NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/12/twa.terrorism/index.html

Ready and waiting to attack Iran if it had been confirmed - but it was just an accidental explosion.

Just goes to show you that it isn't just Bush who is ready to think that Iran is "teh 3vil"

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House, suspecting terrorism, readied plans for retaliation in the Middle East when TWA Flight 800 exploded over the ocean in 1996 after takeoff from New York, killing all 230 people on board.

"I think our first thought when we got the news was that it was terrorism," President Clinton's national security adviser, Anthony Lake, told "CNN Presents" as part of an investigative documentary airing Saturday and Sunday.

"We especially wanted to look for an Iranian connection."

In fact, terrorism was ultimately found not to be the cause, but twice before Boeing 747s had been bombed out of the sky -- Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988, with 270 dead; and an Air India flight off Ireland in 1985, with 329 killed.

Within hours of the TWA explosion, security officials were meeting at the White House to discuss possible bombing raids as retaliation, once they knew who might be responsible.

People really want to believe that bad things are the fault of someone they don't like.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/12/twa.terrorism/index.html

Ready and waiting to attack Iran if it had been confirmed - but it was just an accidental explosion.

Just goes to show you that it isn't just Bush who is ready to think that Iran is "teh 3vil"
Nuke us all,the sooner the better:mp5:

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed then. 'Evidence' wasn't constructed or misinterpreted to support pre-made conclusions.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed then. 'Evidence' wasn't constructed or misinterpreted to support pre-made conclusions.
Exactly. Thank you.

People really want to believe that bad things are the fault of someone they don't like.

TG comes up with the answer once again.

People really want to believe that bad things are the fault of someone they don't like.
Shut up, commie/gay/Ay-rarb/Frog/anarchist/other baddie of the week!

The continuing success of the insurgency in Iraq is all down to your lack of support for the government/military/orphans of the world/other goodie of the week!

No?

People really want to believe that bad things are the fault of someone they don't like.

I believe that up until the Iranian hostage crisis way back when, a lot of Americans probably didn't care one way or another what Iran did or thought.

Since then, it's been pretty standard in American politics to see any Arab or Persian militancy through that lens.

I distinctly remember hearing quite a few people advocate "nuking Iran" back then - not much has changed.

For one thing, none of these Arab (or Persian) nations or militant groups has given the US any reason to see them as "victims" who deserve "compassion". It's hard to see them that way when their main mode of expression seems to be rioting, terrorism, and death threats.

So it doesn't matter who the President is in America - most of us wouldn't care if Iran was blown up 20 minutes from now.

Ah, now I know who you are.

So it doesn't matter who the President is in America - most of us wouldn't care if Iran was blown up 20 minutes from now.

Apart from the explosion in petrol prices.

Considering the fact that Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and Americans are a favorite target I'd be ready to respond against them too.

meh, GWB would retaliate against his own mother if she asked him to tidy his room...

meh, GWB would retaliate against his own mother if she asked him to tidy his room...
I guess you didn't read the article. It wasn't when GWB was President.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/12/twa.terrorism/index.html

Ready and waiting to attack Iran if it had been confirmed - but it was just an accidental explosion.

Just goes to show you that it isn't just Bush who is ready to think that Iran is "teh 3vil"
Hardly surprising. It isn't exactly news that Iran had (has) ties to terrorist organisations, and back then it would only be natural to put them on the top of the list of possible suspects. Them and Libya.

Not Iraq, by the way...

Apart from the explosion in petrol prices.

I suppose that depends on how it's done.

Hardly surprising. It isn't exactly news that Iran had (has) ties to terrorist organisations, and back then it would only be natural to put them on the top of the list of possible suspects. Them and Libya.

Not Iraq, by the way...
Yep. Bush fucked up and hit the wrong country.

Apart from the explosion in petrol prices.
And that odd, glowing cloud that comes drifting in from the Pacific about a week later.

Granted, way back when, Iran was a place that used to be called Persia, where they made rugs and grew pistachio nuts (damn good ones, too, by the way). And the King (they called him that quaint title, "Shah") was our friend, he helped us fight against the godless communists in the Soviet Union.

