Matrix Games Forums

Hello everyone.

I'd like to enlist the community's help in determining which US brigades and divisions would be involved in a possible regime change invasion of Iran sometime in 2005-2006.

This is a rather oblique request, as I'm not planning to do a scenario on this particular subject,rather, it would help me determine which US units would not be available for the actual fictional crisis I have in mind.

There are a few fixed blocks in this picture :
-Occupation duties in Afghanistan and Iraq would be handed over to National Guard units. I'm thinking 4 divs in Iraq and 2 in Afghanistan.
-Tensions with North Korea about its nuclear program are still elevated, so the 2nd Infantry Div and the III MEF would most likely be kept to act as a deterrent.

Due to Iran's mountainous terrain, it's very likely that the invasion OOB would not contain too many Armored/Mechanized formations.

Here is my input regarding the possible US ground OOB :

-I MEF and/or II MEF
-101st Airborne and/or 82nd Airborne
-25th Inf Div
-10th Mtn Div

-1-2 Mechanized Infantry Divisions (The South-Western border province of Khuzestan is pretty much the only region suitable for armored warfare.An Armored division seems like overkill)

Feedback please.

Too big? Too small? Too light?

Apologize for the bump but... really,nobody? I mean,I know my way around post-cold war OOBs,but a 2nd opinion never hurts.

ORIGINAL: Radu

Apologize for the bump but... really,nobody? I mean,I know my way around post-cold war OOBs,but a 2nd opinion never hurts.

as I'm not planning to do a scenario on this particular subject,rather, it would help me determine which US units would not be available for the actual fictional crisis I have in mind.

Speaking for myself, I'm more interested in 'the actual fictional crisis.' What's that supposed to be?

Anyway, what are the goals of the invasion supposed to be? By 2005-2006, not even the Bush administration could have still been deluded enough to think 150,000 men would suffice to subdue all of Iran. I mean, they could go somewhere and take it -- but that's a different matter.

Obviously, therefore, what the goals are has everything to do with whether the force you describe is too big, too small, or just right.

1) The Iran invasion would have the purpose of regime change. You are right that it would not be anywhere near an Iraqi "cakewalk" because if its sheer size (something like France+Germany+Spain), population (70 mil as opposed to Iraq's 26) and political life,however...

a) Because of the objective being regime change, the targets really are population centers (for occupation that is). In the case of Iran, the population is concentrated in the western half of the country. The easiest way to tell is to look at the provincial partition of Iran .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blank ... Bodies.PNG

You can easily see that provinces to the west are smaller which implies a higher population density. For the same reason,the provinces of east-central Iran are much larger in surface and proportionally smaller in population.

Thus, the US's main (or initial) thrust would stop along the Tehran-Eshfahan-Shiraz line, roughly. Most of Iran's main population centers are no farther from the Iran-Iraq border than Baghdad was from the Kuwaiti border. You can GoogleEarth some measurements.

b) Iran's population, though numbering some 70 million, is rather heterogenous to an extent that I confess surprised me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran

Only slightly more than half of Iran's population are actually ethnic Persians (55% - wiki), with a mix of Azeris plus various Kurd,Arabic and Turkic ethnicities making up the rest.

For example,it is no coincidence that the south-eastern border province of Khuzestan, the oil heartland of Iran, was also known as Arabsitan (no bullsh*t , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabistan ) due to it being the main home for Iran's Arab minority.In fact there was an article called "The Khuzestan Gambit" that advocated stirring up trouble there then sending in coalition troops to 'liberate' with the added bonus of kicking Iran in the groin,economically speaking.

One can reasonably assume that the Bush administration would seek to stoke any and all simmering tensions and try to create new ones in this diverse demographic terrain and there could be chances for success.

In conclusion, there are some elements that might make Iran look like Iraq if one really wanted to look at things this way (and I would accuse the higher-ups of the Bush admin of that), even though I completely agree with you that a US foray into Iran would not be anywhere near like the one in Iraq.

