Comments on: Ed Offley http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/05/22/ed-offley/ Interviews of foreign policy experts, writers and activists. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:43:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chris Baker http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/05/22/ed-offley/comment-page-1/#comment-1100 Chris Baker Sat, 24 May 2008 16:47:41 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=362#comment-1100 Ed doesn't speak loudly enough. Ed doesn’t speak loudly enough.

]]> By: Gold Dolphins http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/05/22/ed-offley/comment-page-1/#comment-1088 Gold Dolphins Fri, 23 May 2008 20:04:59 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=362#comment-1088 Have not read the book yet. Realistically, anything we previously "knew" about the sinking of the Scorpion came from Navy sources not subject to independent verification. Just about anything is possible, and I know from personal experience that Navy officers are capable of lying when necessary. Have not read the book yet. Realistically, anything we previously “knew” about the sinking of the Scorpion came from Navy sources not subject to independent verification. Just about anything is possible, and I know from personal experience that Navy officers are capable of lying when necessary.

]]> By: Game Cat http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/05/22/ed-offley/comment-page-1/#comment-1085 Game Cat Fri, 23 May 2008 18:41:23 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=362#comment-1085 Well, I have never heard of that theory for the loss of Scorpion and I would still find it quite amazing if true. AFAIK the Scorpion already had had trouble with a torpedo running hot in the torpedo room, so an "incident" at sea does not have exactly zero prior probability. While ideas of boat-on-boat action can be floated (so to say) reality is often rather more mundane and traceable (hell, considering that we know today what LBJ did during the Tonkin incident, I surmise we would have found a 200-page volume leaving no doubt on the present incident for sure). Re the Airbus: Robert Fisk has a nice account of the Iranian Airbus "incident" in "The Great War for Civilization" - due according to him to too much testosterone (USS Vincennes was known in the area for its aggressive posture and apparently used to be called 'Robo-Cruiser') and too little organization on the ship commander's side (didn't listen into civvie traffic control when it counted), leading to "twitchy fingers". "Information overload" happens mainly if you are primed for it... Well, I have never heard of that theory for the loss of Scorpion and I would still find it quite amazing if true. AFAIK the Scorpion already had had trouble with a torpedo running hot in the torpedo room, so an “incident” at sea does not have exactly zero prior probability. While ideas of boat-on-boat action can be floated (so to say) reality is often rather more mundane and traceable (hell, considering that we know today what LBJ did during the Tonkin incident, I surmise we would have found a 200-page volume leaving no doubt on the present incident for sure).

Re the Airbus: Robert Fisk has a nice account of the Iranian Airbus “incident” in “The Great War for Civilization” – due according to him to too much testosterone (USS Vincennes was known in the area for its aggressive posture and apparently used to be called ‘Robo-Cruiser’) and too little organization on the ship commander’s side (didn’t listen into civvie traffic control when it counted), leading to “twitchy fingers”. “Information overload” happens mainly if you are primed for it…

]]>