ChristiansUnite Forums

Dan 8:7     And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.
__________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________

Countdown to U.S.-Iran War Has Begun: Reports


http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=284740&rel_no=1

Countdown to U.S.-Iran War Has Begun: Reports
Presence of U.S. bombers in England seen as advance signals

it seems the Bush administration is on the verge of making the same mistake yet again. This time the mistake could be made in Iran, as it has been reported by The New Yorker magazine in its April 17 issue that the Bush administration is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs used to destroy key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facilities.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler. A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser was quoted as saying, "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war," Hersh writes.

One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that, "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker reported.

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said. One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.



__________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________

http://www.brookings.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/lasg.htm
B61-11 Concerns and Background
Summary

The United States is now fielding a new tactical and strategic nuclear military capability that has already been used to threaten a non-nuclear country. This new capability was certified without nuclear testing, using an existing surrogate testing facility with capabilities much less than those under construction and planned. The weapon was developed and deployed in secret, without public and congressional debate, contrary to domestic and international assurances that no new nuclear weapons were being developed. Other new or "modified" nuclear weapons, earth-penetrating and otherwise, are planned.

Concerns

    * The B61-11's unique earth-penetrating characteristics, not to mention its wide range of yields, allow it to threaten otherwise indestructible targets from the air and are its raison d'etre. The new weapon is uniquely useful from a military perspective?and hence provocative from an arms control and nonproliferation perspective.
    * A central and expressed purpose of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) has always been to arrest the further evolution of the world's nuclear arsenals. This modified weapon? certified without nuclear testing and deployed after signing the CTBT?undercuts that treaty and could provide political cover to countries which have their own unsatisfied nuclear ambitions.
    * Earth-penetrating weapons, deployed by the Clinton adminstration in the post-Cold-War era, were rejected for deployment by Presidents Carter, Reagan, and Bush. What is the new reason to deploy these weapons? What are the new targets? What is known about the B61-11 strongly suggests that its rushed development has been motivated by a desire to target one or more non-nuclear-weapon states.

Well lets see, the United States has been deployed in England since 1962, if memory serves me correctly. U.S. Bombers have also been deployed in England since 1962.

The US introduced an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon in 1997, the B61-11, by putting the nuclear explosive from an earlier bomb design into a hardened steel casing with a new nose cone to provide ground penetration capability. The deployment was controversial because of official US policy not to develop new nuclear weapons. The DOE and the weapons labs have consistently argued, however, that the B61-11 is merely a "modification" of an older delivery system, because it used an existing "physics package."

The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area.

While you are at it, you might want to post the whole, not bits and pieces.

Countdown to U.S.-Iran War Has Begun: Reports
Presence of U.S. bombers in England seen as advance signals
Email Article  Print Article    Bhuwan Thapaliya (Bhuwan)   
Most observers are expecting the developing U.S.-Iran crisis to end with a diplomatic settlement, especially because the post-war American occupation of Iraq is seen as a failure and that the war will be averted. But unfortunately, the concerned authorities aren't considering this view.

The views of experienced analysts formed before the start of the Iraq war in March 2003 pointing out the difficulties of an insurgency fighting occupying troops in Iraq was neglected and sidelined by the Bush administration. As a result of that negligence, American troops are facing hazardous consequences.

But ironically, it seems the Bush administration is on the verge of making the same mistake yet again. This time the mistake could be made in Iran, as it has been reported by The New Yorker magazine in its April 17 issue that the Bush administration is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs used to destroy key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facilities.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler. A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser was quoted as saying, "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war," Hersh writes.

One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that, "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker reported.

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said. One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.

Sources said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the New Yorker report.

Meanwhile, several studies suggest Iran has enough military capability to create problems for the United States if war breaks out.

"Iran's ability to react, especially in terms of asymmetric warfare undertaken at a distance, is likely to be far more potent than that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with recent reports from the United States supporting the view that paramilitary attacks would extend beyond the Middle East," writes Dana Priest, in a recent Washington Post article titled "Attacking Iraq May Trigger Terrorism." .

But according to observers, this fails to recognize the concern of Iran as a threat to the United States' security stretches beyond the neo-conservatives.

It has also been reported a much wider swathe of foreign-policy opinion, often termed the "assertive nationalists," sees Iran as a consistent threat to U.S. interests in the immensely important, oil-bearing Persian Gulf region.

