PDA

View Full Version : Does the world seem really screwed up at the moment?



rj1
23 Jul 14,, 02:16
Well, more than usual. (Usual being my frame of reference which due to my age is the '90s onward.)

TopHatter
23 Jul 14,, 03:03
Well, more than usual. (Usual being my frame of reference which due to my age is the '90s onward.)

The world seemed to go insane since 9/11. It lost a modicum of equilibrium that it has failed to regain ever since.

Squirrel
23 Jul 14,, 05:19
Well, more than usual. (Usual being my frame of reference which due to my age is the '90s onward.)

Conflict is as natural to man as breathing. History is made of things being generally shitty for man. Hardly is there ever a topic worth recalling in history that isn't calamitous. You can look back at literally any time in history and find somewhere that was going through some tough times. As with reports of casualties of war, the reality is that there are far fewer deaths in conflicts around the globe than ever in history. But, the flipside is that there is now a glaring disproportionate media coverage of these deaths. I would say in reality, the cold harsh reality of mankind, things have never been better.

Bigfella
23 Jul 14,, 12:47
Well, more than usual. (Usual being my frame of reference which due to my age is the '90s onward.)

The short answer is 'not especially'

I'll suggest a few reasons why you might think this & then make an observation or two:

1) We are going through a period of relative turmoil as TH suggested, it does happen, but its not especially bad in comparative terms. it is no worse than the last....forever really....and better than most periods;

2) We live in an era of 24/7 media with rapid if not instant access to trouble spots the world over. Further, every other person has their own camera on them at all times. It means that every little thing that happens not only gets reported, it gets those all important pictures & heart rending images. To give one example the Rwanda genocide of 1993 got minimal coverage & very little of it graphic or 'by the minute'. if it was happening now we would be getting hourly updates. Perception is reality. if a conflict happens & you barely see it your brain doesn't register it the way you do if you see something...anything.

Your perspective is the 90s onward. I grew up in the 70s & 80s. For others here it was the 50s & 60s. One member was born in France in 1940 & can remember the church bells ringing when the war ended. I doubt any of us would think this was particularly bad time. Not the best, but not that bad.

I was born during the bloodiest year of the Vietnam War and the concluding years of the Biafran War. By the time I turned 5 millions had died in wars & genocide Indochina & Pakistan and a famine in young Bangladesh. The Cultural Revolution was in full swing & the 'Red Terror' in Ethiopia began. I can recall the 1979 Chinese invasion of Vietnam & Russian invasion of Afghanistan. In primary school we made 'Kampuchean jokes' about the famine that greeted the fall of Democratic Kampuchea, little imagining the scale & horror of the genocide that had taken place. Standing in Tuol Sleng 25 years later I shuddered at the callousness we can have toward people whose lives we cannot imagine. Add to that what was happening in parts of Africa. The 80s saw the Iran-Iraq war, civil wars in Africa & more. Not a great decade either.

Overshadowing all of this was the knowledge that a miscalculation at any moment could just about wipe out humanity. If you want to scare yourself google 'Able Archer 1983'. Some people on our forum would have been among the first to die.

Even the 90s, your frame of reference, were worse than now. Yugoslavia, Rwanda and worst of all, Congo. Few people realise that the most destructive war since WW2 (in human terms) was in the Congo in the 90s. That's just 3.

Meanwhile peace & prosperity are more widespread than ever. Democracy has spread farther than ever before - the two largest democracies went to the polls this year & power changed hands peacefully...to 'outsider' candidates. More people are probably more free than they have ever been. China & India are jumping ahead. Africa is making huge strides (for it) and despite the doom & gloom the West is still the best place to live that has ever existed.

Things are unsettled right now, but generally speaking they are pretty good.

kato
23 Jul 14,, 17:38
The world seemed to go insane since 9/11.
I would actually think that since about '01/'02, the world has quietened down far more than believable. The decade before 9/11 probably saw 200-300 times as many people dying in 5-10 times as many wars as the decade after 9/11.

And it's not like the decade before 9/11 was anything special in that regard.

Doktor
23 Jul 14,, 18:02
kato hits with usual German precision.

SteveDaPirate
23 Jul 14,, 18:32
As others have mentioned, increasingly widespread media coverage has contributed greatly to the popular perception that the world is going crazy and that crime (in the US at least) is getting out of control. When in reality the exact opposite is true.

24/7 cable news channels bring live coverage of anything shocking, terrifying, or outrageous directly to the homes of millions of people in their eternal quest for ratings. The ubiquity of smartphones with video cameras, and social media has amplified that effect even more. No matter where in the world something tragic takes place, somebody is going to be there to catch it on tape and show the world in graphic detail.

Back in the day when something like the loss of flight 370 might have resulted in a few articles in the newspaper, people would be informed about what happened, but not bombarded by it for months at a time. Thus the tragedy was real to people intellectually, but without the same level of emotional connection that makes them feel as if they experienced it first hand.

DOR
24 Jul 14,, 04:29
Some data about Asia and the Pacific, from “Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific 2013:”

http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/ESCAP-SYB2013.pdf

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ca. 1990 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Latest Data
People in poverty (PPP1.25/day)_ _ _ 51.7% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 18.3% (2011)

Share of global poverty population
living in Asia and the Pacific _ _ _ _ _ _ 67.7% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 54.0% (2011)

Living with food insecurity _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 22% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 13% (2010-12)
Access to safe drinking water _ _ _ _ _ 73% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 91% (2011)

Share of global population without access to safe drinking water
living in Asia and the Pacific _ _ _ _ _ _ 69.6% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 46.4% (2011)

Infant mortality rate _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 60% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _32% (2011)
Child mortality rate _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 81.5/1,000 _ _ _ _ _ _40.3/1,000 live births (2011)
Under 5 yr underweight child _ _ _ _ _ 32% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _22% (2011)
Maternal deaths_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 369/100,000 _ _ _ _ _ _142/100,000 live births (2010)
Cases of malaria _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 200/100,000 (2000) _ _ _ 136/100,000 (2011)
Cases of TB _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 167/100,000 (2000) _ _ _ _139/100,000 (2011)
GDP per person, PPP % rise p.a. _ _ _ 1.4% (1990s) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3.5% (2000s)

And, the main reason for all this (IMHO)
Merchandise Trade _ _ _ _ _ _ _ $1,506.2 bn (1990) _ _ _ _ _ _$13,407.8 bn (2012)

zraver
24 Jul 14,, 04:44
Conflict seems to travel and bunch up like a psychotic Caterpillar... We've also seen a lot of conflcit as the fallout of colonalism sorted itself out and modern communications has moved every conflict to the living room.

30's Asia
40's Europe and Asia
50 Asia and Africa
60 Asia, Mideast and Africa
70's Mideast, Africa
80's Central America, Africa
90's Europe, Africa, Central America
00's Mideast, Africa
10's Mideast, Europe

astralis
24 Jul 14,, 17:29
kato,


I would actually think that since about '01/'02, the world has quietened down far more than believable. The decade before 9/11 probably saw 200-300 times as many people dying in 5-10 times as many wars as the decade after 9/11.

And it's not like the decade before 9/11 was anything special in that regard.

from the US perspective it's understandable. after somalia, the rest of the world could be dealt with economically or kinetically, via the USAF. the biggest movement was the intervention in haiti. yeah, yugoslavia/kosovo/etc was messy but not OUR problem. the US stood victorious from the cold war, with japan's economic growth going into shambles, russia a complete mess, and china still in its post-tiananmen embryonic stage.

all of a sudden the US had hundreds of thousands of troops deployed, major muscle movements by the USG...yet in this whole time US economic/power strength vis-a-vis the world has declined.

we're living through the backlash of the bush years even now, as calls for isolationism are more popular than ever.

kato
24 Jul 14,, 19:41
That's just the "we won, now leave us alone" syndrome. The US has been having that after every more involved war all the way back to 1776.

Squirrel
24 Jul 14,, 21:31
That's just the "we won, now leave us alone" syndrome. The US has been having that after every more involved war all the way back to 1776.

Of course a German would see it like that...:tongue:

SteveDaPirate
24 Jul 14,, 23:31
calls for isolationism are more popular than ever.

The US has always had a current of isolationism and in a lot of ways it is understandable. Having a giant moat on either side and two much weaker neighbors means that the US faces very few existential threats. A significant portion of the US populace thinks that the best thing the military could do for the country is free up resources by downsizing into a purely self defense force.

There is some logic to such an argument. The geographical position of the US means that we could probably eliminate the Army/Navy/Airforce altogether while retaining a robust Coast Guard and National Guard along with a nuclear deterrent and remain safe from serious existential threats.

That being said, I personally believe that isolationism, while feasible, would restrict the options available to our national policy makers too severely to be seriously considered. A strong military has served the US well so far, and while we have enough land area to conduct a defense in depth if required, the strategy of fighting "over there" instead of on our home turf is one I can appreciate.

I would like to see a bit more consideration of long term national strategy before trying to solve the world's problems with military power however. I'm all for defending core national interests and allies, but these optional nation building projects on the other side of the world are probably best left out in the future.

I'll get down off my soap box now :)

Repatriated Canuck
27 Jul 14,, 01:41
The short answer is 'not especially'



Overshadowing all of this was the knowledge that a miscalculation at any moment could just about wipe out humanity. If you want to scare yourself google 'Able Archer 1983'. Some people on our forum would have been among the first to die.





