Has it occurred to anyone that the lower Bush sinks in th polls and has less to lose, the more likely he will be to bomb Iran?
I'd rather his poll numbes were higher but this may be a silver lining.
I still think a massive destruction by conventional bombing of all military and quasi military locations and some 400,000 of the core elite military personnel will do the job.
Plus burying the nuclear facilities ENTRANCES with precision deep penetration munitions. This would reduce collateral damage as many sites are in populated areas and full destruction rather than simply burying them would kill more civilians.
With the core military and para-military "gone", the people would rise up and take out the Mullahs and their near term priorities would not be to excavate the nuclear sites but to reorganize the country.
For any Freeper involved with real life planning at a higher level, think seriously about this and bring it into the tactical and strategic mix (some action is already under way):
WOMAN POWER and I do NOT mean the MEK cult of Mariam Rajavi, can play a huge, effective part in the aftermath.
I wish I could go into details without giving away what exactly and put lives in danger, but think for yourselves, look at at how the Mullahs organized when they took over and apply the same formula.
"I still think a massive destruction by conventional bombing of all military and quasi military locations and some 400,000 of the core elite military personnel will do the job."
IMO, this is what United States will end up doing and I think we'll see happen soon.
Iran's posturing (engage caricature mode) is like a madman wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with a mushroom cloud and the words "We will vaporize you, you filthy infidel nation!", with a big lump in its trousers -- who, when asked, "Is that a nuke in your pocket, or are you happy to see us?", replies, "We have stated that we are not interested in nuclear weapons -- and we are not happy to see you."
Ambiguous, open-ended, and Clintonian-parse-speak to the nth degree.
It's a clumsy attempt at "plausible deniability", i.e., "We didn't say that we didn't have nukes, and we didn't say that we wouldn't nuke you!"
And our response is to pretend that we do not see the obvious.
I am not sure that lower polls means war, I would think that higher polls would mean public support of his actions, a blind obedience sort of thing, while war under an unpopular president would send his polls to the floor if there is no direct confrontation or action.
Even if it doesn't, it send that all important message: "threaten us, and we might take you seriously."