Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Kennedy was a douche bag.

That has all changed with NATO, and the only time it wasn't honored, was the Falkland Island pissing match. And truthfully, did you want us involved? And this is why the UK is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although, I agree that the relationship between our countries is strained, but not to the extent that one or the other will not honor it's NATO obligations.

So, who would that leave to attack either country in mass? Russia? Not likely. They have said some things in the past couple of years, but in my opinion, they are directed at the US/NATO, but meant for a neighbor to the south. And China will come directly at the US if they ever try anything. If Africa would get over all of the fighting with themselves and their neighbors they could poss a threat in 50 - 100 years, because they have tons of hate for lots of Europeans. Now, to tell the truth, I don't think there will ever be another World War without nuclear weapons, so it will never happen or matter if it does happen.
 
Last edited:
I do not blame America in the slightest - I blame these fools in our establishment that think there is a special relationship - what clots. So of course no American would dream of laying their life down for Britain.

The Falklands - it was a damn close run thing which side the US would actually support - Allbright was dead pro Argentinian. Al Haig however and Reagan were pro Margaret Thatcher (rather than pro British).
 
GRtak said:
If Africa would get over all of the fighting with themselves and their neighbors they could poss a threat in 50 - 100 years, because they have tons of hate for lots of Europeans. Now, to tell the truth, I don't think there will ever be another World War without nuclear weapons, so it will never happen or matter if it does happen.
Click to expand...
The population projection (from the UN) for Africa is pretty scary, today we have a billion africans and by 2050 we'll have two. Will africa have developed enough to support a 100% increase in population in fourty years? I wonder.

Asia will increase with one billion too, but as they're so many already, that's a humble 20% increase. Remaining continents will live with little to no population increase as well as slight decreases in places.
 
The US did support the British with satelite intelligence, after all.

As for NATO, it wasn't really relevant for the Falklands, and neither were Korea or Vietnam. NATO dealt with the North Atlantic, basicly. What happened in Korea, Vietnam or the South Atlantic wasn't within the context of the treaty. If the US went to war with Israel over that destroyer incident, it might have been within the treaty (not sure about the Med), and in principle, so might the war between Greece and Turkey had both not been signataries of the treaty already.
 
Don't let the North Atlantic fool you, NATO is a group that will and has acted together no matter where the conflict is. It's main purpose was/is defense, so if one member country was attacked the others would come to the defense of that country. THe whole problem with the Falklands incident is the USA had treaties with both countries. You don't think NATO was used, if not in whole, the relationship formed by NATO, in Vietnam and Korea, you are sadly mistaken. The only reason the UK hasn't had more military action in the last 30 years is because the USA had to leash it's own dog.

And as far as NATO members fighting with each other, how do you choose which to side with?
 
So Canada's murder stats were released. It's actually interesting reading. While I think I'm on record as saying I'm not a gun advocate - nor, on reflection, am I extremely anti-gun. I'm gun ambivalent - I find it interesting how the vast majority of murderin' guns go unregistered. Also interesting, murder rates have been steady since 1999, and most murders are from stabbing. In spite of the steady total murders, the number of gun-based murders is down. Guess if you wanna kill someone, you just grab what's handy. And Manitoba folks, you win for most per capita!

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/101026/dq101026a-eng.htm
 
Last edited:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/whythedowusuallyralliesaftermidtermelections

Why the Dow Usually Rallies After Midterm Elections

Democrats and Republicans may both have something to celebrate in the months following the midterm elections: A stock market rally. From 1922 to 2006, the average gain of the Dow Jones Industrial Average over the 90 trading days following midterms (roughly November until mid-March) was 8.5 percent, according to a new study authored by Brian Gendreau, market strategist for Financial Network. That's almost 5 percent higher than the Dow's gains in non-election years.

Historically, the post-election period has been a good one for stocks. "So the question is, 'Did the markets go up in the midterm election years by more than average in non-election years?' Gendreau says. "And the answer is, 'Yes, by a huge amount more.'" The Dow has risen following 19 of the last 22 midterm elections.

