• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report: US warships stationed off Iranian coast

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As unconfirmed reports of an imminent Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities pick up steam in the Middle Eastern media, a US-based strategic intelligence company has released a chart showing US naval carriers massing near Iranian waters.


The chart, published by Stratfor and obtained by the Zero Hedge financial blog, shows that over the last few weeks a naval carrier -- the USS Harry S Truman -- has been positioned in the north Indian Ocean, not far from the Strait of Hormuz, which leads into the Persian Gulf. The carrier joins the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, which was already located in the area. The chart is dated June 23, 2010.

The strike on Iran may be close. Iran cannot be allowed to become a nuclear power, but we must be prepared to deal with the consequences of doing this, as the Straits of Hormuz most likely will be shut down, thus stopping the vast majority of Middle Eastern oil from getting to market.

Despite the perils of an attack on Iran, I say do it. We must be prepared to suffer a little hardship if we are going to do what needs to be done. I can accept gas rationing.

Article is here.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,099
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Oh, the insanity. You've been sniffing your own farts again, Dan. The consequences would be far, far greater than gas rationing. Try a melt'down of the entire Western economy, mass unemployment, a sustained multi-enemy ME war and China laughing its ass off.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Why would china be laughing its ass off? They need us as much as we need them.
 

Glinda

You kids get off my lawn!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
790
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't think the man in charge has the cajones..... :shock:

As unconfirmed reports of an imminent Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities pick up steam in the Middle Eastern media, a US-based strategic intelligence company has released a chart showing US naval carriers massing near Iranian waters.

If this is an Israeli strike, we can assume the man in charge is Netanyahu. Why do you think Netanyahu would initiate a strike against Iran if he didn't have the nerve to go through with it?

Ohhh... you're trying to make this about Obama. Color me surprised! :roll:

I'd think deliberately challenging Iran is a sure way to start another endless and bloody war with massive, possibly catastrophic world-wide consequences. In my opinion, Netanyahu might be crazy enough to do something that precipitous, but I'm fairly certain that Obama sees a far bigger picture with a much clearer eye.

YMMV.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If this is an Israeli strike, we can assume the man in charge is Netanyahu. Why do you think Netanyahu would initiate a strike against Iran if he didn't have the nerve to go through with it?

Ohhh... you're trying to make this about Obama. Color me surprised! :roll:

I'd think deliberately challenging Iran is a sure way to start another endless and bloody war with massive, possibly catastrophic world-wide consequences. In my opinion, Netanyahu might be crazy enough to do something that precipitous, but I'm fairly certain that Obama sees a far bigger picture with a much clearer eye.

YMMV.




You whine alot when it comes to Obama....


title of thread.


US warships stationed off Iranian coast

I was opining that in this game of brinkmanship, I don't think Iran is intimidated by your guy. :shrug:
 

Glinda

You kids get off my lawn!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
790
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You whine alot when it comes to Obama....

Perhaps you don't have clear idea what "whine" means, and that's to be expected. I suppose I can excuse it. ;)

title of thread.

US warships stationed off Iranian coast

Very good! You've identified the title of the thread. Now move forward juuusst a bit to the first 12 words of the thread:

As unconfirmed reports of an imminent Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities

There you go. In writing/reporting, you always begin your article with the most important, most pressing information first, and drill down from there. In this case, the most important, most pressing information concerns a possible Israeli strike against Iran.

The next thing mentioned is that US warships are in the area, which would stand to reason, since the US is and has always been a strong supporter of Israel. I think it would be exceedingly odd if the US wasn't assisting Israel, even though I'm unconvinced such actions are always wise.

I was opining that in this game of brinkmanship, I don't think Iran is intimidated by your guy.

You're far more predictable than you believe. You were obviously trying to make a dig at a guy you don't like in a story that's about Israel, NOT about the guy you don't like. Again, that's to be expected.

And that's very nice that you have an opinion about the issue. So do I.

