But the fact remains is there appears to be a core of you folks who almost wish a war would happen just so you could dance around and claim you were right.

Clearly you and I are reading different articles and discussing different topics.

Has any of the posts Glenn has written or the links he provides actually say the US has attacked Iran? No.

Has any of the posts Glenn has written or the links he provides actually say the US has scheduled to attack Iran by such-and-such a date? No.

Quite simply, Glenn and the comments here have noted how current rhetoric and events are moving in the direction towards a possible military confrontation between Washington and Tehran. No one here, yourself included, can seriously deny this. No such confrontation has happened as yet, but it remains a distinct possibility under current circumstances.

Similarly, Glenn and others have pointed out there is no way to predict what the consequences of such a confronation would be. Again, no one here, yourself included, can seriously deny this.

I've no idea why you think anyone here would invite never mind celebrate the US initiating yet another unnecessary conflict to obscure, likely imaginary ends. The fact you are even suggesting such a thing says more about your outlook than those you supposedly criticize.

Learn to spell, or at least let the machines spell-check for you.

Otherwise we'll have to believe you're either joking or being deliberately stupid.

The super secret war against Iran. Which either has been going on super secretly for the last 3 years or is guaranteed to start tomorrow morning 8am sharp. I swear it's true. Bet the farm, it's a lock.

In case it slipped your mind, no-one here, including Mr. Greenwald, has stated the US has attacked Iran. There is presently the growing chance a military strike and/or confrontation with Iran in the future, but thankfully there has been no such exchange of fire yet.

Simple, eh? One wonders why you persist in asserting the comments here are asserting such a conflict is already on-going.

And your response to Paul Dirks frankly isn't any more intelligible. Are you advocating that Iran actually behave like a functioning political state and see to its own interests (which it is) or some sick variation of the Hobbesian 'State of Nature' (which one might argue is already the case in Iraq)? Do you have evidence of these 'shipments' you reference or are you simply blowing smoke?

Keep in mind I'm treating your comments seriously here. Please be polite and mature in your response.

and insists on either namecalling or scolding like he/she is a parent then I'm done.

It would have been more adult to simply address the point.

But if stomping off in a huff and pouting in a corner is the best you can manage, don't let us stop you.

Mostly it's just saber rattling and it looks as if you more than the Iranians have fallen for it hook line and sinker.

Very good. Forgetting for the moment that no-one here, Glenn especially, is saying military strikes on Iran are "inevitable", it sounds like you're finally getting it.

Yes, it is primarily "saber rattling" from both sides right now. But if indeed the Iranians are 'falling for it' as you so blithely put it, that is emphatically NOT a good thing.

First, it strengthens the hand of Ahmadinejad and his fellows. While his position is technically powerless in terms of Iranian foreign and defense policy, Ahmadinejad has proven canny enough he could leverage his anti-American credentials and standing and sideline more moderate elements in the region who want to keep things calm.

Second, the Bush Administration has proven itself incapable of carrying out sustained policy initiatives with even the smallest degree of competence. To take the 'saber' metaphor a step further, the Administration is more likely to slice its metaphorical leg off when it tries to draw that 'saber'.

Finally, the great problem with saber rattling is that, in the absence of serious diplomatic alternatives, it generally ends in bloodshed.

Has any blood been shed yet? No.

Might it be in the near future? Possibly.

Is it something any of us want to see happen? For myself, no.

What about you, RealName? Do you want to see more lives lost needlessly?

(1) Knowledge of the opposition. Why is our information so lacking?

This the real key to everything. If there are secular sources in Iran why aren't they speaking?

Could it be because the Iranian government is in the midst of the most comprehensive crackdown in a generation?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061502333.html

Why is the intelligence community floundering around in apparent incompetence?

Could it be because the current Administration has installed a collection of politicking hacks and are ignoring the actual professionals?

Are political concerns in the intelligence community helping or hurting?

Wrong question. It should be "Are the political concerns of the Administration drowning out serious consideration of the facts on the ground?" (Hint: remember the run up to April 2003)

Are political points like the Torricelli principle (only boy scouts can be spies) hindering our vision?

What is needed to produce some real knowledge?

I'm not even going to dignify these with an answer.

(2) What is the threshold for military action? (Cassus Belli for the eggheads.) What is intolerable from Iran and where is the consensus for action. Is Iran justified in having a nuclear bomb? If they are weapons suppliers is that sufficient for action of some sort?

Those are THE key questions, aren't they? But then, they aren't ones WE need to answer. That's the job of the elected President and his staff. Pity they don't seem up for the job.

Until those questions are resolved everything else is just arguing about the number of jellybeans in an opaque jar.

Finally, a point we agree upon.

A C+ for effor, but F- for complete mis-focus on who is responsible.

Try again.