Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Even where al Qaeda is concerned, Communist propaganda can trip an analyst up | Main | What's Angelina Jolie's Position on Darfur? »

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Iranian regime gets nervous

Islamic regime of Iran is getting nervous and they are doing weird stuff. Like forcing people to join military and increasing their military activities in the Persian gulf.

You can read about it here!

Posted by Winston on February 27, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iranian regime gets nervous:


Can anyone sing "Deutchland Uber Alles"?

Posted by: Ralph Rattfuc | 2007-02-27 3:50:06 PM

So if I'm following U Winston...you're commenting an info that you had post yourself...right?

Posted by: Marc | 2007-02-27 4:48:57 PM

Interesting how the Yanks are doing exactly the same thing.

A letter at Vdare regarding a bilingual job fair in Greensboro North Carolina;

"And now for top position in this Bilingual Job Fair:


You read right folks. This booth was staffed by three baby faced African American youths in desert fatigues.

I approached them and said "They're really getting hard up for IED fodder, huh?" It really caught them off guard and one of them had to explain to the other what IED meant. Bless their hearts. They were on a 30 day temporary recruiting duty and were not full time recruiting officers. (Common practice in the Army.)"

Steve Sailer writes;

"From 1992 onward, only 1% of the new enlistees allowed into the U.S. military came from Category IV -- the 10th to 30th percentiles on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, the military's main IQ test. People who score from 80 to 92 in IQ were just more trouble than they were worth in today's high tech military.

But what's happening in reality? The US Today reports:

>>The Army met its recruiting goals in October, the first month of the 2006 fiscal year, but 12 percent of its recruits scored in the lowest category on military entrance tests on science, math and word knowledge, “The Sun” of Baltimore reported this month. That was triple the number - 4 percent - that the Army expects in 2006.<<

Rep. John Murtha, the 37-year Marine veteran, who apparently drinks beers with the top brass regularly, claims it's worse:

They have lowered the standards. They're accepting 20 percent last year in category four. Now, this is a highly technical service we're dealing with, And yet they lowered the standards to category four, which they said when we had the volunteer army, that would eliminate all the category four."

Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-27 6:25:53 PM


100 is the average of an IQ score. Therefore, in order to ensure you do not eliminate the top scorers from the population, you have to ensure that there is a spread. Of course it goes without saying that people of low IQ do poorer on exams. but they too have a role to play in an Army. And, entrance exams on math, science etc are acheivement tests and not IQ assessments.

Easy to find the knowledge on that.

You typically use this medium to spread your bigotry as if the only people to score in the top are only white.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-27 6:46:02 PM

No question about it, Lady. You know more than the United States Army.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-27 7:40:45 PM

Bravery, Commitment and patriotism doesn't require a high IQ, it's requires courage and love of one's country. Those fall under another category of smarts that Liberal simply couldn't understand. Think Forrest Gump.

You don't see too many of the mamby pamby professorial types enlisting. They are haters and selfish, self centered troughers.

Canada is rife with that type. Sadly Canada's low IQ's are found mostly in Quebec who refuse to join the human race, let alone the army.

Posted by: John | 2007-02-27 7:43:07 PM

LOL @ John

Posted by: Winston | 2007-02-27 8:36:21 PM

I have been in the forces and there are many different kind of persons. One of the best seargents I've seen was a trainer in ROTP program had been wounded 86 times during WWII. Once he undressed to show his scars. His mental health was borderline because of hardships on the front while leading his soldiers. He was a French Canadian living in BC and swearing like a Québecois.

In the Forces, the most difficult part was not technical. It was the long suffering and strength of character. Often they would let us sleep for one hour then wake us up and train in the bush for the rest of the night. We still had to do the usual training the next day and don't you dare falling asleep.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-02-27 9:10:07 PM

"Canada is rife with that type. Sadly Canada's low IQ's are found mostly in Quebec who refuse to join the human race, let alone the army."

As Muhamed ali has said: "No Viet cong called me a nigger"

Posted by: Marc | 2007-02-27 9:59:12 PM

I stand with DJ on the IQ issue. He is right.
Not only is DJ right but former comments on this post suggest the authors don't understand the significance of IQ or possibly even what it means to military superiority.

The U.S. Army maintains it's battle superiority because it is an Information Age 21st Century force. Low IQ recruits lower the survivability of the entire force and are a regression on it's Information Age force multiplier capabilities.

