I think this article is quite old but yes, hit em hard, and often at this point of the game.
It's really unfortunate that our own people were so disrespectful of his position and attitudes. He was and still is right IMO.

I agree with the idea. What I'm not sure about is whether it should be publically be announced before hand or to do it in a similar manner to what the israelis did in syria - and to strike not just at camps but at a piece of the iranian nuke structure. they should be sure and get video of the facilities/camps too.

I thought the part about the UN was the BEST .... ;/

Where does Mr. Bolton suggest that there is a president of the USA who would do such a thing. Even Bush won't do it now. The three stooges running for the Oval office are more interested in emulating Canada with it's 'free but not available' health care system and it's 'create as many problems for Canadians as possible' Socialist parliament.

McCain just put up a Spanish website. Can Bilingualism be far behind?

The west has had it's time. What's left of it will be bankrupted by the mythical global warming and it's forthcoming drain on our economy.

Count on this in our life time, we will see a nuclear weapon used by Muslims - a small terrorist dirty bomb here or in Europe or the big Islamic bomb that Iran is developing. It will happen. That's the trajectory that we are on. And, maybe, just maybe, the clueless ever grazing liberal sheeple will get their heads out of the sand when it happens. Well, I guess only if enough of them die.

Why bomb camps when we should bomb the Iranians where their leadership nests back to the Stone Age once and for all. Isn't that the lesson learned from the Israelis, who have been forced by world opinion to restrict their military action to the point that they are unable to defeat their mortal enemies. Doing nothing or in half measures isn't working.

As I have commented here several times over the past 3 or 4 years, a couple of cruise missiles down their throats when their "governments" are in session and problem is temporarily solved. Don't think it could get any worse and the problem may return, but, they would sure as hell get the message. Benefit, well, no long term involvement, no long term investment and no troop on the ground or casualties. I wonder what song Tehran and Damascus would sing after that?

The precedent has been set in Lybia. Do you hear much from daffy Qadhafi after they shoved a few missiles down his throat?

It has been some time now since I have come to the conclusion that the USA must go at Iran and go at them hard. The US for a time thought that there was some significant movement toward being conciliatory with the West but that is fading farther and farther away. Amadinnerjacket is pushing his looser's luck just a little too far. My guess is Patraeus will convince Bush to hit them and hit them hard.

The problem is the first thing the Iranians will do is strike at Israel in an attempt to draw them into a regional war which would either force the Sunni Arabs to side with them or at least do nothing.

A nuclear Iran? not good.
Ever prepared thanks to my early Maritime Boy Scout training (thanks Scouters Hillier, Pearson, and Maihotte)I have my earplugs, que sera sera...

Scout years: BEST years of my life FRICKEN EH!!!
Alter boy? less so.

testing the comments

i would be in favor of evicting the IN from american soil and leavling the UN buildings to ground leavel

With the US hitting Iran, and Dion invading Pakistan, what next.

Obama wants to talk to Iran and invade Pakistan.

He's got to be the Manchurian Candidate.