The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
King Cole, could be wrong, but I think Belarus has been the most pro-Russian of the ex-Soviet states by a long stretch, for a long time.
I thought Belarus was more or less artificial. I don't recall either Minsk or Smolensk being recent acquisitions in the way that, for instance, Crimea was independent until the mid 18th century
Belarus has alwas been part of Muscovy, though parts were in Poland between the wars, and then ethnically mixed. The borders of Poland have shifted greatly over the years, but it also has become much less multicultural as a result of war and population deportations, as indeed has Western Ukraine and Belarus, which contain places like Brest and Lviv that once were heavily Polish or Jewish.
I think mass deportations is not the way to clarify borders in the 21st Century though. I would much rather see supranational organisations as guarantors of minority rights than a division into petty nationalisms each with an ethnic agenda.
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
If we cared about EU policy towards Ukraine and wanted to have a say in it, then we should have voted Remain. Having walked away from the EU we have no right to try to determine EU policy concerning Ukraine. The Baltics and Poland are different as members of NATO, unless we walk away from that organisation too.
Smith wishing to negotiate with ISIS who never negotiate is just " tokenism" isn't it?
It's up there with "Brexit means Brexit" in my view as something he didn't need to say but said and has then got into trouble for saying it.
How do you negotiate with Islamic supremacists? What is it do you think that Islamists want?
Clean drinking water, death of infidels, medical care, Call of Duty 6, Islamic Caliphate, attractive nubile slave girl, new clutch for a 2012 Toyota, iphone.
Better off asking them though. You wouldn't want to give them everything they want, but you may be able to come up with an arrangement that's better for everyone than the status quo, especially since the status quo isn't great.
King Cole, could be wrong, but I think Belarus has been the most pro-Russian of the ex-Soviet states by a long stretch, for a long time.
I thought Belarus was more or less artificial. I don't recall either Minsk or Smolensk being recent acquisitions in the way that, for instance, Crimea was independent until the mid 18th century
Belarus has alwas been part of Muscovy, though parts were in Poland between the wars, and then ethnically mixed. The borders of Poland have shifted greatly over the years, but it also has become much less multicultural as a result of war and population deportations, as indeed has Western Ukraine and Belarus, which contain places like Brest and Lviv that once were heavily Polish or Jewish.
I think mass deportations is not the way to clarify borders in the 21st Century though. I would much rather see supranational organisations as guarantors of minority rights than a division into petty nationalisms each with an ethnic agenda.
That was my impression of Belarus too.
But Ukraine has always been distinct - if I remember my history Muscovy was founded by a younger son of the royal family (rulers of the Rus) sent north to explore. A lot of the disputed regions were for centuries unclaimed by either side.
Smith wishing to negotiate with ISIS who never negotiate is just " tokenism" isn't it?
It's up there with "Brexit means Brexit" in my view as something he didn't need to say but said and has then got into trouble for saying it.
How do you negotiate with Islamic supremacists? What is it do you think that Islamists want?
In short: you cannot, but a lot of what drives support for IS in Iraq and Syria is more local tribal and regional politics. Splitting Sunni support away from IS to more conventional politics is all part of the war on IS. Diplomacy by other means.
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
If we cared about EU policy towards Ukraine and wanted to have a say in it, then we should have voted Remain. Having walked away from the EU we have no right to try to determine EU policy concerning Ukraine. The Baltics and Poland are different as members of NATO, unless we walk away from that organisation too.
By bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum? One owned by a UK listed company? Bill Clinton: that great GOP hero.
King Cole, could be wrong, but I think Belarus has been the most pro-Russian of the ex-Soviet states by a long stretch, for a long time.
I thought Belarus was more or less artificial. I don't recall either Minsk or Smolensk being recent acquisitions in the way that, for instance, Crimea was independent until the mid 18th century
Belarus has alwas been part of Muscovy, though parts were in Poland between the wars, and then ethnically mixed. The borders of Poland have shifted greatly over the years, but it also has become much less multicultural as a result of war and population deportations, as indeed has Western Ukraine and Belarus, which contain places like Brest and Lviv that once were heavily Polish or Jewish.
I think mass deportations is not the way to clarify borders in the 21st Century though. I would much rather see supranational organisations as guarantors of minority rights than a division into petty nationalisms each with an ethnic agenda.
That was my impression of Belarus too.
But Ukraine has always been distinct - if I remember my history Muscovy was founded by a younger son of the royal family (rulers of the Rus) sent north to explore. A lot of the disputed regions were for centuries unclaimed by either side.
Indeed the name Ukraine means borderland in Slavic, it was always a place of mixing.
Kyiv was founded by Varangian Vikings as I recall. Perhaps we are all Scandanavians...
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
.
I am not sure there is any difference between the Republican arsonists and the Democratic fire brigade.
"Clean drinking water, death of infidels, medical care, Call of Duty 6, Islamic Caliphate, attractive nubile slave girl, new clutch for a 2012 Toyota, iphone."
All of that, plus a Caliphate that spans the whole world and the death or conversion to their version of Islam of the world's population. Oh, and the last one is not negotiable. I suppose you could call it their red line.
If Hillary wins in November then she will almost certainly be the nominee in 2020. It is difficult to imagine any plausible scenario where she wouldn't be. That means it will be down to the GOP to prevent her taking the oath a second time.
The demographics that are trending democrat will still be going that way so the Republicans will need a far more appealing candidate next time round. I think they will learn some important lessons from this year about not having an overcrowded field etc. It's difficult to contemplate what else they might do, as to who might wander through their nomination process that's really unclear. One name I'd expect to see in 2020 running is Nikki Haley, she'll be under 50 still and for a southern republican she actually seems sane.
Maybe they will need to completely review/replace the whole primary election process to prevent another Trump emerging. Though whether that would be politically or indeed legally possible I don't know.
If Hillary wins in November then she will almost certainly be the nominee in 2020. It is difficult to imagine any plausible scenario where she wouldn't be. That means it will be down to the GOP to prevent her taking the oath a second time.
The demographics that are trending democrat will still be going that way so the Republicans will need a far more appealing candidate next time round. I think they will learn some important lessons from this year about not having an overcrowded field etc. It's difficult to contemplate what else they might do, as to who might wander through their nomination process that's really unclear. One name I'd expect to see in 2020 running is Nikki Haley, she'll be under 50 still and for a southern republican she actually seems sane.
Maybe they will need to completely review/replace the whole primary election process to prevent another Trump emerging. Though whether that would be politically or indeed legally possible I don't know.
Trump is like Corbyn. Symptoms of a diseased party. The GoP need to learn to speak beyond their base; Corbyn's followers are clearly determined not to.
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
If we cared about EU policy towards Ukraine and wanted to have a say in it, then we should have voted Remain. Having walked away from the EU we have no right to try to determine EU policy concerning Ukraine. The Baltics and Poland are different as members of NATO, unless we walk away from that organisation too.
By bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum? One owned by a UK listed company? Bill Clinton: that great GOP hero.
Are you suggesting that was comparable to Bush and Blair invading Iraq?
The Muslim Brotherhood was a product of British rule in Egypt if you want to go back further!
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
If we cared about EU policy towards Ukraine and wanted to have a say in it, then we should have voted Remain. Having walked away from the EU we have no right to try to determine EU policy concerning Ukraine. The Baltics and Poland are different as members of NATO, unless we walk away from that organisation too.
Er, we did have a say in the EU policy towards the Ukraine, or at least we supposedly had one, at the time. Much good it did.
As for having a say in the policies of Poland and the Baltics we don't really because NATO is a completely different type of organisation. We certainly have obligations to each other, and possibly some influence. Those obligations are nowhere near as strong as some people like to make out though. The idea that the UK, with its tiny and hollowed-out armed forces, would go to war with Russia to protect either is laughable.
If Hillary wins in November then she will almost certainly be the nominee in 2020. It is difficult to imagine any plausible scenario where she wouldn't be. That means it will be down to the GOP to prevent her taking the oath a second time.
The demographics that are trending democrat will still be going that way so the Republicans will need a far more appealing candidate next time round. I think they will learn some important lessons from this year about not having an overcrowded field etc. It's difficult to contemplate what else they might do, as to who might wander through their nomination process that's really unclear. One name I'd expect to see in 2020 running is Nikki Haley, she'll be under 50 still and for a southern republican she actually seems sane.
Maybe they will need to completely review/replace the whole primary election process to prevent another Trump emerging. Though whether that would be politically or indeed legally possible I don't know.
