Current/Recent World Conflicts thread.

[Defender_16]

They were doing 'renovation work' and mentioned Mike Holmes.

 

Mike Holmes

[SOCL]

Iran has decided to release the British servicemembers, though they still claim of being justified in detaining the personnel and that they are releasing the personnel under the auspices of being gracious and as a "gift for the British people." Whatever. At least they're being released without requiring armed conflict.

[Eagle]

Let´s wait untill they have arrived at least a NATO-Base.

 

@Def

I´ve never heard of that guy. I´ve listened to it closely and I can´t understand if he really says Mike Holmes or if it´s just something sounding kinda similar.

[Jahled]

Iran has decided to release the British service members, though they still claim of being justified in detaining the personnel and that they are releasing the personnel under the auspices of being gracious and as a "gift for the British people." Whatever. At least they're being released without requiring armed conflict.

 

It's called 'diplomacy' presuming they fly home tomorrow. I just watched that neoconservative spackoid, Bolton on the news claiming this to be some kind of devastating failure, and a victory for Iran and their nuclear programme. Perhaps the twat would like the USA to go to war on our behalf with Iran whilst we're still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and have 'rescued' our service personnel. Go fella! Your not stretched either?

 

The real victory was something called communication, I appreciate the concept is far to radical for elements on the far-left or far-right, but it kind of worked. All the footage of angry Iranians outside the UK embassy in Iran was done by about 200 radicals; that's not even a rent a mob! Even an Iranian journalist based in Iran stated they all more or less fell asleep during the early parts of their President's jargon during the announced 'liberation'. (Channel Four News)

 

The twat has about the popular support of about 1/5 of Iranians, and given the current economic situation, knows he is treading water. I think this has been nothing more than a bit a sabre-rattling by a nation quite obviously extremely anxious Iraq doesn't happen to them.

[SOCL]

I whole-heartedly agree with you on this matter. I think Tehran is smart enough to know that things could get worse if they don't release these poor fellows from their custody. In any event, with this, Iran keeps face by still claiming to have done everything justifiably, whilst the UK gets their personnel back. I don't think it's a simple as "no harm, no foul", but it's certainly better than getting caught in an escalating situation no one can back out of. Truthfully, in some ways, I'm happy it, of all people, happened to British troops rather than American troops. Not to mention American troops would probably have fought to their deaths before being captured, the current administration would probably have declared it an act of war and would get the ball rolling towards armed conflict. In fact, someone jokingly said to me that had it been President Bush and not Tony Blair, 'he would have rejected the return of the troops unless Iran agreed they were wrong in detaining them.' Made me laugh, but it also made me cringe because I sensed a level of truth to that, if not in the exact circumstances my friend framed it.

 

Really, our brothers on the other side of the pond really have this communication, negotiation, and international diplomacy bit down. Even General Petraeus, current commander of Multi-National Force Iraq, took a page from the Brit's book in writing his counterinsurgency field manual for the Armed Forces and in the way he is handling matters, as compared to the former commander, George "Kill Everyone" Casey. People like Casey and Bolton make me sick, to tell the truth, and I regularly apologize for their conduct to anyone who asks as their prominence as American officials embarrasses me. Most of these Cold War relics seem to think that because the United States and, to a greater extent, the Western powers came out of the Cold War relatively successful and haven't been matched since, we can still push people around with the intimidation of arms and such. This course only works, though, until you do it, because in truth it's mostly a bluff. Sure, we might go and kick in your door, but when we get our muzzles bloodied in the process, people stop being so scared. It's the concept of having the capability to do it that matters, not the actual act. Once you start using that card, though, you've rid yourself of your best hand--and then what?

 

And all this only two years (or so) away from being commissioned to serve the agenda of whoever happens to be voted into power. I'm taking advantage of it now because once I'm in, I have to keep my mouth shut.

[DarthTex]

... All the footage of angry Iranians outside the UK embassy in Iran was done by about 200 radicals; that's not even a rent a mob! Even an Iranian journalist based in Iran stated they all more or less fell asleep during the early parts of their President's jargon during the announced 'liberation'. (Channel Four News)

 

The twat has about the popular support of about 1/5 of Iranians, and given the current economic situation, knows he is treading water. I think this has been nothing more than a bit a sabre-rattling by a nation quite obviously extremely anxious Iraq doesn't happen to them.

