I'd like to see them try !

Ahemmmm ....

`````````````````````````


TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - A top official with Iran's most powerful military 
force—the Revolutionary Guard—says Tehran will "blow up the heart of 
Israel" if the Jewish state or the United States attacked Iran.

Cleric Mojtaba Zolnour, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's 
representative in the Guard, says that if a single U.S. or Israeli 
missile lands in Iran, Iranian missiles will hit Israel before the dust 
settles.

Zolnour's remarks were carried Friday by the state IRNA news agency.

Anti-Israeli stance is common for the hardline Guard, and President 
Mahmoud Ahmadienjad has often called for Israel's destruction.

But Zolnour appears to be ratcheting up the rhetoric ahead of the next 
round of talks with the West this month over Iran's controversial 
uranium enrichment.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9B7GH200&show_article=1

On 2009-10-09 13:32:08 +0200, Jesse  said:

>   I'd like to see them try !
> 
> Ahemmmm ....
> 
> `````````````````````````
> 
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - A top official with Iran's most powerful military 
> force—the Revolutionary Guard—says Tehran will "blow up the heart of 
> Israel" if the Jewish state or the United States attacked Iran.
> 
> Cleric Mojtaba Zolnour, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's 
> representative in the Guard, says that if a single U.S. or Israeli 
> missile lands in Iran, Iranian missiles will hit Israel before the dust 
> settles.
> 
> Zolnour's remarks were carried Friday by the state IRNA news agency.
> 
> Anti-Israeli stance is common for the hardline Guard, and President 
> Mahmoud Ahmadienjad has often called for Israel's destruction.
> 
> But Zolnour appears to be ratcheting up the rhetoric ahead of the next 
> round of talks with the West this month over Iran's controversial 
> uranium enrichment.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9B7GH200&show_article=1



Whereas others would like to see them succeed. Come on Jesse, go the 
whole hog!

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:XaFzm.322302$vp.195878@newsfe12.iad...
>  I'd like to see them try !
>
> Ahemmmm ....

Doesn't Israel make nuclear weapons?

Or is that secret nuclear plant they won't talk about actually a sausage 
factory?

I think if it came to a fight for it's life Iran would have some real 
problems.  I think Iran is hoping Israel will threaten them back.


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
> news:XaFzm.322302$vp.195878@newsfe12.iad...
>>  I'd like to see them try !
>>
>> Ahemmmm ....
>
> Doesn't Israel make nuclear weapons?
>
> Or is that secret nuclear plant they won't talk about actually a sausage 
> factory?
>
> I think if it came to a fight for it's life Iran would have some real 
> problems.  I think Iran is hoping Israel will threaten them back.

I guess it depends on what one chooses to call a "threat" but Israel has 
repeatedly warned of the conseqences of attacking Israel as much as Iran has 
repeatedly warned of the the consequences of attacking Iran.

In both Israel and Iran there are those who think they should play the 
'first strike' game, sieze the initiative, so not surprising that both want 
to discourage that. With Iran perceiving a potential nuclear threat from 
Israel it's not suprising that they may desire an equal capability to level 
the playing field and create a stand-off which can go nowhere in practice; 
no doubt based on the good old principle of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Israel appears to believe that it would be wrong for Iran to level the 
playing field, acquire nukes of their own, and has gone as far as to suggest 
it may be 'first strike' from Israel to "prevent Iran from developing 
nuclear weapons", and that could potentially be by way of nuclear attack. 
That to Iranian ears may sound like a good reason to develop such weapons 
for its own defensive purposes. It does seem odd to me that it is argued as 
acceptable for Iran to have to live in fear of nuclear attack but excuse 
Israel from that same fear. Of course both sides would argue their nukes are 
purely for defensive purpose while their opponents are for offensive 
purposes. People on each sides have suggested 'first strike' nuking the 
other, and while it is generally agreed that Israel has that capability, 
Iran currently does not, so who is the greater "threat" ?

To believe one side could eradicate the other and avoid retaliatory action 
seems to me to be mere wishful thinking, naivety or delusional than anything 
else. Any belief that Israel could attack Iran and not face retaliatory 
action seems as far fetched as Iran believing it could attack Israel without 
retaliation - which is what they are both saying, but why that should be 
seen as a "threat" when Iran says it but not when Israel does is a mystery 
to me. Seems to be more about painting Israel as the 'good guys', and Iran 
as the 'bad guys' than any rational objective analysis.