I think Primaries and Caucuses are deeply ingrained. The GOP suffered by having too many egomaniacs in for far too long, understandable that the biggest most controversial ego came through.
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
If we cared about EU policy towards Ukraine and wanted to have a say in it, then we should have voted Remain. Having walked away from the EU we have no right to try to determine EU policy concerning Ukraine. The Baltics and Poland are different as members of NATO, unless we walk away from that organisation too.
Er, we did have a say in the EU policy towards the Ukraine, or at least we supposedly had one, at the time. Much good it did.
As for having a say in the policies of Poland and the Baltics we don't really because NATO is a completely different type of organisation. We certainly have obligations to each other, and possibly some influence. Those obligations are nowhere near as strong as some people like to make out though. The idea that the UK, with its tiny and hollowed-out armed forces, would go to war with Russia to protect either is laughable.
This is the EU that had to have three days of talks prior to being able to agree a statement on the Hague's ruling on China's claims in the South China Sea.
It's really not a credible foreign policy actor. Its only leverage is economic, and that doesn't really work against revanchism.
In 1908 there were far fewer countries to compete with. It can justifiably be seen as our most successful Olympiad ever.
Congratulations to the team and to the Brazillians for doing their bit.
I guess you can also say congratulations to Sir John Major (who introduced the lottery, the proceeds of which have been used to fund our athlete's) I guess after nearly 20 years since he lost power he finally has a legacy...
Morning GIN, tenuous thread there but valiant attempt at trying to make something of Major, afraid his only legacy will be the egg woman.
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
If we cared about EU policy towards Ukraine and wanted to have a say in it, then we should have voted Remain. Having walked away from the EU we have no right to try to determine EU policy concerning Ukraine. The Baltics and Poland are different as members of NATO, unless we walk away from that organisation too.
Er, we did have a say in the EU policy towards the Ukraine, or at least we supposedly had one, at the time. Much good it did.
As for having a say in the policies of Poland and the Baltics we don't really because NATO is a completely different type of organisation. We certainly have obligations to each other, and possibly some influence. Those obligations are nowhere near as strong as some people like to make out though. The idea that the UK, with its tiny and hollowed-out armed forces, would go to war with Russia to protect either is laughable.
This is the EU that had to have three days of talks prior to being able to agree a statement on the Hague's ruling on China's claims in the South China Sea.
It's really not a credible foreign policy actor.
Well, as our principal counterpart on the Continent we are shortly to find out how coherent EU Foreign policy is without us.
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
If we cared about EU policy towards Ukraine and wanted to have a say in it, then we should have voted Remain. Having walked away from the EU we have no right to try to determine EU policy concerning Ukraine. The Baltics and Poland are different as members of NATO, unless we walk away from that organisation too.
Er, we did have a say in the EU policy towards the Ukraine, or at least we supposedly had one, at the time. Much good it did.
As for having a say in the policies of Poland and the Baltics we don't really because NATO is a completely different type of organisation. We certainly have obligations to each other, and possibly some influence. Those obligations are nowhere near as strong as some people like to make out though. The idea that the UK, with its tiny and hollowed-out armed forces, would go to war with Russia to protect either is laughable.
This is the EU that had to have three days of talks prior to being able to agree a statement on the Hague's ruling on China's claims in the South China Sea.
It's really not a credible foreign policy actor.
Well, as our principal counterpart on the Continent we are shortly to find out how coherent EU Foreign policy is without us.
More coherent than with us I would have thought. If we weren't in the EU at the time of the Iraq war I doubt Spain would have joined the coalition.
Trump is set to propose amnesty for all 11m illegal immigrants in the US as part of his border wall programme. It's an interesting idea. May lose him support on the right and nit win him support on his left. Feels like too little too late.
He won't. Unless he wants to lose his core support as well.
In 1908 there were far fewer countries to compete with. It can justifiably be seen as our most successful Olympiad ever.
Congratulations to the team and to the Brazillians for doing their bit.
I guess you can also say congratulations to Sir John Major (who introduced the lottery, the proceeds of which have been used to fund our athlete's) I guess after nearly 20 years since he lost power he finally has a legacy...
Morning GIN, tenuous thread there but valiant attempt at trying to make something of Major, afraid his only legacy will be the egg woman.
Without Major's lottery we would not now be in second place in the Olympic medal table
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
If we cared about EU policy towards Ukraine and wanted to have a say in it, then we should have voted Remain. Having walked away from the EU we have no right to try to determine EU policy concerning Ukraine. The Baltics and Poland are different as members of NATO, unless we walk away from that organisation too.
Er, we did have a say in the EU policy towards the Ukraine, or at least we supposedly had one, at the time. Much good it did.
As for having a say in the policies of Poland and the Baltics we don't really because NATO is a completely different type of organisation. We certainly have obligations to each other, and possibly some influence. Those obligations are nowhere near as strong as some people like to make out though. The idea that the UK, with its tiny and hollowed-out armed forces, would go to war with Russia to protect either is laughable.
This is the EU that had to have three days of talks prior to being able to agree a statement on the Hague's ruling on China's claims in the South China Sea.
It's really not a credible foreign policy actor.
Well, as our principal counterpart on the Continent we are shortly to find out how coherent EU Foreign policy is without us.
More coherent than with us I would have thought. If we weren't in the EU at the time of the Iraq war I doubt Spain would have joined the coalition.
One of the reasons the US has for irritation with the UK is that we've essentially stopped participating in the EU for years, simply due to our domestic politics. They wanted a wing man and an honest broker; what they got was a deaf-mute.
"Clean drinking water, death of infidels, medical care, Call of Duty 6, Islamic Caliphate, attractive nubile slave girl, new clutch for a 2012 Toyota, iphone."
All of that, plus a Caliphate that spans the whole world and the death or conversion to their version of Islam of the world's population. Oh, and the last one is not negotiable. I suppose you could call it their red line.
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
If we cared about EU policy towards Ukraine and wanted to have a say in it, then we should have voted Remain. Having walked away from the EU we have no right to try to determine EU policy concerning Ukraine. The Baltics and Poland are different as members of NATO, unless we walk away from that organisation too.
By bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum? One owned by a UK listed company? Bill Clinton: that great GOP hero.
Are you suggesting that was comparable to Bush and Blair invading Iraq?
The Muslim Brotherhood was a product of British rule in Egypt if you want to go back further!
I think he was suggesting they were just cheeks of the same arse
"Clean drinking water, death of infidels, medical care, Call of Duty 6, Islamic Caliphate, attractive nubile slave girl, new clutch for a 2012 Toyota, iphone."
All of that, plus a Caliphate that spans the whole world and the death or conversion to their version of Islam of the world's population. Oh, and the last one is not negotiable. I suppose you could call it their red line.
What do you choose?
If they're not interested in any deal that doesn't achieve the goals you mention then that's the end of the conversation. But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other.
That's a good article. Have to say the Guardian are far better on the topic than the Independent, which appears to have had a collective nervous breakdown.
The EU's black swan was the crash. Until then it was all going rather swimmingly, apart from the odd outbreak of democracy over the constitution.
They should formalise a dual-area Europe, and pursue full EMU (per the Five Presidents' Report) in the Eurozone. Sadly, that's unlikely to happen.
"Clean drinking water, death of infidels, medical care, Call of Duty 6, Islamic Caliphate, attractive nubile slave girl, new clutch for a 2012 Toyota, iphone."
All of that, plus a Caliphate that spans the whole world and the death or conversion to their version of Islam of the world's population. Oh, and the last one is not negotiable. I suppose you could call it their red line.
What do you choose?
If they're not interested in any deal that doesn't achieve the goals you mention then that's the end of the conversation. But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other.
AFAIR (I never had to wear my Mickey Mouse gas mask) neither the Nazis nor our side used poison gas in WWII. Whereas it was quite often used in WWI
"Clean drinking water, death of infidels, medical care, Call of Duty 6, Islamic Caliphate, attractive nubile slave girl, new clutch for a 2012 Toyota, iphone."
All of that, plus a Caliphate that spans the whole world and the death or conversion to their version of Islam of the world's population. Oh, and the last one is not negotiable. I suppose you could call it their red line.
What do you choose?
If they're not interested in any deal that doesn't achieve the goals you mention then that's the end of the conversation. But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other.
AFAIR (I never had to wear my Mickey Mouse gas mask) neither the Nazis nor our side used poison gas in WWII. Whereas it was quite often used in WWI
The Japanese did.
I think the Nazis did on the Eastern front, although maybe for disposing of prisoners of war.
