CNN International Poll

[madame defarge]

Do you think the Bush administration is considering a military strike on Iran?
Yes 86%
No 14%

The world knows...

http://edition.cnn.com/

[bigwillq]

1. Done

Do you think the Bush administration is considering a military strike on Iran?

Yes 86%

No 14%

[electropop]

2. Done. Yes 86%

[AndyTiedye]

3. Because We All Know In Our Hearts, He's Batshit Insane

:scared:

[WhiteTara]

4. still at 86%

[ClintonTyree]

5. The world know what the giggling murder monkey is like....

his "force as last resort" bullshit isn't going to fly this time. Even the most rabid bushbots know he went to war in Iraq on false pretenses, but it doesn't bother them. They're looking forward to the "rapture" :silly:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. What will it take to oust this mental midget out of our White House?

What does it take for ordinary Americans to demand that this @$$hole be ousted?

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. done and kick and recommended --

Fishing for a Pretext to Squeeze Iran by Juan Cole

link: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060313_fishing_for_a_pretext_in_iran



snip"Bush’s allegations about the Iranians providing improvised explosive devices to the Iraqi guerrilla insurgency are bizarre. The British military looked into charges of improvised explosive devices coming from Iran, and this past January actually apologized to Tehran when no evidence pointed to Iranian government involvement. The guerrillas in Iraq are militant Sunnis who hate Shiites, and it is wholly implausible that the Iranian regime would supply bombs to the enemies of its Iraqi allies."

snip:"Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect and monitor its nuclear energy research program, as required by the treaty. It raised profound suspicions, however, with its one infraction against the treaty--which was to conduct some secret civilian research that it should have reported and did not, and which was discovered by inspectors. Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows Iran to develop civilian nuclear energy, and the United States itself urged Iran to build reactors in the 1970s. Iran does not have a heavy-water breeder reactor, which is the easy way to get a bomb. It does have light-water reactors for energy production, but these cannot be used to get enough fissionable material to make a bomb. Although Vice President Dick Cheney has made light of an oil state seeking nuclear energy, it would be a rational economic policy to use nuclear energy for domestic needs and sell petroleum on the world market. Certainly, the NPT permits such a policy."

snip"It is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy. Ahmadinejad’s election is not relevant to the nuclear issue, and neither is the question of whether he is, as Liz Cheney is reported to have said, “a madman.” Iran has not behaved in a militarily aggressive way since its 1979 revolution, having invaded no other countries, unlike Iraq, Israel or the U.S. Washington has nevertheless succeeded in depicting Iran as a rogue state."

to read full article:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060313_fishing_for_a_pretext_in_iran

[rzemanfl]

8. 88% when I voted a couple of minutes ago. /nt