let`s move on...

Afford another war? What do you think would pull the economy around? One BIG fucking war. Jobs get created building war machines, the flock gets thinned out dyeing for the cause. The "wars" up to date will look like training.

Marine Corps

ASVAB Score - Marine Corps recruits must score at least 32. A very few exceptions are made (about one percent) for some exceptionally otherwise qualified recruits with scores as low as 25.

Education - As with the Air Force, those without a high school education are ineligible. The Marine Corps limits GED enlistments to no more than five percent per year. Those with a GED must score a minimum of 50 on the AFQT to even be considered.

Air Force

ASVAB Score - Air Force recruits must score at least 36 points the 99-point ASVAB (Note: The "Overall" ASVAB Score is known as the "AFQT Score," or "Armed Forces Qualification Test Score"). Exceptions are made, however, for a handful of high school graduates who can score as low as 31. In actuality, the vast majority (over 70 percent) of those accepted for an Air Force enlistment score 50 or above.

Education - You're more likely to be struck by lightning than enlist in the Air Force without a high school diploma. Even with a GED, the chances are not good. Only about 1/2 of a percent of all Air Force enlistments each year are GED-Holders. To even be considered for one of these very few slots, a GED-holder must score a minimum of 65 on the AFQT. The Air Force allows a higher enlistment rank for recruits with college credit.

Navy

ASVAB Score - Navy recruits must score at least 35 on the AFQT. The Navy raised this requirement from 31 in 2003 for active duty accessions. Reserve enlistment programs still only require a score of 31.

Education - Like the Air Force, the Navy accepts very, very few recruits who don't have a high school diploma. To be considered for enlistment with a GED, you must score a minimum of 50 on the AFQT. You must also have no drug use, and at least three references from influential members of the community (police, fire, judge, teacher, ect.). Any police involvement, other than minor traffic offenses will also disqualify a GED applicant.

Army

ASVAB Score - The Army requires a minimum AFQT Score of 31 to qualify for enlistment. However, in recent months, the Army has been approving more and more waivers for those with scores as low as 26 (Category IVA). To qualify for certain enlistment incentives, such as enlistment bonuses, an Army recruit must score a minimum of 50.

Education - The Army allows more recruits to enlist with a GED than any other branch. In Fiscal Year 2008, only 83 percent of new Army recruits had a high school diploma (or at least 15 college credits), comparted with the Department of Defense (DOD) average of 92 percent. The Army even has a special program, called Army Prep School, that allows individuals to enlist who have no high school diploma or GED.

Now who is it that is on "crack"...sport?

Most serial killers are pretty well educated too. So what?...

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n07/d.../killers_i.htm

Exactly... just look at what WWII did to the economy. Boom times!

If you would have read the posts in this thread you would have read this.

Posted by Metaman...i dont make it up it is fact. they (speaking about the military) prefer under educated poor people who are easily controlled.

That is the "what".

Ahhh, I see... sorry about the mix up.

At the risk of sounding arrogant and overconfident I'll say with pretty much 100% certainty that those US and Israeli warships in the Persian Gulf are able to easily handle anything the likes of Iran could throw at them. As well, the shitstorm that would rain down on Iran FROM those same ships will shake the solar system in severity.

In my opinion a war with Iran would be stupid, but only in the sense that Iran itself would be utterly brainless to keep on with their nuclear development plans and thus provoke said war.

Bottom line is if anyone is going to start or cause this war it's going to be Iran.

That is exactly the point. :thumbsup

didn't mean to imply that you posted it because you were a nutbar or something, but I was curious as to what you take was on the possibility of the war happening.

I have a deep down gut feeling that near the end of his term Obama is going to try his hand at being a 'war president' because going to war (historically speaking of course) polarizes a population to back their leader and their country. Nothing better for the polls than a good ol' war.

I agree with you that it would/will be like no other previous war. I think if it happens it will be as big a mess as Iraq to begin with and only get that much worse. The race and religion card will be played even more because it will be yet another brown muslim country being invaded by the white american devils...

It's my understanding that the Iranians have one, maybe two, facilities capable of producing a nuclear weapons and that the American and Israeli governments know exactly where they are.


At the price of hiding from drone missiles launched at their leadership and the immediate families thereof, something they will, no doubt, be advised of in advance. As if any such warning were necessary.


Russia and China won't throw it all away for Iran.

North Korea knows that we won't attack them because they already have nukes.


Far worse will come from an Iran with nuclear capabilities IMO.

I'm a big Obama supporter, but if he agrees to join in a war on Iran he will not be getting my vote again in 2012.

Just to clarify, Russia is trying to join WTO, they're not fans of NATO

i would say you don't know what you're talking about

see: sunfire missile

No rebuttal though. Good argument. :thumbsup

Thanks for chiming in though.

sorry, doing stuff and couldn't get back with the link in time :\

but for arguments sake, why exactly do you think that armada could handle 'anything'?

