NationStates Jolt Archive

Today is the 188th anniversary of the death of Napoleon Bonaparte.

I would like to hear NSG's opinions on his role in history.
My personal evaluation, in the shortest synthesis possible, is that he was probabily at the same time the last of the enlightened despotes, and the first of the great dictators.

By the way, here's "Il 5 maggio", a poem by Alessandro Manzoni, about Napoleon's death.

Ei fu. Siccome immobile,
dato il mortal sospiro,
stette la spoglia immemore
orba di tanto spiro,
così percossa, attonita
la terra al nunzio sta,
muta pensando all'ultima
ora dell'uom fatale;
né sa quando una simile
orma di piè mortale
la sua cruenta polvere
a calpestar verrà.
Lui folgorante in solio
vide il mio genio e tacque;
quando, con vece assidua,
cadde, risorse e giacque,
di mille voci al sònito
mista la sua non ha:
vergin di servo encomio
e di codardo oltraggio,
sorge or commosso al sùbito
sparir di tanto raggio;
e scioglie all'urna un cantico
che forse non morrà.
Dall'Alpi alle Piramidi,
dal Manzanarre al Reno,
di quel securo il fulmine
tenea dietro al baleno;
scoppiò da Scilla al Tanai,
dall'uno all'altro mar.
Fu vera gloria? Ai posteri
l'ardua sentenza: nui
chiniam la fronte al Massimo
Fattor, che volle in lui
del creator suo spirito
più vasta orma stampar.
La procellosa e trepida
gioia d'un gran disegno,
l'ansia d'un cor che indocile
serve, pensando al regno;
e il giunge, e tiene un premio
ch'era follia sperar;
tutto ei provò: la gloria
maggior dopo il periglio,
la fuga e la vittoria,
la reggia e il tristo esiglio;
due volte nella polvere,
due volte sull'altar.
Ei si nomò: due secoli,
l'un contro l'altro armato,
sommessi a lui si volsero,
come aspettando il fato;
ei fè silenzio, ed arbitro
s'assise in mezzo a lor.
E sparve, e i dì nell'ozio
chiuse in sì breve sponda,
segno d'immensa invidia
e di pietà profonda,
d'inestinguibil odio
e d'indomato amor.
Come sul capo al naufrago
l'onda s'avvolve e pesa,
l'onda su cui del misero,
alta pur dianzi e tesa,
scorrea la vista a scernere
prode remote invan;
tal su quell'alma il cumulo
delle memorie scese.
Oh quante volte ai posteri
narrar se stesso imprese,
e sull'eterne pagine
cadde la stanca man!
Oh quante volte, al tacito
morir d'un giorno inerte,
chinati i rai fulminei,
le braccia al sen conserte,
stette, e dei dì che furono
l'assalse il sovvenir!
E ripensò le mobili
tende, e i percossi valli,
e il lampo dè manipoli,
e l'onda dei cavalli,
e il concitato imperio
e il celere ubbidir.
Ahi! Forse a tanto strazio
cadde lo spirto anelo,
e disperò; ma valida
venne una man dal cielo,
e in più spirabil aere
pietosa il trasportò;
e l'avviò, pei floridi
sentier della speranza,
ai campi eterni, al premio
che i desideri avanza,
dov'è silenzio e tenebre
la gloria che passò.
Bella Immortal! Benefica
Fede ai trionfi avvezza!
Scrivi ancor questo, allegrati;
ché più superba altezza
al disonor del Gòlgota
giammai non si chinò.
Tu dalle stanche ceneri
sperdi ogni ria parola:
il Dio che atterra e suscita,
che affanna e che consola,
sulla deserta coltrice
accanto a lui posò.

I hear he managed to survive a suicide attempt by taking too much poison. Bad. Ass.

So this is the real reason why Cinco de Mayo is celebrated. All this time we all thought it was just for Mexican Independence day.

Napoleon was a major douchebag.

So this is the real reason why Cinco de Mayo is celebrated. All this time we all thought it was just for Mexican Independence day.

It is actually to celebrate the defeat of French forces by Mexico in 1862.
Mexican Independence day is September 16th.

Napoleon was a major douchebag.
Au contraire mon frere......he was a major political figure who ultimately changed the way France was governed. I admire what he accomplished, and I give you an excellent essay that details those accomplishments:

Was Napoleon Bonaparte the Saviour or the Destroyer of the Ideals of the French Revolution? (http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=22915)

Another superb win for the British.

Another superb win for the British.

Yeah the whole mess of the French revolution let us yanks double the size of the country for pittance.
And, I think Napoleon said something along the lines of with this sale I will give Britain a rival in power that in time will exceed them in power.

:eek: maybe Napoleon won :eek:

Yeah the whole mess of the French revolution let us yanks double the size of the country for pittance.
And, I think Napoleon said something along the lines of with this sale I will give Britain a rival in power that in time will exceed them in power.

:eek: maybe Napoleon won :eek:
Aye but then we made pals with the US etc. whilst the French have gone rather the other way.

Played him like the pro diplomats we are http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/pimp.gif

Aye but then we made pals with the US etc. whilst the French have gone rather the other way.

Played him like the pro diplomats we are http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/pimp.gif

That's true after the the whole Venezuela mess in the 1890's we decided to get along, and turn our attention to keeping Germans down.
Which the French were also doing at the time.
:eek: maybe Napoleon still did win.

:eek: maybe Napoleon still did win.
Not when he delayed the industrial revolution in France with his foolish embargo on Britain and its allies.

I have to admit, I loved learning about the guy. That's really the point I started being massively interested in battle plans. Pretty cool stuff.

However, the thing I am most grateful for, when it comes to Napolean, is that it allowed Sean Bean to be a fucking hot badass in the Sharpe series. I like to call it historical porn. Though he didn't get naked nearly enough. It's okay, I forgive him.

http://www.full-of-beans.net/sharpe/images/chosenmenside.jpg

Yeah the whole mess of the French revolution let us yanks double the size of the country for pittance.
And, I think Napoleon said something along the lines of with this sale I will give Britain a rival in power that in time will exceed them in power.

:eek: maybe Napoleon won :eek:
What did Napoleon say?

Napoleon Bonaparte, upon completion of the agreement, stated, "This accession of territory affirms forever the power of the United States, and I have given England a maritime rival who sooner or later will humble her pride."

What did Napoleon say?

Napoleon Bonaparte, upon completion of the agreement, stated, "This accession of territory affirms forever the power of the United States, and I have given England a maritime rival who sooner or later will humble her pride."

And the US does have a larger navy now. Napoleon, is clearly really an American agent meant to shift resources from France to the US.

Another superb win for the British.

Or for the Germans? Or for the Russians?

I am rather fond of the fellow. He had major faults, but I would say overall he played Augustus to Robespierre's Julius--"Make haste slowly", as Augustus said. He outlawed torture and he allowed the Jews to practice their religion. Europe just went to war with him because they were pissed a Louis was not on the throne, and they were not about to see nation get away with reform.

I have to admit, I loved learning about the guy. That's really the point I started being massively interested in battle plans. Pretty cool stuff.

However, the thing I am most grateful for, when it comes to Napolean, is that it allowed Sean Bean to be a fucking hot badass in the Sharpe series. I like to call it historical porn. Though he didn't get naked nearly enough. It's okay, I forgive him.

http://www.full-of-beans.net/sharpe/images/chosenmenside.jpg
Yeah, he's hot.
I am rather fond of the fellow. He had major faults, but I would say overall he played Augustus to Robespierre's Julius--"Make haste slowly", as Augustus said. He outlawed torture and he allowed the Jews to practice their religion. Europe just went to war with him because they were pissed a Louis was not on the throne, and they were not about to see nation get away with reform.
Yeah I like him, he's like Hitler.

Au contraire mon frere......he was a major political figure who ultimately changed the way France was governed. I admire what he accomplished, and I give you an excellent essay that details those accomplishments:

Was Napoleon Bonaparte the Saviour or the Destroyer of the Ideals of the French Revolution? (http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=22915)

He also wrecked some great things the Revolution gave France, but overall, he was definitely a more enlightened ruler than any of his contemporaries tended to be. He established a meritocracy, and for that, Europe would not forgive him.

Yeah I like him, he's like Hitler.

Hitler granted more civil rights to Jews? :confused:

Hitler granted more civil rights to Jews? :confused:

No, I respect Napoleon Like I do Hitler.


(For Being military geniuses.)

I have to admit, I loved learning about the guy. That's really the point I started being massively interested in battle plans. Pretty cool stuff.

However, the thing I am most grateful for, when it comes to Napolean, is that it allowed Sean Bean to be a fucking hot badass in the Sharpe series. I like to call it historical porn. Though he didn't get naked nearly enough. It's okay, I forgive him.

http://www.full-of-beans.net/sharpe/images/chosenmenside.jpg
and Sharpe gave the cure for nearly every llness you can get "Best brown paper and Vinegar"

Old Boney a Brilliant General clearly at his pinnicle up until Aspern-Essling then the cracks began to slowly show

No, I respect Napoleon Like I do Hitler.


(For Being military geniuses.)

"Waterloo will wipe out the memory of my forty victories; but that which nothing can wipe out is my Civil Code. That will live forever."

-Napoléon

Napoleon is alive and living in several dozen mental institutions.

"Waterloo will wipe out the memory of my forty victories; but that which nothing can wipe out is my Civil Code. That will live forever."

-Napoléon

That's good.


It's like cos Hitler lost so utterly and finally, he isn't remembered so much for his military, economic and social genius.

That's good.


It's like cos Hitler lost so utterly and finally, he isn't remembered so much for his military, economic and social genius.

What social genius?

That's good.


It's like cos Hitler lost so utterly and finally, he isn't remembered so much for his military, economic and social genius.

Hitler started the wars he lost, and he lost them in about half the time Bonaparte managed.

Pieter Geyl said of comparing Bonaparte to Hitler: "nothing could be more degrading to the former and more flattering to the latter."

What social genius?

Gave each Arian newly-weds a honeymoon, everyone was gonna get a car, better quality of life, ect.

Gave each Arian newly-weds a honeymoon, everyone was gonna get a car, better quality of life, ect.

Balancing that with how backward he was compared to rest of Europe, I would not say that Hitler's society was commendable. Hitler was not progressive; Bonaparte was. Hitler wanted to conquer the world; Bonaparte did not. Both being leaders does not make them the same.

Hitler started the wars he lost, and he lost them in about half the time Bonaparte managed.

Pieter Geyl said of comparing Bonaparte to Hitler: "nothing could be more degrading to the former and more flattering to the latter."

He's only looked upon like that cos the jew thing.

Gave each Arian newly-weds a honeymoon, everyone was gonna get a car, better quality of life, ect.

I wouldn't exactly call it social genius, mainly because it was only for the Aryan race. Everyone else basically got to go to the camps.

I wouldn't exactly call it social genius, mainly because it was only for the Aryan race. Everyone else basically got to go to the camps.

I hope that was sarcasm.

He's only looked upon like that cos the jew thing.

And...outlawing torture, maybe? And replacing an aristocracy with a meritocracy?

"The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile."

-Napoléon

And...outlawing torture, maybe? And replacing an aristocracy with a meritocracy?

"The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile."

-Napoléon

I'm not denying Napoleon was great, nor that he was better than Hitler, I'm just saying Hitler ain't as bad as people think.

I'm not denying Napoleon was great, nor that he was better than Hitler, I'm just saying Hitler ain't as bad as people think.

Yes, he is. Murdering 14 million persons and starting the worst war in the history of mankind is bad, okay? It is as bad as one can be.

I hope that was sarcasm.

I was talking about Hitler.

I was talking about Hitler.

Yup. I think he knew that.

I think RoI is just going through the "I'm a rebellious teen; look how edgy I am" phase.

