Dilbert_X wrote:
Did you read the article in the OP?
"It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program."
I'll stick my neck out here and say the next guy will be more pro-war with Iran than Fallon was - especially as it seems he was retired on the basis of this view.
Yes, I read it. And I watched the video...did you?
That description you mention is from the Esquire article. The content of that article, which Fallon neither agreed with nor authorized (outside of his own responses to the author) is the crux of the issue. Fallon feels it portrays an inaccurate picture of his position with regard to Iran, specifically where he stands with regard to the Administration's policies toward Iran. While his position is no different than Gates', Mullen's <insert military leader's name here>, the article portrays him as a lone wolf, battling the Administration. Fallon feels that, while inaccurate, only serves to introduce conflict where none exists. One unfortunate reality of the business is that the perception of a problem--regardless of its validity--is a problem in and of itself. Fallon is removing that perception from the equation.
There's no one on deck who is "pro-war" as you put it.
Dilbert_X wrote:
You don't see US naval groups in the PG "provoking war with Iran" either.
I simply pointed out that US naval groups in the Persian Gulf DO try to provoke war with Iran - why do you get so uptight when your errors are corrected?
Tragic accident my arse! The Vincennes was trying to provoke trouble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
I get "uptight" when people make broad-brush defamatory statements with little to no evidence to support those statements. You have no proof--even circumstantial--that ANYONE is trying to provoke ANYTHING with Iran. In fact, the FACTS support the exact opposite. Yet you latch on to obscure events, apply questionable logic, and then try to make it sound like the conclusion you reached is inevitable.
For example, being in territorial waters of another country while transiting the Straits of Hormuz is not "provocative" or an attempt to cause trouble--it is a byproduct of the geography of the area. Yet you try to make it sound as if the Vincennes purposefully went into Iranian waters, hoping that Iran would attack it. The article you so carefully quoted states at the end that the Vincennes' commander had been misinformed about whether the plane was climbing or diving...a critical piece of the decision on whether it was a threatening or non-threatening profile. Regardless, it's obvious that the Vincennes' commander was acting recklessly--
on his own--without orders from higher up to behave that way. So, if he's acting alone, doing stupid shit (a la other, similar "analysis" you've done), how can that
possibly be construed as "the US provoking" anything with Iran? It was one ship's commander who made a horrible mistake, partially due to his own reckless behavior. So yeah...tragic accident. Tragic on many levels.
So no error on my part to correct.
