Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

Hello Everyone.

I thought I would start this thread for members who wish to voice their opinion or provide commentary on current global events.

I will get the ball rolling.

France has announced that it will accelerate its departure from Afghanistan.
This is really not a big surprise considering 2012 being an election year in France and Sarkozy needs to increase his popularity.

As a result of the French pullout, should we expect other NATO members to do the same?

Furthermore, are we going to see the Taliban starting to play a bigger role in governing Afghanistan? This, especially after Karzai's government announcement of planned talks with the Taliban.

Cheers!

Karzai has been planning to talk to the Taliban for a long time now. The problem is, are the Taliban interested in talking? They can sit tight, kill people as opportunity presents itself and wait for the withdrawal of all foreign forces in the next couple of years (assuming the withdrawal timetables are actually kept).

Once there are no foreign forces to support them I fear the Afghan government forces will collapse and will simply prove no match for the Taliban. How many government troops, when it comes down to it, will die rather than be defeated?

Afghanistan is one of those places that I hold little or no optimism for. I think that, once we have all taken our troops out, the Taliban will prevail and all the money, all the blood of the last 10 years will be for naught.

The only way it could be otherwise is for Pakistan to get serious about defeating the militants and stop playing a geopolitical game on both sides of teh argument.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Well, with tension ramping up over the Falklands again (gosh, is it really 30 years ago???), Great Britain might have to withdraw from Afghanistan, as I strongly doubt we have the military capability to conduct campaigns in two places at once.

(I strongly doubt we have the military capability to invade a teddy-bears' picnic but that's another story...)

Gavin, I may be mistaken but didn't Britain decommission it's last aircraft carrier in the last couple of years? Pretty tough to send a task-force to the South Atlantic without air cover.

Having said that, I don't think it is likely that the Argentina of today would actually initiate military action. It is a very different country from that of 30 years ago.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

I think we have a fleet auxialliary vessel left, just in case the Americans need refuelling.

_________________
Weaponsmith for the DemiGods from the plane of Silliness

I'm sure the French will be happy to assist. I believe they do have an aircraft carrier, and would be more than willing to lend it to a fellow EU member!

Huanga.

Maybe, but have they stopped crowing yet about the capability of their Exocet missiles, after one (fired by an Argentinian jet) sank HMS Sheffield in 1982?

Edit: I originally made the Sheffield an Australian (HMAS) ship, by mistake. If it had been, we would probably still be at war with Argentina!

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Yes, I think you are right.
The Royal Nave will not have an aircraft carrier until 2019.

One aircraft carrier, HMS Illustrious, is still in service but has recently been refitted as a helicopter carrier.

_________________
Nigel

Peter, thats a nice Australian touch...slipping an A into HMS!! I like it.

Huanga,

Snap! I just edited and corrected the error.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Today, tens of thousands of anti-Putin protesters have marched in Moscow. This is a third rally in as many months. The first, was sparked by allegations of vote-rigging in the December parliamentary elections. The protesters are demanding a re-run of the December elections and they are also calling on people to vote against Putin in March's presidential elections.

Source: BBC.

Are we witnessing the beginning of another Orange Revolution?
Will the protests have enough momentum to institute any significant reforms?

Is there going to be a willingness at the top to change?
If there is going to be any change, do the oligarchs want real change or only cosmetic?

Cheers!

Contributing to the discussion on Afghanistan, an article in The Economist this week says 97% of the economy is foreign aid donations. Alongside the pullout of troops there, there will be a sharp decline in development assistance.

_________________
Collecting Mongolia; Thailand; Indo-China; Mourning Covers; OHMS.
My online 'store': http://stampsfromaethelwulf.blogspot.com/

I thought the biggest part of the Afghanistan economy was opium poppies? Perhaps that is not included in the official economy?

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Once the troops are gone there will probably be an increase in poppy growth.

NATO troops had abandoned poppy eradication because it generated hostility among the farmers whose support they are trying to win. While, Afghan government officials earn kickback on poppy framing so it's not in their interest to reduce production.

This morning we hear that Russia & China have used their veto at the UN regarding what is happening in Syria.

To hear the rhetoric from the USA is just astounding They seem to have particularly short memories considering their use of their veto with regards to Israel over the years.

The stakes in this game of brinksmanship are getting frighteningly high.

The last time I looked Israel was still a democracy and it's leaders weren't shelling their own citizens for daring to want regime change.