Took that advice. That was a close one.

gunnut
28 Jul 14,, 21:21
Some data about Asia and the Pacific, from “Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific 2013:”

http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/ESCAP-SYB2013.pdf

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ca. 1990 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Latest Data
People in poverty (PPP1.25/day)_ _ _ 51.7% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 18.3% (2011)

I am stunned by this number.

gunnut
28 Jul 14,, 21:35
Well, more than usual. (Usual being my frame of reference which due to my age is the '90s onward.)

As others have mentioned, 24/7 news blasting every single little incident into the household non-stop for the week can make the world look like it's going to hell in a hand basket.

But think about this, what do these mean in the big scheme of things? Terror bombing? Few dozen to few hundred deaths. Mass shooting? A handful to a few dozen deaths. Current Gaza situation? A thousand deaths. Syria? Tens of thousand of deaths over 3 years.

I don't mean to sound callous, but compare these numbers to wars in the past. Thousands of civilians die in every single small war. Up to hundreds of thousands would die in a major conflict. China and USSR lost close to 50 million in WW2.

Of course man's handiwork is not close to what nature can do. Tsunami of 2004 killed almost 300k. An earthquake in China in 1976 killed almost 1/4 million. Flu pandemic of 1918 killed 3% to 5% of the entire world's population. Black death in the 14th century wiped out 30% to 60% of Europe's population.

The world today is quite safe. Sure, terrorism is scary. It could strike anywhere at any time. But is it really scarier than the threat of nuclear bombs falling out of the sky?

DOR
29 Jul 14,, 02:37
I am stunned by this number.

gunnut,

Two things at work here: China and China.

1) China figured out how to get people out of poverty (nevermind what you think of their other policies); if other economies follow the economic model, there will be fewer people in poverty.

2) China got its population growth under control (same caveat), which reduced the total number of people that make up the denominator. Same thing: if population growth comes down, the numbers get better, since better-off families tend to have fewer kids.

Bigfella
29 Jul 14,, 10:32
Took that advice. That was a close one.

That it was. The rational party of me kept screaming 'but surely we couldn't have been dumb enough to actually let it happen'. The Historian in me just shrugged his shoulders & was thankful we got lucky. I work with a lady who was living in Germany at the time with here husband, who was with the BAOR. When I filled her in on the details of this she turned a rather odd colour.

S2
30 Jul 14,, 05:28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0dNnC4ZPCg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psB0cidB5bg

A couple of cursory perspectives.

Officer of Engineers
30 Jul 14,, 16:47
That it was. The rational party of me kept screaming 'but surely we couldn't have been dumb enough to actually let it happen'. The Historian in me just shrugged his shoulders & was thankful we got lucky. I work with a lady who was living in Germany at the time with here husband, who was with the BAOR. When I filled her in on the details of this she turned a rather odd colour.That was a near accident and the number of near accidents ain't small.

The more scarier ones are the actual deliberate cocking of the nuclear trigger with the clear intent to start and fight a nuclear war and those are much scarier. It took very brave men to back down from something so stupid. And it ain't us in the West.

Albany Rifles
30 Jul 14,, 17:29
Well, I'm not aware of a Cuban Missile Crisis or an ABLE ARCHER 83 events lately so I don't see it as especially bad....

S2
31 Jul 14,, 07:51
A conventional war in eastern Europe involving multiple nations is now entirely possible. The consequences would be horrid for winners or losers. That's without nukes. The momentum is all in the wrong direction at present and I don't see anybody calling a time-out because of approaching winter. All bets are off if the Russians cross and that's 50/50 IMV right now.

For all intents and purposes the Russian Army crossed that border some time ago. An overt invasion, however, under any contrivance imagined can rapidly spin out of control. We've already seen a small example of what lies behind the law of unintended consequences two weeks ago. It shook everybody but for the one guy it most should have paused.

Dark forces with malice are afoot. I'm dismayed by the acquiescence of civilized, educated people in so many places prepared to accept authoritarianism in all its many forms as viable governance. Or spineless, toady acquiescence. I'm fast running out of nations for whom I can truly cheer. Worst, right now it wouldn't include my nation.

snapper
31 Jul 14,, 11:19
I have to agree with S2 here - the whole mentality and ethos since the end of the 'Cold War' from the lack of carrying on the reforms at home to the failures in foreign policy and operational see it through till the job is done and the necessary false economics that has accompanied it wrong in my opinion. I blame nobody in particular but all of you over 50 in general. You let it slip, rested on your no doubt well deserved laurels. Nothing ends that easy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krj44WBEn-U&list=WL&index=27

We'll sort it.

Mihais
31 Jul 14,, 13:19
A conventional war in eastern Europe involving multiple nations is now entirely possible. The consequences would be horrid for winners or losers. That's without nukes. The momentum is all in the wrong direction at present and I don't see anybody calling a time-out because of approaching winter. All bets are off if the Russians cross and that's 50/50 IMV right now.

For all intents and purposes the Russian Army crossed that border some time ago. An overt invasion, however, under any contrivance imagined can rapidly spin out of control. We've already seen a small example of what lies behind the law of unintended consequences two weeks ago. It shook everybody but for the one guy it most should have paused.

Dark forces with malice are afoot. I'm dismayed by the acquiescence of civilized, educated people in so many places prepared to accept authoritarianism in all its many forms as viable governance. Or spineless, toady acquiescence. I'm fast running out of nations for whom I can truly cheer. Worst, right now it wouldn't include my nation.

Sir,eternal peace is nothing but the domain of utopians.You and yours managed the best one man can hope.You assured peace and you did it better and longer than most generations.
You argue little with a fool,but you have a gigantic struggle with a fool who went to shool.And right now,we have the most educated fools in world history.A diploma doesn't makes fools smart or wise.So they can accept with no drama the whip of a ruler.Because they're also natural born slaves.
It's an eternal cycle that has gone back and forth since the dawn of man.Your president Reagan was right in this speech.It's nothing but our turn to fight the demons inside or outside our countries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3MiBI9ZRBo

S2
31 Jul 14,, 16:27
"Sir,eternal peace is nothing but the domain of utopians..."

Fools and perfectionists also. To that end, I camp with the perfectionists. I don't know the possibilities of eternal peace but I cannot muster arguments against it. So it is a worthy objective to seek with self-improvement marking steps of progress with no illusion where the trail might end.

S2
31 Jul 14,, 16:29
Mihais,

Great speech. Sent me searching for my rifle until I realized...I'm unarmed. Not good these days maybe.

Doktor
31 Jul 14,, 16:35
Dude,

Those rods relaxed you way too much.

S2
31 Jul 14,, 17:28
Probably not the rods now that I'm living in Vancouver, Washington.

Albany Rifles
31 Jul 14,, 20:12
I blame nobody in particular but all of you over 50 in general. You let it slip, rested on your no doubt well deserved laurel...


BULLSHIT!!!!

Not having any of that.

We stayed engaged and got shat on. Europe couldn't do a damn thing to stop the killing in the Balkans...and the 1st Armored Division crossed the SAva River and things quieted down.

Since the Wall came down, 49,992 and over 300 Canadian US servicemen and women and over 300 Canadian have been killed, wounded or injured in combat operations world wide. US forces have been deployed, and continue to be deployed, world wide in support of Allies and US interests.

The one area I could agree with you on is the shocking and glaring failure to do anything regarding the genocides in Africa during the 1990s. That is a stain on our national honor...but again, it was one more mess of a European making which my country, and servicemen like S2, myself, SWO, Bluesman and thousands of others would have had been asked to fix.

Some of our European Allies have been there for some those operations, but not all and not in their fair share. Check the stats on how the Western Europeans are doing on their MANDATORY percentage of GDP spending on military spending IAW the NATO Treaty.

So if you want to say "They rested on their laurels", feel free to look at Europe but don't your dare look across the Atlantic.

We have done more than our fair share.

gunnut
31 Jul 14,, 23:19
gunnut,

Two things at work here: China and China.

1) China figured out how to get people out of poverty (nevermind what you think of their other policies); if other economies follow the economic model, there will be fewer people in poverty.

2) China got its population growth under control (same caveat), which reduced the total number of people that make up the denominator. Same thing: if population growth comes down, the numbers get better, since better-off families tend to have fewer kids.

I know China's rise over the last 25 years had a lot to do with it, just didn't know the number to be so large.

Of course I have not seen the study in detail. Torture the numbers long enough and they tell you anything you want to hear.

Officer of Engineers
01 Aug 14,, 09:16
I blame nobody in particular but all of you over 50 in general. You let it slip, rested on your no doubt well deserved laurels. Nothing ends that easy.

We'll sort it.Rested on our laurels? We destroyed the last major Russian ally in Eastern Europe. What more did you want?

snapper
02 Aug 14,, 05:51
Rested on our laurels? We destroyed the last major Russian ally in Eastern Europe. What more did you want?

Certainly Sir and credit is due and forthcoming from me at least for your long vigilance. My point is that when the objective seemed done we effectively lost the peace, allowing more and more corruption in our own systems to the point where politics has no connection with everyday people; we studied our tummy buttons - particularly in Europe - in the hope/belief that it was the 'end of history' and other rubbish and glorious new EU would solve all, it can't and if anything it is a hindrance. History never ends and the maintenance of liberty requires unceasing vigilance; packing up and going home is never an option but it was believed we could. I am not blaming the Cold War warriors as much as the politicians but in truth we are all to blame. I mean it is either stupidity or false to act as if the whole Russo - Ukrainian thing came as surprise but this is only latest of recent failures. Certainly my criticism is directed more toward European nations, not least my own, more than American but the malaise was general.

