Life Expectancy to Soar, Except in the US

By Erin Elizabeth -

February 23, 2017

~ hehe Oops Monster~satan will "save" U.S. & hows THAT working fer U.S.  hows THAT going

A new study published in The Lancet is reporting that average life expectancy will increase globally by 2030, both at birth and at the age of 65. Thanks to improvements in maternal and child health and improved adult health the average for women at birth will exceed 85 years in many countries, with South Korea projected to lead the way with a life expectancy of 90.8 years.

In 2015, the global average was 71.4 years so this is good news.

But not for the US.

From the article:

“Among predictions for high-income countries, the lowest life expectancy at birth is likely to be in the US, with an average of 83.3 years for women and 79.5 years for men — similar to Mexico and Croatia.

The analysis included data on mortality and longevity patterns from 35 industrialized nations, including both high-income countries and emerging economies.

In Europe, French women and Swiss women are predicted to have the highest life expectancy, with averages of 88.6 and 84 years respectively.”

RELATED STUDIES:

• Study Finds Hot Chili Peppers May Extend Life
• How Essential Oils Can Help Improve Your Life

The study believes that the lack of universal health care might play a role, but so does obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, homicides and road accidents. Of all countries studied, the lowest life expectancy projections were for women in Macedonia and men in Serbia.

Majid Ezzati, professor of global environmental health at Imperial College London and the study’s lead, believes that South Korea has increased their overall lifespan through “investment in childhood nutrition, education and technology as well as low blood pressure, low levels of smoking and good access to health care.”

Let’s hope that these new findings will encourage lawmakers and the CDC to LEARN from these healthier countries and make a change. Currently, the US spends more of its budget on healthcare than any other country in the world and yet, we are among the most unhealthy.

 Source: CNN

Russia Could Defeat the British Army 'In an Afternoon'

Posted by Conspiracy Cafe on February 26, 2017

Michael Peck

February 25, 2017

Russia could defeat the British Army's single combat-ready division “in an afternoon,” according to a new report from the British military.

“Over by Teatime,” blared the headline in the British tabloid The Sun.

Budget cuts have so depleted the army that it could be destroyed by a “competent enemy” such as Russia, according to excerpts of the report published in the British press.

That ominous conclusion comes from the Centre for Historical Analysis and Conflict Research (CHACR), a British Army think tank run by the Sandhurst military academy. The report was based on a two-day conference of active-duty and retired officers.

Down to just eighty-three thousand active-duty soldiers, from 102,000 in 2010, Britain can field just one “war-fighting” division (compared to three million men and forty-six divisions in 1945). And even deployment of that sole division isn’t guaranteed, because of shortages of transport ships, cargo aircraft and tank transporter vehicles, according to CHACR.

“The last time the UK sent a division to war was in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq but experts believe it would currently not be able to deploy much more than a brigade of between 5,000 and 10,000 troops,” notes the Sunday Times.

As the British Army shifts from small-unit counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, to potential big-unit mechanized warfare in eastern Europe, that combat-ready division is supposed to expand from thirty thousand soldiers to fifty thousand soldiers. In other words, the bulk of Britain’s active-duty soldiers will be concentrated in a single oversized division, which doesn’t leave a great deal of depth and resilience when confronting Russia’s army of 750,000 active soldiers.

Such brittleness may hamstring the British government from committing troops to operations. “The ‘prospect of losing the division in an afternoon’ will weigh heavily on the chain of command . . . as politicians appreciate the stakes involved in committing the division to battle,” the report said, according to the Times.

The CHACR report did acknowledge that Britain isn’t likely to fight a division-sized land battle today, but it also pointed out that it wasn’t inconceivable either. “This raises an important question: is the British Army ready for such a possibility? If one merely sees preparedness through net manpower and kinetic force capacity, the answer might be a simple ‘no’: the British Army is at its smallest and has faced years of budget cuts.”

The Ministry of Defense responded to the outcry with a bland statement that Britain is indeed capable of deploying a division-sized force. Not surprisingly, the CHACR report was played up by Russian media such as RT and Sputnik News, as well as Iran’s PressTV.

Of course, when an army—British, American or anyone else’s—suffers budget cuts, there are always dire warnings coming out of the military–think tank complex. The greater shock would have been if the report had lauded Britain’s army for being in fine shape. Nor is it likely that Britain would fight a big land battle alone, rather than as part of a coalition that would include the United States.

Nonetheless, Britain has the world’s fifth-largest economy, as well as an increasingly muscular foreign policy that has deployed troops to eastern Europe and the Middle East. And it can only muster a single combat division on short notice. What would Churchill have said?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-could-defeat-the-british-army-afternoon-19580

The assholes provoking a war with Russia know nothing of strategy and tactics. They know nothing of war either. If Britain and NATO seriously thought a war was inevitable, they would need 50 divisions well equipped even to meet the task of protecting Europe and overwhelming Russia. Of course you'd need at least 20 divisions as replacements because I can assure you there would be many casualties. Perhaps the United States could field an army like that after a period of time and intense sacrifice of a people, but getting them to the front would present an enormous challenge because ballistic missiles could destroy them before they ever left home. It would be shear madness in the modern era to consider war between the superpowers. Though difficult, the best option would require our oligarchs to perform a brave act. They could swallow their pride and own up to their mistakes to keep peace in the valley.

Sounds like the liberal left of today.