http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Iran-Vows-Revenge-Against-US-UK-After-Several-Top-Revolutionary-Guard-Commanders-Killed-In-Attack/Article/200910315408261

(Sky News don't archive)


5:03pm UK, Sunday October 18, 2009
Ashish Joshi, Gulf correspondent

Iran has warned it will take revenge against the US and Britain, accusing 
them of being involved in a suicide bombing that killed several 
Revolutionary Guard commanders.
Six senior commanders and dozens of civilians died in the attack.

The headquarters of the armed forces blamed the bombing on "terrorists" 
backed by "the Great Satan America and its ally Britain", the semi-official 
Fars News Agency reported.

"Not in the distant future we (Iran) will take revenge."

Earlier, Iranian state television said Sunni rebels carried out the bombing.

It said the militant group Jundallah (Soldiers of God) had claimed 
responsibility for the attack, the deadliest in Iran in recent years.

State media cited sources as saying "Britain was directly involved" - a 
common tactic used to divert attention away from the country's internal 
problems.

(more)



-------------------------------

More good news........



TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> State media cited sources as saying "Britain was directly involved" - a 
> common tactic used to divert attention away from the country's internal 
> problems.

But it could be correct that Britain was directly involved, though we may 
never know one way or the other. A lot of what any military gets up to goes 
unreported and unknown as those forces work below the radar. Overt and 
covert support, funding and supplying of terroris^W freedom fighters who 
seek to destabilise a government or regime is not unheard of.

Saying, "it is a common tactic to divert attention", is in itself, a common 
tactic used to divert attention :-)

It doesn't take a first class consipracy theorist to postulate that, in the 
current climate, western or other forces could seek to provoke a reaction 
from Iran to create a pretext for action against Iran. A clever person 
seeking to engineer an attack on Iran may make it look like a country was 
involved in an attack on Iran, Iran consequently attacks that country, they, 
being blameless, attack back. Those bringing about such a conflict sit on 
the hillside watching the events unfold, safely out of it, their job 'well 
done', not having to get involved in the conflict themselves.

That was certainly speculated by some to be the case for 'the cheering and 
dancing Israelis' seen ( and later arrested then deported ) as planes 
crashed ino the Word Trade Centre.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:RBJCm.4759$KR3.3575@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> State media cited sources as saying "Britain was directly involved" - a 
>> common tactic used to divert attention away from the country's internal 
>> problems.
>
> But it could be correct that Britain was directly involved, though we may 
> never know one way or the other. A lot of what any military gets up to 
> goes unreported and unknown as those forces work below the radar. Overt 
> and covert support, funding and supplying of terroris^W freedom fighters 
> who seek to destabilise a government or regime is not unheard of.
>
> Saying, "it is a common tactic to divert attention", is in itself, a 
> common tactic used to divert attention :-)
>
> It doesn't take a first class consipracy theorist to postulate that, in 
> the current climate, western or other forces could seek to provoke a 
> reaction from Iran to create a pretext for action against Iran. A clever 
> person seeking to engineer an attack on Iran may make it look like a 
> country was involved in an attack on Iran, Iran consequently attacks that 
> country, they, being blameless, attack back. Those bringing about such a 
> conflict sit on the hillside watching the events unfold, safely out of it, 
> their job 'well done', not having to get involved in the conflict 
> themselves.
>
> That was certainly speculated by some to be the case for 'the cheering and 
> dancing Israelis' seen ( and later arrested then deported ) as planes 
> crashed ino the Word Trade Centre.
>

Why would we bother with a car bomb though?  An ideal window of opportunity 
to influence events in Iran opened and closed over the summer and the IDF 
could attack before Christmas anyway. The loss of a few members of the 
Iranian military leadership isn't gong to affect where GPS-guided bombs 
land.

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...
>
> A thought occurs - for MAD to work, there has to be no possibility of a 
> first strike being carried out so fast that the other side isn't able to 
> respond in time to launch an exchange.

Yes, but MAD also has a basis on someone else acting on another's behalf. 
For example, the US might respond to a nuke attack on Israel, Russia or 
China might respond to a nuke atack on Iran, if any of the super-powers kick 
off the others are likely to.

MAD, isn't just a 'doctrine' but pretty much fact. Which is what makes nukes 
effectively impotent weapons; no one dare use them or it's potentially the 
end of everything. North Korea and possibly Iran want nukes not as a weapon 
but to simply stand up against possible threats. It puts them on equal 
footing, they to can bring the world to an end if they choose to; so don't 
mess with us, let's sort out our issues as equals.


> Are Iran and Israel too close?  If they try to launch with minimal warning 
> time there's going to be massive potential for a launch based on bad 
> warning data.

That potential risk is there for all nuclear capable countries, and the 
world's had some close shaves already.

Nukes are bad m'kay.

> Also, this story is interesting.  I'm not sure if it's still current.
>
> Israel warships move within cruise-missile range of Iran
> http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=100847§ionid=351020202  Thu, 16 
> Jul 2009 12:45:00 GMT
>
> "The move comes ten days after a submarine -- believed to be 
> nuclear-armed -- made a similar crossing and headed from the Mediterranean 
> to the Red Sea."
>
>
> Related to that:  (2003 story)
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/12/israel1
> "Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy 
> US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in 
> Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's only 
> nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours. "

I would guess that if they had the capabiity they won't have lost it.

Of course put all of Isreal's activities together and it raises questions 
about who's threatening whom, and brings into serious doubt that Irans fear 
of being attacked by Israel is 'simple paranoia'. How would America react if 
a perceived enemey brought its nukes within range of the US ? Purely 
rhetorical because we all know the answer to that, yet somehow Iran is 
expected to behave differently to how the US would.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:vDnDm.5336$KR3.900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>> A thought occurs - for MAD to work, there has to be no possibility of a 
>> first strike being carried out so fast that the other side isn't able to 
>> respond in time to launch an exchange.
>
> Yes, but MAD also has a basis on someone else acting on another's behalf. 
> For example, the US might respond to a nuke attack on Israel, Russia or 
> China might respond to a nuke atack on Iran, if any of the super-powers 
> kick off the others are likely to.
>

It's a lot more realistic to expect Israel and Iran to exchange between each 
other than for anyone else to sacrifice themselves for them by becoming 
involved.

Each would see the fight to be for their survival.  It's different to 
joining in as an ally.


TWP

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/12/israel1
> "Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy 
> US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in 
> Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's only 
> nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours. "
>

I wonder who has the launch codes?  Israel or US?

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:vDnDm.5336$KR3.900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>>
>>> A thought occurs - for MAD to work, there has to be no possibility of a 
>>> first strike being carried out so fast that the other side isn't able to 
>>> respond in time to launch an exchange.
>>
>> Yes, but MAD also has a basis on someone else acting on another's behalf. 
>> For example, the US might respond to a nuke attack on Israel, Russia or 
>> China might respond to a nuke atack on Iran, if any of the super-powers 
>> kick off the others are likely to.
>>
>
> It's a lot more realistic to expect Israel and Iran to exchange between 
> each other than for anyone else to sacrifice themselves for them by 
> becoming involved.
>
> Each would see the fight to be for their survival.  It's different to 
> joining in as an ally.

I guess that could be the case but one cannot guarantee it. Not with China's 
reliance on Iranian oil. They might see it as an attack on Chinese 
interests. It would likely all go rapidly downhill no matter who fires the 
first nuclear shot.

Maybe it's more likely that a nuclear strike would be followed by a 
reatliatory conventional invasion from a supporter of the other side. So 
that would be China/Russia versus Israel, or US versus Iran ( plus perhaps 
most of the Middle East ). But then, how will the other side react to such a 
conventional invasion ? If they go in as well, the scene is set again for 
nuclear engagement.