And you could be right, maybe Iran isn't intimidated by Obama. But, see, this is a thread about a possible Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, not whether or not Iran is afraid of Obama.

Why don't you start that thread if the issue is so important to you? :2wave:
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Perhaps you don't have clear idea what "whine" means, and that's to be expected. I suppose I can excuse it. ;)


I have more than an Idea shorty, you provide me quite the example and I thank you for that.



Very good! You've identified the title of the thread. Now move forward juuusst a bit to the first 12 words of the thread:


Yes an imminent israeli strike with US warships on the horizon..... what are they there for? A carninval cruise? hmmm......



There you go. In writing/reporting, you always begin your article with the most important, most pressing information first, and drill down from there. In this case, the most important, most pressing information concerns a possible Israeli strike against Iran.

So wait, are you telling me the most important detail about this story is the us warships? :lamo


The next thing mentioned is that US warships are in the area, which would stand to reason, since the US is and has always been a strong supporter of Israel. I think it would be exceedingly odd if the US wasn't assisting Israel, even though I'm unconvinced such actions are always wise.


I think in this administration the fact that they are there, is odd... :shrug:




You're far more predictable than you believe. You were obviously trying to make a dig at a guy you don't like in a story that's about Israel, NOT about the guy you don't like. Again, that's to be expected.


a dig? please, stop mouth foaming. your guy is not above any critisizm, your whining is rather trying.


And that's very nice that you have an opinion about the issue. So do I.

And you could be right, maybe Iran isn't intimidated by Obama. But, see, this is a thread about a possible Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, not whether or not Iran is afraid of Obama.

Why don't you start that thread if the issue is so important to you? :2wave:

Really? Then why is the title misleading? :ssst:
 

Glinda

You kids get off my lawn!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
790
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes an imminent israeli strike with US warships on the horizon..... what are they there for? A carninval cruise? hmmm......

As previously stated, the US is and has always been a strong supporter of Israel. I think it would be exceedingly odd if the US wasn't assisting Israel, even though I'm unconvinced such actions are always wise.

So wait, are you telling me the most important detail about this story is the us warships?

No. As previously stated, in writing/reporting, you always begin your article with the most important, most pressing information first, and drill down from there. In this case, the most important, most pressing information concerns a possible Israeli strike against Iran.

As for the headline, it's clear you're unaware that (a) headlines are almost exclusively written by copy editors, managing editors, or news editors (not reporters), and (b) headlines are very often misleading as a way to juice up interest in the facts, which follow in the article itself.

Here's an example, to help you better understand the concept of how to write a headline:

News Desk Editor: Headlines aren't a retelling of the article. They're a way to spark interest in the article. We use short, punchy, dramatic headlines. Now, have a look, [pointing at dark clouds gathering in the sky over the ocean] what do you see? Tell me the headline.

Reporter: HORIZON FILLS WITH DARK CLOUDS?

News Desk Editor: IMMINENT STORM THREATENS VILLAGE.

Reporter: But what if no storm comes?

News Desk Editor: VILLAGE SPARED FROM DEADLY STORM.​

your guy is not above any critisizm

Never said he was, but it's so lovely that we've got you here to do all the heavy lifting for us. I know we're all pleased. ;)

yReally? Then why is the title misleading?

See example above.
 
Last edited:

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,099
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Well, one of the Liberals DID mention my farts. That would be pretty effective. :mrgreen:

Does mentioning your farts make me a liberal? I'm no liberal. I'm a paid-up lefty. The only difference between a liberal and a libertarian is a spelling mistake, IMO.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As previously stated, the US is and has always been a strong supporter of Israel. I think it would be exceedingly odd if the US wasn't assisting Israel, even though I'm unconvinced such actions are always wise.



No. As previously stated, in writing/reporting, you always begin your article with the most important, most pressing information first, and drill down from there. In this case, the most important, most pressing information concerns a possible Israeli strike against Iran.

