I think you got it wrong Zz Bush doesnt want to go to war with Iran. Basically he cant; all his political capital is used for iraq. And we dont have the troops to be in afgan. iraq and iran. I for once think its a good move that bush starts to really crack down on iran. How else do you suggest we stop them from obtaining nuclear weapons? They have been supplying terrorists with weapons and supporting terrorists in the past. IMO the only way we will stop iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is if other countries step up to Bat. And stop iran from obtaining the parts necessary to develope this (which may be too late already). China, france, germany etc etc everyone needs to get involved. Should the US just sit on its hands and let iran develope the bomb. Then some terrorist can go over to Tel-aviv and let it off. Then perhaps somewhere in europe? I'm sure people remember what passivity can do - Germany in WWI and WWII. anyways ... I usually dont agree with bush's chosen foreign policy but this one seems like a smart thing. Time to get another countries to step up to bat.
Its probably too late to bomb iran nuclear facilities - ie their smart and built many of them underground. Israel had to step in to bomb Iraqs nuclear facility. But how many does iran have? Over 22?
Really? Bombing Germany when Hitler came to power would in retrospect have been a pretty good idea, France alone could have easily done it at that time and avoided 50 million casualties. Nuking Japan ended WWII pretty effectively, bombing Taliban also worked out pretty well (of course we should have stayed and finished the job). Oh, and lest we forget the bombing of Osirak by the Israelis saved Kuwait from occupation among other things. Bombing worked out quite well for our enemies too on more than a few occasions, the 1983 Beirut bombing of Marine Barracks led to the withdrawal of international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, the Madrid bombing led to the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq... Nah, bombing is not always a retarded idea, it can be a very effective tool, if used properly.
How selectively convenient for you, to summarise; a pre-emptive strike; new technology, forced to some extent, by other bombing campains..... Taliban.......stronger than ever, actually. Uber record opium crops, anyone? Isreali's bombing some joint-to do what..back up another , more powerfull force that had already declared its intentions? And created , and funded said state? Your crazy, your arguements are ad hoc , past tense, and retrospective. Sea of glass sounds better and better, not that i condone such extremist ideas.
How selectively convenient for you, to summarise;a pre-emptive strike; Of course I was selective, you claimed that bombing was a retarded idea so I provided examples of bombing campaigns that were not or would not have been. Taliban.......stronger than ever, actually. Uber record opium crops, anyone? Again, while true it has nothing to do with the original bombing campaign which was appropriate, sanctioned by the UN, flawlessly carried out and extremely effective. That Bush completely screwed up Afghansitan afterwords does not back up your assertion that bombing is never a good idea. Isreali's bombing some joint-to do what The Israeli bombing of Osirak was a smashing success, it prevented major disasters, again contrary to your claim that no bombing ever is.
How is this designation (something I am sure that you Zzz take personally) which will allow the US to target Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps business operations and finances (something the US should have done eons ago . . .), a declaration of war?? Bush will not be able to start another war unless he has the full help and cooperation of your party (the democrats) Zzz, as he did when the US invaded Iraq in 2003, you fool.
Bush could order a bombing run of Iran right now without the support of Congress, so your point that Bush can't wage war without congressional support is some major moronic denial thingy you got going on. Terrorists are the "evil doers" right? You are either "with us, or the terrorists" right? So, claiming that the elite military branch of Iran is composed of terrorists, and since Bush is at war with the terrorists claiming the war on terrorism is an equivalent of WWII, Bush is now officially at war with Iran's elite military branch, in addition to calling for regime change, those are all declarations of war with a sovereign nation.
You are right that Bush could order a bombing run of Iran right now without the support of Congress. I don't think he wouldn't get much further without the support of the democrats. The Revolutionary guards - Iran's "elite military branch" as you proudly proclaim them, are the same idiots who went running into Iraqi machine guns in the 80s, they are basically a bunch of students spirited on by the mullahs, and are anything but elite, sorry to disappoint you . . . They in part were responsible for the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, and have been a terrorist organization for decades. Not completely sure why calling them terrorists bothers you so much.
They are part the military branch of a sovereign nation, so they are not terrorists by definitions used by Bush previously when referring to Al Quaeda or other movements that were not part of a sovereign nation's government. The dems in congress are panzys, they wouldn't stop Bush. Some have tried to do something, but when push comes to shove, they cave and have not been able to get anything done in this area. They are terrified that the public will believe the lies that they "are not supporting the troops" that Bush has needlessly put in harms way.
Kinda like you're an elite trader, uh z? Don't get your panties in a twist, I'm sure Pelosi will give Bush a good scolding if he bombs Iran.