With regard to Russia in particular I repeat the Bukovsky argument that a form of Nuremberg Trial was required to show the Russian people the depth of the deceptions they had been living under so long - to chart the millions who died in the gulags and the abuses of the KGB. It was never happened - the criminals escaped and you wonder why they are in charge now?

Officer of Engineers
02 Aug 14,, 07:05
Certainly Sir and credit is due and forthcoming from me at least for your long vigilance. My point is that when the objective seemed done we effectively lost the peace,Peace? NATO has seen more war after the Cold War ended than all of the Cold War itself. And I'm talking official NATO missions, not the Coalitions that were used to smash Saddam out of Kuwait and to try to rescue Somalia.

What peace? We were so in awe of our military dominance that we went on a conquering spree. We dared to destroy the last remaining Russian ally in Eastern Europe ... and that was AFTER the Cold War ended.


allowing more and more corruption in our own systems to the point where politics has no connection with everyday people; we studied our tummy buttons - particularly in Europe - in the hope/belief that it was the 'end of history' and other rubbish and glorious new EU would solve all, it can't and if anything it is a hindrance.I say your politicians, and mine, staying out of the Iraq War (at least officially) was very well in contact with everyday people.


History never ends and the maintenance of liberty requires unceasing vigilance; packing up and going home is never an option but it was believed we could. I am not blaming the Cold War warriors as much as the politicians but in truth we are all to blame. I mean it is either stupidity or false to act as if the whole Russo - Ukrainian thing came as surprise but this is only latest of recent failures. Certainly my criticism is directed more toward European nations, not least my own, more than American but the malaise was general.We were looking in the wrong direction but that most certainly does not mean that we've became fat and lazy. The Russians couldn't do what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq (the Soviets could have but not today's Russians) and find me a Russian General who relishes a fight with American Brigade Combat Teams being recceed and flanked by Canadian and British Mechanized Brigade Groups while enjoying F-22 and F-35 air arrogance.


With regard to Russia in particular I repeat the Bukovsky argument that a form of Nuremberg Trial was required to show the Russian people the depth of the deceptions they had been living under so long - to chart the millions who died in the gulags and the abuses of the KGB. It was never happened - the criminals escaped and you wonder why they are in charge now?It's one thing to forget history. It is most certainly disastrous to recall things that never existed. You mean to tell me that you wanted us to march all the way to Moscow after the Kosovo War? You wanted us to liberate the former USSR?

I have news for you. The Ukrainians, Georgians, Belarousians as well as the Russians would have fought us tooth and nail. The Serbs were their brothers and we just clobbered them. You actually think they would have welcome us with open arms?

Wake up. The Ukraines ain't our fight. We're the cheerleaders but that fight is totally for the Ukraines to win or lose. I ain't going to risk one soldier for a country who was ready to kill us less 20 years ago.

snapper
02 Aug 14,, 08:40
What peace? We were so in awe of our military dominance that we went on a conquering spree. We dared to destroy the last remaining Russian ally in Eastern Europe ... and that was AFTER the Cold War ended.

I say your politicians, and mine, staying out of the Iraq War (at least officially) was very well in contact with everyday people.

I recall British troops in Basra and Tony Blair telling us that Iraqi WMD could reach Britain in 45mins having "sexed up" the intelligence report but I would agree with your terminology of a 'conquering spree'; the problem was that it was almost entirely misguided. When you speak of 'destroying the last remaining Russian ally in Eastern Europe' I presume you mean Serbia and though I agree the Milosovic regime was dangerous and abhorrent as a Slav and a Christian I have to question the enfeeblement of Serbia at the expense of a Greater Muslim Albania - now a great recruiting ground for ISIS etc. Look where this misguided 'conquering spree' has got us.

But it is more than this - I mean going into Iraq and removing Saddam was not in itself a bad thing to do - nor was removing Gaddafi. The problem is the lack of understanding that if you are to fundamentally change a nation or a people you have to stay the course; it cannot be an 'in-out'. The US rejects Empire and the idea is unfashionable you have to stay and prove your methods of Government, your investment in infrastructure, your judicial system etc etc better for the average Joe than those they previously had - history proves this. The 'in-out', change the regime and hope they sort it out method leaves chaos and resentment.


We were looking in the wrong direction but that most certainly does not mean that we've became fat and lazy. The Russians couldn't do what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq (the Soviets could have but not today's Russians) and find me a Russian General who relishes a fight with American Brigade Combat Teams being recceed and flanked by Canadian and British Mechanized Brigade Groups while enjoying F-22 and F-35 air arrogance.

Not all of us were looking in the wrong direction but that's beside the point now and I am sure they do not relish the prospect but let's face it - it ain't gonna happen. The Russians have broken the INF Treaty precisely because they the possibility of defeat in a conventional war though. I would welcome your opinion of Tom Nichols article here on this topic;The INF Treaty and Russia (http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-inf-treaty-russia%E2%80%99s-road-war-11001)


It's one thing to forget history. It is most certainly disastrous to recall things that never existed. You mean to tell me that you wanted us to march all the way to Moscow after the Kosovo War? You wanted us to liberate the former USSR?

No Sir nor was the march on Moscow needed, merely making the opening up of trade and other avenues conditional on real reform. Only the smallest pressure was needed to convince Yeltsin to do in mid 1990s.


Wake up. The Ukraines ain't our fight. We're the cheerleaders but that fight is totally for the Ukraines to win or lose. I ain't going to risk one soldier for a country who was ready to kill us less 20 years ago.

So would you send troops to Eastern Germany, Poland or Romania? Didn't they want to kill us not too long ago? This is in my view a grave strategic error and I pray that longer term it does not cost us more lives in the future than an armored Brigade or two deployed now on the Dniepr may avert. With respect Sir it is not about what was the case 20 years but what might be in the next few years.

Officer of Engineers
02 Aug 14,, 15:17
I recall British troops in Basra and Tony Blair telling us that Iraqi WMD could reach Britain in 45mins having "sexed up" the intelligence report but I would agree with your terminology of a 'conquering spree'; the problem was that it was almost entirely misguided.Your eval is wrong. Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr and used fake WMDs to deter attack while keeping real WMD programs dormant. The intent and the capability was always there. The oppertunity to execute was not.


When you speak of 'destroying the last remaining Russian ally in Eastern Europe' I presume you mean Serbia and though I agree the Milosovic regime was dangerous and abhorrent as a Slav and a Christian I have to question the enfeeblement of Serbia at the expense of a Greater Muslim Albania - now a great recruiting ground for ISIS etc. Look where this misguided 'conquering spree' has got us.Whoopee Doo. So we've got a bunch of mercs looking for work. When was that ever new?


But it is more than this - I mean going into Iraq and removing Saddam was not in itself a bad thing to do - nor was removing Gaddafi.It was a strategic imperative.


The problem is the lack of understanding that if you are to fundamentally change a nation or a people you have to stay the course; it cannot be an 'in-out'. The US rejects Empire and the idea is unfashionable you have to stay and prove your methods of Government, your investment in infrastructure, your judicial system etc etc better for the average Joe than those they previously had - history proves this. The 'in-out', change the regime and hope they sort it out method leaves chaos and resentment.Oh horse puckey! The Romans, Eygptians, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, and Mongols, and the Brits have all tried for 100s of years. Fuck up countries will remain fuck up countries no matter how many civilized centurians you put in.


Not all of us were looking in the wrong direction but that's beside the point now and I am sure they do not relish the prospect but let's face it - it ain't gonna happen.Says who? You?


The Russians have broken the INF TreatyNo. They have not.


precisely because they the possibility of defeat in a conventional war though. I would welcome your opinion of Tom Nichols article here on this topic;The INF Treaty and Russia (http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-inf-treaty-russia%E2%80%99s-road-war-11001)Horse puckey!


No Sir nor was the march on Moscow needed, merely making the opening up of trade and other avenues conditional on real reform.You mean like we did to China after Tiennamen? Yeah, how did that work out for us? We stop buying their toys and what did they do? They lower their prices.


Only the smallest pressure was needed to convince Yeltsin to do in mid 1990s.Yelstin couldn't get out of bed sober.


So would you send troops to Eastern Germany, Poland or Romania? Didn't they want to kill us not too long ago? This is in my view a grave strategic error and I pray that longer term it does not cost us more lives in the future than an armored Brigade or two deployed now on the Dniepr may avert. With respect Sir it is not about what was the case 20 years but what might be in the next few years.And those countries jump through hoops to join us and in the case of Romania, they shot their commies. The Ukraines kept electing theirs.

Albany Rifles
02 Aug 14,, 19:19
Snapper,

Please accept my apology for my tone the other day...those are my beliefs but I did not need to express them in such an unprofessional manner.

But as far as your comment regarding the former Warsaw Pact...the Ostties were the Germans problem. The biggest problem we figured about the Poles, Romanians and Hungarians was could we keep them supplied as we counterattacked eastward with them as allies.

snapper
04 Aug 14,, 10:47
Your eval is wrong. Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr and used fake WMDs to deter attack while keeping real WMD programs dormant. The intent and the capability was always there. The oppertunity to execute was not.

My point was that at least the British politicians were not quite as wise as you previously said. Intelligence reports were deliberately 'sexed up' for political purposes and this is wisdom?


Whoopee Doo. So we've got a bunch of mercs looking for work. When was that ever new?

There is a difference between a 'bunch of mercs' and a bunch of fundamentalist Jihadis.


Oh horse puckey! The Romans, Eygptians, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, and Mongols, and the Brits have all tried for 100s of years. Fuck up countries will remain fuck up countries no matter how many civilized centurians you put in.

