War with Iran.

[maturin 12]

I know what it was; it was also inaccurate and did not, in any way, shape, or form, reflect the reality on the ground.

It reflects that the military was so low on new men that their recruiters were having nervous breakdowns, and they were scraping the bottom of the barrel. Unless you'd like to argue that vastly reported-on phenomenon as well. I'm just not equipped to prove the validity of the nightly news.

[Big Mac 19]

I've never heard of it happening in the last 6 years which doesn't mean it hasn't, of course.

I think today it's more along the lines of kids from the ages of 17-19 who have a GED or are HS graduates, but are getting into trouble that offered that option as a way of setting them on the right track. In the end it's up to the actual branch to take them, a judge can't court order the military to take them.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

It reflects that the military was so low on new men that their recruiters were having nervous breakdowns, and they were scraping the bottom of the barrel. Unless you'd like to argue that vastly reported-on phenomenon as well. I'm just not equipped to prove the validity of the nightly news.

Some evidence would be nice because, honestly, I just didn't see it. We make recruitment and retention goals. The Army is fighting a war; sometimes that means killing people and breaking things. I could always be wrong, but I just didn't see any of this "At the breaking point!" "The Army is exhausted!" nonsense that people were raving about.

I think today it's more along the lines of kids from the ages of 17-19 who have a GED or are HS graduates, but are getting into trouble that offered that option as a way of setting them on the right track. In the end it's up to the actual branch to take them, a judge can't court order the military to take them.

Oh, that depends on what period the fiscal year is at. For example, Active Army isn't accepting anyone with a GED right now because they've made their FY requirements and can afford to be more selective. When the new FY starts, they should be able to open more slots for GEDs, Medical Waivers, and Prior Service guys.

Anyways, the Army is a good place for guys who go in with the right attitude.

[Big Mac 19]

Oh, that depends on what period the fiscal year is at. For example, Active Army isn't accepting anyone with a GED right now because they've made their FY requirements and can afford to be more selective. When the new FY starts, they should be able to open more slots for GEDs, Medical Waivers, and Prior Service guys.

Anyways, the Army is a good place for guys who go in with the right attitude.

I heard that getting a wavier from the army was about as easy as filling out an application for one while other branches are more selective. I could be wrong, but I tried to enlist in the USMC and they denied to process my wavier request over an old minor injury that didn't even affect me. I go to talk to an army recruiter and they say if doesn't bother me then ya don't need a wavier. So that leads me to believe there's some truth there. This was like 4 years ago so maybe things have changed. Edited September 19, 2010 by Big Mac

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

I heard that getting a wavier from the army was about as easy as filling out an application for one while other branches are more selective.

Not at all. I enlisted in June of 2003 and there were plenty of guys who couldn't get waivers for things. Additionally, I tried re-enlisting after I got out and I have to secure a lawyer to even have a hope of getting a medical waiver.

I could be wrong, but I tried to enlist in the USMC and they denied to process my wavier request over an old minor injury that didn't even affect me. I go to talk to an army recruiter and they say if doesn't bother me then ya don't need a wavier. So that leads me to believe there's some truth there. This was like 4 years ago so maybe things have changed.

I dunno, every situation is going to be different. My situation is solely because of my service-connected injuries; there's no way I can say "they don't bother me" or pretend they don't exist when the Army is already aware of them.

[comradechaos 10]

I was beatin' 'round the internet and found a very nice lecture of a man and film visiting Iran.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I decide to move this post here as I did not want to continue to contribute to knocking the Libya thread off-topic:

Preamble: There was discussion about which country would be the next to fall to the Arab spring. While Iran is not Arab it is Muslim and part of the middle east and subject to some similar effects.

Next up....Iran!

Much harder. A partial democracy means a degree of support in the general population and a method to remove a disliked political leader; though this is being eroded by the current incumbent prime minister. There is a back up in the current ayatollah who can also remove him.

What this all adds up to is a more stable regime. This the inherent strength of a democracy even a partial one like Iran.

Secondly. Iran has far stronger state control mechanisms than Libya. More akin to Syria. So any revolution might turn very chaotic, bloody and fracture the country which is something we do not want as they already have nukes, see below.

probably but when?

After Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States and the formation of a Palestinian state at a guess.

The US couldn't put it together any time soon, Iraq would look like a stroll in the park compared to Iran.

This is a non starter. US and Israeli involvement in any action against Iran would simply unite Iran behind its current incumbent, a tactic he already employs.

