View Full Version : Israel...Have the stakes just increased?
Jimbuna
11-03-11, 08:24 AM
Israeli army tests rocket system:
Israel has tested a rocket propulsion system from a military base in the centre of the country, the defence ministry said.
Israeli media reports said a ballistic missile had been fired.
The test came amid speculation in Israel that the government could be preparing a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15552533
The neighbors are moderately amused, :hmmm:
Jimbuna
11-03-11, 08:36 AM
They must think it hilarious to be within range of tactical and strategic nuclear missiles :o
That is a shat storm brewing into biblical proportions.
In response to media reports, an Iranian spokesman warned Israel against an attack.
''We would make them regret such a mistake and would severely punish them,'' General Hassan Firouzabadi told the INSA news agency. ''The US officials know that Zionist regime's military attack against Iran will inflict heavy damages to the US seriously as well as Zionist regime.''
Im just about ready to stick my head in the sand, If the worst happens Id rather try to enjoy what I have left.
Jimbuna
11-03-11, 09:19 AM
In response to media reports, an Iranian spokesman warned Israel against an attack.
''We would make them regret such a mistake and would severely punish them,'' General Hassan Firouzabadi told the INSA news agency. ''The US officials know that Zionist regime's military attack against Iran will inflict heavy damages to the US seriously as well as Zionist regime.''
And any Iranian attack on the US would possibly bring about the destruction of Iran :03:
And any Iranian attack on the US would possibly bring about the destruction of Iran :03:
I dont know what your happy about, do you seriously belive the buck would stop there? You might want to read up on where Russia and China stand on an Isreali or US lead attack on Iran.
The only way the conflict could stay localised within the region is if Iran made the first move.
anything pre-emtive on our part could actually have consquenses far more dire than just letting iran do their thing.
Jimbuna
11-03-11, 09:24 AM
I dont know what your happy about, do you seriously belive the buck would stop there? You might want to read up on where Russia and China stand on an Isreali or US lead attack on Iran.
Not particularly happy but simply a way of saying to Iran...."Oh really? bring it on then if your really serious"
And any Iranian attack on the US would possibly bring about the destruction of Iran :03:
Not possibly,...definitely. We have the ability to turn the entire country into a glass floored, self lighting parking lot. The Mullahs would do well to remember that.
As for Russia and China, I seriously doubt that they'd risk global thermonuclear destruction over Iran. Their response would be limited to sharply worded diplomatic notes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/30/nuclear-powers-weapons-spending-report
Not possibly,...definitely. We have the ability to turn the entire country into a glass floored, self lighting parking lot. The Mullahs would do well to remember that.
As for Russia and China, I seriously doubt that they'd risk global thermonuclear destruction over Iran. Their response would be limited to sharply worded diplomatic notes.
Ok but put your self in Irans shoes, If you were Iran would you attack Isreal knowing what would come?
Skybird
11-03-11, 09:45 AM
I dont know what your happy about, do you seriously belive the buck would stop there? You might want to read up on where Russia and China stand on an Isreali or US lead attack on Iran.
The only way the conflict could stay localised within the region is if Iran made the first move.
anything pre-emtive on our part could actually have consquenses far more dire than just letting iran do their thing.
Both China and Russia have an interest to hurt the US via the ME card, and to form their own close ties with Iran. But that interest is not such that they would start lobbying nukes onto American cities. In fact, fi a local nuclear exchnage - unilateral or bilateral - starts going in the Iranian region, both will take a hell of a care to get out of the firing lines.
It is my argument since years that the destruction of several key components and storage sites vital to the Iranian nuke weapon program most likely can only be acchieved by having infiltrating troops at location destroying them from within, which is unlikely to acchieve since a ground war can be ruled out I think, or by nuking said facilities by using socalled ini-nukes. I do not like using mini-nukes.
Problem is that at least 3 years ago we did not have precise object coordinate. Knowing where a perimeter of 10x15 km is, is one thing. Knowing where inside that perimeter the precise entry tunnel is - for example, is something different, and the Iranian installations are known to be buried ddep inside mouintains or in hardened bunkers below the ground. I severly doubt you can get them with FAE bombs or some conventionel MOABs, because you would need to cliuster-bumb the whole perimeter.
