for doing this. And, of course, your evidence is only a NatGeo video (or part thereof) so I think you are batting from a very dubious position.
You are not military...
I find it incredibly sad that such low value is placed upon human life by the military.
Courtney
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 17th Jul 2012 at 19:06.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Jakey, you are entitled to your opinion, and indeed to voice it. We, and our forebears, have given you that right, and continue to protect that right.
You might wish to consider the possible outcomes since 1939 if we hadn't, and whether you would have the same rights as you currently enjoy before you exercise those rights in criticizing those who give you the freedom to do so.
You might wish to consider the possible outcomes since 1939 if we hadn't, and whether you would have the same rights as you currently enjoy before you exercise those rights in criticizing those who give you the freedom to do so.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure what a foul sweep is but assume it's similar to a fell swoop.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do all realise that Jakey is probably a first year undergrad researching his summer project on ethics and morals?
And you're all falling into his trap and reinforcing his preconceived conclusions?
More usefully - surely the issue of charging the ships captain with murder or whatever is irrelevant: Iran accepted compensation (for that read blood money) and as such under Shariah law the guilt was accepted by the corporate body - i.e. the USA Government - and the damages paid. The payment of the blood money ends the issue
And you're all falling into his trap and reinforcing his preconceived conclusions?
More usefully - surely the issue of charging the ships captain with murder or whatever is irrelevant: Iran accepted compensation (for that read blood money) and as such under Shariah law the guilt was accepted by the corporate body - i.e. the USA Government - and the damages paid. The payment of the blood money ends the issue
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf,
I believe you've spent quite a lot of time on this thread insulting both me personally and also the UK. Right from the off.
I haven't insulted America, but I have cast doubt upon the integrity of its Foreign Policy and the motives of its Military, which is pretty fair game, bearing in mind its actions and atrocities in the past.
I am standing up for what I believe in, and what the majority of sane people in civilian life believe.
I am saddened you cannot understand that.
I believe you've spent quite a lot of time on this thread insulting both me personally and also the UK. Right from the off.
I haven't insulted America, but I have cast doubt upon the integrity of its Foreign Policy and the motives of its Military, which is pretty fair game, bearing in mind its actions and atrocities in the past.
I am standing up for what I believe in, and what the majority of sane people in civilian life believe.
I am saddened you cannot understand that.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be good if the US were paying the compensation they owe the people of Viet Nam for the atrocities they committed.
I am not excusing certain American actions, but your sort only mention one side of the 'truth'.
Milo:
Said better than I what I was trying to get at.
Muchas Gracias, amigo.
Willard: I seem to recall that most of the claims were settled at Paris. Oddly enough, Vietnam and the US are beginning to get along a bit better these days. (Might that be due to a certain Chinese gorilla weighing 800 pounds?) Even more interesting, the US and the UK got along after being at war with one another, the US and Spain found a way to get along after being at war with one another and the US and Germany, then the US and Japan, find ways to get along with one another. After a nasty war. Who'd have thunk it?
Now, if we can just get the USA and the (former) CSA to get along with one another ...
Jakey: understand far better than you'll ever know.
As noted above, you are an utter failure at mind reading.
Been a real slice, boy.
I hope you've enjoyed the wind up.
More usefully - surely the issue of charging the ships captain with murder or whatever is irrelevant: Iran accepted compensation (for that read blood money) and as such under Shariah law the guilt was accepted by the corporate body - i.e. the USA Government - and the damages paid. The payment of the blood money ends the issue
Muchas Gracias, amigo.
Willard: I seem to recall that most of the claims were settled at Paris. Oddly enough, Vietnam and the US are beginning to get along a bit better these days. (Might that be due to a certain Chinese gorilla weighing 800 pounds?) Even more interesting, the US and the UK got along after being at war with one another, the US and Spain found a way to get along after being at war with one another and the US and Germany, then the US and Japan, find ways to get along with one another. After a nasty war. Who'd have thunk it?
Now, if we can just get the USA and the (former) CSA to get along with one another ...
Jakey: understand far better than you'll ever know.
As noted above, you are an utter failure at mind reading.
Been a real slice, boy.
I hope you've enjoyed the wind up.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 17th Jul 2012 at 19:09.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Roadster points out, Jakey is entitled to an opinion, and she seems unwilling to consider ours.
We should all be mindful that Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one, but you should be wary of anyone who claims to be interested in yours.
We should all be mindful that Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one, but you should be wary of anyone who claims to be interested in yours.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Willard Whyte (great handle- just watch what cologne you're wearing...)
