- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- 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.
I don't think the man in charge has the cajones..... :shock:
He has the cajones, he just knows that there are better ways then war.
Like?.....
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.
You whine alot when it comes to Obama....
title of thread.
US warships stationed off Iranian coast
As unconfirmed reports of an imminent Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities
I was opining that in this game of brinkmanship, I don't think Iran is intimidated by your guy.
Perhaps you don't have clear idea what "whine" means, and that's to be expected. I suppose I can excuse it.
Very good! You've identified the title of the thread. Now move forward juuusst a bit to the first 12 words of the thread:
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.
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:
Yes an imminent israeli strike with US warships on the horizon..... what are they there for? A carninval cruise? hmmm......
So wait, are you telling me the most important detail about this story is the us warships?
your guy is not above any critisizm
yReally? Then why is the title misleading?
Well, one of the Liberals DID mention my farts. That would be pretty effective. :mrgreen:
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.
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
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.
everytime i see "haaretz" I think of those flea collar people.
Actually, the original article, describing the movement of forces, was in Haaretz.
I don't think the man in charge has the cajones..... :shock:
Wrong, on both counts.He has the cajones, he just knows that there are better ways then war.
Wrong, on both counts.
Wrong, on both counts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?