Also there is the question of the allegiance of the Muslim and YES the Black component of the U.S. forces as well as these issues impacting on our own CF.

"As Muhamed ali has said: "No Viet cong called me a nigger"
Posted by: Marc | 27-Feb-07 9:59:12 PM

This is a redundant comment on Mark's part.
I doubt ANYONE ever called Muhamed Ali a nigger.
I'm sure he was called an American Imperialist Running Dog.

Malcolm X probably has some choice names for him before the NOI soldiers blew his head off.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-27 10:17:10 PM

I prefer an american vision on Quebec sense of responsibility, determination and courage...

Posted by: Marc | 2007-02-27 10:32:21 PM

You are so of topic, Mark, that your comment is a troll's comment.

Responsibility? When Quebec pays for it's politics with it's own economics THEN we'll pretend Quebecers are responsible.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-27 10:37:48 PM

I'm glad you liked it Spella, here's a better one just for U:


We (Quebec) thinks that we (Canada) are responsible in the eyes of the World for bringing rapid solutions for environmental issues, Easy access to Health care and education for all canadians and for peace to all mankind. Of course, this may sound cheezy for you but we still beleive in those values that comes in part by our old mixed with Natives and what we've built from there.

Keep counting the Cash big boy...we'll be concentrates our efforts on greater expectations for this country.

Starting with les "accomodements raisonnables" which, by the way, we don't care if Hérouxville had gave amunition to Quebec detractors...

Posted by: Marc | 2007-02-27 11:20:56 PM

Only Monarchs and people with tapeworms should say WE, Mark.
Oh, I forgot Frenchmen(oui) and people who pay the freight.(which in Canada excludes Frenchmen)

Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-27 11:26:27 PM

I'm using the same "we" you use the "you" when bashing @ Québécois.
...And I tought you had a thing against "Quebec"...not every frenchmen in Canada ?
Hum, interesting but nothing suprising.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-02-27 11:33:49 PM

No. There is no such thing as Kee-bake-wah.
Canadian Francophones say wah. Not we or oui.
You, Mark, pretended to speak for Quebec but since it is still a Canadian Province it is obvious you are delusional.

And 'tought' is what you didn't get when you were taking English lessons.
You muss 'ave 'ad da tame lame tetchers ass Chretien an' Dion.(imagine me hawking a oyster while pronouncing this drek you think is French)
Alberta Francophones hate Kee-bake-wahs and think of themselves as Albertans not Frenchmen.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-27 11:53:07 PM

It's evident to me that you exeeded dodo time Speller. Feel free to take a brake a couple of hours...
Get some rest, and come back tomorow.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-02-28 12:01:13 AM

Not a chance.
Really what does the crap you posted at 10:32 have to do with the topic, troll?
Why don't you just go choke on a pork pie?

Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-28 12:08:03 AM

I was answering John's post. Why ? Do I had to ask U permission first ?

"Why don't you just go choke on a pork pie?"
Having something against a Canadian who eat pork Speller ?

Posted by: Marc | 2007-02-28 12:15:06 AM

You're clearly confusing your 9:59 post with your 10:32 comment. But it definitely confirms John's theory about low IQs in Quebec.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-28 12:21:44 AM

You're clearly confusing your 9:59 post with your 10:32 comment."
Are U for real ?
So you're in charge of how people think and the order of it ?
And you're becoming agresive cause my order dosent fit with yours ?
Must be very happy in mariage, arent U?
Here's a hint: If so, not her.

"But it definitely confirms John's theory about low IQs in Quebec.""
What about U loosing much time with someone who makes no point according to you ?

Bon, enought for me and that stupid chat.
Nite nite guyz.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-02-28 12:34:26 AM

I'm always aggressive. It's my nature.
You just noticed, Mark? You ARE slow.

I'm not losing time. I'm making it.
Your point about the military was what?

Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-28 12:54:15 AM

Does anyone else catch the irony of a fellow operating under the handle "Speller" addressing MarC as MarK.

As for John's claim that "Quebec... refuse to join the human race, let alone the army." In the CF, 27.4% of military personnel are Francophone while 72.6% are Anglophone. [Source: Fact Sheet on the Canadian Forces by the the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.] That's despite having 23.4% of the population [Source: Stats Canada] Disinformation, John. Quebecois are, by the numbers, more willing to join the military. That's 'an inconvenient truth' isn't it?