In the weeks before midterms, the market generally tends to perform well. "The market starts to go up beforehand and it just doesn't stop," he says. And generally, the party of the president tends to do poorly in midterm elections. (Since 1942, the party in control of the White House has lost an average of 28 seats in the House and four in the Senate.) During that period, the only time the ruling party gained seats in both the House and Senate was in the 2002 elections, and the market fell afterward--making it the only time the Dow has fallen after a midterm election since 1942.

Since the midterms tend to be an equalizing force on Capitol Hill, many experts have said in the past that this proves the markets like gridlock in Congress. Gendreau offers a different explanation: The markets hate uncertainty. "Before the mid-term election there's a lot of uncertainty, and often one party swept in a lot of seats along with the presidential election and that gets reversed to some extent," Gendreau says. "Then everyone knows what the playing field is and has a better idea of what might happen going forward."

Also, after the midterms, there is generally a more balanced share of power between the president and Congress, so the chance for compromise is more likely. "The market seems to like that," he says.

So what about this year? Gendreau is the first to admit that he's not the first economist to release a survey like this. His research just covers a longer period of time. He also notes that given the ever-increasing wealth of information available to traders today, the effects of this trend may be somewhat weaker going forward. But so far this year, the Dow has been steadily rising in anticipation of the midterms, gaining about 7 percent year-to-date.

Looking further out, the year following the midterms or the president's third year in office is usually the best year for the Dow, according to an older study by Gendreau. From 1871 to 2005, the average return of the S&P Composite Stock Index during the third year of a president's term was 10.1 percent. During the fourth year in office the index was up 7.5 percent, on average--a marked improvement over average returns in the first year (3 percent), and the second (2.7 percent).
Click to expand...

A truly amazing trend, IMO, both regarding the market and election results.
 
The Dow has risen following 19 of the last 22 midterm elections.[...]
Click to expand...
It?s funny how some people don?t even flinch when presented with such numbers. Sure, the article is littered with "may" and "generally" ... but if you?ve ever heard of statistics in your life, you know this set of data just doesn?t allow to tell other people to put their money on that horse.
Historically, the post-election period has been a good one for stocks.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the people who invested the 15% of times where that didn?t happen ... "The market likes this, the market hates that" my ass.
 
BBC News ? Police in training for 'Mumbai-style' gun attack in UK

BBC News said:
UK security chiefs have ordered an acceleration in police training to prepare for any future "Mumbai-style" gun attack in a public place.

A series of counter-terrorism exercises are being held with police and the SAS.

The BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner said there was no indication such an attack was imminent in the UK.

The Home Office said: "We keep security arrangements under constant review to take account of the threat, lessons we have learned and new challenges."

Last month intelligence sources said they had uncovered the early stages of an al-Qaeda plot to carry out co-ordinated attacks in the UK, France and Germany.

Suspects were planning to copy the 2008 attacks in the Indian city of Mumbai, where 10 gunmen went on a three-day rampage, killing 166 people and injuring more than 300, the sources said.
Increased ammunition

In response police armed response units are being given more powerful weapons.

Our correspondent said the UK authorities had been planning for such an attack ever since Mumbai happened.

"David Cameron has taken a personal interest in the problem ever since his first threat assessment given to him when he took office in May.

"Now police armed response units are getting their firepower and their stocks of ammunition increased to deal with multiple terrorists armed with automatic weapons," he said.

A Whitehall official told the BBC the Metropolitan Police had not been asked to do this before.

He said the job of the police would be to contain such a situation while the job of the SAS (Special Air Service), if called upon, would be to resolve it.

* Continues *
Click to expand...

This is an interesting item from yesterday.

First, I am surprised that the Met Police in London could not do this already.

Second, I don?t understand what it means by, ?police will be given more powerful weapons.? I thought the equipment they had already was suitable.

Third, why have the police put this out as a story now? As there are no current provisions to deal with this specific threat and won?t be for some months by the look of it. Is hat not an invitation to the bad guys to come here and give it a go?

A strange news story put out by the government.
:?

EDIT: The SAS are based in Hereford, which is a two hour plus drive from London.
 
Last edited:
Cobol74 said:
Let me see? Um, budget cuts?
Click to expand...

Not sure I follow your thinking there, more equipment plus training equals more cost not less. (And I believe, they will be increasing the ?Special Forces? budget.)
:?
 