2) About the fictional crisis, it's an idea I flirted with before, namely a US regime-change visit in Romania.

I thought it would be an interesting scenario because it would an antithesis of the Iraq war in some ways.

Particularly, in the case of Iraq the population centers were concentrated in a narrow NW-SE direction on the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris, thus why the Coalition could afford to engage only two spearhead divisions, the US 3rd Inf and the UK 1st Armd.

In the case of Romania, most of the main population centers are strewn along the breadth the Western and Southern Plain but with 6-7 of the top 10 largest Romanian cities being little more than 100 miles of either the Hungarian or Bulgarian borders.

Thus, a US Barbarossa-style fan-out-dash-for-all-objectives and a Romanian Stalingrad-style counterattack on the flanks of one US axis of advance or another... We'll see,but there is potential for fun.

Naturally,if Romania had the US's undivided attention, a game like Close Combat (perhaps a mod, the CCV Stalingrad mod was nice) rather than TOAW would offer any kind of entertainment from that experience. Thank God for Iran,eh?

P.S. : Oh,and hello to you! Long time no speak. Is the TDG site down for good,btw?

ORIGINAL: Radu

1) The Iran invasion would have the purpose of regime change. You are right that it would not be anywhere near an Iraqi "cakewalk" because if its sheer size (something like France+Germany+Spain), population (70 mil as opposed to Iraq's 26) and political life,however...

a) Because of the objective being regime change, the targets really are population centers (for occupation that is). In the case of Iran, the population is concentrated in the western half of the country. The easiest way to tell is to look at the provincial partition of Iran .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blank ... Bodies.PNG

You can easily see that provinces to the west are smaller which implies a higher population density. For the same reason,the provinces of east-central Iran are much larger in surface and proportionally smaller in population.

Thus, the US's main (or initial) thrust would stop along the Tehran-Eshfahan-Shiraz line, roughly. Most of Iran's main population centers are no farther from the Iran-Iraq border than Baghdad was from the Kuwaiti border. You can GoogleEarth some measurements.

b) Iran's population, though numbering some 70 million, is rather heterogenous to an extent that I confess surprised me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran

Only slightly more than half of Iran's population are actually ethnic Persians (55% - wiki), with a mix of Azeris plus various Kurd,Arabic and Turkic ethnicities making up the rest.

For example,it is no coincidence that the south-eastern border province of Khuzestan, the oil heartland of Iran, was also known as Arabsitan (no bullsh*t , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabistan ) due to it being the main home for Iran's Arab minority.In fact there was an article called "The Khuzestan Gambit" that advocated stirring up trouble there then sending in coalition troops to 'liberate' with the added bonus of kicking Iran in the groin,economically speaking.

One can reasonably assume that the Bush administration would seek to stoke any and all simmering tensions and try to create new ones in this diverse demographic terrain and there could be chances for success.

I may be getting into what might turn out to be a ferocious argument, but I disagree -- and our lack of action suggests that perhaps the Bush administration did as well. Absent the willingness to send in an occupation force of circa 500,000 and -- more importantly -- a willingness to kill several hundred thousand people and rule by naked terror, I don't think there would be any prospect for success at all.

Since we couldn't afford the political costs of such an action, 'regime change' in Iran -- at least via armed invasion -- was not an option.

In conclusion, there are some elements that might make Iran look like Iraq if one really wanted to look at things this way (and I would accuse the higher-ups of the Bush admin of that), even though I completely agree with you that a US foray into Iran would not be anywhere near like the one in Iraq.

2) About the fictional crisis, it's an idea I flirted with before, namely a US regime-change visit in Romania.

I thought it would be an interesting scenario because it would an antithesis of the Iraq war in some ways.

Particularly, in the case of Iraq the population centers were concentrated in a narrow NW-SE direction on the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris, thus why the Coalition could afford to engage only two spearhead divisions, the US 3rd Inf and the UK 1st Armd.

