I guess this old war game means Iran will be a nuclear power soon?

[Dari]

Millennium Challenge 2002 showed that America would face a formidable enemy should it try to deny Iran of nuclear weapons. So, all this posturing and threats were useless? Sanctions never work and Israel cannot just bomb away the nuke sites without facing massive retaliation.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65150/andrew-f-krepinevich-jr/the-pentagons-wasting-assets

But this long record of military successes masks major geopolitical and technological trends that are rapidly eroding the advantages the U.S. military has long enjoyed. This was dramatically illustrated by a major exercise conducted earlier this decade. In the summer of 2002, the Pentagon conducted its largest war-gaming exercise since the end of the Cold War. Called Millennium Challenge 2002, it pitted the United States against an "unnamed Persian Gulf military" meant to be a stand-in for Iran. The outcome was disquieting: what many expected to be yet another demonstration of the United States' military might turned out to be anything but.

The "Iranian" forces, led by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper, successfully countered the U.S. forces at every turn. The U.S. fleet that steamed into the Persian Gulf found itself subjected to a surprise attack by swarms of Iranian suicide vessels and antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs). Well over half the U.S. ships were sunk or otherwise put out of action in what would have been the United States' worst naval disaster since Pearl Harbor. Meanwhile, Van Riper kept his Iranian cruise and ballistic missile forces on the move, frustrating the U.S. commanders' efforts to track and destroy them. Rather than turn his air-defense radars on and expose them to prompt destruction from U.S. aircraft armed with antiradiation missiles, Van Riper left his units' systems turned off. Since no one could be sure of where the Iranian defenses were positioned, it was risky for U.S. cargo aircraft to land and resupply the U.S. ground forces that had deployed on Iranian soil.

Exasperated and embarrassed at the success of the mock Iranian force, the senior U.S. commanders overseeing the war game's progress called for a "do-over." They directed the U.S. fleet to be "refloated" and compelled the enemy forces to turn on their radars and expose themselves to attack. The enemy missile forces were ordered to cease their evasive maneuvers. Recast in this manner -- and with Van Riper "relieved" of his command, apparently for having executed it too well -- the game proceeded to a much more agreeable conclusion.

The official results of Millennium Challenge may have validated the military's own ideas about its ability to project forces into contested areas. But Van Riper's success should have served as a warning: projecting power into an area of vital interest to the United States using traditional forces and operational concepts will become increasingly difficult. Indeed, these means and methods are at great risk of experiencing significant, perhaps even precipitous, declines in value.

The Millennium Challenge exercise was a harbinger of the growing problems of power projection -- especially in coastal zones, maritime chokepoints (such as the Strait of Hormuz), and constricted waters (such as the Persian Gulf). As the initial success of Van Riper's "Iranian" forces demonstrated, the risks in such areas are becoming progressively greater, especially when the United States is facing a clever adversary. In the real world, Iran and other states can buy high-speed, sea-skimming ASCMs in quantity. In confined waters near shore, U.S. warships would have little warning time to defend against these weapons. The same can be said of high-speed suicide boats packed with explosives, which can hide among commercial vessels. Widely available modern sea mines are far more difficult to detect than were those plaguing the U.S. fleet during the 1991 Gulf War. Quiet diesel submarines operating in noisy waters, such as the Strait of Hormuz, are very difficult to detect. Iran's possession of all of these weapons and vessels suggests that the Persian Gulf -- the jugular of the world's oil supply -- could become a no-go zone for the U.S. Navy.

 

[EXman]

I for one would be ok to let Isreal borrow some of our bunker busters and have at Iran's new underground complexes. Iran's leaders are insane holocaust deniers.

 

[Dari]

I for one would be ok to let Isreal borrow some of our bunker busters and have at Iran's new underground complexes. Iran's leaders are insane holocaust deniers.

What good would that do? When Israel attacked Iraq's Osirik nuclear facility, Jordan kept quiet. Do you really think the Islamists in Turkey would keep quiet if Israel flew over their country? Do you think the Iraqi government, with its Shia majority would keep quiet as well? IMHO, Iran has learned from Iraq's mistakes well and an air attack would be useless. If it wasn't Israel would have done it by now.

 

[BrownTown]

I for one would be ok to let Isreal borrow some of our bunker busters and have at Iran's new underground complexes. Iran's leaders are insane holocaust deniers.