Of which there are several dozens.
It would also be helpful to intoxicate the whole region of a destroyed fcility so that it cannot - be accessed easily to try saving some partrs of the installations or material in case they survived.
Posasibly mini.-nuking such installations is easier for the civilian population than a long-lasting conventional air campaign. We know how the losses are climbing even with laser-guidance and GPS missiles. However, the ground effected by mini-nukes would be lost for the Iranians. Which is part of the effect we must hope to acchieve.
We do not talk about intentionally nuking Iranian cities and civilian settlements - as long as the Iranians haven't built their critical installation right below or inside them. If they would need to live with the coming generations avoiding several radiating hotspots in their country, like they need to do in Japan now at Fukushima, then this is just a mild price for them having allowed the political developements in their county over the past 20 years. Everybody has the right to be held responsible for what he does and does not, supports and supports not, reaches for, or not.
However. I would support a war against Iran only when the clear operation goal is the undisputed and complete destruction of the Iranian weapon pogram - no matter what that costs. If it is only about delaying the program by causing damage, then I am against it, since it would cause a big show and a big ammount of destruction done over nothing. Just to find out some years later that one needs to start again. But right this iron-hard determination must be doubted in Western political leadership, as has been demonstrated in Gulf 91, Afghanistan02, Irak 03, Lebanon 06, and before that: Vietnam. Putting your money on politicians screwing things up over dubious reasons, is always a very safe bet.
Either go for it, then go for all of it. Or don't even worry to ever get started.
That we need to make this decision now, is for majpor part our own fault. We just do not learn it that appeasement and endless negotiating with enemy for whom negotiating only means to buy time, leades to an increasing of the crisis, not to a solution. What we want to acchieve now, could have been acchieved easier 10 or 15 years ago. But back then we preferred to just close our eyes before a reality we did not wish to see. And I admit, at least 10-15 years ago I was like that, too, when it came to Iran. To my defence I can say I started seeing since then.
@Skybird and August
Well I hope for all our sakes you are both right. And I hope Iran does not get nuked! Anyone who does is one hell of a heartless bastard.
Ok but put your self in Irans shoes, If you were Iran would you attack Isreal knowing what would come?
Well Israel doesn't have the capability that we have so there is no real assurance of either side being totally destroyed in an nuclear exchange with Iran which, according to conventional atomic wisdom, actually increases the chances of it occurring.
Either way though I doubt the US would respond with nukes in that event unless we were actually attacked with one ourselves.
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf
Ducimus
11-03-11, 11:55 AM
@Skybird and August
Well I hope for all our sakes you are both right. And I hope Iran does not get nuked! Anyone who does is one hell of a heartless bastard.
I don't hope Iran gets nuked. I just don't care if it does. I'm guessing that still qualifies as a heartless bastard. :O::har:
Jimbuna
11-03-11, 12:00 PM
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf
Come across this interesting piece before and forgot to bookmark it....sorted, cheers :up:
I don't hope Iran gets nuked. I just don't care if it does. I'm guessing that still qualifies as a heartless bastard. :O::har:
I know your heartless sometiem Ducimus :D But really how can you not care about several million human beings including woman and children being incerated alive in a matter of seconds? what was their crime exactly, not have the same values and beliefs as our own? :hmmm:
Its genocide mate, its the same thing hitler did, there is no justification.
Our own lives and well being are no more or less valuable than theirs mate.
Ducimus
11-03-11, 12:25 PM
I know your heartless sometiem Ducimus :D But really how can you not care about several million human beings including woman and children being incerated alive in a matter of seconds? what was their crime exactly, not have the same values and beliefs as our own? :hmmm:
Its genocide mate, its the same thing hitler did, there is no justification.
Our own lives and well being are no more or less valuable than theirs mate.
For me it's easy. Firstly, im very good at compartmentalizing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_%28psychology%29) emotions. I learned that in the military, and got very good at it. Secondly, Iran to me, is just some scathole thousands of miles away that I'll (thankfully) never see. As the saying goes, "Out of sight, out of mind". Thirdly, last i heard, Iran is the country where the national past time is to shout "Death to America", and use the US flag as a foot mat. Combine that with above two points, and i find myself a bit strained to care about the idea of a nuked Iran.
