Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I agree that there is grounds for scepticism.

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.

by Trond Ove on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 at 04:22:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree there is a chance it will happen, but this particular piece was not well argued. That so many people are willing to uncritically accept "X means Y" arguments on topics they know very little about results in people like Jerome having to write stories like this. It's one of the biggest weaknesses of the world's political culture.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 at 04:36:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't tell me about "not well argued". I wrote a diary, not an essay, an article, much less a book. I placed the links for my quotations there for a reason: for the careful reader to follow them, to understand the background that formed the basis of my argument.

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

by Alexander on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 at 04:48:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Althought I have to agree that this wasn't really YOUR argument, so attacking you for the strength of it is a bit disingenious.

by Trond Ove on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 at 04:59:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Mill man expressed skepticism that it would happen, and he haspointed out, correctly, to the track record over the past year and more of predictions of crazy things that the Bush administration was about to do to Iran - which have, so far, and thankfully, not taken place.

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 at 06:37:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
William Lind, a knowledgeable man on military history, should know that military posturing (and that is what putting more carriers in the Gulf is) does not equal a runup to war. It does signify the threat of war.

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 Trond Ove on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 at 04:55:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series