|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Duh! (slaps forehead) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| mc_jc wrote: |
| The Stuxnet computer virus is a joint US-Israeli project that was tested on Iran and will be used extensively in case of war. |
Do you have a source for this? |
NY Times
| Quote: |
| Not surprisingly, the Israelis are not saying whether Stuxnet has any connection to the secretive cyberwar unit it has built inside Israel�s intelligence service. Nor is the Obama administration, which while talking about cyberdefenses has also rapidly ramped up a broad covert program, inherited from the Bush administration, to undermine Iran�s nuclear program. In interviews in several countries, experts in both cyberwar and nuclear enrichment technology say the Stuxnet mystery may never be solved. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are a few posters on Dave's with whom I might trust a source document with.
But like I said- it will most likely be leaked onto Wikileaks within the next six months. Keep your eyes open. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why start a new thread.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/09/30/invading-pakistan/
| Quote: |
"We will have to see whether we are allies or enemies," said Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik after a US/NATO manned air strike took out three Pakistani soldiers and wounded three others. If it isn�t clear to the Pakistani minister, it is crystal clear to the people of Pakistan, who live in fear of constant US drone attacks � and, now, open violations of their country�s sovereignty. Anti-American sentiment is at an all-time high, and the increasingly fragile government � which hangs by a very thin thread � is being rapidly undermined by US actions.
The attack was launched "in self-defense," according to the US military, but the Pakistanis weren�t appeased: they promptly cut off a vital supply route into Afghanistan. Slowly, but surely, the Obama administration is keeping one of the President�s more ominous campaign promises � that he would invade Pakistan, if necessary, to "win" the war in Afghanistan. Even John McCain found this a scary prospect, and denounced it as "dangerous" � and yet we hear nary a peep from the Democratic-controlled Congress, nor are any Republicans, including McCain, raising objections.
Yet this move toward an open confrontation with our Pakistani "allies" may be the most momentous development to date in our seemingly endless "war on terrorism," one that will plunge the entire region into a conflagration we can barely imagine. Today it is drone strikes, and occasional NATO manned incursions: tomorrow our armies will be marching on Islamabad, trying to unseat Islamic "radicals" on the verge of taking over the country.
Nuclear-armed Pakistan is the prize Osama bin Laden and his cohorts have to win in order to strike a major blow at the US � and we are doing our best to deliver it to him, gift-wrapped. The raids that resulted in the deaths of Pakistani soldiers are said to be somehow connected to vague intelligence reports of a "Mumbai-style" attack planned for somewhere in Europe: the Eiffel Tower was evacuated briefly the other day, and police presence at British landmarks and other sites in Germany was beefed up. But one wonders: if these plans are already in the execution stage, then how would an attack in Pakistan stop or deter them?
The answer is: it wouldn�t. But then again the entire rationale for occupying Afghanistan and destabilizing Pakistan � to eliminate the possibility of attacks on the West � has never been all that convincing. The 9/11 terrorist attacks were launched from Hamburg, Germany, and Hollywood, Florida, not Afghanistan or Pakistan. But then again, no one believes anything coming out of the mouths of US officials, including the officials themselves.
The Americans are constantly harping on the alleged unwillingness of Pakistani authorities to take on the terrorists, but in reality it is Pakistan that has caught and neutralized more terrorists than the US and its allies combined. However, the Obama administration facing political pressure on the home front to "do something," and stuck in a quagmire of its own making, needs a scapegoat � preferably a foreign (and Islamic) one. Pakistan fits the bill.
It�s all about politics � shocking, isn�t it?
Driven by this dynamic, the US is on a course that has to end in a much-extended war, one that will have us openly fighting in Pakistan before too long. In which case the civilian government is likely to fall and the Pakistani military � trained and armed by the US � will fill the vacuum. This is just what the Pakistani branch of the Taliban wants: it gives them a clear narrative to recite to potential recruits, who are bound to flow into their ranks. In the wake of the worst floods in Pakistan�s long history, which have left four million homeless, and hopeless, a full-blown insurgency is likely to spread from the tribal regions to the rest of the country, threatening the cities � and creating an opportunity for India to move in.
