World News Thread & Breaking News!!

[bd popeye]

Mr T.. long time no see my friend.. hope you stay around!

============================================

Follow the link for the full article

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(CNN) -- A no-frills beachside condo tower isn't where you'd expect to find the world's most wanted drug lord.
But that, authorities said, was where they captured Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman over the weekend.

His nickname, which means "Shorty," belies the tall and near-mythic status Guzman achieved in recent years for his ability to elude capture by using bribes, safe houses and an army of cartel helpers.

The early morning operation in the Mexican Pacific resort town of Mazatlan marked a dramatic twist in a case that has long captivated the country and frustrated investigators on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Authorities had been closing in on the notorious Sinaloa cartel leader for months before Mexican marines swooped in Saturday, Mexican Attorney General Jesus Murillo Karam told reporters.

Earlier police operations yielded a trove of intelligence, including cell phone and other data, a U.S. law enforcement official said. That helped Mexican authorities and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents hunting Guzman gain confidence in recent weeks that they could arrest him.

A key discovery earlier this month marked a turning point in the investigation: seven houses in the Mexican city of Culiacan, connected by secret tunnels that also tied in with the city's sewage system.

Investigators almost caught him then, Murillo said, but reinforced steel doors made it too tough for them to enter the compound quickly.

"It made it so that in the minutes we took to open them, he escaped in the tunnels," Murillo said. "But the investigation was so thorough that we continued."

Before Guzman's capture, Mexican federal forces made several significant arrests of Sinaloa cartel associates, including two people authorities said were suspected of providing security for top leaders of the cartel.

 

[Jeff Head]

I have moved over 50 posts to a new thread:

2014 Ukrainian Maidan Revolt

Discussion about that topic is large and taking this thread off topic. Your posts regarding it are there and please continue the discussion there

Thanks

 

[SteelBird]

.. long time no see ..

I wonder a pure English speaker would use this phrase. I thought it is "Singlish" because when people say it they always add "...people mountain people sea..." at the end.

 

[Miragedriver]

I saw in the news that the United States Air Force is (proposing) retiring the A-10 fleet in order to save $3.5 billion over five years and accelerates the Air Force’s long-standing modernization plan (to replace it with the F-35). Additionally it was mentioned that the age of the A-10 is also making it much more difficult and costly to maintain.

I can comprehend the logic of the aircraft get long in the tooth and thereby having higher maintenance costs. THowever, the A-10′s original concept did, in fact, aim to survive and operate in the face of advanced combat environment and air defense, which makes the official statement questionable. The A-10 (in my opinion) remains peerless in the close support role (closest rival and distant second is the SU-25), and the use of 30mm gun for close-in attacks on the front lines remains unmatched. That isn’t possible for drones, and it’s problematic for the F-35A, which carries only 14% as much ammunition (only 180 rounds) in a lesser caliber.

Can any member shed some light on this?

 

[Equation]

I wonder a pure English speaker would use this phrase. I thought it is "Singlish" because when people say it they always add "...people mountain people sea..." at the end.

I use it as a meaning to "I haven't seen or heard from you in a long time".

 

[solarz]

I wonder a pure English speaker would use this phrase. I thought it is "Singlish" because when people say it they always add "...people mountain people sea..." at the end.

It's actually one of those "Singlish", as you put it, phrases that turned into a mainstream English expression.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jeff Head]

I saw in the news that the United States Air Force is (proposing) retiring the A-10 fleet in order to save $3.5 billion over five years and accelerates the Air Force’s long-standing modernization plan (to replace it with the F-35). Additionally it was mentioned that the age of the A-10 is also making it much more difficult and costly to maintain.

The A-10 (in my opinion) remains peerless in the close support role (closest rival and distant second is the SU-25), and the use of 30mm gun for close-in attacks on the front lines remains unmatched. That isn’t possible for drones, and it’s problematic for the F-35A, which carries only 14% as much ammunition (only 180 rounds) in a lesser caliber.

Can any member shed some light on this?

There are those in the US military and particularly on the progressive/liberal political side who have wanted...and tried...to get rid of the A-10 several times.