In terms of force Iran already has Nukes. It is one of reasons Israel backed off from the bombing plan. Estimates in the intelligence community vary from 3 to 30 plus. It is also why Iran became more bellicose in the last decade or so and why it has become so intransigent on the matter of Israel. If there are just 3 Nukes then they are large of the "fat man" variety if there are 30 plus then they include a batch purchased from a former soviet state. Over the years these will have degenerated and perhaps become non working. It is also probable that Iran has broken some of them down to make multiple lower yield weapons.

I will add links to this post shortly. Done!

There is a wealth of evidence from various sources that Iran obtained Nukes and Nuclear material from Kazakhstan around 1992 and that it also employed former soviet Nuclear weapon engineers to adapt and maintain them.

http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/kazakst/fissmat/sapphire.htm

There are multiple root sources for the above information.

The USA new that Iran could make Nukes within 10 years of it receiving plans from China in 1995 on building such a system

http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2005/11/10/news/local/iran1111.txt

Both the Jerusalem Post and FAS say Iran has had Nukes for some time and that the Mossad is aware of it and has documents proving it:

http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1998/980409-iran2.htm

Former CIA Director Porter Goss warned Turkey that Iran already had Nukes back in 2005:

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/12/turkey-goss-reportedly-told-ankara.html

A Russian General confirmed Iran has Nukes the story was also carried in the Iranian press:

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2002/Jun_2002/iran_has_nuke_6602.htm

In 2008 Iran is believed to have tested a Nuke:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/10/has-iran-already-tested-nuke.html

As I reported earlier in the thread:

...David Cameron the new and inexperienced UK Prime Minister may have stupidly given away the intel on this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10886435

As always follow the link for the original and full text...

There is some discussion that the Israel bombing threat may have been an attempt to garner information from troop movements as to the location of Iran's Nukes.

In all honnesty a Palestinian state is what will enable change in Iran. Hense why many in the west have switched horses and are now supporting that.

Kind Regards Walker

Edited October 25, 2011 by walker
added links

[PELHAM 10]

I thought Iran got help with it's Nuclear ambitions from AQ Khan too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan#North_Korea_and_Iran

North Korea and Iran

In 2003, Libya gave up nuclear weapons-related material including the centrifuges that were acquired from AQ Khan's nuclear "black market".[38]

Pakistan is one of few countries to have diplomatic relations with North Korea, first established during the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's regime, a socialist democratic regime in Pakistan.[39] In 1990, it was reported that the highly sensitive centrifuge technology was being exported to North Korea in exchange for missile technologies.[39] Khan, along with Benazir Bhutto, paid a state visit to North Korea and downloaded secret information on uranium enrichment to give to North Korea in exchange for information on developing ballistic missiles. Khan again paid visit to North Korea with a senior army general to buy shoulder-launched missiles.[39]

After General's death, Abdul Qadeer Khan tried to remove Munir Ahmad Khan as Chairman of PAEC as he wanted to became Chairman instead. However, because PAEC is an influential member of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and regular participating member of European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), former President Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Prime minister Benazir Bhutto denied Abdul Qadeer Khan's request. Khan then restarted his nuclear network, beginning with Iran.[39] It emerged in August 2003, that Dr. Khan had offered to sell sensitive designs of centrifuge technology to Iran as early as 1989.[39] Following the revelation, the Iranian government came under intense pressure from United States and the European Union to fully disclose its nuclear program.[39] In October 2003, Iran finally agreed to accept tougher inspections from the IAEA.[39] The IAEA reported that Iran had established a large uranium enrichment facility using gas centrifuges based on the URENCO designs, which had been obtained "from a foreign intermediary in 1989".[39] The intermediary was not named but many diplomats and analysts pointed to Khan, who was said to have visited Iran in 1989.[39] The Iranians turned over the names of their suppliers and the international inspectors quickly identified the Iranian gas centrifuges as Pak-1's, the model that Khan developed in the early 1980s.[39] In December 2003, two senior staff members at Khan Labs were arrested on suspicion of having sold centrifuge technology to the Iranians.[39]

[edit] Iraq and Libya

In May of 1998, the Newsweek magazine alleged that Khan had sent designs of centrifuges to Iraq, an allegation that he denied.[39]United Nations arms inspectors apparently discovered documents discussing Khan's purported offer in Iraq; Iraqi officials said the documents were authentic but that they had not agreed to work with Khan, fearing a sting operation.[40] During this time, Iraq and Pakistan had strained relations, and Iraq feared that an ISI sting operation might take place. During this time, Pakistan, through ISI, passed solid evidence to Mossad, whose [Pakistan] scientists had helped in building the nuclear program in Libya. Also, Iraq had received a large amount of chemical stockpile from Dr. Carlos Cardoen, another weapon scientist and metallurgical engineer.