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>"Jesse"  wrote in message
>news:XaFzm.322302$vp.195878@newsfe12.iad...
>>  I'd like to see them try !
>>
>> Ahemmmm ....
>
>Doesn't Israel make nuclear weapons?
>
>Or is that secret nuclear plant they won't talk about actually a sausage
>factory?
>
>I think if it came to a fight for it's life Iran would have some real
>problems.

Hardly.... One or two nukes and that is the end of Israel...

On the other hand Iran is somewhat larger with many cities widely
dispersed.  If Israel threatened to take out that area with Nukes many
other countries would stop Israel.

>I think Iran is hoping Israel will threaten them back.

They already have on numerous occasions.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

TWP wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
> news:XaFzm.322302$vp.195878@newsfe12.iad...
>>  I'd like to see them try !
>>
>> Ahemmmm ....
> 
> Doesn't Israel make nuclear weapons?
> 
> Or is that secret nuclear plant they won't talk about actually a sausage 
> factory?
> 
> I think if it came to a fight for it's life Iran would have some real 
> problems.  I think Iran is hoping Israel will threaten them back.
> 
> 
> TWP

Theres no question that Iran is majority bluff.
For all their Soviet purchased technology, they don't have a prayer, and 
they know it.
So they talk tough, cause thats all they can do - Much the same as 
Saddam and his "Mother of all Battles !" statement, which turned into 
one of the greatest routs in military history ,,, Or "Fortress Baghdad 
!", which surrendered to the 1st tank it saw.

They might be able to lob a few missiles into the jew state, perhaps tie 
up shipping for a few days and sink a couple of tankers ,,, There would 
be an uptick in homicide attacks.
Outside of those distractions, theres really nothing they can do, while 
they themselves will be exposed to complete ruin - And thats without 
factoring in Israels atomic weapons, or major participation of USA forces.

In message <F_vBm.77150$944.31936@newsfe09.iad>, Jesse 
writes
>TWP wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message  news:XaFzm.322302$vp.195878@new
>>sfe12.iad...
>>>  I'd like to see them try !
>>>
>>> Ahemmmm ....
>>  Doesn't Israel make nuclear weapons?
>>  Or is that secret nuclear plant they won't talk about actually a
>>sausage  factory?
>>  I think if it came to a fight for it's life Iran would have some
>>real  problems.  I think Iran is hoping Israel will threaten them
>>back.
>>   TWP
>
>Theres no question that Iran is majority bluff.
>For all their Soviet purchased technology, they don't have a prayer,
>and they know it.

Wow.... Complete stupidity on display again...  Just look at the map.

>So they talk tough, cause thats all they can do - Much the same as
>Saddam and his "Mother of all Battles !" statement, which turned into
>one of the greatest routs in military history ,,,

Yep.... As Saddam Promised:- after 6 years the US military still has not
won and is retreating out of Iraq having not achieved it's objectives
and setting up the country for a pro-Iranian government,

>They might be able to lob a few missiles into the jew state,

And that is all it needs. Israel is very small and very densely
populated.  A couple of nukes... even tactical ones could finish Israel

>perhaps tie up shipping for a few days and sink a couple of tankers ,,,

Not thinking this trough are you?  A couple of tactical nukes on the
major cities is al you need.

>There would be an uptick in homicide attacks.

Yep.... The Israelis would start shooting Palestinian civilians and thw
Arab armies would move in to protect them (bearing in mind  Iran would
have used tactical nukes on more of the Israeli military. Israel is a
comparatively a  very small densely packed target

Iran by contrast is a very large, very dispersed target.

>Outside of those distractions, theres really nothing they can do,

Taking out Israel will make them a hero in the mildly east and there is
nothing the USA can do about it. France, Russia  China, India, Pakistan
etc etc won't let them (remember when the USA wanted Nato to go into
Georgia)

> while they themselves will be exposed to complete ruin - And thats
>without factoring in Israels atomic weapons,

They would go in the first strike. There aren't many placed the Israelis
can hide them Also if Israel wanted to nuke Persia France, China, India,
Pakistan etc  won't let them (remember when the USA wanted Nato to go
into Georgia)

> or major participation of USA forces.

You mean the ones that got beaten in Iraq? Iran is much bigger than
Iraq. OR the ones that still have not won in Afghanistan after 8 years.
Or the ones NATO would not let go into Georgia?

The US is a spent force military thanks to GWB.



-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jesse a écrit :
> TWP wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>> news:XaFzm.322302$vp.195878@newsfe12.iad...
