Walsingham

Already a thread on this. And in case you didn't get it, this means many guys also have STDs. Possibly some of you chaps. So play safe, get protected, and get tested.

I don't get it. I'm tired and hungry.

The comment si gone now, but i tried to find one where I got into a slanging match with a neonazi. He had some choice comments ending by accusing me of being a "mud soldier". He asked which "mud unit" I fought with, and I replied Royal Engineers, the oldest professional fighting force on the planet.

Define 'fudge all'? If by fudge all you mean a dedicated and highly effective corps of intelligence analysts using reconnaissance and military logic then I shall agree with you. As for risking lives on rare chances for great gains then I'm afraid it bloody well does happen. It's how you win wars. And as a soldeir I'm none too happy about it, but I know it works.

The "behaviour" of the Serbs in Kosovo wasn't worst than the "behaviour" of the Georgian army in the wars in Osetia and Abjazia, and if is for the "behaviour" remember that now in La Haya the International Court has a trial against a Croatian general for the murder of Serbian civilians when they retake Krajina

I see no reference to genetics. All he talks about is nations. That would be culture.

Not really. I'd have thought that Kosovo has special cause to want to secede given Serbian warlike behaviour.

did you try and impress the young lady with your pipe smoke ring blowing prowess and suggestive eyebrow raising? No more than usual.

I managed to squeeze a final

As i expected, now I'm looking for bad comments I can't find any. Re: Martin Luther King discussing JFK's assassination. "Martin king was amaing and anyone who has anything to say about him thats bad should be hung. R.I.P its so ****ed up what happen to both of them! BUT bad ones like bush and clinton stay around....Go figure....Anyone who trys to makea good change. Notice that? CUZ CORRUPT! **** the usa i wish i was born in ****in ampsterdamn or suttin RON PAUL 2008!!!!!"

Wait, so D&D is the new Grand Theft Auto?

South Ossetia is hardly a new issue. Besides, isn't it on the 'wrong' end of the country? i.e. far away from other US allies. I'm quite sad that thanks to Putin's determinedly plugging away we are now at loggerheads with the Russians when we might be working together.

This is getting totally off-topic. My point originally: if you care about animals it is nonsense to prevent them being mercy killed when they are suffering intensely. how they taste has nothing to do with it, I asssure you. These particular animals would taste revolting if anyone was insane enough to eat them.

I agree that lumping in HPV seems like over-egging the pudding to me. I know it's serious, but its also crying wolf over much more serious diseases like syphilis and HIV. A far more startling statistic in the UK is that some 75% of teenagers don't use barrier contraception. To anyone who lived through the 1980s this is like ambling about the parapet of a trench when a sniper is around. It's not even like teh odl days when people were embarassed to buy contraceptives, or even that you have to pay for them. The doctor will give you them for free in our socialist paradise.

What you call overly optimistic is in other circumstances is called daring. OVERLORD would be a good example. There were many intelligence surprises on D-Day, such as the moving of batteries, the dropping of thousands of paratroops into flooded areas, and the unexpected strength of the 352nd Panzergrenadier Division. But it came off OK. Hurrah. If it had not, what would we think of its architects? If you think it is stupid to have underestimated the German morale, perhaps you have some suggestion as to how morale should be calculated from the air? But even if it were higher the plan would have succeeded with a swifter and more sustained buildup of combat power in the airheads.

How do the costs compare of the dart injectors vs bullets?

Xard, if Monty actually had ignored his intelligence reports you're right he would have been a fool. However, (and I know you said you hadn't read it yet) when you read my previous post you'll see that 1) The intelligence did not indicate the presence of the SS panzers in Arnhem. The intelligence sources indicating tanks were - A handful of aerial photos - Dutch resistance reports As I said above, the Dutch resistance had been thoroughly compromised. So thoroughly that the Abwehr were sending jokes about it through double agents. In such circumstances, and assuming the Germans were weak, what would YOU send through captured agents? I reckon you'd want to make the Allies believe you had tanks aplenty! Even if a handful of tanks had been present it would not have to alter events massively. Cancelling the operation on that basis would b crazy. 2) Sufficient combat power should have been delivered to avoid losing even in spite of the SS. But due to failed radios and bad weather, neither close tactical air support nor logistics got delivered properly.

Unless it were into some sort of overcomplicated airborne operation...

I don't know what's wrong with shotguns, to be brutally honest. I know if I had to choose a way to die myself, a double blast of 12 guage to the head would be high on the list.

I doubt I'm brilliantly smart, so I must be insane. Finally.

