Happy Armistices- err Veteran's Day

[JackLuis]

Happy Armistices- err Veterans Day

As we heard last night, most of the Rethug's would happily use our Military to advance the cause of American principles.

We should take time out to apologize to our Vet's for the serious lack of leadership we have elected for them.

Sorry Guys.

 

[MichaelinChina]

Aussies call it Remembrance Day - a minute's silence at 11 am on the 11th day of the 11th month.

 

[JackLuis]

The War Prayer
by Mark Twain

Aussies call it Remembrance Day

Just to remember that Winston Churchill knew nothing about terrain, being focused on Naval warfare.

 

[MichaelinChina]

The War Prayer
by Mark Twain



Just to remember that Winston Churchill knew nothing about terrain, being focused on Naval warfare.

Well it has grown to become much more than that. It's about remembering the sacrifices of those who died in all wars since WWI.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Remembrance Day in Canada.

a moment of silence on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month when the guns fell silent.

Lest we forget.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

 

[oggbashan]

Just to remember that Winston Churchill knew nothing about terrain, being focused on Naval warfare.

Remember that Winston Churchill fought as a soldier in India, in South Africa and in Egypt.

He knew the price of war and the cost and pain of a battle won.

 

[oggbashan]

Aussies call it Remembrance Day - a minute's silence at 11 am on the 11th day of the 11th month.

One of my father's Australian friends was the survivor of five brothers who fought in WW1. The others died at Gallipoli and on the Western Front.

Although he was technically a civilian on the supply chain during WW2, he fought in New Guinea on the Kokoda Trail when the Japanese penetrated beyond the mythical front line. As he put it: "The Japanese didn't care whether I was a civilian or not when they killed my mates. I didn't care whether I was a civilian or not. I just grabbed a Bren gun and shot back."

The Australian authorities didn't know whether to court-martial him or give him a medal. They decided to do neither and forget that he picked up that Bren gun.

I was proud to have met him, as I was proud to have met many WW1, WW2 and Korean veterans. I was able to thank them.

 

[JackLuis]

Remember that Winston Churchill fought as a soldier in India, in South Africa and in Egypt.

He knew the price of war and the cost and pain of a battle won.

Oh yes, but he still had no idea about terrain and land battle. (See Forcing the Dardanelles) The Soft Underbelly of Europe is composed of hilly terrain most difficult to use tanks and artillery in. His great fear was more trench warfare in France, while the Russians crushed the Nazis for England.

His strategy was not to beat the Germans but to let the Russians bleed them to death.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Remembrance Day in Canada.

a moment of silence on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month when the guns fell silent.

Lest we forget.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow . . .

N.B.: Not an anti-war poem. A poem written in 1915 to encourage the Allies to keep fighting WWI because so many had already died in it. (See sunk cost fallacy.) (The poet himself died of pneumonia at a Canadian field hospital in Boulogne in 1918.)

 

[Hard_Rom]

N.B.: Not an anti-war poem. A poem written in 1915 to encourage the Allies to keep fighting WWI because so many had already died in it. (See sunk cost fallacy.) (The poet himself died of pneumonia at a Canadian field hospital in Boulogne in 1918.)

There are times when Libs throw bricks or give their lives and yes even take lives in the defence of such things as basic human rights and the defeat of militarism and totalitarianism.

Oppenheimer opposed the use of the bomb yet still built it.

I'm also an Imperialist. Really? I wish that the British Empire had somehow someway found a way to stay together. The fucking glorious things it could do in the name of the empire and Empress. Gives me a chubby thinking of it.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm also an Imperialist. Really? I wish that the British Empire had somehow someway found a way to stay together. The fucking glorious things it could do in the name of the empire and Empress. Gives me a chubby thinking of it.

