Politics

[Killingtime]

True and world news when tens of thousands pour over a European border border in a day; but we had that daily in Texas for years with Biden.

Morocco seems to be facilitating just like Mexico did for years.

Their all just peaceful asylum seekers right…..

The main difference is that the amount of people who came to Ceuta are almost 70% of its total population. These places are all ruined anyone who believes Western Europe or even certain cities in America are ever gonna return to normal are kidding themselves. There is probably only one way to solve a problem that big

 

[tinktink12]

 

[Nyati]

Seems other European countries aren't happy with him either......

Italy suspends Schengen with Spain over Ceuta migrant crisis

The temporary suspension of the Schengen agreement was prompted by concerns over the migrant crisis in Ceuta. #EuropeNews

www.euronews.com

What can you expect

 

[Tanks]

The main difference is that the amount of people who came to Ceuta are almost 70% of its total population. These places are all ruined anyone who believes Western Europe or even certain cities in America are ever gonna return to normal are kidding themselves. There is probably only one way to solve a problem that big

Big problem with EU countries is that Spain recently granted residency permits by edict of the PM to any and all illegals that make it there, hence the rush. With those permits they can also work and live elsewhere in the EU.

Not to mention due to their high birth rate in a couple of generations they will have a majority without assimilation of the existing cultures.

 

[Killingtime]

Big problem with EU countries is that Spain recently granted residency permits by edict of the PM to any and all illegals that make it there, hence the rush. With those permits they can also work and live elsewhere in the EU.

Not to mention due to their high birth rate in a couple of generations they will have a majority without assimilation of the existing cultures.

So they make it to Spain and in the future they will be able to legally spread out through Europe. What a ridiculous structure. I listened to the PM say Spain needed them or their gpd would fall in the future..not sure how uneducated and unskilled people will ever contribute in mass to a society that has high skilled jobs but hey it’s their country to destroy. My personal view is if the people of these nations let it happen then it’s Darwin’s theory at work. Survival or the fittest.

 

[spike.t]

Big problem with EU countries is that Spain recently granted residency permits by edict of the PM to any and all illegals that make it there, hence the rush. With those permits they can also work and live elsewhere in the EU.

Not to mention due to their high birth rate in a couple of generations they will have a majority without assimilation of the existing cultures.

Spain granted residency or whatever it is to approx 500,000 illegals who were in the country...this rush seems to have been caused by the I think top court in Spain ruling that any illegals already on the sea can't be returned to the country they started the boat journey from...so spread like a bush fire ...pushed by traffickers apparently.....and according to reports I read 40,000 odd have gone back ....as it's too packed and busy there....need the Spanish and French old time riot police back....no fkn around with those guys

At least ceuta is still in North Africa and straight of Gibraltar was protecting Spain from such a mass invasion.....

 

[spike.t]

1) what would one define as a "meaningful period of time" to "achieve sufficient destruction of Irans war making...nuclear programs....eliminate them as regional threat" the
2) would this not just put the "solution" what ever that is, to be faced with your children and grandchildren....future generations ?

I know nothing...but I would say WW2 thinking...total war..no holds barred.....but that ain't going to happen.....and would stir up all the radical hornets nests ....which are unfortunately wide spread and don't give a shit....so basically to me impossible

 

[Boyd Brooks]

I’m a firm believer in the old saying “all’s fair in love and war”!

 

[Altitude sickness]

For our Israel hating pro Hamas members here.

 

[WAB]

I have my doubts as well. I am not even sure if the campaign can achieve sufficient destruction of Iran's missile and drone stockpiles to stop them from using them. It seems we might run out of defensive stockpiles of missiles faster than Iran runs out of offensive weapons or will.

The might not have full control of Hormuz, but as long as they can sling missiles/drones at ships they will still jeopardize shipping.

Control of Hormuz becomes less important by the day. The Saudis have completed a major expansion of the east west pipeline, dramatically reducing their dependence on Hormuz. Further expansion is in the works, although admittedly the Houthi's are causing problems on the exit of the Red Sea. A major move to completely bypass the lunatics and pipe through Egypt is underway. The longer this drags on the less relevant Iran becomes.

