213374U

Err... Czechoslovakia was dismantled after Hitler made use of "ethnic tensions" (and a good deal of intimidation) to get Slovaks to declare independence from Czechoslovakia. Britain and France had only been involved in the Sudetenland question, and there were no clauses in the Munich Agreement that allowed for German occupation of the remainder of the country. While I understand and agree with your clarification about the M-R pact not being a "proper" alliance, the Munich Agreement just isn't the same -- one was meant to split the spoils of a planned war, while the other was, at least on paper, meant to avoid war.

1) I stand by my original statement that conventional forces alone aren't enough to completely defeat guerrilla warfare, without breaking the laws of war one way or another, generally by incurring in genocide and invariably targeting non-combatants. There's a wealth of historical examples to support this, too. In this regard, the Taliban show how, despite being in front of a multinational coalition that includes what is without a doubt the best military in the world, force alone (and what could possibly be construed as war crimes) haven't done nearly enough. You may think we are "winning", but I'm led to believe otherwise by what I've read (including, but not limited to, the links I posted). 2) The Napoleonic campaigns are quite vast in scope, and we could perhaps discuss them in a different thread altogether. What I was taught however, is that Napoleon's field armies had been generally undefeated (lol Russia) up until the Peninsular War... and that British successes in Spain and Portugal were made possible thanks in large part to the crippling effects that irregulars had on French forces. Then again, it's perfectly possible that what I was taught overinflated the importance action of guerrillas in detriment of British accomplishments... but "guerrilla" is a Spanish loanword, after all. On whether it's "ungrateful" to disparage British aid... that would require me to examine an alternate historical scenario where Spain had been more "frenchified". I'm not too impressed by our last 200 years of history, so let's not get too deep into that. And let's not forget that the British Empire seldom did anything out of the kindness of HM's heart. 3) I don't give a flying **** about who you are IRL. On the internet, I try to treat everyone (roughly) equally, but I expect people making what appear to be somewhat serious claims to provide at least a modicum of supporting evidence. So don't take it as a personal offense if I don't take your word as gospel... because I wouldn't expect you of all people to do the same with my posts. And again, I'd like you tell me where I've stated or insinuated that I'm an authority on anything. You may not be too fond of my posting style, but I never dodge, and am not afraid to admit I'm wrong -- for me it's not my ego on the line, and the sole notion brings a smile to my face. If you got the impression that I think I'm infallible... well, I can't really help you with that. Think about it: the only reason I keep participating in these boards is because I never stop learning things from people here. Take that as you will. 4) Yay, another e-fisticuffs. I've lost count now. You'd think that after the first few dozens, I would have learnt that it's actually not worth it. Sigh.

Oh, really? Then I suggest you review the thread, because nobody claimed that guerrilla warfare can't be defeated. You assumed "somebody" had said that (the closest to that being actually my stance), and proceeded to pontificate on how absurd this idea is. I agree, the idea is absurd -- that may be why nobody is actually saying that. Hence, your straw man. And where did I claim to be an expert on anything...? I post links when I think that just my saying something doesn't carry enough weight (almost always) or when somebody calls BS. Want to discuss any of them? I did notice that you didn't bother. Sorry if you feel that whatever comes up by "casually browsing the internet" isn't up to your high standards... but I think it beats expecting that hinting that you are some sort of undercover generalfeldmarschall will leave folks gasping in awe.

I took that as a reference to how the author of the AAR in question played his Germany, not as a general statement about that country's real world history.

If you dig deep enough, you can find that people have died from any number of seemingly stupid and/or harmless things. Including, but not limited to, autoerotic asphyxiation...

Right, right. How do I ever dare assume I can get even a rough picture of the goings-on in Afghanistan, when we have the great Walsingham here, to make everything clear... through a wealth of subtle insinuations and unverifiable personal assurances of experience. At BOTH the field squad AND warroom staff meeting levels. And they say I'm conceited. I go by what I read here and there, I apologize for that. I mean, this guy, Gen. McChrystal, is obviously just a chump and doesn't know what he's talking about, right? Because you say so? But yeah, I guess that, after 8+ years of Coalition operations throughout the country, things are going real well. And, heh, better not discuss Pakistan. If that was an attempt to make me sleep better tonight man, you're going to have to do better.