In the case of Romania, most of the main population centers are strewn along the breadth the Western and Southern Plain but with 6-7 of the top 10 largest Romanian cities being little more than 100 miles of either the Hungarian or Bulgarian borders.

Thus, a US Barbarossa-style fan-out-dash-for-all-objectives and a Romanian Stalingrad-style counterattack on the flanks of one US axis of advance or another... We'll see,but there is potential for fun.

Naturally,if Romania had the US's undivided attention, a game like Close Combat (perhaps a mod, the CCV Stalingrad mod was nice) rather than TOAW would offer any kind of entertainment from that experience. Thank God for Iran,eh?

P.S. : Oh,and hello to you! Long time no speak. Is the TDG site down for good,btw?

It lingers on. http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/index.php

Now that you remind me, this does sound familiar. But why are we invading Rumania? You just aren't offensive enough -- and in case you haven't noticed, our zeal to bring the blessings of 'secular democracy' to others via armed force is highly selective.

Anyway, assuming Rumania somehow became outrageous enough in some way to merit our guidance and correction, the operation would almost certainly involve the participation of other European states. This would be all the truer if we had somehow blundered into what would be a rapidly deepening crisis in Iran. In those circumstances, Rumania would probably be able to get away with just about anything it could imagine. At any rate, it would have a hard time provoking us without also exciting its neighbors into action. Something involving Hungary?

Anyway, if you want to restrict US forces somehow, why don't you posit something more limited? Like we've committed ourselves to 'peacekeeping' operations in Lebanon on behalf of Israel? Israel's operations there in 2006 have turned out differently than they did. This has the happy advantage that you can always posit an extension into Syria if you need to see more US troops tied up. Perhaps even Jordan.

1) Regarding Iran. You're right, in the context of things happening historically.

However, suppose Iran would have opened its AT and AA weapons stores to the Shiite (and heck maybe even Sunni!) insurgency in Iraq. It would have made the insurgency deadlier perhaps to the extent where the Bush administration would have to decide either to leave Iraq or strike at Iran, the main sponsor of the insurgency.

Remember that there was a lot of buzz about "Iranian weapons killing American soldiers". Well, what if those allegations were proven right beyond a half-handful of incidents involving RPG-29s that actually happened IRL?

If Iran did prop up the Iraq insurgency in a decisive manner like US and Pakistan did in 1980s Afghanistan,right down to cynically encouraging an unholy Unified Sunni-Shiite Front, it would likely push the Bush admin too far.

However, "Iran" is just a label for "Significant Major Theater War on the Horizon". I mean,I could live with another crisis of the same caliber, be it the 2006 Lebanon War degenerating into an invasion of Syria or an imminent war with North Korea, or a grave crisis in Taiwan or whatever trouble.

2) Why Romania?

Well, it's true that Romania isn't much trouble as it is.

However... enter the coup. From here,it's easy. This new govt needs to tick a few boxes in the "Reasons to invade" department.

Actually, this is an interesting exercise. Why does the US invade when it does?

(in no particular order)

A) Country must be relatively weak militarily, or at least percieved so => CHECK!
B) Country's govt must threaten corporate US interests => CHECK

The Bechtel Corp has significant vested interest in Romania, namely the Transylvania Highway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A3_(Romania)

Short story, truckload of money paid, miserable progress.

Say the new govt wants to sever the contract, without paying the stipulated penalties (which are HUGE). Piss off a major US corp,bad idea.

C) Country must not just slide away from US influence, but turn over to the "bag guys" => CHECK

In this case, the Romanian coup being viewed as a move on behalf of Russia. A story that the old "democratic" govt in exile in some European capital, would repeat ad nauseam.Naturally,this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as the threat of regime change leads Romania right into Russia's arms because it becomes Romania's only weapons supplier.

This branches into other directions as well. The fall of a US-friendly govt in the "New" Europe will be most unwelcome in the context of the "color" revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia.

In short, it is interpreted as Russia coming back in the context where the US is already being mocked by North Korea and Iran.