There was actually an accidental attack when a tanker carrying something similar to mustard gas was bombed in Bari. As the gas wasn't supposed to be there, the initial first aid effort ended up doing much more harm that good.
"Clean drinking water, death of infidels, medical care, Call of Duty 6, Islamic Caliphate, attractive nubile slave girl, new clutch for a 2012 Toyota, iphone."
All of that, plus a Caliphate that spans the whole world and the death or conversion to their version of Islam of the world's population. Oh, and the last one is not negotiable. I suppose you could call it their red line.
What do you choose?
If they're not interested in any deal that doesn't achieve the goals you mention then that's the end of the conversation. But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other.
AFAIR (I never had to wear my Mickey Mouse gas mask) neither the Nazis nor our side used poison gas in WWII. Whereas it was quite often used in WWI
According to Goring the only reason the Germans didn't use gas at Normandy was, apparently, that they relied on horse drawn transport to move troops/kit and they couldn't develop a horse gas mask which allowed enough air in for them to continue pulling.
So they'd have caused themselves just as much trouble as the Allies.
"Clean drinking water, death of infidels, medical care, Call of Duty 6, Islamic Caliphate, attractive nubile slave girl, new clutch for a 2012 Toyota, iphone."
All of that, plus a Caliphate that spans the whole world and the death or conversion to their version of Islam of the world's population. Oh, and the last one is not negotiable. I suppose you could call it their red line.
What do you choose?
If they're not interested in any deal that doesn't achieve the goals you mention then that's the end of the conversation. But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other.
AFAIR (I never had to wear my Mickey Mouse gas mask) neither the Nazis nor our side used poison gas in WWII. Whereas it was quite often used in WWI
The Japanese did.
I think the Nazis did on the Eastern front, although maybe for disposing of prisoners of war.
There was actually an accidental attack when a tanker carrying something similar to mustard gas was bombed in Bari. As the gas wasn't supposed to be there, the initial first aid effort ended up doing much more harm that good.
There was some evidence that the Nazis used it on the Soviets in the Crimea.
On the whole it was not used despite the casual brutality of war because it doesn't mix well with rapid wars of movement. On the whole chemical weapons are not terribly useful.
"Clean drinking water, death of infidels, medical care, Call of Duty 6, Islamic Caliphate, attractive nubile slave girl, new clutch for a 2012 Toyota, iphone."
All of that, plus a Caliphate that spans the whole world and the death or conversion to their version of Islam of the world's population. Oh, and the last one is not negotiable. I suppose you could call it their red line.
What do you choose?
If they're not interested in any deal that doesn't achieve the goals you mention then that's the end of the conversation. But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other.
AFAIR (I never had to wear my Mickey Mouse gas mask) neither the Nazis nor our side used poison gas in WWII. Whereas it was quite often used in WWI
The Japanese did.
I think the Nazis did on the Eastern front, although maybe for disposing of prisoners of war.
There was actually an accidental attack when a tanker carrying something similar to mustard gas was bombed in Bari. As the gas wasn't supposed to be there, the initial first aid effort ended up doing much more harm that good.
Thanks for that. Found a Wikipedia entry. I wonder where the Americans had thought of using it. I’m not aware of any legitimate use.
I’m actually reading, on the recommendation of someone her. “The Hunt for Saddam’s Weapons” where there are accounts of destroying various poison gases.
Anyone backing Russia wrt the Ukraine is a fool; the same sort of fool who made excuses for Germany before 1939.
I suppose that's an indirect self-Godwinning...
Good luck on finding anyone who gives a jot. I presume you will be enlisting forthwith so you are trained and ready.
Morning, Eliza. I trust the drunken first-year programmers have been tweaking your algorithms?
I did suggest they remove the word 'turnip' from your dictionary ...
An intelligent response , cannot wait for your future input on how Russia bad , Turkey Great.
Russia's not *bad*; they're just a country who're being massively let down by their leadership. The same is true atm of Turkey.
Although Turkey has yet to show the (ahem) adventurousness of Putin on the foreign front. Turkey is also faced with far more real existential threats than Russia.
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
If we cared about EU policy towards Ukraine and wanted to have a say in it, then we should have voted Remain. Having walked away from the EU we have no right to try to determine EU policy concerning Ukraine. The Baltics and Poland are different as members of NATO, unless we walk away from that organisation too.
By bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum? One owned by a UK listed company? Bill Clinton: that great GOP hero.
Are you suggesting that was comparable to Bush and Blair invading Iraq?
The Muslim Brotherhood was a product of British rule in Egypt if you want to go back further!
No. But Obama has made plenty of missteps ascwell. Reversing the surge. Running away from Iraq prematurely. Faffing around in Libya. No red lines in Syria.
Both sides have been useless - personally I think tolerating the use of chemical weapons is the worst strategic mistake of the lot
That's a good article. Have to say the Guardian are far better on the topic than the Independent, which appears to have had a collective nervous breakdown.
The EU's black swan was the crash. Until then it was all going rather swimmingly, apart from the odd outbreak of democracy over the constitution.
They should formalise a dual-area Europe, and pursue full EMU (per the Five Presidents' Report) in the Eurozone. Sadly, that's unlikely to happen.
It was going OK until the Euro, which is an economy destroying disaster zone. The ascension of the eastern European countries then poured fuel onto the fire in terms of building in insurmountable structural asymmetries into the Eurozone and by extension the EU.
All that stuff learnt about Russian history - from the likes of Norman Stone - proved to be false. I am grateful that an over-paid, under-utilised, public-sector doctor spends so much time on my education via this site (and sod the patients).
I think the Nazis did on the Eastern front, although maybe for disposing of prisoners of war.
The incident closest to being verified was appropriately in the Crimean peninsula in 1942; the Germans apparently cleared out a besieged set of tunnels with gas.
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
Er, we did have a say in the EU policy towards the Ukraine, or at least we supposedly had one, at the time. Much good it did.
As for having a say in the policies of Poland and the Baltics we don't really because NATO is a completely different type of organisation. We certainly have obligations to each other, and possibly some influence. Those obligations are nowhere near as strong as some people like to make out though. The idea that the UK, with its tiny and hollowed-out armed forces, would go to war with Russia to protect either is laughable.
This is the EU that had to have three days of talks prior to being able to agree a statement on the Hague's ruling on China's claims in the South China Sea.
It's really not a credible foreign policy actor.
Well, as our principal counterpart on the Continent we are shortly to find out how coherent EU Foreign policy is without us.
More coherent than with us I would have thought. If we weren't in the EU at the time of the Iraq war I doubt Spain would have joined the coalition.
One of the reasons the US has for irritation with the UK is that we've essentially stopped participating in the EU for years, simply due to our domestic politics. They wanted a wing man and an honest broker; what they got was a deaf-mute.
An Obama/Hillary US would think that, Trump backed BREXIT and will leave Europe to solve its own problems
It was going OK until the Euro, which is an economy destroying disaster zone. The ascension of the eastern European countries then poured fuel onto the fire in terms of building in insurmountable structural asymmetries into the Eurozone and by extension the EU.
The Single Market was OK if you didn't look too closely and realise how intrusive, bureaucratic and inflexible it was, but many of the other policies were catastrophes. The Common Agriculture and Fisheries Policies, the bungled and disastrous intervention in Bosnia, the corruption in regional aid, the bloated and expensive administration ... The only reason they were not more widely covered was that they had been going on for so long that people sort of got used to them.
"But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other."
Why would they? Allah is watching to see if they backslide. Martyrdom is to be embraced, the quicker the better.
You're suggesting that discussion might possibly peel off the less committed? Blowing them to bits from the air is proving more effective. Sad but true. Discussion is a sign of weakness by the Infidels. What can you offer? A genuine question ... what can you offer that won't be seen as that?
It's in its death throes, but you're not dealing with logic here, and that's what makes it different. Even the Japanese in 1945 saw the inevitable and accepted unconditional surrender.
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
If we cared about EU policy towards Ukraine and wanted to have a say in it, then we should have voted Remain. Having walked away from the EU we have no right to try to determine EU policy concerning Ukraine. The Baltics and Poland are different as members of NATO, unless we walk away from that organisation too.
By bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum? One owned by a UK listed company? Bill Clinton: that great GOP hero.
Are you suggesting that was comparable to Bush and Blair invading Iraq?
The Muslim Brotherhood was a product of British rule in Egypt if you want to go back further!
No. But Obama has made plenty of missteps ascwell. Reversing the surge. Running away from Iraq prematurely. Faffing around in Libya. No red lines in Syria.