Given the potential escalation and difficulty of avoiding it, I'm sure 
somewhere in the Pentagon is an option already drawn up and role-played 
where Israel makes first-strike and the US nukes Israel.  Strategically that 
has a lot going for it.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:KnpDm.5383$KR3.2028@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
>> news:vDnDm.5336$KR3.900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>
>>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>>>
>>>> A thought occurs - for MAD to work, there has to be no possibility of a 
>>>> first strike being carried out so fast that the other side isn't able 
>>>> to respond in time to launch an exchange.
>>>
>>> Yes, but MAD also has a basis on someone else acting on another's 
>>> behalf. For example, the US might respond to a nuke attack on Israel, 
>>> Russia or China might respond to a nuke atack on Iran, if any of the 
>>> super-powers kick off the others are likely to.
>>>
>>
>> It's a lot more realistic to expect Israel and Iran to exchange between 
>> each other than for anyone else to sacrifice themselves for them by 
>> becoming involved.
>>
>> Each would see the fight to be for their survival.  It's different to 
>> joining in as an ally.
>
> I guess that could be the case but one cannot guarantee it. Not with 
> China's reliance on Iranian oil. They might see it as an attack on Chinese 
> interests. It would likely all go rapidly downhill no matter who fires the 
> first nuclear shot.
>
> Maybe it's more likely that a nuclear strike would be followed by a 
> reatliatory conventional invasion from a supporter of the other side. So 
> that would be China/Russia versus Israel, or US versus Iran ( plus perhaps 
> most of the Middle East ). But then, how will the other side react to such 
> a conventional invasion ? If they go in as well, the scene is set again 
> for nuclear engagement.
>
> Given the potential escalation and difficulty of avoiding it, I'm sure 
> somewhere in the Pentagon is an option already drawn up and role-played 
> where Israel makes first-strike and the US nukes Israel.  Strategically 
> that has a lot going for it.

The stage will shortly be set for a very very nasty accident - and a very 
nasty humanitarian crisis afterwards (unless everyone was just left to die 
of course).  It'll be like a tsunami that covers whole cities instead of 
just the shore.  Just a couple of 15KT bombs over Tel Aviv or Tehran or more 
likely both would make a real mess for someone to clean up.  Who would do 
it?  Who would pay?  Where would they all go?

It isn't a distant possibility, Iran and Israel are minutes apart as the 
missile flies.  Almost no time to realise you've screwed up.  There aren't 
going to be any hotlines, that's for sure - unless someone calls to say 
"bye!".

TWP

On 2009-10-20 22:49:46 +0200, "The Happy Hippy" 
 said:

> 
> "TWP"  wrote ...
> 
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>> news:vDnDm.5336$KR3.900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> 
>>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>>> 
>>>> A thought occurs - for MAD to work, there has to be no possibility of a
>>>> first strike being carried out so fast that the other side isn't able to
>>>> respond in time to launch an exchange.
>>> 
>>> Yes, but MAD also has a basis on someone else acting on another's behalf.
>>> For example, the US might respond to a nuke attack on Israel, Russia or
>>> China might respond to a nuke atack on Iran, if any of the super-powers
>>> kick off the others are likely to.
>>> 
>> 
>> It's a lot more realistic to expect Israel and Iran to exchange between
>> each other than for anyone else to sacrifice themselves for them by
>> becoming involved.
>> 
>> Each would see the fight to be for their survival.  It's different to
>> joining in as an ally.
> 
> I guess that could be the case but one cannot guarantee it. Not with China's
> reliance on Iranian oil. They might see it as an attack on Chinese
> interests. It would likely all go rapidly downhill no matter who fires the
> first nuclear shot.
> 
> Maybe it's more likely that a nuclear strike would be followed by a
> reatliatory conventional invasion from a supporter of the other side. So
> that would be China/Russia versus Israel, or US versus Iran ( plus perhaps
> most of the Middle East ). But then, how will the other side react to such a
> conventional invasion ? If they go in as well, the scene is set again for
> nuclear engagement.
> 
> Given the potential escalation and difficulty of avoiding it, I'm sure
> somewhere in the Pentagon is an option already drawn up and role-played
> where Israel makes first-strike and the US nukes Israel.  Strategically that
> has a lot going for it.


Great strategic scenario. Go for it now!

"TWP"  wrote ...

> The stage will shortly be set for a very very nasty accident - and a very 
> nasty humanitarian crisis afterwards (unless everyone was just left to die 
> of course).  It'll be like a tsunami that covers whole cities instead of 
> just the shore.  Just a couple of 15KT bombs over Tel Aviv or Tehran or 
> more likely both would make a real mess for someone to clean up.

Israel ...

Total area : 8,000 sq miles
Total Population : 7,400,000
Jeruslalem : 748,000 ( 48 sq mile, 10% of pop )
Tel Aviv Population : 400,000 ( 33 sq mile, 5% of pop )

Iran ...

Total Area : 640,000 sq miles
Total Population : 71, 000, 000
Tehran Population : 7,800,000 ( 254 sq miles, 11% of pop )

Israel is an 80th of the size of Iran, a 10th the size of Britain. Iran is 
the size of Alaska.

If I was laying money on which country I could easiest eradicate I know 
which way I'd bet.

A 15KT nuke isn't a lot; with in a blast area of about 40 sq mile, 10MT 
doesn't gain much more at 133 sq miles. 15KT was dropped on Hiroshima ( and 
killed 140,000 ) probably enough to total Jerusalem or Tel Aviv but only a 
half of Tehran.

As a 10MT takes out 133 sq mile, 60 would turn Israel into 'a sheet of 
glass', you'd need near 5,000 to do the same to Iran. Of course populations 
are usually more concentrated than that.

Dispassionately reflecting on the instant damage of a single 10MT, it 
wouldn't be that hard to say 'pah, nothing' in the scheme of things.

It also indicates perhaps just how difficult it would be for the US to 
comprehensively nuke Iran. Tehran might be gone but that likely leaves 90% 
of the population and you can bet 'they're pretty pissed'. The same bomb, 
well placed on minisule Israel could take out 70% of the population.

People seem to forget just how huge Iran is, how small Israel.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...

> Israel is an 80th of the size of Iran, a 10th the size of Britain. Iran is 
> the size of Alaska.

And while we're on comparative sizes; Iran is three times the size of Iraq 
and two and a half times the size of Afghanistan. Poulation roughly in the 
same proportions.

I imagine any conventional attack on Iran would be considerably more 
difficult than Iraq or Afghanistan, though Rumsfeld would probably assure us 
he could have the job done with a handful of troops and a couple of Jesse's, 
job done and still have change from $100m :-)

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:BnrDm.5428$KR3.2521@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> The stage will shortly be set for a very very nasty accident - and a very 
>> nasty humanitarian crisis afterwards (unless everyone was just left to 
>> die of course).  It'll be like a tsunami that covers whole cities instead 
>> of just the shore.  Just a couple of 15KT bombs over Tel Aviv or Tehran 
>> or more likely both would make a real mess for someone to clean up.
>
> Israel ...
>
> Total area : 8,000 sq miles
> Total Population : 7,400,000
> Jeruslalem : 748,000 ( 48 sq mile, 10% of pop )
> Tel Aviv Population : 400,000 ( 33 sq mile, 5% of pop )
>
> Iran ...
>
> Total Area : 640,000 sq miles
> Total Population : 71, 000, 000
> Tehran Population : 7,800,000 ( 254 sq miles, 11% of pop )
>
> Israel is an 80th of the size of Iran, a 10th the size of Britain. Iran is 
> the size of Alaska.
>
> If I was laying money on which country I could easiest eradicate I know 
> which way I'd bet.
>
> A 15KT nuke isn't a lot; with in a blast area of about 40 sq mile, 10MT 
> doesn't gain much more at 133 sq miles. 15KT was dropped on Hiroshima ( 
> and killed 140,000 ) probably enough to total Jerusalem or Tel Aviv but 
> only a half of Tehran.
>

I chose 15KT as an arbitrary figure - it's the power of the first atomic 
bomb, so I would make a guess at it being a likely power available to an 
emerging nuclear-armed power.  I would guess you'd make the same assumption 
until you knew better.

