Walsingham

So what you're saying is that TIME isn't what it used to be?

Good read. Just wrote one thing and erased it. I think the internet has given me a lot of new ways to interact and learn from and support people I just wouldn't otherwise. The best and worst being you arseholes. The internet has softened all my interactions as it broadened them. So I know a lot of people not very well, while my close friends have dwindled. Actually, I'm not even sure about that. I've always thought that friends are the people you do stuff with. The internet lets me do basically just gaming. And its hard to think of any actually meaningful friend-forging experiences you can have while gaming. Maybe because gaming and the internet, when it stops being fun, you turn it off. Hm.

I was just lamenting the likelihood of running into the romantic light of my life this evening when a thought struck me, like a comedic baseball to the groin. If I had had a girlfriend this last year I would certainly not have had the time or inclination to write to a few of my exes, find out what's up in their lives, and offer (it turned out) well timed votes of confidence and support. Writing daily, exchanging cards, but keeping things strictly above board. Apparently I've been really helping them get back up from the dirt. Humbling to realise I'm not a nice enough guy to have been any help otherwise. But I guess I can do the right thing when the wind is southerly . I'd post the Forever Alone meme, but it's too true to be funny!

Good call. Nothing could crown the clusterf*** of morale in the British Army like abolishing every regiment, and calling them all the Viet Minh. Gordon Brown is going to be so f***ing annoyed he never thought of that.

Well, the debate has deepened a wee bit, and broadened out. I'm pleased it's struck a chord. Jarmo was certainly in harmony with my thinking when he said that wars mainly progress by superior force. My point was precisely that when this doesn't happen it shakes the kinds of political forces mentioned by Gorgon and Nonek. ~~ The question of wars being fought long before they start is because of the good old principles of warfighting. You don't just wave your arms around and conjure up a fighting force. There was a brief period during the mid 1800s when I'd say maybe you could. But someone still had to be training troops, breeding horses, studying malaria prophylaxis etc. etc. But I'd rather leave that one for now. ~~ I supose the reason I'm particularly interested is that HM Forces base every assumption on the idea that the UK is not going to bring a superior force to almost any conflict. I'm trying to imagine why in God's name they'd do that.

You enjoying the prequel tale, by the way? I'm waiting on the player getting the rest to me. At some pointing I'm intending to upload the entire campaign, as he's been writing up as he goes.

Isandhlwana could have seen the Zulus seize Natal with its harbour, easily. But Cetewayo refused to believe that the Queen was so dishonourable as to annex him on a flimsy pretext. he deliberately restrained the impis. Unfortunately Bartle Frere and general colonial evilness intended exactly that. In the long term I'm not sure anything the Zulu nation could do in the 1860s would save it. However, I would point out that the record of the Zulus fighting against the British remains a point of pride and national identity for them. Indeed I would suggest that the Zulu nation is still in existence to a greater extent than many European ones. ...Althoguh I'm straying into Churchillian poetic license now! More to the point Ulundi was certainly intended to win. Massive force had been accumulated by the British and was weilded like a steamroller. Th emore important question is what would have happened had the Zulus abandoned Ulundi like Moscow and somehow exacted serious casualties? After the slow and nervous tedium of the build up I think it likely that the administration would have been gravely embarrassed and those arguing that the entire war was pointless greatly strengthened. Alt History HO!

I would caution against calling them a dumbass. I'd say they were resisting groupthink. An interesting read. What I was referring to was that person that just cant "get it". Even though they heard all the same information you did and participated in the group discussion, they still need to go over every little point ad nauseam. I know not every brain clicks at the same speed but man is it infuriating, lol. Yeah. I can see how it would be. I knew a lady who did jury duty and was so nervous she couldn't even follow what the charge was, let alone the evidence. She voted to acquit based on his _eyebrows_. I'd love to be kidding.

BUMP! EDIT: Alt names: Fighting In Some Goblin's Bedroom Creeping Round Tunnels in Total Silence

Well, I know what you mean. But it's no worse than the sodding Latin!

I don't but into this whole "assymetric warfare is beyond military science" schtick. Which may be rude, but isn't meant to be offensive about what you just said. Assymetric warfare is about relaxing your strategic goals to the point of imbecility, driving operational flexibility from that to doing just about anything, and hoping that makes up for your movement being a bunch of mentally challenged high school dropouts armed with socks full of gravel. your only objective is to wreck anything within arms reach until no-one in tehri right mind would want to be anywhere near you. Huzzah!