I think RoI is just going through the "I'm a rebellious teen; look how edgy I am" phase.

Where do you get that from? I'm not edgy- I'm curved.

and Sharpe gave the cure for nearly every llness you can get "Best brown paper and Vinegar" No no no, that was Hagman, and it was paraffin oil and best brown paper :D At least in the show, never read the books.

Aye but then we made pals with the US etc. whilst the French have gone rather the other way.

Played him like the pro diplomats we are http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/pimp.gif
lol. :D

It is actually to celebrate the defeat of French forces by Mexico in 1862.
Mexican Independence day is September 16th.

Lulz, even the Mexicans beat the French in war. . . :p

Lulz, even the Mexicans beat the French in war. . . :p

But under Bonaparte, the French being the living fuck out of Germany.

*German states, mainly Prussia, declare war on France*

*two weeks later: Germany singing a surrender*

Bonaparte: "What the Hell were they thinking?"

lol. :D



Lulz, even the Mexicans beat the French in war. . . :p

Actually, the French won that war and imposed an Austrian emperor, the Mexicans beat them in just that battle. Which was a big victory as the Mexicans were out numbered and our gunned by a large margin.

But under Bonaparte, the French being the living fuck out of Germany.

*German states, mainly Prussia, declare war on France*

*two weeks later: Germany singing a surrender*

Bonaparte: "What the Hell were they thinking?"

Prussia helped us at Waterloo.

But under Bonaparte, the French being the living fuck out of Germany.

*German states, mainly Prussia, declare war on France*

*two weeks later: Germany singing a surrender*

Bonaparte: "What the Hell were they thinking?"

Judging by Waterloo I reckon they were thinking they really hated the French.

Actually, the French won that war and imposed an Austrian emperor, the Mexicans beat them in just that battle. Which was a big victory as the Mexicans were out numbered and our gunned by a large margin.
Noted. Still, I enjoyed a chuckle.

But under Bonaparte, the French being the living fuck out of Germany.

*German states, mainly Prussia, declare war on France*

*two weeks later: Germany singing a surrender*

Bonaparte: "What the Hell were they thinking?"
Be that as it may, the Prussians bided their time, plotting their revenge until the Franco-Prussian war, when we (my family were at that time in Prussia :p ) raped France and crowned the first German emperor in their magnificant palace, Versailles. :wink:

Be that as it may, the Prussians bided their time, plotting their revenge until the Franco-Prussian war, when we (my family were at that time in Prussia :p ) raped France and crowned the first German emperor in their magnificant palace, Versailles. :wink:

It is all about leadership: Bonaparte would never have come close to winning if Frederick the Great was alive at the time, or at least that is what he said of himself when visiting Frederick's grave.

It is all about leadership: Bonaparte would never have come close to winning if Frederick the Great was alive at the time, or at least that is what he said of himself when visiting Frederick's grave.

I doubt that old Fritz would've made much difference.

I doubt that old Fritz would've made much difference.

Since he creamed France in his own time, I think he would have.

Since he creamed France in his own time, I think he would have.

Provided he was skilled up to the tactics and technology of the time I imagine he would have.

Since he creamed France in his own time, I think he would have.

Tactically he'd of been a great help, but the frogs would of won anyway. Times change.

Provided he was skilled up to the tactics and technology of the time I imagine he would have.

Especially since Bonaparte invented the warfare of his time, and his opponents continually lost because they were stuck in Frederick-era tactics. But I feel confident Frederick would have adapted, and Bonaparte obviously felt the same way.

Tactically he'd of been a great help, but the frogs would of won anyway. Times change.

Why?

Especially since Bonaparte invented the warfare of his time, and his opponents continually lost because they were stuck in Frederick-era tactics. But I feel confident Frederick would have adapted, and Bonaparte obviously felt the same way.

Another issue was Frederick William III (the great's grand heir), shifted the military to using largely foreign mercenaries rather then the general populace.
This resulted in a lower moral for his troops.

Another issue was Frederick William III (the great's grand heir), shifted the military to using largely foreign mercenaries rather then the general populace.
This resulted in a lower moral for his troops.

Yeah, that was a massive mistake. Mercenaries are not to be used.

Yeah, that was a massive mistake. Mercenaries are not to be used.

They tend to go desert if the battle tomorrow looks too risky.

They tend to go desert if the battle tomorrow looks too risky.


Leaders must really have had trouble understanding this, because Machiavelli repeats it an absurd amount of times.

Yes, and they went down very well too.
- Duke of Wellingtons retort to a comment on how very well French cavalry had come up at Waterloo.

Yeah, that was a massive mistake. Mercenaries are not to be used.

unless they happen to be shifty SAS types...actually what the hell are you talking about mercenaries have proven themselves to be more than capable as elite troops and its why they are still in use today

unless they happen to be shifty SAS types...actually what the hell are you talking about mercenaries have proven themselves to be more than capable as elite troops and its why they are still in use today

Mercenaries fight for money, not honor. They will not fight to the death, and they take their time to pick corpses clean when a battle is being fought. Cesare Borgia died because his mercenaries failed to help him in a battle charge.

I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand; and he who told us that our sins were the cause of it told the truth, but they were not the sins he imagined, but those which I have related. And as they were the sins of princes, it is the princes who have also suffered the penalty.

I wish to demonstrate further the infelicity of these arms. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.

And if it be urged that whoever is armed will act in the same way, whether mercenary or not, I reply that when arms have to be resorted to, either by a prince or a republic, then the prince ought to go in person and perform the duty of captain; the republic has to send its citizens, and when one is sent who does not turn out satisfactorily, it ought to recall him, and when one is worthy, to hold him by the laws so that he does not leave the command. And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress, and mercenaries doing nothing except damage; and it is more difficult to bring a republic, armed with its own arms, under the sway of one of its citizens than it is to bring one armed with foreign arms. Rome and Sparta stood for many ages armed and free. The Switzers are completely armed and quite free.

No, I respect Napoleon Like I do Hitler.


(For Being military geniuses.)
Military Genius? Like Operation Barbarossa?
That's good.


It's like cos Hitler lost so utterly and finally, he isn't remembered so much for his military, economic and social genius.
Military: Fail.
Economic: Slight Socialist tinge.
Social: Executed teh ebil gheys and Jews.

Military Genius? Like Operation Barbarossa?

To be fair, Bonaparte did the same stupid thing, and is still considered a genius. Though in my opinion, Bonaparte would have been successful if Moscow was not burned and he was not framed. Before the burning of Moscow most of Russia did not want to fight him. Bonaparte was a bit of a failure, strategically speaking, though his tactics were incredible--I do not believe Hitler was powerful tactically.

To be fair, Bonaparte did the same stupid thing, and is still considered a genius. Though in my opinion, Bonaparte would have been successful if Moscow was not burned and he was not framed. Before the burning of Moscow most of Russia did not want to fight him. Bonaparte was a bit of a failure, strategically speaking, though his tactics were incredible--I do not believe Hitler was powerful tactically.

Eh, but Napoleon had experience dealing with that sort of thing... His main mistake was staying there and WAITING in Moscow for a surrender. If he had pulled out, or continued, he might've conquered Russia.

Eh, but Napoleon had experience dealing with that sort of thing... His main mistake was staying there and WAITING in Moscow for a surrender. If he had pulled out, or continued, he might've conquered Russia.

Bonaparte made strategical fuck-ups before Russia (see Egypt).

Tolstoy believes he would have won, too, had he kept marching. But what you have to understand is that Bonaparte was not out to "conquer Russia"--he did not even want to annex any territories (he was rather fond of the Czar, and took nothing in the last war)--he just wanted to crush the Czar's army because it kept massing on Poland, which was under Bonaparte's protection (the last few times Russia had done this, it had invaded weeks afterward). The main reason Bonaparte would go not further had a lot to do with the sudden change of attitude among the Russian people, many of whom previously saw him as a liberator: If had continued, he might well have won, but he would have to massacre Russians by the thousands to stop their fighting, and he was not prepared to do this. He hated long wars, and did not want another Spain on his hands.

Like Machiavelli said, when one's people are not willing to fight, an easy way to to defeat a superior invading force is to expose an atrocity. The Czar made one to accuse Bonaparte of.

Mercenaries fight for money, not honor. They will not fight to the death, and they take their time to pick corpses clean when a battle is being fought. Cesare Borgia died because his mercenaries failed to help him in a battle charge.

the only people who fight for honour happen to be a few thousand miles in the opposite direction nevermind the idiocy of any mong looking to die or get a medal.

Expensive as mercenaries are they are typically ex-professional troops who will do the nasty underhanded slotting and at this they excel *points at all the honkies kicking arse in Africa*

as for the Machiavelli hes a politician not a general and its easy to tell this by discrediting not only a resource but one that even in his time had a history of achieving things like say kicking the shit out of Rome under Hannibal

Bonaparte made strategical fuck-ups before Russia (see Egypt).


I know that. Even then, Bonaparte still showed far more sense than Hitler.

Tolstoy believes he would have won, too, had he kept marching. But what you have to understand is that Bonaparte was not out to "conquer Russia"--he did not even want to annex any territories (he was rather fond of the Czar, and took nothing in the last war)--he just wanted to crush the Czar's army because it kept massing on Poland, which was under Bonaparte's protection (the last few times Russia had done this, it had invaded weeks afterward).

Didn't know that. Thanks for the information. (Well, to be fair, I did know that Napoleon got along with the Czar at the time.)

the only people who fight for honour happen to be a few thousand miles in the opposite direction nevermind the idiocy of any mong looking to die or get a medal.

Troops willing to die for their country are the best soldiers; hardly any of these troops are trying to die.

Expensive as mercenaries are they are typically ex-professional troops who will do the nasty underhanded slotting and at this they excel *points at all the honkies kicking arse in Africa*

They wreck everything they go through.

as for the Machiavelli hes a politician not a general

"It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means"

-Karl von Clausewitz.

and its easy to tell this by discrediting not only a resource but one that even in his time had a history of achieving things like say kicking the shit out of Rome under Hannibal

That was more due to Hannibal's excellent leadership than the army.

Looking at things in the long run, Rome ended-up ruling the whole of Europe, and Carthage ended-up smoldering.

I know that. Even then, Bonaparte still showed far more sense than Hitler.

It is hard to compare the two, because Bonaparte actively avoided wars, and saw them as an intreruption of his improving of France. He only invaded nations when they were about to invade him, because he wanted to end wars as quickly as possible. Hitler brought the enemy down upon himself, but Bonaparte sent letters of peace to his opponents, and, in that sense, Napoléon was far smarter than Hitler.

Didn't know that. Thanks for the information. (Well, to be fair, I did know that Napoleon got along with the Czar at the time.)

The Czar was beginning to hate Bonaparte (according to Durant, the Czar felt Bonaparte was the living enemy of religion and aristocracy). Napoléon was hoping to patch-up their relationship (hey, he did it after their last war), and told his friends that he had not intention of removing the Czar from power.