I'm not sure how deep their underground complexes are, but a bunker buster can only go like 10-15 ft or something, if you put something 50 ft down nothing can get to it.

 

[StageLeft]

I'm not sure how deep their underground complexes are, but a bunker buster can only go like 10-15 ft or something, if you put something 50 ft down nothing can get to it.

We need Chuck. Chuck Norris, that is. Somebody please find him.

 

[Lemon law]

Yes I can see it all now, we drop Chuck Norris with a parachute and a shovel, and quick as a flash he will have the 50 plus feet of dirt all dug up so a bomb can get to it. Rinse and repeat for the other 40 or so Iranian nuclear sites. But wait, there are some layers of reinforced concrete too, so we better drop a jack hammer and an a huge compressor to power it also. And the dumb Iranians will think all the noise is made by concrete woodpeckers and not bother to investigate.

Or better yet, we could air drop ole Chuck with a shovel and without a parachute, and he would make a three foot crater at best.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Without resorting to a preemptive nuclear strike, and not necessarily air based, I don't think Israel can do much about Iran. It can do surgical hits like in Sudan, not an all out bombing campaign.

Besides, a nuclear Iran is the problem of the entire world, not just Israel, just like a nuclear Pakistan is more than the problem of India alone (wait until Taliban takes over the country). While it is politically best to leave the work to the "violent oppressing Jews", Israel shouldn't swallow the bait too soon.

 

[Dari]

Without resorting to a preemptive nuclear strike, and not necessarily air based, I don't think Israel can do much about Iran. It can do surgical hits like in Sudan, not an all out bombing campaign.

Besides, a nuclear Iran is the problem of the entire world, not just Israel, just like a nuclear Pakistan is more than the problem of India alone (wait until Taliban takes over the country). While it is politically best to leave the work to the "violent oppressing Jews", Israel shouldn't swallow the bait too soon.

I do not believe that an Iranian bomb is the world's problem. I also don't see a problem with countries that feel threatened getting nuclear weapons. Who are we to tell them what they can and cannot have? Who the fuck is France, Germany, and Britain to tell them the same? If they want it and can prevent others from preventing them from having it, I wouldn't care one bit. The reason is simple. As the article I referenced points out, when a regime goes against the United States, it is an existential fight whereas, for the U.S., the fight is merely a local fight. Hence, the countries that are threatened by American hegemony have a right to defend themselves anyway they see fit.

 

[woolfe9999]

Without resorting to a preemptive nuclear strike, and not necessarily air based, I don't think Israel can do much about Iran. It can do surgical hits like in Sudan, not an all out bombing campaign.

Don't be too sure of that. This issue has been analyzed and Israel has the capability of massively damaging Iran's nuclear program:

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/Publications/working_papers/wp_06-1.pdf

- wolf

 

[SamurAchzar]

I do not believe that an Iranian bomb is the world's problem. I also don't see a problem with countries that feel threatened getting nuclear weapons. Who are we to tell them what they can and cannot have? Who the fuck is France, Germany, and Britain to tell them the same? If they want it and can prevent others from preventing them from having it, I wouldn't care one bit. The reason is simple. As the article I referenced points out, when a regime goes against the United States, it is an existential fight whereas, for the U.S., the fight is merely a local fight. Hence, the countries that are threatened by American hegemony have a right to defend themselves anyway they see fit.

Whose side are you on? I don't care about justice and relativism, or post-modernist cultural tolerance. I like the West to have nukes and them to have AK's, and this is how I want to keep it. I don't care about their feelings much, I want my way of life to go on. Your position completely contradicts the evolutionary rule of 'survival of the fittest' - if you were a species, you'd be long extinct. France and Britain are still (emphasis that 'still', who knows what would happen in 40 years) predominately Christian, democratic countries with freedom of speech, opposition and human rights.

And I won't even mention the stupidity of allowing another country to join the nuclear club when everyone's eyes are on disarmament...

 

[SamurAchzar]

Don't be too sure of that. This issue has been analyzed and Israel has the capability of massively damaging Iran's nuclear program:

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/Publications/working_papers/wp_06-1.pdf

- wolf

Good read, many thanks for that.

