7 ms·

The gun boats were firing upon the ship's helicopters because they were in Iranian airspace ...

hga 13y ago
That's what the Iranians claim. We obviously claim differently. But even if they were correct, or honestly mistaken, why is shooting at an aircraft a good response to it intruding on your airspace? When you're not in a hot war with the intruder nothing good can come from it. In fact, this brings us right back to KAL 007....
- jlgreco 13y ago
  The Iranians were in a hot war at the time. A particularly brutal one. The people they were fighting had US support, who were providing: "Several billion dollars worth of economic aid; the sale of dual-use technology and non-U.S. origin weaponry; military intelligence; Special Operations training; direct involvement in warfare"
  - hga 13y ago
    As I said, "nothing good can come from it". Wikipedia says in reference to Sadam's threat to wage chemical warfare and underlining it by gassing a number of Kurdish villages "and some larger towns", and this shoot down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iran_accepts_the_ceasefire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iran_acce...): "The lack of international sympathy disturbed the Iranian leadership, and they came to the conclusion that the United States was on the verge of waging a full-scale war against them, and that Iraq was on the verge of unleashing its entire chemical arsenal upon their major cities."
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      They were well within their right to shoot at the Americans, who were only in the area to provide aid for Saddam, who was gassing Kurds and threatening to gas Tehran. Expecting the Iranians not so shoot back was foolish, and shooting down that airliner in retaliation was plainly barbaric. The aftermath of the incident has no bearing on whether the Iranian reaction to the intrusion was rational or justified. The order of events does not support such a line of reasoning. What you are basically saying is that nobody should ever shoot at Americans no matter where they are or what they are doing, no matter the current military or political circumstance. Ridiculous.
      - hga 13y ago
        Just to make it completely clear (I hope), I'm saying a country should not shoot at entities of another county it is not in a hot war with.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        And I think that is a fine principle, but an unreasonable expectation.
      - vilhelm_s 13y ago
        To be clear, the shooting down of the airliner was a mistake (it was misinterpreted as an attacking F-14). It was not done in retaliation to anything.
        paradoja 13y ago
        It is not clear at all. That version is heavily disputed, and reflects only official US Government's view.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    The U.S. was in a hot war as well. The shootdown of Iran Air 655 occurred during Operation Earnest Will, which involved the convoying of Kuwaiti (not Iraqi) oil tankers through the Persian Gulf to protect them from Iranian interdiction contrary to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea regarding international waters and navigation rights. Throughout this operation, Iran conducted mining efforts within the Persian Gulf. On the very first convoy an oil tanker was hit by an Iranian mine (luckily causing no injuries or loss of life). Later in the convoy operation U.S. special operating forces managed to capture an Iranian minelayer in the act of laying mines. Later during this same operation, USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58) was struck by an Iranian mine (proven based on serial numbers matching mines noted from the aforementioned spec-ops mission). The mine caused damage which is normally fatal to warships of that size (the keel cracked and both engines were knocked from their mounts). She had to limp out of the minefield on auxiliary thrusters while the crew fought to contain damage and save the ship. 10 sailors were injured badly enough to require evacuation. 4 of those were badly burned and had to be sent all the way back to the U.S. to recuperate. As a result of that, the U.S. Navy launched a short surface operation against Iranian platforms (Operation Praying Mantis) on April 18, 1988. Meanwhile, about a year before Iran Air 655, on May 17, 1987, an Iraqi (U.S. ally??) Air Force jet had attacked the frigate USS Stark (FFG-31) with two Exocet missile in the Persian Gulf. Though the damage to the ship itself was not as severe, 37 sailors died and 21 more were injured. In the context of all of that, on July 3, 1988, USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air 655. To be clear the ship captain was clearly in the wrong. Even with the 'fog of war' and the problems of having to use instruments to fight instead of one's own eyes he had enough indications to know he wasn't under attack. But the shootdown itself didn't come out of thin air, and the U.S. was brought into a tense situation in the lead-up to the events of that day (though admittedly, they didn't do much to de-escalate either once it started happening).
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Even more reason to not be surprised that the Iranians shot at the US.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Just so I'm clear, you're saying that a country preventing their own merchant ships from being attacked in order to maintain free trade on international waters in accordance with international law justifies blowing up one of that country's warships?
- Oculus 13y ago
  I'd like to point out that one of the main reasons the airplane got shot down is it's transponder had the same signal as Iranian Fighter jets since it passed one before take off on the tarmac. (Discovery's Mayday did an episode on this accident)
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    That criminal of a captain was sitting under a documented air route and threatened other planes. He knew perfectly well that plenty of airliners flew there. Like the great grandparent said - imaging if the Iranians did this to the US. There would be a large regional war at a minimum.
    - jacquesm 13y ago
      Apparently he got a medal upon exiting the service instead of the court martial he really deserved.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Everyone (yes, literally everyone) gets a medal at the end of their service if they are not removed for disciplinary reasons (due process is lovely). The CO was by all measures a giant douchebag even without having the shootdown of Iran Air 655 on his hands but you're essentially not going to get a court-martial conviction on a CO that shoots down a plane when his watchteam was also convinced of the threat. What you want to look at with medals is the type of medal they get, as that is where you can tell how much esteem they possess (or don't).
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    That comment instills so little confidence in the US navy, kids with guns and all that.