"This outlook includes significant figures within the Democratic Party such as Hillary Clinton, and it links up with the pro-Israel lobby whose interest-base encompasses millions of evangelical Christians," according to the media reports.

This means the current defensiveness of the neo-conservative position should not be confused with a decline in the willingness of the Bush administration to take on Iran.

Moreover, the importance of separating them is underlined in a perceptive commentary in the journal Foreign Policy by Joseph Cirincione.

He says the uncanny similarities between the pre-Iraq war period and the increasing tension over Iran have forced him to change his mind about the likelihood of war, after months of telling interviewers, "that no senior or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran."

He notes the way in which the U.S. administration is increasingly presenting Iran as the key threat to the region can no longer be dismissed as posturing, but may rather "be a coordinated campaign to prepare the way for a military strike on Iran."

However, the Sunday Telegraph reported that British military chiefs were meeting to consider the consequences of a U.S. strike on Iran. The paper presenting a detailed assessment, including striking graphics, of what an attack would entail. (Sean Rayment, "Government in secret talks about strike against Iran," Sunday Telegraph, April 2).

In Iran, local TV stations reported that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards carried out a series of military exercises in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea under the operating name "Great Prophet."

Also, Iranian sources claim two new weapons have been tested during the week-long project: the Fajr-3 multiple warhead missiles and an underwater anti-ship weapon said to be capable of traveling at more than 300 kilometers per hour underwater - more than three times as fast as a conventional torpedo.
 
Cont'd next post

None of this means that war with Iran is imminent. But if it happens, some forms of resistance is certain as it is hard to nullify Iranian anger.

America's dilemma is how to exploit strong Iranian feelings into something that will strengthen rather than sink the diplomatic peace process, because a diplomatic solution is the only way out from this impasse.

Moreover, the steady escalation of tension may in the long run even mislead Iran and the opponents of war as any U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be far more likely to be sudden and unexpected.

"This is because the assault would be conducted almost entirely by aircraft and stand-off missiles rather than ground troops, and any extra U.S. units needed to supplement the extensive forces already in the region could be unobtrusively moved there. The huge advantage of surprise is needed in order to cripple Iranian air defenses as any advance warning to Iran would enable the Iranians to disperse these people and indeed key equipment in advance," writes Paul Rodgers in his article, "The countdown to war."

To avoid aircrew casualties or prisoners would mean a key component of U.S. action would be a strong dependence on the B-2 long-range stealth-bomber, according to Rodgers.

"This plane can carry sixteen individually-targeted, highly accurate bombs; thus, a single aircraft can attack sixteen separate targets in just one operation," he wrote.

The basing of the B-2 far from the region would be useful in preserving secrecy. But the plane's dependence on specialized servicing equipment to maintain its "stealth" radar-avoidance ability puts the only four bases worldwide where these are available at an absolute premium, he added.

These four bases are in the United States, Guam, Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean) and RAF Fairford (Gloucestershire, England). The stealth support facilities already available in the first three locations were joined by Fairford, a major United States Air Force standby base, in December 2004. This serves as a forward operating facility, especially for heavy bombers such as the B-1B, the B-2 and the B-52. In the approach to the Iraq war, the Air Force's 457th air expeditionary wing was based at Fairford; 14 B-52s flew in from Minot, North Dakota and deployed there for seven weeks while conducting more than 100 bombing sorties over Iraq, according to Rodgers.

Fairford underwent a major two-year development and reconstruction program, completed in May 2002. Another building project was started a year later to equip the base with a specialized hangar to accommodate the B-2; the 15 months since it came into operation have seen occasional visits by individual planes. The B-2s' immense costs and specialized facilities means that only 21 are finished and about 15 can be deployed at any one time, according to Rodgers.

"The need for an element of surprise in any attack on Iran makes it difficult to gage exactly when it might be imminent," he wrote.

Fairford offers two possible advance signals. The first is a more coordinated presence of B-2s at the base. Training for an attack may involve deployments of B-2 aircraft there for a few days to familiarize air and ground crew with the details of combat operations from a new base, according to Rodgers.

"It is likely that the first such exercise took place last week when three B-2s flew into Fairford within a few days in what appears to be the first orchestrated deployment of this kind. This may well be an indicator of training now underway," Rodgers wrote.

