I don't imagine there's a single poster on this board who is working with their own personal knowledge or memory of the Vincennes incident, and who is not simply relying on stuff they're finding online. From what I can see, and as I referenced earlier in this thread, it seems the general consensus among online sources is that the US response to the Vincennes incident was entirely unsatisfactory, at least initially.
Here's a bit from
Slate generated after Russia shot down the Malaysian airlines plane:
Quote:
|
In several ways, the two calamities are similar. The Malaysian Boeing 777 wandered into a messy civil war in eastern Ukraine, near the Russian border; the Iranian Airbus A300 wandered into a naval skirmish—one of many clashes in the ongoing “Tanker War” (another forgotten conflict)—in the Strait of Hormuz. The likely pro-Russia rebel thought that he was shooting at a Ukrainian military-transport plane; the U.S. Navy captain, Will Rogers III, mistook the Airbus for an F-14 fighter jet. The Russian SA-11 surface-to-air missile that downed the Malaysian plane killed 298 passengers, including 80 children; the American SM-2 surface-to-air missile that downed the Iranian plane killed 290 passengers, including 66 children. After last week’s incident, Russian officials told various lies to cover up their culpability and blamed the Ukrainian government; after the 1988 incident, American officials told various lies and blamed the Iranian pilot. Not until eight years later did the U.S. government compensate the victims’ families, and even then expressed “deep regret,” not an apology.
|
Iran's initial response, much like that of the US 30 years ago, is understandable. The protests that have taken place in Iran after its admission of fault show the type of considerations the regime likely has to balance in handling incidents like this.