Oh and the percent of global oil through Hormuz that everyone keeps repeating is a pre-war number and does not account for the moves I’ve mentioned above. I asked AI and it gave me the old number. I challenged it and it apologized for the mistake and gave me the updated information.

You cannot trust AI in an area you are unfamiliar with. It almost seems to me that incorrect information is intentionally being passed along. Another example, I asked AI for information on a patent of my father’s that was a game changer in the energy sector. AI tried to credit another corporation with the development and claim that it was not patented. When I challenged this with more information, again I received an apology and the correct information. You cannot use AI to become an expert in an area you are unfamiliar with. It cannot be trusted to provide accurate information without an informed challenge process.

 

[SaintPanzer]

So, I go away sailing with limited to no internet access, and have to wade through over 30 pages of some "interesting" (I'm trying to be polite) things. Just a few random comments:

A question was asked relating to the differences between today's video games and playing "Cowboys and Indians" with cap guns when we were younger, and why one would have greater effect than the other with the rate of violence today. I seem to recall Grossman covering this in one of his books. When we played Cowboys and Indians (can you even say that anymore?) or "Cops and Robbers" or some such, when the game was over, it was over. A video game, on the other hand, rewards "eliminating" targets. The score just keeps going up and up. You're rewarded for increasing the body count.

Oh, almost forgot: In the interests of pedantry, we no longer have Carrier Battle Groups. We have Carrier Strike Groups, and they are most certainly NOT the same thing with a different name.

Regarding the forest fires, I remember growing up, watching a "movie" in school, where they talked about the lonely life of a fire spotter, living high in a tower, simply watching for smoke. Do we still do this? While it's true enough that an old growth forest will burn (and burn out) with no human interaction (the fuel load is there if not managed), there are things we can do. It's certainly not a new issue. I recommend The Big Burn by Timothy Egan for some insights. Good thing we saved the spotted owl though, right?

As far as "what if" for socialist countries, does anyone want to do an honest assessment of the United Kingdom between say, 1945 and 1985? And the hangovers still felt today? Thank you Dame Thatcher, but I fear your insights have been lost.

Finally, and I think this is the most important part. The lawyers may impress us with their knowledge of treaties, and the Law of Armed Conflict and the Law of Land Warfare... but have their theories been actually tested in the world where armed conflict lives? I mean the theories are all good on paper, and of course, we pay more than lip service to them, and we are not changing. But as someone who as actually been deployed, who has worked real Operational Planning Teams, and whose decisions could absolutely end with me in jail if I broke them, there are things I note with contempt that have not been addressed in the previous discussion. For example, while targeting civilians is of course verboten, what if that civilian appearing person is really an illegal combatant? What is that, you might ask? How about the guy who appears innocent, but is hiding weapon systems in a mosque or a hospital? Or transporting weapons in an ambulance? We saw the latter in Al Nasaryah, and the former has become so routine it is almost a trope. Then of course there are "dual use" things... the bridge that allows civilian commerce is also instrumental in allowing the movement of troops. It's easy to judge in a court room, but what did someone know when he saw it happening and acted? There is a reason why we are told to "engage our brains before we engage our weapon systems". The reality on the ground is far more important than what you learned in law school. And sometimes you have to be willing to call an audible and be willing to stop evil even if you're not authorized to engage that evil via your UN mandate. Don't take my word for it. Ask the guy who regrets not acting as he witnessed the Tutsi attack the Hutu. He'll tell you flat out he didn't act because it was outside his mandate. The personal cost was extremely high.

Those are my notes for today. Carry on.

 

[spike.t]

So, I go away sailing with limited to no internet access, and have to wade through over 30 pages of some "interesting" (I'm trying to be polite) things. Just a few random comments:

A question was asked relating to the differences between today's video games and playing "Cowboys and Indians" with cap guns when we were younger, and why one would have greater effect than the other with the rate of violence today. I seem to recall Grossman covering this in one of his books. When we played Cowboys and Indians (can you even say that anymore?) or "Cops and Robbers" or some such, when the game was over, it was over. A video game, on the other hand, rewards "eliminating" targets. The score just keeps going up and up. You're rewarded for increasing the body count.

Oh, almost forgot: In the interests of pedantry, we no longer have Carrier Battle Groups. We have Carrier Strike Groups, and they are most certainly NOT the same thing with a different name.