You don't have to kill people to take them out of army, rescue, and other 
essential duties.  Blinding would probably be enough.



> As a 10MT takes out 133 sq mile, 60 would turn Israel into 'a sheet of 
> glass', you'd need near 5,000 to do the same to Iran. Of course 
> populations are usually more concentrated than that.
>
> Dispassionately reflecting on the instant damage of a single 10MT, it 
> wouldn't be that hard to say 'pah, nothing' in the scheme of things.
>
> It also indicates perhaps just how difficult it would be for the US to 
> comprehensively nuke Iran. Tehran might be gone but that likely leaves 90% 
> of the population and you can bet 'they're pretty pissed'. The same bomb, 
> well placed on minisule Israel could take out 70% of the population.
>
> People seem to forget just how huge Iran is, how small Israel.
>

I don't know.  I dont think they'd have to exterminate Iran for retalliation 
to be effective.  A conflict between Russia and the US would have left many 
areas untouched.  They still didn't like the idea very much.  There is also 
fallout to consider.  Much greater than the blast area.  Still, they might 
get away with a lot of it.  My unscientific guess would be in an area as hot 
and dry as Iran the material would stay airbourne a bit longer than 
somewhere like the US or Russia with cooler wetter air for particles to 
condense into.  As I said, that's what I think would happen, I don't know.

TWP

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote in message
>news:NVlVDQDe4X3KFArv@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message , TWP
>>  writes
>>>As far as territorial restrictions go, well if someone's airspace were to
>>>be
>>>violated to carry out an attack it wouldn't be the first time.
>>
>> However, the US is now a LOT weaker than previously, militarily and
>> economically. It is no longer top dog. Also unlike before the world does
>> nto support the US It has no real friends left.
>
>I'm sure the US has the power to cripple Iran if not to occupy it.

No it most certainly hasn't.
It does not have the ground forces.
Russia and others will equip Iran to withstand air attack and there is
nowhere in Europe the US could get support, over fly rights etc to
launch an attack.  In fact the US may get told to remove its bases from
Europe if it went for Iran

>Another difference between Iraq and Iran is that the more determined
>opposition in Iran seems to still be alive.

Not really. Anti Government protests are not Pro USA protests. Look what
happened in Iraq... US welcomed in as the people who removed Saddam for
about 72 hours then they became the enemy.


>>>Quite honestly what happens next isn't even forced to be rational, let
>>>alone
>>>predictable.
>>
>> But it will be
>
>Not necessarily.  Israel may act suddenly in response to some unexpected
>event and just decide to handle the consequences later.

That would be the destruction of Israel  and they know it.

>>>  Israel is already pressing it's case.  I'm
>>>not sure yet what kind of a push would bring us to an attack.
>>
>> Who  is "us"? And attack who?
>Us - we in the world who are watching all this
Nope...

There is no "we"  The all the ME and most the Islamic world wants Israel
out of Palestine.

Most of the world have not problem with Iran having Nuclear power.

>Attack - Israel attacking Iran.   Iran can wait, it doesn't need to
>pre-emptively strike Israel.

Quite so. However it could do so if pushed. Also it could effectively
take out Israel as self defence and most of the world (bar the US) would
accept that given the behaviour of Israel.

>>>  I was
>>>thinking maybe those Russian missiles that are supposedly about to arrive
>>>might do it.
>>>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/02/the_other_ticking_cloc
>>>k_in_iran#
>>
>> No one will attack Iran for that.
>
>That wasn't the point.  Israel's aircraft would barely make it over Iran's
>borders before they were shot down once the missile system arrives -

True.

>whenever that's going to be.  If Israel is to attack it really does need to
>be before Iran gets hold of this missile system.  It sets an effective time
>limit

Yes.. However Israel could not withstand the response from Iran and
others. Iran is not the Lebenon

>> Any option results in the destruction of Israel. The best option would
>> be to move the Israelis to the USA.  No one else is going to take
>> *Israelis*
>
>That's not going to happen.  Israel isn't just a country, it's part of a
>religion.

Yes I agree. And that is the problem.

> I think you'd have to carry the Jews out of Israel feet first.

Some of them that is true. It is also true of many Palestinians

>That may of course happen, but I really can't see the US completely
>abandoning Israel so that it reaches that point.

It does not have that much choice any more.

>A first strike nuclear
>attack on Israel would also surely make Iran a target for a US retalliatory
>nuclear strike.

Most certainly not. China, France, Pakistan, India, Russia would all
tell the US it is a No Go. All of those are al nuclear countries,
capable and no in any way intimidated by the USA. Also the Chinese,
Arabs, Indians etc hold the US over a barrel economically.

The US is no longer top dog.

>The basic rule of nuclear war in the world so far has been
>'I won't hit you if you don't hit me'  It's been simple enough even for
>world leaders to understand so far.  It might be the stalemate that finally
>develops if Iran does get nuclear weapons - and I think it will.

Of Course Iran will get them. Iran is now the ME super power.

>> Yes it is. Because everyone around it has the power to destroy Israel.
>> Israel no longer has the Bib Brother protecting it. If Israel over steps
>> the line they loose the country. What would be worse is there are very
>> few countries who would accept them (Israelis as opposed to Jews) as
>> refugees any more... they have far too much blood on their hands.
>
>Like I said, I don't think they'd leave.  One of the problems here really is
>that they exist artificially.

I agree... now their life support system is disappearing Ie the USA.
There was a plan to integrate Israel into Europe so the US could off
load it but the behaviour of the IDF has stopped that Now the US has no
one to off load Israel to... and it can't afford to support it any more
itself.

>Creating Israel was kind of like bringing
>back the dinosaurs.  Putting Israel in the middle of the Arab world was
>never going to end well.

True.

>I still don't think they're entirely pawns though.  I think there's a point
>where they would defy the US because we're dealing with a religious homeland
>that they are very very unlikely to voluntarily risk losing at the will of
>the US or anyone else.

I agree... so there is a point where Iran would strike first to stop the
inevitable strike from a cornered Israel

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

In message <2nhDm.5245$KR3.975@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
Hippy  writes
>
>"TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> I'm sure the US has the power to cripple Iran if not to occupy it.
>
>Possibly, but I doubt it. The Iranians won't likely have been stupid enough
>to put all their eggs in one basket. There's a good reason they are
>secretive about what they do in their country.
>
>While a strike is entirely possible, it my not be worthwhile with respect to
>the consequences.
>
>America believed in the past that it could attack foreign countries safe
>from retaliatory action. Then 9-11 happened. A state player will be far more
>capable of bringing retaliatory action to US shores than any two-bit Saudi
>Arabian ideologists.

>Iran's retaliation doesn't need to be on a large nor impressive scale. Look
>at the chaos the Washington Sniper caused. Get a fair number of cells into
>America, start assassinating people randomly and the country could become
>paralysed. When the postal service starts delivering anthrax, ricin or sarin
>all hell will break loose.

That is the least of their worries... Russian (who have already faced
down the USA) China (who also hold the USA over a barrel economically),
France (who are French :-), India, Pakistan are All nuclear powers and
will tell the US there will ne no nuclear strikes in the ME by them.


>Iran's retaliatory action doesn't even have to exist to do its damage. Fear
>itself can ruin a country financially with all the consequences arising from
>that.

:-) Very true... the USA is the most paranoid and easily spooked nation
on earth.

>America has already shown itself to be largely
*Completely*

> incapable of fighting
>asymmetrical war and would have a tougher time in its own country where
>collateral damage, death of its own innocent civilians, would not be
>acceptable. The current anti-terrorist strategy within America has only
>really been so effective because there aren't such terrorist in America.

You only have to look at the problems in LA when there were power
cuts...

