The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
But you are implying in your last sentence that the Bush administration has not indicated a willingess to attack Iran since Bush's "axis of evil" speech. This is clearly not true. All the web chatter over Iran is frankly more than understandable based on the threatening posture of the Bush administration vis a vis Iran.
And if Seymour Hersh is any indication, the chatter is not only limited to the web, it is also very evident amont the US military command.
you are the media you consume.
You have evidently made no effort to follow those links and read what is there. Thus, you are not a serious reader. Therefore, you have no right to make calls for better arguments.
You are evidently very lasy. Your posts have amounted to a child's mechanically asking "why?" to anything an adult asks them. Until you get your act together to make a more serious contribution, I will not bother replying to any posts of yours I might happen to run into.
A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
Althought I have to agree that this wasn't really YOUR argument, so attacking you for the strength of it is a bit disingenious.
That does not mean that they won't happen, of course, but it does mean that asking for more that "chatter" to use an intelligence term, is not unreasonable.
Your diary made good points, and so did Mill Man. We are in a realm of perceptions and interpretation, and we do not have enough information on either side of the debate to be conclusive.
So there is really no need to attack Mill Man personally like you did ("not serious" "lazy"). At this point, you can just agree to disagree on the significance of the carrier movements and other input you brought to us. That's fine. The ad hominems are not.
In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
If the new carrier group is actually deployed IN the Persian Gulf this is actually an indication that there will not be an attack, as the groups will be extremely vulnerable to Iranian anti-ship missiles and small attack craft. If the decision for war is taken, expect the big surface ships of the Gulf to steam out the straits of Hormuz at record speed.
As far as I see Bush mentioned another carrier group to "the region", not to the Gulf thought, so this do not really signify much.
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 30 18 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 5 22 comments
by Oui - May 13 66 comments
by Carrie - Apr 30 7 comments
by Oui - Jun 17 comments
by Oui - May 3127 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 3018 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 273 comments
by Oui - May 2726 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 233 comments
by Oui - May 1366 comments
by Oui - May 910 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 522 comments
by Oui - May 450 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - Apr 30273 comments
by Carrie - Apr 307 comments
by Oui - Apr 2647 comments
by Oui - Apr 889 comments
by Oui - Mar 19144 comments