Posted by: Steve Tsuida | 2007-02-28 11:32:28 AM


Sorry you failed the test. It must annoy you that people with brown skin did better than you, what with all your so-called so-named, so claimed white "Rights".

So, you wear Doc Martins with white shoe laces?

You insult the Americans who are fighting for freedom and Liberty.


To me, racists who appear to be not unlike yourself, rank down there with terrorist sympathizers.

And, I know that terrorist sympathizers cruise this site as well, so the aforementioned link is good for them as well.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-28 12:48:39 PM


There is a difference between the scores on English, Math etc acheivement tests and IQ tests. They do not measure the same thing.

It is possible to find people who score average on IQ tests, and low on acheivement tests. Poor educational standards produce that effect.

I am right.

You are wrong.

And it is really pathetic that you allign yourself with that racist beast.

Although it could be said that theoretically lower acheivement on the entrance exam might mean a lower performing Army over all, the proof is in the pudding. Once in, each and every soldier has to pass his or her standard tests. Should they fail they are not qualified, therefore they do not go. It is only fair.

As for Quebecers and their history of cowardliness, that is a thing of the past. The French Canadians currently have surpassed their representation in the CF.

The longuage a person speaks, and the location of their birth has nothing to do with their pride, honour and level of bravery. Gentlemen come in all colours and stripes, as do heals and vermin.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-28 1:02:42 PM

I saw Speller trolling intentions but didnt answer it: I find no point debating with a 6th grade adult.

I also could have bring the fact that Quebec hits the highiest Canadian rates in millitary enrollments in 2006 but you know, I'm tired of answering these kind of people who only look to tarnish us.

Tx for your intervention anyway, man.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-02-28 1:09:36 PM

I'm glad you answered Speller on Quebec case and I'm glad you're comming back on being the "real Lady" I've met on my first interventions here.

Just one thing: Quebecers were not cowards back in the days...they refused to go fight and die for the previous ennemy aka Great Britain. This, knowing oh so well that the English side of Canada will be make dem to pay. On your side, this may be called "Cowards innactions" but on our side, this is just pure courage and respect of our past and history.
As I already said...it's like if Hitler had asked the Jews and communists to fight for him.
It's a nonsense.
Promote what you want people. It's not like if we care.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-02-28 1:22:48 PM

Steve Tsuida,

The Quebecois have not a single fatality in the Stan to date. That's 'an inconvenient truth' isn't it?

Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-28 1:23:17 PM

Having a problem with that, DJ ?

Posted by: Marc | 2007-02-28 1:24:44 PM

"And it is really pathetic that you align yourself with that racist beast."

When someone is right they are right.
DJ is right.

"the proof is in the pudding." Lady

I don't know what you mean by this, I do know there is an adage, that "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting."

"Once in, each and every soldier has to pass his or her standard tests. Should they fail they are not qualified, therefore they do not go. It is only fair." Lady

DJ's point is that the standards have been lowered because in the U.S., and in Canada, they are not achieving the induction targets with the higher standards.

"The French Canadians currently have surpassed their representation in the CF." Lady

Speaking French makes a person a Francophone, it doesn't make them a Quebecer.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-28 1:31:50 PM

McNamara's "Moron Corps"

"By 1966, President Johnson was fearful that calling up the reserves or abolishing student deferments would further inflame war protesters and signal all-out war. And so, even after McNamara began privately declaring the war was unwinnable, the defense secretary devised Project 100,000.

Under his direction, an alternative army was systematically recruited from the ranks of those who had previously been rejected for failing to meet the armed services' physical and mental requirements. Recruiters swept through urban ghettos and Southern rural back roads, even taking at least one youth with an I.Q. of 62. In all, 354,000 men were rolled up by Project 100,000. Touted as a Great Society program that would provide remedial education and an escape from poverty, the recruitment program offered a one-way ticket to Vietnam, where "the Moron Corps," as they were pathetically nicknamed by other soldiers, entered combat in disproportionate numbers. Although Johnson was a vociferous civil rights advocate, the program took a heavy toll on young blacks. A 1970 Defense Department study disclosed that 41 percent of Project 100,000 recruits were black, compared with 12 percent in the armed forces as a whole. What's more, 40 percent of Project 100,000 recruits were trained for combat, compared with 25 percent for the services generally.

As Herb DeBose, a former black first lieutenant who was director of a New York City employment program for veterans, said at that time, "I think McNamara should be shot. I saw him when he resigned from the World Bank, crying about the poor children of the world. But if he did not cry at all for any of those men he took in under Project 100,000, then he really doesn't know what crying is all about. Many weren't even on a 5th-grade level."