Both sides have been useless - personally I think tolerating the use of chemical weapons is the worst strategic mistake of the lot
To be fair, there was probably no good way of dealing with Iraq by the time Obama took office, and the West\’s history with Gaddafi must rank as one of the worst series of actions in history (although Mr Dancer will probably find an historical parallel). Gaddaffi, of course was probably his own worst enemy.
"Clean drinking water, death of infidels, medical care, Call of Duty 6, Islamic Caliphate, attractive nubile slave girl, new clutch for a 2012 Toyota, iphone."
All of that, plus a Caliphate that spans the whole world and the death or conversion to their version of Islam of the world's population. Oh, and the last one is not negotiable. I suppose you could call it their red line.
What do you choose?
If they're not interested in any deal that doesn't achieve the goals you mention then that's the end of the conversation. But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other.
AFAIR (I never had to wear my Mickey Mouse gas mask) neither the Nazis nor our side used poison gas in WWII. Whereas it was quite often used in WWI
According to Goring the only reason the Germans didn't use gas at Normandy was, apparently, that they relied on horse drawn transport to move troops/kit and they couldn't develop a horse gas mask which allowed enough air in for them to continue pulling.
So they'd have caused themselves just as much trouble as the Allies.
The Germans developed quite a few variants of equine gas masks in WWI (they were even more dependent on horses for transport then). Strange they didn't think it worth it in WWII, though I guess gas masks would have been ineffective against the nerve agents they were developing.
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
Er, we did have a say in the EU policy towards the Ukraine, or at least we supposedly had one, at the time. Much good it did.
As for having a say in the policies of Poland and the Baltics we don't really because NATO is a completely different type of organisation. We certainly have obligations to each other, and possibly some influence. Those obligations are nowhere near as strong as some people like to make out though. The idea that the UK, with its tiny and hollowed-out armed forces, would go to war with Russia to protect either is laughable.
This is the EU that had to have three days of talks prior to being able to agree a statement on the Hague's ruling on China's claims in the South China Sea.
It's really not a credible foreign policy actor.
Well, as our principal counterpart on the Continent we are shortly to find out how coherent EU Foreign policy is without us.
More coherent than with us I would have thought. If we weren't in the EU at the time of the Iraq war I doubt Spain would have joined the coalition.
One of the reasons the US has for irritation with the UK is that we've essentially stopped participating in the EU for years, simply due to our domestic politics. They wanted a wing man and an honest broker; what they got was a deaf-mute.
An Obama/Hillary US would think that, Trump backed BREXIT and will leave Europe to solve its own problems
"But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other."
Why would they? Allah is watching to see if they backslide. Martyrdom is to be embraced, the quicker the better.
You're suggesting that discussion might possibly peel off the less committed? Blowing them to bits from the air is proving more effective. Sad but true. Discussion is a sign of weakness by the Infidels. What can you offer? A genuine question ... what can you offer that won't be seen as that?
It's in its death throes, but you're not dealing with logic here, and that's what makes it different. Even the Japanese in 1945 saw the inevitable and accepted unconditional surrender.
You're dealing with a combination of strategic logic and homicidal bonkers. It may well be that there's too much homicidal bonkers to reach a deal, but if that turns out to be right, you... don't make a deal.
"But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other."
Why would they? Allah is watching to see if they backslide. Martyrdom is to be embraced, the quicker the better.
You're suggesting that discussion might possibly peel off the less committed? Blowing them to bits from the air is proving more effective. Sad but true. Discussion is a sign of weakness by the Infidels. What can you offer? A genuine question ... what can you offer that won't be seen as that?
It's in its death throes, but you're not dealing with logic here, and that's what makes it different. Even the Japanese in 1945 saw the inevitable and accepted unconditional surrender.
Only after two nuclear bombs and over two million Japanese military casualties. We haven't remotely gone that far against ISIS.
"But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other."
Why would they? Allah is watching to see if they backslide. Martyrdom is to be embraced, the quicker the better.
You're suggesting that discussion might possibly peel off the less committed? Blowing them to bits from the air is proving more effective. Sad but true. Discussion is a sign of weakness by the Infidels. What can you offer? A genuine question ... what can you offer that won't be seen as that?
It's in its death throes, but you're not dealing with logic here, and that's what makes it different. Even the Japanese in 1945 saw the inevitable and accepted unconditional surrender.
You're dealing with a combination of strategic logic and homicidal bonkers. It may well be that there's too much homicidal bonkers to reach a deal, but if that turns out to be right, you... don't make a deal.
There's no need to make a deal. ISIS are in full retreat and losing at the moment. Defeat them first, talk afterwards.
It was going OK until the Euro, which is an economy destroying disaster zone. The ascension of the eastern European countries then poured fuel onto the fire in terms of building in insurmountable structural asymmetries into the Eurozone and by extension the EU.
The Single Market was OK if you didn't look too closely and realise how intrusive, bureaucratic and inflexible it was, but many of the other policies were catastrophes. The Common Agriculture and Fisheries Policies, the bungled and disastrous intervention in Bosnia, the corruption in regional aid, the bloated and expensive administration ... The only reason they were not more widely covered was that they had been going on for so long that people sort of got used to them.
I'm sure. Presumably the same architects designed the Euro, so there must be some real shit in their back catalogue. But fundamentally, pooling sovereignty on key bits of trade amongst a group of very similar nations makes sense. As soon you expand that to a currency you kill the ability to use monetary policy to help with asymmetric shocks. As soon as you include asymmetric countries you make it inevitable the system will collapse.
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
Er, we did have a say in the EU policy towards the Ukraine, or at least we supposedly had one, at the time. Much good it did.
As for having a say in the policies of Poland and the Baltics we don't really because NATO is a completely different type of organisation. We certainly have obligations to each other, and possibly some influence. Those obligations are nowhere near as strong as some people like to make out though. The idea that the UK, with its tiny and hollowed-out armed forces, would go to war with Russia to protect either is laughable.
This is the EU that had to have three days of talks prior to being able to agree a statement on the Hague's ruling on China's claims in the South China Sea.
It's really not a credible foreign policy actor.
Well, as our principal counterpart on the Continent we are shortly to find out how coherent EU Foreign policy is without us.
More coherent than with us I would have thought. If we weren't in the EU at the time of the Iraq war I doubt Spain would have joined the coalition.
One of the reasons the US has for irritation with the UK is that we've essentially stopped participating in the EU for years, simply due to our domestic politics. They wanted a wing man and an honest broker; what they got was a deaf-mute.
An Obama/Hillary US would think that, Trump backed BREXIT and will leave Europe to solve its own problems
"But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other."
Why would they? Allah is watching to see if they backslide. Martyrdom is to be embraced, the quicker the better.
You're suggesting that discussion might possibly peel off the less committed? Blowing them to bits from the air is proving more effective. Sad but true. Discussion is a sign of weakness by the Infidels. What can you offer? A genuine question ... what can you offer that won't be seen as that?
It's in its death throes, but you're not dealing with logic here, and that's what makes it different. Even the Japanese in 1945 saw the inevitable and accepted unconditional surrender.
You're dealing with a combination of strategic logic and homicidal bonkers. It may well be that there's too much homicidal bonkers to reach a deal, but if that turns out to be right, you... don't make a deal.
There's no need to make a deal. ISIS are in full retreat and losing at the moment. Defeat them first, talk afterwards.
Defeating ISIS won't mean the defeat of militant islamism.
"But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other."
Why would they? Allah is watching to see if they backslide. Martyrdom is to be embraced, the quicker the better.
You're suggesting that discussion might possibly peel off the less committed? Blowing them to bits from the air is proving more effective. Sad but true. Discussion is a sign of weakness by the Infidels. What can you offer? A genuine question ... what can you offer that won't be seen as that?
It's in its death throes, but you're not dealing with logic here, and that's what makes it different. Even the Japanese in 1945 saw the inevitable and accepted unconditional surrender.
You're dealing with a combination of strategic logic and homicidal bonkers. It may well be that there's too much homicidal bonkers to reach a deal, but if that turns out to be right, you... don't make a deal.
There's no need to make a deal. ISIS are in full retreat and losing at the moment. Defeat them first, talk afterwards.
Defeating ISIS won't mean the defeat of militant islamism.
No but it will help.
Negotiating with ISIS won't mean negotiating the defeat of militant Islamism.
Not quite correct. Poland was not part of the Russian Empire. It was a client state with its own laws and its own parliament, in a personal union with the Russian Crown. Its position was analogous to Man, except that for centuries Poland, and after that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, had been one of the great powers of Europe and a genuine rival to the German Empire. Poland therefore re-emerged in 1918 under Brest-Litovsk, rather than being newly created.