D) Country is accused of ethnic cleansing => CHECK

Hungarian minority in Transylvania. Of course, this doesn't have to actually be true, but the US can make it sound like it is.

E) Govt must be a dictatorship or at least a non-functional democracy => Check

I know,I know, that's not really a strong argument, but it helps any smear campaign the US launches at home and abroad.

F) Must be a clear,palpable threat to its neighbours and/or the US, or at least have such a history => FAIL! of course (had to include a Fail)

So while a fictional borderline casus belli can be manufactured, you are right that Romania can't beat the "heavies".

But this will most likely translate into lesser European intervention. Something like :

"Bush mucked things up in Afghanistan then launched his personal war in Iraq and now he's massing troops in Hungary and Bulgaria railing something about Russians in Bucharest today, Paris tomorrow. Our patience is running thin with this clown.."

I mean, the EU major countries,whose millions of euros the corrupt Romania political elite has syphoned off for years through programs like PHARE and the rest, would know exactly why the coup happened and would be none too thrilled to see the US propping the old faces back.

If anything, it would widen the divide between the US and the more skeptical of EU countries.

However, the UK could pitch in, as would probably Australia (prime minister Howard and all that). Canada maybe? Just to fill in the gaps in the arguably wide frontage.

ORIGINAL: Radu


A) Country must be relatively weak militarily, or at least percieved so => CHECK!
B) Country's govt must threaten corporate US interests => CHECK

The last four countries we invaded were Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, and Panama. The assertion that 'US corporate interests' were threatened in Grenada and Afghanistan is obviously untenable, Iraq had a socialized economy, and I'm not aware of any 'US corporate interest' in Panama of sufficient magnitude to prompt invasion.

On the other hand, we tolerated Mexico nationalizing our oil interests in the 1930's, failed to respond to the Iranian revolution, and have consistently supported Israel in spite of the manifest and severe effect it has on relations with countries where we do have corporate interests -- like Saudi Arabia.

I don't think much of US foreign policy. However, I become impatient when it is asserted that it is driven by 'corporate interests.' Would that it were; it would be a lot more rational and perhaps more ethical.

ORIGINAL: Radu


...I mean, the EU major countries,whose millions of euros the corrupt Romania political elite has syphoned off for years through programs like PHARE and the rest, would know exactly why the coup happened and would be none too thrilled to see the US propping the old faces back.

If anything, it would widen the divide between the US and the more skeptical of EU countries.

However, the UK could pitch in, as would probably Australia (prime minister Howard and all that). Canada maybe? Just to fill in the gaps in the arguably wide frontage.

Now you're just explaining why it wouldn't happen. Absent any European support for the operation, it's highly unlikely we would do anything. Witness Serbia -- it took years for anything to happen.

Now, if say, the Hungarian minority prompts Hungarian intervention, Hungary is seen to be in the right, it is supported by other European states, and there is a genuine fear of 'ethnic cleansing' in Transylvania, you might get US action.

...not because Bechtel's going to lose a few bucks. No offense, but you really have to do something pretty genuinely abhorrent to prompt us to attack. One can argue about other motives, but a sin qua non is really morally repellent behavior on the part of the invadee -- or at least gross unpopularity. Proximity to Israel will also work. Witness those nations we have have invaded or intervened in:

Lebanon: Israel needed a fig-leaf to cover her withdrawal from Beirut.

Grenada: unpopular, unstable, violent dictatorship. On the island, universal gratitude when we got rid of whoever that man was.

Panama: supporting drug trafficking into the United States.

Serbia: came up with 'ethnic cleansing.'

Somalia: anarchy leading to mass starvation

Afghanistan: openly sheltered perpetrators of 9-11. Not really very palatable in any other respect, either. It's telling that Iran (of all people) was quietly happy to see us go in.

Iraq: most egregiously evil dictator since Hitler/Stalin. Given to invading neighbors. Liked to slaughter components of his own population. Almost comically repressive, brutal dictatorship. Failed to...really, the list goes on and on.