Well, here's a solution obvious in hindsight to an American, with our experience in federal government: Suppose it's 1707, and some forward-looking political thinker in the English Parliament comes up with a different model, a more federal model, than that currently under consideration which ultimately resulted in the Acts of Union, to wit: The Scottish Parliament and Government will not be dissolved and merged into the English, but, rather, England and Scotland will continue to exist as constitutionally separate kingdoms, but both will be united under the new Empire of the British Isles, Queen Anne to be Queen of England, Queen of Scotland, and Empress of the British Isles -- yes, a Protestant Empress, why not, ye Papests?! The Parliament and Government of each Kingdom shall continue as a going concern, but there will be a new Imperial Parliament and Imperial Government sovereign over all, and exclusively handling all military matters and all inter-Kingdoms trade matters and all foreign-relations matters -- there will be an integrated Imperial Navy and Imperial Army, recruiting the best professional and long-term soldiers and sailors and officers of each Kingdom, but each Kingdom shall be expected to maintain a Royal Navy and a Royal Army (militia and coast guard, really) for home defense -- oh, and, yes, Ireland is no longer a subject kingdom or colony to England, but now a fully equal Kingdom of the Empire, with its own Royal Army and Royal Navy -- and Wales, too, severed from England and now an autonomous Principality with its own autonomous and coequal Parliament -- and the Duchy of Normandy/Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, they also will have home rule and will be represented in the Imperial Parliament -- and, oh, yes, rather an afterthought, but the colonies, too, from Newfoundland to Barbados -- sparsely populated, so, why not, they also will be allowed home rule by their own colonial/provincial parliaments and they also will be represented however meagerly in the Imperial Commons . . . So, Anne is now Empress of the British Isles, Queen of England, Queen of Scotland, Queen of Ireland, Constitutional and Sovereign Princess of Wales (the heir to the throne being merely the Titular Prince/Princess of Wales), Duke of Normandy, Lord of Man, and of all the Overseas Dominions and Colonies of the British Empire, Empress and Queen . . . each Kingdom and each Principality/Duchy/Colony (including England!) having its own imperially-appointed Viceroy (preferably a member of the Royal Family) to govern in the absence of the Queen-Empress (who should be absent from England a great deal of the time, always touring the various Kingdoms and Colonies) . . .

Then, in the years following 1763, the issue of "No taxation without representation!" never even arises as an issue, you see, because the colonies have representation in the Imperial Commons . . .

Of course, that alternate-history resolution implies several problems rather speculative even in hindsight:

1. As the population overseas grows, and grow it will, that will spark demands for parliamentary reform -- giving added fuel to such demands within England, which were controversial enough within our own timeline; and

2. Heck, that might even end in the Royal and Imperial Capital and Court being moved from London to New York!; and, far more importantly and most importantly,

3. As the British Empire expands beyond white-majority "settler states," that raises the question of whether nonwhite populations in African and Asian colonies, and for that matter Iroquois and Cherokee and Algonquin colonies, are to be counted and allowed to vote for their representatives in the Imperial Parliament, or treated as savages, as conquered and rightless and disenfranchised subjects. If the former, the British Empire winds up, perhaps, based on sheer population numbers, as an Indian/Hindu Empire with marginalized white and black subjects; if the latter, perhaps it doesn't last very long at all.

How would you, as British Imperialist, resolve all of that? How's your chubby now?

 

[Hard_Rom]

A Federal system woks well for me. Scotland would be better off. Wales would have more importance. Also early on the Empire should have granted Dominion status to Ireland and India.

You can even elect a king or queen. They have no real powers, they reign not rule. Washington was thought to be a candidate for the King of America. It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Sir Winston Churchill British politician (1874 - 1965) Westminster parliaments in Can/Aus/UK/NZ work as well as American republican system.

UN has headquarters in NY. Hell move court around like in olden tymes. Move it around the world. Truely democratic and inclusive.

Even just allowing the colonies representation, one little thing, could have allowed an Anglo-sphere Empire to rule. oh! Wait Five Eyes rule the world. Damn close enough, maybe to Empire!

Beginning to sound like a Utopian society.

It would not have to dominated by India. Representation does not have to proportional. Canada does not use proportional representation. Not perfect but doesn't seem to going anywhere to soon.

Technically the whole thing is a Germanic diaspora/conquest that did not stop until it got to LA. Maybe somewhere in Oz but would have to look up dates.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Five Eyes rule the world.

 

[Hard_Rom]

They want to sell us stuff, buy our stuff, acquire our technology, speak our language (English is now the lingua Franca not Latin or Greek0 Any CSL courses near you?. Live here (any English speaking country sits atop immigrants list). Half those European refugees are trying for England.

You guys bitch worse about your government than the rest of us do. Toss your ever changing partisan head of state and get some much needed stability.

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-anglosphere-and-oz/
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...losphere-and-britain-has-lead-it-james-poulos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere

If your militaries and intelligence agencies work had in hand, you must share many many ideals.

 

[oggbashan]

Oh yes, but he still had no idea about terrain and land battle. (See Forcing the Dardanelles) The Soft Underbelly of Europe is composed of hilly terrain most difficult to use tanks and artillery in. His great fear was more trench warfare in France, while the Russians crushed the Nazis for England.