Regarding the forest fires, I remember growing up, watching a "movie" in school, where they talked about the lonely life of a fire spotter, living high in a tower, simply watching for smoke. Do we still do this? While it's true enough that an old growth forest will burn (and burn out) with no human interaction (the fuel load is there if not managed), there are things we can do. It's certainly not a new issue. I recommend The Big Burn by Timothy Egan for some insights. Good thing we saved the spotted owl though, right?

As far as "what if" for socialist countries, does anyone want to do an honest assessment of the United Kingdom between say, 1945 and 1985? And the hangovers still felt today? Thank you Dame Thatcher, but I fear your insights have been lost.

Finally, and I think this is the most important part. The lawyers may impress us with their knowledge of treaties, and the Law of Armed Conflict and the Law of Land Warfare... but have their theories been actually tested in the world where armed conflict lives? I mean the theories are all good on paper, and of course, we pay more than lip service to them, and we are not changing. But as someone who as actually been deployed, who has worked real Operational Planning Teams, and whose decisions could absolutely end with me in jail if I broke them, there are things I note with contempt that have not been addressed in the previous discussion. For example, while targeting civilians is of course verboten, what if that civilian appearing person is really an illegal combatant? What is that, you might ask? How about the guy who appears innocent, but is hiding weapon systems in a mosque or a hospital? Or transporting weapons in an ambulance? We saw the latter in Al Nasaryah, and the former has become so routine it is almost a trope. Then of course there are "dual use" things... the bridge that allows civilian commerce is also instrumental in allowing the movement of troops. It's easy to judge in a court room, but what did someone know when he saw it happening and acted? There is a reason why we are told to "engage our brains before we engage our weapon systems". The reality on the ground is far more important than what you learned in law school. And sometimes you have to be willing to call an audible and be willing to stop evil even if you're not authorized to engage that evil via your UN mandate. Don't take my word for it. Ask the guy who regrets not acting as he witnessed the Tutsi attack the Hutu. He'll tell you flat out he didn't act because it was outside his mandate. The personal cost was extremely high.

Those are my notes for today. Carry on.

All I can say is fk yeah....and welcome to my world trying to catch up after not enough time due to being out all day playing with fire ..or as just now with first client....amazing how much shite is posted by 3 or so certain persons.... .....oh and out having a few drinks with the madam and just had shit with a wanna be politician standing as an independent in the election this month.....fkn asshole...

 

[Wheels]

So, I go away sailing with limited to no internet access, and have to wade through over 30 pages of some "interesting" (I'm trying to be polite) things. Just a few random comments:

A question was asked relating to the differences between today's video games and playing "Cowboys and Indians" with cap guns when we were younger, and why one would have greater effect than the other with the rate of violence today. I seem to recall Grossman covering this in one of his books. When we played Cowboys and Indians (can you even say that anymore?) or "Cops and Robbers" or some such, when the game was over, it was over. A video game, on the other hand, rewards "eliminating" targets. The score just keeps going up and up. You're rewarded for increasing the body count.

Oh, almost forgot: In the interests of pedantry, we no longer have Carrier Battle Groups. We have Carrier Strike Groups, and they are most certainly NOT the same thing with a different name.

Regarding the forest fires, I remember growing up, watching a "movie" in school, where they talked about the lonely life of a fire spotter, living high in a tower, simply watching for smoke. Do we still do this? While it's true enough that an old growth forest will burn (and burn out) with no human interaction (the fuel load is there if not managed), there are things we can do. It's certainly not a new issue. I recommend The Big Burn by Timothy Egan for some insights. Good thing we saved the spotted owl though, right?

As far as "what if" for socialist countries, does anyone want to do an honest assessment of the United Kingdom between say, 1945 and 1985? And the hangovers still felt today? Thank you Dame Thatcher, but I fear your insights have been lost.