The second signal is a sudden increase in base security at Fairford, including the policing of an extended cordon and closure of local roads to minimize any external observation of activities there. If and when that happens, the countdown to war with Iran will almost certainly be well underway. The moment may arrive at any time in the next year or more, quite possibly when it is least expected, according to Rodgers.

There are elements of inconsistency, even hypocrisy, in the United States' attempts to foster the cause of the Iran war around the world as it did so prior the Iraq war. So what?

That is an inevitable consequence of the fact that war is also one of many Americans' foreign-policy concerns. Keeping the peace and encouraging trade are also important concerns.

America should accept and proclaim that war may prove to be not just a bad policy, but bad politics in the long run, if it is too enjoy the position in the world it has now.

How that objective should be pursued will depend on circumstances. Some government are more brutal than others; some are more susceptible to pressure than others. Depending on the egregiousness of the offense and the other interests at stake, America must take a step further -- a step that would build trust and confidence.

America's efforts might not succeed as Iran's government is stubborn, but it is unlikely to be wholly ignored. Beyond that, a more dramatic step may be necessary. One would be to abandon the elusive dream of war. So far, there has been little progress.

America doesn't want to prescribe new procedures, and Iran has not been willing to take the lead in reaching a voluntary agreement.

No matter which party wins, if war begins, the victory will be hollow because ultimately peace will lose.

Countdown to U.S.-Iran War Has Begun: Reports (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=284740&rel_no=1)

Amen DW.

There is a buildup of the U.S. Military in the area. The Navy has deployed several Expeditionary Strike Groups into the area and another one in the South China Sea. The mission statement of these strike groups are listed as "The Fight Against Terrorism". This does not mean that war is imminent. These tactics were used during the Cold War quite frequently. It is like two roosters struting their stuff, each trying to show that they are more powerful than the other and that they are not afraid of the other one. The Cold War stayed that way with no actual battle ensuing from it.

Only time will tell if this will actually escalate into actual war with Iran being the deciding factor. The Iranian leader is just crazy enough that it could very well go into full blown war very easily.

Brother, 2B has gone as far as to predict when the 70th week was in the spring of 2004. So far he hasn't gotten it right yet. His prediction/speculation of the, 2nd Coming is January 2011, mid week is 13 September 2007 at 8.00 CET.

If he is right or wrong, is a matter for God to decide. Matthew 24:36 But of that [exact] day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Mark 13:32 But of that day or that hour not a [single] person knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

I won't say that he is wrong but we are told that no man knows the time. He will come on us as a thief in the night. Only God knows the time. It is for us to be prepared and simply watch and wait.

Thats what I said................. ;D

Maybe in more words, but............ the same thing.

Just agreeing with scriptures and you.   ;) ;D

:o :o :o :o :o

Hi BEP & all :)

I'm not trying to form a cult, dogma or anything that might look like something mandatory in my usage of dates or theology.
I hope that people can understand the importance of the signs of the times, and i've taken the liberty to set certain gregorian landmarks in the process.

I believe that the sign of the solar eclipse of last march is the warning sign and the start of the 70th week. I strongly believe that once the Middle East conflict really starts not only 2/3 of the Jewish People will be in harms way; the whole world for that matter as Russia and China get the bright idea to form this alliance with Muslim states and surprise attack the USA and invade Israel & parts of Europe.

Rapture would be midweek, Rosh Hashana 2009, a sabbath Jubilee. ( more info an my site )

Regards,
2B

The problem with this topic, and the opening post in particular, is that it assumes the decision to attack Iraq was a mistake. It also assumes that attacking Iran will also be a mistake.

It would be nice to live in a world where these type of awful decisions didn't have to be made.
It's inevitable that in out free society, there will inevitably be loads of armchair critics who don't have access to a single shred of intelligence, and mistakenly assume that news agencies such as CNN have all the top secret info, and supply it to us at home while we sip on our favorite beverages and wolf down our dinner in the comfort of our own homes! Meanwhile, the poor President has to rely on agents, and intelligence sources we have no idea about for his information. :D

If there was a mistake in attacking Iraq, it was that the attack came too late!