His strategy was not to beat the Germans but to let the Russians bleed them to death.

'Nazis'? I think you mean the Germans/Austrians in WW1.

Churchill's idea of forcing the Dardenelles was possible but the execution of his proposals was badly flawed. The Turks had some incredible luck with their small minefield sinking/damaging valuable ships.

The idea was:

1. To use ancient and expendable battleships that would be useless in a fleet action but were perfectly capable of bombarding shore targets to destroy the gun emplacements on the peninsula.

2. Once those gun emplacements were destroyed to land troops at the North of the peninsula to cut off Turkish troops further south, and

3. To move the old battleships up to threaten Constantinople/Istanbul, possibly reinforced by modern battlecruisers to face the two modern German ships already there. The modern ships should not arrive until the threat from the shore guns had been eliminated.

His plan was much modified.

1. The British and French naval commanders used modern warships they couldn't afford to lose. They stopped bombarding a significant Turkish gun emplacement just at the point the Turks had run out of shells. The small minefield was placed exactly where the battleships turned to leave the straits, and caught too many valuable assets which shouldn't have been anywhere near the straits.

2. Having botched the bombardment and having given the Turks time to reinforce the area, they landed troops at the Southern tip of the peninsula instead of at the Northern end.

3. Because 1 and 2 were failures, 3 became impossible but submarine attacks showed that Churchill's plan was feasible IF the commanders on the spot had been competent and able to overrule the remote military chain of command.

IF Churchill's plan had succeeded, would it have changed the progress of the war once Turkey had become at least neutral?

That is the real question. The answer is probably not. The main decision would still have rested on the Western Front unless Austria/Hungary had been forced to capitulate by attacks through Turkey.

Churchill's view was that a small decisive force might have achieved far more in the Dardenelles than a much larger force on the Western Front.

BUT - his plan was never tried. It was modified out of recognition and the result was a shambles. The only good points was 1. the successful evacuation and 2. the recognition that the Allies were incompetent to mount a successful seaborne landing. That led to the development of combined service commands by WW2.

 

[KingOrfeo]

They want to sell us stuff, buy our stuff, acquire our technology, speak our language (English is now the lingua Franca not Latin or Greek0 Any CSL courses near you?. Live here (any English speaking country sits atop immigrants list). Half those European refugees are trying for England.

You guys bitch worse about your government than the rest of us do. Toss your ever changing partisan head of state and get some much needed stability.

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-anglosphere-and-oz/
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...losphere-and-britain-has-lead-it-james-poulos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere

If your militaries and intelligence agencies work had in hand, you must share many many ideals.

But, who are the "Five Eyes"?

 

[Hard_Rom]

But, who are the "Five Eyes"?

You're yanking my chain if you have never heard of the Five Eyes. Everyone worries about Big Brother. WE ARE BIG BROTHER!

The US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Signatories to USUK intelligence agreement dating from WWII. Canada is tasked with surveillance of South American intercepts.

Of course Canada is on it. Notice all English speaking countries, there cousin. During Cold War Russian missiles would come over North Pole and either crash, be shot down or miss in Canada. We had nukes once. Last I heard you guys had a few stashed away secretly up here just in case. We are one of those countries who does not have to hide the fact that for us it would be just a matter of putting one together.

We had BOMARC SAMs with 10 kilo warheads.

The Bomarc Missile Program was highly controversial in Canada.[22] The Progressive Conservative government of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker initially agreed to deploy the missiles, and shortly thereafter controversially scrapped the Avro Arrow, a supersonic manned interceptor aircraft, arguing that the missile program made the Arrow unnecessary.[22]

Initially, it was unclear whether the missiles would be equipped with nuclear warheads. By 1960 it became known that the missiles were to have a nuclear payload, and a debate ensued about whether Canada should accept nuclear weapons.[23] Ultimately, the Diefenbaker government decided that the Bomarcs should not be equipped with nuclear warheads.[24] The dispute split the Diefenbaker Cabinet, and led to the collapse of the government in 1963.[24] The Official Opposition and Liberal Party leader Lester "Mike" Pearson originally was against nuclear missiles, but reversed his personal position and argued in favor of accepting nuclear warheads.[25] He won the 1963 election, largely on the basis of this issue, and his new Liberal government proceeded to accept nuclear-armed Bomarcs, with the first being deployed on 31 December 1963.[26] When the nuclear warheads were deployed, Pearson's wife, Maryon, resigned her honorary membership in the anti-nuclear weapons group, Voice of Women.[23]