Gaul was 'barbaric' before Caesar and Mesopotamia was 'civilised' when before the foundations of Rome were layed.


Says who? You?

Certainly I have been one but many others have watched and said the same. The catalogue of cases from Abkazia and South Ossetia to Ryazan and Beslan and the murders from Litvinenko to Anna Politkovskaya and others, the 'gas war' strategy from Georgia to North Stream which the then Polish Defence Minister called the 'Molotov - Ribbentrop pipeline'... You do not need to be mastermind to read the signs of the bear getting upto it's old tricks again, remember what Mitt Romney said? I was not the only one to notice it. An excellent (but long) commentary of the political and ideological 'missed chance' to more or less today is David Remnick's piece with for US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul here; Vladimir Putin's New Anti-Americanism (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/11/watching-eclipse) Well worth reading in my opinion.


No. They have not. Horse puckey!

You may be correct but the US State Department begs to differ; "The State Departmentís annual report on international compliance of arms control agreements released Tuesday said the U.S. had determined that Russia is in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that President Ronald Reagan signed with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987." US accuses Russia of violating 1987 missile treaty - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-russia-violated-1987-nuclear-missile-treaty/2014/07/28/66496aa2-16b5-11e4-88f7-96ed767bb747_story.html)


You mean like we did to China after Tiennamen? Yeah, how did that work out for us? We stop buying their toys and what did they do? They lower their prices.

Yelstin couldn't get out of bed sober.

There was a perfect opportunity in 1992 when Yeltsin was being sued for banning the Communist Party, it was wasted. The guilty escaped and have returned.


And those countries jump through hoops to join us and in the case of Romania, they shot their commies. The Ukraines kept electing theirs.

Notwithstanding that against the odds they turfed out Yanukovych and been fighting off the Russians for four months...

Sir, with respect, you seem to believe and certainly were told by politicians that you won the war. You did not, politically that chance was missed. You won the battle for parts of eastern Europe at the time and for that you have the gratitude and respect of millions. The war however was not won, the system in Russia was not changed and they're back, not as strong or as menacing as before perhaps but the threat remains. If Ukraine falls Moldova will be next and quite likely a Baltic carve up or a further Caucuses move in the medium term; while all that your generation achieved will not be lost it is a mistake in my view to not regard it as threatened. That is a fundamental lack of vigilance in the mistaken belief that the war was won. The evidence was there for all to see but our politicians for most part chose to close their eyes to it. To paraphrase as conversation I had a few days ago with a US based friend; the most part of my generation is ignorant of the threats they face due to the "willful negligence".




Snapper,

Please accept my apology for my tone the other day...those are my beliefs but I did not need to express them in such an unprofessional manner.

No offence taken Sir. I assure you I have been addressed in far harsher terms and lived. I respect your beliefs and your right to them. I have said that I lay the blame more on Europe and certainly our politicians are primarily responsible but then we elected them; we all then share some part of the blame. I intended no disrespect to the former generation of service men and apologise if I gave that impression.


I hope you forgive my tardy response due to work.

Albany Rifles
04 Aug 14,, 14:30
Snapper,

No apologies needed.

Back to the discussion.

Officer of Engineers
04 Aug 14,, 15:13
My point was that at least the British politicians were not quite as wise as you previously said. Intelligence reports were deliberately 'sexed up' for political purposes and this is wisdom?The intel reports was NOT wrong. St Peter's slippers, how hard was it for Saddam to do a Halifax Harbour in the Thames? Hell, how hard was it for Saddam to just blow a hole in an oil tanker in the Thames and just spill its oil cargo? 11 Sept gave Saddam ideas. We went with the "sexed up" reports mainly they were easier to sell and within Saddam's capabiliities WITHOUT giving 11 Sept copycats anymore ideas.


There is a difference between a 'bunch of mercs' and a bunch of fundamentalist Jihadis.You're right. The former is a hell of alot harder to kill.


Gaul was 'barbaric' before Caesar and Mesopotamia was 'civilised' when before the foundations of Rome were layed.And the Franks came in after Caesar and the Turkic raiders couldn't care less. Who cares?


Certainly I have been one but many others have watched and said the same. The catalogue of cases from Abkazia and South Ossetia to Ryazan and Beslan and the murders from Litvinenko to Anna Politkovskaya and others, the 'gas war' strategy from Georgia to North Stream which the then Polish Defence Minister called the 'Molotov - Ribbentrop pipeline'... You do not need to be mastermind to read the signs of the bear getting upto it's old tricks again, remember what Mitt Romney said? I was not the only one to notice it. An excellent (but long) commentary of the political and ideological 'missed chance' to more or less today is David Remnick's piece with for US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul here; Vladimir Putin's New Anti-Americanism (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/11/watching-eclipse) Well worth reading in my opinion.Listen kid, the Russians ain't the crazy ones when it came to nuclear anhilation. Every single time, it was they who backed down, not us. So, where the hell did you get the idea that we would back down? We never did. Not once. Obama may be a coward but even a coward will growl when he knows he will win. And as of right now, we have not only titled the military balance in our favour, we've anchored it. The forces in Poland can smash anything the Russians put up and not break a sweat.

Want an example? How many NATO planes are in the skies over Poland right now?


You may be correct but the US State Department begs to differ; "The State Departmentís annual report on international compliance of arms control agreements released Tuesday said the U.S. had determined that Russia is in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that President Ronald Reagan signed with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987." US accuses Russia of violating 1987 missile treaty - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-russia-violated-1987-nuclear-missile-treaty/2014/07/28/66496aa2-16b5-11e4-88f7-96ed767bb747_story.html)The Russians say that the system has a range limit of 500kms. Given their technical expertise and successes in the past, I believe them. Until the Americans can dissect the missile in question, they cannot prove the Russians are in violation. It's only speculation. And the Russian reaction to the accusation was one of "what the hell are you talking about?" They have openly publized the development of this system and not hidden anything.

And I don't have to go far back to show that the American evals have been wrong. From the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal to the BACKFIRE capabilities to the MiG-25.


There was a perfect opportunity in 1992 when Yeltsin was being sued for banning the Communist Party, it was wasted. The guilty escaped and have returned.Was Yeltsin going to line up every Communist against the wall and shoot them? Was he going to kill Putin? Did Putin even ran as a member of the Communist Party?

There was no oppertunity. None.


Notwithstanding that against the odds they turfed out Yanukovych and been fighting off the Russians for four months... Still not our fight.


Sir, with respect, you seem to believe and certainly were told by politicians that you won the war.No Young Lady. We won and we won big. So big that you are now complaining that we have not won enough. We destroyed the threat to NATO and liberated the Warsaw Pact and drove the Soviets all the way back to their borders. All without turning three continents into a nuclear wasteland. We left the USSR to rott and it broke up into small pieces and they're now fighting amongst themselves for scraps. We couldn't imagine a better scenario. The Soviet Army fighting amongst themselves for Crimea, not Gibralter.


You did not, politically that chance was missed. You won the battle for parts of eastern Europe at the time and for that you have the gratitude and respect of millions. The war however was not won, the system in Russia was not changed and they're back, not as strong or as menacing as before perhaps but the threat remains. If Ukraine falls Moldova will be next and quite likely a Baltic carve up or a further Caucuses move in the medium term; while all that your generation achieved will not be lost it is a mistake in my view to not regard it as threatened.Oh come on, young lady. We didn't give a damn about the Ukraines. The Ukraines sided with Russia and Georgia and Belarouse against us during the Kosovo War. Now you're giving us grief for not saving our enemy from themselves?


That is a fundamental lack of vigilance in the mistaken belief that the war was won. The evidence was there for all to see but our politicians for most part chose to close their eyes to it. To paraphrase as conversation I had a few days ago with a US based friend; the most part of my generation is ignorant of the threats they face due to the "willful negligence".That "willful negligence" is wishful thinking by you and your ilk. The Ukraines was part of the USSR and sided with Moscow all up until recently. In short, you're blaming us for a problem that wasn't ours to begin with.

snapper
04 Aug 14,, 19:18
The intel reports was NOT wrong. St Peter's slippers, how hard was it for Saddam to do a Halifax Harbour in the Thames? Hell, how hard was it for Saddam to just blow a hole in an oil tanker in the Thames and just spill its oil cargo? 11 Sept gave Saddam ideas. We went with the "sexed up" reports mainly they were easier to sell and within Saddam's capabiliities WITHOUT giving 11 Sept copycats anymore ideas.

While I can understand that 9/11 may have given many lunatics ideas we cannot possibly wipe them all out nor do we need to as they do not have the capability. The Gulf Wars were before my time and I admit not my field but if the capability angle was 'sexed up' to give credence to the 'idea possibility' it is an abuse of the reality and the remoteness of fact to possibility is stretched. We could invade the world for ideas and by doing so possibly give them worse ones. Unwise in my view.


You're right. The former is a hell of alot harder to kill.

Alot more rare, rational and expensive also.


And the Franks came in after Caesar and the Turkic raiders couldn't care less. Who cares?

My argument is that a failure to fundamentally change the system - the lustration in Poland etc (though it didn't go half as far as it should have done) enables the old system to creep back. Certainly with some countries or peoples it may take longer than others but unless you are ready to make that commitment then the 'in - out' programme is destabilising and can be ultimately counter productive.


Listen kid, the Russians ain't the crazy ones when it came to nuclear anhilation. Every single time, it was they who backed down, not us. So, where the hell did you get the idea that we would back down? We never did. Not once. Obama may be a coward but even a coward will growl when he knows he will win. And as of right now, we have not only titled the military balance in our favour, we've anchored it. The forces in Poland can smash anything the Russians put up and not break a sweat.