Look my friend, I know I am in the minority, and it is severely politically incorrect to be on the side of war, especially when we know so many Innocent men, women, and children will be horribly affected. There are times when these hard decisions must be made in order to actually minimize this kind of pain and misery. One of your President's responsibilities is to make sure that some nutcase doesn't walk into your local shopping mall while your wife and children are shopping, and drop off a dirty bomb - one of your President's responsibilities is to make sure that some nutcase doesn't walk into your local military base, anywhere in the world, and drop off a dirty bomb - one of your President's responsibilities is to make sure that some nutcase doesn't drive his yellow cab downtown NewYork, and stick his arm out the window to unload a hairspray can full of smallpox into the streets of that busy city - one of your President's responsibilities is to make sure that some nutcase doesn't ram his rubber dingy into the side of a cruise ship full of Innocent families and unload a tactical nuclear bomb - one of your President's responsibilities is to make sure that some nutcase doesn't (add your own nightmare scenario here)

People don't realize that the world is a very different place than it was back in WWII, when huge armies strategically placed themselves at opposite ends of any number of battlefield's and beat the snot out of each other. Keeping you and your family safe today is a very, very tough job my friend. It's made even tougher by bi-partisan propaganda which is solely stratagized in order to make a greater percentage of the voting population angry enough at the "other guys" to get them to give you the majority of the vote.

Here are some facts that always seem to get lost in the shuffle.

Every country member of the U.N. security council stated that Iraq had the weapons, no doubt about it. This wasn't just a good guess TwoBombs, agents actually went it and took inventory. Every intelligence agency from the entire world stated the weapons were there. Here's a funny detail TwoBombs, dissenting countries such as Germany, France and Russia also had intelligence that the weapons were there, so did China and of course Israel, who has arguably the most effective intelligence agency on the planet. Ever wonder how they always manage to know what car their targets are going to be in? and when, and where they will be headed?

Saddam told the world he destroyed the weapons. He was asked to prove it. He could not prove it. He was unwilling to give unhindered, total access to any location inspectors wanted to go. Why do you suppose he wasn't willing to prove he was telling the truth?
He was warned that if he did not cooperate, he would be attacked and occupied, and yet he still resisted. Do you believe he was that good a bluffer? Or, do you suppose he actually had something very serious to hide? So serious in fact, that he chose to be attacked and either killed or be arrested rather than let the inspectors in, and give them true unhindered open access to his country to prove he was telling the truth.

Please tell me you aren't that gullable.

The weapons were there. I personally saw satelite video of huge convoys of military vehicles leaving weapons depots in Iraq, and leaving into Syria! Imagine that? They went into Syria!

Another interesting thing happened just prior to the onset of war in Iraq TwoBombs, Allied Special Forces went into Iraq undercover, and caught Russian Special Forces at the weapon depots! Wonder what the Russians were doing there pre war TwoBombs.

The attack came too late, the Russians and most likely the French and Germans helped get them out, and afterwards complained bitterly that they weren't there! :D

Now Iran. What would you do TwoBombs?
You're in control, all efforts at diplomacy have failed. It's painfully obvious that Saddam was able to use the same tactics successfully, and he was able to drag them out long enough to get the weapons out of the country. This is exactly what the Iranians are doing, and it's obvious, even to a fool. They are dragging the negoations out long enough to give them time to develop the bomb, and the technology to deliver it.

So, what will you do TwoBombs?
Keep playing into their hands by dragging out the diplomatic talks, or do you simply allow Iran to have the weapon?
If you are smart, and an effective leader, you must seriously consider tactical pinpoint strikes in the very least.
The bunker buster technology has come a long way, even in these past three years of occupation.
What will you do my friend?

John

 ;D Prophecy marked Iraq & Iran for invasion a long time ago.
The Bush administration is merely an instrument in doing so;

Dan 8:8   Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong,
the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward
the four winds of heaven.

The horn of the goat is broken after
Dan 8:7b he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him:
and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.

him is Iraq/Iran ( Dan 8:20 ) the ram is the USA ( Dan 8:5 "touched not the ground" )

By prophecy these event were foreseen ; also the latter events

Dan 8:14   And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days;
then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
Read; Zec 14:2b half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of
the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Dan 8:8 wil be a reality by that time ; "the great horn was broken" meaning the USA
will no longer play the role it is now playing on the world scene.

I beleive that the Gog/Magog/Islam/EU force represents ;

Dan 8:8b and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
Dan 8:9   And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great,
toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant [land].