From what I have read, a large majority of the Iranian population is "young" (20-35 years young), mostly unemployed, likes western culture, and resents the theological old farts calling all of the shots (for their own benefit, not the people's). Sounds like ripe grounds for another Iranian revolution President "Tom" needed to resolve this quickly to prevent the people from getting pissed off at him, but not too fast as to look like he was cowering from the west. I believe he's under the delusion that having nuclear weapons will give his people respect. He's playing a dangerous game of "chicken" with the world, trying to be the "big hot shot in power", without going too far over the line and actually starting a war. Starting a war with Iran is definitely not the way to go. The Iranian people, like any other nation, stand by their country (not necessarily the current government) and will fight to defend it. It would be much better to get the Iranian people themselves to "make" the government change. I think it will happen someday, maybe not next week, or next month, or next year, but it will happen ... someday.

 

Cheery Oh! The British sailors are home safe & sound.

[Jahled]

From what I have read, a large majority of the Iranian population is "young" (20-35 years young), mostly unemployed, likes western culture, and resents the theological old farts calling all of the shots (for their own benefit, not the people's). Sounds like ripe grounds for another Iranian revolution President "Tom" needed to resolve this quickly to prevent the people from getting pissed off at him, but not too fast as to look like he was cowering from the west. I believe he's under the delusion that having nuclear weapons will give his people respect. He's playing a dangerous game of "chicken" with the world, trying to be the "big hot shot in power", without going too far over the line and actually starting a war. Starting a war with Iran is definitely not the way to go. The Iranian people, like any other nation, stand by their country (not necessarily the current government) and will fight to defend it. It would be much better to get the Iranian people themselves to "make" the government change. I think it will happen someday, maybe not next week, or next month, or next year, but it will happen ... someday.

 

Iran is a fascinating country. Whilst effectively ruled by the religious lunatics and the supreme head who's name I have no hope in correctly spelling, so shall refer to him simply as 'Ali,' for haste's sake, you are completely correct in your point point about the ratio of the young. They make up a huge section of Iranian society, and given there is no 'great firewall of Iran,' such as in China, and as I witnessed yesterday, their independent journalists seem quite tongue and cheek about their government and relaxed enough to state they virtually all got bored and to quote the guy 'chatted amongst themselves,' with their president's rhetoric during his 'glorious' speech yesterday, I am reasonably optimistic with the generation's effect on the course of it's nation's history; the more so given their access to freedom of information such as the Internet.

 

What concerns me, is the power of the religious fundamentalists who are ultimately in charge, and their effect on how far freedom and liberty

can go. The religious police come out at every opportunity and intimidate and bully the Iranian people, especially at election time in Iran. So will there be some eventual and inevitable clash?

 

Perhaps yes, if we open up some meaningful dialogue with Iran, more than simply 'it's part of an axis of evil,' but no if we simply deal with Iran like Iraq, which will simply do as you say, and instantly radicalize otherwise unfanatic Iranians, and achieve us nothing in the long term, other than unstable oil markets, an insecure Israel, and further spacoidness amongst muslims where we live.

 

 

 

 

Cheery Oh! The British sailors are home safe & sound.

 

Yay! Now the mother all debriefings!

 

So like, why did you praise your 'hosts' so much, ensign?

 

I was told I would get home,sir!

 

Logic

[JediHunter]

If this has never been posted.. it definately should have been... haha...

Global Politics in 30 seconds. Courtesy of Wonder Showzen.

[SOCL]

If this has never been posted.. it definately should have been... haha...

Global Politics in 30 seconds. Courtesy of Wonder Showzen.

Oh...my... Quite disturbing.

[SOCL]

I've split the Virginia Tech and the ensuing Gun Debate to this thread since it technically isn't a World Conflict.

[Defender_16]

Good job SOCL. That was getting a tad of topic but I suppose nobody really wanted to be the one to start a new thread for that.

 

Now back to how things are going in the world at large.

 

 

 

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h293/Defender_16/Ilikewherethisthreadisgoing.jpg

 

[budious]

"Iraq could hold almost twice as much oil in its reserves as had been thought, according to the most comprehensive independent study of its resources since the US-led invasion in 2003.

 

The potential presence of a further 100bn barrels in the western desert highlights the opportunity for Iraq to be one of the world’s biggest oil suppliers, and its attractions for international oil companies – if the conflict in the country can be resolved.

 

If confirmed, it would raise Iraq from the world’s third largest source of oil reserves with 116bn barrels to second place, behind Saudi Arabia and overtaking Iran."