>> A first strike nuclear attack on Israel would also surely make Iran a
>> target for a US retaliatory nuclear strike.
>
>Certainly a potential target, and there will certainly be some calling for a
>strike-back.

And most of the world would tell the USA "NO!"

>Again though, retaliatory action may not be seen as worth the consequences.
>That has all the potential any other strike has, as described above, but
>also depends on how other global players would view such action by the US.
>Would the US wilfully sign its own suicide note ? In a fit of pique it
>might.

The US is in a mess now and it would not take much to finish the job
*economically* All China has to do is sell all it's USD for the USD  to
become worthless in about  1 hour.... in 24 hours the US has inflation
the like the world will have never seen before.

Then you get riots and civil war in the USA.. Bombing Iran will not even
make it on to the agenda.

>Which is also what is likely to stop Iran from launching a nuclear
>first-strike against anyone.

No. It would have support from many to take out Israel... or at least
Tel Aviv with a small nuke. Then the world would hold it's breath whilst
the US was told to "Sit" by China, Russia, France, India, Pakistan (and
the rest of G8/20) and The "help" for Israel would be evacuation to the
USA. .



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

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:C+VmJ4EfNt3KFAp0@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message , TWP
>  writes
>>
>>"Chris H"  wrote in message
>>news:NVlVDQDe4X3KFArv@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message , TWP
>>>  writes
>>>>As far as territorial restrictions go, well if someone's airspace were 
>>>>to
>>>>be
>>>>violated to carry out an attack it wouldn't be the first time.
>>>
>>> However, the US is now a LOT weaker than previously, militarily and
>>> economically. It is no longer top dog. Also unlike before the world does
>>> nto support the US It has no real friends left.
>>
>>I'm sure the US has the power to cripple Iran if not to occupy it.
>
> No it most certainly hasn't.
> It does not have the ground forces.

You don't need ground forces to, say, disrupt someone's power supply or 
destroy major arterial road networks.



> Russia and others will equip Iran to withstand air attack and there is
> nowhere in Europe the US could get support, over fly rights etc to
> launch an attack.

What about Diego Garcia?  NW from Diego Garcia, turn right at the Gulf of 
Oman.  Sea all the way.



  In fact the US may get told to remove its bases from
> Europe if it went for Iran
>
>>Another difference between Iraq and Iran is that the more determined
>>opposition in Iran seems to still be alive.
>
> Not really. Anti Government protests are not Pro USA protests. Look what
> happened in Iraq... US welcomed in as the people who removed Saddam for
> about 72 hours then they became the enemy.

Among other things I'm sure, the US stood in the way of other Iraqis 
(particularly thinking of militias) taking power.  That sort of thing is 
bound to make you unpopular.




>
>
>>>>Quite honestly what happens next isn't even forced to be rational, let
>>>>alone
>>>>predictable.
>>>
>>> But it will be
>>
>>Not necessarily.  Israel may act suddenly in response to some unexpected
>>event and just decide to handle the consequences later.
>
> That would be the destruction of Israel  and they know it.

Matter of opinion.  You may be right, but I think Israel would expect the US 
to reluctantly fly in with it's cape on once it committed itself.





>>I still don't think they're entirely pawns though.  I think there's a 
>>point
>>where they would defy the US because we're dealing with a religious 
>>homeland
>>that they are very very unlikely to voluntarily risk losing at the will of
>>the US or anyone else.
>
> I agree... so there is a point where Iran would strike first to stop the
> inevitable strike from a cornered Israel
>

My money is still on their being some kind of accident long before Israel 
becomes cornered, most likely Israel thinking Iran has attacked them.  I 
would think all of their tacticians are expecting at least one scenario 
where Iran just suddenly takes Israel out one day and just presents the 
world with a fait accopmli.  No more fights about Israel because there isn't 
one anymore.  The distrust, the rhetoric, the relatively small distance 
between the two countries and the "sudden knockout blow" scenario just looks 
to me like disaster brewing.



TWP

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>news:vDnDm.5336$KR3.900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>>
>>> A thought occurs - for MAD to work, there has to be no possibility of a
>>> first strike being carried out so fast that the other side isn't able to
>>> respond in time to launch an exchange.
>>
>> Yes, but MAD also has a basis on someone else acting on another's behalf.
>> For example, the US might respond to a nuke attack on Israel, Russia or
>> China might respond to a nuke atack on Iran, if any of the super-powers
>> kick off the others are likely to.
>>
>
>It's a lot more realistic to expect Israel and Iran to exchange between each
>other than for anyone else to sacrifice themselves for them by becoming
>involved.
>
>Each would see the fight to be for their survival.  It's different to
>joining in as an ally.
>

Not at all.. a small tactical nuke in Israel is one thing  a lot of
nukes going into Iran will piss off a great many countries.

look at the map. Irradiating Iran and where the fallout will drift is
unacceptable to a lot of people. The list is long and includes many
Nuclear powers...

A comparatively small amount of radiation around Tel Aviv and the end of
Israel will be seen as a Good Thing to very many countries. Either
ideologically, politically or pragmatically.....

So Iran does have some room for hitting Israel first.
Israel has no room for hitting Iran at all...


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

In message <KnpDm.5383$KR3.2028@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
Hippy  writes
>
>"TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>> news:vDnDm.5336$KR3.900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>
>>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>>>
>>>> A thought occurs - for MAD to work, there has to be no possibility of a
>>>> first strike being carried out so fast that the other side isn't able to
>>>> respond in time to launch an exchange.
>>>
>>> Yes, but MAD also has a basis on someone else acting on another's behalf.
>>> For example, the US might respond to a nuke attack on Israel, Russia or
>>> China might respond to a nuke atack on Iran, if any of the super-powers
>>> kick off the others are likely to.
>>>
>>
>> It's a lot more realistic to expect Israel and Iran to exchange between
>> each other than for anyone else to sacrifice themselves for them by
>> becoming involved.
>>
>> Each would see the fight to be for their survival.  It's different to
>> joining in as an ally.
>
>I guess that could be the case but one cannot guarantee it. Not with China's
>reliance on Iranian oil. They might see it as an attack on Chinese
>interests. It would likely all go rapidly downhill no matter who fires the
>first nuclear shot.
>
>Maybe it's more likely that a nuclear strike would be followed by a
>reatliatory conventional invasion from a supporter of the other side. So
>that would be China/Russia versus Israel, or US versus Iran ( plus perhaps
>most of the Middle East ). But then, how will the other side react to such a
>conventional invasion ? If they go in as well, the scene is set again for
>nuclear engagement.

Everyone has thought through all the what if's already. So they play the
game on the board not in the air. Then they negotiate.

>Given the potential escalation and difficulty of avoiding it, I'm sure
>somewhere in the Pentagon is an option already drawn up and role-played
>where Israel makes first-strike and the US nukes Israel.  Strategically that
>has a lot going for it.

Yes and no..... Probably some one at the Pentagon Black Ops has a couple
of Iraqi/Iranian/Russian missiles the US can use to take out Israel and
not be blamed :-)

The Chinese/Russians etc are probably looking for some loose US missiles
for the same reason

As I said Israel is but a pawn in all this now.

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

In message <BnrDm.5428$KR3.2521@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
Hippy  writes
>
>"TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> The stage will shortly be set for a very very nasty accident - and a very
>> nasty humanitarian crisis afterwards (unless everyone was just left to die
>> of course).  It'll be like a tsunami that covers whole cities instead of
>> just the shore.  Just a couple of 15KT bombs over Tel Aviv or Tehran or
>> more likely both would make a real mess for someone to clean up.
>
>Israel ...
>
>Total area : 8,000 sq miles
>Total Population : 7,400,000
>Jeruslalem : 748,000 ( 48 sq mile, 10% of pop )
>Tel Aviv Population : 400,000 ( 33 sq mile, 5% of pop )
>
>Iran ...
>
>Total Area : 640,000 sq miles
>Total Population : 71, 000, 000
>Tehran Population : 7,800,000 ( 254 sq miles, 11% of pop )
>
>Israel is an 80th of the size of Iran, a 10th the size of Britain. Iran is
>the size of Alaska.
>
>If I was laying money on which country I could easiest eradicate I know
>which way I'd bet.