For me it's easy. Firstly, im very good at compartmentalizing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_%28psychology%29) emotions. I learned that in the military, and got very good at it. Secondly, Iran to me, is just some scathole thousands of miles away that I'll (thankfully) never see. As the saying goes, "Out of sight, out of mind". Thirdly, last i heard, Iran is the country where the national past time is to shout "Death to America", and use the US flag as a foot mat. Combine that with above two points, and i find myself a bit strained to care about the idea of a nuked Iran.
To say that I find that type of mentality both disturbing and slighlty ignorant is an understatment, but the fact is that half the planet (or maybe more) has the same mindset as your own.
But then again you probably think I am bleeding heart liberal hippy with no spine. :woot:
Who am I to tell you that my set of morals are superior to your own?
So on that note we can agree to disagree I guess :D
Ducimus
11-03-11, 01:38 PM
To say that I find that type of mentality both disturbing and slighlty ignorant is an understatment,
You don't know my whole personal picture. Though I can understand if you find emotional compartmentalization disturbing. Ive questioned it myself many times.
but the fact is that half the planet (or maybe more) has the same mindset as your own.
That's people for you. An individual is smart, but People are dumb. That and in this day and age, i find myself only concerned about the well being and livelyhood of my own home, and not someone else's home. In this context, "home" meaning "Country." I live in the US, I don't live in Iran. Iranian problems are not, or should not be, my concern.
But then again you probably think I am bleeding heart liberal hippy with no spine. :woot:
Honestly, you strike me more as a benevolent humanist. There are some people in this world, who have not let malacious things in the world effect them or jade their spirits. I am not one of those types of people.
Who am I to tell you that my set of morals are superior to your own?
You have no idea how often ive pondered that subject. Nobody goes to war thinking their the bad guy. Not even the germans during WW2. Is there really a good guy? Is there really a bad guy? Who makes that determination, and by who's standards do they use to arrive at that determination? What makes those standards more correct then anothers?
I answered that dilemma for myself years ago. Right or as wrong it may be, ones country is ones home. Good or bad, for better for worse, its still home. You have to make a stand in this world somewhere, and home is always worth defending. Everything else is bunch of horsecrap.
You have no idea how often ive pondered that subject. Nobody goes to war thinking their the bad guy. Not even the germans during WW2. Is there really a good guy? Is there really a bad guy? Who makes that determination, and by who's standards do they use to arrive at that determination? What makes those standards more correct then anothers?
I answered that dilemma for myself years ago. Right or as wrong it may be, ones country is ones home. Good or bad, for better for worse, its still home. You have to make a stand in this world somewhere, and home is always worth defending. Everything else is bunch of horsecrap.
Very well said :salute:
Can't condemn you for being pragmatic Ducimius. But - it does get a lot more difficult if you've ever known, worked with or became friends with actual people from Iran, as I have. They very often give me the same impression as the late Soviet era Eastern European intellectuals that I grew up among - no love for their regime, keenly aware of what's happening, and really, really good at passive resistance to a point where it doesn't put them or their families in jail (usually). However the regime is just too strong for them to get rid of - for now.
Their state may like yelling 'death to America', but there are many people who couldn't be any more opposed to the official stance. Just that their voices are easily silenced.
So if you know actual Persians/Iranians, it gets a lot more difficult to compartmentalize. Nor do I think it's fair to ignore the real human tragedy that'll happen as a result.
I think at this stage, it's not too late to avert the worst-case scenario anyway. Iran, like the Soviet system back in the 80s, may look strong on the outside but is in fact pretty rotten. Playing the right cards can - and should - result in its inevitable collapse. We're not at war yet. So it's not yet time to compartmentalize while we have time.
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf
If the american would make a strike on Iran, they need:
watch page 45/114
Markus
If the american would make a strike on Iran, they need:
watch page 45/114
Markus
Or this:
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/070305_iran_israelius.pdf
Here is the official pic :
http://images.imagehotel.net/b1ghfjg782.jpg (http://www.imagehotel.net/?from=b1ghfjg782.jpg)
Skybird
11-03-11, 05:10 PM
@Skybird and August
Well I hope for all our sakes you are both right. And I hope Iran does not get nuked! Anyone who does is one hell of a heartless bastard.