Ukraine is more complex, but it was a little bit like the relationship between Northumbria and Wessex in the later Saxon period - many similarities but clear differences and ultimately answerable to one crown. There were significant movements for independence under the Tsars, and constant unrest under the Soviets. The Ukrainians fought hard for the Nazis in WWII in the hope of gaining national freedom and have still not forgiven the Soviets/Russians their brutal response to this, which included a huge famine in the late 1940s.
It is also very fair to say that there is a very nasty side indeed to that Ukrainian co-operation with the Nazis - I had no idea until a few weeks ago just how deeply embedded the Ukrainian regiments were in the SS nor how deeply implicated they were in the Holocaust.
Corbyn's comment about the UK not militarily intervening if the Russians invade one of the Baltic States was however a comment I couldn't pass. Owen Smith's comment about negotiating with ISIS is silly - the salient point is ISIS don't negotiate with anyone so the entire point is moot.
Corbyn on the other hand was directly undermining the key point of British defence and security policy since 1949 - an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all members. Rightly or wrongly, we are pledged to defend Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (not the Ukraine) and their inclusion under the NATO umbrella provides the sole guarantee of their continued independence from Moscow. Without a guarantee, they are at risk of being overrun as they were in 1940.
I thin
There's a difference between allowing a split in Ukraine (think Czechoslovakia) and standing by while allowing Putin to invade Ukraine against their will.
Quite. If we're brutal, that many in Ukraine wanted to turn more West has turned out to be a headache (and then a disaster) but people are allowed to want that (I don't buy the argument some have about it being the EU's fault for 'meddling' in Russia's sphere of influence, since if Ukraine wants to turn away from that sphere, why cannot it do so). Now, there would have been problems there regardless, as plenty of the country still looks to Russia, but that doesn't make what has happened and is happening ok.
The tragedy is that since the end of the Cold War we've allowed Europe to slip back to a position where looking 'East' or 'West' has such significance.
Spheres of influence belong to the 19th and 20th centuries. If self-determination means anything then it must mean the right for a country's government - elected by the people - to determine who it chooses as its allies and partners. To write off Ukraine, the Baltics and so on simply because Russia isn't keen, when they want our friendship and partnership would be to deny them their right to full statehood and imply that any request they make must be referred to Moscow first.
Their elected Government did that. It chose Russia.
I'm sure. Presumably the same architects designed the Euro, so there must be some real shit in their back catalogue. But fundamentally, pooling sovereignty on key bits of trade amongst a group of very similar nations makes sense. As soon you expand that to a currency you kill the ability to use monetary policy to help with asymmetric shocks. As soon as you include asymmetric countries you make it inevitable the system will collapse.
I agree with that in principle and to some extent, which is why I'd support a free trade area with the Anglosphere and Western Europe (NOT a customs union). But I have been closely involved professionally with the drafting of some Single Market legislation (twice) and it was that experience that really decided me to vote out. I've always found it difficult to get across the arrogance, incompetence and lack of respect for democracy or sovereignty of the Brussels elite to those fortunate enough never to have had to deal with it personally.
"Clean drinking water, death of infidels, medical care, Call of Duty 6, Islamic Caliphate, attractive nubile slave girl, new clutch for a 2012 Toyota, iphone."
All of that, plus a Caliphate that spans the whole world and the death or conversion to their version of Islam of the world's population. Oh, and the last one is not negotiable. I suppose you could call it their red line.
What do you choose?
If they're not interested in any deal that doesn't achieve the goals you mention then that's the end of the conversation. But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other.
AFAIR (I never had to wear my Mickey Mouse gas mask) neither the Nazis nor our side used poison gas in WWII. Whereas it was quite often used in WWI
According to Goring the only reason the Germans didn't use gas at Normandy was, apparently, that they relied on horse drawn transport to move troops/kit and they couldn't develop a horse gas mask which allowed enough air in for them to continue pulling.
So they'd have caused themselves just as much trouble as the Allies.
I am not sure anything that Goring said should be taken at face value. The use of poison gas had, I think, already been banned by international treaty and on the Western Front the Germans were, on the whole, very good at complying with the "rules of war".
I suspect that the real reason that the Germans did not use poison gas in the Normandy Campaign was that they knew they would get it right back and in much higher quantities. Both the Brits and the Septics had units equipped with 4.2 inch mortars designed and armed to fire gas projectiles, the Yanks even called theirs Chemical Mortars. One of my uncles serving with the Royal Engineers was in one of the British Units, until it was disbanded after the manpower shortage hit home in the early autumn of '44.
There is another point, although the Normandy Campaign dragged on far longer than planned, it was still sufficiently fluid for Gas not to have been much use. It could never have turned the tide in the German's favour.
That's a good article. Have to say the Guardian are far better on the topic than the Independent, which appears to have had a collective nervous breakdown.
Although the dead tree press is not what it was, the Guardian still has a few decent journalists - Elliott, Wintour and Harris are always worth a read. Ganesh at the FT is also pretty good.
It is particularly noticeable when you compare it to the Telegraph, which has vanished up its own fundament recently.
"But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other."
Why would they? Allah is watching to see if they backslide. Martyrdom is to be embraced, the quicker the better.
You're suggesting that discussion might possibly peel off the less committed? Blowing them to bits from the air is proving more effective. Sad but true. Discussion is a sign of weakness by the Infidels. What can you offer? A genuine question ... what can you offer that won't be seen as that?
It's in its death throes, but you're not dealing with logic here, and that's what makes it different. Even the Japanese in 1945 saw the inevitable and accepted unconditional surrender.
You're dealing with a combination of strategic logic and homicidal bonkers. It may well be that there's too much homicidal bonkers to reach a deal, but if that turns out to be right, you... don't make a deal.
There's no need to make a deal. ISIS are in full retreat and losing at the moment. Defeat them first, talk afterwards.
As much as anything else, ISIS is an ideology about a Wahhabi/Sunni state. As such, it will pop up anywhere where Sunni muslims have real or perceived grievances.
This makes 'defeat' of ISIS almost impossible: we can defeat them militarily, as we did their antecedents in Iraq during the surge. But the moment you release the pressure, they'll be back.
Look at all the states where ISIS has a foothold; ridding Syria of them might be feasible; removing them from Iraq will be much harder as that was where they started. Then there is Libya, Yemen, Sinai, etc, etc. They'll just pop up elsewhere.
There are solutions to this, but many of them contravene our own values.
"Clean drinking water, death of infidels, medical care, Call of Duty 6, Islamic Caliphate, attractive nubile slave girl, new clutch for a 2012 Toyota, iphone."
All of that, plus a Caliphate that spans the whole world and the death or conversion to their version of Islam of the world's population. Oh, and the last one is not negotiable. I suppose you could call it their red line.
What do you choose?
If they're not interested in any deal that doesn't achieve the goals you mention then that's the end of the conversation. But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other.
AFAIR (I never had to wear my Mickey Mouse gas mask) neither the Nazis nor our side used poison gas in WWII. Whereas it was quite often used in WWI
According to Goring the only reason the Germans didn't use gas at Normandy was, apparently, that they relied on horse drawn transport to move troops/kit and they couldn't develop a horse gas mask which allowed enough air in for them to continue pulling.
So they'd have caused themselves just as much trouble as the Allies.
I am not sure anything that Goring said should be taken at face value. The use of poison gas had, I think, already been banned by international treaty and on the Western Front the Germans were, on the whole, very good at complying with the "rules of war".
I suspect that the real reason that the Germans did not use poison gas in the Normandy Campaign was that they knew they would get it right back and in much higher quantities. Both the Brits and the Septics had units equipped with 4.2 inch mortars designed and armed to fire gas projectiles, the Yanks even called theirs Chemical Mortars. One of my uncles serving with the Royal Engineers was in one of the British Units, until it was disbanded after the manpower shortage hit home in the early autumn of '44.
There is another point, although the Normandy Campaign dragged on far longer than planned, it was still sufficiently fluid for Gas not to have been much use. It could never have turned the tide in the German's favour.
Agree with your second part, not the first. Massacres of non-combatants and troublesome prisoners by German soldiers were more or less routine in France in 1944, which strongly suggests the Germans had other reasons for not using banned weapons.
I think the fact that most Allied soldiers had gas masks probably also played a part, although there are very real doubts about how useful they would have been in practice.
That's a good article. Have to say the Guardian are far better on the topic than the Independent, which appears to have had a collective nervous breakdown.