3. A strawman. But thanks for trying. Against guerrillas, diplomacy and intelligence work are going to be the most effective weapons. I thought you were pretty well informed on current events in Afghanistan. How else do you justify the failure of international conventional military operations in what's nearing a decade of war against "dirt farmers", and the shift to drone-executed assassinations and increasing tendency to allow local forces to bear the brunt of the conflict?

Yeah, yeah. A very focused set of core values and principles that we lowly humans aren't meant to examine or even comprehend. I got that the first 100 times I heard or read it. Mind you, I'm not saying that this invalid way of using reason to "explain" something unreasonable means that the idea of God is absurd. Discussing it, however, IS absurd and pointless, for the moment at least. It's not that I've chosen to see it this way. It's that the gift of faith hasn't been granted to me. And I can't seem to switch my brain off, for some reason.

Semantics. There is no difference between "existing outside of logic" and "being subject to divine logic". Both are the same useless cop-out, as the point is to make the listener blindly believe whatever the dude with the funny hat says, as his only and best defense (reason) is declared illegal. I have no problem with faith itself. But when people try to hide under the guise of reason what is by definition unreasonable, I get grumpy.

No, I'm going to keep whittling the timeline down until it fits my original statement that since the invention of the rifle, guerrilla tactics can't be defeated by brute strength. This is called "consistency". And please, don't bother with the cheap strawmen. I didn't say that ALL guerrilla conflicts have resulted in the stated goals of those who engage in that sort of warfare being achieved; they do, however, have an almost infinite regenerative ability, and can keep on fighting virtually forever. The Palestinians are a perfect example of this, as are the Taliban. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pales...on_Israel,_2010

That's awesome. A shame that such a thing is only possible through massive ad-hoc customization of the games. The world in 1941: http://www.shardsofdalaya.com/images/germa.../world-1941.png

The British were utterly powerless against the Napoleonic armies' might. It was the havoc caused by guerrillas that actually allowed them to do anything. In other words, the guerrilla war was the decisive factor. Good ol' Nappy also got a taste of that in Russia. If you say so. You see, you could close the debate if you posted a single example in the last 200 years where the "tough choices" have been made and actually served the purpose you claim they would. Only... there is no such example, while examples of guerrillas taking advantage of hit-and-run tactics, difficult but familiar terrain and the support from the local populations to cripple the operational capability of larger armies abound.

Uh, no. A successful guerrilla campaign, such as the one that forced the retreat of the best land army in the world, and the political collapse of the regime that ran that show.

I HATE that ****ing ad ****. I only ever watch promo vids on YouTube, because of that.

Bad press? I guess genocide means nothing to you, then? Because it would take an extermination campaign in an unprecedented scale (the nazis tried it in the occupied Soviet Union, they failed), to triumph in a guerrilla conflict by brute force alone. After the invention of the rifle, just destroying the population centers of the enemy doesn't work anymore. You'd think that after roughly 200 years of successful guerrilla campaigns against regular armies, people would have caught that much on.

The analogy fails in that I am not God (shocking, I know!). I am not omnipotent, which means that my control over what my son will be is woefully limited. Furthermore, unlike God, I cannot configure the conditions of the universe in advance, which means I don't know how these conditions will influence my son. If you say that God simply pressed the "randomise" button at Satan's character creation screen, a conflict arises with his omniscience, and we are back to the irresistible force paradox. You enjoy watching people crash and burn?