Apparently basic training was done with colouring books. They also suffered almost double the casualty rate.

Why should Lady care if a bunch of stupid-ass "niggers" are led to the slaughter in Iraq. Israel has to be defended by somebody, and in her view better the "niggers" die.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-28 1:39:29 PM

"Having a problem with that, DJ ?"

Some things never change.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-28 1:41:37 PM

"Why should Lady care if a bunch of Niggers are led to the slaughter(...)"

Some things never change.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-02-28 1:44:42 PM


This is a cross debate. DJ has mixed entrance exams with IQ tests. That is what he is wrong about.

And, if you go back and read what he stated, you will see he has ascribed the issue to the colour of peoples' skin.

It does not take a rocket scientist to fire an M16.

It does not take a rocket scientist to run. You take one foot, place it in front of the other and do it again at a rate two or three times quicker than normal walking.

It does not take a rocket scientist to lift.

It does not take a rocket scientist to do ballistics.

And so on and so forth.

There are many issues in today's forces of the west. Most of them have to do with pay and how the people are treated. They are, for the most part, treated with the same standards of management that were invented, wherein the leadership design included built in lies. People are actually much more informed today than they were yesterday, so it goes without saying that people who read and do math to a certain standard will not be attracted to a career where they are not respected in the same manner as they would be in other professions.

Furthermore, the education system has failed to pass on the values, to the students who do achieve, of their nation. They have balked in an atmosphere of post-modernism, where everything can be deconstructed as nothing has any value at all -- least of all -- grades and accomplishment.

Sure that is not true of all. But those who pay the least amount of attention, are also not privy to the information about how people are poorly treated, so they are more inclined to go.

If you read military history though, you will see that this type of pattern, the lowering of standards, is not without a history. the standards typically go up after wartime, as the career is seen as one for heroes. Then it gradually slides as we enter periods of instability. You will also see in the history that post-wartime also means demilitarization and disarmament. The reduction in the size of the military and the release of career military personnel often correlates with poor moral, fewer benefits and either forces attrition or a culture of attrition, or both. This issue means there is a legacy left behind. And people, as they are, are by nature people who remember bad things. You talk to any number of people who saw the legacy of the Liberal governments on the CF, and you will see there was social engineering of the worst kind. It has to do with the legacy which has been left and felt in the memories and attitudes of those who have centuries of pride in military accomplishment. They do not want to join. And, too bad for the recruiters, because they have inherited this and continue as if it does not exist.

Meanwhile, folks like you and DJ whine and complain about the lowering of standards. There has been a serious lowering of standards in the CF, and yet you say the lowering of entry qualifications is the problem. As you may well know, good soldiers are broken down and rebuilt, reformed and developed. Well, what they are beginning with these days, more often than not, is material that is already broken, systems that are out-dated, and training that is also below standard, shorter, less costly, and by design, liberal in features. If there is a lower product in the end, it is not just the entrance standards but everything inbetween.

As I stated, before conflict, standards go down, to increase numbers. This typically results in an increase in numbers. I doubt very much the powers that be will really ask the right questions, and get the right answers to the problems faced. To do that they will have to admit failure, and by nature, that is not what they were reformed to be, and not what the leadership will accept as an answer.

It is just one of those uncomfortable truths, in the same manner as holocaust denial is slimy anti-Semitism and genocide cultivating.

As for the "proof is in the pudding" you do understand that it is an uncomfortable truth, that the recipe has everything to do with the taste, no?

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-28 2:04:18 PM

"It does not take a rocket scientist to fire an M16.

It does not take a rocket scientist to run. You take one foot, place it in front of the other and do it again at a rate two or three times quicker than normal walking.

It does not take a rocket scientist to lift.

It does not take a rocket scientist to do ballistics.

And so on and so forth."

So when is Lady signing up?

Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-28 2:16:55 PM

As to your "doesn't take a rocket scientist" this and that, tell me, did you click on my reference to Rourke's Drift and understand what it meant?

The adage says the proof isn't in the pudding, it is in the TASTING.

Not the recipe, not the pudding, THE TASTING.

It is about the test to see if the end product is suitable or should be thrown out.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-28 2:17:08 PM


Your racist comment is a total reflection of yourself.

It does not even warrant quoting, because it is disgusting.