HALLELUJA !!!! Some one has looked at the map....
A low yield Tactical Nuke on  Tel Aviv is effectively the end of Israel.
Very many people would welcome that including many Americans.

To hit Iran it will require many large nukes to have any effect. That is
TOTALLY unacceptable to ALL the countries around Iran Also China,
France, Russia etc  all the G8/20 (except the USA).

ANY use of Nukes of ANY size by Israel will result in the total
destruction of Israel. It will also leave the *Israelis* (not Jews per
say) with nowhere to go as no one will want them... far too much blood
on their hands.  SO the Jewish Israeli population will have to relocate
to.... USA?



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

"Chris H"  wrote ...

> In message <BnrDm.5428$KR3.2521@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
> Hippy  writes
>>
>>"TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> The stage will shortly be set for a very very nasty accident - and a 
>>> very
>>> nasty humanitarian crisis afterwards (unless everyone was just left to 
>>> die
>>> of course).  It'll be like a tsunami that covers whole cities instead of
>>> just the shore.  Just a couple of 15KT bombs over Tel Aviv or Tehran or
>>> more likely both would make a real mess for someone to clean up.
>>
>>Israel ...
>>
>>Total area : 8,000 sq miles
>>Total Population : 7,400,000
>>Jeruslalem : 748,000 ( 48 sq mile, 10% of pop )
>>Tel Aviv Population : 400,000 ( 33 sq mile, 5% of pop )
>>
>>Iran ...
>>
>>Total Area : 640,000 sq miles
>>Total Population : 71, 000, 000
>>Tehran Population : 7,800,000 ( 254 sq miles, 11% of pop )
>>
>>Israel is an 80th of the size of Iran, a 10th the size of Britain. Iran is
>>the size of Alaska.
>>
>>If I was laying money on which country I could easiest eradicate I know
>>which way I'd bet.
>
> HALLELUJA !!!! Some one has looked at the map....
> A low yield Tactical Nuke on  Tel Aviv is effectively the end of Israel.
> Very many people would welcome that including many Americans.
>
> To hit Iran it will require many large nukes to have any effect. That is
> TOTALLY unacceptable to ALL the countries around Iran Also China,
> France, Russia etc  all the G8/20 (except the USA).
>
> ANY use of Nukes of ANY size by Israel will result in the total
> destruction of Israel. It will also leave the *Israelis* (not Jews per
> say) with nowhere to go as no one will want them... far too much blood
> on their hands.  SO the Jewish Israeli population will have to relocate
> to.... USA?

If 'victory goes to the last man standing', as some seem to see it when 
treating nuclear Armageddon as acceptable, it is highly unlikely that Israel 
will be the victor in such a conflict. The 'insanity' of being involved in 
such a conflict is justified by knowing you'll survive more than the enemy 
you attack. When that's not the case you may as well call it suicide by 
proxy and that makes it more 'insane' than not.

Any country which would accept its own destruction to harm an enemy has 
almost certainly got to come under the heading of 'rogue nation'.

Of course, where you have those who believe that such Armageddon is 
predicted in their religious texts, is destiny and therefore to be welcomed, 
even encouraged - 'it's the afterlife we're after' - then you have a very 
dangerous situation; it's no longer 'insanity' or 'suicide', it's 'what God 
wants' !

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:auSg9RKC$u3KFAbo@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...


 SO the Jewish Israeli population will have to relocate
> to.... USA?
>
>

You know what... they should play technicalities.

Ship tons and tons of Israeli soil to the US, lay it out and build on it. 
They can still say they're on their "holy land"!  The land has moved, but 
it's still the same land.  Crap solution, but better than being nuked! :-)

They wouldn't go for it, would they....

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> You know what... they should play technicalities.
>
> Ship tons and tons of Israeli soil to the US, lay it out and build on it. 
> They can still say they're on their "holy land"!  The land has moved, but 
> it's still the same land.

I'd be careful with saying anything which might lead to someone believing 
you were suggesting Israelis or Jews were Vampires :-)

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:9jEDm.5582$KR3.4361@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> You know what... they should play technicalities.
>>
>> Ship tons and tons of Israeli soil to the US, lay it out and build on it. 
>> They can still say they're on their "holy land"!  The land has moved, but 
>> it's still the same land.
>
> I'd be careful with saying anything which might lead to someone believing 
> you were suggesting Israelis or Jews were Vampires :-)


It depends on what kind of boxes the soil is transported in! :-)

I just think it's such a workable idea... after all, it's the Promised 
_Land_.  God provided land but he never provided GPS co-ordinates.

TWP

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote in message
>news:auSg9RKC$u3KFAbo@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> SO the Jewish Israeli population will have to relocate
>> to.... USA?
>>
>>
>
>You know what... they should play technicalities.
>
>Ship tons and tons of Israeli soil to the US, lay it out and build on it.
>They can still say they're on their "holy land"!  The land has moved, but
>it's still the same land.  Crap solution, but better than being nuked! :-)
>
>They wouldn't go for it, would they....

In so many ways it makes a lot of sense.
They may not have the option in the end.
They have only got away with it so far because of US support in the
past.


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

On 2009-10-21 13:25:54 +0200, Chris H  said:

> In message <BnrDm.5428$KR3.2521@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
> Hippy  writes
>> 
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>> 
>>> The stage will shortly be set for a very very nasty accident - and a very
>>> nasty humanitarian crisis afterwards (unless everyone was just left to die
>>> of course).  It'll be like a tsunami that covers whole cities instead of
>>> just the shore.  Just a couple of 15KT bombs over Tel Aviv or Tehran or
>>> more likely both would make a real mess for someone to clean up.
>> 
>> Israel ...
>> 
>> Total area : 8,000 sq miles
>> Total Population : 7,400,000
>> Jeruslalem : 748,000 ( 48 sq mile, 10% of pop )
>> Tel Aviv Population : 400,000 ( 33 sq mile, 5% of pop )
>> 
>> Iran ...
>> 
>> Total Area : 640,000 sq miles
>> Total Population : 71, 000, 000
>> Tehran Population : 7,800,000 ( 254 sq miles, 11% of pop )
>> 
>> Israel is an 80th of the size of Iran, a 10th the size of Britain. Iran is
>> the size of Alaska.
>> 
>> If I was laying money on which country I could easiest eradicate I know
>> which way I'd bet.
> 
> HALLELUJA !!!! Some one has looked at the map....
> A low yield Tactical Nuke on  Tel Aviv is effectively the end of Israel.
> Very many people would welcome that including many Americans.
> 
> To hit Iran it will require many large nukes to have any effect. That is
> TOTALLY unacceptable to ALL the countries around Iran Also China,
> France, Russia etc  all the G8/20 (except the USA).
> 
> ANY use of Nukes of ANY size by Israel will result in the total
> destruction of Israel. It will also leave the *Israelis* (not Jews per
> say) with nowhere to go as no one will want them... far too much blood
> on their hands.  SO the Jewish Israeli population will have to relocate
> to.... USA?

Forget about the Israelis having nowhere to go. If bombs get dropped on 
Iran in a big way then there is all that lovely oil put out of reach. 
Israel doesn't have oil - lets go for Israel.

BTW I am not a sock puppet for Jesse. I may have met him a few times 
but that doesn't count.

On 2009-10-21 15:23:04 +0200, "TWP"  said:

> 
> "Chris H"  wrote in message
> news:auSg9RKC$u3KFAbo@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> 
> 
>  SO the Jewish Israeli population will have to relocate
>> to.... USA?
>> 
>> 
> 
> You know what... they should play technicalities.
> 
> Ship tons and tons of Israeli soil to the US, lay it out and build on it.
> They can still say they're on their "holy land"!  The land has moved, but
> it's still the same land.  Crap solution, but better than being nuked! :-)
> 
> They wouldn't go for it, would they....
> 
> TWP

When Sike Milligan was fighting his way up Italy he sent some sand home 
in each letter he posted to his mum. "So she can spread in in the back 
garden and have a holiday in Italy". So it might work.

