Group items tagged

The US has proposed blocking the flow of US arms into Saudi Arabia, but the UK will not do the same. There have been many civilian deaths in Yemen due to the arms being provided by the US and UK. Lawmakers in the UK have proclaimed that the continued supply of arms to Saudi Arabia breaches several international humanitarian laws. However, even after extensive evidence of the damage the weapons are doing to civilians, the UK refuses to consider stopping the trade.

"As an armed militia took over federal buildings and property in Oregon's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and declared their willingness to "kill or be killed" on Saturday, one of the group's best defenses has received little media coverage - their whiteness. "

A letter from the vice president of the Swiss gun rights group Protell to the Swiss president, advocating for the president to oppose an upcoming small arms ban. He mainly sticks to 2 arguments: Small arms in the hands of civilians are necessary for the defense of the country, and also says that more gun laws will criminalize the law abiding citizens. He does NOT say anything about individual rights in the entire letter.

North Korea successfully conducted a launch of new long-range cruise missiles heating up the arms race on the Korean Peninsula. While ballistic missile launches are banned for North Korea by the UN, the firing of cruise missiles is not.

CDIZ, Spain - The San Jose Park in the center of this port city bustled as evening fell. Children scrambled on the playground. Young people strolled arm in arm. Amid the activity, Leonor Molina, an immigrant from Ecuador, leafed through a catalog as she watched over an elderly Spanish woman in a wheelchair.

This article claims that one of the plotters in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack, David Headley, was a) a double agent for the US and b) a member of a militant group created and sponsored by Pakistan's intelligence agency. And that the Mumbai attack was intended to provoke conflict between Pakistan and India, both of which are nuclear armed.

A letter from the vice president of the NRA to president Obama, he focuses on individual rights to bear arms and advocates for Obama to solve the problem of gun violence without stripping people of what he thinks is the right to bear arms.

"On Saturday night, dozens of white, armed American militants stormed a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon seeking to take a "hard stand" against federal government "tyranny." It's a wild story. Here's what you need to know. "

"SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. - Heavily armed attackers terrorized this city on Wednesday, killing at least 14 people and wounding at least 17 at a social services center before leading the police on a manhunt culminating in a shootout that left two suspects dead and a possible third in custody."

sorry im late to this but the economic sanctions on my country have finally been lifted!

I thought this was an interesting article because it called into question the authority Obama really has on the decision to use armed forces in Syria. Since the United States is not directly in danger, the article points out how Obama legally needs to put the decision before the UN security council to make a decision.

I also think it's fascinating that there are parallels drawn between Obama's justification that not intervening in Syria would give the message that Syria's violation of the ban on chemical weapons is okay and Obama's willingness to violate the rule that prohibits use of military force without Security Council authorization. The question raised about which rule is more important is very thought-provoking.

Possible non-militant solution to Syria's chemical weapons. Met with skepticism from White House.

I think the divide among Syrian officials and Assad about ceding control of chemical weapons is very interesting. It seems that in addition to gaining Russia's support, Kerry's proposal has also gained the support of many of Syria's top officials including its foreign minister, Wallid al-Moallem. Nevertheless, it appears that Assad is still extremely against giving up Syria's chemical weapons, even if doing so would avert a U.S. strike on Syria.

As the US armed forces have to scale back due to sequestration, the biggest problem afflicting the Army is how it will adapt--not only to budget cuts, but to a new era of warfare. Drone strikes and special operations are becoming more prominent and crucial for taking out national security threats in foreign countries, but do these smaller operations merit a downsizing of the the current active-duty troop body? Some top officials think it's important to maintain a larger army in case we need to mobilize (i.e. war with Iran or North Korea). On the other hand, other officials think a downsizing is imperative: today, the Army spends absurd amounts on health care and other benefits (52% increase since 2001), while ineffective officers remain in the army so they can receive retirement pensions. As Defense Analyst Arnold Punaro says in this article, "The Department of Defense [is going to turn] into a benefits company that occasionally kills a terrorist". In short, the US Army must change, but it's not clear how that will happen.

Disagrees with Samuel P. Huntington's thesis

Raw data from the small arms survey

Both Japan and France rank in the top 50 for Global Peace Rankings-- Japan 8th and France 48th. The biggest difference in their rankings comes from France's possession of heavy and nuclear weapons. The Japanese have limited possession of heavy and nuclear weapons as a result of the pacifist constitution they were forced to adopt following WWII which limited their ability to arm for war. Furthermore, France is involved in more conflicts and exports more weapons than Japan, which is also heavily related to the restrictions placed on Japan following WWII. However, Japan has a worse record when it comes to relations with neighbors which may be related to actions from WWII and rising tensions between Japan, China, and South Korea. Yet, perhaps unrelated to WWII and relating more to culture of society, France has a higher level of violent demonstrations and internal organized conflict than Japan. Japan has a homogenous population that has a main focus of work and a culture that accepts the social and economic hierarchy, but France has a more heterogeneous population with many disenfranchised groups that were once colonized that continue to face discrimination.

I began my study of the ISIS conflict by reading an article about the Mosul Dam and how it was a crucial breaking point in the ISIS-Iraq conflict. The forces of ISIS previously spoke of blowing up the Mosul Dam when obtaining control, thus affecting Iraq from Mosul all the way down to Baghdad. Militant forces had been engaging in firefights with armed vehicles in villages surrounding the Mosul Dam and managed to gain control. The Kurdish military and Iraqi Forces, were not doing an adequate job fighting back from the eyes of the US, placing American representatives in the area in jeopardy. Obama ordered airstrikes and within two days of continuous air raids, the Sunni' fighters were subdued enough for the Kurdish and Iraqi forces to move in and retake the Mosul Dam. While Obama says this is not a sign that America is completely joining in so Iraqi and Syrian governments can return to a lack-luster, chaotic governing system, the heavy military presence on foreign soil does seem a bit concerning. Yet, what are the other options in defending fellow Americans? Perhaps the British don't have a large number of representatives in the area, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, made sure he informed his country that they would not be joining in the conflict to any extent. With ISIS militant forces inhabiting various other areas, danger seems to be looming in Iraq and Syria. I'm curious to see if any other foreign nations join into the conflict or let the forces stay enmeshed in conflict.

I liked this article a lot because it paints the slippery slope that the United States will face if they become even more involved with the ISIS situation. Currently, the only USA involvement has been airstrikes/ airs raids as the article states. Will Obama continue to approve of the air strikes or will the situation escalate to a point where boots on the ground are required?