Yep, I sure do. It's not impending and you are indeed wrong as usual. I'll go on record saying Bush won't send so much as a cruise missle against Iran. Oh he might bluster, and threaten to cut off their laundry business and what have you. He might even get all indignent and say "Iran is harboring fugitives from justice." (note the lower case J in justice). Maybe even go so far as to (gasp) involve the United Nations (and we all know how much of a threat they are). But he won't do squat from a military standpoint. EDIT: That's not to say there's no chance of a threat. Admittedly, it's a slim one that pretty much no serious observer would believe, but Bush might just "surge" enougth troops to make an invasion look feasible. Sort of. This whole thing seems unlikely in the extreme, but I can just imagine the boneheads trying it. If it weren't for morons like Rather, dolts like Rove wouldn't look so bright.
Oh, so you know it is not impending. Okay, you are on the "inside." Oh, and what does impending mean in your world? Tomorrow? ROTFLMAO...
Would you care to make a wager (say $500) that no military attack from the US on Iran takes place in the next 6 months? We could have Baron hold the funds.
I don't gamble, I trade. Thanks anyway. Not interested in your foolish games. Betting on opinions, you would think it is enough to trade for most people, but some people are just too much, too much...
You remind me of the idiot who gets drunk on a Friday night and challenges people to a fight over the dumbest things. Man, have your testosterone levels measured... And go to tradesports to deal with your gambling jones...