I reiterate again: we do not necessarily talk about the intentional targetting of Iranian cities and metropoles with nukes. This is only an option to be considered if key components of the weapon program are located right inside those cities.
As long as Iran does not have the option to attack foreign cities by nuclear missiles, we can most likely forget about intentionanly nukling Iranian cities. Once he has that option - then we are in trouble. We better strike before he gains that ability.
In a nuclear stike against their program, we need not to care much for their military infrastructure and air defence, as far as I understand - they do not have any anti-mininuke-capacity, or am I wrong? Last time I checked the maps - I admit, that is some time ago - the critical perimeters all were placed outside and far away from metropoles and major cities, often in quite some isolated, desolate places.
If, however, we start a conventional air campaign of several weeks, we would need to deal with their C3I infrastructure and air defence. Not before then you can run a continuing campaign against the real targets of the operation. But then we would need to attack into civilian areas indeed, often with a high density of population. Collateral damages likely would surpass those of nuking isolated key compounds in one strike that are distant to the cities.
But I think it will not happen. No politician alive in the West whom I have heared of has the guts to use mininukes in a preemptive strike. They all will prefer to start a more risky for their own troops air campaign, making a lot of loud sounds and bright lights with conventional bombs, will claim victory when they acchieved some delay, and leave it to that. That way, many civilians will get killed, a big ammount of damage will be done, just for having bought some years, and then Iran will be threatening to become a nuclear weapons power again.
In which case we can be sure there will be a massive nuclear arms race throughout the region, under much more instabile and irrational conditions than during the cold war, and under participation of quite some ammount of religious irrationality and centuries-old hate-arguments. Could we really afford to allow that? I think not.
And in case we go conventional, and leave it to some cosmetic changes, what then? Was it worth to walk half the way and then shy away, was it worth the deaths you caused that way while being scared to do it right?
If you start something as big as a military attack on a hostile country, then do it right and walk all the way, in full.
If you do not have the guts to do it, then stay at home and watch TV. Just do not waste lives, and do not risk your own troops' lives for nothing but political clownery.
Or to put it only more obvious: do not draw your sword blank as long as you are not determined to shed blood. I can't put the warning any clearer than this. One of the main things about Afghanistan and Iraq is how carelessly and irresponsibly the politicians have ordered their own troops to risk their health and lives all for nothing, for illusions, for follies, and political trench warfare at home. I dispise this behaviour so very much. It also illustrates why I am happy that I back then decided against a military career. Western policies, all in all, do not deserve me risking my life for them. Too treacherous, too illusive, too foolish, to much lies and betrayal. My life is too precious for this kind of politicis, politics of this kind do not deserve me, nor you, nor any Western soldier's well-being and life. And certainly not my or your cross on the voting ballot.
For the record, I stayed in Iran several months and learned the country quite a bit. I am aware of the diversity in people there, and the colonial influence. I must say, that of all middle-eastern countries I visited, I liked Iran the most. I do not like to talk about these things the grim way I do. Not at all.
Not one bit.
But it is an issue of priorities, and determination. Nukes in Iranian hands must be prevented, at all costs. I must not like either the first, nor the latter. But important priorities remain, so does the perspective reaching beyond the immediate interest of the Iranian civilian population.
One more reason to hate the nutheads bringing Iran to where it is.
Morally, it is a catch-22 if seen from peace-time conditions. But I never iudge war issues by the value system of peace time conditions. To me, it does not make sense to do so. War is war, and peace is peace. And I see no civilised quality in war, nor justice. The war in question either is necessary, then it needs to be done and one is right to do so, or it is not, then conducting it is a crime.
If, however, we start a conventional air campaign of several weeks, we would need to deal with their C3I infrastructure and air defence. Not before then you can run a continuing campaign against the real targets of the operation. But then we would need to attack into civilian areas indeed, often with a high density of population. Collateral damages likely would surpass those of nuking isolated key compounds in one strike that are distant to the cities.
Who are these "we" ? The German Luftwaffe ?
Skybird
11-03-11, 05:59 PM
Who are these "we" ? The German Luftwaffe ?The Western military, no matter how it is set up.