On January 31, 2004, a victim's rights group, the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/dioxin (VAVA), filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, against several U.S. companies for liability in causing personal injury, by developing and producing the chemical. Dow Chemical and Monsanto were the two largest producers of Agent Orange for the U.S. military, and were named in the suit, along with the dozens of other companies (Diamond Shamrock, Uniroyal, Thompson Chemicals, Hercules, etc.). On March 10, 2005, Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the Eastern District – who had presided over the 1984 US veterans class action lawsuit – dismissed the lawsuit, ruling there was no legal basis for the plaintiffs' claims. He concluded Agent Orange was not considered a poison under international law at the time of its use by the U.S.; the U.S. was not prohibited from using it as a herbicide; and the companies which produced the substance were not liable for the method of its use by the government. The U.S. government was not a party in the lawsuit, due to sovereign immunity, and the court ruled the chemical companies, as contractors of the US government, shared the same immunity. The case was appealed and heard by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on June 18, 2007. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the case, stating the herbicides used during the war were not intended to be used to poison humans and therefore did not violate international law.[73] The US Supreme Court declined to consider the case.
Three judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan heard the appeal on June 18, 2007. They upheld Weinstein's ruling to dismiss the case. They ruled that, though the herbicides contained a dioxin (a known poison), they were not intended to be used as a poison on humans. Therefore, they were not considered a chemical weapon and thus not a violation of international law. A further review of the case by the whole panel of judges of the Court of Appeals also confirmed this decision. The lawyers for the Vietnamese filed a petition to the US Supreme Court to hear the case. On March 2, 2009, the Supreme Court denied certiorari and refused to reconsider the ruling of the Court of Appeals.[74]
In a November 2004 Zogby International poll of 987 people, 79% of respondents thought the US chemical companies which produced Agent Orange defoliant should compensate US soldiers who were affected by the toxic chemical used during the war in Vietnam. 51% said they supported compensation for Vietnamese Agent Orange victims.[75]
Help for those affected in Vietnam
To assist those who have been affected by Agent Orange/dioxin, the Vietnamese have established "peace villages", which each host between 50 and 100 victims, giving them medical and psychological help. As of 2006, there were 11 such villages, thus granting some social protection to fewer than a thousand victims. U.S. veterans of the war in Vietnam and individuals who are aware and sympathetic to the impacts of Agent Orange have supported these programs in Vietnam. An international group of veterans from the U.S. and its allies during the Vietnam War working with their former enemy — veterans from the Vietnam Veterans Association — established the Vietnam Friendship Village[76] outside of Hanoi.
The center provides medical care, rehabilitation and vocational training for children and veterans from Vietnam who have been affected by Agent Orange. In 1998, The Vietnam Red Cross established the Vietnam Agent Orange Victims Fund to provide direct assistance to families throughout Vietnam that have been affected. In 2003, the Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA) was formed. In addition to filing the lawsuit against the chemical companies, VAVA provides medical care, rehabilitation services and financial assistance to those injured by Agent Orange.[77]
The Vietnamese government provides small monthly stipends to more than 200,000 Vietnamese believed affected by the herbicides; this totaled $40.8 million in 2008 alone. The Vietnam Red Cross has raised more than $22 million to assist the ill or disabled, and several U.S. foundations, United Nations agencies, European governments and nongovernmental organizations have given a total of about $23 million for site cleanup, reforestation, health care and other services to those in need.[78]
Vuong Mo of the Vietnam News Agency described one of centers:[79]
"May is 13, but she knows nothing, is unable to talk fluently, nor walk with ease due to for her bandy legs. Her father is dead and she has four elder brothers, all mentally retarded ... The students are all disabled, retarded and of different ages. Teaching them is a hard job. They are of the 3rd grade but many of them find it hard to do the reading. Only a few of them can. Their pronunciation is distorted due to their twisted lips and their memory is quite short. They easily forget what they've learned ... In the Village, it is quite hard to tell the kids' exact ages. Some in their twenties have a physical statures as small as the 7- or 8-years-old. They find it difficult to feed themselves, much less have mental ability or physical capacity for work. No one can hold back the tears when seeing the heads turning round unconsciously, the bandy arms managing to push the spoon of food into the mouths with awful difficulty ... Yet they still keep smiling, singing in their great innocence, at the presence of some visitors, craving for something beautiful." On June 16, 2010, members of the U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue Group on Agent Orange/Dioxin unveiled a comprehensive 10-year Declaration and Plan of Action to address the toxic legacy of Agent Orange and other herbicides in Vietnam. The Plan of Action was released as an Aspen Institute publication and calls upon the U.S. and Vietnamese governments to join with other governments, foundations, businesses, and nonprofits in a partnership to clean up dioxin "hot spots" in Vietnam and to expand humanitarian services for people with disabilities there.[80][81][82] On September 16, 2010, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) acknowledged the work of the Dialogue Group by releasing a statement on the floor of the United States Senate. The statement urges the U.S. government to take the Plan of Action's recommendations into account in developing a multi-year plan of activities to address the Agent Orange/dioxin legacy.[83]
On January 31, 2004, a victim's rights group, the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/dioxin (VAVA), filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, against several U.S. companies for liability in causing personal injury, by developing and producing the chemical. Dow Chemical and Monsanto were the two largest producers of Agent Orange for the U.S. military, and were named in the suit, along with the dozens of other companies (Diamond Shamrock, Uniroyal, Thompson Chemicals, Hercules, etc.). On March 10, 2005, Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the Eastern District – who had presided over the 1984 US veterans class action lawsuit – dismissed the lawsuit, ruling there was no legal basis for the plaintiffs' claims. He concluded Agent Orange was not considered a poison under international law at the time of its use by the U.S.; the U.S. was not prohibited from using it as a herbicide; and the companies which produced the substance were not liable for the method of its use by the government. The U.S. government was not a party in the lawsuit, due to sovereign immunity, and the court ruled the chemical companies, as contractors of the US government, shared the same immunity. The case was appealed and heard by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on June 18, 2007. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the case, stating the herbicides used during the war were not intended to be used to poison humans and therefore did not violate international law.[73] The US Supreme Court declined to consider the case.