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:9jEDm.5582$KR3.4361@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> You know what... they should play technicalities.
>>>
>>> Ship tons and tons of Israeli soil to the US, lay it out and build on 
>>> it. They can still say they're on their "holy land"!  The land has 
>>> moved, but it's still the same land.
>>
>> I'd be careful with saying anything which might lead to someone believing 
>> you were suggesting Israelis or Jews were Vampires :-)
>
>
> It depends on what kind of boxes the soil is transported in! :-)
>
> I just think it's such a workable idea... after all, it's the Promised 
> _Land_.  God provided land but he never provided GPS co-ordinates.

There is merit in that; there apears to be more Jews in America than there 
are in Israel, though that won't address the 'heritage' side of things. 
Considering Jews were denied their State for so long anyway, some would 
argue it doesn't matter where that State is, the ME or USA, just that they 
have one. That brings another thing into the debate though, would America be 
willing to give up land and allow a separate State ? Would Israelis accept 
being a State within America and subject to its laws ?

Israel currently has 8,000 sq miles so it doesn't seem that hard to 
accommodate them in the US; 3,500,000 sq miles, and the area isn't an awful 
lot bigger than some Native American Reservations.

It would solve an awful lot of problems at a stroke and definitely improve 
peace and security in the world. It's amazing what problems an 8,000 sq mile 
entity can cause.

"Krak"  wrote ...

> BTW I am not a sock puppet for Jesse.

I don't think most people here would think that you were.

> I may have met him a few times but that doesn't count.

That's certainly inviting a "tell us more..."

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote in message
>news:C+VmJ4EfNt3KFAp0@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message , TWP
>>  writes
>>>
>>>"Chris H"  wrote in message
>>>news:NVlVDQDe4X3KFArv@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message , TWP
>>>>  writes
>>>>>As far as territorial restrictions go, well if someone's airspace were
>>>>>to
>>>>>be
>>>>>violated to carry out an attack it wouldn't be the first time.
>>>>
>>>> However, the US is now a LOT weaker than previously, militarily and
>>>> economically. It is no longer top dog. Also unlike before the world does
>>>> nto support the US It has no real friends left.
>>>
>>>I'm sure the US has the power to cripple Iran if not to occupy it.
>>
>> No it most certainly hasn't.
>> It does not have the ground forces.
>
>You don't need ground forces to, say, disrupt someone's power supply or
>destroy major arterial road networks.

You haven't looked at the map or infrastructure of Iran have you... they
tried that with Afghanistan and Iraq and failed. Iran is much larger,
far more powerful with more powerful friends and the US is a LOT weaker.


>> Russia and others will equip Iran to withstand air attack and there is
>> nowhere in Europe the US could get support, over fly rights etc to
>> launch an attack.
>
>What about Diego Garcia?  NW from Diego Garcia, turn right at the Gulf of
>Oman.  Sea all the way.

That is a long and exposed route. Plenty of time for others to stop them
safely over the sea. Also politically unacceptable.

>> Not really. Anti Government protests are not Pro USA protests. Look what
>> happened in Iraq... US welcomed in as the people who removed Saddam for
>> about 72 hours then they became the enemy.
>
>Among other things I'm sure, the US stood in the way of other Iraqis
>(particularly thinking of militias) taking power.  That sort of thing is
>bound to make you unpopular.

You don't understand. Since the US took over not only is personal
security worse than in Saddams day so is the electric, water,
sanitation... in fact everything.

It was how the US behaved... killing LOTS of civilians in the days after
the "liberation" that turned the population against them. That is why
the Malitias were able to grow so fast.

>>>Not necessarily.  Israel may act suddenly in response to some unexpected
>>>event and just decide to handle the consequences later.
>>
>> That would be the destruction of Israel  and they know it.
>
>Matter of opinion.  You may be right, but I think Israel would expect the US
>to reluctantly fly in with it's cape on once it committed itself.

The USA is not in a position to do that any more. Militarily,
Economically or politically.



>> I agree... so there is a point where Iran would strike first to stop the
>> inevitable strike from a cornered Israel
>>
>
>My money is still on their being some kind of accident long before Israel
>becomes cornered,

I agree.

>most likely Israel thinking Iran has attacked them.  I
>would think all of their tacticians are expecting at least one scenario
>where Iran just suddenly takes Israel out one day and just presents the
>world with a fait accopmli.

Likely. Then what Iran is a Hero to half the world and US can't  hit
back (no point anyway)

> No more fights about Israel because there isn't
>one anymore.  The distrust, the rhetoric, the relatively small distance
>between the two countries and the "sudden knockout blow" scenario just looks
>to me like disaster brewing.

I agree.

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

On 2009-10-21 17:49:31 +0200, "The Happy Hippy" 
 said:

> 
> "Krak"  wrote ...
> 
>> BTW I am not a sock puppet for Jesse.
> 
> I don't think most people here would think that you were.
> 
>> I may have met him a few times but that doesn't count.
> 
> That's certainly inviting a "tell us more..."

Not very interesting. His part of America is full of them. Meet one you 
have met them all.

In message <92GDm.20$5w5.2@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy Hippy
 writes
>
>"TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>> news:9jEDm.5582$KR3.4361@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>
>>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>>
>>>> You know what... they should play technicalities.
>>>>
>>>> Ship tons and tons of Israeli soil to the US, lay it out and build on
>>>> it. They can still say they're on their "holy land"!  The land has
>>>> moved, but it's still the same land.
>>>
>>> I'd be careful with saying anything which might lead to someone believing
>>> you were suggesting Israelis or Jews were Vampires :-)
>>
>>
>> It depends on what kind of boxes the soil is transported in! :-)
>>
>> I just think it's such a workable idea... after all, it's the Promised
>> _Land_.  God provided land but he never provided GPS co-ordinates.
>
>There is merit in that; there apears to be more Jews in America than there
>are in Israel, though that won't address the 'heritage' side of things.
>Considering Jews were denied their State for so long anyway, some would
>argue it doesn't matter where that State is, the ME or USA, just that they
>have one. That brings another thing into the debate though, would America be
>willing to give up land and allow a separate State ? Would Israelis accept
>being a State within America and subject to its laws ?
>
>Israel currently has 8,000 sq miles so it doesn't seem that hard to
>accommodate them in the US; 3,500,000 sq miles, and the area isn't an awful
>lot bigger than some Native American Reservations.

Remember that about half that is probably Palestinian land...

>It would solve an awful lot of problems at a stroke and definitely improve
>peace and security in the world. It's amazing what problems an 8,000 sq mile
>entity can cause.

And how easy it would be for a nuclear armed Iran to remove it.

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

In message <hbn833$ubb$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Krak 
writes
>BTW I am not a sock puppet for Jesse. I may have met him a few times
>but that doesn't count.

Now that will put fear into him... A real person who can physically get
to him :-)

Especially when he tries to hid his identity and location

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

"Krak"  wrote in message 
news:hbn889$ul4$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> On 2009-10-21 15:23:04 +0200, "TWP"  said:
>
>>
>> "Chris H"  wrote in message
>> news:auSg9RKC$u3KFAbo@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>  SO the Jewish Israeli population will have to relocate
>>> to.... USA?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You know what... they should play technicalities.
>>
>> Ship tons and tons of Israeli soil to the US, lay it out and build on it.
>> They can still say they're on their "holy land"!  The land has moved, but
>> it's still the same land.  Crap solution, but better than being nuked! 
>> :-)
>>
>> They wouldn't go for it, would they....
>>
>> TWP
>
> When Sike Milligan was fighting his way up Italy he sent some sand home in 
> each letter he posted to his mum. "So she can spread in in the back garden 
> and have a holiday in Italy". So it might work.
>
>

Well, there you are then!  Another Nobel Peace Prize for us!   What are you 
going to do with your share of the 10 million Kroner?

