It was the best of times, well not for Starmer it wasn't
Hardly.
However much it's harder than it looks, however much shit the other lot left to clear up, however much fun it is hollering from the sidelines...
For any sane politician, being in government is better than the alternative. If they don't think that, a politician is either a fool or a grifter, and they should find another career.
As I said below: I'd be slightly sceptical about anything coming from Saudi Arabian authorities. And I'd be concerned about Saudi journalists as well. They have a line to sell. How much of that line is the truth... who knows?
The main facts seem to be that a Saudi was welcomed by Germany but went on to develop an ethnic hatred for them before killing and maiming them at a Christmas market.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
Well, that's not going to happen. The pitchfork brigade set off in the outrage bus within minutes.
They don't seem to realise that the one they passed is worse for the deficit.
One of the things removed was controls on tech transfer to China, which will suit Musk's plans for his Chinese operation.
Now there are reasonable (and a lot of unreasonable) arguments either way on that last point, but there's an enormous conflict of interest in his major involvement in the decision.
They don't seem to realise that the one they passed is worse for the deficit.
One of the things removed was controls on tech transfer to China, which will suit Musk's plans for his Chinese operation.
Now there are reasonable (and a lot of unreasonable) arguments either way on that last point, but there's an enormous conflict of interest in his major involvement in the decision.
But that kind of stuff shouldn't be in a debt ceiling bill in the first place. It needs to be properly debated not just pushed through alongside a basically mandatory measure.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
They could always borrow a VCR player from the PFO
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
They don't seem to realise that the one they passed is worse for the deficit.
One of the things removed was controls on tech transfer to China, which will suit Musk's plans for his Chinese operation.
Now there are reasonable (and a lot of unreasonable) arguments either way on that last point, but there's an enormous conflict of interest in his major involvement in the decision.
But that kind of stuff shouldn't be in a debt ceiling bill in the first place. It needs to be properly debated not just pushed through alongside a basically mandatory measure.
The whole debt ceiling and government shutdown mechanism is a complete farce anyway and they ought to get rid of it (but never will). It's just an opportunity for politicians to grandstand and play brinkmanship, with the spice that if they ever do screw up and go over the edge they'll do serious damage to their economy.
If you want to actually seriously tackle the deficit you need to do it when you pass the spending bills and the taxation bills.
They don't seem to realise that the one they passed is worse for the deficit.
One of the things removed was controls on tech transfer to China, which will suit Musk's plans for his Chinese operation.
Now there are reasonable (and a lot of unreasonable) arguments either way on that last point, but there's an enormous conflict of interest in his major involvement in the decision.
The man is one huge walking talking conflict of interest.
2024 was a year where, once again, our political class failed to get close to addressing our substantial economic problems, indeed they aggravated them in an exceptionally poor budget after the election gave a chance of a fresh start.
I fear that in 2025 we will pay more of the consequences of this ineptitude with a modest recession, rising unemployment and virtually no growth at all. Sooner or later there is going to have to be a reset and it’s not going to be pleasant. We might keep things staggering on until 2026 unless Trump causes a crisis sooner than expected.
I’d be interested in what you consider a “reset” and what such a thing looks like. The fundamental problem remains we want European or even Scandinavian level public services on American levels of taxation.
Fifty years of propaganda telling us how lower personal taxation will be our economic salvation have got us the sum total of nowhere. Reeves would have been more economically honest had she raised basic rate tax to 25p and higher rate to 50p.
Even now, we hear on a regular basis about the “evils” of public spending and how we can fire anywhere between 50-90% of civil servants with no consequences. I’m not disputing there isn’t waste in the public sector but there’s no pot of gold at the end of that rainbow.
Musk fired 90% of the staff at X. Everyone said “it will implode”. Seems fine
On October 28, 2022, when Elon Musk completed his purchase of Twitter, the platform had approximately 257.8 million daily active users[1]
As of July 2024, X (formerly known as Twitter) has approximately 245 million daily active users[1] worldwide.
In short, it hasn't collapsed, but it has retrenched and no longer makes the rapid growth it did in its earlier years.
Some left liberals had left for bluesky yes as X is not echo chamber enough for them now with too many rightwingers arguing with them on the platform but the majority have remained.
Musk is also worth over $400 billion and can subsidise X indefinitely as a pet project, so it never needs to make a profit really, he can carry its losses
Indeed. Particularly as he's used it to buy a position in Government and, given Trump's presumed mental dropoff, an increasingly important one.
Musk looks increasingly like Trump's Cummings and equally sees himself as the brain behind the showman who will use him as long as he is useful but no longer
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Thudding lack of self-awareness on display as ever.
They don't seem to realise that the one they passed is worse for the deficit.
One of the things removed was controls on tech transfer to China, which will suit Musk's plans for his Chinese operation.
Now there are reasonable (and a lot of unreasonable) arguments either way on that last point, but there's an enormous conflict of interest in his major involvement in the decision.
Comes dangerously close to treason. And Trump is not even in office for another month.
2024 was a year where, once again, our political class failed to get close to addressing our substantial economic problems, indeed they aggravated them in an exceptionally poor budget after the election gave a chance of a fresh start.
I fear that in 2025 we will pay more of the consequences of this ineptitude with a modest recession, rising unemployment and virtually no growth at all. Sooner or later there is going to have to be a reset and it’s not going to be pleasant. We might keep things staggering on until 2026 unless Trump causes a crisis sooner than expected.
I’d be interested in what you consider a “reset” and what such a thing looks like. The fundamental problem remains we want European or even Scandinavian level public services on American levels of taxation.
Fifty years of propaganda telling us how lower personal taxation will be our economic salvation have got us the sum total of nowhere. Reeves would have been more economically honest had she raised basic rate tax to 25p and higher rate to 50p.
Even now, we hear on a regular basis about the “evils” of public spending and how we can fire anywhere between 50-90% of civil servants with no consequences. I’m not disputing there isn’t waste in the public sector but there’s no pot of gold at the end of that rainbow.
Musk fired 90% of the staff at X. Everyone said “it will implode”. Seems fine
On October 28, 2022, when Elon Musk completed his purchase of Twitter, the platform had approximately 257.8 million daily active users[1]
As of July 2024, X (formerly known as Twitter) has approximately 245 million daily active users[1] worldwide.
In short, it hasn't collapsed, but it has retrenched and no longer makes the rapid growth it did in its earlier years.
Some left liberals had left for bluesky yes as X is not echo chamber enough for them now with too many rightwingers arguing with them on the platform but the majority have remained.
Musk is also worth over $400 billion and can subsidise X indefinitely as a pet project, so it never needs to make a profit really, he can carry its losses
Indeed. Particularly as he's used it to buy a position in Government and, given Trump's presumed mental dropoff, an increasingly important one.
Musk looks increasingly like Trump's Cummings and equally sees himself as the brain behind the showman who will use him as long as he is useful but no longer
Surely he's not quite *that* dumb?
I mean, he did at least build up a successful business - all of Cummings' efforts were a fiasco.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
Tanks were finally breaking the deadlock of the trenches. And Germany was exhausted and lacking essential materials. I think by late 1917 the result was inevitable and the Americans simply sped up the process by making the inevitability obvious.
Ps it wasn’t me that made the original claim but I broadly agree with it.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
I would not be surprised if he was unsure of his motives, when he did the attack. it may well be lots of little things, minor grievances that built up to a scale that caused him to do this hideous act, rather than one big motivation. Failed relationships; lack of promotion at work; real or perceived casual racism; a hatred of something or someone.
It'd be interesting to know how much planning, if any, went into this act. Was it something he had considered for weeks or months, or something that came into his head in the days, hours or even minutes before the act?
(I've read that a fair few shooting suspects in the USA are initially vague or contradictory about their motivations.)
2024 was a year where, once again, our political class failed to get close to addressing our substantial economic problems, indeed they aggravated them in an exceptionally poor budget after the election gave a chance of a fresh start.
I fear that in 2025 we will pay more of the consequences of this ineptitude with a modest recession, rising unemployment and virtually no growth at all. Sooner or later there is going to have to be a reset and it’s not going to be pleasant. We might keep things staggering on until 2026 unless Trump causes a crisis sooner than expected.
I’d be interested in what you consider a “reset” and what such a thing looks like. The fundamental problem remains we want European or even Scandinavian level public services on American levels of taxation.
Fifty years of propaganda telling us how lower personal taxation will be our economic salvation have got us the sum total of nowhere. Reeves would have been more economically honest had she raised basic rate tax to 25p and higher rate to 50p.
Even now, we hear on a regular basis about the “evils” of public spending and how we can fire anywhere between 50-90% of civil servants with no consequences. I’m not disputing there isn’t waste in the public sector but there’s no pot of gold at the end of that rainbow.
Musk fired 90% of the staff at X. Everyone said “it will implode”. Seems fine
On October 28, 2022, when Elon Musk completed his purchase of Twitter, the platform had approximately 257.8 million daily active users[1]
As of July 2024, X (formerly known as Twitter) has approximately 245 million daily active users[1] worldwide.
In short, it hasn't collapsed, but it has retrenched and no longer makes the rapid growth it did in its earlier years.
Some left liberals had left for bluesky yes as X is not echo chamber enough for them now with too many rightwingers arguing with them on the platform but the majority have remained.
Musk is also worth over $400 billion and can subsidise X indefinitely as a pet project, so it never needs to make a profit really, he can carry its losses
Indeed. Particularly as he's used it to buy a position in Government and, given Trump's presumed mental dropoff, an increasingly important one.
Musk looks increasingly like Trump's Cummings and equally sees himself as the brain behind the showman who will use him as long as he is useful but no longer
2024 was a year where, once again, our political class failed to get close to addressing our substantial economic problems, indeed they aggravated them in an exceptionally poor budget after the election gave a chance of a fresh start.
I fear that in 2025 we will pay more of the consequences of this ineptitude with a modest recession, rising unemployment and virtually no growth at all. Sooner or later there is going to have to be a reset and it’s not going to be pleasant. We might keep things staggering on until 2026 unless Trump causes a crisis sooner than expected.
I’d be interested in what you consider a “reset” and what such a thing looks like. The fundamental problem remains we want European or even Scandinavian level public services on American levels of taxation.
Fifty years of propaganda telling us how lower personal taxation will be our economic salvation have got us the sum total of nowhere. Reeves would have been more economically honest had she raised basic rate tax to 25p and higher rate to 50p.
Even now, we hear on a regular basis about the “evils” of public spending and how we can fire anywhere between 50-90% of civil servants with no consequences. I’m not disputing there isn’t waste in the public sector but there’s no pot of gold at the end of that rainbow.
Musk fired 90% of the staff at X. Everyone said “it will implode”. Seems fine
On October 28, 2022, when Elon Musk completed his purchase of Twitter, the platform had approximately 257.8 million daily active users[1]
As of July 2024, X (formerly known as Twitter) has approximately 245 million daily active users[1] worldwide.
In short, it hasn't collapsed, but it has retrenched and no longer makes the rapid growth it did in its earlier years.
Some left liberals had left for bluesky yes as X is not echo chamber enough for them now with too many rightwingers arguing with them on the platform but the majority have remained.
Musk is also worth over $400 billion and can subsidise X indefinitely as a pet project, so it never needs to make a profit really, he can carry its losses
Indeed. Particularly as he's used it to buy a position in Government and, given Trump's presumed mental dropoff, an increasingly important one.
Musk looks increasingly like Trump's Cummings and equally sees himself as the brain behind the showman who will use him as long as he is useful but no longer
And look how well it worked out for Cummings.
Can't help but think that Johnson would have lasted a bit longer if Cummings hadn't been booted out.
They don't seem to realise that the one they passed is worse for the deficit.
One of the things removed was controls on tech transfer to China, which will suit Musk's plans for his Chinese operation.
Now there are reasonable (and a lot of unreasonable) arguments either way on that last point, but there's an enormous conflict of interest in his major involvement in the decision.
But that kind of stuff shouldn't be in a debt ceiling bill in the first place. It needs to be properly debated not just pushed through alongside a basically mandatory measure.
The various measures were debated at length before being placed in the original bill. They weren't a last minute arrangement; the killing of the bill was.
And note, this was brought to the floor by the GOP, not the Democrats, as the madder denizens of the Twitter crew seem to imagine.
They don't seem to realise that the one they passed is worse for the deficit.
One of the things removed was controls on tech transfer to China, which will suit Musk's plans for his Chinese operation.
Now there are reasonable (and a lot of unreasonable) arguments either way on that last point, but there's an enormous conflict of interest in his major involvement in the decision.
But that kind of stuff shouldn't be in a debt ceiling bill in the first place. It needs to be properly debated not just pushed through alongside a basically mandatory measure.
The whole debt ceiling and government shutdown mechanism is a complete farce anyway and they ought to get rid of it (but never will). It's just an opportunity for politicians to grandstand and play brinkmanship, with the spice that if they ever do screw up and go over the edge they'll do serious damage to their economy.
If you want to actually seriously tackle the deficit you need to do it when you pass the spending bills and the taxation bills.
A clean bill to abolish the debt ceiling (and nothing else) would have had the support of most Democrats. Note what Trump wanted was for it to be eliminated only for two years, so he can pass his unfunded tax cut.
2024 was a year where, once again, our political class failed to get close to addressing our substantial economic problems, indeed they aggravated them in an exceptionally poor budget after the election gave a chance of a fresh start.
I fear that in 2025 we will pay more of the consequences of this ineptitude with a modest recession, rising unemployment and virtually no growth at all. Sooner or later there is going to have to be a reset and it’s not going to be pleasant. We might keep things staggering on until 2026 unless Trump causes a crisis sooner than expected.
I’d be interested in what you consider a “reset” and what such a thing looks like. The fundamental problem remains we want European or even Scandinavian level public services on American levels of taxation.
Fifty years of propaganda telling us how lower personal taxation will be our economic salvation have got us the sum total of nowhere. Reeves would have been more economically honest had she raised basic rate tax to 25p and higher rate to 50p.
Even now, we hear on a regular basis about the “evils” of public spending and how we can fire anywhere between 50-90% of civil servants with no consequences. I’m not disputing there isn’t waste in the public sector but there’s no pot of gold at the end of that rainbow.
Musk fired 90% of the staff at X. Everyone said “it will implode”. Seems fine
On October 28, 2022, when Elon Musk completed his purchase of Twitter, the platform had approximately 257.8 million daily active users[1]
As of July 2024, X (formerly known as Twitter) has approximately 245 million daily active users[1] worldwide.
In short, it hasn't collapsed, but it has retrenched and no longer makes the rapid growth it did in its earlier years.
Some left liberals had left for bluesky yes as X is not echo chamber enough for them now with too many rightwingers arguing with them on the platform but the majority have remained.
Musk is also worth over $400 billion and can subsidise X indefinitely as a pet project, so it never needs to make a profit really, he can carry its losses
Indeed. Particularly as he's used it to buy a position in Government and, given Trump's presumed mental dropoff, an increasingly important one.
Musk looks increasingly like Trump's Cummings and equally sees himself as the brain behind the showman who will use him as long as he is useful but no longer
Strong echoes- both probably unelectable in themselves, inserting themselves as the brains to someone to lazy/gaga to run the show themselves.
Important difference, though. Once Cummings was forced out, he just became a nobody with a Substack- did anything ever become of his new party? If/when Musk his frozen out, he becomes a multisquillionaire with a huge media reach and an even bigger grudge.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
2024 was a year where, once again, our political class failed to get close to addressing our substantial economic problems, indeed they aggravated them in an exceptionally poor budget after the election gave a chance of a fresh start.
I fear that in 2025 we will pay more of the consequences of this ineptitude with a modest recession, rising unemployment and virtually no growth at all. Sooner or later there is going to have to be a reset and it’s not going to be pleasant. We might keep things staggering on until 2026 unless Trump causes a crisis sooner than expected.
I’d be interested in what you consider a “reset” and what such a thing looks like. The fundamental problem remains we want European or even Scandinavian level public services on American levels of taxation.
Fifty years of propaganda telling us how lower personal taxation will be our economic salvation have got us the sum total of nowhere. Reeves would have been more economically honest had she raised basic rate tax to 25p and higher rate to 50p.
Even now, we hear on a regular basis about the “evils” of public spending and how we can fire anywhere between 50-90% of civil servants with no consequences. I’m not disputing there isn’t waste in the public sector but there’s no pot of gold at the end of that rainbow.
Musk fired 90% of the staff at X. Everyone said “it will implode”. Seems fine
On October 28, 2022, when Elon Musk completed his purchase of Twitter, the platform had approximately 257.8 million daily active users[1]
As of July 2024, X (formerly known as Twitter) has approximately 245 million daily active users[1] worldwide.
In short, it hasn't collapsed, but it has retrenched and no longer makes the rapid growth it did in its earlier years.
Some left liberals had left for bluesky yes as X is not echo chamber enough for them now with too many rightwingers arguing with them on the platform but the majority have remained.
Musk is also worth over $400 billion and can subsidise X indefinitely as a pet project, so it never needs to make a profit really, he can carry its losses
Indeed. Particularly as he's used it to buy a position in Government and, given Trump's presumed mental dropoff, an increasingly important one.
Musk looks increasingly like Trump's Cummings and equally sees himself as the brain behind the showman who will use him as long as he is useful but no longer
Surely he's not quite *that* dumb?
I mean, he did at least build up a successful business - all of Cummings' efforts were a fiasco.
Successful business...? Built up on generous handouts from the government.....
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
Not my area of history, but AIUI: Germany was worn out by 1918. They had enough in them for the Spring Offensive, and although that gained a lot of territory, it did not break the Allies. It had been their last-ditch effort, and they had lost a million men in ?six? months. Germany was going to be defeated even if no US soldiers had turned up - though it may have taken longer. Then you had the Kiel Mutiny, which probably marked the end of German will to fight.
AIUI, many technical innovations in WW1 by either side was rapidly purloined by the other side. Aeroplane technology was one such example; with the Germans being particularly advanced early on, but the Allies catching up and exceeding them by war's end. Ditto, the evil gas warfare.
Tanks were an exception: the Allies (including the French) made thousands; Germany only made a handful - though they did use more captured Allied ones. But I don't think tanks 'won' the war, as the Spring Offensive showed it was still possible to gain large tracts of land without them.
What lost Germany WW! AIUI was economics and resources. The country was drained, financially and lacked men, food and material.
And that is what may lose Russia the war in Ukraine.
On Nina Power, that interview I mentioned is worth a listen. It works better than previous interviews I have heard from Freddie Sayers, as he gives her space to speak about her journey; there is certainly a metanoia. She was associated with Alfie Meadows, whom some may remember from the 2010 Student Demonstrations; Meadows received a 6 figure settlement from the Met in 2019.
They don't seem to realise that the one they passed is worse for the deficit.
One of the things removed was controls on tech transfer to China, which will suit Musk's plans for his Chinese operation.
Now there are reasonable (and a lot of unreasonable) arguments either way on that last point, but there's an enormous conflict of interest in his major involvement in the decision.
Comes dangerously close to treason. And Trump is not even in office for another month.
There are good and bad arguments over the China/tech issue.
What's undeniable is that Musk has an enormous conflict of interest on the issue. And having a non-government position, but great influence over the incoming administration, escapes any effective scrutiny.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
It's an interesting counterfactual to consider what the post-war world would have been like if the USA hadn't been at Versailles.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
It's an interesting counterfactual to consider what the post-war world would have been like if the USA hadn't been at Versailles.
It was the French who really screwed up Versailles, so it might have been even worse ?
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
Not my area of history, but AIUI: Germany was worn out by 1918. They had enough in them for the Spring Offensive, and although that gained a lot of territory, it did not break the Allies. It had been their last-ditch effort, and they had lost a million men in ?six? months. Germany was going to be defeated even if no US soldiers had turned up - though it may have taken longer. Then you had the Kiel Mutiny, which probably marked the end of German will to fight.
AIUI, many technical innovations in WW1 by either side was rapidly purloined by the other side. Aeroplane technology was one such example; with the Germans being particularly advanced early on, but the Allies catching up and exceeding them by war's end. Ditto, the evil gas warfare.
Tanks were an exception: the Allies (including the French) made thousands; Germany only made a handful - though they did use more captured Allied ones. But I don't think tanks 'won' the war, as the Spring Offensive showed it was still possible to gain large tracts of land without them.
What lost Germany WW! AIUI was economics and resources. The country was drained, financially and lacked men, food and material.
And that is what may lose Russia the war in Ukraine.
I think that what the tanks enabled was that the lines could be broken and advances made without as much horrific loss of casualties suffered at the Somme in 1916, or by Germany in the 1918 Spring Offensive.
That difference makes the offensive, and the war effort more generally, more sustainable, and this is the critical importance of technical innovation in the present Russo-Ukraine War. Russia, and now North Korea, are suffering staggering casualties with rudimentary infantry assaults. Ukraine is innovating to make drone assaults which would have minimal casualties on their own side.
This is also why the artillery shell shortage earlier this year - when Republicans shamefully blocked military story for Ukraine for months - was so important. The imbalance in artillery fire resulted in heavy Ukrainian casualties.
Incidentally, when it comes to WW1, one of Britain's first acts in 1914 might have been a massively important but subtle factor in winning the war. A few days after war started, we cut all but one of Germany's telegraph cables - and we controlled that one. This gave us a massive amount of intelligence: both through that cable, and through the fact we forced Germany to use easily-intercepted radio instead.
This led to the interception of the Zimmerman telegram, which was a major factor in the USA joining the war.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
It's an interesting counterfactual to consider what the post-war world would have been like if the USA hadn't been at Versailles.
It was the French who really screwed up Versailles, so it might have been even worse ?
Arguably Versailles wasn't tough enough on Germany so it was perceived as a humilation rather than an honourable defeat.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
That's a fair point.
Which could also be directed at your "I'm pretty sure that.." comment upthread.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
Rather than jumping to conclusions here and on twitter and where ever else, which can and does stimulate reactions, some of which can be quite serious eg riot, arson, murder, etc why not just wait for the facts to become clear and then one can be justifiably outraged at whatever is the cause, whether that be jihadi, fascist or whatever tenancies.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
Not my area of history, but AIUI: Germany was worn out by 1918. They had enough in them for the Spring Offensive, and although that gained a lot of territory, it did not break the Allies. It had been their last-ditch effort, and they had lost a million men in ?six? months. Germany was going to be defeated even if no US soldiers had turned up - though it may have taken longer. Then you had the Kiel Mutiny, which probably marked the end of German will to fight.
AIUI, many technical innovations in WW1 by either side was rapidly purloined by the other side. Aeroplane technology was one such example; with the Germans being particularly advanced early on, but the Allies catching up and exceeding them by war's end. Ditto, the evil gas warfare.
Tanks were an exception: the Allies (including the French) made thousands; Germany only made a handful - though they did use more captured Allied ones. But I don't think tanks 'won' the war, as the Spring Offensive showed it was still possible to gain large tracts of land without them.
What lost Germany WW! AIUI was economics and resources. The country was drained, financially and lacked men, food and material.
And that is what may lose Russia the war in Ukraine.
I think that what the tanks enabled was that the lines could be broken and advances made without as much horrific loss of casualties suffered at the Somme in 1916, or by Germany in the 1918 Spring Offensive.
(Snip)
Perhaps. But my *impression* was that whilst the Allies had lots of tanks, we had not got very good at actually utilising them, especially in conjunction with infantry. Though they did help in the 100 days campaign where the terrain allowed. Also, the Germans developed very good anti-tank weapons.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
Rather than jumping to conclusions here and on twitter and where ever else, which can and does stimulate reactions, some of which can be quite serious eg riot, arson, murder, etc why not just wait for the facts to become clear and then one can be justifiably outraged at whatever is the cause, whether that be jihadi, fascist or whatever tenancies.
At the end of the day it was a failure of the state to protect its citizens from inter-ethnic violence. Attributing an ideological motivation to it is a fool's game.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
Rather than jumping to conclusions here and on twitter and where ever else, which can and does stimulate reactions, some of which can be quite serious eg riot, arson, murder, etc why not just wait for the facts to become clear and then one can be justifiably outraged at whatever is the cause, whether that be jihadi, fascist or whatever tenancies.
At the end of the day it was a failure of the state to protect its citizens from inter-ethnic violence. Attributing an ideological motivation to it is a fool's game.
You don't know that. You are also jumping to conclusions. He could be a jihadist, he could be a right wing zealot or as in many cases in the past it could simply be someone will mental problems. However rushing to conclusions of either the first two often starts riots, arson and even murder.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
Rather than jumping to conclusions here and on twitter and where ever else, which can and does stimulate reactions, some of which can be quite serious eg riot, arson, murder, etc why not just wait for the facts to become clear and then one can be justifiably outraged at whatever is the cause, whether that be jihadi, fascist or whatever tenancies.
At the end of the day it was a failure of the state to protect its citizens from inter-ethnic violence. Attributing an ideological motivation to it is a fool's game.
You don't know that. You are also jumping to conclusions. He could be a jihadist, he could be a right wing zealot or as in many cases in the past it could simply be someone will mental problems. However rushing to conclusions of either the first two often starts riots, arson and even murder.
Yes I do know that, and so do you. You seem to be in denial.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
And new tactics from Australian and Canadian generals.
The First World War was odd in that it came almost from nowhere, and ended very quickly with the Hundred Days Offensive. It's the four years in between that were problematic.
The BBC produced two excellent dramadoc series, 37 Days (the countdown to war) and 100 Days (the victory) but neither is on iplayer at the moment.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
Not my area of history, but AIUI: Germany was worn out by 1918. They had enough in them for the Spring Offensive, and although that gained a lot of territory, it did not break the Allies. It had been their last-ditch effort, and they had lost a million men in ?six? months. Germany was going to be defeated even if no US soldiers had turned up - though it may have taken longer. Then you had the Kiel Mutiny, which probably marked the end of German will to fight.
AIUI, many technical innovations in WW1 by either side was rapidly purloined by the other side. Aeroplane technology was one such example; with the Germans being particularly advanced early on, but the Allies catching up and exceeding them by war's end. Ditto, the evil gas warfare.
Tanks were an exception: the Allies (including the French) made thousands; Germany only made a handful - though they did use more captured Allied ones. But I don't think tanks 'won' the war, as the Spring Offensive showed it was still possible to gain large tracts of land without them.
What lost Germany WW! AIUI was economics and resources. The country was drained, financially and lacked men, food and material.
And that is what may lose Russia the war in Ukraine.
I think that what the tanks enabled was that the lines could be broken and advances made without as much horrific loss of casualties suffered at the Somme in 1916, or by Germany in the 1918 Spring Offensive.
(Snip)
Perhaps. But my *impression* was that whilst the Allies had lots of tanks, we had not got very good at actually utilising them, especially in conjunction with infantry. Though they did help in the 100 days campaign where the terrain allowed. Also, the Germans developed very good anti-tank weapons.
It was more the combined arms approach of artillery, tanks, air support and infantry that did it.
Also the British and Imperial forces being the only ones left standing in 1918, with all the other nations armies in open mutiny.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
And new tactics from Australian and Canadian generals.
The First World War was odd in that it came almost from nowhere, and ended very quickly with the Hundred Days Offensive. It's the four years in between that were problematic.
The BBC produced two excellent dramadoc series, 37 Days (the countdown to war) and 100 Days (the victory) but neither is on iplayer at the moment.
Both show up on PBS from time to time, which comes on Freeview.
It feels odd that this **** is getting so much attention. Why does his act generate so much interest, when the USA suffers many mass shootings? There was one last week where three people were shot dead in Winsconsin. In September, 4 were killed in a shooting in Georgia.
Why have such high death tolls of people going about their everyday business become normalised if it involves guns in the USA ?
It's because it's unusual, plus it intersects what a lot of us are doing (i.e. Xmas shopping in Europe), so we can very easily think we might have been there.
But I do think that the press wallowing in murders must attract a certain type of exhibitionist to think hey, I could get all the front pages writing about me. Ideally newspapers should relegate crime reports to page 17, and those that didn't should notice a drop in sales.
It feels odd that this **** is getting so much attention. Why does his act generate so much interest, when the USA suffers many mass shootings? There was one last week where three people were shot dead in Winsconsin. In September, 4 were killed in a shooting in Georgia.
Why have such high death tolls of people going about their everyday business become normalised if it involves guns in the USA ?
It's because it's unusual, plus it intersects what a lot of us are doing (i.e. Xmas shopping in Europe), so we can very easily think we might have been there.
But I do think that the press wallowing in murders must attract a certain type of exhibitionist to think hey, I could get all the front pages writing about me. Ideally newspapers should relegate crime reports to page 17, and those that didn't should notice a drop in sales.
As we have gun control the American style shootings can't and don't routinely happen here, whereas this style of attack not only might we have been there, but could equally have been here.
American attacks happen and we are sad and wonder when America will do something about it.
This kind of attack happens and it's much less preventable, and much more likely to happen here.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
It's an interesting counterfactual to consider what the post-war world would have been like if the USA hadn't been at Versailles.
It was the French who really screwed up Versailles, so it might have been even worse ?
Arguably Versailles wasn't tough enough on Germany so it was perceived as a humilation rather than an honourable defeat.
No, that feeling was principally engendered because the war ended when the front line was still almost entirely in France and Belgium. So the Germans could feel that it was a political choice to lose the war, and not a military defeat.
This is why Pershing, in particular, was determined to advance as quickly as possible. Just like Boris Johnson with Russia in Ukraine, he thought that it was important for Germany to be seen to lose the war, as well as to actually lose it.
Arguably the armistice itself was the mistake, compared to WWII when the Allies insisted on an unconditional surrender by Germany.
Obviously the parallel with the Russo-Ukraine War is not exact, because Russia possesses nuclear weapons, and so no-one will be marching on Moscow. But I think that the principle that Russia has to lose the war, and be seen to lose the war, is still an important one in terms of deterring future aggression by Russia or any other authoritarian dictatorship.
Boris Johnson sometimes had a knack for seeing through to the essential nub of an issue in a way that few other British politicians in recent years have done. It's just such a shame he was such a lazy narcissist with a complete lack of moral judgement, and that he mostly made awful judgements about the advisors and allies he surrounded himself with in Number 10.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
And new tactics from Australian and Canadian generals.
The First World War was odd in that it came almost from nowhere, and ended very quickly with the Hundred Days Offensive. It's the four years in between that were problematic.
The BBC produced two excellent dramadoc series, 37 Days (the countdown to war) and 100 Days (the victory) but neither is on iplayer at the moment.
Both show up on PBS from time to time, which comes on Freeview.
Nobody has mentioned the Eastern Front. Austria-Hungary lost badly. And it cost Russian royals their lives and led to soviet revolution.
They don't seem to realise that the one they passed is worse for the deficit.
One of the things removed was controls on tech transfer to China, which will suit Musk's plans for his Chinese operation.
Now there are reasonable (and a lot of unreasonable) arguments either way on that last point, but there's an enormous conflict of interest in his major involvement in the decision.
Comes dangerously close to treason. And Trump is not even in office for another month.
There are good and bad arguments over the China/tech issue.
What's undeniable is that Musk has an enormous conflict of interest on the issue. And having a non-government position, but great influence over the incoming administration, escapes any effective scrutiny.
Never mind Musk's conflict of interest, what may be more important are his policy differences with Vance and especially with President Trump who has had only one subject on which he has spoken consistently for at least three decades, and that is China.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
Not my area of history, but AIUI: Germany was worn out by 1918. They had enough in them for the Spring Offensive, and although that gained a lot of territory, it did not break the Allies. It had been their last-ditch effort, and they had lost a million men in ?six? months. Germany was going to be defeated even if no US soldiers had turned up - though it may have taken longer. Then you had the Kiel Mutiny, which probably marked the end of German will to fight.
AIUI, many technical innovations in WW1 by either side was rapidly purloined by the other side. Aeroplane technology was one such example; with the Germans being particularly advanced early on, but the Allies catching up and exceeding them by war's end. Ditto, the evil gas warfare.
Tanks were an exception: the Allies (including the French) made thousands; Germany only made a handful - though they did use more captured Allied ones. But I don't think tanks 'won' the war, as the Spring Offensive showed it was still possible to gain large tracts of land without them.
What lost Germany WW! AIUI was economics and resources. The country was drained, financially and lacked men, food and material.
And that is what may lose Russia the war in Ukraine.
I think that what the tanks enabled was that the lines could be broken and advances made without as much horrific loss of casualties suffered at the Somme in 1916, or by Germany in the 1918 Spring Offensive.
(Snip)
Perhaps. But my *impression* was that whilst the Allies had lots of tanks, we had not got very good at actually utilising them, especially in conjunction with infantry. Though they did help in the 100 days campaign where the terrain allowed. Also, the Germans developed very good anti-tank weapons.
I am perhaps allowing myself to be over influenced by the revisionist Corrigan, and his book, Mud, Blood and Poppycock, that was recommended on PB.com, about seven or eight years ago.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
And new tactics from Australian and Canadian generals.
The First World War was odd in that it came almost from nowhere, and ended very quickly with the Hundred Days Offensive. It's the four years in between that were problematic.
The BBC produced two excellent dramadoc series, 37 Days (the countdown to war) and 100 Days (the victory) but neither is on iplayer at the moment.
Both show up on PBS from time to time, which comes on Freeview.
Nobody has mentioned the Eastern Front. Austria-Hungary lost badly. And it cost Russian royals their lives and led to soviet revolution.
A couple of years ago I watched a YouTube series on WW1. It surprised me quite how much of the war was away from the Western Front. Yes, I knew about Russia, and the Dardanelles, and Lawrence of Arabia; but I was unaware quite how much of the war was in those and other campaigns. They were far from being minor parts in the war, which is how I think many people think of them compared to the Western Front.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Indeed. The historical social media posts from the guy allegedly responsible for this appalling incident bear a lot of resemblance to those made here by a certain longstanding PB’er. Which should be food for thought for us all, and direct us all to wait until we have more factual information.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
It's an interesting counterfactual to consider what the post-war world would have been like if the USA hadn't been at Versailles.
It was the French who really screwed up Versailles, so it might have been even worse ?
Arguably Versailles wasn't tough enough on Germany so it was perceived as a humilation rather than an honourable defeat.
No, that feeling was principally engendered because the war ended when the front line was still almost entirely in France and Belgium. So the Germans could feel that it was a political choice to lose the war, and not a military defeat.
This is why Pershing, in particular, was determined to advance as quickly as possible. Just like Boris Johnson with Russia in Ukraine, he thought that it was important for Germany to be seen to lose the war, as well as to actually lose it.
Arguably the armistice itself was the mistake, compared to WWII when the Allies insisted on an unconditional surrender by Germany.
Obviously the parallel with the Russo-Ukraine War is not exact, because Russia possesses nuclear weapons, and so no-one will be marching on Moscow. But I think that the principle that Russia has to lose the war, and be seen to lose the war, is still an important one in terms of deterring future aggression by Russia or any other authoritarian dictatorship.
Boris Johnson sometimes had a knack for seeing through to the essential nub of an issue in a way that few other British politicians in recent years have done. It's just such a shame he was such a lazy narcissist with a complete lack of moral judgement, and that he mostly made awful judgements about the advisors and allies he surrounded himself with in Number 10.
Yes, that's really what I was getting at. The way WW1 ended was influenced by Wilsonian ideas when maybe what was needed was something more like the total defeat of Germany.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
Not my area of history, but AIUI: Germany was worn out by 1918. They had enough in them for the Spring Offensive, and although that gained a lot of territory, it did not break the Allies. It had been their last-ditch effort, and they had lost a million men in ?six? months. Germany was going to be defeated even if no US soldiers had turned up - though it may have taken longer. Then you had the Kiel Mutiny, which probably marked the end of German will to fight.
AIUI, many technical innovations in WW1 by either side was rapidly purloined by the other side. Aeroplane technology was one such example; with the Germans being particularly advanced early on, but the Allies catching up and exceeding them by war's end. Ditto, the evil gas warfare.
Tanks were an exception: the Allies (including the French) made thousands; Germany only made a handful - though they did use more captured Allied ones. But I don't think tanks 'won' the war, as the Spring Offensive showed it was still possible to gain large tracts of land without them.
What lost Germany WW! AIUI was economics and resources. The country was drained, financially and lacked men, food and material.
And that is what may lose Russia the war in Ukraine.
I think that what the tanks enabled was that the lines could be broken and advances made without as much horrific loss of casualties suffered at the Somme in 1916, or by Germany in the 1918 Spring Offensive.
(Snip)
Perhaps. But my *impression* was that whilst the Allies had lots of tanks, we had not got very good at actually utilising them, especially in conjunction with infantry. Though they did help in the 100 days campaign where the terrain allowed. Also, the Germans developed very good anti-tank weapons.
I am perhaps allowing myself to be over influenced by the revisionist Corrigan, and his book, Mud, Blood and Poppycock, that was recommended on PB.com, about seven or eight years ago.
Perhaps, or perhaps you're right. But I do think people underestimate quite how devastated Germany was. Even if the fronts had remained where they were; how long could Germany have fought on? I doubt much in 1919 without something giving at home. And the German leaders were terrified by what had happened (and was happening) in Russia - even though they had played a large hand in that.
Probably not a bad thing - he was certainly competent. It is a skill all the front bench need and the short timescale means there is no danger of overthinking it. Also the person doing it will be less of a known quantity for the DPM's advisors.
I do remember at school in pretend debating there were some who were so bad at it that they really didn't know when they had lost the argument. Also I remember we once had a member of the public in a planning meeting I was chairing who was the same. Really hard to explain to them why their crap argument has not produced the success they expected because they don't have the capacity to understand.
Keir Starmer is a trained barrister and yet he comes out with tosh that would have made all the above blush in their ignorance. So, everyone assumes he can't mean that, he can't be that stupid, it is just an act. But no, he can't act so he really must be that stupid. Pity the person who has to try to explain that to him. Hard as it is to believe I think he really is as stupid as he appears.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Indeed. The historical social media posts from the guy allegedly responsible for this appalling incident bear a lot of resemblance to those made here by a certain longstanding PB’er. Which should be food for thought for us all, and direct us all to wait until we have more factual information.
An example of one of his social media posts is below. You think there is a resemblance to someone posting on PB?
I assure you that if Germany wants a war, we will fight it. If Germany wants to kill us, we will slaughter them, die, or go to prison with pride. Because we have exhausted all peaceful means and all we have received from the police, state security, the prosecution, the judiciary, and the (Federal) Ministry of the Interior is more crimes against us. Peace is of no use with them.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
Rather than jumping to conclusions here and on twitter and where ever else, which can and does stimulate reactions, some of which can be quite serious eg riot, arson, murder, etc why not just wait for the facts to become clear and then one can be justifiably outraged at whatever is the cause, whether that be jihadi, fascist or whatever tenancies.
At the end of the day it was a failure of the state to protect its citizens from inter-ethnic violence. Attributing an ideological motivation to it is a fool's game.
You don't know that. You are also jumping to conclusions. He could be a jihadist, he could be a right wing zealot or as in many cases in the past it could simply be someone will mental problems. However rushing to conclusions of either the first two often starts riots, arson and even murder.
Yes I do know that, and so do you. You seem to be in denial.
In the very unlikely event I am ever tried for something I hope to god you are not on the jury. I like to rely on facts and not internet trolls.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
Tanks were finally breaking the deadlock of the trenches. And Germany was exhausted and lacking essential materials. I think by late 1917 the result was inevitable and the Americans simply sped up the process by making the inevitability obvious.
Ps it wasn’t me that made the original claim but I broadly agree with it.
Michael was a last gamble. Followed by the Hundred Days. Which convinced the German High Command there was no way to stop the Allied advance before Berlin.
The American arrival was as much about morale - the existing Allies forces had beaten the Germans, pretty much. Michael was launched to see if there was any way to get a better deal/stalemate before the bulk of the American forces were brought into play.
2024 was a year where, once again, our political class failed to get close to addressing our substantial economic problems, indeed they aggravated them in an exceptionally poor budget after the election gave a chance of a fresh start.
I fear that in 2025 we will pay more of the consequences of this ineptitude with a modest recession, rising unemployment and virtually no growth at all. Sooner or later there is going to have to be a reset and it’s not going to be pleasant. We might keep things staggering on until 2026 unless Trump causes a crisis sooner than expected.
I’d be interested in what you consider a “reset” and what such a thing looks like. The fundamental problem remains we want European or even Scandinavian level public services on American levels of taxation.
Fifty years of propaganda telling us how lower personal taxation will be our economic salvation have got us the sum total of nowhere. Reeves would have been more economically honest had she raised basic rate tax to 25p and higher rate to 50p.
Even now, we hear on a regular basis about the “evils” of public spending and how we can fire anywhere between 50-90% of civil servants with no consequences. I’m not disputing there isn’t waste in the public sector but there’s no pot of gold at the end of that rainbow.
Musk fired 90% of the staff at X. Everyone said “it will implode”. Seems fine
On October 28, 2022, when Elon Musk completed his purchase of Twitter, the platform had approximately 257.8 million daily active users[1]
As of July 2024, X (formerly known as Twitter) has approximately 245 million daily active users[1] worldwide.
In short, it hasn't collapsed, but it has retrenched and no longer makes the rapid growth it did in its earlier years.
Some left liberals had left for bluesky yes as X is not echo chamber enough for them now with too many rightwingers arguing with them on the platform but the majority have remained.
Musk is also worth over $400 billion and can subsidise X indefinitely as a pet project, so it never needs to make a profit really, he can carry its losses
Indeed. Particularly as he's used it to buy a position in Government and, given Trump's presumed mental dropoff, an increasingly important one.
Musk looks increasingly like Trump's Cummings and equally sees himself as the brain behind the showman who will use him as long as he is useful but no longer
And look how well it worked out for Cummings.
So you mean Musk will go back to being the Left's darling in a few years?
ww1 -- an interesting counterfactual is that if it were not for the classic war problem of supply chains becoming overextended, Germany might have won the war right at the start. It quickly saw off a Russian invasion and swept through France despite French and British soldiers in their way, but then had to stop because they ran out of food and ammunition.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
Rather than jumping to conclusions here and on twitter and where ever else, which can and does stimulate reactions, some of which can be quite serious eg riot, arson, murder, etc why not just wait for the facts to become clear and then one can be justifiably outraged at whatever is the cause, whether that be jihadi, fascist or whatever tenancies.
At the end of the day it was a failure of the state to protect its citizens from inter-ethnic violence. Attributing an ideological motivation to it is a fool's game.
You don't know that. You are also jumping to conclusions. He could be a jihadist, he could be a right wing zealot or as in many cases in the past it could simply be someone will mental problems. However rushing to conclusions of either the first two often starts riots, arson and even murder.
Yes I do know that, and so do you. You seem to be in denial.
In the very unlikely event I am ever tried for something I hope to god you are not on the jury. I like to rely on facts and not internet trolls.
My comment was that the state had failed to protect its citizens from inter-ethnic violence and that attributing an ideological motivation to it is a fool's game. It's a fact that an act of inter-ethnic violence occured and it's a fact that the state failed to prevent it.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Indeed. The historical social media posts from the guy allegedly responsible for this appalling incident bear a lot of resemblance to those made here by a certain longstanding PB’er. Which should be food for thought for us all, and direct us all to wait until we have more factual information.
An example of one of his social media posts is below. You think there is a resemblance to someone posting on PB?
I assure you that if Germany wants a war, we will fight it. If Germany wants to kill us, we will slaughter them, die, or go to prison with pride. Because we have exhausted all peaceful means and all we have received from the police, state security, the prosecution, the judiciary, and the (Federal) Ministry of the Interior is more crimes against us. Peace is of no use with them.
Replace “Germany” with “the UK”, and run a poll here as to whom on PB, had that been posted here, would have been its most likely poster, and I think you will have your answer.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
It's an interesting counterfactual to consider what the post-war world would have been like if the USA hadn't been at Versailles.
It was the French who really screwed up Versailles, so it might have been even worse ?
Arguably Versailles wasn't tough enough on Germany so it was perceived as a humilation rather than an honourable defeat.
No, that feeling was principally engendered because the war ended when the front line was still almost entirely in France and Belgium. So the Germans could feel that it was a political choice to lose the war, and not a military defeat.
This is why Pershing, in particular, was determined to advance as quickly as possible. Just like Boris Johnson with Russia in Ukraine, he thought that it was important for Germany to be seen to lose the war, as well as to actually lose it.
Arguably the armistice itself was the mistake, compared to WWII when the Allies insisted on an unconditional surrender by Germany.
Obviously the parallel with the Russo-Ukraine War is not exact, because Russia possesses nuclear weapons, and so no-one will be marching on Moscow. But I think that the principle that Russia has to lose the war, and be seen to lose the war, is still an important one in terms of deterring future aggression by Russia or any other authoritarian dictatorship.
Boris Johnson sometimes had a knack for seeing through to the essential nub of an issue in a way that few other British politicians in recent years have done. It's just such a shame he was such a lazy narcissist with a complete lack of moral judgement, and that he mostly made awful judgements about the advisors and allies he surrounded himself with in Number 10.
The German High Command were desperate to ensue war before the Allies entered Germany, in WWI. They thought enemies on German soil would break the myth that held the German State together. Well, their (the German High Command’s) version of it..,
ww1 -- an interesting counterfactual is that if it were not for the classic war problem of supply chains becoming overextended, Germany might have won the war right at the start. It quickly saw off a Russian invasion and swept through France despite French and British soldiers in their way, but then had to stop because they ran out of food and ammunition.
But, that was a problem that ought to have been anticipated by Germany's military planners.
Also critical was the fact that although the Russians were defeated in East Prussia, they achieved a major breakthrough in Galicia.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
And new tactics from Australian and Canadian generals.
The First World War was odd in that it came almost from nowhere, and ended very quickly with the Hundred Days Offensive. It's the four years in between that were problematic.
The BBC produced two excellent dramadoc series, 37 Days (the countdown to war) and 100 Days (the victory) but neither is on iplayer at the moment.
Both show up on PBS from time to time, which comes on Freeview.
Nobody has mentioned the Eastern Front. Austria-Hungary lost badly. And it cost Russian royals their lives and led to soviet revolution.
A couple of years ago I watched a YouTube series on WW1. It surprised me quite how much of the war was away from the Western Front. Yes, I knew about Russia, and the Dardanelles, and Lawrence of Arabia; but I was unaware quite how much of the war was in those and other campaigns. They were far from being minor parts in the war, which is how I think many people think of them compared to the Western Front.
Nick Lloyd's 'Eastern Front' is a masterpiece if anyone wants to know more.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
Not my area of history, but AIUI: Germany was worn out by 1918. They had enough in them for the Spring Offensive, and although that gained a lot of territory, it did not break the Allies. It had been their last-ditch effort, and they had lost a million men in ?six? months. Germany was going to be defeated even if no US soldiers had turned up - though it may have taken longer. Then you had the Kiel Mutiny, which probably marked the end of German will to fight.
AIUI, many technical innovations in WW1 by either side was rapidly purloined by the other side. Aeroplane technology was one such example; with the Germans being particularly advanced early on, but the Allies catching up and exceeding them by war's end. Ditto, the evil gas warfare.
Tanks were an exception: the Allies (including the French) made thousands; Germany only made a handful - though they did use more captured Allied ones. But I don't think tanks 'won' the war, as the Spring Offensive showed it was still possible to gain large tracts of land without them.
What lost Germany WW! AIUI was economics and resources. The country was drained, financially and lacked men, food and material.
And that is what may lose Russia the war in Ukraine.
I think that what the tanks enabled was that the lines could be broken and advances made without as much horrific loss of casualties suffered at the Somme in 1916, or by Germany in the 1918 Spring Offensive.
(Snip)
Perhaps. But my *impression* was that whilst the Allies had lots of tanks, we had not got very good at actually utilising them, especially in conjunction with infantry. Though they did help in the 100 days campaign where the terrain allowed. Also, the Germans developed very good anti-tank weapons.
I am perhaps allowing myself to be over influenced by the revisionist Corrigan, and his book, Mud, Blood and Poppycock, that was recommended on PB.com, about seven or eight years ago.
Perhaps, or perhaps you're right. But I do think people underestimate quite how devastated Germany was. Even if the fronts had remained where they were; how long could Germany have fought on? I doubt much in 1919 without something giving at home. And the German leaders were terrified by what had happened (and was happening) in Russia - even though they had played a large hand in that.
The "Turnip Winter" of 1917/18 was dreadful for Germany. The High Command were well aware that the German people would not tolerate another winter like that.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
That's a fair point.
Which could also be directed at your "I'm pretty sure that.." comment upthread.
No, because we have clear evidence from an informed source that he was on the run from Saudi criminal charges and “strategically” became an apostate. However this is still not certain, hence my “pretty sure”
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Indeed. The historical social media posts from the guy allegedly responsible for this appalling incident bear a lot of resemblance to those made here by a certain longstanding PB’er. Which should be food for thought for us all, and direct us all to wait until we have more factual information.
An example of one of his social media posts is below. You think there is a resemblance to someone posting on PB?
I assure you that if Germany wants a war, we will fight it. If Germany wants to kill us, we will slaughter them, die, or go to prison with pride. Because we have exhausted all peaceful means and all we have received from the police, state security, the prosecution, the judiciary, and the (Federal) Ministry of the Interior is more crimes against us. Peace is of no use with them.
Replace “Germany” with “the UK”, and run a poll here as to whom on PB, had that been posted here, would have been its most likely poster, and I think you will have your answer.
That's a bit of a stretch. I don't know why you have such an issue with the poster in question.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
Tanks were finally breaking the deadlock of the trenches. And Germany was exhausted and lacking essential materials. I think by late 1917 the result was inevitable and the Americans simply sped up the process by making the inevitability obvious.
Ps it wasn’t me that made the original claim but I broadly agree with it.
Michael was a last gamble. Followed by the Hundred Days. Which convinced the German High Command there was no way to stop the Allied advance before Berlin.
The American arrival was as much about morale - the existing Allies forces had beaten the Germans, pretty much. Michael was launched to see if there was any way to get a better deal/stalemate before the bulk of the American forces were brought into play.
It is interesting to reflect that Haig told the War Cabinet in January 1918 both that:
1) Germany's economy and society was in such a state it was unlikely they could continue the war beyond October 1918;
2) That although there could be a German offensive in the spring, he thought it unlikely because 'if it failed, their position would be critical.'
These were both correct, and yet are in practice contradictory. Operation Michael did happen, and fail, and that led to the collapse of the German war effort. Yet at the same time, Haig was suggesting they would perhaps have been forced to stop fighting even earlier but for its failure.
Perhaps he was thinking in terms of a negotiated, rather than imposed, peace with the former, but it seems rather out of character.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
Rather than jumping to conclusions here and on twitter and where ever else, which can and does stimulate reactions, some of which can be quite serious eg riot, arson, murder, etc why not just wait for the facts to become clear and then one can be justifiably outraged at whatever is the cause, whether that be jihadi, fascist or whatever tenancies.
At the end of the day it was a failure of the state to protect its citizens from inter-ethnic violence. Attributing an ideological motivation to it is a fool's game.
You don't know that. You are also jumping to conclusions. He could be a jihadist, he could be a right wing zealot or as in many cases in the past it could simply be someone will mental problems. However rushing to conclusions of either the first two often starts riots, arson and even murder.
Yes I do know that, and so do you. You seem to be in denial.
In the very unlikely event I am ever tried for something I hope to god you are not on the jury. I like to rely on facts and not internet trolls.
My comment was that the state had failed to protect its citizens from inter-ethnic violence and that attributing an ideological motivation to it is a fool's game. It's a fact that an act of inter-ethnic violence occured and it's a fact that the state failed to prevent it.
Again you can't know that. It might well be so. It only happened yesterday and you are just reading posts from people you have no idea you can rely on. The guy clearly has a conflicting background and actions. How do you know he isn't schizophrenic or suffering from some other mental issues?
You just don't know, yet we tolerate people stirring up potential racist violence who don't have the facts. Why can't people wait for the facts.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
Rather than jumping to conclusions here and on twitter and where ever else, which can and does stimulate reactions, some of which can be quite serious eg riot, arson, murder, etc why not just wait for the facts to become clear and then one can be justifiably outraged at whatever is the cause, whether that be jihadi, fascist or whatever tenancies.
At the end of the day it was a failure of the state to protect its citizens from inter-ethnic violence. Attributing an ideological motivation to it is a fool's game.
You don't know that. You are also jumping to conclusions. He could be a jihadist, he could be a right wing zealot or as in many cases in the past it could simply be someone will mental problems. However rushing to conclusions of either the first two often starts riots, arson and even murder.
Yes I do know that, and so do you. You seem to be in denial.
In the very unlikely event I am ever tried for something I hope to god you are not on the jury. I like to rely on facts and not internet trolls.
My comment was that the state had failed to protect its citizens from inter-ethnic violence and that attributing an ideological motivation to it is a fool's game. It's a fact that an act of inter-ethnic violence occured and it's a fact that the state failed to prevent it.
Again you can't know that. It might well be so. It only happened yesterday and you are just reading posts from people you have no idea you can rely on. The guy clearly has a conflicting background and actions. How do you know he isn't schizophrenic or suffering from some other mental issues?
You just don't know, yet we tolerate people stirring up potential racist violence who don't have the facts. Why can't people wait for the facts.
The only way in which it could not be true is if they've apprehended the wrong man, which seems highly unlikely. For whatever reason, this person developed a murderous rage against Germans - whether this was islamism, anti-islamism or mental issues doesn't change this fact. It also doesn't change the fact that the authorities were aware of it and failed to act.
ww1 -- an interesting counterfactual is that if it were not for the classic war problem of supply chains becoming overextended, Germany might have won the war right at the start. It quickly saw off a Russian invasion and swept through France despite French and British soldiers in their way, but then had to stop because they ran out of food and ammunition.
But, that was a problem that ought to have been anticipated by Germany's military planners.
Also critical was the fact that although the Russians were defeated in East Prussia, they achieved a major breakthrough in Galicia.
The Allies had a similar foreseeable but apparently unforeseen problem after D-Day. The RAF, USAF and French Resistance had systematically destroyed the railways, which of course meant they could not be used to ferry supplies from Normandy to the advancing front line. More convenient French and Belgian ports had yet to be liberated.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
That's a fair point.
Which could also be directed at your "I'm pretty sure that.." comment upthread.
No, because we have clear evidence from an informed source that he was on the run from Saudi criminal charges and “strategically” became an apostate. However this is still not certain, hence my “pretty sure”
Next
And @Northern_Al said 'reasonably clear' and 'unlikely' and 'apparent'. All equally not quite as definite as 'KNOW' which you accused @Northern_Al saying incorrectly and all pretty equivalent as a level of certainty as 'pretty sure'.
Bit of pot and kettle there as you exagerate @Northern_Al words.
How about if I quote your 'pretty sure' as 'KNOW' as you did to @Northern_Al.
Honestly for someone with such a command of the English language and a huge IQ this is pretty poor.
How many Americans are the Republican Party going to kill?
Interesting bit in that, showing the bias that calls the entire article into question:
The statement said that the flu vaccine can reduce illness severity and therefore may help high-risk patients — but falsely claimed "the flu vaccine does not prevent one from getting the influenza virus." According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the vaccine reduces the risk of getting the flu.
What on earth is the word "falsely" doing there? Something which reduces but does not eliminate the risk of X cannot fairly be said to prevent X.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
And new tactics from Australian and Canadian generals.
The First World War was odd in that it came almost from nowhere, and ended very quickly with the Hundred Days Offensive. It's the four years in between that were problematic.
The BBC produced two excellent dramadoc series, 37 Days (the countdown to war) and 100 Days (the victory) but neither is on iplayer at the moment.
Both show up on PBS from time to time, which comes on Freeview.
Nobody has mentioned the Eastern Front. Austria-Hungary lost badly. And it cost Russian royals their lives and led to soviet revolution.
A couple of years ago I watched a YouTube series on WW1. It surprised me quite how much of the war was away from the Western Front. Yes, I knew about Russia, and the Dardanelles, and Lawrence of Arabia; but I was unaware quite how much of the war was in those and other campaigns. They were far from being minor parts in the war, which is how I think many people think of them compared to the Western Front.
The experience of the Italians fighting the Austrians in the mountains of Veneto and what is now Slovenia was objectively worse than the tales from the trenches, with which we are all so familiar. Yet go mostly unremarked by popular history. The reasons why Italy became the first fascist country derive from its terrible experience during WW1.
By way of partial relief for what is a very grim period of history, here’s the dog in the remains of a shallow trench that was eked out by Italian troops during WW1 in the frozen mountains above the Soca valley, taken in summer. In the region of Livek, where there is excellent and very scenic hiking. And where, back then and incidentally, a young German junior officer named Rommel first made his name.
ww1 -- an interesting counterfactual is that if it were not for the classic war problem of supply chains becoming overextended, Germany might have won the war right at the start. It quickly saw off a Russian invasion and swept through France despite French and British soldiers in their way, but then had to stop because they ran out of food and ammunition.
But, that was a problem that ought to have been anticipated by Germany's military planners.
Also critical was the fact that although the Russians were defeated in East Prussia, they achieved a major breakthrough in Galicia.
The Allies had a similar foreseeable but apparently unforeseen problem after D-Day. The RAF, USAF and French Resistance had systematically destroyed the railways, which of course meant they could not be used to ferry supplies from Normandy to the advancing front line. More convenient French and Belgian ports had yet to be liberated.
It's an almost insoluble problem in war, particularly when you gain a lot of momentum. A lot of people will look at map and say, why couldn't the Soviets drive for Eastern Germany, after Operation Bagration? Their supply situation made it impossible.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
And new tactics from Australian and Canadian generals.
The First World War was odd in that it came almost from nowhere, and ended very quickly with the Hundred Days Offensive. It's the four years in between that were problematic.
The BBC produced two excellent dramadoc series, 37 Days (the countdown to war) and 100 Days (the victory) but neither is on iplayer at the moment.
Both show up on PBS from time to time, which comes on Freeview.
Nobody has mentioned the Eastern Front. Austria-Hungary lost badly. And it cost Russian royals their lives and led to soviet revolution.
A couple of years ago I watched a YouTube series on WW1. It surprised me quite how much of the war was away from the Western Front. Yes, I knew about Russia, and the Dardanelles, and Lawrence of Arabia; but I was unaware quite how much of the war was in those and other campaigns. They were far from being minor parts in the war, which is how I think many people think of them compared to the Western Front.
The experience of the Italians fighting the Austrians in the mountains of Veneto and what is now Slovenia was objectively worse than the tales from the trenches, with which we are all so familiar. Yet go mostly unremarked by popular history. The reason why Italy became the first fascist country derive from its terrible experience during WW1.
By way of partial relief for what is a very grim period of history, here’s the dog in the remains of a shallow trench that was eked out by Italian troops during WW1 in the frozen mountains above the Soca valley, taken in summer. Where, incidentally, a young German named Rommel first made his name.
Marshal Luigi Cardorna, who sent Italian soldiers to their deaths, in their tens of thousands, at the Isonzo, was a monster, who honestly ought to have been shot for his callous incompetence.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
And new tactics from Australian and Canadian generals.
The First World War was odd in that it came almost from nowhere, and ended very quickly with the Hundred Days Offensive. It's the four years in between that were problematic.
The BBC produced two excellent dramadoc series, 37 Days (the countdown to war) and 100 Days (the victory) but neither is on iplayer at the moment.
Both show up on PBS from time to time, which comes on Freeview.
Nobody has mentioned the Eastern Front. Austria-Hungary lost badly. And it cost Russian royals their lives and led to soviet revolution.
A couple of years ago I watched a YouTube series on WW1. It surprised me quite how much of the war was away from the Western Front. Yes, I knew about Russia, and the Dardanelles, and Lawrence of Arabia; but I was unaware quite how much of the war was in those and other campaigns. They were far from being minor parts in the war, which is how I think many people think of them compared to the Western Front.
The experience of the Italians fighting the Austrians in the mountains of Veneto and what is now Slovenia was objectively worse than the tales from the trenches, with which we are all so familiar. Yet go mostly unremarked by popular history. The reason why Italy became the first fascist country derive from its terrible experience during WW1.
By way of partial relief for what is a very grim period of history, here’s the dog in the remains of a shallow trench that was eked out by Italian troops during WW1 in the frozen mountains above the Soca valley, taken in summer. Where, incidentally, a young German named Rommel first made his name.
Marshal Luigi Cardorna, who sent Italian soldiers to their deaths, in their tens of thousands, at the Isonzo, was a monster, who honestly ought to have been shot for his callous incompetence.
Reading about the mountain war in the Alps is also terrifying. Even - especially - today, with glacier recession, bodies are emerging from the ice up there.
“Only the AfD can save Germany,” the billionaire X owner wrote on the platform on Friday in the latest of a series of endorsements of European far-right parties.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
That's a fair point.
Which could also be directed at your "I'm pretty sure that.." comment upthread.
No, because we have clear evidence from an informed source that he was on the run from Saudi criminal charges and “strategically” became an apostate. However this is still not certain, hence my “pretty sure”
Next
And @Northern_Al said 'reasonably clear' and 'unlikely' and 'apparent'. All equally not quite as definite as 'KNOW' which you accused @Northern_Al saying incorrectly and all pretty equivalent as a level of certainty as 'pretty sure'.
Bit of pot and kettle there as you exagerate @Northern_Al words.
How about if I quote your 'pretty sure' as 'KNOW' as you did to @Northern_Al.
Honestly for someone with such a command of the English language and a huge IQ this is pretty poor.
At least PB - after a painful, attenuated period of embarrasingly futile denial - is now acknowledging that I have a "huge IQ"
On a somewhat depressing day, that - I guess - is progress
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
And new tactics from Australian and Canadian generals.
The First World War was odd in that it came almost from nowhere, and ended very quickly with the Hundred Days Offensive. It's the four years in between that were problematic.
The BBC produced two excellent dramadoc series, 37 Days (the countdown to war) and 100 Days (the victory) but neither is on iplayer at the moment.
Both show up on PBS from time to time, which comes on Freeview.
Nobody has mentioned the Eastern Front. Austria-Hungary lost badly. And it cost Russian royals their lives and led to soviet revolution.
A couple of years ago I watched a YouTube series on WW1. It surprised me quite how much of the war was away from the Western Front. Yes, I knew about Russia, and the Dardanelles, and Lawrence of Arabia; but I was unaware quite how much of the war was in those and other campaigns. They were far from being minor parts in the war, which is how I think many people think of them compared to the Western Front.
The experience of the Italians fighting the Austrians in the mountains of Veneto and what is now Slovenia was objectively worse than the tales from the trenches, with which we are all so familiar. Yet go mostly unremarked by popular history. The reason why Italy became the first fascist country derive from its terrible experience during WW1.
By way of partial relief for what is a very grim period of history, here’s the dog in the remains of a shallow trench that was eked out by Italian troops during WW1 in the frozen mountains above the Soca valley, taken in summer. Where, incidentally, a young German named Rommel first made his name.
Marshal Luigi Cardorna, who sent Italian soldiers to their deaths, in their tens of thousands, at the Isonzo, was a monster, who honestly ought to have been shot for his callous incompetence.
For sure. But accompanied by counterparts from the other combatant nations, including our own.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
And new tactics from Australian and Canadian generals.
The First World War was odd in that it came almost from nowhere, and ended very quickly with the Hundred Days Offensive. It's the four years in between that were problematic.
The BBC produced two excellent dramadoc series, 37 Days (the countdown to war) and 100 Days (the victory) but neither is on iplayer at the moment.
Both show up on PBS from time to time, which comes on Freeview.
Nobody has mentioned the Eastern Front. Austria-Hungary lost badly. And it cost Russian royals their lives and led to soviet revolution.
A couple of years ago I watched a YouTube series on WW1. It surprised me quite how much of the war was away from the Western Front. Yes, I knew about Russia, and the Dardanelles, and Lawrence of Arabia; but I was unaware quite how much of the war was in those and other campaigns. They were far from being minor parts in the war, which is how I think many people think of them compared to the Western Front.
The experience of the Italians fighting the Austrians in the mountains of Veneto and what is now Slovenia was objectively worse than the tales from the trenches, with which we are all so familiar. Yet go mostly unremarked by popular history. The reason why Italy became the first fascist country derive from its terrible experience during WW1.
By way of partial relief for what is a very grim period of history, here’s the dog in the remains of a shallow trench that was eked out by Italian troops during WW1 in the frozen mountains above the Soca valley, taken in summer. Where, incidentally, a young German named Rommel first made his name.
Marshal Luigi Cardorna, who sent Italian soldiers to their deaths, in their tens of thousands, at the Isonzo, was a monster, who honestly ought to have been shot for his callous incompetence.
He was the real. actual, incompetent chateaux general of legend. Complete with Paths Of Glory* style behaviour towards his soldiers.
Malmesbury’s Rules 127 - If you fight the same battle in the same place more than 10 times, shoot the generals, not the soldiers.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
That's a fair point.
Which could also be directed at your "I'm pretty sure that.." comment upthread.
No, because we have clear evidence from an informed source that he was on the run from Saudi criminal charges and “strategically” became an apostate. However this is still not certain, hence my “pretty sure”
Next
And @Northern_Al said 'reasonably clear' and 'unlikely' and 'apparent'. All equally not quite as definite as 'KNOW' which you accused @Northern_Al saying incorrectly and all pretty equivalent as a level of certainty as 'pretty sure'.
Bit of pot and kettle there as you exagerate @Northern_Al words.
How about if I quote your 'pretty sure' as 'KNOW' as you did to @Northern_Al.
Honestly for someone with such a command of the English language and a huge IQ this is pretty poor.
At least PB - after a painful, attenuated period of embarrasingly futile denial - is now acknowledging that I have a "huge IQ"
On a somewhat depressing day, that - I guess - is progress
So huge that you appear to need AI assistance before you are able to unpack your own shopping.
On another note - I did a post on a subreddit the other day, and it was read by..... two million people
This is not so aberrant, either. I've had quite a few posts hit the 100,000s, even high 100,000s
This is not to blow my own trumpet, or even to get my own horn section into the recording studio, it's a measure of how powerful Reddit has become. We ignore it as we discuss, X, Facebook. Insta, and all the weirdo Woke creepy sandal-wearing pervs on Bluesky, and yet Reddit has quietly become intensely influential
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
That's a fair point.
Which could also be directed at your "I'm pretty sure that.." comment upthread.
No, because we have clear evidence from an informed source that he was on the run from Saudi criminal charges and “strategically” became an apostate. However this is still not certain, hence my “pretty sure”
Next
And @Northern_Al said 'reasonably clear' and 'unlikely' and 'apparent'. All equally not quite as definite as 'KNOW' which you accused @Northern_Al saying incorrectly and all pretty equivalent as a level of certainty as 'pretty sure'.
Bit of pot and kettle there as you exagerate @Northern_Al words.
How about if I quote your 'pretty sure' as 'KNOW' as you did to @Northern_Al.
Honestly for someone with such a command of the English language and a huge IQ this is pretty poor.
At least PB - after a painful, attenuated period of embarrasingly futile denial - is now acknowledging that I have a "huge IQ"
On a somewhat depressing day, that - I guess - is progress
So huge that you appear to need AI assistance to unpack your shopping.
What ARE you talking about? Are you actually outside my house? I know you are weirdly obsessed with me, and it verges on tragic, but actual stalking takes it to a new level
I have just done some shopping, as it happens, I'm not sure I now require robotic help
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
And new tactics from Australian and Canadian generals.
The First World War was odd in that it came almost from nowhere, and ended very quickly with the Hundred Days Offensive. It's the four years in between that were problematic.
The BBC produced two excellent dramadoc series, 37 Days (the countdown to war) and 100 Days (the victory) but neither is on iplayer at the moment.
Both show up on PBS from time to time, which comes on Freeview.
Nobody has mentioned the Eastern Front. Austria-Hungary lost badly. And it cost Russian royals their lives and led to soviet revolution.
A couple of years ago I watched a YouTube series on WW1. It surprised me quite how much of the war was away from the Western Front. Yes, I knew about Russia, and the Dardanelles, and Lawrence of Arabia; but I was unaware quite how much of the war was in those and other campaigns. They were far from being minor parts in the war, which is how I think many people think of them compared to the Western Front.
The experience of the Italians fighting the Austrians in the mountains of Veneto and what is now Slovenia was objectively worse than the tales from the trenches, with which we are all so familiar. Yet go mostly unremarked by popular history. The reason why Italy became the first fascist country derive from its terrible experience during WW1.
By way of partial relief for what is a very grim period of history, here’s the dog in the remains of a shallow trench that was eked out by Italian troops during WW1 in the frozen mountains above the Soca valley, taken in summer. Where, incidentally, a young German named Rommel first made his name.
Marshal Luigi Cardorna, who sent Italian soldiers to their deaths, in their tens of thousands, at the Isonzo, was a monster, who honestly ought to have been shot for his callous incompetence.
He was the real. actual, incompetent chateaux general of legend. Complete with Paths Of Glory* style behaviour towards his soldiers.
Malmesbury’s Rules 127 - If you fight the same battle in the same place more than 10 times, shoot the generals, not the soldiers.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
That's a fair point.
Which could also be directed at your "I'm pretty sure that.." comment upthread.
No, because we have clear evidence from an informed source that he was on the run from Saudi criminal charges and “strategically” became an apostate. However this is still not certain, hence my “pretty sure”
Next
And @Northern_Al said 'reasonably clear' and 'unlikely' and 'apparent'. All equally not quite as definite as 'KNOW' which you accused @Northern_Al saying incorrectly and all pretty equivalent as a level of certainty as 'pretty sure'.
Bit of pot and kettle there as you exagerate @Northern_Al words.
How about if I quote your 'pretty sure' as 'KNOW' as you did to @Northern_Al.
Honestly for someone with such a command of the English language and a huge IQ this is pretty poor.
At least PB - after a painful, attenuated period of embarrasingly futile denial - is now acknowledging that I have a "huge IQ"
On a somewhat depressing day, that - I guess - is progress
So huge that you appear to need AI assistance to unpack your shopping.
What ARE you talking about? Are you actually outside my house? I know you are weirdly obsessed with me, and it verges on tragic, but actual stalking takes it to a new level
I have just done some shopping, as it happens, I'm not sure I now require robotic help
Simply reflecting back what you told us here, the other day. Maybe you were too drunk to remember.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
That's a fair point.
Which could also be directed at your "I'm pretty sure that.." comment upthread.
No, because we have clear evidence from an informed source that he was on the run from Saudi criminal charges and “strategically” became an apostate. However this is still not certain, hence my “pretty sure”
Next
And @Northern_Al said 'reasonably clear' and 'unlikely' and 'apparent'. All equally not quite as definite as 'KNOW' which you accused @Northern_Al saying incorrectly and all pretty equivalent as a level of certainty as 'pretty sure'.
Bit of pot and kettle there as you exagerate @Northern_Al words.
How about if I quote your 'pretty sure' as 'KNOW' as you did to @Northern_Al.
Honestly for someone with such a command of the English language and a huge IQ this is pretty poor.
At least PB - after a painful, attenuated period of embarrasingly futile denial - is now acknowledging that I have a "huge IQ"
On a somewhat depressing day, that - I guess - is progress
So huge that you appear to need AI assistance to unpack your shopping.
What ARE you talking about? Are you actually outside my house? I know you are weirdly obsessed with me, and it verges on tragic, but actual stalking takes it to a new level
I have just done some shopping, as it happens, I'm not sure I now require robotic help
Simply reflecting back what you told us here, the other day. Maybe you were too drunk to remember.
You ARE obsessed with me, tho, aren't you? You and a few others. Even if I go away for a wihile, you will vent about me
It's quite pleasing. Especially as I never think about you, ever, apart from when we are directly chatting and I want to wind you up (not hard)
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
And new tactics from Australian and Canadian generals.
The First World War was odd in that it came almost from nowhere, and ended very quickly with the Hundred Days Offensive. It's the four years in between that were problematic.
The BBC produced two excellent dramadoc series, 37 Days (the countdown to war) and 100 Days (the victory) but neither is on iplayer at the moment.
Both show up on PBS from time to time, which comes on Freeview.
Nobody has mentioned the Eastern Front. Austria-Hungary lost badly. And it cost Russian royals their lives and led to soviet revolution.
A couple of years ago I watched a YouTube series on WW1. It surprised me quite how much of the war was away from the Western Front. Yes, I knew about Russia, and the Dardanelles, and Lawrence of Arabia; but I was unaware quite how much of the war was in those and other campaigns. They were far from being minor parts in the war, which is how I think many people think of them compared to the Western Front.
The experience of the Italians fighting the Austrians in the mountains of Veneto and what is now Slovenia was objectively worse than the tales from the trenches, with which we are all so familiar. Yet go mostly unremarked by popular history. The reason why Italy became the first fascist country derive from its terrible experience during WW1.
By way of partial relief for what is a very grim period of history, here’s the dog in the remains of a shallow trench that was eked out by Italian troops during WW1 in the frozen mountains above the Soca valley, taken in summer. Where, incidentally, a young German named Rommel first made his name.
Marshal Luigi Cardorna, who sent Italian soldiers to their deaths, in their tens of thousands, at the Isonzo, was a monster, who honestly ought to have been shot for his callous incompetence.
He was the real. actual, incompetent chateaux general of legend. Complete with Paths Of Glory* style behaviour towards his soldiers.
Malmesbury’s Rules 127 - If you fight the same battle in the same place more than 10 times, shoot the generals, not the soldiers.
How many Americans are the Republican Party going to kill?
Interesting bit in that, showing the bias that calls the entire article into question:
The statement said that the flu vaccine can reduce illness severity and therefore may help high-risk patients — but falsely claimed "the flu vaccine does not prevent one from getting the influenza virus." According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the vaccine reduces the risk of getting the flu.
What on earth is the word "falsely" doing there? Something which reduces but does not eliminate the risk of X cannot fairly be said to prevent X.
Quite obviously vaccines cannot prevent you from getting infected. They work by creating an immune response to the virus, thereby greatly reducing clinical disease, often to the point of being asymptomatic and unaware. Also reducing to a variable degree the risk of transmission.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
That's a fair point.
Which could also be directed at your "I'm pretty sure that.." comment upthread.
No, because we have clear evidence from an informed source that he was on the run from Saudi criminal charges and “strategically” became an apostate. However this is still not certain, hence my “pretty sure”
Next
And @Northern_Al said 'reasonably clear' and 'unlikely' and 'apparent'. All equally not quite as definite as 'KNOW' which you accused @Northern_Al saying incorrectly and all pretty equivalent as a level of certainty as 'pretty sure'.
Bit of pot and kettle there as you exagerate @Northern_Al words.
How about if I quote your 'pretty sure' as 'KNOW' as you did to @Northern_Al.
Honestly for someone with such a command of the English language and a huge IQ this is pretty poor.
At least PB - after a painful, attenuated period of embarrasingly futile denial - is now acknowledging that I have a "huge IQ"
On a somewhat depressing day, that - I guess - is progress
So huge that you appear to need AI assistance to unpack your shopping.
What ARE you talking about? Are you actually outside my house? I know you are weirdly obsessed with me, and it verges on tragic, but actual stalking takes it to a new level
I have just done some shopping, as it happens, I'm not sure I now require robotic help
Simply reflecting back what you told us here, the other day. Maybe you were too drunk to remember.
You ARE obsessed with me, tho, aren't you? You and a few others. Even if I go away for a wihile, you will vent about me
It's quite pleasing. Especially as I never think about you, ever, apart from when we are directly chatting and I want to wind you up (not hard)
Not me. The level of discussion on this site elevates considerably during those periods when you are away from it.
How many Americans are the Republican Party going to kill?
Interesting bit in that, showing the bias that calls the entire article into question:
The statement said that the flu vaccine can reduce illness severity and therefore may help high-risk patients — but falsely claimed "the flu vaccine does not prevent one from getting the influenza virus." According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the vaccine reduces the risk of getting the flu.
What on earth is the word "falsely" doing there? Something which reduces but does not eliminate the risk of X cannot fairly be said to prevent X.
Quite obviously vaccines cannot prevent you from getting infected. They work by creating an immune response to the virus, thereby greatly reducing clinical disease, often to the point of being asymptomatic and unaware. Also reducing to a variable degree the risk of transmission.
Indeed. So the statement the NPR journo is describing as false is actually true.
"Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first person view (FPV) drones instead of infantry, an army spokesperson claimed on Dec. 20."
If Russia is defeated in Ukraine they will be chased out by a veritable horde of drones. Britain won WWI with technological innovation, and Ukraine can still win this war the same way.
In addition to supporting Ukraine we should, and must, learn all we can about drone warfare in both offensive and defensive terms.
The MoD should probably rent a dvd of Terminator 2 ( I am assuming their technology would at least be up to that).
Did we win WW1 with technical innovation? I thought it was more that the US came in with lots of fresh troops and tipped the balance in our favour.
I think there were three main factors - the naval blockade, US entry into the war, British advances in using the new technologies of the tank and the warplane.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
And new tactics from Australian and Canadian generals.
The First World War was odd in that it came almost from nowhere, and ended very quickly with the Hundred Days Offensive. It's the four years in between that were problematic.
The BBC produced two excellent dramadoc series, 37 Days (the countdown to war) and 100 Days (the victory) but neither is on iplayer at the moment.
Both show up on PBS from time to time, which comes on Freeview.
Nobody has mentioned the Eastern Front. Austria-Hungary lost badly. And it cost Russian royals their lives and led to soviet revolution.
A couple of years ago I watched a YouTube series on WW1. It surprised me quite how much of the war was away from the Western Front. Yes, I knew about Russia, and the Dardanelles, and Lawrence of Arabia; but I was unaware quite how much of the war was in those and other campaigns. They were far from being minor parts in the war, which is how I think many people think of them compared to the Western Front.
The experience of the Italians fighting the Austrians in the mountains of Veneto and what is now Slovenia was objectively worse than the tales from the trenches, with which we are all so familiar. Yet go mostly unremarked by popular history. The reason why Italy became the first fascist country derive from its terrible experience during WW1.
By way of partial relief for what is a very grim period of history, here’s the dog in the remains of a shallow trench that was eked out by Italian troops during WW1 in the frozen mountains above the Soca valley, taken in summer. Where, incidentally, a young German named Rommel first made his name.
Marshal Luigi Cardorna, who sent Italian soldiers to their deaths, in their tens of thousands, at the Isonzo, was a monster, who honestly ought to have been shot for his callous incompetence.
Reading about the mountain war in the Alps is also terrifying. Even - especially - today, with glacier recession, bodies are emerging from the ice up there.
The fighting conditions on the eastern front at times were just appalling.
Just imagine the kind of reaction on social media if that had happened in the U.K. I fear the usual suspects would be gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tension and cleiming conspiracies if challenged.
I hope Germany is spared that.
We’ve already got the usual suspects here gobbing off peddling their agendas, raising tensions and claiming conspiracies if challenged. I’m absolutely sure there are German equivalents doing the same on German social media, sadly.
Yes, the convolutions have been remarkable. Last night the usual suspects assumed that the unhinged Saudi doctor carried out the atrocity in the name of jihad. But the narrative had to change slightly when it became reasonably clear that this was unlikely to be the case, and his apparent influences included AfD etc. Not to be defeated, it turns out that it was a double bluff, as he was obviously hiding his jidahism in other guises. Stunning. Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
If you’ve got no idea what his motives are, how come you nonetheless KNOW he’s not anyway influenced by jihadism?
That's a fair point.
Which could also be directed at your "I'm pretty sure that.." comment upthread.
No, because we have clear evidence from an informed source that he was on the run from Saudi criminal charges and “strategically” became an apostate. However this is still not certain, hence my “pretty sure”
Next
And @Northern_Al said 'reasonably clear' and 'unlikely' and 'apparent'. All equally not quite as definite as 'KNOW' which you accused @Northern_Al saying incorrectly and all pretty equivalent as a level of certainty as 'pretty sure'.
Bit of pot and kettle there as you exagerate @Northern_Al words.
How about if I quote your 'pretty sure' as 'KNOW' as you did to @Northern_Al.
Honestly for someone with such a command of the English language and a huge IQ this is pretty poor.
At least PB - after a painful, attenuated period of embarrasingly futile denial - is now acknowledging that I have a "huge IQ"
On a somewhat depressing day, that - I guess - is progress
Comments
However much it's harder than it looks, however much shit the other lot left to clear up, however much fun it is hollering from the sidelines...
For any sane politician, being in government is better than the alternative. If they don't think that, a politician is either a fool or a grifter, and they should find another career.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62zgemkexdo
Has that ever happened since it was more than just only the league winners who qualified for the European Cup?
It's beginning to look plausible now that both Manchester clubs could miss out on not just the title, but Top 4 too.
The third spending bill has PASSED the House of Representatives, with Democrat support
A government shutdown has been avoided.
This bill was 118 pages. Down from over 1,500 pages...
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1870242026865791473
They don't seem to realise that the one they passed is worse for the deficit.
One of the things removed was controls on tech transfer to China, which will suit Musk's plans for his Chinese operation.
Now there are reasonable (and a lot of unreasonable) arguments either way on that last point, but there's an enormous conflict of interest in his major involvement in the decision.
Good afternoon PB.
If you want to actually seriously tackle the deficit you need to do it when you pass the spending bills and the taxation bills.
Like everybody else, I've no idea what his motives were at the moment.
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1hja3n3/a_girl_reported_to_the_german_police_in_september/
I mean, he did at least build up a successful business - all of Cummings' efforts were a fiasco.
Ps it wasn’t me that made the original claim but I broadly agree with it.
It'd be interesting to know how much planning, if any, went into this act. Was it something he had considered for weeks or months, or something that came into his head in the days, hours or even minutes before the act?
(I've read that a fair few shooting suspects in the USA are initially vague or contradictory about their motivations.)
They weren't a last minute arrangement; the killing of the bill was.
And note, this was brought to the floor by the GOP, not the Democrats, as the madder denizens of the Twitter crew seem to imagine.
Note what Trump wanted was for it to be eliminated only for two years, so he can pass his unfunded tax cut.
The GOP want it back again after that.
Important difference, though. Once Cummings was forced out, he just became a nobody with a Substack- did anything ever become of his new party? If/when Musk his frozen out, he becomes a multisquillionaire with a huge media reach and an even bigger grudge.
You can argue about the relative importance of each, but I think Germany would have been defeated without the Americans.
AIUI, many technical innovations in WW1 by either side was rapidly purloined by the other side. Aeroplane technology was one such example; with the Germans being particularly advanced early on, but the Allies catching up and exceeding them by war's end. Ditto, the evil gas warfare.
Tanks were an exception: the Allies (including the French) made thousands; Germany only made a handful - though they did use more captured Allied ones. But I don't think tanks 'won' the war, as the Spring Offensive showed it was still possible to gain large tracts of land without them.
What lost Germany WW! AIUI was economics and resources. The country was drained, financially and lacked men, food and material.
And that is what may lose Russia the war in Ukraine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=aI7p1UypGqA
I'd also recommend a read of the (shortish - 25 pages) judgement in her libel case:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Miller-and-Power-v-Turner-08.11.23.pdf
Here, for example, is another framing of it:
https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/tech-transfer/
What's undeniable is that Musk has an enormous conflict of interest on the issue. And having a non-government position, but great influence over the incoming administration, escapes any effective scrutiny.
That difference makes the offensive, and the war effort more generally, more sustainable, and this is the critical importance of technical innovation in the present Russo-Ukraine War. Russia, and now North Korea, are suffering staggering casualties with rudimentary infantry assaults. Ukraine is innovating to make drone assaults which would have minimal casualties on their own side.
This is also why the artillery shell shortage earlier this year - when Republicans shamefully blocked military story for Ukraine for months - was so important. The imbalance in artillery fire resulted in heavy Ukrainian casualties.
This led to the interception of the Zimmerman telegram, which was a major factor in the USA joining the war.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42367551
Which is why the recent 'accidental' cutting of cables is so concerning.
Which could also be directed at your "I'm pretty sure that.." comment upthread.
How many Americans are the Republican Party going to kill?
The First World War was odd in that it came almost from nowhere, and ended very quickly with the Hundred Days Offensive. It's the four years in between that were problematic.
The BBC produced two excellent dramadoc series, 37 Days (the countdown to war) and 100 Days (the victory) but neither is on iplayer at the moment.
Also the British and Imperial forces being the only ones left standing in 1918, with all the other nations armies in open mutiny.
But I do think that the press wallowing in murders must attract a certain type of exhibitionist to think hey, I could get all the front pages writing about me. Ideally newspapers should relegate crime reports to page 17, and those that didn't should notice a drop in sales.
American attacks happen and we are sad and wonder when America will do something about it.
This kind of attack happens and it's much less preventable, and much more likely to happen here.
This is why Pershing, in particular, was determined to advance as quickly as possible. Just like Boris Johnson with Russia in Ukraine, he thought that it was important for Germany to be seen to lose the war, as well as to actually lose it.
Arguably the armistice itself was the mistake, compared to WWII when the Allies insisted on an unconditional surrender by Germany.
Obviously the parallel with the Russo-Ukraine War is not exact, because Russia possesses nuclear weapons, and so no-one will be marching on Moscow. But I think that the principle that Russia has to lose the war, and be seen to lose the war, is still an important one in terms of deterring future aggression by Russia or any other authoritarian dictatorship.
Boris Johnson sometimes had a knack for seeing through to the essential nub of an issue in a way that few other British politicians in recent years have done. It's just such a shame he was such a lazy narcissist with a complete lack of moral judgement, and that he mostly made awful judgements about the advisors and allies he surrounded himself with in Number 10.
I do remember at school in pretend debating there were some who were so bad at it that they really didn't know when they had lost the argument. Also I remember we once had a member of the public in a planning meeting I was chairing who was the same. Really hard to explain to them why their crap argument has not produced the success they expected because they don't have the capacity to understand.
Keir Starmer is a trained barrister and yet he comes out with tosh that would have made all the above blush in their ignorance. So, everyone assumes he can't mean that, he can't be that stupid, it is just an act. But no, he can't act so he really must be that stupid. Pity the person who has to try to explain that to him. Hard as it is to believe I think he really is as stupid as he appears.
https://x.com/drtalebjawad/status/1823444631519891872
I assure you that if Germany wants a war, we will fight it. If Germany wants to kill us, we will slaughter them, die, or go to prison with pride. Because we have exhausted all peaceful means and all we have received from the police, state security, the prosecution, the judiciary, and the (Federal) Ministry of the Interior is more crimes against us. Peace is of no use with them.
The American arrival was as much about morale - the existing Allies forces had beaten the Germans, pretty much. Michael was launched to see if there was any way to get a better deal/stalemate before the bulk of the American forces were brought into play.
Also critical was the fact that although the Russians were defeated in East Prussia, they achieved a major breakthrough in Galicia.
Next
1) Germany's economy and society was in such a state it was unlikely they could continue the war beyond October 1918;
2) That although there could be a German offensive in the spring, he thought it unlikely because 'if it failed, their position would be critical.'
These were both correct, and yet are in practice contradictory. Operation Michael did happen, and fail, and that led to the collapse of the German war effort. Yet at the same time, Haig was suggesting they would perhaps have been forced to stop fighting even earlier but for its failure.
Perhaps he was thinking in terms of a negotiated, rather than imposed, peace with the former, but it seems rather out of character.
Or maybe he was a stopped clock...
You just don't know, yet we tolerate people stirring up potential racist violence who don't have the facts. Why can't people wait for the facts.
Bit of pot and kettle there as you exagerate @Northern_Al words.
How about if I quote your 'pretty sure' as 'KNOW' as you did to @Northern_Al.
Honestly for someone with such a command of the English language and a huge IQ this is pretty poor.
The statement said that the flu vaccine can reduce illness severity and therefore may help high-risk patients — but falsely claimed "the flu vaccine does not prevent one from getting the influenza virus." According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the vaccine reduces the risk of getting the flu.
What on earth is the word "falsely" doing there? Something which reduces but does not eliminate the risk of X cannot fairly be said to prevent X.
By way of partial relief for what is a very grim period of history, here’s the dog in the remains of a shallow trench that was eked out by Italian troops during WW1 in the frozen mountains above the Soca valley, taken in summer. In the region of Livek, where there is excellent and very scenic hiking. And where, back then and incidentally, a young German junior officer named Rommel first made his name.
Elon Musk endorses the AFD for Germany's election.
https://www.politico.eu/article/elon-musk-endorses-germanys-far-right/
“Only the AfD can save Germany,” the billionaire X owner wrote on the platform on Friday in the latest of a series of endorsements of European far-right parties.
On a somewhat depressing day, that - I guess - is progress
Malmesbury’s Rules 127 - If you fight the same battle in the same place more than 10 times, shoot the generals, not the soldiers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_the_Isonzo
*Watch this film. Kirk Douglas acting his socks off.
This is not so aberrant, either. I've had quite a few posts hit the 100,000s, even high 100,000s
This is not to blow my own trumpet, or even to get my own horn section into the recording studio, it's a measure of how powerful Reddit has become. We ignore it as we discuss, X, Facebook. Insta, and all the weirdo Woke creepy sandal-wearing pervs on Bluesky, and yet Reddit has quietly become intensely influential
I have just done some shopping, as it happens, I'm not sure I now require robotic help
It's quite pleasing. Especially as I never think about you, ever, apart from when we are directly chatting and I want to wind you up (not hard)
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1870488903452676105
The traditional political parties in Germany have utterly failed the people.
🇩🇪 AfD is the only hope for Germany 🇩🇪