World War III Started In 1979 - Speech by U.S. Navy Captain Ouimette

Relentless....

I quite agree.... something is NOT RIGHT HERE!

Dave

Originally posted by KimWHoffman
Well, that could be, but I might suggest that Captain Quimette got his date wrong. He might want to consider tearing a few pages off his Navy Issue calendar and checking out 1953. That's probably when the WW3 he's describing really started, when the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d’etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. The government of Mohammad Mossadegh. Could just be that disposing of Mossadegh and restoring the Shah to the Peacock Throne ruffled more than a few feathers in that part of the world.

Hey, I'm not saying we were wrong in initiating a regime change in a foreign country. Heck, the Shah was friendly to our oil companies. But them damn foreigners seem to object to our interference, even if we do know better than them.

One of the big problems in this world is the inability of foreign types to understand our point of view or see the good in what we do for them. And it's just not us. The English, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and other like-minded imperalists have run into the same difficulties time and again. That's probably why they're foreigners and we aren't - because of their short-sightedness.

I totaly agree with your first paragraph but the last 2 i disagree with totaly. We "foriegners" just dont like imperialism fullstop. Hate us because we are isolationists rather than interventionists. We dont have short-sightedness but rather a appreciation for other peoples and cultures, we prefer to let them evolve themselves rather than force them to fit our mold of societies. But we are more than ready to protect our own people and culture if anyone else tries to imprint their culture on ours. Dam us "foriegners"

Now, reading this article was very intresting. And the "snooze button" is very true. But a few things wrong with this article tht have been pointed out was that it does seem to make out that is whas been one groups that has pulled off all these killings as they have all been different groups with different reasons and intentions, yes i will agree that america has been at was with the middle east for along time, ans it would of started with the islamic revolution in egpyt. But i think that you should ask yourself, why are we at war with these people? Do you see countires from the middle east troops in north america? The war has been fought for along time in the middle east, and if you count up all those attacks what countires do the attacks mostly take place in?

Im not picking sides at all here, i disagree with right winged america and i disagree with islamic states. It is a waste of lives that have been lost, and both sides are wrong. But i do believe that this statement was a very hawkish opinion, and i to tend to disagree with it, america doesnt need to be the "awoken giant" again, but rather try to find a peaceful solution to the matters ahead. The middle east is not nazi germany and japan, these are people who are living in poverty, with little means of waging a war. But nevertheless intresting statement.

Originally posted by wang
but rather try to find a peaceful solution to the matters ahead. The middle east is not nazi germany and japan, these are people who are living in poverty, with little means of waging a war. But nevertheless intresting statement.

The problem seems to be the fundamentalists are in control and to my recollection, that did begin when the Shah was forced out of Iran. Unfortuantely, there does not seem to be a peaceful solution that will satisfy the extremists.

They want all "their" (in their eyes) land back and all non-muslims erradicated from such lands. I think this even includes part of Spain. They seem to have no provision for peacefully co-existing with anyone other than themselves.

So what exactly would be the game plan on a peaceful solution?

Now, someone explain this one.

This is a ten page article that goes REALLY in depth on the whole Eagle Claw story.

My link is to page 8 iran.theatlantic.com...

Just behind their tanker, a combat controller in goggles, one of Carney’s crew, appeared outside the cockpit of Major Schaefer’s chopper and informed the pilot that he had to move his aircraft out of the way. Schaefer had re-fueled behind that tanker, and he now had enough fuel to fly back to the Nimitz, but first the C-130s needed to get off the ground.

This corresponds with all the other accounts I have seen, that the helicopter that crashed was in the way and had to be moved for the plane to take off. But there is a diagram of the positions of everything on the site at Desert One and I just don't get this. Here is the link to the pop-up from the article:

iran.theatlantic.com...

You can flip through the pics on this pop up and see another one showing where the burning truck and bus were located too.

This shows the helicopter was behind the plane. How was it in the way? How was this blocking the take off of the plane? Actually I think the diagram raises even more questions the more you look at it.

I can't believe no one is commenting on any of this.

At the very least I expected someone to confirm that a mission like this would not have had operation/sensitive documents on these flights, which causes a major glitch in the official story.

Can someone in the military please comment regarding the fact that a sensitive mission would have required the troops to have the information they needed committed to memory?

The fact of the matter is I suspect there were documents that got into the wrong hands, but I don't buy how it happened and I wonder about just what it was that may have changed the course of history, that then gives credibility to the theory proposed by this thread.

Now we know by the time it was over, volumes of still classified documents did get into the hands of the Iranians, but what was it they got or might have gotten that was so critical? Possibly so critical that Eagle Claw was not a rescue mission at all. Looking at it as a rescue mission I become more and more convinced it could not have succeed no matter what. *drifts off into skunkworks land*.

Dave, I feel like you are encouraging me to keep going, but I have a nagging feeling you are holding back yourself.