Three judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan heard the appeal on June 18, 2007. They upheld Weinstein's ruling to dismiss the case. They ruled that, though the herbicides contained a dioxin (a known poison), they were not intended to be used as a poison on humans. Therefore, they were not considered a chemical weapon and thus not a violation of international law. A further review of the case by the whole panel of judges of the Court of Appeals also confirmed this decision. The lawyers for the Vietnamese filed a petition to the US Supreme Court to hear the case. On March 2, 2009, the Supreme Court denied certiorari and refused to reconsider the ruling of the Court of Appeals.[74]
In a November 2004 Zogby International poll of 987 people, 79% of respondents thought the US chemical companies which produced Agent Orange defoliant should compensate US soldiers who were affected by the toxic chemical used during the war in Vietnam. 51% said they supported compensation for Vietnamese Agent Orange victims.[75]
Help for those affected in Vietnam
To assist those who have been affected by Agent Orange/dioxin, the Vietnamese have established "peace villages", which each host between 50 and 100 victims, giving them medical and psychological help. As of 2006, there were 11 such villages, thus granting some social protection to fewer than a thousand victims. U.S. veterans of the war in Vietnam and individuals who are aware and sympathetic to the impacts of Agent Orange have supported these programs in Vietnam. An international group of veterans from the U.S. and its allies during the Vietnam War working with their former enemy — veterans from the Vietnam Veterans Association — established the Vietnam Friendship Village[76] outside of Hanoi.
The center provides medical care, rehabilitation and vocational training for children and veterans from Vietnam who have been affected by Agent Orange. In 1998, The Vietnam Red Cross established the Vietnam Agent Orange Victims Fund to provide direct assistance to families throughout Vietnam that have been affected. In 2003, the Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA) was formed. In addition to filing the lawsuit against the chemical companies, VAVA provides medical care, rehabilitation services and financial assistance to those injured by Agent Orange.[77]
The Vietnamese government provides small monthly stipends to more than 200,000 Vietnamese believed affected by the herbicides; this totaled $40.8 million in 2008 alone. The Vietnam Red Cross has raised more than $22 million to assist the ill or disabled, and several U.S. foundations, United Nations agencies, European governments and nongovernmental organizations have given a total of about $23 million for site cleanup, reforestation, health care and other services to those in need.[78]
Vuong Mo of the Vietnam News Agency described one of centers:[79]
"May is 13, but she knows nothing, is unable to talk fluently, nor walk with ease due to for her bandy legs. Her father is dead and she has four elder brothers, all mentally retarded ... The students are all disabled, retarded and of different ages. Teaching them is a hard job. They are of the 3rd grade but many of them find it hard to do the reading. Only a few of them can. Their pronunciation is distorted due to their twisted lips and their memory is quite short. They easily forget what they've learned ... In the Village, it is quite hard to tell the kids' exact ages. Some in their twenties have a physical statures as small as the 7- or 8-years-old. They find it difficult to feed themselves, much less have mental ability or physical capacity for work. No one can hold back the tears when seeing the heads turning round unconsciously, the bandy arms managing to push the spoon of food into the mouths with awful difficulty ... Yet they still keep smiling, singing in their great innocence, at the presence of some visitors, craving for something beautiful." On June 16, 2010, members of the U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue Group on Agent Orange/Dioxin unveiled a comprehensive 10-year Declaration and Plan of Action to address the toxic legacy of Agent Orange and other herbicides in Vietnam. The Plan of Action was released as an Aspen Institute publication and calls upon the U.S. and Vietnamese governments to join with other governments, foundations, businesses, and nonprofits in a partnership to clean up dioxin "hot spots" in Vietnam and to expand humanitarian services for people with disabilities there.[80][81][82] On September 16, 2010, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) acknowledged the work of the Dialogue Group by releasing a statement on the floor of the United States Senate. The statement urges the U.S. government to take the Plan of Action's recommendations into account in developing a multi-year plan of activities to address the Agent Orange/dioxin legacy.[83]
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milo
He states he has 800 hours to his credit and is doing his IR.