Montgomery did not 'screw' with MARKET GARDEN*. He took an eminently sensible gamble which didn't pay off. It failed to pay off for several reasons, but it may be wise to first quickly sum up for the unfamiliar. Strategic Summary Following the breakout from Normandy , and the capture of Paris, Axis forces were falling back as fast as possible into the low countries. Due to the nature of the terrain, and the short supply lines it was felt this would make good defensive ground. However, it also came at a risk, for behind this position, and across the Rhine lay the industrial heart of Germany. A breakthrough at this point would permit Allied forces to both seize crucial political ground, but more importantly to cut German supplies of war materiel. Without those supplies further German resistance would be futile, and therefore success of a breakthrough might end the war in Europe. Operational Plan Montgomery realised that the best hope of success lay not in a traditional offensive, but by striking at the entire depth of the Axis positions. I do not know if he was aware, but his plan echoed Soviet concepts of deep battle. The idea was to identify the key points necessary for success (the bridges at Eindhoven, Nijmegen, and Arnhem), and to assault these with airborne forces while simultaneously pushing conventional forces from point to point, linking up the airborne drop zones. The use of airborne forces was intended to prevent the Axis from destroying the bridges, but also to disrupt their defensive front line. Typical criticism Many historians criticise Montgomery's plan for two reasons: 1. The dropping of the paratroops into Arnhem, where they met two SS panzer divisions instead of the predicted poor quality infantry. 2. The axis of advance for the conventional force (XXX Corps) was along a single road. The first point makes no sense, as Military Intelligence had not identified the panzers in the area. Their only reference to panzers came from the Dutch resistance (who had been thoroughly compromised by the Abwehr, and a handful of aerial photographs. In any event, the paratroops were equipped with light anti-tank weaponry and might be expected to hold their own. The British had, after all, possessed tanks in Crete, and it hadn't stopped the Germans. The second point is fair to raise. However, in my opinion such criticism fails to take into account the fact that every single operation ever planned occurs in the context of glaring problems. It is the job of soldiers to overcome them. In this case it is entirely possible that the Allies would have come up with a technical fix, as they did in Burma, and during OVERLORD. But it was decided that moving quickly was better than more confidently on this occasion. Given the German capacity for constructing defences they were probably right to move before the opposition could dig in. More Likely Causes of Failure The crude reason the operation failed can be summed up as **** happens. All war is a gamble. However, to illustrate this, consider some examples. 1. Of only a handful of gliders, the first shot down contained jeeps of a reconnaissance squadron. These would have helped capture the bridge quicker, and come in handy later, with communications, ammunition supply, and carrying the wounded. 2. The radios didn't work. This was probably the single biggest problem. Without the radios, the paratroops couldn't communicate with each other (the jeeps might have come in handy here. But more importantly, the paratroops couldn't coordinate with Allied airpower and Allied resupply. It was the lack of effective air support, and lack of supplies which allowed the Germans to beat them in the end. 3. Bad weather in England held up reinforcement and resupply by the Polish paratroops, and regular drops. Again, had these been on time, and effective the paratroops coudl have held out longer. These points are significant, because although XXX corps arrived late, they should have been able to punch through teh remaining distance and link up with the bridge at Arnhem, had it not been for Frost's paratroops finally being overrun. In other words but for some bad luck we'd remember MARKETR GARDEN, and Monty as the man who won the war. Indeed, had we been able to force a German surrender in 1944 it cwould have been considerably easier to prevent the Soviets from taking as much of Europe as they did. *http://www.army.mod.uk/para/history/arnhem.htm** **British operational codenames are traditionally all capitalised to distinguish them from normal text. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Also Montgomery cultivated the cult of his personality for one simple reason: it helped win the war. He was in fact a very private man, whose every letter and lecture illustrates that he had only one desire, and that was to be a part of a war winning machine. His cult of personality helped because it gave the men confidence in him, and in the battles he organised. A fact my own relatives can attest to. It is also worth pointing out that on the Allied side a great many generals tried to foster cults of personality. Alexander, as you say was not one of them. But place Monty near Patton, MacArthur, Clark, or de Gaulle and you may feel more relaxed.

I imagine you floating listlessly at the bottom of a twelve foot bottle of tequila, with an enigmatic smile on your face.

Anyway, back on topic. WW2 generals? My favourites have to be Montgomery and Kesselring.

Ok, that makes a bit more sense. However, as Steve points out, you're talking about regions where drugs and time and money aren't going spare for people. It's a matter of opinion, but I think it's totally unreasonable to demand care for animals when people are getting worse. A bit surprised not to hear from Guard Dog on this one.

I'm afraid I cannot possibly rejoice about a third rater getting another series when Firefly is still off the radar.