The Indian factor is the one big unknown is all this turmoil, one that could play a decisive role in making a bad situation worse. Pakistan and India have been in a state of undeclared war since 1947, and the rise of Hindu ultra-nationalism has exacerbated tensions with Muslims, who have been the targets of violence by Hindu extremists. Tensions are high right now due to the expected court decision over who owns the land on which the Ayodhya mosque once sat: Muslims want to rebuild the 16th century structure, while extremist Hindus are opposed. The issue could spark yet another round of ethno-religious rioting in India, provoke more terrorist attacks in the region, and ultimately lead to a violent clash with Pakistan over one of many flashpoints on the long Indo-Pakistani border.
The very dangerous course the Obama is currently pursuing could easily end in the world�s first nuclear exchange: Indian nukes are aimed straight at Islamabad, just as Pakistan�s nuclear-tipped missiles are pointed at New Delhi.
This grisly prospect doesn�t seem to be deterring the Obama administration one bit: indeed, our provocations aimed at Pakistan have only increased in recent days. Reckless is too mild a word to employ in this regard: crazy is more like it. |
It was only a matter of time before the strikes in Pakistani territory moved us into a path of conflict with the Pakistani state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It was only a matter of time before the strikes in Pakistani territory moved us into a path of conflict with the Pakistani state. |
This has been the case here in Afghanistan for a little while now.
The Pakistani army had already pulled out of the joint forces center along the border and Pakistani soldiers have reportedly fired on American and coalition troops on more than several occasions.
The recent drone strikes are in response to intel data coming from Europe that a terror plot was being launched from the FATA in Pakistan on targets in Germany, France and England.
Pakistan is as much of an ally to the US, NATO and IFOR as Saudi Arabia was during the height of the insurgency in Iraq. In both cases, although the central governments claimed to be cooperating, the situation on the ground is quite different.
From what I've seen, the Pakistani military actually aids militants who cross into and from Afghanistan. Members of SOCOM have even seen members of the Pakistani defense ministry meet up with senior members of the Taliban. The only thing that has kept Pakistan grudgingly committed (though not actively) to supporting the effort in Afghanistan is that they want the US and the international community's help on the question of Kashmir.
Besides the warning that the US would use nukes on the FATA if things are not brought under control there, if the Pakistani government actively broke its cooperation with the international effort in Afghanistan, they would lose any hope of an international mediation on the issue of Kashmir.
However, the international effort in Afghanistan and the drone strikes are the least popular issues in Pakistan and more Pakistanis than ever are supporting the Taliban effort- not only to drive out the foreign forces there, but to gain influence in Afghanistan so they would have a willing ally during any future conflict with Pakistan (it doesn't help much when IFOR and NATO award Indian companies base contracts before awarding them to Afghan companies- Pakistani companies are barred from working on most bases here).
It all goes back to the new willingness of the Pakistani military to work with the Chinese.
As the US and India cooperate more on regional issues, Pakistan is getting more support from China in the way of military aid that the US has been reluctant to give because of the Pakistanis hesitations to challenge the Taliban head-to-head (the problem is, the Pakistani military is so corrupt and disorganized that they can't even fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban).
http://www.timesnow.tv/China-mulls-military-base-on-Pak-soil/articleshow/4337378.cms |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Since we've been discussing Pakistan:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39451998/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
| Quote: |
Suspected militants in southern Pakistan set ablaze a convoy of at least 27 trucks carrying fuel for U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan on Friday, officials said, a day after three soldiers were killed in a cross-border NATO air strike.
The attack followed the Pakistani government's decision to shut a vital border crossing in apparent protest of the NATO incursion, and further underscored the risks posed to Western forces who rely heavily on land routes in Pakistan to supply their troops. |
Great. Things are going just swimmingly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thats a very interesting issue Mc-Jc. It might be, stupid as it sounds in the US's best interest to start making transportation deals with Iran.
Or to improve the transport links with Central asia.
I always thought it ironic that Pakistan complains about attacks on a region that it doesn't actually control and never has done. The border frontier has always been a sort of no mans land for government control.
If the Pakistanis are now actually attacking the US, it might be best to stp paying them and just cut them out. Yes, you will still we be fighting the taliban but at least you wont be paying them as well.