Not holding back.... have some friends in from Brazil....... entertaining for the next 10 days... so time is limited.... PLEASE keep going and get someone off their dead keister to respond to what you have found.

(Salute)

Dave

What timing!

Look what's coming this month. I think it's a two to four day documentary based on the book "Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America's War With Militant Islam", by Mark Bowden.

times.discovery.com...

Originally posted by Dave Rabbit
America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism.

America's military had been decimated and down sized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Disclaimer acknowledged, but I don't think Charlie Beckwith would be real happy to hear Delta described as "poorly-trained, poorly-equipped and poorly-organised..."

Carter was trying to play politics by other means and lost. Even if Delta had pulled all the hostages out, all the Iranians had to do was snatch a few of the dozens of Americans and foreigners still walking the streets freely. The Embassy hostage drama was pointless chest-beating that merely told us what Iran's relationship with the west would be for the next twenty-five years or so.

Originally posted by KimWHoffman
Well, that could be, but I might suggest that Captain Quimette got his date wrong. He might want to consider tearing a few pages off his Navy Issue calendar and checking out 1953. That's probably when the WW3 he's describing really started, when the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d’etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. The government of Mohammad Mossadegh. Could just be that disposing of Mossadegh and restoring the Shah to the Peacock Throne ruffled more than a few feathers in that part of the world.

Hey, I'm not saying we were wrong in initiating a regime change in a foreign country. Heck, the Shah was friendly to our oil companies.

First, here's a link to history of the speech
www.snopes.com...

Second, great work, Relentless!

OK, now the qote above made me remember the "oil crisis" of the late 1970's. Heck, it may have been a crisis for U.S.A., but talk about a windfall for oil supplying nations! They would exact the $ they felt due them for their natural resource so coveted by the West. They would build palaces, build infrastructure for citizens, but a big pile of this new-found oil riches went directly back to the U.S. militaryindustrial complex Eisenhower warned us about. Now, I remember my friends who had been in the millitary going overseas after Vietnam to Iran to help the Shah with all his new military toys. If an aircraft crashed, no problem, they'ld just buy more! I remember our military contractors selling AWACS to Saudi Arabia like I bought model planes for my sons. Everytime I filled my gas tank, I wanted to get a thank you letter from a U.S. corporation. Despite all this new-gotten wealth, however, not everyone in those countries benefitted, as some of the posts have pointed out. Springer points out the blame we got. Yes, we did ruffle a few feathers pre1979.

Conspiracy theroy concerning the Hostage rescue mission under Carter? I remember reading Col. Beckwith's book on the subject. He started Delta Force. He said the problem was that it was essentially an impossible mission becuase of the elements and logistics. And because very soon after the initial plan was ok'd, everyone in the armed forces wanted to take part, and it was no longer a specialized force.

He did give credit to President Carter for giving him the go-ahead and for assuming responsibility for its failure.

As to what sensitive documents may have been on the choppers, what would they be? Maps? Blueprints?

But who knows. This is a crazy world.

Beckwith said that during the planning stage a Marine Colonel arrived with the sole instruction from the Corps commandant to get the Marines a piece of the action, any piece, and JCOS went along with it all, making sure every service was represented.

The last time the Marines had seen real action was in Cambodia with the SS Mayaguez. An even more humiliating screw-up than Tehran because more Marines died during the operation than there were hostages needing reascuing. No-one took the fall for that one.

At least Carter had the balls to stand up for his mistakes, like Kennedy taking Bay of Pigs. Kissinger singularly refused to admit to any mistaken decisions.

But after the humiliation in Indochina and the pain it caused the US, the Ayatollah came along at exactly the right time to give the US a new enemy to "confront". it didn't hurt that he was a nutter, it also didn't hurt that more than a few of his motivations were justified. Just his actions weren't.

However, while being "in a state of war" with overtly Islamic countries such as Iran and by default Islamic countries such as Libya, the US was also chiif supplier of hi-tech toys to the Mujahideen, because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend and those freindly Mujahideen sure don't like them commies." Not to mention Saddam who was out there "confronting" the Ayatollah for eight years, before he diceded it was less effort to "confront" his own citizens and then "confront" Kuwait.

US foreign policy is a contradicory mess of convenient relaitonships.

Originally posted by KimWHoffman
As to what sensitive documents may have been on the choppers, what would they be? Maps? Blueprints?

Suppossedly that kind of stuff, identities and location of our people inside Iran and their resources for the mission, as well as the mission orders themselves.

Relentless..... PERFECT NAME for YOU. I officially appoint you as the Radio First Termer Bloodhound....... "Seek Truth.... And Ye Shall Find It!"

Great job!

Dave

Well, I have lost a bit of steam here, not coming up with anything new. So I will at least provide my opinion/take on this.

The "missing documents" story does not make sense. I cannot find anyone who thinks that in a top secret mission such documents would be on the aircraft to begin with. This information would have to be in the heads of the people on the mission. I really wish someone who would know that this is the case would tell me I am right or wrong on this, but I can't find anyone who says sensitive documents could have been "there" in the first place.