Although the dead tree press is not what it was, the Guardian still has a few decent journalists - Elliott, Wintour and Harris are always worth a read. Ganesh at the FT is also pretty good.
It is particularly noticeable when you compare it to the Telegraph, which has vanished up its own fundament recently.
The Telegraph's current strategy, if one can call it that, is to try and get subscriptions for clickbait articles only slightly less trashy than the Mail. The subscription strategy might work, as might the clickbait strategy - but no-one is going to pay for crap when there's a whole Internet of free crap out there.
That's a good article. Have to say the Guardian are far better on the topic than the Independent, which appears to have had a collective nervous breakdown.
Although the dead tree press is not what it was, the Guardian still has a few decent journalists - Elliott, Wintour and Harris are always worth a read. Ganesh at the FT is also pretty good.
It is particularly noticeable when you compare it to the Telegraph, which has vanished up its own fundament recently.
The Telegraph's current strategy, if one can call it that, is to try and get subscriptions for clickbait articles only slightly less trashy than the Mail. The subscription strategy might work, as might the clickbait strategy - but no-one is going to pay for crap when there's a whole Internet of free crap out there.
Particularly when you can circumvent the need to pay for it by removing the telegraph's cookie from your cache.
Getting 50% to jump to become the official opposition sounds like a heavy lift. Calling themselves Cooperative Party MPs won't stop their members deselecting them, will it?
If swimming were excluded (which would certainly make for more interesting viewing overall), the US leads the UK by just one gold - 27 medals to 26!
There are way too many swimming medals, anyway. You can't get a medal for running backwards, after all.
Does sound like an entertaining sport though. And if the Russians were allowed to take part it would be interesting to see how bumpy the track seemed to be in all the other lanes...
Getting 50% to jump to become the official opposition sounds like a heavy lift. Calling themselves Cooperative Party MPs won't stop their members deselecting them, will it?
There's no way Bercow will let a party within a party become the Official Opposition. They'd need to clearly have left Labour and joined a new party. It looks from the article that the MPs want the best of both worlds, to have left Corbyn but not Labour.
"But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other."
Why would they? Allah is watching to see if they backslide. Martyrdom is to be embraced, the quicker the better.
You're suggesting that discussion might possibly peel off the less committed? Blowing them to bits from the air is proving more effective. Sad but true. Discussion is a sign of weakness by the Infidels. What can you offer? A genuine question ... what can you offer that won't be seen as that?
It's in its death throes, but you're not dealing with logic here, and that's what makes it different. Even the Japanese in 1945 saw the inevitable and accepted unconditional surrender.
You're dealing with a combination of strategic logic and homicidal bonkers. It may well be that there's too much homicidal bonkers to reach a deal, but if that turns out to be right, you... don't make a deal.
There's no need to make a deal. ISIS are in full retreat and losing at the moment. Defeat them first, talk afterwards.
As much as anything else, ISIS is an ideology about a Wahhabi/Sunni state. As such, it will pop up anywhere where Sunni muslims have real or perceived grievances.
This makes 'defeat' of ISIS almost impossible: we can defeat them militarily, as we did their antecedents in Iraq during the surge. But the moment you release the pressure, they'll be back.
Look at all the states where ISIS has a foothold; ridding Syria of them might be feasible; removing them from Iraq will be much harder as that was where they started. Then there is Libya, Yemen, Sinai, etc, etc. They'll just pop up elsewhere.
There are solutions to this, but many of them contravene our own values.
Yes, I agree with this perceptive post.
It is unproductive to paint ISIS as crazed lunatics that have simply erupted from nowhere. Fanatical devotion, whether to a religion, nation or other cult, frequently seems to arise as a desperate response when a society is subject to overwhelming internal and/or external stresses. Only by helping to relieve rather than aggravate these stresses will the West be able to deal effectively with the threat of Islamic terrorism.
Agree with your second part, not the first. Massacres of non-combatants and troublesome prisoners by German soldiers were more or less routine in France in 1944, which strongly suggests the Germans had other reasons for not using banned weapons.
I think the fact that most Allied soldiers had gas masks probably also played a part, although there are very real doubts about how useful they would have been in practice.
I hesitate to disagree with a learned historian, but I have to, I think, on this occasion. German soldiers in the Normandy campaign (and previously in North Africa and Italy) behaved, on the whole, correctly towards their armed, uniformed, opponents fighting in accordance with the rules of war. Yes there were exceptions, and there were exceptions on our side too (e.g. I can point you to incident where a unit of the Black Watch took off their steel helmets and replaced them with their hackled bonnets, a symbol that no prisoners would be taken, before going into an attack - none were).
On the subject of gas masks, if one looks at the photos of troops in action in the Normandy Campaign and beyond I think you'll find very little evidence that they were still even being carried. I have just scanned the photographs in a book covering the fight for hill 112 and the only one which shows a gas mask (at any rate a gas mask case, who knows what was in it) was one of a Hitler Jugend anti-tank team and only one of the soldiers displayed is carrying one.
The same can be seen of pictures in the UK. In 1939/40 almost everyone was carrying a gas mask. By 1944/45 almost nobody is.
Getting 50% to jump to become the official opposition sounds like a heavy lift. Calling themselves Cooperative Party MPs won't stop their members deselecting them, will it?
There's no way Bercow will let a party within a party become the Official Opposition. They'd need to clearly have left Labour and joined a new party. It looks from the article that the MPs want the best of both worlds, to have left Corbyn but not Labour.
Not sure about that. I mean, he presumably favours having a functioning opposition. But like I say, I doubt they'd have the numbers.
Getting 50% to jump to become the official opposition sounds like a heavy lift. Calling themselves Cooperative Party MPs won't stop their members deselecting them, will it?
If they call themselves Cooperative and Labour then Corbyn still is leader of the opposition as he'd count all of them within his party. They would have to leave Labour altogether to become second largest grouping.
That's a good article. Have to say the Guardian are far better on the topic than the Independent, which appears to have had a collective nervous breakdown.
Although the dead tree press is not what it was, the Guardian still has a few decent journalists - Elliott, Wintour and Harris are always worth a read. Ganesh at the FT is also pretty good.
It is particularly noticeable when you compare it to the Telegraph, which has vanished up its own fundament recently.
The Telegraph's current strategy, if one can call it that, is to try and get subscriptions for clickbait articles only slightly less trashy than the Mail. The subscription strategy might work, as might the clickbait strategy - but no-one is going to pay for crap when there's a whole Internet of free crap out there.
Particularly when you can circumvent the need to pay for it by removing the telegraph's cookie from your cache.
I'm sure. Presumably the same architects designed the Euro, so there must be some real shit in their back catalogue. But fundamentally, pooling sovereignty on key bits of trade amongst a group of very similar nations makes sense. As soon you expand that to a currency you kill the ability to use monetary policy to help with asymmetric shocks. As soon as you include asymmetric countries you make it inevitable the system will collapse.
I agree with that in principle and to some extent, which is why I'd support a free trade area with the Anglosphere and Western Europe (NOT a customs union). But I have been closely involved professionally with the drafting of some Single Market legislation (twice) and it was that experience that really decided me to vote out. I've always found it difficult to get across the arrogance, incompetence and lack of respect for democracy or sovereignty of the Brussels elite to those fortunate enough never to have had to deal with it personally.
I've never experienced it personally but the likes of Guy Verhofstadt do a good job in broadcasting to the masses what you have described.
It's the reason why I was quite surprised by that Guardian/Observer piece. A really interesting take on the situation without the sneering and condescension which is usually standard.
If swimming were excluded (which would certainly make for more interesting viewing overall), the US leads the UK by just one gold - 27 medals to 26!
There are way too many swimming medals, anyway. You can't get a medal for running backwards, after all.
Does sound like an entertaining sport though. And if the Russians were allowed to take part it would be interesting to see how bumpy the track seemed to be in all the other lanes...
Indeed!
And, seriously, we have beaten the Americans in Badminton, Boxing, Cycling, Canoeing, Diving, Equestrian, Golf, Rugby, Rowing, Sailing, Taekwondo, and Triathlon.
"Clean drinking water, death of infidels, medical care, Call of Duty 6, Islamic Caliphate, attractive nubile slave girl, new clutch for a 2012 Toyota, iphone."
All of that, plus a Caliphate that spans the whole world and the death or conversion to their version of Islam of the world's population. Oh, and the last one is not negotiable. I suppose you could call it their red line.
What do you choose?