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/23bedd7e-edd8-11db-8584-000b5df10621.html

 

The United States of Iraq... this is why you should not doubt Bush nor the American presence in Iraq. Since the Iraq Liberation in 2003, the Bush administration has successfully doubled the amount of oil held underneath the Iraqi desert. The United States has no intention of leaving our half behind and until we can safely extract our share of the reserve, US forces will remain in the country. The United States of Iraq is now the second largest oil source in the world, combined with assets from the Alaskan territories and Gulf oil assets of the United States of America, the United States of Haliburton are now the superior source of the world's oil. Ah, it's a great day to be a American Iraqi!

 

Paid for by the Bush for U.S. Iraqi President in 2008 Election Committee

[budious]

Torture? It's all a laugh now for Mr Bean ...

 

"This picture shows the Operator Mechanic staging a tasteless re-enactment of his 13 days in captivity as he celebrates his home-coming in a Plymouth nightclub. He laughs as he pretends to be held at gunpoint, his ordeal - and his fellow servicemen's vitriolic response to his behaviour - seemingly a long way from his mind."

 

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_02/batchelorMS2104_468x693.jpg

[SOCL]

I was here, looking for my pop to see if any familiar names came up among the recent casualties (none, luckily!) and noticed the difference in casualty rate between US and UK servicemembers. Must say, I envy my brothers on the other side of the pond. There are months here where no one dies at all, whereas we've had 76 deaths this month alone... Granted, there are more US forces in Iraq--now especially, under this "Surge" strategy--than British forces, but still... It's always quite depressing to hear of just one death. Would be nice to hear of no deaths, for once.

[budious]

Kind of a sub-topic on this discussion, but what do you think of the pay differences? I think if everyone is going to put their ass on the line they should be earning the same of pay. The average U.S. troop makes around 30,000, whats the going rate for troops of other countries in the coalition? Make that comparison then compare it to what the estimated 50,000 private combat mercenaries hired by the Pentagon are each getting paid. The difference is ridiculous. Some top paid combat contractors are making nearly 30,000 per month.

[SOCL]

I think this is something we agree on, budious. I believe servicepersonnel should be paid more, much more, and I'm not just saying that because I'll soon be one of them. The fact of the matter is that the average soldier or even officer doesn't make enough serving his or her country to support themselves, much less a family! In exchange, the military gives them "benefits" which are supposed to make up for it: tax-free, very low-priced shopping; free housing; etc. Now, with the Pentagon's privatization of nearly all non-combat functions, it actually costs more to provide benefits via contracts to military personnel than it would cutting out all the benefits and using a fraction of those funds to raise the standard of living across all ranks and services. It's ridiculous, but the military-contract lobby in the USA is a very powerful voice on Capitol Hill and pushes much of the policy-making in domestic military affairs.

 

With the advent of private military contractors (better and more rightfully known as "mercenaries") such as BlackwaterUSA, DynCorp, and Halliburton (KBR), military contractors are beginning to push foreign and operational policy. Remember that Iraqi city of Fallujah that U.S. Marines pounded to dust in November 2004? Know why? Four Blackwater employees (mercenaries) were sent to pick up kitchen supplies against the advice and orders of U.S. Marines controlling occupation of what was otherwise a relatively peaceful and sleepy city in Iraq (compared to other cities). Those four contractors got themselves killed and in a fit of anger, the Administration ordered that an assault be made against the city in order to bring the murderers of these men to justice. Before I get to the consequences, I think I should point out that unlike service-personnel, these contractors answer to no one except their bosses (no UCMJ, no international law, nothing) and yet expect the same immunities given to the military for deaths and wounded, which means they wouldn't have to compensate family for the deaths of their employees. They also have a choice of which contract to undertake and where to go--these fellows made the choice to guard the transport of kitchenware through Fallujah against the advice of the U.S. Marine commander in the area.