In 2003, the U.S. and IAEA successfully dismantled the Libyan nuclear programme and convinced Libya to give up its nuclear weapons-related material, including the centrifuges that were acquired from Khan's nuclear "black market".[39] Libyans turn over the names of its suppliers and A.Q. Khan was one of them.[39]

The Bush administration investigated the centrifuge's nuclear proliferation in 2001 and 2002, focusing on Khan's personal role.[39] In December 2002 it renewed its allegation that an unidentified agent, supposedly acting on Khan's behalf, had offered centrifuge expertise to Iraq in the mid-1990s.[39] Khan strongly denied this allegation and the Pakistan Government declared the evidence to be "fraudulent".[39] The United States had responded by imposing sanctions on KRL in the 1990s.[39] However, after Pakistan's contribution against terrorism and as a key ally of United States in the War on Terror, the United States had removed the ban on KRL and technological cooperation between the United States and Pakistan.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Overall the Wikileaks method has been far more productive at creating regime change peacefully, internaly and with fewer deaths.

As a strategy it has been far more productive than military intervention.

While the pen may be mightier than the sword, Facebook is WMD.

I think it shows the future of warfare world wide.

Kind Regards walker

[Maio 293]

Hi all

Overall the Wikileaks method has been far more productive at creating regime change peacefully, internaly and with fewer deaths.

As a strategy it has been far more productive than military intervention.

While the pen may be mightier than the sword, Facebook is WMD.

I think it shows the future of warfare world wide.

Kind Regards walker

Yup, controling the masses via social networks

Why bother sending Jet's when we can make some undecided teens burn down something.

[DeclaredEvol 10]

I wonder if the world ends... in 2012...

If it does, who is with me... who will join the Military and defend our foreign and domestic...

Edited October 26, 2011 by DeclaredEvol

[dysta 10]

"I ran when Iran did first."

Unfortunately, it's more like the US ran before Iran did, even threatening from assassination and execution of the Gadaffi.

[mrcash2009 0]

While the pen may be mightier than the sword, Facebook is WMD.

I think it shows the future of warfare world wide.

All with a back-door to be completely monitored militarily.

[walker 0]

All with a back-door to be completely monitored militarily.

Hi mrcash2009

Why keep it secret?

You can not hide it from state actors anyway; start from the principle that they can see all you are doing, then use the fact that they are observing as a method of recruiting from within them.

You seem to assume that those acting for a state are all inherently evil. I would suggest they are human beings, and just like 99% of people on this forum are open to ideas and persuasion.

The whole idea is to be open; in order to maximize the numbers involved as like any flock or swarm your defense is in numbers. Yes they will get some of you but they do that anyway and the majority survive. It is a strategy tried and tested to destruction by evolution.

And the thing those in power realy fear is numbers.

Kind regards walker

Edited October 28, 2011 by walker

[Baff1 0]

I would suggest to you that all human beings have a capacity for evil and some jobs attract that sort of behaviour more than others and some jobs place people in a position of power where they are prone to act more evilly.

Very few institutions, in fact I'd say none at all, provide a larger opportunity for acts of evil than the state.

Very few organisations are so powerful as to be so immune to persuasion, as to be so completely unopen to the ideas or others or accountable to those people they exist to dick around.

You see the bulk of us on this forum aren't open to opinion. We are intrested in the opinions of others, but we aren't in anyway open to being ruled by them.

To enforce your opinion on others, is an act of evil, that sharing them with eachother on this forum in no way equates to.

It's perfectly well and good for all of us to exchange our different ideas opinions and beliefs.

It's when one of us decides that another must cowtow to his opinons over anothers that evil is manifested.

The state is evil. Those that support it are evil. Inherantly.

I vas just follwing ze orders!

They seek to rule over others. To force their opinions and beliefs on others, whose own opinions and beliefs they are unable to respect.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Baff1

[mrcash2009 0]

@WALKER: I dont disagree with all your points but lets just say that knowing this and being open and having these groups flock and then in the past having "the few that they get" becomes much larger as in association through these tools, so there has to be a balance of how much its used for such purposes.

You seem to assume that those acting for a state are all inherently evil. I would suggest they are human beings and just like 99% of people on this forum and open to ideas and persuasion.

You are correct in noting I "seem" to assume, becuase ironicly you have assumed that I think those acting for the state are all inherently evil, you have not much to actually go on to assume this, and as a result you would be wrong.

There is one major influence and that invested interests, contractually compromised and red tape, people will act very different under those circumstances. Anything "inherently evil" comes from way above that level.