The circumstances in the Palestinian territories is not acceptable, by any means. However, the Israeli's react to rocket attacks and do not indiscriminately shell civilian areas on an ongoing basis. There is fault both sides and both sides will have to compromise for a lasting peace.

In Syria, it is simply a case of a corrupt dictatorship wanting to cling on to power, whatever the cost to its own citizens. Russia and China vetoing the resolution was disgraceful, by any measure you care to apply.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

The most worrying thing happening in the world today is the possible attack by Israel on the Iranian nuclear manufacturing facilities. If they are going to do it they will have to move withing the next month or two as the Iranians have all but completed a new underground facility that is set so deep undergound that even the US "bunker busting" bombs won't be able to touch it.

If that happens the likely scenario is an attack by Iran on Israel. If they use chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons (if any are ready to go yet) then Israel will retaliate immediately with their large nuclear stockpile.

All the major Iranian cities will be gone as will all their military facilities. The radioactive fallout will blow eastwards for tens of thousands of kilometres and traces will eventually spread throughout the northern hemisphere. This would be far, far worse than Chernobyl.

And all that will happen before the US and/or NATO can even get involved as it would occur within hours of any Iranian attack with WMD's.

Oil supplies from Iran, already curtailed will stop completely and the Straight of Hormuz will be blocked by the remaining small Iranian military forces.

Oil prices will skyrocket worldwide and countries that rely on Iranian oil like China will be deeply affected. That could make the current GFC look like a storm in a teacup and Australia wouldn't be immune as our raw material exports would diminish considerably.

A nightmare scenario that I hope never comes to pass

(Now getting off soapbox)

But Iran has promised, hand on heart, that they have no interest in nuclear weapons! Surely you believe them?

Actually, I doubt Iran has the capability to attack Israel with any sort of weapon at this time. If the Iranians were silly enough to attack any US ships in the gulf then their military capability would be toast within a few days.

The Iranian government is behaving very similarly to the Argentinian Junta of the early 1980s, divert unrest at home with a foreign enemy for people to rally behind the government about. I doubt it will work.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

It will be a matter of saving face for the Iranians if they are attacked, even by an Israeli surgical strike on their nuclear facilities.

And they have the capability, don't worry about that. Here's a comparison between both Iranian and Israeli military capabilities:

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp

If conflict does occur, it will not be pretty

The only way Iran could conceivably attack Israel is by air. However, most of their military aircraft are ancient, by current world standards. F14s (for example) that the Shah had, with insufficient range. They have no in-flight refueling capability, so it would be a one way flight...into one of the best air defense systems on the planet.

Iran has been trying to develop long range missiles that could hit Israel (they have had more failure than success). Even if they got these operational and developed a nuclear capability, developing a warhead that could be fitted to such a missile is a long term project.

I well remember, during the first Gulf War, Saddam threatening to burn Israel in a sea of fire. He made a long speech making the threat. Israel made a one sentence response; The day a chemical or nuclear weapon hits Israel is the day Iraq will cease to exist. Something along those lines anyway.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Thanks for the link.

I wonder if in Iran's 261 naval units that includes the speed boats that I saw on the news a week or 2 ago.

I read an interesting article in Newsweek talking about how even if Israel did attack Iran's nuclear facilities, that alone would be very tough since they have them spread out over at least 20 different locations that we know about with more possibly in hiding. The article also said it would take sustained bombing over at least a week (more likely 2) since they are so spread out and Israel doesn't have the airborne refueling stations that the United States does.

_________________
Enjoy every minute

Well said. That one sentence alone says a lot. People who can't back what they say up talk a lot, but those who can actually make it happen don't need to say much. Cheers

_________________
Enjoy every minute

I believe it must. By way of example, for Australia it shows total aircraft as 379. We have something like 70 front line F18 Hornets and Super Hornets, plus maybe 20 attack helicopters (just coming into service). Also have Blackhawk helicopters, Hercules and C17 transports. So, of the 379 aircraft, only around 100 are armed.

Mind you, those speedboats could cause considerable grief in the narrow waters of the Strait of Hormuz.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Each nation will act according to what is in their own best interests.

To suggest Assad would've stood down if China and Russia supported the UN resolution is just laughable.

In any event, I thought the UN weren't allowed to get involved in internal conflicts. Where were the UN on Rwanda ? Yugoslavia ? Sudan ?