If - and that means: >>if<< - I end up supporting the war that maybe is in the making, I feel and think about the American or British or Israeli soldiers and pilots the same way than if they would be German soldiers or pilots. The flag on their uniforms I do not really care for, nationality is not of any interest for me, nor of any emotional quality. If I end up supporting this war, I see the Western military carrying it out fighting on our and my behalf - and that is good enough for me to feel for the American GI the same way than I feel about a Bundeswehr grunt or an Israeli. I would support all of them without difference, since "we" are all the same team.
Hopefully.
In case of European governments, you cannot be sure of anything anymore when it comes to Palestinians and the Middle East. The German government has just warned the Israelis over their decision to form more houses in a part of Jerusalem that is in the West and that would be their part by any internationally recognised treaty draft anyway, and Israeli newspapers have reported that the Germans even should have threatened to stop the delivery of German Type 214 U-boats if the Israelis do not obey. At the same time the Germans have held talks with the Iranian trade minister, and said those talks were "lucrative" and "successful". As a German commentator laconically wrote: there is no word on the Germans having threatened the Iranians over their support for terrorist operation against Israel, their support for terror organisation Hamas, and the delivery of missiles into the gaza strip and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon. Maybe those U-boats even end up in Iranian harbours, who knows? Then the US Navy would have a big problem in the gulf. A very, very big one.
CaptainMattJ.
11-03-11, 06:09 PM
thats the worst thing about being a human. You get to realize that no matter what you do, no matter how you act or think, there will ALWAYS be killing. There will ALWAYS be corruption, greed, war mongering, ect. And there will always be those with bigger sticks. And there will always be those who wish to unnecessarily do harm unto others. and there will always be a finger hovering on the trigger. And the ways to kill will only become more refined, more effective, and deadlier than ever.:nope:
Its a hard thing to embrace, but spending money on having a bigger stick means that there will be a less likely chance of war. In reality, there will be no kumbaya, happy sing along fests with all the peoples of the world holding hands and rejoicing. There will always be psychos that will eventually gain more and more power.
and above all, you must do what has to be done, always, to ensure the safety of the people of your lands. If the Taliban and other organizations simply use the civilian populace to use as meat shields for their psycho terrorist wars, then they will be destroyed too. Its us or them. And when you strip away the layers of impractical teachings, its kill or be killed.
Discipline is what determines how effective the soldier behind the trigger is. Shooting at everything that moves, and thinking twice about life/death situations simply means unnecessary casualties. There needs to be higher mental standards for those who are sent to fight. But other than that, casualties are casualties and cant be avoided, just like every other aspect of war.
Well said MattJ.
When one looks at it from an outside point of view, humanity has changed very little from its initial existence. Sure, we've got better sticks now, and better animal hides, and we don't need slaves because we have machines to do it for us, but at the end of the day it boils down to who has the bigger stick, or who has the bigger pile of meat. Basic instincts, and you can see it in animals...we just put a fancy face on it and call it society, but it's not so dissimilar to those we call 'lower creatures'.
Hark at me...you can tell it's getting late...I'd best be off to bed. :doh:
Its us or them. And when you strip away the layers of impractical teachings, its kill or be killed.
You make sound like we fighting an enermy with equal capacity to attack us on the same scale as we can attack them. Not the case with islamic terrorists.
The threat that terrorists actuallly pose to you and me is next to nothing, even if you discount the last two wars - we are more likey to die of cancer, be hit be a car, or murdered by one of our fellow citizens (in that order)
The war on terror has little or nothing to do with terrorism, our governments did not invade iraq and afganistan to prevent a another 9/11
you think they would spent trillions of dollars and soldiers lives just for that? Its totally uneconomical.
You dont need me to tell you the real reasons.
Skybird
11-03-11, 06:39 PM
You make sound like we fighting an enermy with equal capacity to attack us on the same scale as we can attack them. Not the case with islamic terrorists.
The threat that terrorists actuallly pose to you and me is next to nothing, even if you discount the last two wars - we are more likey to die of cancer, be hit be a car, or murdered by one of our fellow citizens (in that order)
The war on terror has little or nothing to do with terrorism, our governments did not invade iraq and afganistan to prevent a another 9/11
you think they would spent trillions of dollars and soldiers lives just for that? Its totally uneconomical.