Finally, and I think this is the most important part. The lawyers may impress us with their knowledge of treaties, and the Law of Armed Conflict and the Law of Land Warfare... but have their theories been actually tested in the world where armed conflict lives? I mean the theories are all good on paper, and of course, we pay more than lip service to them, and we are not changing. But as someone who as actually been deployed, who has worked real Operational Planning Teams, and whose decisions could absolutely end with me in jail if I broke them, there are things I note with contempt that have not been addressed in the previous discussion. For example, while targeting civilians is of course verboten, what if that civilian appearing person is really an illegal combatant? What is that, you might ask? How about the guy who appears innocent, but is hiding weapon systems in a mosque or a hospital? Or transporting weapons in an ambulance? We saw the latter in Al Nasaryah, and the former has become so routine it is almost a trope. Then of course there are "dual use" things... the bridge that allows civilian commerce is also instrumental in allowing the movement of troops. It's easy to judge in a court room, but what did someone know when he saw it happening and acted? There is a reason why we are told to "engage our brains before we engage our weapon systems". The reality on the ground is far more important than what you learned in law school. And sometimes you have to be willing to call an audible and be willing to stop evil even if you're not authorized to engage that evil via your UN mandate. Don't take my word for it. Ask the guy who regrets not acting as he witnessed the Tutsi attack the Hutu. He'll tell you flat out he didn't act because it was outside his mandate. The personal cost was extremely high.

Those are my notes for today. Carry on.

Just as clarification if you are talking about the Rwanda genocide, it was the Bahutu who attacked and killed the Watutsi. The Tutsi responded and gained control of the country but the genocide was committed by the Hutu on the Tutsi.

 

[SaintPanzer]

Just as clarification if you are talking about the Rwanda genocide, it was the Bahutu who attacked and killed the Watutsi. The Tutsi responded and gained control of the country but the genocide was committed by the Hutu on the Tutsi.

yes, of course...

 

[RLD]

You both have left out a segment of the population that absolutely was "targeted" during the second world war - and primarily by the allies. These were the workers and their families that made up the industrial base as much as did the factories and machinery involved in war production. In fact, I would argue this target set was the heart of the strategic bombing campaign by the RAF against Germany and the US strategic air campaign against Japan.

In both Europe and against Japan the most destructive if not necessarily most effective tactical choice was firebombing during the ours of darkness. The first actual firestorm was created by the RAF in 1943 with the bombing of Hamburg. Large HE bombs were used to demolish buildings and destroy water mains which were followed by thousands of incendiary bomblets. These thousands of small fires quickly combined into a single firestorm that killed 40,000 people. The primary targeted area for the RAF were the residential areas adjacent to Hamburg's vast ship yards to eliminate the yards' supporting workforce. Naturally that included the families of those workers as well. The firestorm also tore the heart of the city and its civic infrastructure. Over a million people were left homeless. Other German cities such as Kassel. Darmstadt, and of course Dresden suffered similar fates.

In the Pacific, the US adopted a similar strategic doctrine with respect to Japan which had an extremely diversified industrial base scattered throughout major cities. US B-29 Super fortresses were stripped of all their defensive armament to increase speed and payload and were sent in relatively low level raids dropping hundreds of thousands of small incendiary bombs. 67 cities were struck with such raids and the level of destruction and casualties far surpassed the effects of the two atomic weapons which ended the war. For instance, during the raid in March, 80-100 thousand people were killed and another million plus made homeless. Half of Tokyo was burned to the ground.

Is such targeting a legitimate or "legal" strategy? I suppose it depends on the eye of the beholder. Certainly British leadership decided it had done enough after seeing the effects of the Dresden raid. The US continued its attacks to the collapse of the Japanese war effort with the two atomic weapons.

A debate has been waged by three generations of historians since the war as to the effectiveness of such a strategy. In no instance was the will of the German or Japanese people to wage war broken. As to the effectiveness of the destruction of the industrial base, Germany, under Albert Speer, was able to actually increase military armaments production through the summer of 1944 at which point it was more than twice higher than it was in 1942.

After a lot of debate, the US decided to move toward precision strikes in the decades following the war. That was the largely forlorn hope of the US 8th Air Force over Europe where technology did not yet match aspirations. I believe the question is still open to debate whether are not such strikes represent a war winning strategy. To date, and it is a cautionary note for our efforts over Iran, no war has been one by bombardment from the air - precision or area.