>>>  I'd like to see them try !
>>>
>>> Ahemmmm ....
>>
>> Doesn't Israel make nuclear weapons?
>>
>> Or is that secret nuclear plant they won't talk about actually a 
>> sausage factory?
>>
>> I think if it came to a fight for it's life Iran would have some real 
>> problems.  I think Iran is hoping Israel will threaten them back.
>>
>>
>> TWP
> 
> Theres no question that Iran is majority bluff.
> For all their Soviet purchased technology, they don't have a prayer, and 
> they know it.
> So they talk tough, cause thats all they can do - Much the same as 
> Saddam and his "Mother of all Battles !" statement, which turned into 
> one of the greatest routs in military history ,,, Or "Fortress Baghdad 
> !", which surrendered to the 1st tank it saw.
> 
> They might be able to lob a few missiles into the jew state, perhaps tie 
> up shipping for a few days and sink a couple of tankers ,,, There would 
> be an uptick in homicide attacks.
> Outside of those distractions, theres really nothing they can do, while 
> they themselves will be exposed to complete ruin - And thats without 
> factoring in Israels atomic weapons, 

*or major participation of USA forces.*

The USA forces paddling in the Iraqi and afghan quagmire ? jeSSe is a 
funny guy..

"Chris H"  wrote ...

>> or major participation of USA forces.
>
> You mean the ones that got beaten in Iraq? Iran is much bigger than
> Iraq. OR the ones that still have not won in Afghanistan after 8 years.
> Or the ones NATO would not let go into Georgia?
>
> The US is a spent force military thanks to GWB.

I recall it being said that North Korea would be turned into a 
nuclear-charred wasteland by the US before Kim Jong-Il would be allowed to 
have nuclear weapons. That didn't happen either.

The nonsense of, 'we'll lay them to waste with nukes, send them back to the 
stone age' is just fantasy in practice and reveals the nuke threat to be 
entirely impotent except as last-ditch weapons.

In terms of conventional action, that US forces have been bogged down in 
Afghanistan by 27,000 Taliban ( at most, on the US's own assessments ) for 
eight years at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, doesn't paint them 
as being able to fare any better in Iran. Especially as Iran has a much 
better military structure and equipment than either Iraq of Afghanistan, and 
a lot more potential allies.

America can neither bare the costs of a conventional war against Iran nor 
the resulting costs of going nuclear.

That won't stop some in America believing they can kick and shove any 
country about and get what they want, foolishly believe they can do whatever 
they please with impunity or adverse consequence. If that ever were a 
reality of the capabilities of the US of A it's long gone, but supremacists 
will always cling to their dreams of how it should be, even when it isn't. 
You'd have though Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan had taught them that lesson, 
but apparently not.

In message <CWDBm.3437$KR3.1625@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
Hippy  writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote ...
>
>>> or major participation of USA forces.
>>
>> You mean the ones that got beaten in Iraq? Iran is much bigger than
>> Iraq. OR the ones that still have not won in Afghanistan after 8 years.
>> Or the ones NATO would not let go into Georgia?
>>
>> The US is a spent force military thanks to GWB.
>
>I recall it being said that North Korea would be turned into a
>nuclear-charred wasteland by the US before Kim Jong-Il would be allowed to
>have nuclear weapons. That didn't happen either.
>
>The nonsense of, 'we'll lay them to waste with nukes, send them back to the
>stone age' is just fantasy in practice

Well Jessie (and others) believed it in 2001 re Afghanistan and 2003 re
Iraq... Neither happened.

>and reveals the nuke threat to be
>entirely impotent except as last-ditch weapons.

Nukes are no longer much of a threat. Al-qeada is "stateless" you can'tr
Nuke Al-qeada

>In terms of conventional action, that US forces have been bogged down in
>Afghanistan by 27,000 Taliban ( at most, on the US's own assessments )

It is nothing like that number...  The hard core is much smaller

> for
>eight years at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, doesn't paint them
>as being able to fare any better in Iran. Especially as Iran has a much
>better military structure and equipment than either Iraq of Afghanistan, and
>a lot more potential allies.

Also it is a LOT bigger than either and ajoins both giving one of the
largest battle fields ever seen and could swallow the whole of the US
forces.

>America can neither bare the costs of a conventional war against Iran

It can't really bare the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan which is why like
Vietnam it has retreated (is retreating) from Iraq.

> nor
>the resulting costs of going nuclear.

IT will not be permitted to go Nuclear.