I'm aware that Iran has military capabilities. I'm also quite aware that the US and Israeli militaries are also aware of it, and have technology and tactics being put in place to deal with it.

In any war it's the side that can deal the most damage that "wins". If you seriously think Iran can deal more than a fraction of the damage that the US & co. can do then I'd say it is you who doesn't know what he's talking about.

right, so what defense, exactly, do they have against a missile that goes mach 2.9 designed specifically for the very anti-missile systems in place? Considering how well the Americans did with the scuds in the exact same area, i'd say the odds are good the iranians are going to blow up billions of dollars worth of equipment in a very short time frame, as well as shutting down one of the most vital economic links of the world.

if you do answer this question, please inform the US Navy.

I never meant to imply that Iran could do zero damage. Of course they definitely can deal a certain measure, no question, so on that point I'm not arguing with you.

Let me put it to you this way: You are Iran. You fire off a volley of those missiles against ships in the gulf. I'd hazard a guess it would go something like this: the point or points of origin of your missiles would be pinpointed within seconds via a combo of radar and satellite systems, from not one but from many DOZENS of ships and military installations throughout the region. Within a short period of time, probably minutes, the sites from which you launched your missiles would be utterly evaporated. Rest assured those would be the last missiles those sites would fire.

From that point on it would be game on, and "game on" to the US military in the ME means raining down a veritable shitstorm, constant, targeted, and without end until you (Iran) get your head out of your ass and surrender.

But yes, it's quite possible that the missiles you did fire did some serious damage. Nothing that would win an entire war, but definitely serious. Serious enough to further piss off an already pissed off sleeping giant.

So, you are saying Iran would send out a fleet of mobile launchers, or will they be firing missiles from schools, mosques, churches, oil rigs, and residential areas?

Maybe just a combo of all of the above?

That should help make an attack on a country who hasn't attacked anyone, go down pretty damn smooth internationally... don't you think?

Piece of cake, right?

from what i recall, the last time the 'sleeping giant' was woken up, the result was Communist China.

but i'm not sure if you are specifically talking about just your example, or everything else that goes with it

That armada has the capability to shoot down incoming missile's...in addition carrier groups are always escorted by subs and one sub carrying nuclear missile's can completely destroy Iran and most of any other country. Nukes would not be required though to do this...as subs carrying non nuclear missiles and the armada's ships carrying non nuclear missiles...in the form of cruise missiles...combined with the carriers air power...can pretty much accomplish the same thing.

Their air forces and naval forces are insignificant compared to this single armada...and we have many of this types of armada's...as well as the capability of launching long range bombers from bases in the U.S...and other parts of the world...in the form of B1 and B2 Bombers that will arrive above Iran in a matter of hours.

Can Iran inflict some damage...yes...but it would be negligble to the amount of damage they would suffer just from this single armada.

maybe he doesn't know that a small group of pissed-off-turned-supreme rulers are controlling the country and a lot of the people there, and abroad, would like to live free?

Why are we discussing an attack on Iran again?

Probably all of the above with a heavy accent on schools and churches of course, it's in keeping with their style.

If they're firing missiles (in the example being discussed) how can you say they haven't attacked anyone?

But in reality, the "attack" comes in the form of them defying most of the world by continuing to develop nuclear capabilities. Their defiance IS their attack. Making them out to be an innocent nation who've never attacked anyone and don't deserve to be bothered etc is just being naive.

Who is Iran going to bomb if and when they get a nuke?

Well, because *I* had the tumerity to say that the fleet massing in the gulf could handing pretty much anything Iran has to throw at them, at which point Richard took exception to my statement and implied I don't know what I'm talking about. The discussion has progressed from there because Richard asked "how", as in how the US & co. would go about handling an attack from Iran's special new toy missiles.

That about bring things up to speed?

I for one would rather not find out, but if I'm reading you right I think you're continuing to be naive.

CD...answered the question for you.

Well, if we are discussing a hypothetical war game between the US and Iran, simply based upon which side could deal out the most destruction, then I guess I am following along.

The fallout regarding a REAL attack on Iran however, is not nearly as neat, and is not at all as easy to justify or comprehend however...

in all fairness, i didn't imply, i politely stated.

I am not PRO nuclear bombs by any stretch, but why is Iran such a threat, verses Russia, France, Israel, the US, India, North Korea, the UK, Pakistan, and China for example - all of which are nations who currently possess "the bomb" right now?

Why do you believe Iran is willing to risk total destruction by firing a nuke at someone?

The implication was made because you stated it in such a way as to it being your opinion. "...then I'd say you don't know what you're talking about". You didn't say flat out "you don't know what you're talking about", thus the implication.