Now, one can point out other cases where perhaps we should have acted. One can also legitimately argue that other, less presentable, motives prompted our actions. One can certainly point out how we muffed the post-game party/made matters worse/should have done something sooner/done something different/done something later.

However, the point remains that one does need to be genuinely evil to qualify for US intervention...or at least be upsetting Israel. One of these really is a prerequisite. You seem to be unwilling to posit the first, and it's unlikely of course that Romania will manage to move to the top of Israel's shit list.

So how can this invasion happen? We really do need piles of dead Hungarians or something. Else, no invasion. We have our standards to keep up, you know. Not everyone can be invaded. When it comes to Romania, I just cannot visualize a scenario where the other European states are unwilling to act, but we are.

...As to Iran, if you really want us to be there, I'd recommend assuming that we've seized the oil ports or something. That's doable, and it would certainly put Iran's panties in a twist.

ORIGINAL: Radu


"Bush mucked things up in Afghanistan then launched his personal war in Iraq and now he's massing troops in Hungary and Bulgaria railing something about Russians in Bucharest today, Paris tomorrow. Our patience is running thin with this clown.."

Bush certainly had his weaknesses. A willingness to blindly do whatever Israel instructed him to do, and a belief that it was good, right, moral, and practical to bring 'secular democracy' to the Islamic world.

However, neither one of these gets him pointed at Romania. Even 'Russians in Bucharest' would require a real, genuine Russian resurgence. Notice our rather apathetic response to the uproar in Georgia -- and that was a state that was emphatically allied with us. Even had troops in Iraq.

The list of motives isn't complete, neither are any of the individual points necessary or sufficient. That is, some countries fulfilled some conditions, some others, some had a long list but weren't invaded, others were first-time offenders and were quickly nipped in the bud.

My rationale was that if any US president would invade,it would be Bush the son.

About the US apathy in the Georgia-S Ossetia thing, maybe it was because it would have led to a direct confrontation with Russia. In this case it would merely be against a percieved new Russian satellite. Sure,with Russian equipment, maybe a few "volunteer" pilots as well.

But you're right that the deal could to be "sweetened". If anything, having the targetee perform 'evil' acts (quotes not meant as ironic) greases the wheels for support at home for a given action even.

Ok,how does serious ethnic violence against the gypsy minority sound?

ORIGINAL: Radu

The list of motives isn't complete, neither are any of the individual points necessary or sufficient. That is, some countries fulfilled some conditions, some others, some had a long list but weren't invaded, others were first-time offenders and were quickly nipped in the bud.

My rationale was that if any US president would invade,it would be Bush the son.

Yeah. That 'neo-con' influence and the 'New American Century' (which seems to be over) certainly created a window of opportunity. Still, it would help a lot if you were Muslim.

About the US apathy in the Georgia-S Ossetia thing, maybe it was because it would have led to a direct confrontation with Russia. In this case it would merely be against a percieved new Russian satellite. Sure,with Russian equipment, maybe a few "volunteer" pilots as well.

But you're right that the deal could to be "sweetened". If anything, having the targetee perform 'evil' acts (quotes not meant as ironic) greases the wheels for support at home for a given action even.

Ok,how does serious ethnic violence against the gypsy minority sound?

That could work. Gypsies are always a good choice.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
. . . blindly do whatever Israel instructed him to do . . .

Hmmm, what is the source of this bit of insider information? You know people in the State or Defense Departments that you would like to quote? Bush received and followed instructions from Israel? Sounds like you are either tuned into the National Enquirer or engaging in pure fabrication . . . pure fabrication is also known as slander.

Regards, RhinoBones

Hey,no hijacking the thread! [:-]

The relationship between the US and Israel and the extent to which pro-Israel groups (like AIPAC) make or break things in US political life are reserved for off-topic sections or private discussions.

Thank you

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


Hmmm, what is the source of this bit of insider information...Bush received and followed instructions from Israel?