With respect to the targets themselves, the means of production, transport infrastructure, and the economic foundation of any belligerent will be the core of any strategic bombardment campaign. Those would be included in any target set of a general nuclear exchange between this country and any other nuclear capable foe, and none of the leadership of any of the belligerents would care an iota about the musings of an international court.

With respect to Iran and with the exception of the initial decapitation strikes, we have thus far carried out operational rather than strategic strikes. Normally such strikes are initiated to prepare the battle space for subsequent strategic action to end the conflict. This was done in both the Gulf War and the initial invasion of Iraq, both of which were successful in driving Iraqi forces from Kuwait and taking down the Baathist regime in Iraq respectively.

We will see if the operational campaign currently being waged is effective enough to force a settlement sufficiently in our favor to consider it "victory." I have my doubts. What this campaign can achieve is sufficient destruction of Iran's war making and nuclear programs to eliminate them as a regional threat for a meaningful period of time. Though that will be difficult to prove to the electorate and will leave Iran able to claim victory in withstanding the best efforts of the Great Satan. Perhaps there is a level of wisdom to Israel's retaliatory strategy with respect to Hamas. The WWII generation would certainly see no issue with it.

Three quick points:

1) The fourth Geneva convention was passed after WWII and thus did not apply at the time. The legal framework for war is now totally different than it was then. The debate around the legality of acts in WWII and Iran is as different as Sharia law and Britsh common law. Different planets.

2) I have nothing but praise for the conscientiousness with which the United States military has conducted this war with Iran.

3) I still argue that many of Israel's actions in Gaza constitute war crimes.

 

[Boyd Brooks]

Just spitballing but, once relations are eroded enough to kill another, aren’t you are passed the rule of law. That is the ultimate sin.
I know for myself, if I was threatened and terrorized enough to react with deadly force, I already don’t give a shit about the law. My survival is my only motivation, because the only person who really gives a shit about me, is me.

 

[Killingtime]

Spain granted residency or whatever it is to approx 500,000 illegals who were in the country...this rush seems to have been caused by the I think top court in Spain ruling that any illegals already on the sea can't be returned to the country they started the boat journey from...so spread like a bush fire ...pushed by traffickers apparently.....and according to reports I read 40,000 odd have gone back ....as it's too packed and busy there....need the Spanish and French old time riot police back....no fkn around with those guys

At least ceuta is still in North Africa and straight of Gibraltar was protecting Spain from such a mass invasion.....

They should have treated the ones at sea as target practice for airstrikes. It might sound cruel but any other time or hell any other country outside the west that wasn’t trying to intentionally remove its native culture would have treated this as an invasion and an act of war. Anyone who believes what is happening to Europe is acceptable or not malicious is delusional. It bothers me because it seems like all the things that happen to Europe eventually start taking hold in the states. I’m just glad are citizens and military are less tolerant.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

I wonder if there is a correlation between public opinion on conflicts and the spread of the media. WW2 you’d of been limited to public radio broadcasts and news paper articles controlled by the war department. By Vietnam you had video footage being shown too the families back home and media imbedded in combat units now any 3rd world goat herder has the potential for a video camera and a live steam if he’s got internet access. Seems that it correlates to the public support ww2 very near everyone was behind the war effort Vietnam the population was split now we all sit around and debate current events from hundreds or thousands of miles apart. It must put a terrible strain on the men forced to do what must be done so we can rest easy in our beds at night to have to worry that one slip up during the heat of battle while under enormous strain and they could be condemned on the five o’clock news at home.
The men returning from ww2 were treated as hero’s and the only ones who would even of had an inclination of what actually went on to win the war were the men they actually deployed with. The rest of the country was just thankful they had done what was needed.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Great video

https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/good-im-glad-youre-shocked-bill-maher-taunts-audience-as-he-reveals-socialist-dems-real-views/

 

[spike.t]

They should have treated the ones at sea as target practice for airstrikes. It might sound cruel but any other time or hell any other country outside the west that wasn’t trying to intentionally remove its native culture would have treated this as an invasion and an act of war. Anyone who believes what is happening to Europe is acceptable or not malicious is delusional. It bothers me because it seems like all the things that happen to Europe eventually start taking hold in the states. I’m just glad are citizens and military are less tolerant.

English channel comes to mind...but don't quote me on that please