Want an example? How many NATO planes are in the skies over Poland right now?

From my limited experience I would agree that the bear is naturally a cautious beast but I would say the point is not how many planes we can put in the sky over Poland right now.


The Russians say that the system has a range limit of 500kms. Given their technical expertise and successes in the past, I believe them. Until the Americans can dissect the missile in question, they cannot prove the Russians are in violation. It's only speculation. And the Russian reaction to the accusation was one of "what the hell are you talking about?" They have openly publized the development of this system and not hidden anything.

And I don't have to go far back to show that the American evals have been wrong. From the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal to the BACKFIRE capabilities to the MiG-25.

I do not argue with you Sir, merely report the words of the US State Department.


Was Yeltsin going to line up every Communist against the wall and shoot them? Was he going to kill Putin? Did Putin even ran as a member of the Communist Party? There was no oppertunity. None.

On this I must disagree I am afraid. I have met people who were in Moscow in 1992 and read the reports of others. The cup was tippable and the truth could have flowed. The chance was missed.


Still not our fight.

Where does our fight start? Who signed the Budapest Memorandum that convinced Ukraine to dismantle the nuclear weapons under the NPT? Would Ukraine re-acquiring a nuclear capability represent a breach? Since the Memorandum was evidently as worthless as the Munich Agreement in 1938 who could blame them? It is a dangerous precedent to set by all accounts.


No Young Lady. We won and we won big. So big that you are now complaining that we have not won enough. We destroyed the threat to NATO and liberated the Warsaw Pact and drove the Soviets all the way back to their borders. All without turning three continents into a nuclear wasteland. We left the USSR to rott and it broke up into small pieces and they're now fighting amongst themselves for scraps. We couldn't imagine a better scenario. The Soviet Army fighting amongst themselves for Crimea, not Gibralter.

Oh come on, young lady. We didn't give a damn about the Ukraines. The Ukraines sided with Russia and Georgia and Belarouse against us during the Kosovo War. Now you're giving us grief for not saving our enemy from themselves?

Sir you won a great and heroic victory with so little loss of life it was almost miraculous. Regarding Ukraine siding with Russia in the Kosovo War... Poland sided with Russia in the Cold War but not willingly. Ukraine has been occupied, corrupted, blackmailed and now invaded by Russia since 'independence' but now has a real chance to break free. Not our fight? Czechoslovakia was a "far away country of which we know little".


That "willful negligence" is wishful thinking by you and your ilk. The Ukraines was part of the USSR and sided with Moscow all up until recently. In short, you're blaming us for a problem that wasn't ours to begin with.

Sir I merely maintain that a fundamental mistake was made; the belief that the war was won. If the war had been won the recent Russian invasions of Ukraine would not have occured.

I hope also never to become an 'ilk' but, no disrespect to 'ilks', to remain a Lady.

Albany Rifles
04 Aug 14,, 19:38
So Snapper, I ask you.

What, SPECIFIC, concrete steps would have the specific Western nations do?

Keep in mind that what is done can not be in violation of current laws or treaties.

What should we do that we are not already doing?

Officer of Engineers
04 Aug 14,, 20:35
While I can understand that 9/11 may have given many lunatics ideas we cannot possibly wipe them all out nor do we need to as they do not have the capability.Don't you get it? Saddam was such a lunatic and he had the capability, the intent, and the audacity. I wasn't make a joke when I stated that it was a strategic imperative to get rid with him.

Once we dropped the first bomb on Libya, getting rid of Qaddafy was also a strategic imperative but then again, you have no perspective on Lockerbie.


The Gulf Wars were before my time and I admit not my field but if the capability angle was 'sexed up' to give credence to the 'idea possibility' it is an abuse of the reality and the remoteness of fact to possibility is stretched.That's the point. It wasn't stretched. We had the wrong facts. We had the right objective.


We could invade the world for ideas and by doing so possibly give them worse ones. Unwise in my view.Wrong young lady. There is no such thing as the perfect decision. We could only make the best decision possible based on the best information available. Getting rid of Saddam was a strategic imperative. We could not allow that fuck the chance to use what he learn from 11 September.


Alot more rare, rational and expensive also.Since when? BLACKWATER is issuing shares for crying outloud.


My argument is that a failure to fundamentally change the system - the lustration in Poland etc (though it didn't go half as far as it should have done) enables the old system to creep back. Certainly with some countries or peoples it may take longer than others but unless you are ready to make that commitment then the 'in - out' programme is destabilising and can be ultimately counter productive. Not our job. It's their job to jump through hoops to join us, not us twisting their arms to our standards.


From my limited experience I would agree that the bear is naturally a cautious beast but I would say the point is not how many planes we can put in the sky over Poland right now.In case you did not get it, we have drawn the line in the sand.


I do not argue with you Sir, merely report the words of the US State Department.State has been wrong before about Russian weapons systems.


On this I must disagree I am afraid. I have met people who were in Moscow in 1992 and read the reports of others. The cup was tippable and the truth could have flowed. The chance was missed.And Beslan and Kosovo and the Chinese would have dropped the anchor on the other side. Putin restored Russian pride if not Russian power.


Where does our fight start?When the Ukraines signed on the dotted line to join NATO and not one second before.


Who signed the Budapest Memorandum that convinced Ukraine to dismantle the nuclear weapons under the NPT?It's not a defence pact and we paid for the dismantling that the Ukrainians were going to let those nukes rot and leak. The Ukraines was going to disarm nuclear whether she likes it or not. She was not maintaining those nukes to even storage standards, let alone operational standards.


Would Ukraine re-acquiring a nuclear capability represent a breach? Since the Memorandum was evidently as worthless as the Munich Agreement in 1938 who could blame them? It is a dangerous precedent to set by all accounts.If she had the money to do so, she would not be in this mess.


Sir you won a great and heroic victory with so little loss of life it was almost miraculous. Regarding Ukraine siding with Russia in the Kosovo War... Poland sided with Russia in the Cold War but not willingly. Ukraine has been occupied, corrupted, blackmailed and now invaded by Russia since 'independence' but now has a real chance to break free. Not our fight?1) Ukraine sided willingly against us during Kosovo.
2) She took Russian money without a 2nd thought.
3) In Crimea's case, the people there couldn't leave the Ukraines fast enough.


Czechoslovakia was a "far away country of which we know little".We signed on the dotted line.


Sir I merely maintain that a fundamental mistake was made; the belief that the war was won. If the war had been won the recent Russian invasions of Ukraine would not have occured. Oh we won and we won big. A Soviet civil war destroying the threat to Western Europe? We would never have dared dreamed.


I hope also never to become an 'ilk' but, no disrespect to 'ilks', to remain a Lady.Women!

Blademaster
05 Aug 14,, 18:16
Peace? NATO has seen more war after the Cold War ended than all of the Cold War itself. And I'm talking official NATO missions, not the Coalitions that were used to smash Saddam out of Kuwait and to try to rescue Somalia.

What peace? We were so in awe of our military dominance that we went on a conquering spree. We dared to destroy the last remaining Russian ally in Eastern Europe ... and that was AFTER the Cold War ended.


So you tacitly admit that the basis behind US and NATO's movements was "Might makes right"



I say your politicians, and mine, staying out of the Iraq War (at least officially) was very well in contact with everyday people.

I have news for you. The Ukrainians, Georgians, Belarousians as well as the Russians would have fought us tooth and nail. The Serbs were their brothers and we just clobbered them. You actually think they would have welcome us with open arms?

Wake up. The Ukraines ain't our fight. We're the cheerleaders but that fight is totally for the Ukraines to win or lose. I ain't going to risk one soldier for a country who was ready to kill us less 20 years ago.

So why do you decry Obama for doing what you would have done in his place?

Officer of Engineers
05 Aug 14,, 18:24
So you tacitly admit that the basis behind US and NATO's movements was "Might makes right"The only one I would put up there is the Kosovo War. The others are of strategic imperatives.


So why do you decry Obama for doing what you would have done in his place?I decry him for giving away the friggin farm to the Russians and the Chinese.

New START is everything the Russians wanted.

lemontree
06 Aug 14,, 11:31
Don't you get it? Saddam was such a lunatic and he had the capability, the intent, and the audacity. I wasn't make a joke when I stated that it was a strategic imperative to get rid with him.


Sir, I have always been confused as to what strategic advantage was gained by the US from the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In the subcontinent we always look at it as a US strategy of controlling crude oil global prices.

ISIS is reported to be funded and supplied by the US/NATO.
Since the ISIS crisis blew up in Iraq, crude oil rates have shot up and affected dollar exchange rates in favour of the former.

Your views/ comments would be helpful.

Doktor
06 Aug 14,, 12:00
Captain,

Instead of wondering if the looney dictator makes plans to inflict more pain, US hoped for a friendly ruler in the country, which at the end was leaving Iran alone, but with enough power to keep the things local.

Things are not worse now then before Saddam for US, because everyone in the region seem rather busy. Yes, KSA included ;)

Per your oil price remark think who can sustain high oil prices, the west or the east (to simplify it in order not to name countries).

Blademaster
06 Aug 14,, 16:55
The only one I would put up there is the Kosovo War. The others are of strategic imperatives.

I decry him for giving away the friggin farm to the Russians and the Chinese.

New START is everything the Russians wanted.

I disagree with you that Obama gave away the friggin farm or that the farm was valuable in the first place.

New Start may have given everything thing the Russians (I disagree with you on this one) US got a lot of things it wanted.