 

Well, Marines attack and many of them die. Not sure why since the insurgency hadn't really started and Fallujah by comparison was a pretty calm place. Following that, the insurgency worsened as it was seen by many in the area as a U.S. led persecution of warrant defenses against mercenaries. Further, the people of Fallujah and then the rest of Iraq didn't see a reason for the U.S. military to get involved in a matter that hadn't involved them until they'd made it such. This all happened against the better advice of the "commanders on the ground", of which the President is so fond of saying he listens to. Before the battle in November of 2004, enemy strength was estimated at 20,000 dispersed and unorganized fighters, mostly Saddam/Ba'athist loyalists. In January of the following year, only three months later, the number had risen to 200,000 of which most were nationalist locals who had no ties to Saddam Hussein or his regime. Lastly, the people who killed the Blackwater fellows were never and have never been captured, and now we have a bloody growing insurgency and civil war to deal with. It's the subject of much research and I know of at least two students at my university whose master research covers the root of the insurgency, both concentrating on Fallujah as what fanned the ashes of civil unrest to the fires of what we have now...

 

This isn't to say military contractors don't have a role to play, but when there is one contractor for every 3 service-personnel on the ground serving in increasingly combat-style actions, I get concerned. These are people who answer to know one and can be prosecuted by no one, so they kill whoever they want, wherever they want, however they want--just as long as they get paid. It was like this five years ago, it wasn't like this ten years ago. I do not believe in outsourcing combat jobs to private companies and I do not believe it should be done at all. Hiring people to conduct security around military bases or run the local shop--I can live with that, but hiring infantrymen to serve alongside military personnel as equals, but without a bit of regulation and for much more money that those who sacrifice to service really pisses me off.

[budious]

Well spoken, I think you hit all the important points that I was too lazy to clarify. It would go a long way to relieve some of the armed forces shortages and to recruit new volunteers if service wages were increased. Consider 200,000 personnel in Iraq given a raise of 20,000. It would account for an additional $4B dollars on the annual budget but considering how much is already spent on this war it would be a drop in the bucket. Increasing volunteer service numbers would reduce the dependency on independent contractors and would reduce the overall operational cost of the war. As noted though, the lobbying powers to be in this country have full run of both houses of Congress. The lame duck president (shocked? yes I am a Republican and I denounce Bush for claiming he is one) can fluff his feathers all day but he has failed in Iraq, Immigration, and anything else beginning with "I".

 

I personally see very few reasons to serve the military as it is now. The U.S. Government can always claim how great it is that young men and women serve their country but they won't return that sentiment with increased benefits or compensation. If the compensation had been higher than it was post 9/11 then I might have joined but it wasn't and if Senators can afford to line their pockets but no those of the armed forces serving this country then just forget it. I will continue to cherish my second amendment rights and if this country is invaded, every American will be a ready to fight minuteman brigade. We are the reserve of the national guard and it's just another reason not enforce stricter gun laws.

 

You take a glimpse at Iraq and I can say from the gun control perspective that while the insurgency has caused a great many deaths to U.S. personnel which is horrific that I will maintain a most likely unpopular view that if it had been any other invading force, the Iraqis would have regained control of their country by now. Short of a massacre you could not prevent Iraqis from defending their home against the Russians or Iranians if they attempted to occupy Baghdad the way the U.S. has maintained it's presence over the past few years. It's the citizens with private arms that can make a conquered territory inhospitable to the occupiers and to force them out.

[SOCL]

budious, I don't disagree with you in that latter regard. Had it been any other country's military, they would have been routed some time back, which shows the resilience of the U.S. Armed Forces to continue pursuing their commander in chief's plan, despite the fact said plan is a failure. I'm not sure, though, I'd say that if the U.S. Armed Forces couldn't pacify, no one could. The British troops in the south of Iraq have actually succeeded quite well, and I would personally attribute this to years of experience in empire and lessons learned in past wars. Occupation and insurgency are two things the British have dealt with in the past, but the U.S. has not.

 

Despite all this, I can't say I believe we need firearms in the U.S. in case of an invasion of any sort. Despite what some of the hawkish fear-mongers in DC might say or imply, militarily speaking, there simply is not a single military force anywhere in the world that has either the manpower, resources, or ability to launch an all-out invasion of U.S. territory here at home. This isn't like the old days. Heck, even during World War II, no country had any hope of ever invading and succeeding in the USA! The simple fact is that if they try ground invasion, we'll be able to bomb them to nothing. If they try transport by air, we'll cruise-missile and otherwise anti-air them to nothing. And if they try by sea, we'll bomb and cruse-missile them to the bottom of the ocean. It simply cannot happen. In a conventional war against a conventional enemy, the U.S. will win. It's what we're best at.