No no no, that was Hagman, and it was paraffin oil and best brown paper :D At least in the show, never read the books.

ooh yes i remeber now i keep forgetting what it is with best brown paper

2:02 FTW!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HXaV8O7UmM

Troops willing to die for their country are the best soldiers; hardly any of these troops are trying to die.

no I think you will find that the greatest soldiers are the ones that refuse to die after all its called a tactical retreat for a reason :p

also your dangerously suggesting idealism here which history shows isn't all that good

They wreck everything they go through.

which isn't necessarily a bad thing if used correctly

"It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means"

-Karl von Clausewitz.

however that doesn't mean that a politician has any buisiness in the area of conducting the war

That was more due to Hannibal's excellent leadership than the army.

yes because quality men have never won wars its all done by one generals leadership ability nevermind all this nonsense about a chain of command

Looking at things in the long run, Rome ended-up ruling the whole of Europe, and Carthage ended-up smoldering.

and Rome was crushed by barbarians seeking fortune which kinda puts the whole "they have horrible reasons to fight" logic in the toilet

no I think you will find that the greatest soldiers are the ones that refuse to die after all its called a tactical retreat for a reason :p

also your dangerously suggesting idealism here which history shows isn't all that good

For soldiers it is. The best soldiers are ones that try their best to preserve their own life in battle, but will fight to the death if so commanded. Just look at the damage the Battle of the Alamo did to the Mexican army.

which isn't necessarily a bad thing if used correctly


Raping, murdering, and pillaging are bad things, period.

however that doesn't mean that a politician has any buisiness in the area of conducting the war

Machiavelli studied war as much as he studied politics, and said that war was the most important thing for any leader to study.

yes because quality men have never won wars its all done by one generals leadership ability nevermind all this nonsense about a chain of command

Proper leadership inspires men. Before Bonaparte, France was hammered, and after Frederick, Germany was hammered.

and Rome was crushed by barbarians seeking fortune which kinda puts the whole "they have horrible reasons to fight" logic in the toilet

Not really. Rome was more crushed by the decadence and indifference of its rulers and people, which sapped the troops of a "great" nation to fight for. I do not believe for one second that Rome would have fallen if Julius Cæsar was in charge.

For soldiers it is. The best soldiers are ones that try their best to preserve their own life in battle, but will fight to the death if so commanded. Just look at the damage the Battle of the Alamo did to the Mexican army.

do you know who else followed the concept? Hitler.

committing trained troops into slaughters isn't good policy unless you like the idea of using schoolchildren in uniform

Raping, murdering, and pillaging are bad things, period.

unless your talking about enemy morale effects or retribution attacks (not that I advocate such things)

but back to the point sketchy fuckers as they are they are made up of seasoned veterans who will have quite the CV on them especially in comparison to the armies of old

Machiavelli studied war as much as he studied politics, and said that war was the most important thing for any leader to study.

and yet his experience with war was leading a citizen militia how very Walt of him to try to advice on how to run a nations military

Proper leadership inspires men. Before Bonaparte, France was hammered, and after Frederick, Germany was hammered.

and the British Tom was led into multiple slaughters in the great war yet France never fell and the war was won

who da thunk it?

Not really. Rome was more crushed by the decadence and indifference of its rulers and people, which sapped the troops of a "great" nation to fight for.

and Carthage wasn't?

I do not believe for one second that Rome would have fallen if Julius Cæsar was in charge.

I assume Cæsar had a magical army living up his arse that he could pull out at a moment notice? because otherwise hes going to be pretty fucked fighting the numbers Rome was faced with

do you know who else followed the concept? Hitler.

What are you trying to say?

committing trained troops into slaughters isn't good policy unless you like the idea of using schoolchildren in uniform

It worked when Stalin used it against Hitler. The point is, troops fully willing to die fight harder and longer.

unless your talking about enemy morale effects or retribution attacks (not that I advocate such things)

but back to the point sketchy fuckers as they are they are made up of seasoned veterans who will have quite the CV on them especially in comparison to the armies of old

National armies can most certainly be trained.

and yet his experience with war was leading a citizen militia how very Walt of him to try to advice on how to run a nations military

He studied the effects of mercenaries, and traveled with mercenary armies several times.

and the British Tom was led into multiple slaughters in the great war yet France never fell and the war was won
who da thunk it?

What? are you talking about WWI?

and Carthage wasn't?

Carthage used mercenaries.

I assume Cæsar had a magical army living up his arse that he could pull out at a moment notice? because otherwise hes going to be pretty fucked fighting the numbers Rome was faced with

So the barbarians won due to numbers?

It's like cos Hitler lost so utterly and finally, he isn't remembered so much for his military, economic and social genius.
... yeah he had none of the above.

Military -

Eh beat a bunch of countries with no armies, GZ, and then attacked France, whose general class were far more pro-fascist than pro-socialist, which was the alternative. Then got beaten by the British, who didn't really have an army or anything like the production base at home as Germany, after making incredibly dubious attacks on the Russians and declaring war on the USA. Nice one.

Economic -

No, yer a fail. Real wages went down under Hitler and they had a completely unsustainable war economy from about 1937. This is not economic genius. This is economic suicide, even in the short term.

Social -

You have to be fucking kidding me.

What are you trying to say?

the Krauts lost the war rather epically using these tactics

The point is, troops fully willing to die fight harder and longer.

and I contest that such motivation is bullshit idealism that has never been true

fear of dying and fear of letting your mates down are far bigger concerns for your bods on the ground rather than hanging about thinking of glorious England with the lovely ticker tape parade your widow will be having

National armies can most certainly be trained.

however training doesn't include years of personal combat experience

He studied the effects of mercenaries, and traveled with mercenary armies several times.

which doesn't make his opinion the be all end all and certainly not qualified enough to advise a nations leader on the matter

What? are you talking about WWI?

Great war = WWI O_o

Carthage used mercenaries.

and this discredits that Carthage was a mess at its end how? the Mercenaries under Hannibal got to camp out in Italy which is quite the achievement

So the barbarians won due to numbers?

its one of them yes, the migration period of the time was something Rome couldn't hope to control

It is actually to celebrate the defeat of French forces by Mexico in 1862.
Mexican Independence day is September 16th.

Ahh, you know I knew that. However old age blocked that part of school. Thanks for the reminder. Also, defeating the French is their only foreign truimph isn't it? The lost to Texas and then the US, the French the first go around. Other than defeating uprisings they really haven't beat anyone else.

Ahh, you know I knew that. However old age blocked that part of school. Thanks for the reminder. Also, defeating the French is their only foreign truimph isn't it? The lost to Texas and then the US, the French the first go around. Other than defeating uprisings they really haven't beat anyone else.

The french won the war. It would be the same as them celebrating the victory over the Alamo, even though Texas won independence.
The French left after the US civil war ended and the US told them we were going to enforce the Monroe doctrine, even if it meant a trans Atlantic war.
This left emperor Maximilian with only his Mexican troops, which suffice to say were not very eager to fight for him.

And don't worry about it I am a history major it is my nature to be anal about history.

The french won the war. It would be the same as them celebrating the victory over the Alamo, even though Texas won independence.
The French left after the US civil war ended and the US told them we were going to enforce the Monroe doctrine, even if it meant a trans Atlantic war.
This left emperor Maximilian with only his Mexican troops, which suffice to say were not very eager to fight for him.

And don't worry about it I am a history major it is my nature to be anal about history.

Christ I need to refresh a bit of history. So Mexico has never won a war?

Christ I need to refresh a bit of history. So Mexico has never won a war?

Nope. But then again the US to the north, and a Banana republic(protectorate of the US really) to the South, for much of their history.

the Krauts lost the war rather epically using these tactics

Having fanatical troops does not require a "never retreat" policy.

and I contest that such motivation is bullshit idealism that has never been true

fear of dying and fear of letting your mates down are far bigger concerns for your bods on the ground rather than hanging about thinking of glorious England with the lovely ticker tape parade your widow will be having

Mercenaries are more concerned about money then "letting [their] mates down". National soldiers consider their best mates to be their leaders and their nation. You can go ahead and call that stupid, but we are not talking the about leaders, themselves, here, we talking about the men who follow them. Clausewitz said that the best soldiers are those willing, but not rushing, to die.

however training doesn't include years of personal combat experience

Best to start.

which doesn't make his opinion the be all end all and certainly not qualified enough to advise a nations leader on the matter

Show me a qualified conflicting opinion.

Great war = WWI O_o

I fear I did not fully comprehend what your point was on it.

and this discredits that Carthage was a mess at its end how? the Mercenaries under Hannibal got to camp out in Italy which is quite the achievement

And...Rome...won. And, unlike the barbarians, they did not have obscene numbers on their side.

its one of them yes, the migration period of the time was something Rome couldn't hope to control

So their victory is more an effect of their numbers than motivations, yes?

I think RoI is just going through the "I'm a rebellious teen; look how edgy I am" phase.

I remember that, man I was stupid 5 years ago.

Military Genius? Like Operation Barbarossa?
Like the Fall of France.

I am rather fond of the fellow. He had major faults, but I would say overall he played Augustus to Robespierre's Julius--"Make haste slowly", as Augustus said. He outlawed torture and he allowed the Jews to practice their religion. Europe just went to war with him because they were pissed a Louis was not on the throne, and they were not about to see nation get away with reform.WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? The French Republic wholly adopted the entire imperialist program of Louis XIV- XVI - France' natural borders are the Rhine and the pyrenees. It declared on the rest of Europe. Not the other way around.
This did, incidentally, happen before Napoleon was anything other than a random general.
By the time Napoleon finally mattered, France had nothing better to do than randomly invade its neighbors - Switzerland comes to mind, the Papal State, Malta (Which hosted him on his way to Egypt, a hospitality he decided to take a little far...)
Things proceeded smoothly from there, with Napoleon assuming Emperorship, randomly taking even more bits of Italy (Well, all of it), which ticked off the Austrians to the point where they'd go to war again.
In the meantime, Napoleon also happily soaks up smaller Prussian territories along the Rhine. Prussia, believing in weird concepts such as 'Defending Oneself', declares war.
Because he's terribly bored, Napoleon then proceeds to try and take over his ally Spain. Guerilla warfare ensues.
All throughout this, Napoleon happily proceeds to order every dissent short, mass-conscripts everyone he can get, be they in France or elsewhere, plunders all valuables he can get (For Paris), intentionally ruins the economy of everyone but France, and unintentionally the economy of France, building up a level of hate against him and the French in general that'd last for decades afterwards, fueled not the least by the remembrance of the millions who died in his wars, be it from gunfire, diseases or famines. Nevermind that this hate also fueled the budding nationalist movements.

tl;dr: WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

committing trained troops into slaughters isn't good policy unless you like the idea of using schoolchildren in uniformI for one approve of an army made from Japanese schoolgirls in sailor fukus.

Like the Fall of France.

...with which he had little to do with, you realize? Hitler had no strategic or tactical abilities to speak of - he was a gifted orator and demogogue, but he had no military skills to speak of. France fell because of excellent planning, a (usually) well-coordinated Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, and exceedingly poor Allied military planning and fighting.

No, I respect Napoleon Like I do Hitler.


(For Being military geniuses.)

Hitler was an idiot militarily speaking.

I do not believe Hitler was powerful tactically.

Nice bit of understatement.

I know that. Even then, Bonaparte still showed far more sense than Hitler.

Indeed so.

Like the Fall of France.

Do you even know who von Manstein and Guderian, the masterminds of trhe fall of France, were? It most certainly wasn't Hitler who put together "Operation Sichelschnitt".

If Uncle Adolph had sat back and let the generals do their job, Europe would look a lot different now.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? The French Republic wholly adopted the entire imperialist program of Louis XIV- XVI - France' natural borders are the Rhine and the pyrenees. It declared on the rest of Europe. Not the other way around.
This did, incidentally, happen before Napoleon was anything other than a random general.
By the time Napoleon finally mattered, France had nothing better to do than randomly invade its neighbors - Switzerland comes to mind, the Papal State, Malta (Which hosted him on his way to Egypt, a hospitality he decided to take a little far...)

When Bonaparte assumed power (as First Consul), one of his first actions was attempt to reconcile with the nations France had been fighting. He was told there would only be peace when a Louis took power--they would not even consider peace any other way.

Bonaparte sent this to King George III:

"Called by the will of the French people to hold the highest office in the Republic, I think it proper, on assuming my functions, to inform Your Majesty of the fact by my own hand.