I think he might be older than you think.
Even so, he reminds me of SAMXXV.
Jakey, you have the right because people like most of those on this forum (not me) in previous years stopped you from having to live in a totalitarian regime and speaking German or if things turned out differently Japanese or maybe even Russian.
Give it a break.
He states he has 800 hours to his credit and is doing his IR.
I think he might be older than you think.
Even so, he reminds me of SAMXXV.
Jakey, you have the right because people like most of those on this forum (not me) in previous years stopped you from having to live in a totalitarian regime and speaking German or if things turned out differently Japanese or maybe even Russian.
Give it a break.
Last edited by 500N; 17th Jul 2012 at 19:13.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now jakey, always ready with a cut 'n paste I see.
Did you research NVA massacres of S Vietnamese civilians following the Tet Offensive? Or in Hue? What of the 30,000+ assassinations of teachers, civil servants et al?
Not a peep from you, I note.
Did you research NVA massacres of S Vietnamese civilians following the Tet Offensive? Or in Hue? What of the 30,000+ assassinations of teachers, civil servants et al?
Not a peep from you, I note.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW
I actually spent a lot of time in Viet Nam over the last 24 months.
I was utterly applled at many things, and moreover, moreso with regard to Pol Pot next door in Cambodia (as an aside, the UN still recognised him as the leader of Cam up until 2001!!!)
Visiting the Killing Field, Tung-Sol and S21 were amazing, distressing and utterly humbling experiences.
One of the things I learned, from Nate Thayer to be exact, was that Dow had deliberately increased the power of AO on US military instruction, to something like ten times what was needed. Thayer is an amazing man.
I actually spent a lot of time in Viet Nam over the last 24 months.
I was utterly applled at many things, and moreover, moreso with regard to Pol Pot next door in Cambodia (as an aside, the UN still recognised him as the leader of Cam up until 2001!!!)
Visiting the Killing Field, Tung-Sol and S21 were amazing, distressing and utterly humbling experiences.
One of the things I learned, from Nate Thayer to be exact, was that Dow had deliberately increased the power of AO on US military instruction, to something like ten times what was needed. Thayer is an amazing man.
Last edited by Jakey; 17th Jul 2012 at 19:18.
I am standing up for what I believe in, and what the majority of sane people in civilian life believe.
From the Iranian point of view, that would be a fairer point were it not for the Greenback Poultice administered, see above.
In detail:
a. The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of innocent human life. The government never admitted wrongdoing, and did not accept responsibility nor submit an apology to the Iranian government.
My guess: That probably has to do with, were an apology and "admission" be on record, a larger claim could be made in a court. POLITICS and LAWYERs are involved. Perhaps money too.
ALSO, you are reminded of the POLITICAL context of the time. The year was 1988.
In February 1996 the United States agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement to discontinue a case --
Settled out of court. This is a common exercise of justice being done, of a sort. It appears that US$61.8 million of the claim was in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shoot-down.
Here's the political kicker: The payment of compensation was explicitly characterized by the US as being on an ex gratia basis, and the U.S. denied having any responsibility or liability for what happened.
See above, my observations on POLITICS and LAWYERs being involved in any formal declaration made differently than was done. Welcome to the real world.
In detail:
a. The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of innocent human life. The government never admitted wrongdoing, and did not accept responsibility nor submit an apology to the Iranian government.
My guess: That probably has to do with, were an apology and "admission" be on record, a larger claim could be made in a court. POLITICS and LAWYERs are involved. Perhaps money too.
ALSO, you are reminded of the POLITICAL context of the time. The year was 1988.
In February 1996 the United States agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement to discontinue a case --
Settled out of court. This is a common exercise of justice being done, of a sort. It appears that US$61.8 million of the claim was in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shoot-down.
Here's the political kicker: The payment of compensation was explicitly characterized by the US as being on an ex gratia basis, and the U.S. denied having any responsibility or liability for what happened.
See above, my observations on POLITICS and LAWYERs being involved in any formal declaration made differently than was done. Welcome to the real world.
But still the CO of the Vinceness went home without a criminal file after him (which is not related to the above mentioned payment)
Also, is interesting to note that what Mr. CO did is more or less considered a terrorism act for many modern legislations.