When the taliban first went in to Afghanistan, they went in with armored vehicles and tanks. The media interviewed on of the guys in the tank and he said he was a Pakistani officer (ex or seconded) I cant quite remember now.
We all knew that Pakistan had a decent role in the Taliban then, why should we think any differently today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Iran, the Paper Tiger
| Quote: |
| Ahmadinejad is odious but I don�t think he�s dangerous. Some people do of course find him dangerous, especially in the Israel he gratuitously insults and threatens, and yet others � many more I�d say � find it convenient to find him dangerous. |
| Quote: |
| Given that various Israeli leaders have predicted that Iran would have a bomb in 1999 or 2004 or just about every year since 2005, that�s a decade and a half of the non-appearing wolf at the door. |
| Quote: |
| International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are at Natanz; the number of centrifuges being used to make low-enriched uranium (far from weapons grade) has dropped 23 percent since May 2009 and production has stagnated; U.S. intelligence agencies hold that Iran has not made the decision to build a bomb; any �breakout� decision would be advertised because the I.A.E.A. would be thrown out; the time from �breakout� to deliverable weapon is significant. |
I concur: don't believe the hype. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is the first sign that Stuxnet, which targets systems made by the German company Siemens, has reached equipment linked to Iran's nuclear programme. |
I know business is business but how does a company justify to itself selling computerware related to Iran's nuke program is ok? That if it didn't make the equipment some other company would? So better it than them? |
The computer software in question is a) not specifically manufactured for use in nuclear installations, but used quite generally in industrial processes, and b) while Siemens is the primary provider of the software in question, many third party providers exist. In this case, I have read, Chinese companies provided the software to Iran, not Siemens, which only receives licencing fees. This from an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is the first sign that Stuxnet, which targets systems made by the German company Siemens, has reached equipment linked to Iran's nuclear programme. |
I know business is business but how does a company justify to itself selling computerware related to Iran's nuke program is ok? That if it didn't make the equipment some other company would? So better it than them? |
The computer software in question is a) not specifically manufactured for use in nuclear installations, but used quite generally in industrial processes, and b) while Siemens is the primary provider of the software in question, many third party providers exist. In this case, I have read, Chinese companies provided the software to Iran, not Siemens, which only receives licencing fees. This from an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. |
Yeah, I found out how common the software is after I posted that. Thanks for the info though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guava
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
A company providing a software program isn't much in comparison to the government of France building a whole reactor in Iraq...
Raid on the Reactor
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2295792449224502914&hl=en#
Israel Air Force�s surprise attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.
The Military Channel�s �Raid on the Reactor� is an excellent documentary on this historic air strike,
featuring interviews with the IAF pilots who flew the mission. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Karzai admits receiving 'bags of money' from Iran
KABUL (AFP) � Afghan president Hamid Karzai admitted Monday that his chief of staff had received "bags of money" from Iran but insisted the payment was transparent and a form of aid from a friendly country.
Cash payments "are done by various friendly countries to help the presidential office and to help the expenses..." said Karzai at a press conference in Kabul.
The New York Times reported Saturday that Karzai's chief of staff, Umar Daudzai, has been receiving regular cash payments from Iran, which is trying to expand its influence in the presidential palace in Kabul.
"The government of Iran has been assisting us with five or six or seven hundred thousand euros once or twice every year, that is an official aid," said Karzai. |
Has the whole Earth gone through a wormhole into another dimension, or just Washington? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Has the whole Earth gone through a wormhole into another dimension, or just Washington? |
It's appeasement.
The US realizes that there is going to be no real peace in Afghanistan as long as Iran is left out.
This is a very complicated relationship;
Iran and the US conduct joint raids on poppy fields in west and southwestern Afghanistan. Iran provides the west with intelligence about opium and heroine shipments.
Iran and IFOR conduct joint raids on weapons caches in western Afghanistan (most of which comes from Iran)
In return, the The Afghans get financial support from Iran that would be difficult to get from the west because of laws and regulations on tranparancy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| I hope he digs in and makes his 4 years new-war free. |
What a situation we find ourselves in, where a 4 year stretch with no new discretionary military engagements is something a sober mind must hope for rather than take for granted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