To clarify my point, and echo yours, I am defining those crucial battles as those which defy expectations. A breakthrough, an upset, a shock to the folks back home, the end of a general's career. These things lose wars. I'm not sure I'd agree that assymetric war is an exception to this principle. I believe it to be an expression of the principle. The assymetric actor, by virtue of their weakness, has many more opportunities to 'score' unexpected wins. The conventional actor has almost none. I'm not suggesting that it's the only distinction of assymetric war, but it's one of them.

"Gortoz a ran" (English = "I'm waiting") by Denez Prigent and Lisa Gerrard

It is a truism of military science that success in battle depends on calculable strengths such as mass and firepower. My observations is that for this reason strategy plans around this truism, anticipating success. However, this is not always the case. My question is: would the forum agree that wars are won when battles defy the outcome dictated by calculable strength?

Man, when you people build a bird feeder, you go all out!

I would caution against calling them a dumbass. I'd say they were resisting groupthink. EDIT: Up betimes, and into the garden with a bowl of porridge. level teaspoon molasses Butter as for two slices of toast A thinkly sliced apple porridge oatmeal Put the butter in a small nonstick saucepan, and melt the molasses into it. Allow this to form a kind of toffee. Add the sliced apple and cook until it softens Add hot/boiling water Add oatmeal According to my calculations this is less sugar and fat than two slices of toast and jam, and considerably more filling and delicious.

In the memoirs of a UH-1 pilot who served in Vietnam, "Chickenhawks", the supply sergeants of his regiment often distributed surplus gear to the men. However, the Army being as tightfisted as it was, nonetheless demanded what was the fate of the gear that had gone missing. This conundrum was solved whenever a helicopter was shot down, as the supply sergeants would say that the missing inventory had gone down with the aircraft. One report had said five tons of equipment had been lost with one Huey; the Huey has a nominal load of one ton. Heh. Good book, Chickenhawk. I love the description of how to fly a helicopter at the beginning.

"There are two kinds of officers, sir: killin' officers and murderin' officers. Killin' officers are poor old buggers that get you killed by mistake. Murderin' officers are mad, bad, old buggers that get you killed on purpose - for a country, for a religion, maybe even for a flag." Walsingham's addendum: Officers tell you where to die, NCOs get you there on time, commissars make sure you do.

I feel obliged to clarify that Wavell wasn't any kind of amazing soldier. i just think it would have been fun to soldier with him. Mad old bugger.

OK, so, how does that affect my second, old hound?

My household (best term I can think of) has over_1000_ hours logged on New Vegas. You're just wrong. New Vegas was a great game. Vegas, Baby, Yeah!

Jumping back to Hurlshot's commentary I think there's a lot of gun owners who'd agree. The NRA made a massive error by choosing to defend unlimited possession of firearms. In my opinion, licensing and license regulation _to a standard comparable with car ownership_ should be acceptable: 1) Owning small arms is not going to prevent the US govt., with all its military and COIN machine from stamping down hard if it ever chose to. It's not protecting anyone from the State. 2) Anyone who wants to drive puts in the hours to learn how to do it safely and doesn't **** about. If you happen to disagree with point 1 then insisting that people learn how to use guns (point 2), and making them a statement of seriousness and adulthood will just make them more effective.

I asked myself the same question today, but I don't think that most pets recognize us as a member of their species - When my cat encounters a cat she has never seen before she reacts differently then when she meets a human she has never seen before. There's probably a PhD in that observation.

Well, different strategies, I suppose. I'd make a couple points before dropping it: 1) It's not a short term approach to feeling good. Feeling good about yourself and having honest integrity is a long term commitment, and a long term benefit. 2) If a boss needs you to kiss their ass, then they're a ****ing disaster area. Transfer out of their control asap. Rosbif's "perfect job" probably wasn't. EDIT: WTF is up with my inability to spell? I keep misspelling their/they're/there! Postedit: I'm reminded of a poem I found through Field Marshal A.P.Wavell's Other Men's Flowers. ...Speak not when the people listens; Stop thine ear against the singer; From the red gold keep thy finger; Vacant heart and hand and eye, Easy live and quiet die. To paraphrase the great soldier's commentary, he thought this advise was pure bull****.

I couldn't agree less. I have such extreme range discipline that I get antsy if someone so much as waves a nerf gun around. I got that by being introduced to guns at a very young age, always strictly supervised. Five year olds can make anything dangerous if left alone. A ****ing pan of minestrone is a lethal weapon at that age. EDIT: If you chaps have ever spent any time in developing countries or with tribespeople you'll notice they are unbelievably sober-minded with tools and weapons. they get access to these at about 8 or 9 years old (generalising). It's not just me saying this. There's a growing vein of thought which suggests that many Westerners are feckless adults because we cotton-ball our kids.