 

[Dari]

Whose side are you on? I don't care about justice and relativism, or post-modernist cultural tolerance. I like the West to have nukes and them to have AK's, and this is how I want to keep it. I don't care about their feelings much, I want my way of life to go on. Your position completely contradicts the evolutionary rule of 'survival of the fittest' - if you were a species, you'd be long extinct. France and Britain are still (emphasis that 'still', who knows what would happen in 40 years) predominately Christian, democratic countries with freedom of speech, opposition and human rights.

Who side am I on? I'm an American and will always be on my country's side. However, I do not like to blow hot air or kiss people's ass. If my government asked me my opinion, I will tell them exactly what I just wrote. Unlike you, I'm pragmatic to understand that you should not/cannot keep a nation down without there being retribution. If we try to prevent the Iranians from having sophisticated weapons to defend themselves, it would be prohibitively expensive for the US. It just doesn't make sense and goes against the United State's tradition of engagement and cooperation with all nations on earth. If we were not so pragmatic do you think supranational organizations such as NATO, the UN, the WHO, IMF, World Bank, and our numerous allies would be in existence today?

 

[Craig234]

Whose side are you on? I don't care about justice and relativism, or post-modernist cultural tolerance. I like the West to have nukes and them to have AK's, and this is how I want to keep it. I don't care about their feelings much, I want my way of life to go on. Your position completely contradicts the evolutionary rule of 'survival of the fittest' - if you were a species, you'd be long extinct. France and Britain are still (emphasis that 'still', who knows what would happen in 40 years) predominately Christian, democratic countries with freedom of speech, opposition and human rights.

And I won't even mention the stupidity of allowing another country to join the nuclear club when everyone's eyes are on disarmament...

Funny enough, so do I - and that means not wanting you to get the benefit f it, since you are so abhorrent to the good values of justice and such. Just as I don't want Nazis and Stalinists in power, same for you.

You are the reason they neve a need for nukes.

Ironically, when they get them, it might assist disarmement. As you show so well, when only one side has them there's not much incentive for disarmament.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Who side am I on? I'm an American and will always be on my country's side. However, I do not like to blow hot air or kiss people's ass. If my government asked me my opinion, I will tell them exactly what I just wrote. Unlike you, I'm pragmatic to understand that you should not/cannot keep a nation down without there being retribution. If we try to prevent the Iranians from having sophisticated weapons to defend themselves, it would be prohibitively expensive for the US. It just doesn't make sense and goes against the United State's tradition of engagement and cooperation with all nations on earth. If we were not so pragmatic do you think supranational organizations such as NATO, the UN, the WHO, IMF, World Bank, and our numerous allies would be in existence today?

Good god. Why don't you just start handing out nuclear weapons too all countries on the globe just in the name of equality and self-defense? And who the hell is Iran defending itself from? Israel, who doesn't even share a border with Iran yet constantly harassed by the later via a double proxy war (Hizballah/Hamas)? Maybe Saudi Arabia and Egypt, again not sharing a border and scared to that of a nuclear Iran? Or is it US, your own country - do you support countries arming themselves to deter your own?

If a country who is NOT an ally of the US actively seeks nuclear weapons, it should be punished, pure and simple. Not by idiotic invasions like Iraq and Afghanistan, just tear their infrastructure down with bombing runs. After giving them a world riddled with debt and pollution, that's one thing our grandchildren will be thankful for.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Funny enough, so do I - and that means not wanting you to get the benefit f it, since you are so abhorrent to the good values of justice and such. Just as I don't want Nazis and Stalinists in power, same for you.

You are the reason they neve a need for nukes.

Ironically, when they get them, it might assist disarmement. As you show so well, when only one side has them there's not much incentive for disarmament.

I never said they don't *need* nukes. Today they are strategically the nation in the most desperate need of nukes if they want to get away with their future ambitions. It's just that I'm not willing to let them have them. They oppose my values, that's why they need their head kept down to the ground. Just like you oppress your domestic opposition (hint hint, you moron).

 

[Moonbeam]

Perhaps the real problem is that Israel has nuclear weapons which I don't think was very smart of them. Short term it gave them an advantage, but time will change that. It is going to take only one bomb to destroy Israel. Mad will only work one way for Israel. They can't destroy all Muslims and kicking most of them back in the stone age will mean only the loss of a few years progress. Israel is toast I fear. But they chose to confront rather than to make peace.

Maybe demanding Israel give up Nukes could still save them.