So, the big question that remains to be answered is what is this the "cover story" for. Obviously there were sensitive documents that fell into the wrong hands. So where were they really (and what were they really)? If that question could be answered (and I don't think it can) you might have a clue what the mission really was for, if in fact it wasn't a rescue attempt in the first place. I had hoped some more would come out in this thread about all this, but I'm at the end of my resources.......for now.

Well.... I can't address this particular issue.... but I do know for a FACT that lots of military missions did have secret documents and/or orders. That friend of mine who was killed in Vietnam once told me that a lot of their S & D (search and destroy) missions contained high levels of secrecy. In their case, and this is all that I can address based on what was told to me, the documents were READ, DIGESTED and then DESTROYED..... thus leaving no trace of the command or orders if captured. It is not too far to go to also believe that the missing documents that are discussed could very easily be referring to a PERSON.

Just my opinion.

Dave

Originally posted by Dave Rabbit
In their case, and this is all that I can address based on what was told to me, the documents were READ, DIGESTED and then DESTROYED..... thus leaving no trace of the command or orders if captured. Dave

Exactly what I am talking about. There should have been no documents at the point in time they say they were lost, at least not where they claim they were lost.

Well think about it. The 1993 WTC affair was an FBI "sting," where the driver was told to "go ahead," and he parked the truck just far enough away from the pillars to avoid much more major damage. This is documented in court. You are living in doublespeak where self inflicted wounds yield great money laundering scams. Even the day's terrorist sting is another set up, practically transparent, but again in the realm of doublespeak. Do your own Google search before spouting more phony left verses right dribble. Both political parties go to the same country clubs, attended the same colleges and fraternities.

How long before people see both sides of the equation, and leave behind the propaganda? Realizing the truth is just too much for too many people. The Carter debacle in the desert was a deliberate display of "weakness," to garner more money for military contractors. Wake up already, because we have been had.

[edit on 23-6-2006 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by KimWHoffman
them damn foreigners seem to object to our interference, even if we do know better than them.

One of the big problems in this world is the inability of foreign types to understand our point of view or see the good in what we do for them. And it's just not us. The English, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and other like-minded imperalists have run into the same difficulties time and again. That's probably why they're foreigners and we aren't - because of their short-sightedness.

Imperialists. Straight from the horse's mouth. And America wonders why some people despise her. Sheesh.

I'm not saying that these attacks on American assets where justified, quite the opposite. I would say the same thing about any terrorist attack anywhere, but I really hope that was a joke. America herself fought to be free from imperial rule did she not? Yet you expect other nations to just roll over and take it because you know "what's best for them"? What's best for them, hmm? Is it in their best interests to surrender their oil fields and infrastructure to Bush's buddies?

Empires don't work. Why are there no real empires left today? Britain once had the largest empire in the world. What territory do we have now? Places like the Falkland Islands, where there are more sheep than people. Ooh we're soooo great!


Please tell me that was a joke. I'm sorry if to some it's blindingly obvious, but some of us know there are folks who think like that in the US, and I hope you're not one of them.

Well.... that is the great thing about America...... opinions are like buttocks holes, EVERYONE HAS ONE!

And, honestly, I really wrestled with whether I even wanted to jump into this because I HATE POLITICIANS and I HATE POLITICS...... but here goes my opinion, for what it's worth.

One of the smartest things I ever read on Vietnam Latrine Walls when I was looking for material for the Radio First Termer Vietnam show was this (and I have to CLEAN it up a bit)..... and it pretty much STATES my opinion on this.....

"Fighting For Someone Else's Freedom Is Like Forking For Someone Else's Virginity"

That pretty well sums it up for me. If America concentrated on her own people, the VETS, the folks without homes or jobs and on and on and on and on and on...... and let the OTHER FOLKS in the OTHER COUNTRIES take care of their own damn problems..... Americans would be tremendously better off..... personally, financially and with a hell of a lot LESS DEAD VETS who died on FOREIGN SOIL!

Just my opinion.

Dave

In answer to the questions about Desert One, the '53s were supposed to be the ingress and egress transports into staging areas near Tehran. The entire operation was supported by C130s at location Desert One (hence the name). These C130s provided the evac after the raid was aborted.

Simply put, the idea was to sneak into Tehran, perform the raid, and return to another desert rendevous to egress the country. Yes, there were massive procedural failures but ultimately that was what Desert One was all about - in inability of the US to pull off a commando raid similar to the Isreali Entebbe mission. There were Iranian operatives who were to support the raid and yes, they were compromised after the raid failed. Eight great Americans died, and Jimmy Carter blamed the military for his foreign policy failures, and Americans in general for his domestic policy failures. He was by far one of the worst Presidents ever! Don't even get me started....

Are you military? If so, there are Special Ops lessons learned and classes that dissect Desert One as a lesson learned. If not, you'll have top spend some time at the library or on the web (just remember not everything on the web is true).

Rabbit Food