Edited October 27, 2011 by mrcash2009

[walker 0]

Hi all

Israel is once again considering an attack on Iran.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4146086,00.html

Kind regards walker

[dysta 10]

Hi all

Israel is once again considering an attack on Iran.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4146086,00.html

Kind regards walker

The US just giving stress to Iran, while Israel take that meaning as for the war preparation. That sounds like Israel want war more than US.

[walker 0]

Hi Dysta

I think there is little apitite in the US for a third foreign war.

Israel's international standing is at a low ebb. Mostly due to its current administration but also due to several operations such as luring the Mossad into killing the Palestinian millitary commander who was already dying of cancer and the aid fleet debacle. The Arab spring has removed the Arabs are not democratic argument. And Palestinians opting for UN recognition has left Israel looking aggressive and petulant.

I also think some of the saber rattling is kicking the ants nest to see what the ants do. Eg finding what various units and organisations do when there is a higher prospect of war. Essentially intelligence gathering via agents in place and satellite. I dare say Iran will do the same with its satellites and agents in Israel.

I also expect there will be a tit for tat copy-cat operation to assassinate Israeli nuclear scientists as the Mossad is doing in Iran.

Peace in the middle east will only come after the formation of a state of Palestine.

Kind regards walker

Edited November 9, 2011 by walker

[Baff1 0]

That won't make peace in the middle east.

It might help making peace in Palestine however.

[NoRailgunner 0]

I think there is little apitite in the US for third foreign war.

Like a sensationlist-journalist... or one of those yellowpress "experts" :rolleyes:

[Baff1 0]

The US just giving stress to Iran, while Israel take that meaning as for the war preparation. That sounds like Israel want war more than US.

I think it is the other way round.

I think Israel is mostly a US proxy in this.

That Iran would have little intrest in Israel if you took America&co out of the equation.

[PELHAM 10]

(Reuters) - Iran appears to have worked on designing an atomic bomb and may still be conducting secret research, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in a report likely to raise tensions in the Middle East.

Tehran's history of hiding sensitive nuclear activity from the IAEA, continued restrictions on IAEA access and its refusal to suspend enrichment, which can yield fuel for atom bombs, have drawn four rounds of U.N. sanctions and separate punitive steps by the United States and European Union. Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute.

European states call for stiffer sanctions against Iran following the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/nov/09/iran-nuclear-programme-iaea-report

France took the lead in ratcheting up pressure, calling for a meeting of the security council; the foreign minister, Alain Juppé, said sanctions against Tehran should be raised to an "unprecedented scale" if Iran fails to co-operate with the IAEA investigations into past work on designing a nuclear warhead .

In a report issued on 01-11-2001, the UN agency said it had found credible evidence that Iran had been carrying out experiments aimed at designing a bomb on a substantial scale. The IAEA report estimated Iran now has nearly five metric tonnes of low enriched uranium (LEU) easily enough for four bombs, if it was further enriched to weapons grade. It also has 73 kg of 20% enriched uranium - a fraction of what would be needed for one warhead but it could be turned into weapons grade much faster.

In a statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday morning, the British foreign secretary, William Hague, said: "The assertions of recent years by Iran that their nuclear programme is wholly for peaceful purposes are completely discredited by this report."

Moscow and Beijing have both said they would study the IAEA report before issuing a definitive judgment, but both had argued strenuously against publication of intelligence on suspected weapons projects.

Israeli officials had no immediate comment on the IAEA report, which was big news in a Jewish state that feels uniquely threatened by Iran. Israel is widely believed to harbor the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal. The Israeli government maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity on whether it has nuclear weapons, saying only that it would not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East." Former International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei regarded Israel as a state possessing nuclear weapons. Much of what is known about Israel's nuclear program comes from revelations in 1986 by Mordechai Vanunu, a technician at the Negev Nuclear Research Center who served an 18-year prison sentence as a result. Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but supports establishment of a Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction.

Edited November 9, 2011 by PELHAM

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

That Iran would have little intrest in Israel if you took America&co out of the equation.

HAWHAW ! you are so funny! :D

[Baff1 0]

Why would they care about Israel?

Iranians aren't arabs. Their land wasn't taken.

Arab refugee's were not displaced en masse by migrating jews into their country.

Israel has never killed any of them

It isn't one of their neighbours.

It's not strategically located to control Iranian intrests.

Israel is America's Cold War proxy state and America hates Iran and America's Arab allies on the Persian gulf have reason to fear Iran.

Outside of Israel threatening to nuke or bomb them, what's Iran's beef?

Answer, there is none.