[budious]

Soldier: Honor troops like Va. Tech dead

 

"KABUL, Afghanistan - An Army sergeant complained in a rare opinion article that the U.S. flag flew at half-staff last week at the largest U.S. base in

Afghanistan for those killed at Virginia Tech but the same honor is not given to fallen U.S. troops here and in

Iraq.

 

In the article issued Monday by the public affairs office at Bagram military base north of Kabul, Sgt. Jim Wilt lamented that his comrades' deaths have become a mere blip on the TV screen, lacking the "shock factor" to be honored by the Stars and Stripes as the deaths at Virginia Tech were.

 

"I find it ironic that the flags were flown at half-staff for the young men and women who were killed at VT, yet it is never lowered for the death of a U.S. service member," Wilt wrote."

 

-------------------------------

 

Well I have to agree with this soldiers point. It's not cool when GWB orders all flags to half staff but doesn't pay the same respects for all our fallen soldiers.

[Jahled]

Despite all this, I can't say I believe we need firearms in the U.S. in case of an invasion of any sort.

 

An enemy would have to get to you guys first, which really isn't going to happen is it..

 

This list is simply staggering! Compare it say to the next largest Navy, which I think is still the Royal Navy

 

I think being your friends is a good idea!

[DarthTex]

An enemy would have to get to you guys first, which really isn't going to happen is it..

 

This list is simply staggering! Compare it say to the next largest Navy, which I think is still the Royal Navy

 

I think being your friends is a good idea!

 

The United States Navy currently has 232 ships in active service.

Well, thanks to "Slick Willy" (former President Clinton) the armed forces are a shadow of the former self. Good ol' Ronny Reagan, built up a 600 ship US Navy to keep us (and the free world) safe. Those were the days ... But, it's nice to know we're appreciated every once in awhile. Enjoy your freedoms J! And you too world! I know I do

[SOCL]

An enemy would have to get to you guys first, which really isn't going to happen is it..

 

This list is simply staggering! Compare it say to the next largest Navy, which I think is still the Royal Navy

 

I think being your friends is a good idea!

 

The United States Navy currently has 232 ships in active service.

Well, thanks to "Slick Willy" (former President Clinton) the armed forces are a shadow of the former self. Good ol' Ronny Reagan, built up a 600 ship US Navy to keep us (and the free world) safe. Those were the days ... But, it's nice to know we're appreciated every once in awhile. Enjoy your freedoms J! And you too world! I know I do

The question is, are 600 ships actually necessary? Most strategy thinkers seem to think not. It's a matter of flexing muscle. Pound for pound, no country in the world can stand against the United States Navy in a conventional war. I can remember reading an article about three years ago which stated that the United States could take on the rest of the world's navies combined and easily come out victorious. What's the point, then, of having 600 ships when 232 will more than do?

[JediHunter]

Well I have to agree with this soldiers point. It's not cool when GWB orders all flags to half staff but doesn't pay the same respects for all our fallen soldiers.

 

I totally concur Budious... it is a tad on the wrong side.. thats why i kinda disagree with all the media attention this tragedy is getting...

 

What's the point, then, of having 600 ships when 232 will more than do?

 

Because all our ships don't travel together.. they are spilt into groups which deploy around the world.. and we all know that a smaller group is easier to overpower than a larger one... maybe.. depending on situations of course.. but its undeniable that it would be easier

[Jahled]

An enemy would have to get to you guys first, which really isn't going to happen is it..

 

This list is simply staggering! Compare it say to the next largest Navy, which I think is still the Royal Navy

 

I think being your friends is a good idea!

 

The United States Navy currently has 232 ships in active service.

Well, thanks to "Slick Willy" (former President Clinton) the armed forces are a shadow of the former self. Good ol' Ronny Reagan, built up a 600 ship US Navy to keep us (and the free world) safe. Those were the days ... But, it's nice to know we're appreciated every once in awhile. Enjoy your freedoms J! And you too world! I know I do

 

Absolutely Tex fella! You get the impression Bill's not going to have a super carrier named after him don't you?

 

Comparing our two Navy's is mind-blowing in itself. We've got two active Aircraft carriers (and one moth-balled) each with a capacity of about 20 fighter jets, and a couple of helicopters, you guys have 11 active duty aircraft carriers, all of which our super carriers, with a capacity of about 80 fighter jets!.

[DarthTex]

You get the impression Bill's not going to have a super carrier named after him don't you?

If he's lucky to get a ship at all, it should probably be a garbage scow

 

And I won't get into "interns" and seamen