"...Rice did not end up voting for Resolution 1860, thanks to a phone conversation he [Olmert] held with US President George Bush shortly before the vote, Olmert told a meeting of local authority heads in Ashkelon as part of a visit to the South.

Upon receiving word that the US was planning to vote in favor of the resolution - viewed by Israel as impractical and failing to address its security concerns - Olmert demanded to get Bush on the phone, and refused to back down after being told that the president was delivering a lecture in Philadelphia. Bush interrupted his lecture to answer Olmert's call, the premier said.

America could not vote in favor of such a resolution, Olmert told Bush. Soon afterwards, Rice abstained when votes were counted at the UN..."

-- Jerusalem Post

The story is also in Haaretz, and Olmert has (rather foolishly) insisted that his statements are accurate. Indeed, it seems that his account is essentially correct.

As Radu says, it's off-topic. However, I did want to that demonstrate your claim that I had no source for my remark was bumph.

Sounds like you are either tuned into the National Enquirer or engaging in pure fabrication . . . pure fabrication is also known as slander.

Regards, RhinoBones

...and you promptly resort to your usual flailing (and in this case, quite unprovoked) insults. Happily, I wouldn't even want to have your approval. You can judge a man by his friends...and by his enemies. Your enmity is positively reassuring.

ORIGINAL: Radu

Hey,no hijacking the thread! [:-]

The relationship between the US and Israel and the extent to which pro-Israel groups (like AIPAC) make or break things in US political life are reserved for off-topic sections or private discussions.

Thank you

Yeah. I haven't the energy and this isn't the place. However, I did need to qualify my assertions about the essentially ethical prequisites for US action. If this provoked a charge from Rhinobones, I can't help it -- and I will respond to his attacks.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

. . . If this provoked a charge from Rhinobones, I can't help it -- and I will respond to his attacks.

Oops . . . now I've gone and done it, hurt your feelings too. What can I say . . . . I’m sorry. In fact you seem to feel so hurt that you think you’re being attacked when all I was looking for was the source of your information and pointing out that good little boys do not make up fibs.

As the "authoritative" source you quote a news paper article which the Israeli Government says is essentially correct. But what do you really know? You know that the Israeli Government took exception to UN Resolution 1860, you know that a conversation took place between Governments and that in the vote the US said no.

What is it don't you know? The article does not identify the exceptions, you will certainly never know if there were any strategic considerations, you will never know if any prior agreements were in violation, you will never know if there were any geopolitical consideration and you do not know if the Israeli Government made concessions on other topics and you will probably never meet a person who was they to give you a first hand account. But yet with a clear vision of ignorance you declared that the US Government "blindly followed instructions" from a foreign Government.

How could you make such a stretch? Personal agenda? Even my most ardent Bay area libertarian friends get their facts straight before jumping off the bridge.

Regards, RhinoBones

PS - Would have said sorry sooner, but I've been on a plane all night.

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

. . . If this provoked a charge from Rhinobones, I can't help it -- and I will respond to his attacks.

Oops . . . now I've gone and done it, hurt your feelings too.

What can I say . . . . I’m sorry. In fact you seem to feel so hurt that you think you’re being attacked when all I was looking for was the source of your information and pointing out that good little boys do not make up fibs.

And I provided the source of the information. Mysteriously, you're even more irate than before.

As the "authoritative" source you quote a news paper article which the Israeli Government says is essentially correct. But what do you really know? You know that the Israeli Government took exception to UN Resolution 1860, you know that a conversation took place between Governments and that in the vote the US said no.

What is it don't you know? The article does not identify the exceptions, you will certainly never know if there were any strategic considerations, you will never know if any prior agreements were in violation, you will never know if there were any geopolitical consideration and you do not know if the Israeli Government made concessions on other topics and you will probably never meet a person who was they to give you a first hand account. But yet with a clear vision of ignorance you declared that the US Government "blindly followed instructions" from a foreign Government.