You dont need me to tell you the real reasons.
The threat of a nuclear Iran is not them sending an ICBM to America or Europe, although they are gaining the technology to build such missiles.
The threat is prolifertion of a nuclear suitcase bomb to terrorist proxies of theirs. Or several.
The threat is Western nations being vulnerable to nuclear blackmailing.
The threat is that they realise their threat to wipe out the biggest hate object there is in Islam: Jews (=the Jewish state). They said so often enough. You have had a glimpse inside their heads convincing you that they do not mean what they say? Remember, you are talking not about rational, cold-blooded politics, but irrational religious ressentiments.
The threat is a nuclear arms race, since several players like Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia will not sit still being intimidated by a nculear armed rival such as Sunni Persia. And such an arms race in that region full of animosities! Religious irrationalism! Centuries-old hate! Ovber one m illenia of (unsolved) internal civil war! You will crave to get back the cold war instead, by comparison.
If I would be in need of an enemy to overhwelm and to wipe out, I would love to have somebody like you. ;) And that should make you think.
P.S. And one idea you can delete from your script: Israel is not about forming a bridgehead in the Gulf to secure control of Iranian oil! ;)
The threat of a nuclear Iran is not them sending an ICBM to America or Europe, although they are gaining the technology to build such missiles.
The threat is prolifertion of a nuclear suitcase bomb to terrorist proxies of theirs. Or several.
The threat is Western nations being vulnerable to nuclear blackmailing.
The threat is that they realise their threat to wipe out the biggest hate object there is in Islam: Jews (=the Jewish state). They said so often enough. You have had a glimpse inside their heads convincing you that they do not mean what they say? Remember, you are talking not about rational, cold-blooded politics, but irrational religious ressentiments.
The threat is a nuclear arms race, since several players like Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia will not sit still being intimidated by a nculear armed rival such as Sunni Persia. And such an arms race in that region full of animosities! Religious irrationalism! Centuries-old hate! Ovber one m illenia of (unsolved) internal civil war! You will crave to get back the cold war instead, by comparison.
If I would be in need of an enemy to overhwelm and to wipe out, I would love to have somebody like you. ;) And that should make you think.
Ah-ah hold your horses, Iran is a slightly different kettle of fish.
I was refering to war on terror up until this point in time.
Iran likes to push its luck and stir the pot - but then the same can be said Isreal, and we dance bloody circles around them!
Skybird
11-03-11, 06:55 PM
Ah, the old Bush-phrase, okay... that phrasing was utmost stupidity, yes.
Iran likes to push its luck and stir the pot - but then the same can be said Isreal, and we dance bloody circles around them!
The lesser of all evils. Perhaps.... the most stable country in the region.
Jimbuna
11-04-11, 06:11 AM
Going back to original topic....I'm of the opinion Israel will strike Iran if and when it is beyond all doubt Iran has developed a nuclear capability and they (israel) are convinced they must ensure survival of the nation.
I don't see what alternative they have, especially if they perceive their allies are unwilling to act for concerns over possible escalation into a global nuclear conflict.
Of course I hope this scenario doesn't come about but I fear Iran sooner rather than later will leave Israel with no alternative.
Skybird
11-04-11, 06:24 AM
Iran currently moves centrifuges that are linked in cascades to a new location that is much harder to reach for a military strike, also it is worried that Iran would move any-weapon-capable material that it has produced into hiding, making it unavailable for strikes or even just intel gathering.
I am relatively sure, therefore, that if a military option really is on the table for Israel (I am still not 100% sure, since they depend too much on US assistance), there will be a strike not just once Iran gained a nuclear capacity, but that there will be a strike BEFORE it gains that capacity.
Waiting with it until it is too late, simply makes no sense. Not when it is about weapon-capable nuclear material.
Last thing Obama can want is a new war now, before the election. Waiting until after election however may prove to come too late. Iran is reported to have increased its efforts after the stuxnet attack, and that the damage from that cyberattack is almpost completely compensated by now. I think they do all they can to get what they want before the US electons. That maximises their chances.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.