I didn't mean to imply anything negative your way by my use of the word "implied". :D

My opinion would be that...in your list...Iran is the only country that is ruled by religious extremists/nuts...and of course Korea is ruled by by a nut also.

hahaha touche

You and I have now educated him...so their should not be anymore questions about the Iranian military power...being insignifcant...compared to the military power of that single armada...let alone the entire military power of the U.S.

Well, then maybe a precision strike on the religious nuts in charge, is a better idea than bombing a country full of innocent civilians?

If Israel and the US know exactly where the bombs are being developed, then they MUST know exactly where the loony leaders are too, no?

My question to you is, why does Iran need autonomous nuclear capability in the first place?


Again as a personal note only I'll add here that on my list of countries to be entrusted with nukes Iran is about as far from the top as it gets. I doubt it's just my take on it though. I'd wager that if the entire world's population were polled about this the end result would heavily favor denying Iran this capability. In looking back over their history, especially the last 30 years or so, tell me why they deserve to be trusted?

their major enviromental problem is smog/air pollution.. nuclear plants would solve a lot of problems for them

Maybe as a deterrent against an attack from Israel and/or the US?

How many Iranians did we help Saddam kill, when we supported Iraq against Iran again?

A million maybe?

Who knows why they would be upset with us?

Life if full of mysteries like that...

You're being ridiculous now. Both of you. I highly doubt the US or Israel would barge in blindly bombing everything and everyone in sight. If it came right down to military action being the only recourse I'm sure than anything deemed an actual threat would be on the list of legitimate targets, as well as known locations of Iranian leaders and key personnel.

I have yet to see evidence that any forces on the side of the allies in the middle east has ever willfully or purposely targeted civilians. In fact all evidence I've seen or read about points to them doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties.

Again, if anything goes down it's going to be Iran's call. The ball has is and has always been in their court.

Uh huh. And does anyone here believe that's the whole story?

The U.S. has very precise weapons...and in the '01 "Gulf War" we used these "smart bombs/artillary" to reduce collateral damage. These "smart weapons" have been greatly improved upon since '91 and have been used in the Iraq and Afghanistan "war". While there still is a certain amount of collateral damage done...I highly doubt that we would engage in carpet bombing in Iran's civilians.

We have used "smart" weapons to target individuals...sometimes with success...sometimes not...as people are mobile...and can be in one location at a given time but by the time the weapon arrives to take them out...they have already moved.

Obama was given the Nobel price as a motivation to work towards peaceful solutions (ie. get rid of our independance on oil). Instead, he took the Iran bait = fail.
The rich missionaries in the religious apartheid Saudi-Arabia must be laughing their ass of now, just like they have been doing more or less since 1974.

Ahh! Now we're getting somewhere. An honest open reply, how refreshing. :D

Um...what attack from Isreal or the US? If Iran wasn't trying to develop nuclear capability there would be no discussion of an attack, not even an implied one.

Iran wasn't the innocent victim back then either, and like I said earlier neither are they one today.

So they ARE upset with us? And you want the world to leave them alone so they can develop nukes in peace?

:1orglaugh

Sorry, I couldn't help myself, just had to laugh. Forgive my outburst.

I think the term "not going to happen" applies here. If they have legitimate need of nuclear power there are other ways of going about it that isn't in violation of UN/Allied mandates. But the fact is they don't want that kind of help, they don't want any interference, they just want to do what they want. Their hatred of Israel is widely known, as is their past sabre-rattling ways and their support of, and indulgence in, terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism.

There's certainly a lot of documented history of this country on the web: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Of course most of that is propaganda, right? Iran being so innocent and peaceful and all.

The support was...primarily intel...and we gave support to both Iraq and Iran as we did not want there to be a winner...and there wasn't.

I guess my overall point for posting anything to that topic is that the leaders of nations like Iran should themselves realize this, and face the fact that they are in no position to dictate terms to the world, militarily or otherwise. Yet so many of them try to. "We're a soveriegn nation, we can DO WHAT WE WANT" --- well, no you can't. Not when it threatens peace with neighboring countries or in this case basically the entire world.

Iran attaining nuclear capability is a mistake I hope the world finds a way to avoid, period.

Well...we are pretty much on the same page.

I guess my overall point for posting anything to that topic is that the leaders of nations like Iran should themselves realize this, and face the fact that they are in no position to dictate terms to the world, militarily or otherwise. Yet so many of them try to. "We're a soveriegn nation, we can DO WHAT WE WANT" --- well, no you can't. Not when it threatens peace with neighboring countries or in this case basically the entire world.




Damn good post ! Resumes everything. On another note, well not really as it's related. This "War" would be so bad for our "already-down-to-the-knees-biz"
It would shake the economy but mostly, people will be GLUED to their TV's !!!!!!!

Bye bye signups (like we needed that)

Spoke like a true idiot :thumbsup