This is definitley scary stuff, I think we may not be very far from seeing the first bombs being dropped by the US on Iran.

by Sandy Williams (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:42:03 AM

  (0+)

It is articles like this that bear some responsibility for "sabre rattling" and "scare tactics". Bush is not threatening to invade Iran -- he has said that "all options are on the table". Instead he is "sabre rattling" the fact that Iran is a very dangerous state sponsor of terror. Which is something everybody should know. The NIE stated "Iran has no nukes" not "Iran does not want nukes". On the contrary, it stated that Iran indeed was attempting (and possibly still is) a nuclear weapons program. So when Iran lashes out at Israel over it's destruction, and then hides the fact about nuclear imbitions by lying about it for the past 20 years -- this is a country that should freely be able to turned a blind eye by the international community? Iran is the only country that demands local rights to industrialized uranium production, and then demands that IEAE inspecters only have limited access on scheduled times. When other countries want to embrace nuclear technologies the -first- thing they do is openly let in IEAE -- why? because -- they want to prove that they have no ill intentions. So why is Iran so scared of the international community verifying it's "innocent" nuclear program if it is not doing anything wrong?

by taibubba (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:32:32 AM

  (0+)

There is one powerful way to put the brakes on the Bush/Cheney desire to attack Iran. It involves getting greater awareness in the public about the true events of 9/11. There is no doubt that explosives were used to bring down all three towers on that day. So who put them in place?

Relevant to that question is the fact that the admin went to great lengths to conceal the use of explosives, having a $20 million report prepared by NIST which clearly contradicts its own conclusion that fire brought down the buildings. Within the report there is evidence that the steel was never hot enough to collapse.

Also relevant to the question is the fact that the admin hid and destroyed evidence of explosives. The steel was rapidly shipped away for a price far less than the going rate in the US.  

The next step is not war with Iraq but a loud call for an independent investigation.  

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:25:03 PM

  (0+)

I think you have your facts wrong. The countries of Iran and Iraq were combed for 2 yrs(actually longer) for WMD's and uranium enrichments by Scott Ritter and other UN inspectors. Ritter spoke up before the "shock and awe" of Iraq and said, there were NO WMD's and no Uranium enrichment; however, Lil' Bush/cheney refused to listen and went ahead with their bombing in Iraq. It would take Iran TEN years to even get uranium enriched to build even ONE bomb. However, Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, India, and other surrounding countries ALL have nukes. Iran and Iraq sit alone almost in the desert w/o a nuke to be found. I think you listen to too much corpstream media as they just spew the Administration's garble and propaganda.

I too believe Bush will bomb Iran, maybe June, or maybe this next month(April). I do believe it is coming. it could open the door for electing Mad man McCain, the Red button Mac, the tempermental crazy that blows his top at a whim of a hat...yup, he's the one we need with his hand on the button...scary indeed!

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:15:44 PM

  (0+)