Officer of Engineers
06 Aug 14,, 16:58
Sir, I have always been confused as to what strategic advantage was gained by the US from the 2003 invasion of Iraq.They got rid of a terrorist threat who has historically shown that he would embark on misguided adventures when he thought he could pull it off without extreme costs, starting with the Iran-Iraq War, the Bush Sr assassination attempt, to issuing chemical weapons release orders on non-existing stock.

If fake chemical weapons would have prevented an American invasion, he would proceed to get real ones and 11 Sept taught him how to use them.

I would re-iterate. This is not a court of law. These are strategic imperatives. Law is something for lawyers to rewrite to their hearts content as the Americans have done.


In the subcontinent we always look at it as a US strategy of controlling crude oil global prices.

ISIS is reported to be funded and supplied by the US/NATO.
Since the ISIS crisis blew up in Iraq, crude oil rates have shot up and affected dollar exchange rates in favour of the former.

Your views/ comments would be helpful.Oil was most certainly a factor. You can't go into an oil rich country without at least a plan on how to control that oil but the primary motivation remained Saddam. The US had better access from Canada and Mexico.

Officer of Engineers
06 Aug 14,, 17:01
I disagree with you that Obama gave away the friggin farm or that the farm was valuable in the first place.Given current situation, it now is. We have literally abandoned Global Prompt Strike.


New Start may have given everything thing the Russians (I disagree with you on this one) US got a lot of things it wanted.New START is a freaking joke. Both sides can legally have 300 more warheads than what is counted and there are no verification nor enforcement on those numbers.

snapper
07 Aug 14,, 00:19
So Snapper, I ask you.

What, SPECIFIC, concrete steps would have the specific Western nations do?

Keep in mind that what is done can not be in violation of current laws or treaties.

What should we do that we are not already doing?

Sir, I am not sure I can easily answer such a blunt question but allow me to try to explain my view. You will no doubt be aware of the Clauswitz saying that "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means". My point is in a way the obverse of this; that once the battle is won the war doesn't stop, you must win the peace to win the war. No doubt your own extensive historical knowledge will provide examples but allow me to illustrate my view by contrasting the Versailles Peace of WW1 with the Nuremburg War Trials and Marshall Plan WW2. What is more the allied troops stayed - though for different reasons. When the Cold War ended the horrors of their previous rulers were not revealed to the Russian people, if they had been, as the Nuremburg Trials did in Germany, the whole criminalised KGB secret state structure would have been fundamentally undermined - we'd have memorials and eternal flames to those that died in the Gulags and Ukrainian Holodomor rather than former KGB officer trying to establish a 'Novorossiya' in Ukraine now. It was possible in 1992 and we missed it. I recommend Vladimir Bukovsky's (who I have had the honour of meeting) 'Judgement in Moscow'. The war doesn't end once the fighting ends and to believe it does is naeive; the imperial model worked on this understanding. Justice, friendship, lustration and generosity are required to win the 'hearts and minds' once the battles end. We have seen the results of recent failures to grasp this. On the other side of the same coin I would argue that when a civilian population of it's own accord arises and throws off the shackles post Soviet corruption they deserve and require every support we can give - Israel has not been invaded but we provide weapons to her, Ukraine has but we only provide non lethal aid?

I have already stated specific things that could be done now - two divisions on the Dniepr would end Russian involvement in Ukraine without a fight though Crimea would remain but would become negotiable with possibly a joint administration or a lease solution.

I thought it easier to respond to the more general question than to continue the detailed point by point discussion with the esteemed Colonel but if the Officer wishes me to answer specific points I am at his service.

Blademaster
07 Aug 14,, 01:40
Given current situation, it now is. We have literally abandoned Global Prompt Strike.
Why was that? it wasn't because of appeasement but because it didn't tactically or strategically work. Most generals were on the record saying that. What makes you different from those generals who had better access to those data and conclusions than you?

Global Prompt Strike would be treated the same way as ICBM. So not much use there.



New START is a freaking joke. Both sides can legally have 300 more warheads than what is counted and there are no verification nor enforcement on those numbers.

The thing about New START is that it doesn't handicap US or restrict US in any of the most important ways and allows US to be more economically feasible with respect to nuclear weapons. For starters, nothing in New START restrict US from any new research or so. Only deployment. Russia doesn't even have the ability to conduct new groundbreaking research and is hard pressed to even match the levels quoted in New START.

And moreover, you have admitted that US and NATO are moving away from tactical nukes to non nuke delivery platforms and weapons just because it is more effective and more economical.

Officer of Engineers
07 Aug 14,, 02:55
Why was that? it wasn't because of appeasement but because it didn't tactically or strategically work. Most generals were on the record saying that. What makes you different from those generals who had better access to those data and conclusions than you?The Russians didn't think so. They thought a conventional armed TRIDENT could take out their silos. That in itself was stablizing, at least nuclear war avoiding. The Russians won't have to be scared of an American nuclear first strike.


Global Prompt Strike would be treated the same way as ICBM. So not much use there.It removed nukes as a viable first strike platform. The reason why we moved away from tac nukes because conventional systems became more effective. Want to get rid of nukes? Get something to replace it ... and this was it.


The thing about New START is that it doesn't handicap US or restrict US in any of the most important ways and allows US to be more economically feasible with respect to nuclear weapons. For starters, nothing in New START restrict US from any new research or so. Only deployment. Russia doesn't even have the ability to conduct new groundbreaking research and is hard pressed to even match the levels quoted in New START.Think you better reread the data. The Russians are keeping operational warheads low but their warhead storage is much highter than ours.

More over, they're fielding new ICBMs. Our last batch was made in 1978.


And moreover, you have admitted that US and NATO are moving away from tactical nukes to non nuke delivery platforms and weapons just because it is more effective and more economical.Precisely. So, why are we allowing the Russians to restrict us to nuclear platforms?

Albany Rifles
07 Aug 14,, 04:36
Snapper,

Okay, but I look at this statement and ask ....two divisions on the Dniepr who's 2 divisions?

I hope you don't think the US. We have 2 BRIGADES in Europe, a STRYKER and an airborne brigade....which is exercising in Poland. We have 2 brigades in Kuwait, 4 brigades in Afghanistan...and several more in the cycle.

We only have 10 active divisions and 3 independent brigades. (Don't even ask about the National Guard!)

And we don't have piles of tanks & Bradleys sitting around in Germany any more...the last M1 left Germany a year ago.

The UK barely has 3 divisions in their entire army...same with the Germans. And when you say 2 divisions you are really saying a corps...so 2 each 17,000 men divisions is really a 60,000 man corps with all of the artillery, air defense, signals, engineer, intel and not to mention a whole bunch of logistics forces behind it.

So as much as we all might like to see this....well, its not happening.

There is neither the political will nor defense ties to the Ukraine to justify such a move.

Remember, there is NO alliance between Ukraine and NATO.

Gun Grape
07 Aug 14,, 05:53
My point is in a way the obverse of this; that once the battle is won the war doesn't stop, you must win the peace to win the war. No doubt your own extensive historical knowledge will provide examples but allow me to illustrate my view by contrasting the Versailles Peace of WW1 with the Nuremburg War Trials and Marshall Plan WW2. What is more the allied troops stayed - though for different reasons. When the Cold War ended the horrors of their previous rulers were not revealed to the Russian people, if they had been, as the Nuremburg Trials did in Germany, the whole criminalised KGB secret state structure would have been fundamentally undermined - we'd have memorials and eternal flames to those that died in the Gulags and Ukrainian Holodomor rather than former KGB officer trying to establish a 'Novorossiya' in Ukraine now. It was possible in 1992 and we missed it.

Notice in those examples you gave, we actually occupied territory and stayed. Are you suggesting we should have rolled into Russia in 1992?

snapper
07 Aug 14,, 06:15
Sir, that is the mistake of the European in particular - including those whom I serve and are aware of my views. The UK deployment of a full Brigade to Poland for exercises is a welcome decision but should be supported. I understand full well that two divisions on the Dniepr is not going to happen but you asked what more could we do to solve the problem, I answered. In the meantime we must win the war we have until other agreements get upto speed. Perhaps favoured nation on a trade basis and allied but not NATO would help but the meanings and intricacies of your political terminology are foreign to me. What I understand is that Ukraine must win it's right to self determination. Whatever assistance can be legally given should be. I believe Ukraine can and will win long term - just how many lives must be lost.

snapper
07 Aug 14,, 06:18
Notice in those examples you gave, we actually occupied territory and stayed. Are you suggesting we should have rolled into Russia in 1992?


Sir I do not believe that was necessary, merely the exposure of the Soviet regimes crimes may have proved sufficient. The rest they would do for themselves.

Doktor
07 Aug 14,, 08:13
S,

How you would make the KGB expose itself? Yeltsin was the best guy you'd get for such a job, yet he didn't.

SteveDaPirate
07 Aug 14,, 23:16
We have literally abandoned Global Prompt Strike.

I was under the impression that a hypersonic weapon building on the X-51 is planned to enter service in the 2020s. This would seemingly fulfill the Prompt Global Strike requirements while bypassing the danger of looking like a nuclear launch.

The US appears to be the only country that is even close to developing a real capacity to shoot down incoming ICBMs. I would think mutual reductions in operationally deployed nukes would provide a disproportionate benefit to the side with even limited missile defense capability.

Blademaster
07 Aug 14,, 23:52
The Russians didn't think so. They thought a conventional armed TRIDENT could take out their silos. That in itself was stablizing, at least nuclear war avoiding. The Russians won't have to be scared of an American nuclear first strike.