TWPeace Prize

In message <hbncpu$9nr$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Krak 
writes
>On 2009-10-21 17:49:31 +0200, "The Happy Hippy" <the.happy.hippy.nntp@n
>tlworld.com> said:
>
>>  "Krak"  wrote ...
>>
>>> BTW I am not a sock puppet for Jesse.
>>  I don't think most people here would think that you were.
>>
>>> I may have met him a few times but that doesn't count.
>>  That's certainly inviting a "tell us more..."
>
>Not very interesting. His part of America is full of them. Meet one you
>have met them all.

Where is his part of America?  Apart from "at the bottom"

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

"Krak"  wrote ...

> On 2009-10-21 17:49:31 +0200, "The Happy Hippy" 
>  said:
>
>>
>> "Krak"  wrote ...
>>
>>> BTW I am not a sock puppet for Jesse.
>>
>> I don't think most people here would think that you were.
>>
>>> I may have met him a few times but that doesn't count.
>>
>> That's certainly inviting a "tell us more..."
>
> Not very interesting. His part of America is full of them. Meet one you 
> have met them all.

True. Though I was quite looking forward to 'tales from the klan' or 'how I 
was Jesse's CO' to liven up the evenings :-)

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:VlpTPfQvTz3KFALY@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message , TWP
>  writes
>>
>>"Chris H"  wrote in message
>>news:C+VmJ4EfNt3KFAp0@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message , TWP
>>>  writes
>>>>
>>>>"Chris H"  wrote in message
>>>>news:NVlVDQDe4X3KFArv@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>>> In message , TWP
>>>>>  writes
>>>>>>As far as territorial restrictions go, well if someone's airspace were
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>violated to carry out an attack it wouldn't be the first time.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, the US is now a LOT weaker than previously, militarily and
>>>>> economically. It is no longer top dog. Also unlike before the world 
>>>>> does
>>>>> nto support the US It has no real friends left.
>>>>
>>>>I'm sure the US has the power to cripple Iran if not to occupy it.
>>>
>>> No it most certainly hasn't.
>>> It does not have the ground forces.
>>
>>You don't need ground forces to, say, disrupt someone's power supply or
>>destroy major arterial road networks.
>
> You haven't looked at the map or infrastructure of Iran have you... they
> tried that with Afghanistan and Iraq and failed. Iran is much larger,
> far more powerful with more powerful friends and the US is a LOT weaker.
>

I've looked at it briefly on Google Earth when I was checking out if Diego 
Garcia could get you there.  It looks like Tehran is the most densely 
populated area as you'd expect.  According to Wikipedia about 7 million 
people live there.  About 10% of the country's population.

Iranian cities list (location and population figures):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Iran



>
>>> Russia and others will equip Iran to withstand air attack and there is
>>> nowhere in Europe the US could get support, over fly rights etc to
>>> launch an attack.
>>
>>What about Diego Garcia?  NW from Diego Garcia, turn right at the Gulf of
>>Oman.  Sea all the way.
>
> That is a long and exposed route. Plenty of time for others to stop them
> safely over the sea. Also politically unacceptable.
>

It's a route that doesn't require anyone's permission - except ours, and we 
aren't going to say no.


>>> Not really. Anti Government protests are not Pro USA protests. Look what
>>> happened in Iraq... US welcomed in as the people who removed Saddam for
>>> about 72 hours then they became the enemy.
>>
>>Among other things I'm sure, the US stood in the way of other Iraqis
>>(particularly thinking of militias) taking power.  That sort of thing is
>>bound to make you unpopular.
>
> You don't understand. Since the US took over not only is personal
> security worse than in Saddams day so is the electric, water,
> sanitation... in fact everything.
>

After just 72 hours?  They don't have much patience, do they.


> It was how the US behaved... killing LOTS of civilians in the days after
> the "liberation" that turned the population against them. That is why
> the Malitias were able to grow so fast.

I don't agree that the militias became popular because the US killed lots of 
civilians.  I think they rose to power because the US created a power vaccum 
at the same time as removing the local security organisations.  The country 
started to split along lines that could rapidly coalesce support around 
themselves, like the pro-Saddam guys and those who followed clerics.

The civilians probably kept people coming, but I don't think they started 
coming that way.



>
>>>>Not necessarily.  Israel may act suddenly in response to some unexpected
>>>>event and just decide to handle the consequences later.
>>>
>>> That would be the destruction of Israel  and they know it.
>>
>>Matter of opinion.  You may be right, but I think Israel would expect the 
>>US
>>to reluctantly fly in with it's cape on once it committed itself.
>
> The USA is not in a position to do that any more. Militarily,
> Economically or politically.

The US military hasn't disappeared even if a lot of the money they're paid 
for with has.  I think it could still do damage to Iran.  That might not be 
so forever, but I think they're still hanging on.


TWP

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote in message
>news:VlpTPfQvTz3KFALY@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>>You don't need ground forces to, say, disrupt someone's power supply or
>>>destroy major arterial road networks.
>>
>> You haven't looked at the map or infrastructure of Iran have you... they
>> tried that with Afghanistan and Iraq and failed. Iran is much larger,
>> far more powerful with more powerful friends and the US is a LOT weaker.
>>
>
>I've looked at it briefly on Google Earth when I was checking out if Diego
>Garcia could get you there.  It looks like Tehran is the most densely
>populated area as you'd expect.  According to Wikipedia about 7 million
>people live there.  About 10% of the country's population.

And 90% don't they live in an area as big as Iraq, Afghanistan and
Pakistan put together.

You would need multiple nukes and that is unacceptable.

>>>> Russia and others will equip Iran to withstand air attack and there is
>>>> nowhere in Europe the US could get support, over fly rights etc to
>>>> launch an attack.
>>>
>>>What about Diego Garcia?  NW from Diego Garcia, turn right at the Gulf of
>>>Oman.  Sea all the way.
>>
>> That is a long and exposed route. Plenty of time for others to stop them
>> safely over the sea. Also politically unacceptable.
>
>It's a route that doesn't require anyone's permission - except ours, and we
>aren't going to say no.

It requires permission of the rest of the world to let you. They will
say no and there is nothing the US can do a bout it any more. Russia,
N.Korea, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan have proved that.

The time when the Us did not have to worry what the rest of the world
said has gone. The Chinese could bring the US to it's knees in about 6
hours.

>> You don't understand. Since the US took over not only is personal
>> security worse than in Saddams day so is the electric, water,
>> sanitation... in fact everything.
>>
>
>After just 72 hours?  They don't have much patience, do they.

Perhaps it was the behaviour of the US troops indiscriminately killing
civilians that did it.  Especially at road blocks due to lack of local
knowledge.

>> It was how the US behaved... killing LOTS of civilians in the days after
>> the "liberation" that turned the population against them. That is why
>> the Malitias were able to grow so fast.
>
>I don't agree that the militias became popular because the US killed lots of
>civilians.  I think they rose to power because the US created a power vaccum
>at the same time as removing the local security organisations.

That is partly true however the killing of lots of civilians fuelled the
rise of the militias so quickly. It didn't happen in Basra..... it took
a long time and that was due to the militias filtering down from the
north over months

>  The country
>started to split along lines that could rapidly coalesce support around
>themselves, like the pro-Saddam guys and those who followed clerics.

There were many factions

>The civilians probably kept people coming, but I don't think they started
>coming that way.

It did. Without the popular support of the masses the militias would not
have got a hold so fast. The problems that fulledt it werer the fault of
the US military.