hga 13y ago

That's what the Iranians claim. We obviously claim differently. But even if they were correct, or honestly mistaken, why is shooting at an aircraft a good response to it intruding on your airspace? When you're not in a hot war with the intruder nothing good can come from it. In fact, this brings us right back to KAL 007....

jlgreco 13y ago
The Iranians were in a hot war at the time. A particularly brutal one. The people they were fighting had US support, who were providing: "Several billion dollars worth of economic aid; the sale of dual-use technology and non-U.S. origin weaponry; military intelligence; Special Operations training; direct involvement in warfare"
- hga 13y ago
  As I said, "nothing good can come from it". Wikipedia says in reference to Sadam's threat to wage chemical warfare and underlining it by gassing a number of Kurdish villages "and some larger towns", and this shoot down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iran_accepts_the_ceasefire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iran_acce...): "The lack of international sympathy disturbed the Iranian leadership, and they came to the conclusion that the United States was on the verge of waging a full-scale war against them, and that Iraq was on the verge of unleashing its entire chemical arsenal upon their major cities."
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    They were well within their right to shoot at the Americans, who were only in the area to provide aid for Saddam, who was gassing Kurds and threatening to gas Tehran. Expecting the Iranians not so shoot back was foolish, and shooting down that airliner in retaliation was plainly barbaric. The aftermath of the incident has no bearing on whether the Iranian reaction to the intrusion was rational or justified. The order of events does not support such a line of reasoning. What you are basically saying is that nobody should ever shoot at Americans no matter where they are or what they are doing, no matter the current military or political circumstance. Ridiculous.
    - hga 13y ago
      Just to make it completely clear (I hope), I'm saying a country should not shoot at entities of another county it is not in a hot war with.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        And I think that is a fine principle, but an unreasonable expectation.
    - vilhelm_s 13y ago
      To be clear, the shooting down of the airliner was a mistake (it was misinterpreted as an attacking F-14). It was not done in retaliation to anything.
      - paradoja 13y ago
        It is not clear at all. That version is heavily disputed, and reflects only official US Government's view.
- mpyne 13y ago
  The U.S. was in a hot war as well. The shootdown of Iran Air 655 occurred during Operation Earnest Will, which involved the convoying of Kuwaiti (not Iraqi) oil tankers through the Persian Gulf to protect them from Iranian interdiction contrary to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea regarding international waters and navigation rights. Throughout this operation, Iran conducted mining efforts within the Persian Gulf. On the very first convoy an oil tanker was hit by an Iranian mine (luckily causing no injuries or loss of life). Later in the convoy operation U.S. special operating forces managed to capture an Iranian minelayer in the act of laying mines. Later during this same operation, USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58) was struck by an Iranian mine (proven based on serial numbers matching mines noted from the aforementioned spec-ops mission). The mine caused damage which is normally fatal to warships of that size (the keel cracked and both engines were knocked from their mounts). She had to limp out of the minefield on auxiliary thrusters while the crew fought to contain damage and save the ship. 10 sailors were injured badly enough to require evacuation. 4 of those were badly burned and had to be sent all the way back to the U.S. to recuperate. As a result of that, the U.S. Navy launched a short surface operation against Iranian platforms (Operation Praying Mantis) on April 18, 1988. Meanwhile, about a year before Iran Air 655, on May 17, 1987, an Iraqi (U.S. ally??) Air Force jet had attacked the frigate USS Stark (FFG-31) with two Exocet missile in the Persian Gulf. Though the damage to the ship itself was not as severe, 37 sailors died and 21 more were injured. In the context of all of that, on July 3, 1988, USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air 655. To be clear the ship captain was clearly in the wrong. Even with the 'fog of war' and the problems of having to use instruments to fight instead of one's own eyes he had enough indications to know he wasn't under attack. But the shootdown itself didn't come out of thin air, and the U.S. was brought into a tense situation in the lead-up to the events of that day (though admittedly, they didn't do much to de-escalate either once it started happening).
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Even more reason to not be surprised that the Iranians shot at the US.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Just so I'm clear, you're saying that a country preventing their own merchant ships from being attacked in order to maintain free trade on international waters in accordance with international law justifies blowing up one of that country's warships?
Oculus 13y ago
I'd like to point out that one of the main reasons the airplane got shot down is it's transponder had the same signal as Iranian Fighter jets since it passed one before take off on the tarmac. (Discovery's Mayday did an episode on this accident)
- lostlogin 13y ago
  That criminal of a captain was sitting under a documented air route and threatened other planes. He knew perfectly well that plenty of airliners flew there. Like the great grandparent said - imaging if the Iranians did this to the US. There would be a large regional war at a minimum.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    Apparently he got a medal upon exiting the service instead of the court martial he really deserved.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Everyone (yes, literally everyone) gets a medal at the end of their service if they are not removed for disciplinary reasons (due process is lovely). The CO was by all measures a giant douchebag even without having the shootdown of Iran Air 655 on his hands but you're essentially not going to get a court-martial conviction on a CO that shoots down a plane when his watchteam was also convinced of the threat. What you want to look at with medals is the type of medal they get, as that is where you can tell how much esteem they possess (or don't).
- lostlogin 13y ago
  That comment instills so little confidence in the US navy, kids with guns and all that.