If He knows, then it's predestination -- choices aren't yours at all, any more than a rock "chooses" to obey gravity. The rock is most definitely not aware that gravity is about to ruin its day, but it will. The idea goes that God created all. He did it in a way that would result in an "end state" that He knew even "before" He started (he exists outside of time, remember), by virtue of His omniscience and timelessness. The outcome of everything is the result of how He created the universe which is finite, among other things, in information. Had He wanted a different outcome through a different path, He would have made things differently at the beginning. God may exist outside causality, but that doesn't seem to be the case with our universe. And that's assuming a "hands-off" scenario! What you are suggesting is that Satan and, by extension, us, had an illusion of free will. Illusions are nice, but try and quench your thirst in a mirage. Yeah, I was being sarcastic. I know that's the theologian's #1 rule: God is unknowable, unfathomable, and a whole bunch of other "un-"s, heh. The problem is that accepting that makes this debate and any related completely pointless -- the guys with the "holy gifts" will always win, because they say so. Even if what they say makes no sense whatsoever. Especially if what they say makes no sense whatsoever. Good work, guys. I want my ten minutes back.

...and the manpower issues, resources and leadership imbalances, mad supply system, unrealistic air AND naval warfare models, and probably a bunch of other stuff I'm forgetting. But yeah, this is what the game needs. They should keep adding features. It's not like that could introduce new bugs, right?

Umm. If God is possessed of both omniscience and the quality of existing outside of time you ascribe to him (I agree with that, as it makes everything even more absurd), it all amounts to Him dropping a stone and then kicking it afterwards, in punishment for falling. He would have known before creating Satan that he would disobey and be punished. Ergo, no free will at all -- either He cannot predict what His creations will do (back to the irresistible force paradox), or He created Satan knowing he would betray Him. Of course, if God exists outside of the realm of logic...

Pretty much. Ever heard of that Gary Powers guy? He was a bit of a problem for the US, back in the day, because U-2 flights couldn't be easily justified. This isn't much different... except it's Iran. The sarcasm ain't cool, though. Where did that pic come from, anyway?

And that makes judging other cultures impossible how? The only problem I can see with this is with retrospective, where such judgements are used as distorted referents to advance political agendas. But with regards to contemporary cultures? No big deal, at any rate. One culture has trivialised violence, the other sexual deviances. All in good fun.

Что?

We do not want your Butthurt. Er, yes. In an unprecedented act of kindness, I'm going to play nice and point you in the right direction... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=butthurt It's not that we hate you because "you don't want to give" -- it's that doing crazy **** like cutting off all of Eastern Europe's natural gas supply during winter to put political pressure on your increasingly western-leaning Ukrainian neighbors tends to sit badly with folks. While you would not have got the impression from the western media there was no doubt that (1) Ukraine was not paying its bills and had not been for years, (2) was understating the amount it was using/ siphoning other country's supplies and (3) had a large discount in the first place. In any case Yuchenko was a lame duck long before then- his position was terminal as soon as he had fallen out with Tymoshenko. Oh, of course. Russia had a perfectly legitimate right to update the prices of their gas to Ukrainie, and to try and put a stop to the gas theft. But in my eyes that was a convenient excuse to flex their muscle a bit, and show that one of the pillars of their newfound international influence is energy dependency in the West. I'm not trying to paint the Ukrainians exclusively as victims, here. But no matter how you look at it, those antics aren't good for making friends. Does Russia need friends, or just customers? Obviously, I'm not going to dispute Putin's efficiency, especially when compared to that drunken clown predecessor of his. But the amount of power held by the FSB is something that would make me feel very uncomfortable if I lived in Russia. And I didn't even know about conviction rates, heh.

I was referring to the Russians, obviously not you.

Yeah, realpolitik is a bitch. But that wasn't my point. Oby was going on about how poor Russia does nothing to earn criticism. On the one hand you have Medvedev and Obama making deals on strategic arms reductions, and on the other, you have them shifty Russkies selling top-of-the-line SAM systems to Iran that will be used to cover nuclear sites. At least the US make a PR effort, in an attempt to keep a semblance of credibility and trust. The Russian neofascists, however, can't be arsed. Butthurt much?