The US military smashed the infrastructure and then in invasion secured
the oil and only weeks later started to thing about the infrastructure
and then in a half hearted way, electricity, water and sanitation
stopped when the invasion started and never recovered. (Even now)

The inability of the US military to handle roadblocks correctly caused
the deaths of hundreds of civilians creating a lot of discontent.

The appalling way the US troops treated the civilians they were supposed
to be protecting turned them from liberators to the enemy in days.

Much was predicted in advance and commented on at the time,

>>>>>Not necessarily.  Israel may act suddenly in response to some unexpected
>>>>>event and just decide to handle the consequences later.
>>>>
>>>> That would be the destruction of Israel  and they know it.
>>>
>>>Matter of opinion.  You may be right, but I think Israel would expect the
>>>US
>>>to reluctantly fly in with it's cape on once it committed itself.
>>
>> The USA is not in a position to do that any more. Militarily,
>> Economically or politically.
>
>The US military hasn't disappeared even if a lot of the money they're paid
>for with has.

The recruiting numbers are WAY down despite lowering the standards. The
numbers in the US forces are falling.

>I think it could still do damage to Iran.
Some the same way the beat a rag tag army of insurgents in Afghanistan 8
years ago. The same way the sorted out a country wanting to be
liberated... Iraq some 6 years ago the same way the did not let the
terrorists get a foot hold in Pakistan.....

Iran is larger than Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan put together, does
not want to be "liberated" and has a lot of powerful friends surrounding
it including Iraq and Afghanistan.

>  That might not be
>so forever, but I think they're still hanging on.

No that time passed in 2008. Wake up and smell the coffee......

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

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:CCTmmND6wA4KFAin@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message , TWP
>  writes
>>


> And 90% don't they live in an area as big as Iraq, Afghanistan and
> Pakistan put together.
>
> You would need multiple nukes and that is unacceptable.

You wouldn't have to take out everyone.  You have to disable the country as 
a viable state not kill everyone living there.


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "Chris H"  wrote in message 
> news:CCTmmND6wA4KFAin@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message , TWP
>>  writes
>>>
>
>
>> And 90% don't they live in an area as big as Iraq, Afghanistan and
>> Pakistan put together.
>>
>> You would need multiple nukes and that is unacceptable.
>
> You wouldn't have to take out everyone.  You have to disable the country 
> as a viable state not kill everyone living there.

That's far easier said than done. Plus there's the slight technical 
difficulty of collective punishment being a war crime under international 
law. If you could make Iran a non-viable state, how are the civilians 
expected to exist within it ?

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:BcXDm.324$5w5.212@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> "Chris H"  wrote in message 
>> news:CCTmmND6wA4KFAin@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message , TWP
>>>  writes
>>>>
>>
>>
>>> And 90% don't they live in an area as big as Iraq, Afghanistan and
>>> Pakistan put together.
>>>
>>> You would need multiple nukes and that is unacceptable.
>>
>> You wouldn't have to take out everyone.  You have to disable the country 
>> as a viable state not kill everyone living there.
>
> That's far easier said than done. Plus there's the slight technical 
> difficulty of collective punishment being a war crime under international 
> law. If you could make Iran a non-viable state, how are the civilians 
> expected to exist within it ?
>

WWIII was held at bay by a lot of things, but I don't think it was out of 
worry for international law or civilian suffering.

If Iran thought that such matters would make retalliation impossible they 
could launch against Israel as soon as they got their first bombs.   You 
have to at least convincingly pretend you're going to do it for MAD to be 
valid.

It's an understanding... a bargain.  I'll let you remain undestroyed if you 
let me remain undestroyed.  Payment is not using the power of destruction. 
If you're not willing to destroy you have no power of destruction.  That 
means you don't have any currency that's worth anything to the other party, 
and you get nothing, except what the other party choses to give you on their 
terms.  In Israel's case that might mean a safe one-way passage into exile 
for every Israeli citizen.


TWP

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote in message
>news:CCTmmND6wA4KFAin@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message , TWP
>>  writes
>>>
>
>
>> And 90% don't they live in an area as big as Iraq, Afghanistan and
>> Pakistan put together.
>>
>> You would need multiple nukes and that is unacceptable.
>
>You wouldn't have to take out everyone.  You have to disable the country as
>a viable state not kill everyone living there.

Quite and it is not possible for the USA or Israel to do that. All the
countries bordering Iran would object as would Europe, China, Russia,
India, Pakistan etc

As the USA has lost WWIII it is over a barrel.  The Chinese can take out
the US in about 4 hours without using any military hardware.

On the other hand to take out Israel as a viable state is one tactical
nuke and the majority of the world would cheer. The US veto no longer
counts for much any more.

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

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>news:BcXDm.324$5w5.212@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> "Chris H"  wrote in message
>>> news:CCTmmND6wA4KFAin@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message , TWP
>>>>  writes
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> And 90% don't they live in an area as big as Iraq, Afghanistan and
>>>> Pakistan put together.
>>>>
>>>> You would need multiple nukes and that is unacceptable.
>>>
>>> You wouldn't have to take out everyone.  You have to disable the country
>>> as a viable state not kill everyone living there.
>>
>> That's far easier said than done. Plus there's the slight technical
>> difficulty of collective punishment being a war crime under international
>> law. If you could make Iran a non-viable state, how are the civilians
>> expected to exist within it ?
>>
>
>WWIII was held at bay by a lot of things, but I don't think it was out of
>worry for international law or civilian suffering.

WWIII is in fact over bar the shouting...  The Chinese have the USA over
a barrel.

>If Iran thought that such matters would make retalliation impossible they
>could launch against Israel as soon as they got their first bombs.   You
>have to at least convincingly pretend you're going to do it for MAD to be
>valid.

There is no MAD in this case.

>terms.  In Israel's case that might mean a safe one-way passage into exile
>for every Israeli citizen.

That is true and was looking more likely the problem is the USA is less
likely to take them than it once was.
-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:BcXDm.324$5w5.212@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> "Chris H"  wrote in message 
>>> news:CCTmmND6wA4KFAin@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message , TWP
>>>>  writes
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> And 90% don't they live in an area as big as Iraq, Afghanistan and
>>>> Pakistan put together.
>>>>
>>>> You would need multiple nukes and that is unacceptable.
>>>
>>> You wouldn't have to take out everyone.  You have to disable the country 
>>> as a viable state not kill everyone living there.
>>
>> That's far easier said than done. Plus there's the slight technical 
>> difficulty of collective punishment being a war crime under international 
>> law. If you could make Iran a non-viable state, how are the civilians 
>> expected to exist within it ?
>>
>
> WWIII was held at bay by a lot of things, but I don't think it was out of 
> worry for international law or civilian suffering.

I'm not entirely sure of that. It's not just throwing the nukes / bombs but 
the consequences from that. It may well be a pyrrhic victory at best if 
acting gets one disowned on the world stage - Look at Saddam, controlled an 
exemplar state, had the world at his feet, the full support of the US, until 
he invaded Kuwait. Look at Israel whose reputation declined after the events 
in Lebanon. Look at the US who lost much support in the way it has waged its 
so-called war on terror, breaches of human rights for detainees, not to 
mention 'illegal invasion', so much so that the entire world has shifted on 
its axis and the US is no longer top dog.

Israel's had it pretty easy in terms of pressure applied from the 
international community. I doubt they'd be so comfortable if the same 
sanctions were applied as have been on others. The only thing which has 
saved Israel's bacon is that the US has unstintingly come to their defence 
and staved off censure no matter what Israel does. They can't rely on that 
always being the case, and know it.

None of that may stop a country acting, but most seem pretty rational 
despite the demonisations and would be well aware it wasn't an act which 
would have no consequences. That therefore becomes a restraining influence.

Of course, when a country feels it's already hated, that pressure upon it 
cannot get any worse, the threat of violence upon them is already there, 
that ceases to be. That's why simply threatening countries can often make 
things worse, make fears become self-fulfilling prophecies. Why they have to 
be handled with kid-gloves and patience not political bluster and continuous 
threats.