If they're not interested in any deal that doesn't achieve the goals you mention then that's the end of the conversation. But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other.
AFAIR (I never had to wear my Mickey Mouse gas mask) neither the Nazis nor our side used poison gas in WWII. Whereas it was quite often used in WWI
The Japanese did.
I think the Nazis did on the Eastern front, although maybe for disposing of prisoners of war.
There was actually an accidental attack when a tanker carrying something similar to mustard gas was bombed in Bari. As the gas wasn't supposed to be there, the initial first aid effort ended up doing much more harm that good.
Thanks for that. Found a Wikipedia entry. I wonder where the Americans had thought of using it. I’m not aware of any legitimate use.
I’m actually reading, on the recommendation of someone her. “The Hunt for Saddam’s Weapons” where there are accounts of destroying various poison gases.
That's a good article. Have to say the Guardian are far better on the topic than the Independent, which appears to have had a collective nervous breakdown.
Although the dead tree press is not what it was, the Guardian still has a few decent journalists - Elliott, Wintour and Harris are always worth a read. Ganesh at the FT is also pretty good.
It is particularly noticeable when you compare it to the Telegraph, which has vanished up its own fundament recently.
The DT is awful. It doesn't even have the great range of animal pix and weird news that I visited every day. Opinion section is a pale former self. The rest is just filler I can read sooner/with more grisly detail on the Mail's website. I only go there for Allison Pearson and Tim Stanley. Mr Deacon has lost his sense of humour since Brexit and Tom Harris not as entertaining as Dan used to be.
Only their live updates rival Guardian. Here the Times is pitiful as apparently its 400k paying readers aren't interested in live stuff - bollox.
That's a good article. Have to say the Guardian are far better on the topic than the Independent, which appears to have had a collective nervous breakdown.
Although the dead tree press is not what it was, the Guardian still has a few decent journalists - Elliott, Wintour and Harris are always worth a read. Ganesh at the FT is also pretty good.
It is particularly noticeable when you compare it to the Telegraph, which has vanished up its own fundament recently.
The Telegraph's current strategy, if one can call it that, is to try and get subscriptions for clickbait articles only slightly less trashy than the Mail. The subscription strategy might work, as might the clickbait strategy - but no-one is going to pay for crap when there's a whole Internet of free crap out there.
I bought a year's subs to the DT online self - then they dumped their website and replaced it with no comments and clickbait/half the previous content. I can't imagine ever buying it again - the rot started when it 86'd the blogs section. That was superb.
The EU helped fan the flames of an already precarious situation.
I would agree with that.
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
It was the Rupublicans who with great gusto set the Middle East alight, it was the Democrats who tried to tidy up their mess.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
If we cared about EU policy towards Ukraine and wanted to have a say in it, then we should have voted Remain. Having walked away from the EU we have no right to try to determine EU policy concerning Ukraine. The Baltics and Poland are different as members of NATO, unless we walk away from that organisation too.
By bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum? One owned by a UK listed company? Bill Clinton: that great GOP hero.
Are you suggesting that was comparable to Bush and Blair invading Iraq?
The Muslim Brotherhood was a product of British rule in Egypt if you want to go back further!
No. But Obama has made plenty of missteps ascwell. Reversing the surge. Running away from Iraq prematurely. Faffing around in Libya. No red lines in Syria.
Both sides have been useless - personally I think tolerating the use of chemical weapons is the worst strategic mistake of the lot
I would go for the Reagan/Thatcher funding and training of the Mujahadin myself. That is what converted a political Islamist philosophy into armed Jihad, with the ultimate blowback from Bin Laden.
Getting 50% to jump to become the official opposition sounds like a heavy lift. Calling themselves Cooperative Party MPs won't stop their members deselecting them, will it?
There's no way Bercow will let a party within a party become the Official Opposition. They'd need to clearly have left Labour and joined a new party. It looks from the article that the MPs want the best of both worlds, to have left Corbyn but not Labour.
Not sure about that. I mean, he presumably favours having a functioning opposition. But like I say, I doubt they'd have the numbers.
Agree that he would like to see a functioning opposition, but he won't want to adjudicate between different factions of a single party in Parliament.
"Clean drinking water, death of infidels, medical care, Call of Duty 6, Islamic Caliphate, attractive nubile slave girl, new clutch for a 2012 Toyota, iphone."
All of that, plus a Caliphate that spans the whole world and the death or conversion to their version of Islam of the world's population. Oh, and the last one is not negotiable. I suppose you could call it their red line.
What do you choose?
If they're not interested in any deal that doesn't achieve the goals you mention then that's the end of the conversation. But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other.
AFAIR (I never had to wear my Mickey Mouse gas mask) neither the Nazis nor our side used poison gas in WWII. Whereas it was quite often used in WWI
The Japanese did.
I think the Nazis did on the Eastern front, although maybe for disposing of prisoners of war.
There was actually an accidental attack when a tanker carrying something similar to mustard gas was bombed in Bari. As the gas wasn't supposed to be there, the initial first aid effort ended up doing much more harm that good.
Thanks for that. Found a Wikipedia entry. I wonder where the Americans had thought of using it. I’m not aware of any legitimate use.
I’m actually reading, on the recommendation of someone her. “The Hunt for Saddam’s Weapons” where there are accounts of destroying various poison gases.
I hesitate to disagree with a learned historian, but I have to, I think, on this occasion. German soldiers in the Normandy campaign (and previously in North Africa and Italy) behaved, on the whole, correctly towards their armed, uniformed, opponents fighting in accordance with the rules of war. Yes there were exceptions, and there were exceptions on our side too (e.g. I can point you to incident where a unit of the Black Watch took off their steel helmets and replaced them with their hackled bonnets, a symbol that no prisoners would be taken, before going into an attack - none were).
On the subject of gas masks, if one looks at the photos of troops in action in the Normandy Campaign and beyond I think you'll find very little evidence that they were still even being carried. I have just scanned the photographs in a book covering the fight for hill 112 and the only one which shows a gas mask (at any rate a gas mask case, who knows what was in it) was one of a Hitler Jugend anti-tank team and only one of the soldiers displayed is carrying one.
The same can be seen of pictures in the UK. In 1939/40 almost everyone was carrying a gas mask. By 1944/45 almost nobody is.
You're correct that few soldiers carried gas masks and I realise I could have phrased that better. Most soldiers still had access to gas masks, and more importantly, the Germans thought they had instant access to them, because after the arrest of Canaris their intelligence bureau was worse than useless.
With regard to the question of atrocities, my point was again that in the western areas generally the Germans ignored the rules of war when it suited them, and tended to observe them only when they didn't get in the way. The Nazi high command had no respect for them whatsoever in any theatre - Hitler personally ordered all special forces soldiers that were captured should be shot. In practice this order wasn't always enforced, as for example when after Arnhem more than 2000 prisoners were taken and only a fairly small number were shot, mostly for escape attempts.
To expand your point a little, it was in the interests of the Wehrmacht themselves to observe the rules as they were likely to be taken prisoner and would want that specified treatment for themselves. However, the rules of war apply to everyone in the theatre and very often the Germans broke them - sometimes, as in the case of Oradour, for no obvious reason.
It would have been worse had the local commanders not ignored certain orders to e.g. burn Paris to the ground and kill all the men.
At the start of the men's marathon we learn from Brendan Foster that some of our 3 "athletes" are crocked and doing well just to complete the course.........
One is towards the back after 5 km and is described as "doing well".
It is also very fair to say that there is a very nasty side indeed to that Ukrainian co-operation with the Nazis - I had no idea until a few weeks ago just how deeply embedded the Ukrainian regiments were in the SS nor how deeply implicated they were in the Holocaust.
Wasn’t that why Stalin wanted all”Russian” ex PoW’s returned; so he could deal with the Ukranians?
At the start of the men's marathon we learn from Brendan Foster that some of our 3 "athletes" are crocked and doing well just to complete the course.........
One is towards the back after 5 km and is described as "doing well".
Clearly the Team GB funding model needs to be more ruthless.
Comments
Foreign policy is one of the reasons why Hillary might actually be more disastrous than Donald.
(Both would of course be disasters, it is simply a matter of risk assessment now).
The US has already done a huge amount of damage with its wars in the Middle East (the repercussions of which have almost wholly affected Europe rather than the US).
Hillary could easily blow up the Ukraine. With even more disastrous consequences for Europe.
We could be living in a year like 1913.
I think mass deportations is not the way to clarify borders in the 21st Century though. I would much rather see supranational organisations as guarantors of minority rights than a division into petty nationalisms each with an ethnic agenda.