>That won't stop some in America believing they can kick and shove any
>country about and get what they want, foolishly believe they can do whatever
>they please with impunity or adverse consequence.

That time is now over.

>If that ever were a
>reality of the capabilities of the US of A it's long gone, but supremacists
>will always cling to their dreams of how it should be, even when it isn't.

As I said when they wake up and realise the American Dream was just
that... a dream and not real it will not be pretty.... (see the results
from Korea on brain washing US troops)

>You'd have though Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan had taught them that lesson,
>but apparently not.

Well they stand a chance with Obama if he is not assassinated first.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Chris H"  wrote ...
> 
>>> or major participation of USA forces.
>> You mean the ones that got beaten in Iraq? Iran is much bigger than
>> Iraq. OR the ones that still have not won in Afghanistan after 8 years.
>> Or the ones NATO would not let go into Georgia?
>>
>> The US is a spent force military thanks to GWB.
> 
> I recall it being said that North Korea would be turned into a 
> nuclear-charred wasteland by the US before Kim Jong-Il would be allowed to 
> have nuclear weapons. That didn't happen either.
> 
> The nonsense of, 'we'll lay them to waste with nukes, send them back to the 
> stone age' is just fantasy in practice and reveals the nuke threat to be 
> entirely impotent except as last-ditch weapons.
> 
> In terms of conventional action, that US forces have been bogged down in 
> Afghanistan by 27,000 Taliban ( at most, on the US's own assessments ) for 
> eight years at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, doesn't paint them 
> as being able to fare any better in Iran. Especially as Iran has a much 
> better military structure and equipment than either Iraq of Afghanistan, and 
> a lot more potential allies.
> 
> America can neither bare the costs of a conventional war against Iran nor 
> the resulting costs of going nuclear.
> 
> That won't stop some in America believing they can kick and shove any 
> country about and get what they want, foolishly believe they can do whatever 
> they please with impunity or adverse consequence. If that ever were a 
> reality of the capabilities of the US of A it's long gone, but supremacists 
> will always cling to their dreams of how it should be, even when it isn't. 
> You'd have though Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan had taught them that lesson, 
> but apparently not. 

No ones claiming the USA has aced nation building, but for ripping apart 
conventional military forces, CinC and infrastructure, there are none 
better.
If I recall correctly, you and T-shirt Chris were predicting 5,000+ 
American KIA just storming "Fortress Baghdad", and we got it at the cost 
of one guy with a sprained ankle.

We are not talking about occupying & pacifying Iran [which even that 
could be done effectively were we to use WW2 tactics].
We are talking about destroying their military capacity & weapons making 
infrastructure and, in that, they are highly vulnerable, without having 
many options at retaliation - AS ALREADY STATED.

In message <BHKBm.45663$lR3.6600@newsfe25.iad>, Jesse  writes
>The Happy Hippy wrote:
>> "Chris H"  wrote ...
>>
>>>> or major participation of USA forces.
>>> You mean the ones that got beaten in Iraq? Iran is much bigger than
>>> Iraq. OR the ones that still have not won in Afghanistan after 8 years.
>>> Or the ones NATO would not let go into Georgia?
>>>
>>> The US is a spent force military thanks to GWB.
>>  I recall it being said that North Korea would be turned into a
>>nuclear-charred wasteland by the US before Kim Jong-Il would be
>>allowed to  have nuclear weapons. That didn't happen either.
>>  The nonsense of, 'we'll lay them to waste with nukes, send them back
>>to the  stone age' is just fantasy in practice and reveals the nuke
>>threat to be  entirely impotent except as last-ditch weapons.
>>  In terms of conventional action, that US forces have been bogged
>>down in  Afghanistan by 27,000 Taliban ( at most, on the US's own
>>assessments ) for  eight years at a cost of hundreds of billions of
>>dollars, doesn't paint them  as being able to fare any better in Iran.
>>Especially as Iran has a much  better military structure and equipment
>>than either Iraq of Afghanistan, and  a lot more potential allies.
>>  America can neither bare the costs of a conventional war against
>>Iran nor  the resulting costs of going nuclear.
>>  That won't stop some in America believing they can kick and shove
>>any  country about and get what they want, foolishly believe they can
>>do whatever  they please with impunity or adverse consequence. If that
>>ever were a  reality of the capabilities of the US of A it's long
>>gone, but supremacists  will always cling to their dreams of how it
>>should be, even when it isn't.  You'd have though Vietnam, Iraq and
>>Afghanistan had taught them that lesson,  but apparently not.