You would not be permitted in my back door, let alone the front door.

Black people who are my friends and who visit me and my family come in the front door!

The average IQ is set as 100. Needless to say, if you include people who have 110 IQ, you would also include people who have IQ 90. If you send your best and brightest, not only do you deny people their rights but also their duties. And, you deny them glory as well as honour.

That being said, you are a person without honour. If I had my way, someone like you would be eliminated in the recruiting process, because your standards are substandard in the attitude department and social department. You lack emotional intelligence. I bet the measurement you would receive would be much lower than the blacks from the ghettos. They have an excuse for their poor performance. It is called poverty and malnutrition. You, on the other hand, have had freedom and liberty to achieve the best in the west and you have chosen to stoop as low as possible.

Shame on you.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-28 2:19:51 PM

"Rorke's Drift was a mission station in Natal, South Africa, situated near a natural ford (drift) on the Buffalo River. The defence of Rorke's Drift (22-23 January 1879) during the Anglo-Zulu War immediately followed the British Army's humiliating defeat at the Battle of Isandlwana earlier in the day. At Rorke's Drift 139 British soldiers successfully defended their garrison against an intense assault by four to five thousand Zulu warriors."

Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-28 2:20:27 PM


From what I gather, they were also medical personnel?

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-28 2:22:33 PM

I see you and your sick buddy here luv history.
Here's a wrap up of Quebec history within Canada...
Hope you will find the proofs your looking for to keep tarnish Quebecers and French Canadians as wimps in front of adversity...
Enjoy your reading.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-02-28 2:33:44 PM

Yes, Lady.
And though the British were better armed they had serious trouble with the ammunition their rifles used, specifically that the ammo was in sealed cans with pull tabs and the pull tabs would rip off leaving a virtually unopenable container full of cartridges.

The rifles also overheated and the spent cartridges were very difficult to remove from the chambers and replace with fresh ones.

I think a comparison between British forces and those of Argentina in the more recent Falklands War is also a case in point on the need for quality soldiers in a conflict.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-28 2:35:51 PM

Why do you keep arguing with that jr. ?
You won long ago. Everybody knows it.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-02-28 2:37:14 PM

Very interesting.

And yes a small well equiped, or even semi equipped intelligent group of people can do allot of damage -- especially when the advancing forces are ill equipped.

But I reiterate that it does not take a medical physician to clean out the poop-pit. I am sure they had a few of those around.

What matters is not just whether low IQ individuals are included, but whether in fact they are capable of pulling the trigger while aiming, and being brave at the same time.

The social pressures of extreme poverty on certain groups forces many to leave school in order to eat and have a roof over their heads.

IQ is assessed as a sum of the measure of an individual's performance on a test as it pertains to the average of their age group. It is not truly a measure of intelligence, but rather that we think it is a measure of intelligence.

Individuals in the lower half, who have not had the same education as others, can not be compared with the same strokes. What matters is what they do with the appropriate training and how well do they perform? How do they perform after going through rigorous mental and physical training? These young recruits are still mouldable, therefore how poorly they do on their entrance exams means very little in relation to whether they accomplish along the way and at the end of their training.

And I stand by this fact, it has nothing to do with the colour of their skin.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-28 2:50:24 PM


There is "winning" a battle and then there is "defeating" the ignoramus.

These are not entirely exclusive -- but the latter means more to me than the former.

You might say, "Je me souviens" but I will always say, "We will never surrender"!

You can win 99.99999% victory and die in the last minutes of war.

Therefore, the last 0.00001% is as important as the 99.99999% victory. Like doing a great mission, but stepping on a landmine metres from freedom....

That is why.

See you 'round French buddy.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-28 3:04:08 PM

Interesting that it was the white guys with the rifles and the black guys with the spears.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-28 3:35:16 PM

So what! What's your point DJ?

Spartans used non-borred weapons too but I don't see you wailing away about the indignity of their skin and skills.

Makes me think that perhaps it is the element of facism in your heart that gets whatever-you-call-it, that nasty habit of yours, pointing out the obvious with typical racially motivated bias.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-28 3:59:26 PM

"So what! What's your point DJ?"

It must be the 100,000 years of malnutrition. ;)

Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-28 4:13:46 PM

"It must be the 100,000 years of malnutrition."

I am sorry that your ancestors were so unblessed. Perhaps if you went kosher, things would change for you and your kin.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-03-01 12:43:57 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.