The UN has a lamentable record of arriving late to such events. In Rwanda, in the Balkans and in Sudan. In the Balkans the UN had a force in quite early, whose rules of engagement allowed for the Srebrenica massacre. It took NATO to take military action for the wars there to stop, in the absence of they UN.

If the UN is not there to try to stop dictators murdering their own citizens then what is it there for, would be my question.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Lakotai 4 wrote

'The most worrying thing happening in the world today is the possible attack by Israel on the Iranian nuclear manufacturing facilities. If they are going to do it they will have to move withing the next month or two as the Iranians have all but completed a new underground facility that is set so deep undergound that even the US "bunker busting" bombs won't be able to touch it.", and

If that happens the likely scenario is an attack by Iran on Israel. If they use chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons (if any are ready to go yet) then Israel will retaliate immediately with their large nuclear stockpile.

Several posters above and a significant part of the media applaud the likelyhood that Israel will go for the Iran nuclear facilities, duped as they are by the US and EU deceit that Iran has or is working towards having a nuclear weapon.

The US and the EU have not been able to supply a single piece of evidence that Iran is building an atomic capacity, but even if it is what would they do with it? They are clearly aware that with the USA's unquestioning support for Israel that such an attack would result in a counterstrike against Iran by the USA.

So what might be the end game if in fact Iran was developing a weapon. Might it just be to provide a deterrent against an Israeli nuclear strike in the event that the USA at some future date might not or could not support Israel?

As to those who think that an Israeli strike would only result in an Iranian counterstrike obviously has not been watching what is going on around the middle East . Egypt now has a hardline Islamic parliament, the Libyan 'government' has a hardline component, hardline elements in Iraq are moving away from the current government and this is in addition to the hardliners in Syria, Lebanon (Hezbullah) and Gaza (Hamas).

We should also remember that Pakistan already has a nuclear capacity and has a hardline Islamic core.

In my opinion an Israeli pre-emptive strike will unite these hardline groups, something that the US has been desparately trying to avoid through its covert operations throughout the region, including its current attempts in Syria to destabilise or change the government. (Change to what? Another hardline Islamic republic)

Why did Russia and China veto the UN resolution on Syria? Did they see the unbalanced resolution (asking only one side involved in the conflict to lay down their weapons) for what it is? The Russian foreign minister was very clear when interviewed on Russia Today that he (Russia) would support a resolution requiring BOTH sides to lay down their arms and come to the conference table, but it was the US that refused that amendment to the resolution.

The USA once again involving itself in the internal affairs of and demanding regime change within a sovereign nation-just as they did in Libya. What US national interest is involved in the Syrian dispute?

You see the US as a threat to world affairs and not Islam??

Weird

_________________
When a man comes to me for advice, I find out the kind of advice he wants, and I give it to him

ivqii

"You see the US as a threat to world affairs and not Islam??

Weird"

Weird, not really.

There are a number of threats to peace throughout the world, the USA being just one of them. Islamic extremists ( or more correctly religious intolerances ) are another, oldtime Communists (North Korea) are a third. Corporatisation and globalisation, famine, climate change, the list goes on.

Of these I put the threat from the USA foremost due not only to its military power but also its domination of the global economy.

Compared to the USA the Islamic threat is relatively minor as it does not have the military capacity hence its use of terrorist attacks ( previously referred to as guerilla warfare).

Why I get so het up about the USA is because of the sheer hypocracy of its policies. Libya is a good example. They commenced a bombing campaign on that country- involving themselves in what was clearly a civil war- on 'humanitarian' grounds. In the first 2 hours they fired over 200 cruise missiles at $2 million dollars per 'bang' and killed several thousand civilians ( that is, the people they pledged to protect) in the process. The exact number has still to be identified (but the ICC is currently investigating the US/NATO actions to determine whether war crimes were committed).

$400 million would have solved many of the humanitarian problems had the civil war been allowed to run its course without outside interference.

Before that it was Iraq, now Afghanistan (another civil war). The $1 trillion per year spent in Iraq ( civilian deaths estimated at between 100,000 and 800,000) and now Afghanistan/ Pakistan ( civilian deaths unknown at this time) would solve the majority of the worlds humanitarian problems. But the USA military/industrial comples needs conflict.

If you are prepared to look beyond Fox News you may gain an appreciation of just how deeply the USA involves itself covertly in the internal affairs of many countries- including Islamic states- throughout the world.