 

[Dari]

Good god. Why don't you just start handing out nuclear weapons too all countries on the globe just in the name of equality and self-defense? And who the hell is Iran defending itself from? Israel, who doesn't even share a border with Iran yet constantly harassed by the later via a double proxy war (Hizballah/Hamas)? Maybe Saudi Arabia and Egypt, again not sharing a border and scared to that of a nuclear Iran? Or is it US, your own country - do you support countries arming themselves to deter your own?

If a country who is NOT an ally of the US actively seeks nuclear weapons, it should be punished, pure and simple. Not by idiotic invasions like Iraq and Afghanistan, just tear their infrastructure down with bombing runs. After giving them a world riddled with debt and pollution, that's one thing our grandchildren will be thankful for.

I honestly do not care who has nukes. I only care who my enemies are. Of course, if we had dealt with the Iranian people in a fair and just manner like we treat other civilized nations, we would not be having this problem today. They are not hostile to us because they hate American football. They are hostile because we took away their democracy and supported a brutal regime. It is the same reason why Arabs hate us...because we support dictatorial regimes that duly suppresses the free will of the people. If we actually supported a long-term view of these nations, we would be more aggressive in bringing about a democratic change in these countries, peacefully.

Again, the United States would benefit more by engaging nations rather than suppressing their rights to defend themselves. They would not threaten us and risk annihilation if they did not fear us. Hence, they would have no need for nukes. However, considering the US would think twice about invading a nation that has nuclear weapons, I think their own nukes will put them at ease. Of course, they would also relax more if we became friendly with them but Israel opposes that. So, what choice do they have?

 

[Noobtastic]

Israel will eventual clean up America's mess, and of course bear all the guilt.

Just as Israel did the right thing and bombed Saddam's nuclear plants, the world condemned it. America almost sanctioned the state, even withholding an aid package for some time.

But then, in 2003, all of the sudden America and Britain had a change of heart and congratulated Israel for bombing Iraq.

How quickly things can change....

This is a great article explaining the origins of this conflict and how Israel will deal with it:

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/guest/entry/israel_america_s_shaheed_posted

While the Bush admin. began threatening Iran with attack from 2005-2007, eventually he knew it wasn't a feasible option at the time...and soon the now-infamous 2007 NIE "intelligence" report concluded Iran did not have the capacity to build nuclear weapons, nor was there any evidence that it has jumped-stated its nuclear program.

Of course, this was not consistent with the intelligence of the Mossad, MI6, CIA, and BND....but hey, the Guardian, BBC, and most of the liberal media had no problem citing it over and over again to give Israel the appearance as an aggressor...because hey, intelligence says Iran poses no threat.

Now, in 2010, a new NIE report has come out...basically demolishing the 2007 report, and citing Iran has resumed its nuclear program, but is "not trying to build a weapon."

Hmmm. Two different estimates for two different administrations.

Unlike Bush, Obama LOVES diplomacy. He truly believes he can woo Iran to drop its nukes simply with "dialogue" because that's how great he thinks he is.

But there are signs the the West and its allies are pressing Israel for an attack on Iran.

For example, Egypt's state-run media has suddenly engaged in several pro-Israel activities. A recent article published in one of their most popular newspapers carried a state lauding Israel's Mossad chief, Dagan, claiming his leadership alone delayed Iran's nuclear program by several years.

This is the same media that routinely claims Israel wants to genocide the Palestinians and take over the Middle East.

The Egyptian government even allowed an Israeli submarine to travel near its waters.

There is evidence the Saudis have agreed to allow Israel to use its airspace in the event of an attack. Supposedly, the two states are sharing evidence with each other.

Unreal considering Saudi Arabia is one of the most anti-Israeli states in the Middle East.

And a donor of Hamas.

Ultimately, Iran is a "made-in-america" problem that is going to be handled by Israel. And when Israel acts, it alone will be blamed for the financial and political crisis that ensues.

Look at Operation Cast Lead. Since then, antisemitism has never been this high in World War II. Imagine what an attack on Iran will lead the millions of antisemites and their media supporters to do to their Jewish population.

Government ministers from France and Britain, who previously were more neutral in regards to Israel and the Iran, are now saying Israel will bomb Iran if the world does not engage the rogue state.

This is important to note. France's formally military chief said Israel will never be able to bomb Iran and its too late.