I think Cobol is referring to the not so subtle way of reminding the Gvt that they need the police despite their budget being cut by 20% last week.
 
Just been reading Politifact which takes the claims made by politicians running for election and checks them for truth.

Since September 1st, only 10% of the claims made in the advertising have been true. 12% have been outright lies (their "Pants on Fire" rating) and 22% have merely been False.
 
Last edited:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/us/politics/27fraud.html?_r=1
Tea Party members have started challenging voter registration applications and have announced plans to question individual voters at the polls whom they suspect of being ineligible. [...] In St. Paul, organizers from the Tea Party and related groups announced this week that they were offering a $500 reward for anyone who turned in someone who was successfully prosecuted for voter fraud.The group is also organizing volunteer ?surveillance squads? to photograph and videotape what it suspects are irregularities, and in some cases to follow buses that take voters to the polls. [...] ?Private efforts to police the polls create a real risk of vote suppression, regardless of their intent,? said Wendy R. Weiser, director of the Voting Rights and Elections Project at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. ?People need to know that any form of discrimination, intimidation or challenge to voters without adequate basis is illegal or improper.?
Click to expand...
Maybe Afghanistan can give the united states some of their knowledge on how to organize elections ...

AFGHANISTAN_WAHL5_D_879474p.jpg


(irony!)
 
Last edited:
Heathrow said:
First, I am surprised that the Met Police in London could not do this already.
Click to expand...
Considering that London is one of the largest cities in Europe, and with a population the size of a nation state (more than Norway, more than Finland, more than Denmark, probably more than Sweden as well), I am sure there is already instruments in place that are fully capable of pulling such an operation off within the met. First of all, with well trained weapons officers. Putting up a cordon can be done by using any of the officers available to the Met, so that's not a problem.

Thing is, you're rarely going to go in without planning. And if you're sitting down to look at blueprints anyway, you might as well get in the SAS from Hereford (and why not, it's not that long in helicopters anyway), as they have the experience, training and competance to solve such a situation.

Heathrow said:
Second, I don?t understand what it means by, ?police will be given more powerful weapons.? I thought the equipment they had already was suitable.
Click to expand...
Powerful is such a diffuse term. Powerful can mean anything from getting longer range sniper rifles, or, it can just be their way of describing "new" weapons. In Mumbai, the terrorists were using among other shit AK-47s or AK-74s. They have greatly superior range and penetration ability compared to an MP5. As for the MP5, it's a fucking good weapon, but it's not always suitable for reliably taking out someone with body armor. And if they can get an AK, they can get kevlar.

What weapons they've been given, I don't know. My guess is that they have been given some .223 assault rifles for countering a situation where they need the reach of the more powerful round.

Heathrow said:
Third, why have the police put this out as a story now? As there are no current provisions to deal with this specific threat and won?t be for some months by the look of it. Is hat not an invitation to the bad guys to come here and give it a go?
Click to expand...
Point taken. But they put it out to make sure that part of the police isn't touched by the budget cuts.

Heathrow said:
EDIT: The SAS are based in Hereford, which is a two hour plus drive from London.
Click to expand...
They've got helicopters that'll get them there much quicker than that, and they generally speaking travel relatively light. What gear they can't bring with them is probably available in London anyway.
 
More EU stuff:

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/foreign-policy/cameron-s-eu-budget-calls-undermined-$21382733.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11641023

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/25/david-cameron-budget-freeze-europe

Sooo at the minimum UK pays in more than 450 Million GBP (More likely 6% than 2.9%) - who exactly is getting this money, a Polish MEP has just said that actually the increase is 1% and it is to pay for "Committments", well excuse me no one asked me - what committments - what committments do we get?

Most people in this country are whistling for their "pay rise" and we are cutting our Govt budgets extensively. Sooo what exactly, if anything do we get for our money?

Fortunately we are not involved is sorting out the EURO mess - or are we?
 
Last edited:
Anybody have a link to a rip of the Daily Show episode with Obama for us Yank expats who can't watch it on Hulu or Comedy Central? Sorry if this has been asked already.
 
Won't work - somewhere on FG there is a link to how you can get the website to work. Adjusting Firefox headers and a plugin, I think.

Anyway, the interview is on More 4 tonight if you are in the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top