"Is there to be no end to the war which, for the past eight years, has dislocated every quarter of the globe? Is there no means by which we can come to an understanding? How is it that the two most enlightened nations in Europe, both stronger and more powerful than their safety and independence require, consent to sacrifice their commercial success, their internal prosperity, and the happiness of their homes, to dreams of imaginary greatness? How is it that they do not envisage peace as their greatest glory as well as their greatest need?

"Such sentiments cannot be strange to Your Majesty’s heart, for you rule a free nation for the sole end of making it happy.

I beg Your Majesty to believe that in broaching this subject, it is my sincere desire to make a practical contribution…toward a generous peace…The fate of every civilized nation depends upon ending the war which is embroiling the whole world."

Things proceeded smoothly from there, with Napoleon assuming Emperorship, randomly taking even more bits of Italy (Well, all of it), which ticked off the Austrians to the point where they'd go to war again.

You mean in the treaty? Yup, standard way of making treaties back then.

I remind you: The major coalitions against Bonaparte were started by Britain.

In the meantime, Napoleon also happily soaks up smaller Prussian territories along the Rhine. Prussia, believing in weird concepts such as 'Defending Oneself', declares war.

Source?
Because he's terribly bored, Napoleon then proceeds to try and take over his ally Spain. Guerilla warfare ensues.

And this is when his career starts going down the shitter, though to be frank, Spain was more about fighting the British than the Spanish. He made a massive mistake in thinking the Spanish would see him as a "liberator" for disposing their King. Bonaparte had to destroy things the Spanish people loved, like the Spanish Inquisition. :(

All throughout this, Napoleon happily proceeds to order every dissent short, mass-conscripts everyone he can get, be they in France or elsewhere, plunders all valuables he can get (For Paris),

Standard asshole behaviour of leaders at the time.

intentionally ruins the economy of everyone but France,

No, that was about Britain. And in all candor, I think it is a better way of weakening an opponent than outright war.

and unintentionally the economy of France,

Source?

building up a level of hate against him and the French in general that'd last for decades afterwards, fueled not the least by the remembrance of the millions who died in his wars,

You mean Britain's wars? Bonaparte attempted to make peace after he assumed power, which initially failed. Later on, he signed the Treaty of Amiens, which Britain broke by forming the Second Coalition:

Bonaparte set up a camp at Boulogne-sur-Mer to prepare for an invasion of Britain but both countries had become tired of war and signed the Treaty of Amiens in October 1801 and March 1802; this included the withdrawal of British troops from most colonial territories it had recently occupied.[61] The peace was uneasy and short-lived; Britain did not evacuate Malta as promised and protested against Bonaparte's annexation of Piedmont and his Act of Mediation, which established a new Swiss Confederation, though neither of these territories were covered by the Treaty.[62] The dispute culminated in a declaration of war by Britain in May 1803, and he reassembled the invasion camp at Boulogne.[47]

By 1805, Britain had convinced Austria and Russia to join a Third Coalition against France.

The Fourth Coalition (1806–1807) of Prussia, Russia, Saxony, Sweden and the United Kingdom against France formed within months of the collapse of the previous coalition. Following his triumph at the Battle of Austerlitz and the subsequent demise of the Third Coalition, Napoleon looked forward to achieving a general peace in Europe, especially with his two main remaining antagonists, Britain and Russia.


be it from gunfire, diseases or famines. Nevermind that this hate also fueled the budding nationalist movements.

Now you know that was Britain's fault.

tl;dr: WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

I know. Why are they called the "Napoleonic Wars"? *shrugs*

Now you know that was Britain's fault.
And it all panned out well for us in the end :)

And it all panned out well for us in the end :)

It was a brick used in building the largest empire the world has ever seen.

But the United States might one day trump you. :D

It was a brick to building the largest empire the world has ever seen.

But the United States might one day trump you. :D
Not bloody likely :D

It was a brick used in building the largest empire the world has ever seen.

But the United States might one day trump you. :D

Dude, you're hilarious.

Not bloody likely :D

Do not be so certain.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2003/0710imperialmap.jpg

We even have the "fuck yeah" Eagle for our symbol. And we had an Emperor...once.

Do not be so certain.
Is there a proper colonial administration, and are they considered US territory?

If not, it doesn't count :tongue:

Do not be so certain.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2003/0710imperialmap.jpg

We even have the "fuck yeah" Eagle for our symbol. And we had an Emperor...once.

What? Emperor?




Just cos you've got troops there. :rolleyes:

What? Emperor?
Norton.

Do not be so certain.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2003/0710imperialmap.jpg

We even have the "fuck yeah" Eagle for our symbol. And we had an Emperor...once.

O shi-

Norton.

Who?

Is there a proper colonial administration, and are they considered US territory?

If not, it doesn't count :tongue:

*stares at watch* Once another Republican is elected to bring Imperial Democracy to the world, it would not surprise me if he selected a few of those nations to be "helped" by the United States. Obama is leaving 70,000 troops in Iraq (after the withdrawal) to conduct "counter terrorism" operations.

Colonialism is only a matter of time--we are already establishing bases where the most valuable resources are, namely, oil. If China tries to compete they will play Carthage to our Rome.

Who?
Get yerself more history knowledge. Esp of trivia.

Who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_A._Norton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_A._Norton
Oh, that's good.
Get yerself more history knowledge. Esp of trivia.

I do, I have a knowledge of important history (European).

I do, I have a knowledge of important history (European).

No Asian, African or American? So elitist?

I do, I have a knowledge of important history (European).
... Europe was an economic and social minnow until the 17th century. There's quite a lot of history, you know.

No Asian, African or American? So elitist?

Damn strait.

... Europe was an economic and social minnow until the 17th century. There's quite a lot of history, you know.

Pfft, I'm not interested in a bunch of bongo bongos and mad savage Indians running about eating each other. ;)

... Europe was an economic and social minnow until the 17th century. There's quite a lot of history, you know.

I know, but it doesn't all interest me.

(I only have so much space in my brain)

I know, but it doesn't all interest me.

(I only have so much space in my brain)
If you don't know anything about it, how can you know if it's interesting or not -________________________-

If you don't know anything about it, how can you know if it's interesting or not -________________________-

I know a bit, we have to learn about the yanks in history, booooooring.

My fucking teacher knows less than me.

I know a bit, we have to learn about the yanks in history, booooooring.

My fucking teacher knows less than me.
Yeah, the history of people who aren't white is also an incredibly valid area to study.

Yeah, the history of people who aren't white is also an incredibly valid area to study.

Done the aztecs.

Done the aztecs.
Yeah, what about the Chinese, various African states, the Levant, the whole of south and south-east Asia etc?

Some interesting shit happened over there.

I know a bit, we have to learn about the yanks in history, booooooring.

My fucking teacher knows less than me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3k8H_9SjoM

*bangs head* I think of Dr. Strangelove every time I hear that. Oh, thank you, Stanley Kubrick, for killing last traces of national pride I had left!

Yeah, what about the Chinese, various African states, the Levant, the whole of south and south-east Asia etc?

Some interesting shit happened over there.

Only do what they teach me.


I used to be interested in studying history, but...

Yeah, what about the Chinese, various African states, the Levant, the whole of south and south-east Asia etc?

Some interesting shit happened over there.

China has some of the best-kept historical records that the world knows.

Only do what they teach me.
Yeah well since they might as well rename GCSE Hist. to History Channel Studies, it's worth reading up on other stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3k8H_9SjoM

*bangs head* I think of Dr. Strangelove every time I hear that. Oh, thank you, Stanley Kubrick, for killing last traces of national pride I had left!

lol.


Double lol, you had national pride.:p

Yeah well since they might as well rename GCSE Hist. to History Channel Studies, it's worth reading up on other stuff.

I said that I used to love it.

lol.


Double lol, you had national pride.:p

When I was your age I had about as much pride as you do.

When I was your age I had about as much pride as you do.

Of course I do- I'm British.

Of course I do- I'm British.
Your hubris is awfully English.

Your hubris is awfully English.

I'm not arrogant.

Of course I do- I'm British.

And I am USian. Why do you have any more reason to feel pride than I do? :)

And I am USian. Why do you have any more reason to feel pride than I do? :)

Greatest empire ever?


Fought all the way to 2 world wars, which is more than you lot can say.:wink:

Greatest empire ever?

Once again, we might outclass you.

Fought all the way to 2 world wars, which is more than you lot can say.:wink:

You have pride in your nation because of its wars? :confused:

Once again, we might outclass you.

The age of colonialism is over, my friend.

You have pride in your nation because of its wars? :confused:

No, just saying at least we stuck it out.

The age of colonialism is over, my friend.

What do you mean? Why can U.S. not create an empire?

No, just saying at least we stuck it out.

But we fought Vietnam.

What do you mean? Why can U.S. not create an empire?

The worlds not like that anymore, you can't we can't, China can't.

But we fought Vietnam.

Yay! Good for you! You went to a pointless war!

I'm not arrogant.
"I have a knowledge of important history (European)"
"My fucking teacher knows less than me." (unlikely, sunshine, they have a 2:1)

Yay! Good for you! You went to a pointless war!
What was the Great War if not pointless?

"I have a knowledge of important history (European)"
"My fucking teacher knows less than me." (unlikely, sunshine, they have a 2:1)
I meant, that he is always gets corrected.
What was the Great War if not pointless?
Atleast, we didn't go half way round the world to interfere with matters that did not concern us.

I meant, that he is always gets corrected.
Not quite the same thing, then.
Atleast, we didn't go half way round the world to interfere with matters that did not concern us.
Both were, at their hearts, wars about global projection power.

The worlds not like that anymore, you can't we can't, China can't.

Nonsense. We are doing it in Iraq.

Yay! Good for you! You went to a pointless war!

The people we were fighting were not any better than the Nazis, we just could not win. Had we won, it would certainly be considered a "just" war.

Not quite the same thing, then.
Sorry, I should have said "corrected by me".

Both were, at their hearts, wars about global projection power.

Bullshit, we fought in our own continent.

Twas pointless, but we didn't start it.

Bullshit, we fought in our own continent.

Twas pointless, but we didn't start it.

It sounds like something awfully strange to feel pride about.

Nonsense. We are doing it in Iraq.
lol.


The people we were fighting were not any better than the Nazis, we just could not win. Had we won, it would certainly be considered a "just" war.

He,he,he, you got beat by a few poorly armed people.

It sounds like something awfully strange to feel pride about.

I'm not proud.

Bullshit, we fought in our own continent.
The US has its own imperial territory in Asia. Same as why we fought all over the world in the Great War.
Twas pointless, but we didn't start it.
The Black Hand had links with both the British and French foreign intelligence services.

He,he,he, you got beat by a few poorly armed people.
*cough* Suez Crisis *cough*

*cough* Suez Crisis *cough*

*cough* Korean War*cough*

*cough* Korean War*cough*
Yeah that was us too.

lol.

True. Colonialism at its finest.

He,he,he, you got beat by a few poorly armed people.

Few is hardly the word, considering they managed to massacre millions on their own, and poorly armed is not entirely accurate, since they were supplied weapons by the Soviet Union.

The Black Hand had links with both the British and French foreign intelligence services.

Meh, the assignation was only the match to start the bomb fire.

Few is hardly the word, considering they managed to massacre millions on their own, and poorly armed is not entirely accurate, since they were supplied weapons by the Soviet Union.
And China. And the rest of the Eastern Bloc.

I'm not proud.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14772771&postcount=117

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14772789&postcount=121

Meh, the assignation was only the match to start the bomb fire.
No assassination, no casus belli, war at the very least stalled.

Yeah that was us too.
What?
True. Colonialism at its finest.
Yeah, you bastards!

Dragging us into your fucking wars.

Few is hardly the word, considering they managed to massacre millions on their own, and poorly armed is not entirely accurate, since they were supplied weapons by the Soviet Union.