Now the PM says something entirely different.

I think we all know deep down Israel will do what it thinks is right for its people, and the world will condemn it universally. I'm sure it wishes a more pro-Israel president was in office, but unfortunately that simply is not the case.

 

[Dari]

Israel will eventual clean up America's mess, and of course bear all the guilt.

Just as Israel did the right thing and bombed Saddam's nuclear plants, the world condemned it. America almost sanctioned the state, even withholding an aid package for some time.

But then, in 2003, all of the sudden America and Britain had a change of heart and congratulated Israel for bombing Iraq.

How quickly things can change....

This is a great article explaining the origins of this conflict and how Israel will deal with it:

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/guest/entry/israel_america_s_shaheed_posted

While the Bush admin. began threatening Iran with attack from 2005-2007, eventually he knew it wasn't a feasible option at the time...and soon the now-infamous 2007 NIE "intelligence" report concluded Iran did not have the capacity to build nuclear weapons, nor was there any evidence that it has jumped-stated its nuclear program.

Of course, this was not consistent with the intelligence of the Mossad, MI6, CIA, and BND....but hey, the Guardian, BBC, and most of the liberal media had no problem citing it over and over again to give Israel the appearance as an aggressor...because hey, intelligence says Iran poses no threat.

Now, in 2010, a new NIE report has come out...basically demolishing the 2007 report, and citing Iran has resumed its nuclear program, but is "not trying to build a weapon."

Hmmm. Two different estimates for two different administrations.

Unlike Bush, Obama LOVES diplomacy. He truly believes he can woo Iran to drop its nukes simply with "dialogue" because that's how great he thinks he is.

But there are signs the the West and its allies are pressing Israel for an attack on Iran.

For example, Egypt's state-run media has suddenly engaged in several pro-Israel activities. A recent article published in one of their most popular newspapers carried a state lauding Israel's Mossad chief, Dagan, claiming his leadership alone delayed Iran's nuclear program by several years.

This is the same media that routinely claims Israel wants to genocide the Palestinians and take over the Middle East.

The Egyptian government even allowed an Israeli submarine to travel near its waters.

There is evidence the Saudis have agreed to allow Israel to use its airspace in the event of an attack. Supposedly, the two states are sharing evidence with each other.

Unreal considering Saudi Arabia is one of the most anti-Israeli states in the Middle East.

And a donor of Hamas.

Ultimately, Iran is a "made-in-america" problem that is going to be handled by Israel. And when Israel acts, it alone will be blamed for the financial and political crisis that ensues.

Look at Operation Cast Lead. Since then, antisemitism has never been this high in World War II. Imagine what an attack on Iran will lead the millions of antisemites and their media supporters to do to their Jewish population.

Government ministers from France and Britain, who previously were more neutral in regards to Israel and the Iran, are now saying Israel will bomb Iran if the world does not engage the rogue state.

This is important to note. France's formally military chief said Israel will never be able to bomb Iran and its too late.

Now the PM says something entirely different.

I think we all know deep down Israel will do what it thinks is right for its people, and the world will condemn it universally. I'm sure it wishes a more pro-Israel president was in office, but unfortunately that simply is not the case.

lol. When Israel starts listening to foreigners, let alone Egypt, on who it should attack, the country is in deep trouble.

 

[Noobtastic]

lol. When Israel starts listening to foreigners, let alone Egypt, on who it should attack, the country is in deep trouble.

the country isn't listening to foreigners, but the USA knows it cannot tolerate a nuclear iran.

it will send the middle east into an arms race and eventually permanently jeopardize the flow of oil for the west.

the arab states are secretly afraid of a nuclear iran because unlike israel, they lack a nuclear deterrent.

and as indifferent as they are to israel's survival, they certainly care about their own.

a nuclear iran would pose a long-term threat to their interests and define the sunni-shia rivalry.

 

[Dari]

the country isn't listening to foreigners, but the USA knows it cannot tolerate a nuclear iran.

it will send the middle east into an arms race and eventually permanently jeopardize the flow of oil for the west.

the arab states are secretly afraid of a nuclear iran because unlike israel, they lack a nuclear deterrent.

and as indifferent as they are to israel's survival, they certainly care about their own.

a nuclear iran would pose a long-term threat to their interests and define the sunni-shia rivalry.