The Muslim fundamentalists call the USA the 'Great Satan'. I wonder why?

maszki, you have a very strange view of the world. Your anti-US world view is leading you into making incorrect statements. Take Libya, for instance. It was not the US that initiated regime change, it was the overwhelming majority of the Libyan population (even if it started small, all rebellions start small)!

I would argue that the Western powers were perhaps too slow to act in Libya, but they waited till asked for help. The US was quite reticent about getting too involved and it was Italy, France and Britain that supplied most of the firepower in support of the rebels.

In the Balkans the Western powers made the mistake of operating under a UN mandate (a do nothing mandate), resulting in the Srebrenica massacre, amongst other atrocities. It was only when NATO (including the US) took the war home to Serbia that hostilities were terminated.

You seem to have much in common with the mad mullahs (who can't be making nuclear weapons, because there isn't any evidence!) in Iran, considering the US to be the Great Satan. As I say, a very strange world view.

BTW, there is no direct evidence of nuclear weapons in Iran for the simple reason that the mad mullahs won't allow proper inspection!

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

So why did Russia veto the UN Resolution on Syria?

That's one view.

Cheers!

I would simply point out that the world has changed, radically, since 1982 and the Hama massacre. Syria was, then, an ally of the Soviet Union. Military action against the murderous regime of Assad's father risked war with the Soviets. Non-military action was treated with the same contempt that rogue states treat it today.

I remember when the younger Assad took over after the elder died. People thought that he would be an instrument of change and that Syria would become more democratic, or at least more tolerant. Didn't end up happening, did it?

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Here is another view as to why did Russia veto the UN Resolution on Syria.

There are others, as I am sure.

Cheers!

What do another few hundred dead civilians matter whilst the resolution is deferred? Of course, once the Russians explain to Assad that he needs to stop killing people, and bring about democratic reforms, he is going to suddenly see the light, see the error of his ways.

It's pathetic really. I wonder whether the Arab League might just decide it is all pointless and take action on their own? It might not be beyond the realms of possibility that they ask Israel for help? Nothing would surprise me, anymore, about that part of the world.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Peter you are aware that Russia is still Syria's greatest friend ? As for the Arab League asking Israel for help, there wouldn't be a circumstance imaginable where this scenario could happen.

Maszki raises some interesting points. It's important to remember the USA is a cultural empire. It's about winning hearts & minds, rather than land conquest. They will stick their nose in if they think it serves them some fruitful purpose. That's what happens with all empires.

I read a statistic years ago that said the USA had 5% of the world's population but used 62% of the world's resources. Says it all really.

The west created the mess that is the middle east after WW1. All the west has managed to do in the last century is compound the problem.

As for terrorism and war crimes, everyone knows only those on the 'losing' side can be accused of such things . Funny how we don't talk about, oh I don't know..... the Stern Gang for example ?

For the record, I'm not pro-Arab or anti-USA or anti-Israel. If the human race has a viable future, then global thinking about ourselves and each other will have to change quite dramatically. A 'one in all in' mentality would be a good start.

Peter

I think that the author, in the paragraph you are pointing to, is simply stating that Russia is seeing a double standard being applied.

Yes, I realise...but we have one or two others here that will see what they want to see.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Just remember that the continued weapon for weapon parity drive from WWII onwards by the US basically couldn't be financially sustained by the USSR and eventually led to the breakup of that totalitarian regime.

Had that not happened, all of Western Europe (including your country by the way) would have suffered far more than they did under the USSR "occupation". This would have continued to the present day and the forseeable future.

The Berlin wall would have been the Western Europe wall, stretching from the Mediterranean to the Baltic (and that is not as far fetched as it sounds).

There would have been no Perestroika and the Gdansk shipyard strikes of the early 1970's would have been far more ruthlessly repressed than they were.

I may not agree with everything the US Government does but it's far, far better than the alternative

We have been discussing reasons for the Russian veto at the UN but, why did China do the same?

Is it as simple as, everyone should mind their own business?

I think China is flexing it's diplomatic muscle. China is also paranoid about popular uprisings and revolutions. Their thinking will be something along the lines of " if it is alright to 'interfere' in Syria, why not Tibet? Or even China itself?"

The Chinese Gov't, by all accounts, heavily censored reports on the revolts in Egypt and Libya for the same reasons. The ruling party has absolutely no interest in political reform, thank you very much!