That's no excuse.

What?
Yeah we were in Korea along with the US, in addition to a bunch of other countries.
Yeah, you bastards!

Dragging us into your fucking wars.
We were hardly dragged in. Blair just wanted a Falklands War of his own, and when Afghanistan didn't work, he tried it on with a real, functioning country. And then eh that got ruined, so it was a bit like Afghanistan again.
That's no excuse.
Err?

Having masses of weapons given to you changes you from poorly-armed to armed-to-the-teeth.

Yeah, you bastards!

Dragging us into your fucking wars.

You choose to help, when you had even poorer reasons then we did.

Your government decided to help our government.

That's no excuse.

What justifies a war?

No assassination, no casus belli, war at the very least stalled.

treating the symptom without treating the disease.
The instability of the Russian Regime lead Germany to feel it needed to control areas to the east.
France and Britain became other paranoid over Germany's rising industrial and military might.

It was a conflict brewing for a good while.

It was a conflict brewing for a good while.
Could have fizzled out given a couple more years, if and when someone got around to conquering Ethiopia, at which point you get a new Vienna Congress style treating saying
"Sup bitches less war pls -

Love, the UK"

Or for the Germans? Or for the Russians?

Given that the next century was one in which Great Britain remained preponderant around the globe, Germany remained divided until 1871 and Russia remained miserable shithole, I'd daresay this was ultimately a British victory.

Could have fizzled out given a couple more years, if and when someone got around to conquering Ethiopia, at which point you get a new Vienna Congress style treating saying
"Sup bitches less war pls -

Love, the UK"

They could have done that regardless of if the assassination happened or not.
The conflict was preventable for a month after the assassination. The nations involved were simply unwilling to to talk, and too much animosity.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14772771&postcount=117

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14772789&postcount=121
What's wrong with being patriotic?

And it's a fact we had the greatest empire.
Yeah we were in Korea along with the US, in addition to a bunch of other countries.


Cos we're the US's bitches nowadays.
We were hardly dragged in. Blair just wanted a Falklands War of his own, and when Afghanistan didn't work, he tried it on with a real, functioning country. And then eh that got ruined, so it was a bit like Afghanistan again.

Yeah, Blair's a twat.
You choose to help, when you had even poorer reasons then we did.

Your government decided to help our government.
Exactly, we went for no reason, like you.


What justifies a war?
Not much.

What's wrong with being patriotic?

You seem to resent it among USians.

And it's a fact we had the greatest empire.

And we probably will. Our success in Iraq means we will get the go to occupy other nations in the Middle East. Iran is running out of time.

Exactly, we went for no reason, like you.

So you are no better than we are.

Not much.

Not much to be patriotic about, then.

Cos we're the US's bitches nowadays.
No, because Churchill was terrified of communism.

You seem to resent it among USians.
You've got very little to be proud of.



And we probably will. Our success in Iraq means we will get the go to occupy other nations in the Middle East. Iran is running out of time.

Fuck no, it'll never happen.

So you are no better than we are.

We didn't start it.

Not much to be patriotic about, then.

Wars?No.
Spreading your language, legal system,ect. around the world? Yeah.
No, because Churchill was terrified of communism.
Who wasn't?

(Damn Potsdam, damn it to hell!)

Who wasn't?
Anyone with common sense.

Anyone with common sense.

So the entire western world had no sense?

So the entire western world had no sense?
Damn right. The USSR was going nowhere without having another massive conflict it couldn't afford to sustain, against powers greater than itself, even with a much-weakened British Empire at the time.

You've got very little to be proud of.

Nearly as much as you have, and just as much if we turn into: "United States of Earth".

Fuck no, it'll never happen.

Would you care to make a wager, Sir? Just wait for a Republican.

We didn't start it.

Aid and abet is nearly as bad.


Wars?No.
Spreading your language, legal system,ect. around the world? Yeah.

Which is exactly what we are doing. In the days of the British Empire, French was the international language. After WWII, English was. This is due in great part to the United States. We have established a presence in 226 out of 272 countries, which is far better than you ever did, and that is even factoring how broken-up nations are today

Damn right. The USSR was going nowhere without having another massive conflict it couldn't afford to sustain, against powers greater than itself, even with a much-weakened British Empire at the time.

The yanks were scared pre WW2, ever heard of the Red Scare?

The yanks were scared pre WW2, ever heard of the Red Scare?

That got worse after WWII. During WWII we loved the commies.

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/Nachkriegsjahre_photoGrosseDrei/index.jpg

Nearly as much as you have, and just as much if we turn into: "United States of Earth".

*Dies of heart failure*

Would you care to make a wager, Sir? Just wait for a Republican.

I bet you £100 that that'll never happen.

Aid and abet is nearly as bad.


No, it really isn't.

Which is exactly what we are doing. In the days of the British Empire, French was the international language. After WWII, English was. This is due in great part to the United States. We have established a presence in 226 out of 272 countries, which is far better than you ever did, and that is even factoring how broken-up nations are today

A presence is not quite the same thing as colonising.

You've fucked up half those countries any way.

*Dies of heart failure*

We have the most powerful and best funded military on the planet.

In millions:
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2008/07/wa_japan_milexp_graph_new.gif


I bet you £100 that that'll never happen.


Never? Good God, done. Cheney and McCain have been talking about it for years.


No, it really isn't.

It is like a gang rape. We started it, but you helped.


A presence is not quite the same thing as colonising.

It will be. And Iraq is now under our control, however you like to think of it. We are forcing them to create a government beholden to us and in line with our ideals.

You've fucked up half those countries any way.

And Britain did not do such things?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44057000/jpg/_44057991_1947_empire_use.jpg

The yanks were scared pre WW2, ever heard of the Red Scare?
It got far worse after the war, reaching a high point with McCarthyism. Doesn't change that fact that, before or after the war, Communism was no threat to the British or Americans, so any action taken against its spread at home was nothing but fearmongering.
And Britain did not do such things?
The Muslim Brotherhood was as much to blame for the Pakistan(s) issue as the British Empire.

It got far worse after the war, reaching a high point with McCarthyism. Doesn't change that fact that, before or after the war, Communism was no threat to the British or Americans, so any action taken against its spread at home was nothing but fearmongering.

The Muslim Brotherhood was as much to blame for the Pakistan(s) issue as the British Empire.

I personally find the claim that Hindus and Muslims got along before the British preposterous. Look at the invasion, or the raids before the invasion When they raided Hindu Temples (made sense because they acted like banks at the time), They just didn't take the wealth can gold. They had to take the deities and bury them in the latrine pits. When I hear a Pakistani or a Muslim Indian say the Hindus and them got along just fine, I am tempted to compare them to slave apologist today claiming yeah our slaves loved living on the plantation.

The Muslim Brotherhood was as much to blame for the Pakistan(s) issue as the British Empire.

True, dat. I am just reminding RoI that being a country ruled by the British Empire was not all peaches 'n cream.

True, dat. I am just reminding RoI that being a country ruled by the British Empire was not all peaches 'n cream.

More Tea 'n biscuits. Or Jam 'n Scones.

Nearly as much as you have, and just as much if we turn into: "United States of Earth".
lol, your county's only 20 years only older than my school.


That got worse after WWII. During WWII we loved the commies.

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/Nachkriegsjahre_photoGrosseDrei/index.jpg
We liked em at Yalta, but not so much at Potsdam.
We have the most powerful and best funded military on the planet.

In millions:
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2008/07/wa_japan_milexp_graph_new.gif
So?




Never? Good God, done. Cheney and McCain have been talking about it for years.

S'all talk.

Besides the EU is considered by some to be a superpower, we wont let you bitches.

It is like a gang rape. We started it, but you helped.

We's get less punishment in a court of law.


It will be. And Iraq is now under our control, however you like to think of it. We are forcing them to create a government beholden to us and in line with our ideals.

Not for long, I hope.
And Britain did not do such things?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44057000/jpg/_44057991_1947_empire_use.jpg
http://campusapps.fullerton.edu/cisl/Shine/Images/world%20map.jpg

lol, your county's only 20 years only older than my school.

And look what Rome accomplished at that age.

So?

We clearly have the capacity to occupy much of the known world.



S'all talk.

Besides the EU is considered by some to be a superpower, we wont let you bitches.

Military spending:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/f692853c21f56dabcf8df86c69aa0a4a.png

GDP:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cia/globaltrends2015/375954.gif

We's get less punishment in a court of law.


I do not think so.

Where is Neo Art when one needs him.

Not for long, I hope.

I would, as well. But apparently we are leaving 70,000 men there with no set departure date.

http://campusapps.fullerton.edu/cisl/Shine/Images/world%20map.jpg

I point-out that Britain did some terrible damage to India.

And look what Rome accomplished at that age.
Different times, my friend.


We clearly have the capacity to occupy much of the known world.


No, you don't. Political and economical sanctions would ruin you.


Military spending:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/f692853c21f56dabcf8df86c69aa0a4a.png

GDP:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cia/globaltrends2015/375954.gif
Meh, we'd still pwn you.


I do not think so.

Where is Neo Art when one needs him.

Perhaps it's raining...

I would, as well. But apparently we are leaving 70,000 men there with no set departure date.
70,000!? WTF!? You damn yanks.

I point-out that Britain did some terrible damage to India.

Pfft. Iraq.

My country's penis is bigger than your country's!

My country's penis is bigger than your country's!

All countries are female- ha- your country had a sex change.

My country's penis is bigger than your country's!

Florida Vs Italy ???

My country's penis is bigger than your country's!

We are the biggest dick in town.

Different times, my friend.

History repeats itself.

No, you don't. Political and economical sanctions would ruin you.


It would ruin whatever countries tried that. We are the No. 1 food exporter in the world, and we have plenty of oil, plus our bases in the Middle.

Meh, we'd still pwn you.

Militarily? economically? I think not.

70,000!? WTF!? You damn yanks.

Do not blame me, I do not support it. I am just saying we pretty much run Iraq, now.


Pfft. Iraq.

But you are proud of British occupations, and I am not proud of USian occupations.

History repeats itself.
I doubt it.

Militarily? economically? I think not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_superpowers
the EU's large population, large economy (EU has the largest economy in the world. The EU's nominal GDP is ~24% higher than that of the U.S. as of 2008), low inflation rates, the unpopularity and perceived failure of US foreign policy in recent years, and certain EU members states' high quality of life (when measured in terms such as hours worked per week).

Do not blame me, I do not support it. I am just saying we pretty much run Iraq, now.

It pisses me off.


But you are proud of British occupations, and I am not proud of USian occupations.
Our's were a long, long time ago.

"Waterloo will wipe out the memory of my forty victories; but that which nothing can wipe out is my Civil Code. That will live forever."

-Napoléon

True. We Italians still use parts of it.

To be fair, Bonaparte did the same stupid thing, and is still considered a genius. Though in my opinion, Bonaparte would have been successful if Moscow was not burned and he was not framed. Before the burning of Moscow most of Russia did not want to fight him. Bonaparte was a bit of a failure, strategically speaking, though his tactics were incredible--I do not believe Hitler was powerful tactically.

Hitler was a total idiot, both tactically and strategically.

After Napoleon failing to conquer Russia because of insufficient logistics, one would assume that everyone, EVERYONE would have the first rule of warfare very clear. (The first rule being: do not attack Russia).
And no, Hitlers invades CCCP (which at the time had 90% of the logistics on trains and trucks) with an army whose logistics is about 70% on horses.

Napoleon, instead, while not the ultimate strategist, was the ultimate genius of tactics. Just think of Austerlitz.

Florida Vs Italy ???

An easy win for Italy. They have alligators. We have mafiosi.

We have the most powerful and best funded military on the planet.