So what? The arabs are not children. If they want, they can invest in nuclear technology, like Dubai did recently. Again, how can we expect to bully and threaten nations indefinitely without them getting something to defend themselves? It just doesn't make sense and goes towards the fact that some politicians like to think short term. Israel and America could not have expected to have such overwhelming advantage over their enemies forever, could they?

 

[Noobtastic]

So what? The arabs are not children.

Yes they are.

If they want, they can invest in nuclear technology, like Dubai did recently. Again, how can we expect to bully and threaten nations indefinitely without them getting something to defend themselves?

Tell me, who is the bully?

The entire Arab world is protected by the US defense umbrella.

Who do you think is selling all these countries weapons? Egypt and Saudi Arabia will receive over 30 billion in aid between now and 2020. Saudi Arabia has purchased over 90 billion in US military hardware.

Dubai is also purchasing massive amounts of weapons.

It just doesn't make sense and goes towards the fact that some politicians like to think short term. Israel and America could not have expected to have such overwhelming advantage over their enemies forever, could they?

It doesn't make sense to protect oil interests?

Well, let me know when gas hits $400 a barrel. You'll be wishing Israel did what had to be done.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Perhaps the real problem is that Israel has nuclear weapons which I don't think was very smart of them. Short term it gave them an advantage, but time will change that. It is going to take only one bomb to destroy Israel. Mad will only work one way for Israel. They can't destroy all Muslims and kicking most of them back in the stone age will mean only the loss of a few years progress. Israel is toast I fear. But they chose to confront rather than to make peace.

Maybe demanding Israel give up Nukes could still save them.

As opposed to Dari and the rest of the relativist bleeding hearts, I don't think Iran would cared if Israel has or has not nuclear weapons when it came to develop its own. It would have developed them anyway. By your rational, Egypt, Jordan and Syria should have developed nukes long ago, when they knew Israel has nuclear capabilities right at the end of the 60's. Not only did they pass on that, but they also kept attacking Israel, meaning they did not consider it a threat.

I think Israel shares your view of the MAD rational when it comes to itself. They know Israel is too small to protect itself in case of a nuclear attack, so it works in three ways:

1. Assuring its adversaries can't acquire these technologies
2. Efficient anti missile defense, perhaps the most advanced in the world. Having a small area has its advantages
3. Assuring no one would escape its counter strike in case things come to worst and it's attacked by unconventional means

I think this doctrine is pretty effective, being that it held nuclear exclusivity in the Middle East for quite some time. We'll see how it comes out from this round with Iran.

 

[Dari]

I'm surprise nobody wants to talk about the wargame and how it was a miserable failure yet you guys want to fantasize about Israel doing the impossible of de-nuclearizing Iran by air. I think the 2006 Lebanon War showed that Israel is not the invincable Army it once was. Stop the fantisies and start talking to Iran.

 

[Moonbeam]

As opposed to Dari and the rest of the relativist bleeding hearts, I don't think Iran would cared if Israel has or has not nuclear weapons when it came to develop its own. It would have developed them anyway. By your rational, Egypt, Jordan and Syria should have developed nukes long ago, when they knew Israel has nuclear capabilities right at the end of the 60's. Not only did they pass on that, but they also kept attacking Israel, meaning they did not consider it a threat.

I think Israel shares your view of the MAD rational when it comes to itself. They know Israel is too small to protect itself in case of a nuclear attack, so it works in three ways:

1. Assuring its adversaries can't acquire these technologies
2. Efficient anti missile defense, perhaps the most advanced in the world. Having a small area has its advantages
3. Assuring no one would escape its counter strike in case things come to worst and it's attacked by unconventional means

I think this doctrine is pretty effective, being that it held nuclear exclusivity in the Middle East for quite some time. We'll see how it comes out from this round with Iran.

It will take only one bomb and it doesn't have to land from some known source. It also doesn't have to be made by anybody in particular. If you act in such a way aw to cause a billion people to want your death, somebody in that billion will find a way. Had Israel focused on desalinization and sharing, for instance, I don't see why folk would want them dead.

This is my opinion. I am a nobody and I don't matter at all, but I think the path Israel chose leads to death. It makes me sad. There isn't really any assurance you can give me that will change that. I see it all as your own need not to see what is inevitably obvious to me. I don't wish you ill. I am sad because I see so much that is potential and will turn to dust.