I think Trumps isolationism risks America leaving a major power vacuum in the world, in East Asia, MENA and also East Europe.
If we cared about EU policy towards Ukraine and wanted to have a say in it, then we should have voted Remain. Having walked away from the EU we have no right to try to determine EU policy concerning Ukraine. The Baltics and Poland are different as members of NATO, unless we walk away from that organisation too.
Better off asking them though. You wouldn't want to give them everything they want, but you may be able to come up with an arrangement that's better for everyone than the status quo, especially since the status quo isn't great.
But Ukraine has always been distinct - if I remember my history Muscovy was founded by a younger son of the royal family (rulers of the Rus) sent north to explore. A lot of the disputed regions were for centuries unclaimed by either side.
Kyiv was founded by Varangian Vikings as I recall. Perhaps we are all Scandanavians...
"Clean drinking water, death of infidels, medical care, Call of Duty 6, Islamic Caliphate, attractive nubile slave girl, new clutch for a 2012 Toyota, iphone."
All of that, plus a Caliphate that spans the whole world and the death or conversion to their version of Islam of the world's population. Oh, and the last one is not negotiable. I suppose you could call it their red line.
What do you choose?
The Muslim Brotherhood was a product of British rule in Egypt if you want to go back further!
As for having a say in the policies of Poland and the Baltics we don't really because NATO is a completely different type of organisation. We certainly have obligations to each other, and possibly some influence. Those obligations are nowhere near as strong as some people like to make out though. The idea that the UK, with its tiny and hollowed-out armed forces, would go to war with Russia to protect either is laughable.
It's really not a credible foreign policy actor. Its only leverage is economic, and that doesn't really work against revanchism.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/21/europe-leaders-response-brexit-vote
I suppose that's an indirect self-Godwinning...
The EU's black swan was the crash. Until then it was all going rather swimmingly, apart from the odd outbreak of democracy over the constitution.
They should formalise a dual-area Europe, and pursue full EMU (per the Five Presidents' Report) in the Eurozone. Sadly, that's unlikely to happen.
I did suggest they remove the word 'turnip' from your dictionary ...
I think the Nazis did on the Eastern front, although maybe for disposing of prisoners of war.
There was actually an accidental attack when a tanker carrying something similar to mustard gas was bombed in Bari. As the gas wasn't supposed to be there, the initial first aid effort ended up doing much more harm that good.
So they'd have caused themselves just as much trouble as the Allies.
On the whole it was not used despite the casual brutality of war because it doesn't mix well with rapid wars of movement. On the whole chemical weapons are not terribly useful.
I’m actually reading, on the recommendation of someone her. “The Hunt for Saddam’s Weapons” where there are accounts of destroying various poison gases.
The same is true atm of Turkey.
Although Turkey has yet to show the (ahem) adventurousness of Putin on the foreign front. Turkey is also faced with far more real existential threats than Russia.
Witness:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37147717
Both sides have been useless - personally I think tolerating the use of chemical weapons is the worst strategic mistake of the lot
All that stuff learnt about Russian history - from the likes of Norman Stone - proved to be false. I am grateful that an over-paid, under-utilised, public-sector doctor spends so much time on my education via this site (and sod the patients).
:avoid-leicester-nhs:
"But in practice even very crazy people who are trying hard to kill each other can often find ways to make the situation less bad for each other, even as they continue to try to kill each other."
Why would they? Allah is watching to see if they backslide. Martyrdom is to be embraced, the quicker the better.
You're suggesting that discussion might possibly peel off the less committed? Blowing them to bits from the air is proving more effective. Sad but true. Discussion is a sign of weakness by the Infidels. What can you offer? A genuine question ... what can you offer that won't be seen as that?
It's in its death throes, but you're not dealing with logic here, and that's what makes it different. Even the Japanese in 1945 saw the inevitable and accepted unconditional surrender.
http://a68.tinypic.com/ji0zlf.jpg
All modern weapons are chemical (or rely upon chemicals to propel them). Outwith a tungsten-dart a HESH will ruin your day.
Negotiating with ISIS won't mean negotiating the defeat of militant Islamism.
Not quite correct. Poland was not part of the Russian Empire. It was a client state with its own laws and its own parliament, in a personal union with the Russian Crown. Its position was analogous to Man, except that for centuries Poland, and after that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, had been one of the great powers of Europe and a genuine rival to the German Empire. Poland therefore re-emerged in 1918 under Brest-Litovsk, rather than being newly created.
Ukraine is more complex, but it was a little bit like the relationship between Northumbria and Wessex in the later Saxon period - many similarities but clear differences and ultimately answerable to one crown. There were significant movements for independence under the Tsars, and constant unrest under the Soviets. The Ukrainians fought hard for the Nazis in WWII in the hope of gaining national freedom and have still not forgiven the Soviets/Russians their brutal response to this, which included a huge famine in the late 1940s.
I suspect that the real reason that the Germans did not use poison gas in the Normandy Campaign was that they knew they would get it right back and in much higher quantities. Both the Brits and the Septics had units equipped with 4.2 inch mortars designed and armed to fire gas projectiles, the Yanks even called theirs Chemical Mortars. One of my uncles serving with the Royal Engineers was in one of the British Units, until it was disbanded after the manpower shortage hit home in the early autumn of '44.
There is another point, although the Normandy Campaign dragged on far longer than planned, it was still sufficiently fluid for Gas not to have been much use. It could never have turned the tide in the German's favour.
It is particularly noticeable when you compare it to the Telegraph, which has vanished up its own fundament recently.
This makes 'defeat' of ISIS almost impossible: we can defeat them militarily, as we did their antecedents in Iraq during the surge. But the moment you release the pressure, they'll be back.
Look at all the states where ISIS has a foothold; ridding Syria of them might be feasible; removing them from Iraq will be much harder as that was where they started. Then there is Libya, Yemen, Sinai, etc, etc. They'll just pop up elsewhere.
There are solutions to this, but many of them contravene our own values.
I think the fact that most Allied soldiers had gas masks probably also played a part, although there are very real doubts about how useful they would have been in practice.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/78297/labour-rebels-‘plan-new-group-parliament’-if
There are way too many swimming medals, anyway. You can't get a medal for running backwards, after all.
I'm eating Qourn from now on!
It is unproductive to paint ISIS as crazed lunatics that have simply erupted from nowhere. Fanatical devotion, whether to a religion, nation or other cult, frequently seems to arise as a desperate response when a society is subject to overwhelming internal and/or external stresses. Only by helping to relieve rather than aggravate these stresses will the West be able to deal effectively with the threat of Islamic terrorism.
On the subject of gas masks, if one looks at the photos of troops in action in the Normandy Campaign and beyond I think you'll find very little evidence that they were still even being carried. I have just scanned the photographs in a book covering the fight for hill 112 and the only one which shows a gas mask (at any rate a gas mask case, who knows what was in it) was one of a Hitler Jugend anti-tank team and only one of the soldiers displayed is carrying one.
The same can be seen of pictures in the UK. In 1939/40 almost everyone was carrying a gas mask. By 1944/45 almost nobody is.
It's the reason why I was quite surprised by that Guardian/Observer piece. A really interesting take on the situation without the sneering and condescension which is usually standard.
http://tinyurl.com/jt6kbca
And, seriously, we have beaten the Americans in Badminton, Boxing, Cycling, Canoeing, Diving, Equestrian, Golf, Rugby, Rowing, Sailing, Taekwondo, and Triathlon.
Only their live updates rival Guardian. Here the Times is pitiful as apparently its 400k paying readers aren't interested in live stuff - bollox.
http://reaction.life/meet-trump-2-0-admits-mistakes-might-even-work/
With regard to the question of atrocities, my point was again that in the western areas generally the Germans ignored the rules of war when it suited them, and tended to observe them only when they didn't get in the way. The Nazi high command had no respect for them whatsoever in any theatre - Hitler personally ordered all special forces soldiers that were captured should be shot. In practice this order wasn't always enforced, as for example when after Arnhem more than 2000 prisoners were taken and only a fairly small number were shot, mostly for escape attempts.
To expand your point a little, it was in the interests of the Wehrmacht themselves to observe the rules as they were likely to be taken prisoner and would want that specified treatment for themselves. However, the rules of war apply to everyone in the theatre and very often the Germans broke them - sometimes, as in the case of Oradour, for no obvious reason.
It would have been worse had the local commanders not ignored certain orders to e.g. burn Paris to the ground and kill all the men.
One is towards the back after 5 km and is described as "doing well".