Too bad that the ruskies have more tanks, better ICBMs, about the same amount of airplanes (less ships, though), while spending less than one tenth... so my guess is that the US military is "the best funded" only because the US military are paid more than russian ones.
So, this "we have the most powerful etc" is just a little bit of wanking.

Too bad that the ruskies have more tanks, better ICBMs, about the same amount of airplanes (less ships, though), while spending less than one tenth... so my guess is that the US military is "the best funded" only because the US military are paid more than russian ones.
So, this "we have the most powerful etc" is just a little bit of wanking.

Only like half the Nukes or something.

Too bad that the ruskies have more tanks,

And yet, very few M1 Abrams have been disabled. Quality, my friend, quality.
better ICBMs,
Really now?
about the same amount of airplanes (less ships, though),
Once again, Quality.
while spending less than one tenth...
Low morale, equipment that's no where near as effective...
so my guess is that the US military is "the best funded" only because the US military are paid more than russian ones.
Morale, better equipment...

So, this "we have the most powerful etc" is just a little bit of wanking.
Indeed. But it's also true.:wink:

And yet, very few M1 Abrams have been disabled.
Fighting against what kind of opposition? Iraqi insurgents and talibans? Quality, my friend, quality.


Really now?

Of course. See Topol-M. Also, the ruskies invented the ICBM, so you shouldn't be surprised that their rockets are better.


Once again, Quality.

I wouldn't so keen to brand the russian aircrafts as low-quality items... since their AA missiles have longer ranges, their AS missiles fly faster, and they're the only country with a Mach 2+ strategic bomber .


Low morale, equipment that's no where near as effective...
Morale, better equipment...

Morale? I don't know how very much happy the US soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan are.

Also, the Georgians might have a say about the effectiveness of the western military tech, since the only successes they had were some Su-25 downed by old Soviet SAMs... or do we want to talk about the F-117 downed by a SA-3?

Really, in most NATO countries, iirc, about 80 to 90% of the funding goes into salaries. So, funding comparison means very little.

Only like half the Nukes or something.

Who does care how many nukes one has, once he has enough to blast away the whole planet anyway?

I doubt it.

Read Machiavelli's Discourses. ;)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_superpowers

But how would the EU fare without food or oil? *whistling*

It pisses me off.



Our's were a long, long time ago.

So if it happened then, one can take pride in it, but if it happens now, it is a crime?

Too bad that the ruskies have more tanks, better ICBMs, about the same amount of airplanes (less ships, though), while spending less than one tenth... so my guess is that the US military is "the best funded" only because the US military are paid more than russian ones.
So, this "we have the most powerful etc" is just a little bit of wanking.

We were comparing to the EU. Establishing an Empire would not necessarily involve treading on Russia's toes.

Fighting against what kind of opposition? Iraqi insurgents and talibans? Quality, my friend, quality.

Who, mind you, are using mostly Russian Equipment. Quality.:wink:

Of course. See Topol-M. Also, the ruskies invented the ICBM, so you shouldn't be surprised that their rockets are better.

Eh, Nuclear Warfare isn't something that I'm at the top of, knowledge-wise, so...

I wouldn't so keen to brand the russian aircrafts as low-quality items... since their AA missiles have longer ranges, their AS missiles fly faster, and they're the only country with a Mach 2+ strategic bomber .

:confused:

I'm not familiar with that plane. Care to give me the Wikipedia link, or some other link that can inform on it? And do you really think MiG-29's and SU-24's can stand up to a F-22? Or even a SU-27? Or that a fairly fast stealth bomber like the B-2 is inferior to a SU-34? (Is the Mach 1.8 maximum what you're talking about?)

Morale? I don't know how very much happy the US soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan are.

After fighting a group using Suicidal Tactics and Guerrilla Warfare, you can't expect anyone to be even remotely happy. Hell, you can't expect someone fighting to be happy at all.
Also, the Georgians might have a say about the effectiveness of the western military tech, since the only successes they had were some Su-25 downed by old Soviet SAMs... or do we want to talk about the F-117 downed by a SA-3?

:confused:

So, by using their radar on unusually long wavelengths, using anti-air technology, and above all, throwing three missiles at the plane, not of which hit it, the pilot ejected, and the aircraft, unguided, went down, and you claim it was downed by the SA-3?

Really, in most NATO countries, iirc, about 80 to 90% of the funding goes into salaries. So, funding comparison means very little.
Eh, actually, it does.

Fighting against what kind of opposition? Iraqi insurgents and talibans? Quality, my friend, quality.

Judging tanks versus tank is hard. both relay on classified information.
The one thing that the Americans have over Russia (and anyone else) is depleted Uranium Armour and shells.

Of course. See Topol-M. Also, the ruskies invented the ICBM, so you shouldn't be surprised that their rockets are better.

Inventing something 50 years ago is not really claim to having something better. Both countries possess MIRVs. The claim for Russian leadership in ICBMs is absed off of one ICBM model that is the fastest ICBM in the world. However this ICBM does not have the range to hit anywhere in the US other then Alaska. The purpose is to hit western European countries, and would have little impact ona show down between the Russia and the US. The US however takes the lead in Submarine deployed nukes, which is many respects is a more statically important asset.

I wouldn't so keen to brand the russian aircrafts as low-quality items... since their AA missiles have longer ranges, their AS missiles fly faster, and they're the only country with a Mach 2+ strategic bomber.

Morale? I don't know how very much happy the US soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan are.

Yes such a good strategic bomber they have. for the most part it is a technological dead end and has been for the last 20 years. They are too easy to shoot down and take much longer to reach their target compared to a ICBM.

As A veteran our morale is great thank you for asking.


Also, the Georgians might have a say about the effectiveness of the western military tech, since the only successes they had were some Su-25 downed by old Soviet SAMs... or do we want to talk about the F-117 downed by a SA-3?

Georgian military equipment from the west would sort of be like the soviet military equipment in Iraq no ?

Really, in most NATO countries, iirc, about 80 to 90% of the funding goes into salaries. So, funding comparison means very little.

Totally incorrect.
The US spends about 762 billion of Defense. Or 1 Trillion dollars a year counting more broadly. and 550 billion counting more narrowly.
Only 125.2 billion goes to personnel. Which includes billeting and Uniform cost.
European countries might spend 80 to 90% of their budgets on pay checks but this is not the case in the US.
Either way the cost of personnel is only about is between 25% and 12.5% of the defense budget. This is also represents a spike in spending as we are currently paying our soldiers considerably more when they are deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. My brothers first deployment to Iraq he started with the lowest rank and came back 14 months latter with 15,000 dollars in his account. His third deployment at three pay grades higher should really be nice.

Fighting against what kind of opposition? Iraqi insurgents and talibans? Quality, my friend, quality.

The M1 and its predecessor, the M60 have seen substantial combat--including several large tank battles during the Gulf War.

Of course. See Topol-M. Also, the ruskies invented the ICBM, so you shouldn't be surprised that their rockets are better.

The Topol-M is a land based rocket, meaning that it's easy to hit if you launch a massive pre-emptive counterforce campaign. Submarine rockets are where it's at. Of course, because Russia has always had control fears about their military, they've never really had that much of an investment in their SSBN's.


I wouldn't so keen to brand the russian aircrafts as low-quality items... since their AA missiles have longer ranges, their AS missiles fly faster, and they're the only country with a Mach 2+ strategic bomber .

Yet they have very few Blackjack's, they rarely fly them, and virtually no combat experience. The one ASM SS-N-22 is super fast, but it has a very short range, and very small payload (the only way to really get much bang out of it is with a compact nuclear warhead--and then it's just not worth it), and contrary to popular belief, it can be intercepted.


Morale? I don't know how very much happy the US soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan are.

Given the re-enlistment rates, even before last summer, pretty good.

Also, the Georgians might have a say about the effectiveness of the western military tech, since the only successes they had were some Su-25 downed by old Soviet SAMs... or do we want to talk about the F-117 downed by a SA-3?[QUOTE]

What do you know about that incident? That you're referencing it in relation to capabilities is indicative that you don't know much about it.

What happened was a Serbian AA battery commander had managed to visually determine that allied aircraft followed the exact same course from Aviano to their targets in Belgrade. Using an agent who had been infiltrated into Italy near the base, they managed to develop a way to time takeoff to when they were passing over his SAM sites. After several failed attempts, he finally knocked one down with a "Golden Bullet", essentially, an unguided rocket that got lucky. He was a rare, innovative problem solver, but there was nothing about his weapons themselves that made it possible. It's more a lesson in human behaviors than anything else.

Don't even bother referencing Georgia, as their military was almost entirely equipped with Soviet equipment. The only western equipment that was present in substantial numbers was a whole bunch of HUMWWV's.

[QUOTE=]Really, in most NATO countries, iirc, about 80 to 90% of the funding goes into salaries. So, funding comparison means very little.

Of course, the funding is so much higher to begin with...

Who, mind you, are using mostly Russian Equipment. Quality.:wink:

Outdated export variants of russian equipment. Just like pitting a Turkish-built M-60 against a T-90M.


:confused:

1999. Yugoslavia.


I'm not familiar with that plane. Care to give me the Wikipedia link, or some other link that can inform on it? And do you really think MiG-29's and SU-24's can stand up to a F-22? Or even a SU-27? Or that a fairly fast stealth bomber like the B-2 is inferior to a SU-34? (Is the Mach 1.8 maximum what you're talking about?)
You're not familiar with many planes, it seems.
Wiki Tu-160 and Tu-22M. Top speed above Mach 2, both. Both armed with supersonic attack missiles.
MiG-29 first flew in late '70s, so you have to compare it with F/A-18 or with F-16. The Su-27 first flew in early '80s, you should compare it with F-15C and F-14. If you want to take a serious threat to the F-22, take the Su-35.
Su-24 is comparable to the Tornado IDS/ECR or to the F-111.
The B-2 is a SLOW strategical bomber (top speed about Mach 0.9) . The Su-34 is an small attack fighterbomber meant to replace the Su-24, so we're talking competely different aircrafts here. You should compare the Su-34 to the F-15E.



After fighting a group using Suicidal Tactics and Guerrilla Warfare, you can't expect anyone to be even remotely happy. Hell, you can't expect someone fighting to be happy at all.

Yeah, correct. That's why I'm always dubious about just money giving you a lot of morale. I somewhat suspect that fanatical talibans have an higher morale, while getting less money that the standard US grunt.


So, by using their radar on unusually long wavelengths, using anti-air technology, and above all, throwing three missiles at the plane, not of which hit it, the pilot ejected, and the aircraft, unguided, went down, and you claim it was downed by the SA-3?
I doubt that the F-117 wasn't hit. Why would ever a pilot eject if his aircraft (a multimillion secret aircraft by the way!) weren't hit? And why shortly after the USAF scrapped the F-117 from service?
Also, long wavelengths aren't unusual, when you don't limit yourself to transistors.

The one thing that the Americans have over Russia (and anyone else) is depleted Uranium Armour and shells.
The one thing that the Russians (and maybe the Israelis) have are guided projectiles fired from tanks. Oh, and tandem charges to deal with ERA...


Inventing something 50 years ago is not really claim to having something better....The US however takes the lead in Submarine deployed nukes, which is many respects is a more statically important asset.
Irrelevant if the other side can launch a counterstrike before being hit by the incoming nukes. It's easy to reach

for the most part it is a technological dead end and has been for the last 20 years. They are too easy to shoot down and take much longer to reach their target compared to a ICBM.


As A veteran our morale is great thank you for asking.

You're a veteran. Not a soldier on service in Iraq right now.


Georgian military equipment from the west would sort of be like the soviet military equipment in Iraq no ?