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Now why would both China and Russia veto anything the UN proposes..........let me see.......how about the ongoing multi-billions they get from selling armaments, ships, aircraft, etc. to Syria, Iran, North Korea, the Taliban, Hezbollah and all the other tin pot regimes and terrorist groups worldwide

One tiny part of their armament exports to the "not so Free" world is the Kalashnikov AK47 and the Chinese copy of it (Type 56).

It's been the main hand held weapon of choice for all of the above for the last 50 years or so. The AK47 alone has reached approx. 100,000,000 units made (that's 100 MILLION).

So possibly they don't want that "little" income stream to dry up

Possibly, although whatever regime (dictators or democracies) is in power...they will still need armaments. The number of weapons that have 'gone missing' in Libya is significant.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

A number of governments are worried about the large quantities of shoulder-held, heat seeking surface to air missiles that have gone missing from there.

If terrorists get their hands on those there will be passenger aircraft worldwide dropping out of the sky like flies

Imagine the cost for all large civilian aircraft to have either flares, electronic counter measures or laser infrared disrupters fitted to them

_________________
Tony

There were plenty of shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles around before any 'lost' in Libya are counted. Some date back to the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan (US Stingers in the main).

Luckily, such weapons have quite a short range and would need to target a plane at an airport to be effective. Western airports are pretty well monitored. Not that it is impossible, anybody in a house in Sydney near KS airport would be in range.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Many world airports are close to residential/factory areas so loosing one off from there wouldn't be difficult. A case in point as you mentioned is Sydney KFS where the flight paths are right over residential areas except for the Botany Bay approach.

Tulla in MEL is a bit more remote but there are still buildings, roads, etc. close by.

What a world we live in where this could even be contemplated

Well, this has certainly developed into an interesting discussion.

One or 2 more comments from the 'mad mullah' ( and NO, I am not a muslim, nor am I religious- just a plain old common garden type stamp collector with an open mind).

Firstly to Latokia who said 'It's been the main hand held weapon of choice for all of the above for the last 50 years or so. The AK47 alone has reached approx. 100,000,000 units made (that's 100 MILLION).

So possibly they don't want that "little" income stream to dry up :idea'

This 'income stream' is insignificant compared to the US arms sales The Chinese and Russian arm sales are 'petty cash' within their respective economies compared to the USA

To Peter, my opinion is that the Chinese veto is related to their trade links with Iran. They also may see that a shift in the balance of power in the area is part of the revised US strategic defence re-alignment into the asian area-that is, a threat to China's national interests. There is also the possibility that they agree with Russia that the US proposal was blatantly one-sided.

Lakotai again 'The Berlin wall would have been the Western Europe wall, stretching from the Mediterranean to the Baltic (and that is not as far fetched as it sounds).'

I think that as Germany basically 'owns' Europe now I agree with you on that point, although you clearly meant it in a different context.

'What a world we live in where this could even be contemplated' is another opinion with which I agree. That is the benefit of threads such as this- an open forum for an exchange of views where those who 'only see what they want to see' can have their views tested and commented upon. Who knows, perhaps those who believe that not only does the sun rise and set in a US posterior but that the US is the sun itself may actually recognise that there is a valid but opposing view.

Their are too many examples in history were good people do nothing or say nothing and then wake up in the morning to find that what they failed to contemplate has happened.

If you are prepared to look beyond Fox News you may gain an appreciation of just how deeply the USA involves itself covertly in the internal affairs of many countries-

Yes, take the Cold War for example; we should understand the deep US involvement in that. The US should have minded its own business and let Poland (and you) stay under Russian communist domination for another 45 years .....

Bathurst stamper:

Funny we don't talk about the role of the Australian Army in creating that mess.
Funny we don't talk about how the British occupation forces summarily executed an unarmed Stern without trial.
Funny that someone in, oh I don't know..... Australia chooses this one example of injustice ...

mgb1248 wrote


The USA had nothing to do with the Poles freeing themselves from the USSR. There was no covert US arming or training, or even support for Solidarity. They did it all themselves and in doing so they are/were an inspiration to the other Eastern bloc nations.

Perhaps they could even be an inspiration to the Palestinians who are, I understand, currently under the jackboot of a military occupation.

Your local library will have a book entitled 'Rising 44' by Norman Davies, which although not related to current events will educate you that the USA could have ensured that Poland remained free of soviet domination. Might I suggest you read it.

Oh by the way mgb1248, I am not Polish