Tridents are ICBMs and you yourself stated that any ICBM launch would be treated as a nuclear strike by the Russians. They have no way of determining which one is a nuclear ICBM or non-nuclear ICBM. You contradict yourself right there.



It removed nukes as a viable first strike platform. The reason why we moved away from tac nukes because conventional systems became more effective. Want to get rid of nukes? Get something to replace it ... and this was it.
Well the problem with that it looked no different from a nuclear ICBM warhead so how do you discern the difference? The Russian general has to make a fast quick decision as to whether to launch the nukes less he lose it in case the warhead are actually nuclear.



Think you better reread the data. The Russians are keeping operational warheads low but their warhead storage is much highter than ours.
You think that the Russians are capable of keeping their stored warhead intact and in good working order? They can't even keep their nuke subs in good working order and is hard pressed to keep several in working conditions. What makes you think that Russia is capable of keeping thousands of warheads updated and current? They can't. They don't have the money.



More over, they're fielding new ICBMs. Our last batch was made in 1978.
Our last batch have been refurbished several times and updated with new circuitry and fuel. The Russians couldn't afford to do that so had to start new ICBMs and not enough to replace one for one whereas US could.



Precisely. So, why are we allowing the Russians to restrict us to nuclear platforms?

Only to those that could be mistaken for nuclear platforms so there is no ambiguity as to whether the oncoming strikes are nuclear or not.

Officer of Engineers
08 Aug 14,, 01:40
Tridents are ICBMsTRIDENTS are SLBMS. I know you're lawyering these days and married but ... shame, Hitesh, you've been whipped.


and you yourself stated that any ICBM launch would be treated as a nuclear strike by the Russians. They have no way of determining which one is a nuclear ICBM or non-nuclear ICBM. You contradict yourself right there.The technology is not mature yet. As of today, a conventional armed TRIDENT cannot take out a Russian silo but we have restricted ourselves from ever developing that technology.


Well the problem with that it looked no different from a nuclear ICBM warhead so how do you discern the difference? The Russian general has to make a fast quick decision as to whether to launch the nukes less he lose it in case the warhead are actually nuclear.Never mind the Russians. What about the Chinese? What about the Iranians? What about the Pakistanis? Why do we restrict ourselves from conventionally taking out those threats? Why do we have to rely on nukes to take out their arsenals in time critical missions?


You think that the Russians are capable of keeping their stored warhead intact and in good working order? They can't even keep their nuke subs in good working order and is hard pressed to keep several in working conditions.Their SSBNs are extremely viable and have resumed Cold War scheduled patrols. My assumption, and would be a valid one, that they're ready for bear.


What makes you think that Russia is capable of keeping thousands of warheads updated and current? They can't. They don't have the money.Their doctrine states that they have 30 days (that's how long a crisis would develop) to bring to full alert. At such a point, I don't think money matters much. They're assuming they're going to die.

However, to answer your point, they're not throwing decommissioned nukes into the Volga because they can't work. They're dismantling them which means that they've got parts galore. All they have to do is to canablize their decomissioning nukes.


Our last batch have been refurbished several times and updated with new circuitry and fuel. The Russians couldn't afford to do that so had to start new ICBMs and not enough to replace one for one whereas US could.And they've added features to overcome BMD. The point is the Russians are never as strong as we believe but they're never as weak as we believe. Push comes to shove, they will get their birds into the air. They've always did.


Only to those that could be mistaken for nuclear platforms so there is no ambiguity as to whether the oncoming strikes are nuclear or not.You mean like B52s, B1s, and B2s, and cruise missile strikes during the Kuwait and Iraq Wars?

Officer of Engineers
08 Aug 14,, 02:40
I was under the impression that a hypersonic weapon building on the X-51 is planned to enter service in the 2020s. This would seemingly fulfill the Prompt Global Strike requirements while bypassing the danger of looking like a nuclear launch.The TRIDENTS are an easier and cheaper technology to develop. And the reason why the Russians fear it is because they can't react before first impact (10 minute flight time) and then left with the only option of a nuclear first strike by their subs. Which they have historically loathe to do.

Blademaster
08 Aug 14,, 03:00
TRIDENTS are SLBMS. I know you're lawyering these days and married but ... shame, Hitesh, you've been whipped.
Facts of the life.



The technology is not mature yet. As of today, a conventional armed TRIDENT cannot take out a Russian silo but we have restricted ourselves from ever developing that technology.
Russia doesn't use silos anymore. They use mobile ICBMs now.



Never mind the Russians. What about the Chinese? What about the Iranians? What about the Pakistanis? Why do we restrict ourselves from conventionally taking out those threats? Why do we have to rely on nukes to take out their arsenals in time critical missions? We always have that ability against those countries.... CVNs.



Their SSBNs are extremely viable and have resumed Cold War scheduled patrols. My assumption, and would be a valid one, that they're ready for bear.
Yes at the cost of the rest of their navy which means that Russia can't project power and instead waste more money on nuke subs that doesn't really do much in the conventional sphere of geopolitics.



Their doctrine states that they have 30 days (that's how long a crisis would develop) to bring to full alert. At such a point, I don't think money matters much. They're assuming they're going to die. 30 days is enough to remachine and refurbish the nukes? I thought it takes more.



However, to answer your point, they're not throwing decommissioned nukes into the Volga because they can't work. They're dismantling them which means that they've got parts galore. All they have to do is to canablize their decomissioning nukes. I thought those parts are useless because of the radiation and emissions from radioactive decay. Not only that, you have stated repeatedly that the cores and charges need to be reshape every couple years.



And they've added features to overcome BMD. The point is the Russians are never as strong as we believe but they're never as weak as we believe. Push comes to shove, they will get their birds into the air. They've always did.
Yes at the expense of everything else.



You mean like B52s, B1s, and B2s, and cruise missile strikes during the Kuwait and Iraq Wars?
The difference with those weapons is that the Russians had more time to identify whether it was conventional attack or not. With ICBMs you had no way of knowing in time.

Officer of Engineers
08 Aug 14,, 04:27
Russia doesn't use silos anymore. They use mobile ICBMs now.Nope, at least half are still silo based.


We always have that ability against those countries.... CVNs.Not 10-30 minute impact time.


Yes at the cost of the rest of their navy which means that Russia can't project power and instead waste more money on nuke subs that doesn't really do much in the conventional sphere of geopolitics.That wasn't your point. Your point was that their nukes are detorriating. They're not.


30 days is enough to remachine and refurbish the nukes? I thought it takes more.Their nukes are clunklier than ours (ie, more dirty fall out), so it doesn't have to meet our standards, just enough to go boom.


I thought those parts are useless because of the radiation and emissions from radioactive decay. Not only that, you have stated repeatedly that the cores and charges need to be reshape every couple years.A hell of a lot easier to refurbish than it is to manufacture new.


Yes at the expense of everything else.Well, here's the point. Relative to what? Relative to us? Sure. They've declined but would a Chinese Group Army like to take on a Russian Guards Army?


The difference with those weapons is that the Russians had more time to identify whether it was conventional attack or not. With ICBMs you had no way of knowing in time.B2s and cruise missiles? Hitesh, we're counting on the fact that the Russians won't see them until impact. Otherwise, they'd be shot out of the sky.

lemontree
08 Aug 14,, 10:35
They got rid of a terrorist threat who has historically shown that he would embark on misguided adventures when he thought he could pull it off without extreme costs, starting with the Iran-Iraq War, the Bush Sr assassination attempt, to issuing chemical weapons release orders on non-existing stock.


One would have thought that the Gulf War 1 would have kept him in check, since it was quite a "shock and awe" even for those who just watched the war on TV.
Saddam's biggest folly was the Kuwait invasion.

But sir, to grant the devil his due, Iraq had US support against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war.
The Bush Sr assassination attempt has so much contrary material online that one would never know what is the truth.

But in hind sight now, with the way Iraq has turned out, it appears that mad men can only be controlled by a madman (Saddam). At least then Iraq was a secular nation, while today there is genocide agaisnt all minorities by the sunni ISIS.

Officer of Engineers
08 Aug 14,, 14:58
One would have thought that the Gulf War 1 would have kept him in check, since it was quite a "shock and awe" even for those who just watched the war on TV.
Saddam's biggest folly was the Kuwait invasion.11 September gave him ideas and subsuqent actions proved the Americans right. A chemical weapons release order and the buried nuclear weapons research was found. Saddam was biding his time.


But sir, to grant the devil his due, Iraq had US support against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war.No. The Iran-Contra Affair.


The Bush Sr assassination attempt has so much contrary material online that one would never know what is the truth.Bill Clinton was convinced.


But in hind sight now, with the way Iraq has turned out, it appears that mad men can only be controlled by a madman (Saddam). At least then Iraq was a secular nation, while today there is genocide agaisnt all minorities by the sunni ISIS.Iraqis are killing Iraqis. Saddam is not doing a 11 Sept against the Americans.

SteveDaPirate
08 Aug 14,, 15:46
Iraqis are killing Iraqis. Saddam is not doing a 11 Sept against the Americans.

As much as I hate to see the endless slaughter in the Middle East, as long as Syria/Iraq remains a meat grinder that sucks in all the guys with extremist tendencies, the rest of the world is safer.

Doktor
08 Aug 14,, 18:06
As much as I hate to see the endless slaughter in the Middle East, as long as Syria/Iraq remains a meat grinder that sucks in all the guys with extremist tendencies, the rest of the world is safer.

I know it's usual for some North Americans to see the world as a piece in the map between Germany and the Pacific, but this statement on WAB is rather confusing. Look at the news about Africa SEAsia, Ukraine, Georgia, Balkans... Then reconsider how the world is safer.

astralis
08 Aug 14,, 19:13
precisely. militants, unfortunately, are a renewable resource. extremism breeds further extremism.

gunnut
12 Aug 14,, 20:20
And Beslan and Kosovo and the Chinese would have dropped the anchor on the other side. Putin restored Russian pride if not Russian power.

Sir, do you mean Putin is good for the stability of the world because he keeps Russia together rather than allowing it to break up further? I have never thought of it that way. A strong dictator is better than a group of regional strongmen vying for power with foreign influence injected into the fight. We learned that in Iraq (or did we?). We saw that in Libya. We almost got it right in Egypt. It's happening in Syria right now.

gunnut
12 Aug 14,, 20:33
Sir I do not believe that was necessary, merely the exposure of the Soviet regimes crimes may have proved sufficient. The rest they would do for themselves.

Snapper, if I may interject. I think you are too naÔve about the Russian people. They may not like their current government, they may not want the corruption in their current government, but they sure as hell don't want western Europeans to "liberate" them.

As the old saying goes, Putin is a sonufabitch but he's our sonufabitch. Nothing unifies the Russian people, even the Ukranian people, more than a European invasion/occupation/subjugation. Some will welcome the Europeans, but I suspect most will resist.

lemontree
14 Aug 14,, 12:11
As much as I hate to see the endless slaughter in the Middle East, as long as Syria/Iraq remains a meat grinder that sucks in all the guys with extremist tendencies, the rest of the world is safer.

I disagree. If the world sits and watches, then the only ones left in the Middle east will be the extremists who will come after the rest of the world. How can we forget what the Taliban did to Afghanistan and how the extremist AQ came after the US?

The world will never be a safer place if they are left alone.
Unfortunately, India has always sat on the fence on such issues.

Vargas
11 Apr 15,, 03:17
I disagree. If the world sits and watches, then the only ones left in the Middle east will be the extremists who will come after the rest of the world. How can we forget what the Taliban did to Afghanistan and how the extremist AQ came after the US?

The world will never be a safer place if they are left alone.
Unfortunately, India has always sat on the fence on such issues.

In my opinion, it is great that ISIS is being shown so much in the media. This shows people how dangerous Islam can be, and how it will increasingly become more like this if we don't do anything to stop it, specially with the way the Muslims are getting increasingly more radicalized in Western Europe and the number of conversions rise (the converts usually being among the most radicals). Someone might say "Ah, not all Muslims are like that" and that is absolutely obvious, but that is not the point. The minorities that make revolutions and the minorities who take charge. No matter what people on Earth, there is always a tiny minority in leadership and in a increasingly wimp West, the ones that look stronger are the ones who eventually will get a hold of power by imposing their force and spirit.

gunnut
13 Apr 15,, 21:53
In my opinion, it is great that ISIS is being shown so much in the media. This shows people how dangerous Islam can be, and how it will increasingly become more like this if we don't do anything to stop it, specially with the way the Muslims are getting increasingly more radicalized in Western Europe and the number of conversions rise (the converts usually being among the most radicals). Someone might say "Ah, not all Muslims are like that" and that is absolutely obvious, but that is not the point. The minorities that make revolutions and the minorities who take charge. No matter what people on Earth, there is always a tiny minority in leadership and in a increasingly wimp West, the ones that look stronger are the ones who eventually will get a hold of power by imposing their force and spirit.

The problem with your theory is that the western "multicultural" socialist will just declare "ISIS is not Islam."

Notice that we haven't had a single "muslim terror attack" on continental US since 9-11? We've had plenty of "isolated incidents," "work place violence," "lone wolf attacks" by "social outcasts." Basically anything but "Islamic terror."

"Islamic terror" does not exist in the world of western multiculturalism.

Squirrel
14 Apr 15,, 02:30
The problem with your theory is that the western "multicultural" socialist will just declare "ISIS is not Islam."

Notice that we haven't had a single "muslim terror attack" on continental US since 9-11? We've had plenty of "isolated incidents," "work place violence," "lone wolf attacks" by "social outcasts." Basically anything but "Islamic terror."

"Islamic terror" does not exist in the world of western multiculturalism.

The moment you start calling it "Islamic" is the moment you legitimize their cause and alienate the majority of moderates that don't want those turds claiming "same team!" whether you see it or not, it makes a difference.

gunnut
14 Apr 15,, 21:24
The moment you start calling it "Islamic" is the moment you legitimize their cause and alienate the majority of moderates that don't want those turds claiming "same team!" whether you see it or not, it makes a difference.

Moderate muslims need to stand up and clean house. What do we do when someone murders a bunch of people in the name of Christ? We hunt him down and end his crimes, one way or the other.

When someone kills a bunch of people in the name of Allah, moderate muslims need to hunt him down and put him away. No ands, ifs, or buts.

Vargas
15 Apr 15,, 04:45
The problem with your theory is that the western "multicultural" socialist will just declare "ISIS is not Islam."

Notice that we haven't had a single "muslim terror attack" on continental US since 9-11? We've had plenty of "isolated incidents," "work place violence," "lone wolf attacks" by "social outcasts." Basically anything but "Islamic terror."

"Islamic terror" does not exist in the world of western multiculturalism.

That is absolutely true in the progressive left "respectable media". But a lot of conservative, libertarian and neoconservative media - specially the neocons - talk about Islamic Terrorism and even though they are not deemed as "cult" or "respectable", they are the ones with more listeners and that shape the minds of the silent majority of the people.

Vargas
15 Apr 15,, 04:49
Moderate muslims need to stand up and clean house. What do we do when someone murders a bunch of people in the name of Christ? We hunt him down and end his crimes, one way or the other.

When someone kills a bunch of people in the name of Allah, moderate muslims need to hunt him down and put him away. No ands, ifs, or buts.

Exactly... There were mass demonstrations "Je ne suis Charlie" (I am not Charlie) throughout the Muslim world but no march against violence or against the Muslim extremism in the Muslim world.
Now I am absolutely sure that if someone did a big terrorist attack in name of Christ, the next day there would be mass demonstrations of all denominations of Christianity against the attacks and the Church would excommunicate them.
The same thing happens in Jewish communities when someone goes too much "out of line" to the point that people boycott all their business and cut all types of relations to the peoples they expel from their communities.

aileen
31 May 16,, 09:21
The world it it how it's look, In everytimes wethere its 80 or 90's Or 21st century, the consquiences are differents, With rapidly growing technology and Media and by becoming the world global villege; We are aware form the whole world masscares. As a result We all are scared

gunnut
01 Jun 16,, 19:42
The world it it how it's look, In everytimes wethere its 80 or 90's Or 21st century, the consquiences are differents, With rapidly growing technology and Media and by becoming the world global villege; We are aware form the whole world masscares. As a result We all are scared

That is true. The world "appears" far more dangerous today than ever before because of the ubiquitous presence of video cameras. A small flood or land slide or bombing gets recorded from multiple angles and repeated 24/7 for weeks on end. People tend to focus on the negative more than positive already.

I was in Paris during the terror attack in November. I had the TV news on. It got depressing after 2 days of continuous reporting and I just had to watch something else.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jun 16,, 08:41
For fuck sakes, 100,000 cities were slated to disappear under a mushroom cloud in the 60s and 70s and I am supposed to be scared of a some virgins whacking off of fucking 72 sixteen yearolds?

Albany Rifles
03 Jun 16,, 17:56
For fuck sakes, 100,000 cities were slated to disappear under a mushroom cloud in the 60s and 70s and I am supposed to be scared of a some virgins whacking off of fucking 72 sixteen yearolds?

As usual, The Colonel deconstructs the argument in one, simple statement.

Never change, sir.

sabathiel
17 Jul 16,, 16:07
The problem with your theory is that the western "multicultural" socialist will just declare "ISIS is not Islam."

Notice that we haven't had a single "muslim terror attack" on continental US since 9-11? We've had plenty of "isolated incidents," "work place violence," "lone wolf attacks" by "social outcasts." Basically anything but "Islamic terror."

"Islamic terror" does not exist in the world of western multiculturalism.

If ISIS and Al Qaeda are Islamic terror will you allow the same logic to the IRA being catholic terror and the Ku Klux Klan being Christian racism?

rj1
20 Jul 16,, 18:32
Was going through my previous posts and don't think I ever read all the responses to this one.

Feel the same.

Monash
21 Jul 16,, 13:46
What I find interesting is the (to me apparent) increase in global geopolitical instability since the mid 00's as opposed to the the almost continual decline experienced by the world in the last quarter or so of the 20th Century. To me it seems tied to the lasting impact GFC and the end to what was almost 50 years of more or less continuous economic growth and rising rising levels of global prosperity prior to that event. Now that the world appears to have entered a period of extended low to zero economic growth we seem to also be seeing rising levels of political disengagement and/or frustration by the electorate in the West and an outright breakdown in political authority in other parts of the world. The worrying thing is that instability and uncertainty are by default counter-productive in terms of increasing global wealth. The 'real' or physical economy by and large thrives on certainty not uncertainty. So the question is - assuming global economic growth doesn't improve in the near future, have we reached some kind of global tipping point?

Mihais
21 Jul 16,, 14:03
Periods of crisis happen.But global economy is mostly harmed by fighting.And fighting is provoked by rising competitors of the west.Who rose because they had enough peaceful years to grow.

Oracle
21 Jul 16,, 19:46
China.