How could you make such a stretch? Personal agenda? Even my most ardent Bay area libertarian friends get their facts straight before jumping off the bridge.

Regards, RhinoBones

PS - Would have said sorry sooner, but I've been on a plane all night.

You claimed I didn't have a source. I cited my source. What is it that you're complaining about now?

You're not even referring to anything that actually happened. The US never voted 'no.' No one ever said they did.

Yes, you are correct. Rice abstained. There was not a “No” vote. There, happy now?

But back to the primary question, where did you get the information that Bush “blindly followed instructions”? Did you make that up? It certainly is not supported in the news article.

Speaking of news paper articles . . . I am certain that you would not accept a news paper article as an authoritative source and that is, after all, what I requested. So why do you try to offer it here as evidence? Seems that besides making up stuff you also seem to have a double standard for back up material.

Where did “blindly followed instructions” come from?

I see that you deleted “There is no stretch” from your original post. Guess you thought it better not to try to deny that you made up the words. Honorable.

Regards, RhinoBones

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Yes, you are correct. Rice abstained. There was not a “No” vote. There, happy now?

But back to the primary question, where did you get the information that Bush “blindly followed instructions”? Did you make that up? It certainly is not supported in the news article.

Speaking of news paper articles . . . I am certain that you would not accept a news paper article as an authoritative source and that is, after all, what I requested. So why do you try to offer it here as evidence? Seems that besides making up stuff you also seem to have a double standard for back up material.

Where did “blindly followed instructions” come from?

I see that you deleted “There is no stretch” from your original post. Guess you thought it better not to try to deny that you made up the words. Honorable.

Regards, RhinoBones

I find it difficult to imagine what you would regard as an authoritative source for a current event if not a newspaper article -- two newpaper articles, no less. They do, after all, report the statements of Israel's prime minister. Statements which he then confirmed. If you were at all curious, you could look them up -- and find reports in at least four other sources. Evidence pro and con, the various testimonies, etc.

Would it satisfy you if I assembled the whole corpus and submitted it to you for your appraisal? I doubt it.

I doubt you really care about this at all. I think you are interested in the topic only as a vehicle for making noxious remarks. Consider the contents of your posts:

"Sounds like you are either tuned into the National Enquirer or engaging in pure fabrication . . . pure fabrication is also known as slander...all I was looking for was the source of your information and pointing out that good little boys do not make up fibs...How could you make such a stretch? Personal agenda? Even my most ardent Bay area libertarian friends get their facts straight before jumping off the bridge..."

All this from a parenthetic remark that I inserted in the first place only so as to qualify what would have otherwise been a generalization I would not have cared to defend...and in a conversation that did not involve you.

This isn't the first time this has happened. I don't mind -- or at least I accept -- arguments with 'Curtis LeMay' and others. After all, even if they become mutually heated, there usually is some actual issue. And if he can be abrasive, so can I. Should 'Curtis' pop up, it's quite possible he would annoy me, or I would annoy him -- but there would be some meaningful difference of actual opinion. It would be a conversation about something.

With you it's different. There is no point of discernible significance. It's as if the English language is just there for you to discharge bile. It's like this weird inversion -- as if you're saying,'look at this! I invented a food with all the flavor of liver and all the nutritional value of cotton candy.'

There's nothing there except spite. No content, no nothing. And it tastes lousy.

You're a drag. Go away.

Good, now that you're fully on the Polemic Express, take it on PM you guys!

And to further bury this digression (thanks a lot rhinobones,would it have hurt you to use the PM facility in the first place?You talk about hurting Colin's feelings, yet you jumped like out of a frying pan on fire when Machiavellian dealings on behalf of Israel were concerned) I'm actually going to post something pertaining to the original subject.

Logistics question : What is the maximum length of a military pontoon bridge? The engineering units of the US 1st Armored div have built a 620m pontoon bridge over the Sava river in December 1995 during the intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina,so that's the longest yet, but what is the limit?