No USA in it; "the great horn was broken", and by whom I may ask ?
Eze 38:2[..]  Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal [..]
Eze 38:10   Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, [that] at the same
time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought:
Eze 38:11   And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages;
I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls,
and having neither bars nor gates,

In the end the war on Terror will unleash the reaction wich will be the destruction of
large parts of the world. So bad will it be that Jesus says:
Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved:
but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Now that is where I believe its heading towards, and there are many, many people
that agree and stand with this.

I would like to finish of with this scripture :
Mat 26:24   The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by
whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

Actually there are far fewer people being tortured and killed now than there were before the war started. That is one of the poor excuses that the leftist media and po;iticians attempt to use to be "against" this war. I don't have the figures available right now but there is a significant difference.

TwoBombs quote...

I agree with that much of your post my friend. However, that fact does not negate the facts which lead up to the attack against Iraq, or the possible coming attack on Iran. Bush is not just some lunatic warmonger, he had very, very good reasons to go into Iraq and the lefties arguments against that decision are weak and bi-partisan.

God sees the future, and told us about it, He did not give us a detailed analysis of events that led up-to the attack.

You didn't answer my question my friend.
What would you do about Iran?

John

Good stuff my friend, but you don't see CNN reporting mere facts such as tha do you? ;)

John

Nope, thats one of the reasons I search out news.

Of course not Brother John, people nowadays have been so desensitized, that they actually get a thrill out of hearing bad news, the sad thing is that they turn a deaf ear to the 'Good News'
So the media just reports on what people want to hear.

Oh by the way Brother John I saw your penguin, I think he needs crutches.  ;D

Hi BZ,

hmmz...   i'm not God nor acting as one, for me it is nor hasn't been interesting to contemplate "what I would do with Iran"
It would be not even remotely fair not to answer such a personal question with a personal answer ehj  ;D

Then, i'll tell you the whole truth, and i'll hope bare with me;

I come from a very high profile family; my father was a "rocketscientist" in that he made software for the defense & space industry.
My uncle is/has been the commander of the Dutch airforce, when there is no war to fight for the OTAN he's off learning others
about the art and history of war. My nephew is a high roller in the same Airforce. My other uncle works in an embassy.

I grew up in the 80's meaning in the cold war, and my dad always came with code and stuff to show what he was busy doing; actually I can't walk into a bookstore and read and see what my father help to build ( magazines about military HW ).  A lot of my friends in those days had dads that worked in the same palce, in similar conditions. It was/is secret enough that our phones were tapped, and we weren't allowed to come even remotely close to the Iron Curtain.

Fine; here came the 90's and my uncle was send to the Golan Heights and Syria. He came back as a changed man, and learned a very important lesson.
The clock of the people of the Middle East don't tick like ours; meaning that the very concepts of democracy, politics and overview is virtually non-existant. Instead they live in very lets say primitive, primeordeal state.

When Bush attacks countries in the Middle East he, or at least his military advisors know that it'll be another 200 years before the inhabitants of those countries will be able to grasp the concepts of the things that are being "injected" into that place. Until then it's total chaos; they KNOW that on beforehand.
Okay; so the truth of the matter is that those countries pose a threat to their local and international interests, and that's why those poor (civilian) xxxxxxxxx are being bombed to hell.

Surely, some rubbish propaganda will cross your mind; but you know, in the end it's about money and power. You've been on this planet long enough to know that is/will be/has been the function for war since Nimrod. Simple.

Now back to the question; knowing that you have been told from what social-cultural enviroment I've been raised in i can answer your question.
What would I do with Iran ? Answer: "Nothing!"
I know what your response would be, something in the way of supporting pre-emptive strikes, etc, etc.
You're entitled to your opinion. Just as I'm entitled with mine.

Regards,
Aryan aka 2B



(edited to remove foul language)

Or many other news agencies either.

and such news as that is hard to find

especially if the good news is in support of the actions by America

Yes it is brother

I respect your opinion my friend. I'm really glad you don't run the country though! ;D
It's not always just about money and power. Sometimes it is about security.
If Iran gets the big bomb, the world will be a much darker and scarier place my friend.

Good talking with you.

John

We have a huge advantage because we can look at most any news source and sort out the truth by refering to our Bibles. There are some good resources for truthful news, but you are correct my brothers, they are hard to come by.

p.s. Bob, did you ever get that Bible back?

John

AMEN!

No, I have a trace on it right now.