All was right with the world then.

I suppose that depends on how it's done.
Erm, no, it doesn't. :p

Yep. Bush fucked up and hit the wrong country.

Geography was never his strong point. :)

Yep. Bush fucked up and hit the wrong country.
Not from his point of view. Attacking Iraq wasn't about right or wrong, it was about getting the guy who put a contract on his Daddy, and about going all the way to Baghdad, something Daddy didn't do in the 1st Gulf War. If 9/11 hadn't happened, we'd still be in Iraq, it just would have taken a little longer.

Erm, no, it doesn't. :p

Indeed it does.

Let's say that the current situation escalates to the point where oil prices are intolerably high, and causing major damage to all Western nations.

You can bet that Iran would be invaded, even if it meant a temporary halt to oil from Iran.

The West could easily be put in a position (without attacking Iran first) where it would be forced to do so out of economic, not political, necessity.

Not from his point of view. Attacking Iraq wasn't about right or wrong, it was about getting the guy who put a contract on his Daddy, and about going all the way to Baghdad, something Daddy didn't do in the 1st Gulf War. If 9/11 hadn't happened, we'd still be in Iraq, it just would have taken a little longer.
It just amazes me that we've attacked Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein, one of the best leaders that region has ever seen. Hell, for all I care he could have kept Kuwait and taken Saudi Arabia over too.

I guess you didn't read the article. It wasn't when GWB was President.

crap, now ive made myself look like an idiot

*leaves thread*

It just amazes me that we've attacked Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein, one of the best leaders that region has ever seen. Hell, for all I care he could have kept Kuwait and taken Saudi Arabia over too.

We could have given him Western weapons instead of the Russians and Chinese giving him that Soviet-style target practice equipment the Iraqi Army rolled around in.

He could have taken Iran, etc., and solved a lot of problems without us getting our hair mussed.

It just amazes me that we've attacked Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein, one of the best leaders that region has ever seen. Hell, for all I care he could have kept Kuwait and taken Saudi Arabia over too.
He was certainly a dictator, which has never bothered us before, not particularly, and a creep with a really big ego, but he was at least a secularist. What we have now put in place is a scenario where Iraq will end up in the hands of religious extremists, much the same as :eek: Iran has. They'll chopping off the hands of thieves before the end of the decade.

I did find Saddam kind of humorous, in a way, especially his emulation of Saladin. While Saladin did come from the same city Saddam did, Tikrit, Saladin was a Kurd, not an Arab.

We could have given him Western weapons instead of the Russians and Chinese giving him that Soviet-style target practice equipment the Iraqi Army rolled around in.

He could have taken Iran, etc., and solved a lot of problems without us getting our hair mussed.
Well, I'm not sure about that, he tried for eight years and couldn't beat them.

Well, I'm not sure about that, he tried for eight years and couldn't beat them.
That's because he had all that Soviet-style equipment.

The only Western weapons he had were some French anti-aircraft systems (crap), and some South African artillery pieces.

Everything else was made in Russia or China.

Indeed it does.

Let's say that the current situation escalates to the point where oil prices are intolerably high, and causing major damage to all Western nations.

You can bet that Iran would be invaded, even if it meant a temporary halt to oil from Iran.

The West could easily be put in a position (without attacking Iran first) where it would be forced to do so out of economic, not political, necessity.
The halt would be as temporary as it has been in Iraq.

One of the general rules of thumb in the energy industry is, conflict-related capacity loss is near-permanent.

That's because he had all that Soviet-style equipment.

The only Western weapons he had were some French anti-aircraft systems (crap), and some South African artillery pieces.

Everything else was made in Russia or China.
I'll take your word for it. Not that I would have minded Iraq and Iran beating each other bloody.

The halt would be as temporary as it has been in Iraq.

One of the general rules of thumb in the energy industry is, conflict-related capacity loss is near-permanent.

I'll have to look it up, but here in the US, this spring it was announced that Iraqi output is nearly back to normal, at least as regards imports to the US.