As for the headline, it's clear you're unaware that (a) headlines are almost exclusively written by copy editors, managing editors, or news editors (not reporters), and (b) headlines are very often misleading as a way to juice up interest in the facts, which follow in the article itself.

Here's an example, to help you better understand the concept of how to write a headline:

News Desk Editor: Headlines aren't a retelling of the article. They're a way to spark interest in the article. We use short, punchy, dramatic headlines. Now, have a look, [pointing at dark clouds gathering in the sky over the ocean] what do you see? Tell me the headline.

Reporter: HORIZON FILLS WITH DARK CLOUDS?

News Desk Editor: IMMINENT STORM THREATENS VILLAGE.

Reporter: But what if no storm comes?

News Desk Editor: VILLAGE SPARED FROM DEADLY STORM.​



Never said he was, but it's so lovely that we've got you here to do all the heavy lifting for us. I know we're all pleased. ;)



See example above.



So the press is shady and dishonest. Ok, thanks. :2wave:
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What is this, the 30th or 31st time that there have been "unconfirmed reports" of an "imminent attack" on Iran?

Our ships are all over the damn place, have always been, and will always be. I'd be skeptical of reading too much into it based on the analysis of some conspiracy theory-laden blog.

Other front page material at zero hedge:

Paul Mylchreest periodic report on all that is important is, as usual, a must read. In this issue:

* Buying Oils and Rare Earths
* Gold and the Euro - rumblings of economic discontent
* Feedback from the secretive Bilderberg & Trilateral Commission meetings
* Why we shouldn’t be surprised that Obama has failed to live up to all the hope
* Arch Crawford’s warning of a rare planetary alignment
* Decoding Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut

el oh el
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If they were just passing by - in 5 days how far would they get?

:shrug:

I ain't developing a side until more development happens - I guess if things go the way this article is suggesting then that means when Iran is wiped off the Map.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What is this, the 30th or 31st time that there have been "unconfirmed reports" of an "imminent attack" on Iran?

Our ships are all over the damn place, have always been, and will always be. I'd be skeptical of reading too much into it based on the analysis of some conspiracy theory-laden blog.

Other front page material at zero hedge:



el oh el

Actually, the original article, describing the movement of forces, was in Haaretz.
 

moe

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
1,176
Reaction score
407
Location
Cebu Rep of the Philippines
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
US forces showing up in an area where things are happening or about to happen is a common practice. Considering that the relations between Israel and the US have been strained it is probably more a show of force and to protect our own interests and forces in the area. Any attack on Iran is going to be seen in the Arab world as a joint US-Israel move regardless of how actively involved in the actual strike we truly are. We may not be involved at all in any support for Israel. They could be very well going it alone. They have been trying for years to get us to take the lead in an Iran operation but we have not done so yet. Maybe they have decided that Iran is to close to a nuclear weapon and they can no longer afford to wait for somebody else to do something about it and they have decided to take the bull by the horns themselves. There could very well be numerous terrorist attacks across the region and maybe the globe itself considering the recent failed Times square bomb with out any specific provocation such as an attack on Iran.*Thus one should expect to see US forces in the area and general heightened military status globally.
Moe
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Actually, the original article, describing the movement of forces, was in Haaretz.

The Haaretz article merely noted that the ships were traveling through there, which was not particularly surprising or noteworthy. It was the zero hedge blog and rawstory that turned that into an implied threat of attack.
 

ScottD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
977
Reaction score
412
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Wrong, on both counts.

A war with Iran would be a mistake. What you saw in Iraq was Iran trying to very overtly oppose us, think about what they could do without needing the viel of secrecy.

Don't ever underestimate an opponent, especially one with ties to such unconventional yet dangerous military/terrorist forces.

But I think that if Obama saw the immediate threat of Iran getting and using nukes, he would not think twice about giving the go ahead to attack them.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom