Mr. Eagles, one does not trouble oneself with the vulgar recency of the 20th century.
Modern history is very exciting.
"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it"
I'm afraid I agree with Mr Dancer. Modern history is just current affairs in a fancy frock.
Bah, I feel that Operation Neptune or Operation Desert Storm, particularly Ground War strategy, are up there with the very best from the Classical era.
I suppose it is a pity that, bar Eisenhower, we've not a decent military strategist since Caesar
Chile are tempting, a well organised team with good performance in the early round, but I think Brazil are getting their form after a nervous start and will beat them.
Uruguay without Suarez are not that good, that is how they lost their opening match to Costa Rica. Columbia are a good free flowing attacking team that are the Latin American dark horses of this contest. Columbia to win.
Both Brazil and Columbia score lots of goals, and this is a high scoring cup. The total goals scored markets are worth looking at. Neither match is likely to be an Italian style 1:0.
".... Operation Neptune or Operation Desert Storm, particularly Ground War strategy, are up there with the very best from the Classical era."
Neptune was a wholly naval operation, devised, planned and conducted under Admiral Ramsey (he who also planned our evacuation from France planned our re-entry, he was one of the unsung here of WW2). I agree that it was fantastic feat of staff work and organisation but what the hell did it have to do with ground war strategy?
Mr. Llama, more importantly: "Norman Schwarzkopf, the commander of the Coalition Forces in the Gulf War, claimed that "The technology of war may change, the sophistication of weapons certainly changes. But those same principles of war that applied to the days of Hannibal apply today.""
The Second Punic War would have served as a warning to George W Bush as well.
When he stuck up the Mission Accomplished Sign I thought, that's his Cannae moment.
You may have won the Battle, but that doesn't mean you've won the war.
How misguided it is to quote the Romans at every turn! We'd need to have a city enjoying the same conditions as theirs and then govern it according to their example. It would be just as incongruous for someone whose conditions were incongruous, as it would be to expect an ass to race like a horse. [F. Guicciardini, Ricordi, A.M. Brown (trans.), (Cambridge, 1994), p. 173]
".... Operation Neptune or Operation Desert Storm, particularly Ground War strategy, are up there with the very best from the Classical era."
Neptune was a wholly naval operation, devised, planned and conducted under Admiral Ramsey (he who also planned our evacuation from France planned our re-entry, he was one of the unsung here of WW2). I agree that it was fantastic feat of staff work and organisation but what the hell did it have to do with ground war strategy?
Well Neptune phase included the landing on and securing of the Normandy beaches, which let us not forget was the largest seaborne invasion in human history. I guess I should have said Overlord.
I agree with you about Admiral Ramsay, and it was thanks to Eisenhower's brilliance that he let Ramsay come up with such a brilliant plan.
Mr. Llama, more importantly: "Norman Schwarzkopf, the commander of the Coalition Forces in the Gulf War, claimed that "The technology of war may change, the sophistication of weapons certainly changes. But those same principles of war that applied to the days of Hannibal apply today.""
Chile are tempting, a well organised team with good performance in the early round, but I think Brazil are getting their form after a nervous start and will beat them.
Uruguay without Suarez are not that good, that is how they lost their opening match to Costa Rica. Columbia are a good free flowing attacking team that are the Latin American dark horses of this contest. Columbia to win.
Both Brazil and Columbia score lots of goals, and this is a high scoring cup. The total goals scored markets are worth looking at. Neither match is likely to be an Italian style 1:0.
"I suppose it is a pity that, bar Eisenhower, we've not a decent military strategist since Caesar"
While I think of it, Eisenhower had many good points, but a great strategist he was not. Consider, for example, the Hurtgen Forest Campaign - a more useless squandering of soldiers lives you will be hard pushed to find, a campaign that never should have been fought.
Probably the last decent strategist in the West was Wellington and before him Marlborough, though I suppose we ought to give that jumped up little Frog, Bonaparte, some recognition - well he did beat everyone else, just couldn't cope when it came to taking on the top team in the final.
Ed Miliband pulling a Clegg with the three million jobs lie:
Mr Miliband said the prime minister now posed "a clear and present danger" to the UK's future.
"David Cameron, by his own admission, is taking us closer to the exit door of the European Union, which would threaten three million jobs across the United Kingdom," he said.
Has the 3 million figure ever been fact checked by C4?
I posted a link to one of the official reports t'other day. It's not unreasonable to say that 3 million jobs are linked to businesses trading with the EU. It is unreasonable to imagine that those jobs would evaporate overnight if we were to leave.
Anyone with any business experience knows that success in overseas markets is more nuanced than 'in the club: make hay, outside the club: bankruptcy'.
After all the doomsaying when we stayed outside the Euro, I'm going to take anything about the economic impacts of Brexit with a wagon load of salt.
Mr Farage did a Q&A the other day at a financial services conference.
One point he mentioned was a survey of non-EU businesses in Asia and North America, the majority of who said the UK leaving the EU would not reduce FDI.
"I suppose it is a pity that, bar Eisenhower, we've not a decent military strategist since Caesar"
While I think of it, Eisenhower had many good points, but a great strategist he was not (consider the Hurtgen Forest Campaign (a more useless squandering of soldiers lives you will be hard pushed to find, a campaign that never should have been fought).
Probably the last decent strategist in the West was Wellington and before him Marlborough, though I suppose we ought to give that jumped up little Frog, Bonaparte, some recognition - well he did beat everyone else, just couldn't cope when it came to taking on the top team in the final.
A minor set back, Eisenhowe has a lot of credit in the bank, he won in North Africa as well, such was Eisenhower's brilliance, he became President of the United States, without holding any other political office beforehand.
Mr. Eagles, I do pity the poor souls tasked with attempting to impose some semblance of reasoned thinking upon you in school.
Hannibal had the better battle plan at Zama, as stated by Scipio Africanus. The generals he faced (Scipio, Marcellus and Nero) were all more capable than Pompey.
Mr. Llama, reminds me, I may return to Dodge's biographies (parts 1 and 2 of 4) of Napoleon. Must admit I'm far less taken with it than I was with his works on Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar.
Napoleon did very well, for a Corsican pig farmer. No match for a British footwear designer, though.
Mr. Eagles, I do pity the poor souls tasked with attempting to impose some semblance of reasoned thinking upon you in school.
Hannibal had the better battle plan at Zama, as stated by Scipio Africanus. The generals he faced (Scipio, Marcellus and Nero) were all more capable than Pompey.
Mr. Llama, reminds me, I may return to Dodge's biographies (parts 1 and 2 of 4) of Napoleon. Must admit I'm far less taken with it than I was with his works on Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar.
Napoleon did very well, for a Corsican pig farmer. No match for a British footwear designer, though.
Hey, I have 4 A's at A levels, including history.
And this was in the era when A Levels were hard.
Of course Scipio was going to say Hannibal had the better battle plan, he couldn't be honest and say, he beat the inept Hannibal.
Hannibal's defeat ultimately saw the destruction of Carthage, Caesar's victories ultimately saw the Roman Empire become the most happening and brilliant Empire in human history, only second to the British Empire.
"I suppose it is a pity that, bar Eisenhower, we've not a decent military strategist since Caesar"
While I think of it, Eisenhower had many good points, but a great strategist he was not (consider the Hurtgen Forest Campaign (a more useless squandering of soldiers lives you will be hard pushed to find, a campaign that never should have been fought).
Probably the last decent strategist in the West was Wellington and before him Marlborough, though I suppose we ought to give that jumped up little Frog, Bonaparte, some recognition - well he did beat everyone else, just couldn't cope when it came to taking on the top team in the final.
A minor set back, Eisenhowe has a lot of credit in the bank, he won in North Africa as well, such was Eisenhower's brilliance, he became President of the United States, without holding any other political office beforehand.
I agree about Bonaparte.
Ulysses S Grant, Zhukov, Frederick the Great, Moltke for starters.
Mr. Eagles, much better grades than me, but then I only started reading classical history after school.
I shall take your silence on the matter as agreement that Caesar's opponent was a predictable man whereas Hannibal faced three great generals.
Edited extra bit: four*, with the Cunctator.
Edited extra bit: of course not, after Hannibal had proved what a fantastic general he was. He was only beaten once in battle, when every factor was stacked against him, and then the result was narrow.
Not like when Caesar led veterans in a failed attack on new recruits, and was deserted by his own Tenth Legion.
"I suppose it is a pity that, bar Eisenhower, we've not a decent military strategist since Caesar"
While I think of it, Eisenhower had many good points, but a great strategist he was not (consider the Hurtgen Forest Campaign (a more useless squandering of soldiers lives you will be hard pushed to find, a campaign that never should have been fought).
Probably the last decent strategist in the West was Wellington and before him Marlborough, though I suppose we ought to give that jumped up little Frog, Bonaparte, some recognition - well he did beat everyone else, just couldn't cope when it came to taking on the top team in the final.
A minor set back, Eisenhowe has a lot of credit in the bank, he won in North Africa as well, such was Eisenhower's brilliance, he became President of the United States, without holding any other political office beforehand.
I agree about Bonaparte.
Ulysses S Grant, Zhukov, Frederick the Great, Moltke for starters.
"I suppose it is a pity that, bar Eisenhower, we've not a decent military strategist since Caesar"
While I think of it, Eisenhower had many good points, but a great strategist he was not (consider the Hurtgen Forest Campaign (a more useless squandering of soldiers lives you will be hard pushed to find, a campaign that never should have been fought).
Probably the last decent strategist in the West was Wellington and before him Marlborough, though I suppose we ought to give that jumped up little Frog, Bonaparte, some recognition - well he did beat everyone else, just couldn't cope when it came to taking on the top team in the final.
A minor set back, Eisenhowe has a lot of credit in the bank, he won in North Africa as well, such was Eisenhower's brilliance, he became President of the United States, without holding any other political office beforehand.
I agree about Bonaparte.
Ulysses S Grant, Zhukov, Frederick the Great, Moltke for starters.
"I suppose it is a pity that, bar Eisenhower, we've not a decent military strategist since Caesar"
While I think of it, Eisenhower had many good points, but a great strategist he was not (consider the Hurtgen Forest Campaign (a more useless squandering of soldiers lives you will be hard pushed to find, a campaign that never should have been fought).
Probably the last decent strategist in the West was Wellington and before him Marlborough, though I suppose we ought to give that jumped up little Frog, Bonaparte, some recognition - well he did beat everyone else, just couldn't cope when it came to taking on the top team in the final.
A minor set back, Eisenhowe has a lot of credit in the bank, he won in North Africa as well, such was Eisenhower's brilliance, he became President of the United States, without holding any other political office beforehand.
I agree about Bonaparte.
Ulysses S Grant, Zhukov, Frederick the Great, Moltke for starters.
Grant was a terrible President though.
Was Eisenhower that much better ?
He was, ended the war in Korea, did a lot behind the scenes and in front of the scenes ending segregation.
"I suppose it is a pity that, bar Eisenhower, we've not a decent military strategist since Caesar"
While I think of it, Eisenhower had many good points, but a great strategist he was not (consider the Hurtgen Forest Campaign (a more useless squandering of soldiers lives you will be hard pushed to find, a campaign that never should have been fought).
Probably the last decent strategist in the West was Wellington and before him Marlborough, though I suppose we ought to give that jumped up little Frog, Bonaparte, some recognition - well he did beat everyone else, just couldn't cope when it came to taking on the top team in the final.
A minor set back, Eisenhowe has a lot of credit in the bank, he won in North Africa as well, such was Eisenhower's brilliance, he became President of the United States, without holding any other political office beforehand.
I agree about Bonaparte.
Eisenhower won North Africa? Good grief, by the time he turned up it was all over bar the shouting. My Cat could have won that campaign from Op Torch onwards.
Eisenhower was a good chap and from what I understand a good president. He had many fine qualities and played a blinder in the job he was given. What he most definitely was not was a good military strategist, in that department he was decidedly ordinary and it could be argued showed less imagination that Haig, Rawlinson and Gough from WWI put together.
"I suppose it is a pity that, bar Eisenhower, we've not a decent military strategist since Caesar"
While I think of it, Eisenhower had many good points, but a great strategist he was not (consider the Hurtgen Forest Campaign (a more useless squandering of soldiers lives you will be hard pushed to find, a campaign that never should have been fought).
Probably the last decent strategist in the West was Wellington and before him Marlborough, though I suppose we ought to give that jumped up little Frog, Bonaparte, some recognition - well he did beat everyone else, just couldn't cope when it came to taking on the top team in the final.
A minor set back, Eisenhowe has a lot of credit in the bank, he won in North Africa as well, such was Eisenhower's brilliance, he became President of the United States, without holding any other political office beforehand.
I agree about Bonaparte.
Ulysses S Grant, Zhukov, Frederick the Great, Moltke for starters.
Grant was a terrible President though.
Was Eisenhower that much better ?
He was, ended the war in Korea, did a lot behind the scenes and in front of the scenes ending segregation.
How's that better than USG who forced through black voting rights in the reconstructed south and rights for Indians ?
"I suppose it is a pity that, bar Eisenhower, we've not a decent military strategist since Caesar"
While I think of it, Eisenhower had many good points, but a great strategist he was not (consider the Hurtgen Forest Campaign (a more useless squandering of soldiers lives you will be hard pushed to find, a campaign that never should have been fought).
Probably the last decent strategist in the West was Wellington and before him Marlborough, though I suppose we ought to give that jumped up little Frog, Bonaparte, some recognition - well he did beat everyone else, just couldn't cope when it came to taking on the top team in the final.
A minor set back, Eisenhowe has a lot of credit in the bank, he won in North Africa as well, such was Eisenhower's brilliance, he became President of the United States, without holding any other political office beforehand.
I agree about Bonaparte.
Eisenhower won North Africa? Good grief, by the time he turned up it was all over bar the shouting. My Cat could have won that campaign from Op Torch onwards.
Eisenhower was a good chap and from what I understand a good president. He had many fine qualities and played a blinder in the job he was given. What he most definitely was not was a good military strategist, in that department he was decidedly ordinary and it could be argued showed less imagination that Haig, Rawlinson and Gough from WWI put together.
He liberated mainland Western Europe, that's not ordinary.
One of my great alternate histories is if D-Day failed, then one of the two would have happened, as we and the Americans retreated back to Blighty.
1) The Soviets would have conquered the whole of Europe, and the Soviet Union's sphere of influence would have been much wider, and the cold war would have become very warm
or
2) The Germans held of the Soviets in the East, so to defeat Germany, in the summer of 1945, Churchill/Attlee and Truman decide to drop nuclear bombs on Germany.
Without Eisenhower's brilliance, the world was spared two unpalatable scenarios.
Mr. Eagles, didn't Churchill want Eisenhower to go north-east, not north-west, from Italy, which would've pushed the Iron Curtain much further to the east?
Could be wrong, of course, as modern history isn't my thing.
Ed Miliband pulling a Clegg with the three million jobs lie:
Mr Miliband said the prime minister now posed "a clear and present danger" to the UK's future.
"David Cameron, by his own admission, is taking us closer to the exit door of the European Union, which would threaten three million jobs across the United Kingdom," he said.
And that line whether from Clegg or Miliband or whomever is scaremongering bollocks. I cannot think of a single customer we'd lose just because we left. About 30% of our sales go to Europe so for me unlike the politicos it's a real world issue. There are far too many price, quality, delivery, and technical issues pulling in the opposite direction.
I'm really looking forward to a canvasser door stepping me with that line. I will eat them alive.
So according to you both, the situation is as follows: * Many EU companies trade with the UK. Therefore EU cannot afford to upset UK and so will need to accommodate the UK in the event of a Brexit * Many UK companies trade with Europe. But because of squirrel UK can afford to upset EU and so will not need to accommodate the EU in event of a Brexit.
"I suppose it is a pity that, bar Eisenhower, we've not a decent military strategist since Caesar"
While I think of it, Eisenhower had many good points, but a great strategist he was not (consider the Hurtgen Forest Campaign (a more useless squandering of soldiers lives you will be hard pushed to find, a campaign that never should have been fought).
Probably the last decent strategist in the West was Wellington and before him Marlborough, though I suppose we ought to give that jumped up little Frog, Bonaparte, some recognition - well he did beat everyone else, just couldn't cope when it came to taking on the top team in the final.
A minor set back, Eisenhowe has a lot of credit in the bank, he won in North Africa as well, such was Eisenhower's brilliance, he became President of the United States, without holding any other political office beforehand.
I agree about Bonaparte.
Ulysses S Grant, Zhukov, Frederick the Great, Moltke for starters.
Grant was a terrible President though.
Was Eisenhower that much better ?
He was, ended the war in Korea, did a lot behind the scenes and in front of the scenes ending segregation.
How's that better than USG who forced through black voting rights in the reconstructed south and rights for Indians ?
I guess Grant, didn't have a Little Rock Nine moment.
When Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne (Or The Screaming Eagles as they like to be known)
Mr. Eagles, I do pity the poor souls tasked with attempting to impose some semblance of reasoned thinking upon you in school.
Hannibal had the better battle plan at Zama, as stated by Scipio Africanus. The generals he faced (Scipio, Marcellus and Nero) were all more capable than Pompey.
Mr. Llama, reminds me, I may return to Dodge's biographies (parts 1 and 2 of 4) of Napoleon. Must admit I'm far less taken with it than I was with his works on Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar.
Napoleon did very well, for a Corsican pig farmer. No match for a British footwear designer, though.
Mr. D. I know I have a terrible habit of recommending books to you but on the brightside I don't write them and ask you to buy them - with my imagination you would be mightily bored if I did.
Anyway, if you are looking for a very readable biography of Bonaparte and Wellington I would recommend the series by Simon Scarrow. They are written as a novel but the research behind them is first class, easily as good as you will find in a traditional history book but without all the foot notes.
P.S. Scarrow's The Eagle series about the Roman Invasion of Britain is well worth the read. Pure page turner fiction and adventure but filled with historical detail about life in the Legions.
Mr. Eagles, didn't Churchill want Eisenhower to go north-east, not north-west, from Italy, which would've pushed the Iron Curtain much further to the east?
Could be wrong, of course, as modern history isn't my thing.
He did, but logistics and a lack of manpower needed made Eisenhower say no, along with a few other reasons.
Mr. Eagles, the example of the Sicilian expedition in the Peloponnesian War would have served as warning against the invasion of Iraq. No uncouth modernity required for us to be furnished with such wisdom.
Mr. Llama, sounds a bit like a modern version of Count Belisarius by Graves and Norwich (only more historically accurate).
In my defence, my books are as entertaining as a border collie on stilts. (And I could use the money. Happily, if people have been following my F1 tips they'll have more than enough spare cash).
Are you opting for your recent "outsider cash out strategy" for the Brazil/Chile match ?
Yup
I was musing the other day whether this World Cup would see an outsider triumph for the first time as happened in the European Championship with Denmark and Greece.
Mr. F, the Athenians were winning by a mile. Sparta looked utterly lost. Then the hubris of some and a miscalculation by Nicias meant the Athenians sent off a large force to Sicily, where they suffered a total defeat, enabling Sparta to get off its knees.
Afghanistan would be in far better shape if we'd focused on that rather than the needless and ill-considered Iraq adventure.
Are you opting for your recent "outsider cash out strategy" for the Brazil/Chile match ?
Yup
I was musing the other day whether this World Cup would see an outsider triumph for the first time as happened in the European Championship with Denmark and Greece.
Any thoughts?
Is what I've been thinking since the World Cup started.
I did think a South American outsider may win this world cup (including Uruguay, even though they have won 2 world cups in the past, the last being in 1950)
I ruled out a European side winning it due to the weather, add in Brazil and the Argies being disappointing so far.
11 of the 16 teams remaining haven't won the world cup in the past, so I wouldn't be shocked if an outsider won it.
Ed Miliband pulling a Clegg with the three million jobs lie:
Mr Miliband said the prime minister now posed "a clear and present danger" to the UK's future.
"David Cameron, by his own admission, is taking us closer to the exit door of the European Union, which would threaten three million jobs across the United Kingdom," he said.
Has the 3 million figure ever been fact checked by C4?
The original data came from an article in 2000 by Ardy, Begg and Hodson called 'UK Jobs dependent on EU.' This gave a figure of 3,445,000 jobs associated with demand for exports to the EU. In March this year the Centre for Economic and Business Research updated the figures and came up with a total of 4.2 million.
"I suppose it is a pity that, bar Eisenhower, we've not a decent military strategist since Caesar"
While I think of it, Eisenhower had many good points, but a great strategist he was not (consider the Hurtgen Forest Campaign (a more useless squandering of soldiers lives you will be hard pushed to find, a campaign that never should have been fought).
Probably the last decent strategist in the West was Wellington and before him Marlborough, though I suppose we ought to give that jumped up little Frog, Bonaparte, some recognition - well he did beat everyone else, just couldn't cope when it came to taking on the top team in the final.
A minor set back, Eisenhowe has a lot of credit in the bank, he won in North Africa as well, such was Eisenhower's brilliance, he became President of the United States, without holding any other political office beforehand.
I agree about Bonaparte.
Ulysses S Grant, Zhukov, Frederick the Great, Moltke for starters.
Grant, great general (though Cold Harbor is a major black mark against him), dodgy president. Zhukov...I'd take Rokossovsky over him. Frederick the Great, didn't get his moniker for nothing. I'm assuming we're namechecking Moltke the Elder, in which case, agreed. The Franco-Prussian war is under-appreciated imo.
He liberated mainland Western Europe, that's not ordinary.
One of my great alternate histories is if D-Day failed, then one of the two would have happened, as we and the Americans retreated back to Blighty.
1) The Soviets would have conquered the whole of Europe, and the Soviet Union's sphere of influence would have been much wider, and the cold war would have become very warm
or
2) The Germans held of the Soviets in the East, so to defeat Germany, in the summer of 1945, Churchill/Attlee and Truman decide to drop nuclear bombs on Germany.
Without Eisenhower's brilliance, the world was spared two unpalatable scenarios.
Crikey, Mr. Eagles, Overlord was a stunning success, the rest of the Normandy campaign was a horrendous flog (relative casualties higher than the Somme Campaign in 1916) then there was the chase across France and into Belgium followed by the ghastly autumn and winter battles. Where was this strategic genius of Eisenhower?
A broad front advance, taking as few risks as possible but as many casualties as needed - save Market Garden, which arguably was the one time Eisenhower (and Montgomery) ever tried to show some strategic flair. The European Theatre of Operations 1944-45 was in the main a slow steady grind not a sniff of strategic genius to be found.
That doesn't mean I think Eisenhower did a bad job. He did what he was asked to do superbly and I doubt there was another American general who could have done it better.
Ed Miliband pulling a Clegg with the three million jobs lie:
Mr Miliband said the prime minister now posed "a clear and present danger" to the UK's future.
"David Cameron, by his own admission, is taking us closer to the exit door of the European Union, which would threaten three million jobs across the United Kingdom," he said.
And that line whether from Clegg or Miliband or whomever is scaremongering bollocks. I cannot think of a single customer we'd lose just because we left. About 30% of our sales go to Europe so for me unlike the politicos it's a real world issue. There are far too many price, quality, delivery, and technical issues pulling in the opposite direction.
I'm really looking forward to a canvasser door stepping me with that line. I will eat them alive.
So according to you both, the situation is as follows: * Many EU companies trade with the UK. Therefore EU cannot afford to upset UK and so will need to accommodate the UK in the event of a Brexit * Many UK companies trade with Europe. But because of squirrel UK can afford to upset EU and so will not need to accommodate the EU in event of a Brexit.
I think I will need more convincing
No, you're misunderstanding.
Simply put - economically speaking - both the EU and the UK benefit from free trade with each other. It is almost a truism of economics.
The EU currently has a net surplus on trade with the UK, so it makes a "profit" from our dealings with them. The argument, therefore, is they will not want to lose access to that profitable market opportunity, so they will accommodate us.
It's a little simplistic - because the reality is that we would both lose, but they would lose more. However, there's a good case that sensible people will be able to come up with a workable deal post Brexit*
* in just the same way that sensible people will come up with a workable deal if Scotland votes to leave the UK.
Are you opting for your recent "outsider cash out strategy" for the Brazil/Chile match ?
Yup
I was musing the other day whether this World Cup would see an outsider triumph for the first time as happened in the European Championship with Denmark and Greece.
Any thoughts?
Is what I've been thinking since the World Cup started.
I did think a South American outsider may win this world cup (including Uruguay, even though they have won 2 world cups in the past, the last being in 1950)
I ruled out a European side winning it due to the weather, add in Brazil and the Argies being disappointing so far.
11 of the 16 teams remaining haven't won the world cup in the past, so I wouldn't be shocked if an outsider won it.
The difficulty with the less favoured South American sides is that Chile, Ecuador and Uruguay are in the top quarter and only one might reach the semi-final.
Notwithstanding that proviso I have been impressed with Chile and I've nipped in with a cheeky ton to be sporting ....
And now we'll watch Brazil catch fire at last and put them to the sword.
Mr. Eagles, didn't Churchill want Eisenhower to go north-east, not north-west, from Italy, which would've pushed the Iron Curtain much further to the east?
Could be wrong, of course, as modern history isn't my thing.
That is right, Mr Dancer. Churchill wanted to advance to Vienna from the Veneto region but was vetoed by the Americans.
He liberated mainland Western Europe, that's not ordinary.
One of my great alternate histories is if D-Day failed, then one of the two would have happened, as we and the Americans retreated back to Blighty.
1) The Soviets would have conquered the whole of Europe, and the Soviet Union's sphere of influence would have been much wider, and the cold war would have become very warm
or
2) The Germans held of the Soviets in the East, so to defeat Germany, in the summer of 1945, Churchill/Attlee and Truman decide to drop nuclear bombs on Germany.
Without Eisenhower's brilliance, the world was spared two unpalatable scenarios.
Crikey, Mr. Eagles, Overlord was a stunning success, the rest of the Normandy campaign was a horrendous flog (relative casualties higher than the Somme Campaign in 1916) then there was the chase across France and into Belgium followed by the ghastly autumn and winter battles. Where was this strategic genius of Eisenhower?
A broad front advance, taking as few risks as possible but as many casualties as needed - save Market Garden, which arguably was the one time Eisenhower (and Montgomery) ever tried to show some strategic flair. The European Theatre of Operations 1944-45 was in the main a slow steady grind not a sniff of strategic genius to be found.
That doesn't mean I think Eisenhower did a bad job. He did what he was asked to do superbly and I doubt there was another American general who could have done it better.
Mr. Eagles, I do pity the poor souls tasked with attempting to impose some semblance of reasoned thinking upon you in school.
Hannibal had the better battle plan at Zama, as stated by Scipio Africanus. The generals he faced (Scipio, Marcellus and Nero) were all more capable than Pompey.
Mr. Llama, reminds me, I may return to Dodge's biographies (parts 1 and 2 of 4) of Napoleon. Must admit I'm far less taken with it than I was with his works on Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar.
Napoleon did very well, for a Corsican pig farmer. No match for a British footwear designer, though.
Hey, I have 4 A's at A levels, including history.
I am not worthy! (I only got 2 As and a B - but went on to get a BSc. and a PhD)
He liberated mainland Western Europe, that's not ordinary.
One of my great alternate histories is if D-Day failed, then one of the two would have happened, as we and the Americans retreated back to Blighty.
1) The Soviets would have conquered the whole of Europe, and the Soviet Union's sphere of influence would have been much wider, and the cold war would have become very warm
or
2) The Germans held of the Soviets in the East, so to defeat Germany, in the summer of 1945, Churchill/Attlee and Truman decide to drop nuclear bombs on Germany.
Without Eisenhower's brilliance, the world was spared two unpalatable scenarios.
Crikey, Mr. Eagles, Overlord was a stunning success, the rest of the Normandy campaign was a horrendous flog (relative casualties higher than the Somme Campaign in 1916) then there was the chase across France and into Belgium followed by the ghastly autumn and winter battles. Where was this strategic genius of Eisenhower?
A broad front advance, taking as few risks as possible but as many casualties as needed - save Market Garden, which arguably was the one time Eisenhower (and Montgomery) ever tried to show some strategic flair. The European Theatre of Operations 1944-45 was in the main a slow steady grind not a sniff of strategic genius to be found.
That doesn't mean I think Eisenhower did a bad job. He did what he was asked to do superbly and I doubt there was another American general who could have done it better.
Not my period, but I thought the breakout (don't recall if it was from Caen or from Normandy) was regarded as pretty smart as well.
Mr. Llama, sounds a bit like a modern version of Count Belisarius by Graves and Norwich (only more historically accurate).
In my defence, my books are as entertaining as a border collie on stilts. (And I could use the money. Happily, if people have been following my F1 tips they'll have more than enough spare cash).
Mr. Dancer, you can write entertaining stories, I cannot. If only you would follow my advice and charge what your books are worth you might be able to afford to buy your doggie a humongous treat.
Good luck on the Diplomacy, by the way. From the replies I have had you are going to need it.
That is some leap. Obc ewe are independent we can decide what we want to do , ie reason for being independent. Currently Westminster decides what we do whether we want to or not. Independence = democracy, union = crap. I would not like you negotiating for me if your starting point is I am going to get a crap deal, sounds very unionist viewpoint, all doom and gloom and we cannot do it. I like your supposition that every Scot is ignorant , I presume you are a towering genius
I do not suppose every Scot is ignorant, but I do suppose that a significant proportion of them are, just as a significant proportion of English people, American people etc. etc. are. They are the ones who come up on my facebook feed with things like 'I can't wait to have my lovely Saltire blue passport' with a mocked up photo of a bright blue passport, to which I politely replied that the passport would continue to be maroon, as all EU passports have to be. I don't blame anyone for being ignorant of the finer nuances of the Lisbon Treaty, or the true nature of the EU's influence on our public life, but most people aren't being asked to vote to decide their country's future.
Whether Salmond gets a 'crap deal' is a value judgement; I am saying (and he has admitted as much) that there will have to be extra goodies put on the table, especially to convince somewhere like Spain, which due to its own Basque issues, will take a lot of persuading. These may include: -a firm commitment to joining the euro at a future time -a worse fishing deal than Scotland currently has (to buy off Spain) -joint rights to North Sea Oil (which France has already tried to claim it should have)
That's why independence argument is a farce. 'It's the wrong independence Gromit'. Withdrawing from an organisation in which Scotland is amply represented (many would say over-represented), well rewarded (we can argue over oil, but even the most bullish nationalist can't argue that Scotland does too badly), shares a currency, language, and 300 years of shared history, but remaining part (on worse terms) of an undemocratic supranational body in which Scotland is but a drop in the ocean, and which costs millions of pounds a day.
And the saltire-waving foot soldiers that Salmond and his cohorts are cynically manipulating will be the first to suffer if and when Scotland can't pay its bills and the EU pulls a 'Greece' and installs a puppet Government. Then they will have a real taste of austerity.
Mr. F, the Athenians were winning by a mile. Sparta looked utterly lost. Then the hubris of some and a miscalculation by Nicias meant the Athenians sent off a large force to Sicily, where they suffered a total defeat, enabling Sparta to get off its knees.
Afghanistan would be in far better shape if we'd focused on that rather than the needless and ill-considered Iraq adventure.
Sparta had chased the Athenians out of their Northern Greek colonies, and won a big victory over Athens' Southern allies, at Mantinea. The war had reached a stalemate, but Sparta was in no danger of losing.
Quite why the Athenians tried to invade Syracuse is a mystery. Victory there would have brought victory over Sparta no closer.
Ed Miliband pulling a Clegg with the three million jobs lie:
Mr Miliband said the prime minister now posed "a clear and present danger" to the UK's future.
"David Cameron, by his own admission, is taking us closer to the exit door of the European Union, which would threaten three million jobs across the United Kingdom," he said.
And that line whether from Clegg or Miliband or whomever is scaremongering bollocks. I cannot think of a single customer we'd lose just because we left. About 30% of our sales go to Europe so for me unlike the politicos it's a real world issue. There are far too many price, quality, delivery, and technical issues pulling in the opposite direction.
I'm really looking forward to a canvasser door stepping me with that line. I will eat them alive.
So according to you both, the situation is as follows: * Many EU companies trade with the UK. Therefore EU cannot afford to upset UK and so will need to accommodate the UK in the event of a Brexit * Many UK companies trade with Europe. But because of squirrel UK can afford to upset EU and so will not need to accommodate the EU in event of a Brexit.
I think I will need more convincing
Its simple. The balance of trade is massively in the EU's favour. They simply cannot afford to refuse a trade accommodation with the UK. Nor is anyone saying we will not be happy with a trade arrangement with the EU. Of course we will be happy to continue trading with them. The idea that either side will cause any problems as far as trade deals go is simply daft.
More importantly, if we chose to stay in the EFTA they would not be able to disrupt trade.
The idea that trade with the EU is an issue as far as a Brexit is concerned is simply daft.
Ed Miliband pulling a Clegg with the three million jobs lie:
Mr Miliband said the prime minister now posed "a clear and present danger" to the UK's future.
"David Cameron, by his own admission, is taking us closer to the exit door of the European Union, which would threaten three million jobs across the United Kingdom," he said.
And that line whether from Clegg or Miliband or whomever is scaremongering bollocks. I cannot think of a single customer we'd lose just because we left. About 30% of our sales go to Europe so for me unlike the politicos it's a real world issue. There are far too many price, quality, delivery, and technical issues pulling in the opposite direction.
I'm really looking forward to a canvasser door stepping me with that line. I will eat them alive.
So according to you both, the situation is as follows: * Many EU companies trade with the UK. Therefore EU cannot afford to upset UK and so will need to accommodate the UK in the event of a Brexit * Many UK companies trade with Europe. But because of squirrel UK can afford to upset EU and so will not need to accommodate the EU in event of a Brexit.
I think I will need more convincing
Its simple. The balance of trade is massively in the EU's favour. They simply cannot afford to refuse a trade accommodation with the UK. Nor is anyone saying we will not be happy with a trade arrangement with the EU. Of course we will be happy to continue trading with them. The idea that either side will cause any problems as far as trade deals go is simply daft.
More importantly, if we chose to stay in the EFTA they would not be able to disrupt trade.
The idea that trade with the EU is an issue as far as a Brexit is concerned is simply daft.
The main issue is that companies which are currently located in the UK and export the majority of their output to the EU may move their production to an EU country and a new company say Chinese may decide to build its factory in the heart of the EU rather than the little island sulking off shore .
Ed Miliband pulling a Clegg with the three million jobs lie:
Mr Miliband said the prime minister now posed "a clear and present danger" to the UK's future.
"David Cameron, by his own admission, is taking us closer to the exit door of the European Union, which would threaten three million jobs across the United Kingdom," he said.
And that line whether from Clegg or Miliband or whomever is scaremongering bollocks. I cannot think of a single customer we'd lose just because we left. About 30% of our sales go to Europe so for me unlike the politicos it's a real world issue. There are far too many price, quality, delivery, and technical issues pulling in the opposite direction.
I'm really looking forward to a canvasser door stepping me with that line. I will eat them alive.
So according to you both, the situation is as follows: * Many EU companies trade with the UK. Therefore EU cannot afford to upset UK and so will need to accommodate the UK in the event of a Brexit * Many UK companies trade with Europe. But because of squirrel UK can afford to upset EU and so will not need to accommodate the EU in event of a Brexit.
I think I will need more convincing
Its simple. The balance of trade is massively in the EU's favour. They simply cannot afford to refuse a trade accommodation with the UK. Nor is anyone saying we will not be happy with a trade arrangement with the EU. Of course we will be happy to continue trading with them. The idea that either side will cause any problems as far as trade deals go is simply daft.
More importantly, if we chose to stay in the EFTA they would not be able to disrupt trade.
The idea that trade with the EU is an issue as far as a Brexit is concerned is simply daft.
The main issue is that companies which are currently located in the UK and export the majority of their output to the EU may move their production to an EU country and a new company say Chinese may decide to build its factory in the heart of the EU rather than the little island sulking off shore .
The UK is the number #5 globally for FDI and #1 in Europe. Characterising the UK as 'sulking offshore' is risible. All the fear mongering about manufacturing moving to the Eurozone was just that - fear mongering.
Ed Miliband pulling a Clegg with the three million jobs lie:
Mr Miliband said the prime minister now posed "a clear and present danger" to the UK's future.
"David Cameron, by his own admission, is taking us closer to the exit door of the European Union, which would threaten three million jobs across the United Kingdom," he said.
And that line whether from Clegg or Miliband or whomever is scaremongering bollocks. I cannot think of a single customer we'd lose just because we left. About 30% of our sales go to Europe so for me unlike the politicos it's a real world issue. There are far too many price, quality, delivery, and technical issues pulling in the opposite direction.
I'm really looking forward to a canvasser door stepping me with that line. I will eat them alive.
So according to you both, the situation is as follows: * Many EU companies trade with the UK. Therefore EU cannot afford to upset UK and so will need to accommodate the UK in the event of a Brexit * Many UK companies trade with Europe. But because of squirrel UK can afford to upset EU and so will not need to accommodate the EU in event of a Brexit.
I think I will need more convincing
Its simple. The balance of trade is massively in the EU's favour. They simply cannot afford to refuse a trade accommodation with the UK. Nor is anyone saying we will not be happy with a trade arrangement with the EU. Of course we will be happy to continue trading with them. The idea that either side will cause any problems as far as trade deals go is simply daft.
More importantly, if we chose to stay in the EFTA they would not be able to disrupt trade.
The idea that trade with the EU is an issue as far as a Brexit is concerned is simply daft.
I acknowledge your point about EFTA membership. But regarding your point that "The idea that either side will cause any problems as far as trade deals go is simply daft", I need to point out that the fact that something is daft does not prevent it from happening: quite the contrary, in fact.
Its simple. The balance of trade is massively in the EU's favour. They simply cannot afford to refuse a trade accommodation with the UK. Nor is anyone saying we will not be happy with a trade arrangement with the EU. Of course we will be happy to continue trading with them. The idea that either side will cause any problems as far as trade deals go is simply daft.
More importantly, if we chose to stay in the EFTA they would not be able to disrupt trade.
The idea that trade with the EU is an issue as far as a Brexit is concerned is simply daft.
The main issue is that companies which are currently located in the UK and export the majority of their output to the EU may move their production to an EU country and a new company say Chinese may decide to build its factory in the heart of the EU rather than the little island sulking off shore .
The UK is the number #5 globally for FDI and #1 in Europe. Characterising the UK as 'sulking offshore' is risible. All the fear mongering about manufacturing moving to the Eurozone was just that - fear mongering.
Telling us what the position of the UK is whilst it is in the EU in the present is no guarantee that it will retain the same position outside the EU in the future
Comments
Mr. M, quite right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28069689
I suppose it is a pity that, bar Eisenhower, we've not a decent military strategist since Caesar
Uruguay without Suarez are not that good, that is how they lost their opening match to Costa Rica. Columbia are a good free flowing attacking team that are the Latin American dark horses of this contest. Columbia to win.
Both Brazil and Columbia score lots of goals, and this is a high scoring cup. The total goals scored markets are worth looking at. Neither match is likely to be an Italian style 1:0.
You have a message via "Vanilla".
Neptune was a wholly naval operation, devised, planned and conducted under Admiral Ramsey (he who also planned our evacuation from France planned our re-entry, he was one of the unsung here of WW2). I agree that it was fantastic feat of staff work and organisation but what the hell did it have to do with ground war strategy?
"Norman Schwarzkopf, the commander of the Coalition Forces in the Gulf War, claimed that "The technology of war may change, the sophistication of weapons certainly changes. But those same principles of war that applied to the days of Hannibal apply today.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal
I agree with you about Admiral Ramsay, and it was thanks to Eisenhower's brilliance that he let Ramsay come up with such a brilliant plan.
Make sure you're prepared well with experienced troops, or you'll battered like Hannibal at Zama.
I did tip Uruguay to win the world cup over a year ago when they were 40/1
"I suppose it is a pity that, bar Eisenhower, we've not a decent military strategist since Caesar"
While I think of it, Eisenhower had many good points, but a great strategist he was not. Consider, for example, the Hurtgen Forest Campaign - a more useless squandering of soldiers lives you will be hard pushed to find, a campaign that never should have been fought.
Probably the last decent strategist in the West was Wellington and before him Marlborough, though I suppose we ought to give that jumped up little Frog, Bonaparte, some recognition - well he did beat everyone else, just couldn't cope when it came to taking on the top team in the final.
http://www.euromoneyconferencesonline.com/Event/6356/The-Global-Borrowers-and-Investors-Forum-2014.html
One point he mentioned was a survey of non-EU businesses in Asia and North America, the majority of who said the UK leaving the EU would not reduce FDI.
I agree about Bonaparte.
Hannibal had the better battle plan at Zama, as stated by Scipio Africanus. The generals he faced (Scipio, Marcellus and Nero) were all more capable than Pompey.
Mr. Llama, reminds me, I may return to Dodge's biographies (parts 1 and 2 of 4) of Napoleon. Must admit I'm far less taken with it than I was with his works on Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar.
Napoleon did very well, for a Corsican pig farmer. No match for a British footwear designer, though.
And this was in the era when A Levels were hard.
Of course Scipio was going to say Hannibal had the better battle plan, he couldn't be honest and say, he beat the inept Hannibal.
Hannibal's defeat ultimately saw the destruction of Carthage, Caesar's victories ultimately saw the Roman Empire become the most happening and brilliant Empire in human history, only second to the British Empire.
Chile 6.8
Draw 4.7
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/football/event?id=27221938&exp=e
I shall take your silence on the matter as agreement that Caesar's opponent was a predictable man whereas Hannibal faced three great generals.
Edited extra bit: four*, with the Cunctator.
Edited extra bit: of course not, after Hannibal had proved what a fantastic general he was. He was only beaten once in battle, when every factor was stacked against him, and then the result was narrow.
Not like when Caesar led veterans in a failed attack on new recruits, and was deserted by his own Tenth Legion.
It could be Dockside Hooker territory for them.
Eisenhower was a good chap and from what I understand a good president. He had many fine qualities and played a blinder in the job he was given. What he most definitely was not was a good military strategist, in that department he was decidedly ordinary and it could be argued showed less imagination that Haig, Rawlinson and Gough from WWI put together.
Are you opting for your recent "outsider cash out strategy" for the Brazil/Chile match ?
One of my great alternate histories is if D-Day failed, then one of the two would have happened, as we and the Americans retreated back to Blighty.
1) The Soviets would have conquered the whole of Europe, and the Soviet Union's sphere of influence would have been much wider, and the cold war would have become very warm
or
2) The Germans held of the Soviets in the East, so to defeat Germany, in the summer of 1945, Churchill/Attlee and Truman decide to drop nuclear bombs on Germany.
Without Eisenhower's brilliance, the world was spared two unpalatable scenarios.
Could be wrong, of course, as modern history isn't my thing.
* Many EU companies trade with the UK. Therefore EU cannot afford to upset UK and so will need to accommodate the UK in the event of a Brexit
* Many UK companies trade with Europe. But because of squirrel UK can afford to upset EU and so will not need to accommodate the EU in event of a Brexit.
I think I will need more convincing
When Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne (Or The Screaming Eagles as they like to be known)
Anyway, if you are looking for a very readable biography of Bonaparte and Wellington I would recommend the series by Simon Scarrow. They are written as a novel but the research behind them is first class, easily as good as you will find in a traditional history book but without all the foot notes.
P.S. Scarrow's The Eagle series about the Roman Invasion of Britain is well worth the read. Pure page turner fiction and adventure but filled with historical detail about life in the Legions.
In my defence, my books are as entertaining as a border collie on stilts. (And I could use the money. Happily, if people have been following my F1 tips they'll have more than enough spare cash).
Any thoughts?
Afghanistan would be in far better shape if we'd focused on that rather than the needless and ill-considered Iraq adventure.
I did think a South American outsider may win this world cup (including Uruguay, even though they have won 2 world cups in the past, the last being in 1950)
I ruled out a European side winning it due to the weather, add in Brazil and the Argies being disappointing so far.
11 of the 16 teams remaining haven't won the world cup in the past, so I wouldn't be shocked if an outsider won it.
will Sunni and Shia ever reunite to sing "I got you babe"?
Ramadan starts tomorrow, when Muslims become ever more crankier.
Fasting in the UK begins at 3am and doesn't end till around 10pm.
A broad front advance, taking as few risks as possible but as many casualties as needed - save Market Garden, which arguably was the one time Eisenhower (and Montgomery) ever tried to show some strategic flair. The European Theatre of Operations 1944-45 was in the main a slow steady grind not a sniff of strategic genius to be found.
That doesn't mean I think Eisenhower did a bad job. He did what he was asked to do superbly and I doubt there was another American general who could have done it better.
Simply put - economically speaking - both the EU and the UK benefit from free trade with each other. It is almost a truism of economics.
The EU currently has a net surplus on trade with the UK, so it makes a "profit" from our dealings with them. The argument, therefore, is they will not want to lose access to that profitable market opportunity, so they will accommodate us.
It's a little simplistic - because the reality is that we would both lose, but they would lose more. However, there's a good case that sensible people will be able to come up with a workable deal post Brexit*
* in just the same way that sensible people will come up with a workable deal if Scotland votes to leave the UK.
Notwithstanding that proviso I have been impressed with Chile and I've nipped in with a cheeky ton to be sporting ....
And now we'll watch Brazil catch fire at last and put them to the sword.
Ah well ....
Good luck on the Diplomacy, by the way. From the replies I have had you are going to need it.
Whether Salmond gets a 'crap deal' is a value judgement; I am saying (and he has admitted as much) that there will have to be extra goodies put on the table, especially to convince somewhere like Spain, which due to its own Basque issues, will take a lot of persuading. These may include:
-a firm commitment to joining the euro at a future time
-a worse fishing deal than Scotland currently has (to buy off Spain)
-joint rights to North Sea Oil (which France has already tried to claim it should have)
That's why independence argument is a farce. 'It's the wrong independence Gromit'. Withdrawing from an organisation in which Scotland is amply represented (many would say over-represented), well rewarded (we can argue over oil, but even the most bullish nationalist can't argue that Scotland does too badly), shares a currency, language, and 300 years of shared history, but remaining part (on worse terms) of an undemocratic supranational body in which Scotland is but a drop in the ocean, and which costs millions of pounds a day.
And the saltire-waving foot soldiers that Salmond and his cohorts are cynically manipulating will be the first to suffer if and when Scotland can't pay its bills and the EU pulls a 'Greece' and installs a puppet Government. Then they will have a real taste of austerity.
Quite why the Athenians tried to invade Syracuse is a mystery. Victory there would have brought victory over Sparta no closer.
More importantly, if we chose to stay in the EFTA they would not be able to disrupt trade.
The idea that trade with the EU is an issue as far as a Brexit is concerned is simply daft.
You could imagine the German reaction to something they didn't like if it was pushed through to the EP without their say so.
It is real politics not paper politics.