>
>No ones claiming the USA has aced nation building,

You did.

> but for ripping apart conventional military forces, CinC and
>infrastructure, there are none better.

Unfortunately that is not the sort of thing that needs doing. Not in
Iraq or Afghanistan and it is certainly not the way Iran will fight,

>If I recall correctly, you and T-shirt Chris were predicting 5,000+
>American KIA just storming "Fortress Baghdad", and we got it at the
>cost of one guy with a sprained ankle.

Not at all. You are wrong there on all counts.
I said the US would have no trouble with the initial push to Baghdad.
The US casualties were more than a sprained ankle. I think more due to
"traffic" accidents than enemy fire in the first 20 days.

However what I said would happen is that the Iranians would put in
insurgents as would Al-qeada and I was right.

I said the US would not be seen as liberators. They were not after the
first few days/weeks and I was right.

I said the US military had no idea how to conduct street fighting in a
Police action and I was right.  That is where I said the US would take
casualties and I was right.

>We are not talking about occupying & pacifying Iran [which even that
>could be done effectively were we to use WW2 tactics].

No it could not. BTWWW2 tactics are all you have.

>We are talking about destroying their military capacity & weapons
>making infrastructure and, in that, they are highly vulnerable, without
>having many options at retaliation - AS ALREADY STATED.

You are completely wrong. As the US has ably demonstrated over the last
8 years.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H"  wrote ...

[snips]

>>That won't stop some in America believing they can kick and shove any
>>country about and get what they want, foolishly believe they can do 
>>whatever
>>they please with impunity or adverse consequence.
>
> That time is now over.
>
>>If that ever were a
>>reality of the capabilities of the US of A it's long gone, but 
>>supremacists
>>will always cling to their dreams of how it should be, even when it isn't.
>
> As I said when they wake up and realise the American Dream was just
> that... a dream and not real it will not be pretty.... (see the results
> from Korea on brain washing US troops)

To be honest though, much of the world helped build that impression by 
believing in America's over-estimation of itself. They let themselves quake 
in their boots at the fear of American military power and granted them a 
de-facto dominance.

Even professional forces from other countries, despite their disdain for 
their US counterparts ( 'they kill more of us than the enemy does','they're 
too gung-ho, shoot first, worry about if it was at the enemy later' ), had a 
fair deal of respect for the equipment and technology.

Unfortunately events of the last decade have shown the illusion of American 
military dominance and capability to be exactly that, an illusion. There 
were failings from the top, from the President, down to the troops on the 
ground; for Iraq it was wrong target to start with ( doing AQ's job for 
them ), no clear goals, no properly thought out plans, troops complaining 
about lack of equipment and personal protection, Rumsfeld notoriously 
dismissing such concerns, having severely under-estimated how many troops 
would be needed to start with. Commanders on the ground have been reporting 
forces being all but at breaking point for a number of years.

The real telling point has not been Iraq nor Afghanistan but Georgia / South 
Ossetia and North Korea. Plenty of anti-Soviet and anti-Communist rhetoric 
but nothing else. Both Russia and NK stood their ground and got what they 
wanted. Russia and China have largely been taking Iran's side against 
perceived American threats. If American forces are near breaking point now, 
they cannot risk having to take on Russia and/or China, both of which are 
also nuclear powers, and have military forces who would be fresh to the 
fight. With Europe so reliant on both Russia and China they are going to be 
as reluctant to support a US attack on Iran as they were on Iraq. America is 
also heavily reliant on China financially so doing anything to upset them 
could well mean economic and industrial disaster.

Obama at least seems to realise there's a lot more to it than, 'I've got a 
gun and I'm not afraid to use it'. America perhaps primarily got away with 
waging its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because no one had any vested 
interest in preventing them.

In message <YTMBm.3659$KR3.2619@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
Hippy  writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote ...
>
>[snips]
>
>>>That won't stop some in America believing they can kick and shove any
>>>country about and get what they want, foolishly believe they can do
>>>whatever
>>>they please with impunity or adverse consequence.
>>
>> That time is now over.
>>
>>>If that ever were a
>>>reality of the capabilities of the US of A it's long gone, but
>>>supremacists
>>>will always cling to their dreams of how it should be, even when it isn't.
>>
>> As I said when they wake up and realise the American Dream was just
>> that... a dream and not real it will not be pretty.... (see the results
>> from Korea on brain washing US troops)
>
>To be honest though, much of the world helped build that impression by
>believing in America's over-estimation of itself. They let themselves quake
>in their boots at the fear of American military power and granted them a
>de-facto dominance.