Actually not. Since Georgia was supplied in 2008, months before the war - while the Iraqis didn't receive Soviet material after the mid-'80s. And Iraq was attacked by the western forces in '91. So years later. Nor did they acquire any newer tanks between '91 and 2003.


Totally incorrect.
The US spends about 762 billion of Defense. Or 1 Trillion dollars a year counting more broadly. and 550 billion counting more narrowly.
Only 125.2 billion goes to personnel. Which includes billeting and Uniform cost. European countries might spend 80 to 90% of their budgets on pay checks but this is not the case in the US.
Meh. I recalled wrong then about the US and just recalled the average data for the NATO countries.
Anyway, I don't really think the US have all the "military supremacy" they're supposed to have - not proportionated to the difference in funding they pay for their military.

You're a veteran. Not a soldier on service in Iraq right now.

Speaking as someone about to depart for BCT, I have spoken to numerous soldiers at MEPS and my recruiting center. Our morale is very strong.

The Topol-M is a land based rocket, meaning that it's easy to hit if you launch a massive pre-emptive counterforce campaign.

You mean: it's easy to hit if the US fire first strike. Problem: 1.the Topol is mobile. 2.It's cold-launched.

Submarine rockets are where it's at. Of course, because Russia has always had control fears about their military, they've never really had that much of an investment in their SSBN's.

Hahaha! Do you call fielding 6 Akula (Typhoon) with 20 SLBM (each one MIRVing) "a small investment"? And they're revamping their fleet right now. Btw, how many strategical nuclear warheads does one need anyway? 200-300 is more than enough to obliterate a good half of the world's surface.



Btw, how come a thread about Napoleon has been derailed into a "US pwns fuck yeah" sort of thread?

Outdated export variants of russian equipment. Just like pitting a Turkish-built M-60 against a T-90M.

The Turkish M-60 is hardly the same M-60 as was originally built, of course. I'd put them one on one against the T90M any day. Especially since there are only a few hundred T-90M's, while there are a few thousand Turkish M-60's.



*bizarre military dickwaving*

It's not worth the effort to bring up my objections to your comparisons.


Yeah, correct. That's why I'm always dubious about just money giving you a lot of morale. I somewhat suspect that fanatical talibans have an higher morale, while getting less money that the standard US grunt.

It's hard to classify a coherent Taliban, as it is usually an extremely disparate group that's bound together by a handful of beliefs and strategic goals, and usually local militia's are the folks who are the backbone of their forces. Hard to compare to a regular army.


I doubt that the F-117 wasn't hit. Why would ever a pilot eject if his aircraft (a multimillion secret aircraft by the way!) weren't hit? And why shortly after the USAF scrapped the F-117 from service?

They were getting old, they're expensive to maintain, and the B-2 is a far superior aircraft, as it can carry out the penetration mission profile of the F-117 with a much larger payload, greater range, loiter time and accuracy. There were tens of thousands of hours on the airframes, and it was time to retire them.


Also, long wavelengths aren't unusual, when you don't limit yourself to transistors.

Except the wavelengths weren't what Dani used, and modulating wavelenths only has so much effectiveness.

BCT
?
Boot camp?
Anyway, good for you. Still the talibans have a good morale (fanatical, I think it's the term) with a lot less of funding.

Btw, how come a thread about Napoleon has been derailed into a "US pwns fuck yeah" sort of thread?

It had to do with RoI poking fun at USian patriots, while saying UKian patriots are fully justified.

I doubt that the F-117 wasn't hit. Why would ever a pilot eject if his aircraft (a multimillion secret aircraft by the way!) weren't hit? And why shortly after the USAF scrapped the F-117 from service?
Also, long wavelengths aren't unusual, when you don't limit yourself to transistors.

Point of historical order. The F-117 was retired in 2008. Almost one decade after was downed. It was retired because it was built largely on on 1970's technology and the F-22 filled the role more effectively and with cheaper maintenance cost.

The air craft was hit due to a combination of factors.
An error in deployment the F-117 flew though clouds for too long collecting condensation which then froze on the aircraft.
The Yugoslav military was specifically targeting a F-117 for propaganda purposes using other aircraft to attempt to visually spot for it. Radar was modified to unusually long wave to take advantage of condensation.
This gives the radar a slim chance to hit an F 117a but lessens its over all effectiveness.
A more accurate view of US technology would be to count the total number of NATO craft shot down in the conflict. Which is 12 and compare to the total number of Yugoslav Aircraft shot down by their own AA which is 18(I suspect they were shot down trying to visually spot the F-117a).

Outdated export variants of russian equipment. Just like pitting a Turkish-built M-60 against a T-90M.

Come now, the RPG-29, which was used to temporarily disable a M1 Abrams, isn't that old. Also, the AK-47 and AK-74 are also new, or at least have few changes from other modern versions, and are also in wide use in the Middle East. As for tanks, I'll give you that point when it comes to tanks. But as for most weaponry? No.

1999. Yugoslavia.

Eh, I'll look it up.

You're not familiar with many planes, it seems.
Wiki Tu-160 and Tu-22M. Top speed above Mach 2, both. Both armed with supersonic attack missiles.
MiG-29 first flew in late '70s, so you have to compare it with F/A-18 or with F-16. The Su-27 first flew in early '80s, you should compare it with F-15C and F-14. If you want to take a serious threat to the F-22, take the Su-35.
Su-24 is comparable to the Tornado IDS/ECR or to the F-111.
The B-2 is a SLOW strategical bomber (top speed about Mach 0.9) . The Su-34 is an small attack fighterbomber meant to replace the Su-24, so we're talking competely different aircrafts here. You should compare the Su-34 to the F-15E.

The B-2 didn't need to be fast. There's a reason it's a STEALTH bomber. F-15e is outdated, try the F-35. I'll give you the point about the MiG-29. Both the TU-160 and TU-22 are outdated. Neither of them have Stealth Capabilities, and the Tu-22 cannot go beyond mach 1.5.

Yeah, correct. That's why I'm always dubious about just money giving you a lot of morale. I somewhat suspect that fanatical talibans have an higher morale, while getting less money that the standard US grunt.
Partially because we're on THEIR land, and partially because they're made up of FANATICAL troops. These men are fighting for both their faith and homeland, in their opinion, and so, naturally, morale will be higher for them. However, being reimbursed well for fighting for your country, even if not on your land, will still be more encouraging than being paid next to nothing.

I doubt that the F-117 wasn't hit. Why would ever a pilot eject if his aircraft (a multimillion secret aircraft by the way!) weren't hit? And why shortly after the USAF scrapped the F-117 from service?
Also, long wavelengths aren't unusual, when you don't limit yourself to transistors.
Unusually long wavelengths. It allowed short periods where the aircraft was visible on RADAR. It was a lucky, and close shot. The poor fellow had to rely on his eyesight in order to spot the missile. It was a close clip, and instead of waiting for it to hit him (As he undoubtedly thought he would), he bailed. He did the right thing. If it did hit him, he would have died. However, it never hit the plane, and thus, it was not downed by the SA-3 used. It wasn't retired until '08, and that's only because the F-22 and F-35 fulfill the capacities normally filled by the F-117.

?
Boot camp?

Yes, boot camp (or "basic combat training"). Four days.

Anyway, good for you. Still the talibans have a good morale (fanatical, I think it's the term) with a lot less of funding.

We were comparing to Russia, which had the same problems in Afghanistan as we do.

And we have loads of fanatics on our side, especially the ones who do the fighting. The United States military spirit has drastically improved since the draft was abolished. Plus, it is now much harder to get into the military, so we will not have soldiers fighting because they cannot get a job elsewhere.

EDIT: Thanks, by the way.

You mean: it's easy to hit if the US fire first strike. Problem: 1.the Topol is mobile. 2.It's cold-launched.

The Topol is stored on bases, it can be tracked by visual and IR reconnaissance satellites, and is easily hit with SLBM's. And I'm concerned with any first strike, not just a US first strike. Land based ICBM's aren't worth the effort, unless you're scared about your ability to control them.


Hahaha! Do you call fielding 6 Akula (Typhoon) with 20 SLBM (each one MIRVing) "a small investment"? And they're revamping their fleet right now. Btw, how many strategical nuclear warheads does one need anyway? 200-300 is more than enough to obliterate a good half of the world's surface.

I do, actually. The Russian navy kept those submarines very close to base, usually in the White Sea or in port, and their captain's on a short leash. And, in comparison to the 18 Ohio Class Missile Boats the US fielded (plus the French and British ships our Allies put afloat), it's a very small investment.


Btw, how come a thread about Napoleon has been derailed into a "US pwns fuck yeah" sort of thread?

Actually, you've been playing the "Russia Pwns fuck yeah" card a lot, bucko.

Point of historical order. The F-117 was retired in 2008. Almost one decade after was downed. It was retired because it was built largely on on 1970's technology and the F-22 filled the role more effectively and with cheaper maintenance cost.
Cannot remember (and no want to wiki right now, it's 2 in the morning and I have some work to do!)... was the F-117 employed in Iraq 2003? Didn't the USAF employ mostly conventional aircrafts and B-2s then?


The air craft was hit due to a combination of factors.
An error in deployment the F-117 flew though clouds for too long collecting condensation which then froze on the aircraft.
So many $ spent on a military system (aircraft+plans) that cannot even work properly.


The Yugoslav military was specifically targeting a F-117 for propaganda purposes using other aircraft to attempt to visually spot for it. Radar was modified to unusually long wave to take advantage of condensation.
This gives the radar a slim chance to hit an F 117a but lessens its over all effectiveness.
So, they hit what they wanted to hit - the supposedly invisible aircraft.


A more accurate view of US technology would be to count the total number of NATO craft shot down in the conflict. Which is 12 and compare to the total number of Yugoslav Aircraft shot down by their own AA which is 18(I suspect they were shot down trying to visually spot the F-117a).
Likely.
Still, does that kind of superiority justify the amount of $ the US are spending on their military? I don't think so.

I do, actually. The Russian navy kept those submarines very close to base, usually in the White Sea or in port, and their captain's on a short leash.
Actually not. The Typhoons' tour was about 6 months. And, to keep the leash short, they had zampolits.


And, in comparison to the 18 Ohio Class Missile Boats the US fielded (plus the French and British ships our Allies put afloat), it's a very small investment.
Quintuple titanium hulls and long about as the Invincible? Mh.


Actually, you've been playing the "Russia Pwns fuck yeah" card a lot, bucko.
No. I've been playing the "Russia's military isn't that inferior to the US's military as the difference in funding would make people think" card, chap.

Yes, boot camp (or "basic combat training"). Four days.
Hm? 4 days? That's short.


We were comparing to Russia, which had the same problems in Afghanistan as we do.
Actually, I was comparing to "any other whose military expenditures are lower". Russia being the easiest example of course, as the only other nuclear superpower.


And we have loads of fanatics on our side, especially the ones who do the fighting. The United States military spirit has drastically improved since the draft was abolished. Plus, it is now much harder to get into the military, so we will not have soldiers fighting because they cannot get a job elsewhere.

Really really sure? A colonel of the italian Army I met told me that he hated the loss of the draftees, because now only low-education, low-culture people were entering the military. This could be a local problem, though.

Hm? 4 days? That's short.

I have been waiting for a while.

Actually, I was comparing to "any other whose military expenditures are lower". Russia being the easiest example of course, as the only other nuclear superpower.

Right, although I will go out on a limb and say that the U.S. and Russia would not go to direct war, and that the U.S. would demonstratively win a Cold War.


Really really sure? A colonel of the italian Army I met told me that he hated the loss of the draftees, because now only low-education, low-culture people were entering the military. This could be a local problem, though.

1: It is probably fairly easy to enter the military in Italy.
2: A educated, cultured person is rarely fanatical.

Actually not. The Typhoons' tour was about 6 months. And, to keep the leash short, they had zampolits.