They have always failed precisely because the A-10 is so good at what it does and is built to, "take a lickin' and keep on tickin',"...meaning it is built to take punishment from small arms and even heavy caliber weapons and shrug them off and keep supporting the troops.

Now, they are using sequestration as a means to bring it down.

The A-10 is very inexpensive compared to any more modern aircraft they contemplate on replacing it with. It's maintenance will be minscule compared to using the F-35 for this role. The A-10 is still the best tank busting, APC destroying, close infantry support aricraft available and they should keep it around for another 20-30 years IMHO...and they could if the US has the political will to do so.

 

[solarz]

There are those in the US military and particularly on the progressive/liberal political side who have wanted...and tried...to get rid of the A-10 several times.

They have always failed precisely because the A-10 is so good at what it does and is built to, "take a lickin' and keep on tickin',"...meaning it is built to take punishment from small arms and even heavy caliber weapons and shrug them off and keep supporting the troops.

Now, they are using sequestration as a means to bring it down.

The A-10 is very inexpensive compared to any more modern aircraft they contemplate on replacing it with. It's maintenance will be minscule compared to using the F-35 for this role. The A-10 is still the best tank busting, APC destroying, close infantry support aricraft available and they should keep it around for another 20-30 years IMHO...and they could if the US has the political will to do so.

The A-10 is designed for anti-armor warfare, something that the US is unlikely to engage in in the near future. I'm guess it would not so much be "replaced" by the F-35, as have its role taken over by the latter which will also be used in other roles.

Sure the F-35 is not nearly as good as the A-10 in doing what the A-10 does best, but the F-35 (if it ever gets off the ground, which is a whole other issue) can do other things as well.

 

[Equation]

There are those in the US military and particularly on the progressive/liberal political side who have wanted...and tried...to get rid of the A-10 several times.

They have always failed precisely because the A-10 is so good at what it does and is built to, "take a lickin' and keep on tickin',"...meaning it is built to take punishment from small arms and even heavy caliber weapons and shrug them off and keep supporting the troops.

Now, they are using sequestration as a means to bring it down.

The A-10 is very inexpensive compared to any more modern aircraft they contemplate on replacing it with. It's maintenance will be minscule compared to using the F-35 for this role. The A-10 is still the best tank busting, APC destroying, close infantry support aricraft available and they should keep it around for another 20-30 years IMHO...and they could if the US has the political will to do so.

Haters will gonna hate no matter what reasons and logic explained by the professionals. I can see the A-10 be reduced in numbers while the others maybe sold to oversea allies.

The A-10 is designed for anti-armor warfare, something that the US is unlikely to engage in in the near future. I'm guess it would not so much be "replaced" by the F-35, as have its role taken over by the latter which will also be used in other roles.

Sure the F-35 is not nearly as good as the A-10 in doing what the A-10 does best, but the F-35 (if it ever gets off the ground, which is a whole other issue) can do other things as well.

F-35 is already in operation, although limited right now, but it will get there eventually. They're not ideally for the ground role in IMO.



The A-10 still have it's use even today and into the future IMO because the Army and Marines will always need them for not just tank busting, but for recon on low and high mountainous terrain and for carrying bunker busting bombs on those hard to reach targets. People who wants the A-10 to be gone does NOT know a darn thing about ground operations.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Haters will gonna hate no matter what reasons and logic explained by the professionals. I can see the A-10 be reduced in numbers while the others maybe sold to oversea allies.



F-35 is already in operation, although limited right now, but it will get there eventually. They're not ideally for the ground role in IMO.



The A-10 still have it's use even today and into the future IMO because the Army and Marines will always need them for not just tank busting, but for recon on low and high mountainous terrain and for carrying bunker busting bombs on those hard to reach targets. People who wants the A-10 to be gone does NOT know a darn thing about ground operations.

Exactly! which is why I think it was a mistake the A-10 was ever a USAF asset. If there's one airplane that the Army should have is the A-10. If the Marine Corp can have AV8Bs, F-18s etc why can't the Army have A-10s?