Yes but last century the US did have one of the largest and best
equipped militaries.

>Even professional forces from other countries, despite their disdain for
>their US counterparts ( 'they kill more of us than the enemy does','they're
>too gung-ho, shoot first, worry about if it was at the enemy later' ), had a
>fair deal of respect for the equipment and technology.

Yes... Heance the current phrase "all the gear but no idea!" re the US
military

>Unfortunately events of the last decade have shown the illusion of American
>military dominance and capability to be exactly that, an illusion.

Their capability is ONLY in WW2 style open battle field warfare.. They
appeared to be good at this in Iraq. I say appears as most of the Iraqi
army evaporated before them rather than stand and fight. Then  switched
to irregular warfare and have been screwing the US military ever since
the "end of major combat operations" (Yee Harr!")

> There
>were failings from the top, from the President, down to the troops on the
>ground;

I disagree.  The President was never in charge or controlling anything.
That was evident from the few times they let him talk on his own.

>for Iraq it was wrong target to start with ( doing AQ's job for
>them ),
Absolutely!

> no clear goals,
There was a clear goal for  the first 20 days.

> no properly thought out plans,
True

> troops complaining
>about lack of equipment and personal protection,

They can't work without more kit than any one else. On their own with no
kit they can't operate.

>Rumsfeld notoriously
>dismissing such concerns, having severely under-estimated how many troops
>would be needed to start with.

Of course. HE needed to sell it to get them in so his (commercial)
companies could profit.

> Commanders on the ground have been reporting
>forces being all but at breaking point for a number of years.

Not just commanders... We mentioned it here. Recruiting levels are way
down despite dropping entry requirements so that even Jesse could get in

>The real telling point has not been Iraq nor Afghanistan but Georgia / South
>Ossetia and North Korea.

I agree.  The US said "jump" re Georgia and NATO said "go away".  It was
a set up by the USA and Israel and no one else would play.  The Russians
faced down the USA.

N.Korea also faced down the US and Iran also... I wonder when the US
population will wake up?

> Plenty of anti-Soviet and anti-Communist rhetoric
>but nothing else. Both Russia and NK stood their ground and got what they
>wanted. Russia and China have largely been taking Iran's side against
>perceived American threats.

SO the US can't go in even if it wants to.

>If American forces are near breaking point now,
>they cannot risk having to take on Russia and/or China, both of which are
>also nuclear powers, and have military forces who would be fresh to the
>fight.

It is not just Russian and China but India, Pakistan and France who
would all stop the US. They do not want Nukes being used at all and the
US does not have enough manpower for Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is
larger than both together.

>With Europe so reliant on both Russia and China they are going to be
>as reluctant to support a US attack on Iran as they were on Iraq.

More so. The power in the world has shifted. Not just militarily. I will
say more on this at the end of November.

>America is
>also heavily reliant on China financially so doing anything to upset them
>could well mean economic and industrial disaster.

Quite so. The US magazine Foreign Policy discussed this about 6 months
ago.  If the US strays too far the economic collapse the Chinese can
cause in the US will make the current problems look minor.

As I said WW3 is all but over and the USA lost.

>Obama at least seems to realise there's a lot more to it than, 'I've got a
>gun and I'm not afraid to use it'.

Well Obama has a brain.. something Bush did not have

> America perhaps primarily got away with
>waging its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because no one had any vested
>interest in preventing them.

Yes. However some had vested interests in the USA doing it....

Al-qeada for whom it helped get them in to Iraq and created a whole load
of new converts.

For several Arab Terrorist organisations whom it has now also helped and
gained converts for.

For Iran who are now seem as the good guys in the Middle east and are
now the main power brokers.

For the Russians as it has militarily and economically weakened the US
to the point where Russia (not the Soviet Union) can invade places like
Georgia and re-establish its power whilst  snubbing the USA.

China who has watched the US get militarily beaten and has been able to
buy up the US business in a fire sale and effectively "owns" the Usa
along with the Arabs, the Canadians and surprisingly the Mexicans!


It has also helped the Chinese, Russians and others in that it has split
the USA from Europe and the UK.... probably irrevocably now the world
order has changed.  Thus isolating the USA.

Interestingly the discussions in various high-tech industries say that
the US is no longer top dog. It is in the top 5 or 10 depending who you
ask and slipping. Other countries are calling the shots.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/