The Typhoons were largely locked in the White Sea out of the fear that a "Hunt for Red October" scenario would actually occur. This negated virtually all of the really big benefits that SSBN's provide, including the first strike capability. Instead they just had, what was effectively a land based missile platform, afloat. A waste of time an money in this analysts eyes.


Quintuple titanium hulls and long about as the Invincible? Mh.

Bigger is clearly always better :rolleyes:. Anyone can build big, building smart is the challenge, and the Ohio's are clearly built smart. And with the Trident D-5's, they have an extremely fast, extremely accurate MIRV'ed missile to boot.


No. I've been playing the "Russia's military isn't that inferior to the US's military as the difference in funding would make people think" card, chap.

Not really, you've been quite awkwardly waving the Russian dick for them. Usually people get paid to do this in the back alley, you're doing it for free.

If you want evidence of it, just look at the previous quotation snip.

Read Machiavelli's Discourses. ;)
I will.




But how would the EU fare without food or oil? *whistling*

Meh, I reckon we could hold our own against you in a war. Yor claim of being able to take over the world is bull shit.

So if it happened then, one can take pride in it, but if it happens now, it is a crime?
Well, the people that fucked up our empire are dead. Why should we pay for it? You on the other hand.

Meh, I reckon we could hold our own against you in a war. Yor claim of being able to take over the world is bull shit.

Take over the world? Heavens, no! I am just saying that the U.S. has the potential to be the next empire, in the tradition of Rome and the British Empire.

Well, the people that fucked up our empire are dead. Why should we pay for it? You on the other hand.

"On ne peut pas faire d'omelette sans casser des oeufs."

-Maximilien Robespierre

Generations later, fifteen-year-olds will take pride in how the United States created an empire, just like you now take pride in how Britain created an empire. The wicked deeds my nation is blatantly committing will be easily forgiven with time.

Take over the world? Heavens, no! I am just saying that the U.S. has the potential to be the next empire, in the tradition of Rome and the British Empire.
You can't. The world's changed, your power's declining, you're not gonna be a superpower for long.


"On ne peut pas faire d'omelette sans casser des oeufs."

-Maximilien Robespierre

Generations later, fifteen-year-olds will take pride in how the United States created an empire, just like you now take pride in how Britain created an empire. The wicked deeds my nation is blatantly committing will be easily forgiven with time.

No doubt. But, you wont fuck up on a world scale like we did.

P.S. You said we fucked up India, they have an economy that's growing rapidly growing, and will some day be very powerful.

You can't. The world's changed, your power's declining, you're not gonna be a superpower for long.
Our juncture is the same one Rome faced when Julius Cæsar appeared. We will rapidly decline, unless his USian equivalent will show himself within the next one hundred years.

No doubt. But, you wont fuck up on a world scale like we did.

We already have.

P.S. You said we fucked up India,

As in you destroyed some of her most precious artifacts and treated her people like second-class citizens.

they have an economy that's growing rapidly growing, and will some day be very powerful.

Good for them.

Our juncture is the same one Rome faced when Julius Cæsar appeared. We will rapidly decline, unless his USian equivalent will show himself within the next one hundred years.
I hope it happens.

(Where the fuck was our Cæsar!?)

We already have.
Not yet.


As in you destroyed some of her most precious artifacts and treated her people like second-class citizens.

No, I didn't.

Good for them.

I think it's good for all of us.

I hope it happens.

(Where the fuck was our Cæsar!?)

http://olivercromwellfans.com/files/2008/12/oliver-cromwell3.jpg

No, I didn't.

Ah, but you often refer to the entire U.S. as "you"; cannot the same policy be applied to the U.K.?

I think it's good for all of us.

Sure. India suffers from a lot of poverty, so economic growth is a mighty good thing.

http://olivercromwellfans.com/files/2008/12/oliver-cromwell3.jpg
Oh, fuck no.



Ah, but you often refer to the entire U.S. as "you"; cannot the same policy be applied to the U.K.?
Yeah, I was being pedantic tbh.


Sure. India suffers from a lot of poverty, so economic growth is a mighty good thing.
They deserve it after being oppressed, not only in there own country, but around the world as well.

Oh, fuck no.

I never said he had to be good.

I never said he had to be good.

God, I wish my country was great again. :(

You lucky bastard. :mad:

God, I wish my country was great again. :(

You lucky bastard. :mad:

Wait, what? Was your hatred of the United States just masked jealousy?

Wait, what? Was your hatred of the United States just masked jealousy?

No, I hate the US. I hate the fact we're pussies now, more.

No, I hate the US. I hate the fact we're pussies now, more.

It sounds like one either has to be a pussy or an asshole.

It sounds like one either has to be a pussy or an asshole.

Team America? That's surprisingly low for you.

This is one of the most bizarre conversations I have ever read.

Team America? That's surprisingly low for you.

I was not quoting anything, I was merely trying to articulate your philosophy. "Great" seems to mean asshole.

This is one of the most bizarre conversations I have ever read.

Dude, I forgot what this thread was about a looong time ago.

I was not quoting anything, I was merely trying to articulate your philosophy. "Great" seems to mean asshole.

You don't even have great in your name.

Dude, I forgot what this thread was about a looong time ago.

The former Emperor of France.

We are actually fairly on-topic, considering we are discussing how the United States relates to empires, such as the French Empire.

You don't even have great in your name.

Pfft. Neither did Rome.

The former Emperor of France.

We are actually fairly on-topic, considering we are discussing how the United States relates to empires, such as the French Empire.
The US is not connected to empires.
Pfft. Neither did Rome.

Rome weren't as great as us.

The US is not connected to empires.

"Manifest Destiny" ring a bell?

Rome weren't as great as us.

Your technology was significantly more advanced.

Manifest Destiny" ring a bell?
OMG, you don't believe that shit, do you? Fuck, that's a pile of shyte.


Your technology was significantly more advanced.

And yours is significantly more advanced than ours was.

Rome weren't as great as us.

Dude just stop with this quaint, nostalgic nationalism.

OMG, you don't believe that shit, do you? Fuck, that's a pile of shyte.

I do not believe a word of it. I do not support the actions my country has taken. Do you understand that I do not support the War in Iraq or any concept of a USian Empire?

And yours is significantly more advanced than ours was.

Precisely. Which is why we have a greater world presence than you ever had.

Dude just stop with this quaint, nostalgic nationalism.
I'm sorry, I'm fucking pissed off.
I do not believe a word of it. I do not support the actions my country has taken. Do you understand that I do not support the War in Iraq or any concept of a USian Empire?
I understand, Fuck I hate America.


Precisely. Which is why we have a greater world presence than you ever had.

Because of new technology, the interwabs, TV and whatnot.

I understand, Fuck I hate America.

But we are back to square one: the USian Empire is no worse than the British Empire, yet you love the British Empire and hate the USian Empire.


Because of new technology, the interwabs, TV and whatnot.

Right, so the British Empire, the Roman Empire, the USian Empire--same thing.

But we are back to square one: the USian Empire is no worse than the British Empire, yet you love the British Empire and hate the USian Empire.
YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING EMPIRE! :mad:



Right, so the British Empire, the Roman Empire, the USian Empire--same thing.

You mean... um...in comparison to their time? Each as good as they could have been?

YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING EMPIRE! :mad:

How do you define "empire"?

You mean... um...in comparison to their time? Each as good as they could have been?

Unlike the UK, several of our territories have instituted same-sex marriage. We also deal less with the government taping calls. And we undoubtedly have some of the best freedom-of-speech in the world. We are not bad for our time.

How do you define "empire"?
Look it up on wiki.

I guess having colonies is a major part of it. (Iraq is not a territory)


Unlike the UK, several of our territories have instituted same-sex marriage. We also deal less with the government taping calls. And we undoubtedly have some of the best freedom-of-speech in the world. We are not bad for our time.

So? You can get guns, you're bare violent, Guantanamo- need I say more.

Look it up on wiki.

I guess having colonies is a major part of it. (Iraq is not a territory)

I believe be have 50 official states, plus other territories, like Puerto Rico.

So? You can get guns, you're bare violent,

http://www.voxeu.org/files/image/paton_fig1.JPG

Guantanamo- need I say more.

Our new President has done away with that. Times change.

I believe be have 52 official states, plus other territories, like Puerto Rico.
50? I thought is was 50. I'm fairly sure it's 50.



http://www.voxeu.org/files/image/paton_fig1.JPG

What is that? I can't make head nor tail of it.

Our new President has done away with that. Times change.

Wait til the Republicans get in power again.

50? I thought is was 50. I'm fairly sure it's 50.

Fuck, yes. Sorry.

http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/93231/FacePalm_qjgenth.jpg


What is that? I can't make head nor tail of it.

It is actually a chart showing how abortion does not correlate with crime rates, and it shows that the U.S. crimes rates have gone down, whilst UK crime rates have gone up since abortion legislation. I used it to show you that despite your complaining of how violent the U.S. is for allowing guns, your violence rate is much higher than ours.

Wait til the Republicans get in power again.

They will not dare reverse that. When a major reform is put in place here, Federally, it sticks. Just look at our history.

He contributed much to government, especially down here, through the Napoleonic Codes...

As well, he contributed much to military strategy and thinking...

and lastly, he was the last Frenchy that wasnt a cheese-eating surrender monkey, :p

He contributed much to government, especially down here, through the Napoleonic Codes...

As well, he contributed much to military strategy and thinking...

and lastly, he was the last Frenchy that wasnt a cheese-eating surrender monkey, :p

He actually hated France in his youth.

He actually hated France in his youth.

Who doesnt? :rolleyes: lol

Who doesnt? :rolleyes: lol

They conquered his home, Dude.

They conquered his home, Dude.

Well, Id say that he certainly got his vengeance on them in the end, ;)

Fuck, yes. Sorry.

http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/93231/FacePalm_qjgenth.jpg
I lol'd so fucking hard. You funny bean.


It is actually a chart showing how abortion does not correlate with crime rates, and it shows that the U.S. crimes rates have gone down, whilst UK crime rates have gone up since abortion legislation. I used it to show you that despite your complaining of how violent the U.S. is for allowing guns, your violence rate is much higher than ours.

Source? Where'd you get it from?

They will not dare reverse that. When a major reform is put in place here, Federally, it sticks. Just look at our history.
Like?

Besides, they could make a new one.

I lol'd so fucking hard. You funny bean.

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x52/ninjaaa-/dancing-bean.gif?t=1241814586



Source? Where'd you get it from?

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1047

Like?

Slavery, integration of schools, abolishing the draft.

Besides, they could make a new one.

Not likely.

your violence rate is much higher than ours.

Not at all, and this is common knowledge. Your crime rate is more than double ours.

Not at all, and this is common knowledge. Your crime rate is more than double ours.

We also have far more than double your population, considering how many people we have, Id say our crime rate is pretty good...

We also have far more than double your population, considering how many people we have, Id say our crime rate is pretty good...

Errrm... you do understand how crime rates work, right?

Not at all, and this is common knowledge. Your crime rate is more than double ours.

Per capita? Bullshit.

We also have far more than double your population, considering how many people we have, Id say our crime rate is pretty good...

You have like 5 times our population and like 10 times the weight. ;)

You have like 5 times our population and like 10 times the weight. ;)

Exactly, lol

Errrm... you do understand how crime rates work, right?
Yeah:
Crime rate is a measure of the rate of occurrence of crimes committed in a given area and time. Most commonly, crime rate is given as the number of crimes committed among a given number of persons.Often, the type of crime is exactly specified. Thus, a crime rate might be given as the number of murders (or rapes, thefts, etc.) per 100,000 persons per year within a city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_rate

But, because we have alot more people than you, youre generally going to get a higher proportion of criminals to go along with our samples...