Canadian operational deployment of the Bomarc involved the formation of two specialized Surface/Air Missile squadrons. The first to begin operations was No. 446 SAM Squadron at RCAF Station North Bay, Ontario which was the command and control center for both squadrons.[26] With construction of the compound and related facilities completed in 1961, the squadron received its Bomarcs in 1961, without nuclear warheads.[26] The squadron became fully operational from 31 December 1963, when the nuclear warheads arrived, until disbanding on 31 March 1972. All the warheads were stored separately and under control of Detachment 1 of the USAF 425th Munitions Maintenance Squadron. During operational service, the Bomarcs were maintained on stand-by, on a 24-hour basis, but were never fired, although the squadron test-fired the missiles at Eglin AFB, Florida on annual winter retreats.[27]

No. 447 SAM Squadron operating out of RCAF Station La Macaza, Quebec was activated on 15 September 1962 although warheads were not delivered until late 1963. The squadron followed the same operational procedures as No. 446, its sister squadron. With the passage of time the operational capability of the 1950s-era Bomarc system no longer met modern requirements; the Department of National Defence deemed that the Bomarc missile defense was no longer a viable system, and ordered both squadrons to be stood down in 1972. The bunkers and ancillary facilities remain at both former sites.[28]


The "Five Eyes" term has its origins as a shorthand for a "AUS/CAN/NZ/UK/US EYES ONLY" (AUSCANNZUKUS) classification level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

ECHELON network disclosures (1988–2000)[edit]

By the end of the 20th century, the ECHELON surveillance network had evolved into a global system capable of sweeping up massive amounts of private and commercial communications, including telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data traffic. This was done through the interception of communication bearers such as satellite transmission and public switched telephone networks.[33] In 1988, Duncan Campbell revealed in the New Statesman the existence of ECHELON, an extension of the UKUSA Agreement on global signals intelligence [Sigint]. The story, 'Somebody's listening,' detailed how the eavesdropping operations were not only being employed in the interests of 'national security,' but were regularly abused for corporate espionage in the service of US business interests. The piece passed largely unnoticed outside of journalism circles. [34] In 1996, a detailed description of ECHELON was provided by New Zealand journalist Nicky Hager in a book titled "Secret Power – New Zealand's Role in the International Spy Network", which was cited by the European Parliament in a 1998 report titled "An Appraisal of the Technology of Political Control" (PE 168.184).[35] On 16 March 2000, the Parliament called for a resolution on the Five Eyes and their ECHELON surveillance network, which, if passed, would have called for the "complete dismantling of ECHELON".[36]

3 months later, the Temporary Committee on ECHELON was set up by the European Parliament to investigate the ECHELON surveillance network. However, according to a number of European politicians such as Esko Seppänen of Finland, these investigations were hindered by the European Commission.[37]

In the United States, congressional legislators warned that the ECHELON system could be used to monitor U.S. citizens.[38] On 14 May 2001, the U.S. government cancelled all meetings with the Temporary Committee on ECHELON.[39]

According to a BBC report in May 2001, "the US Government still refuses to admit that Echelon even exists".[15

 

[JackLuis]

'Nazis'? I think you mean the Germans/Austrians in WW1.

Churchill's idea of forcing the Dardenelles was possible but the execution of his proposals was badly flawed. The Turks had some incredible luck with their small minefield sinking/damaging valuable ships.
-

While I can agree that the British and French completely botched the WW1 Landings and were ill equipped to make the landing, not having LCM/LST/s etc. The Royal Navy was loathed to risk their warships but agreeable to leave the Aussie's on a hostile shore without supporting fires. They were only colonial cannon fodder after all, but Royal Navy ships were the pride of the Empire and too valuable to risk.

The comment on the Nazi's was focused on Churchill's plans for WW2 to invade Europe from the south, thru Italy as he tried to avoid a battle in France, which was good tank country, and sneak up on Germany from the south. He failed to look at a terrain map however and failed to understand that the terrain in Italy was much easier to defend than the open plains of France/Europe.

The Sicily invasion was a good move, to free up the Mediterranean and allow better connection to the east, however the inability to stem the German evacuation to Italy was unfortunate. The Germans knew that the Italian mountains were much better defensible terrain and they chose their battles and withdrawls to conserve the few troops that Smiling Albert had available because the Russian front needed every man.

We can discuss the issue more but I will always believe the Churchill was much better at propaganda than tactics.