Curt Mungus for President, 2024 - Make America a Wasteland Again!

post this in variants, this kind of post don’t belong here. thanks

The 26th April 1937 saw Hitler’s Condor Legion bomb the Northern Spanish Basque town of Guernica. It was seen as a proving ground for the Nazi party’s new Luftwaffe and much experience was to be garnered from the Spanish Civil War. The Condor Legion was led by Oberstleutnant Wolfram Freiherr Von Richthofen(The Red Baron’s cousin) and under Nationalist control. Guernica was behind the front lines and was a town of about 7000 population. The bombing was in waves and exact casualty reports are unknown, but probably numbered around 1000. The Legion was a mix of Fighters and Medium Bombers, all names we know: 109s(B not Es), HE 51s (biplanes), DO 17s, JU52s and HE111s. There were also some Italian Fiat Fighters and the versatile SM79.
The outcome of the bombing was to demoralise the townsfolk and lead to its falling to Franco’s Nationalists on the 29th April.
This bombing raid was to be a preview of what was to happen between 39-45 to larger cities like Warsaw, London,Berlin, Dresden and finally Tokyo.

Coincidentally, here’s a news story on the V-22 Osprey which appeared just today:

1 October 2012

US Osprey military aircraft begin Okinawa base move

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19782283

@axis_roll:

OK, can we take this premise is a slightly different direction?

what makes a great A&A player?
[Not sure if these are in order of importance of not, we can argue that after we create a list]
Also assuming a 1-on-1 game.  Team dynamics are a whole other discussion.

1).   Experience

Knows the game and the ‘better’ strategies and more important territories as well some of the nuances of the game (like sub / DD interaction / vulnerabilities as well as how to coordinate moves with your allies countries)

2).  Vision / Ability to see 2-3 rounds down the road in a game.

If you can not see what your opponent is trying to do to you or have a strategy for your side (at least a general one), it’s hard to win.  Knowing HOW to win is not hard (your objectives), you can gleen that from the rules, knowing HOW to achieve those are much more vital

3).  Understanding / mitigating the risks

Take good odds battles, unless you are falling behind, you might starting increasing your risks in order to increase your chances of winning.

4).  Determining who is winning / losing (very tightly related to 3)

If you think you are winning when you are in fact losing, your moves may be counter productive.  An example helps to explain my point.  If I think I am winning, I may have no sense of urgency to force my opponent to counter my move(s), or properly increase my risk exposure.

5).  Being able to realize AND take advantage of an opportunity

Many times in games, a battle may go awry for/against you (dice will do that!).  Sometimes it can be so bad that no level of contingency plan you have created can save you EXCEPT for your opponents failure to realize and exploit this weakness.  Good players recognize these situations.

6).  Realizing any unit is disposable to meet your objective(s)

Often times, a player is hung up on the COST of some units that are risked/lost.  “Oh, I took france but it cost me 3 bombers to do it!”
Well that just might be the best move for the situation, ESPECIALLY if you can afford it or needed that battle to get back into the game (see #3 about mitigating the risks)

Please feel free to add to my quick list.  I am sure there are many more.

Very solid list.

@Jermofoot:

How would a guy under a pile of cops hurt anyone? He wasn’t even on PCP.

I think CC covered this, should they sit on him for 10 minutes? 20? 2 hours?

@Jermofoot:

Actually, there has been much debate about not only the lethality of a taser, but also the excessive employment of them.  People have died from being tased, there are records showing that cops are more likely to use the taser since it is considered nonlethal.

I don’t know how the laws are inother places, but in AZ you can’t use “less than lethal” on someone unless it has been used on you.  In other words the cops here have all been tazed and pepper sprayed.  They know exactly what it does and how it works.

@Jermofoot:

Unfortunately, we can’t just silence what we don’t want to hear.  A discussion must include even the fringe arguments that are unlikely.

Yeah we can.  You may have freedom of speech, but I also have the freedom to tell you to be quiet if I don’t want to hear it in my house.  I can hold my hands over my ears, mI can turn off the TV/Radio.  And if you’re on my property I can tell you to shut up or leave.

@Jermofoot:

What could possibly be more to the story?  You can see everything from start to finish on the video.

Of course there’s more to the story, unless you were there, you don’t know what was happening outside of the camera view.

This news sotry shows just how close the United States is to becoming just like Germany of the 1930’s.

We have always been a nation of the rule of law, and have prided ourselves on our Constitution to the point where we expected EVERYONE else to accept, adopt, and follow it.

Not anymore.  Now, 42% of Americans think that the Constitution is irrelevant and should be discarded in order to keep them “safe” from outside agression.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060108/ap_on_go_pr_wh/eavesdropping_ap_poll

WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.

Over the past three weeks,
President Bush and top aides have defended the electronic monitoring program they secretly launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as a vital tool to protect the nation from al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Yet 56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.

Agreeing with the White House, some 42 percent of those surveyed do not believe the court approval is necessary.

“We’re at war,” Bush said during a New Year’s Day visit to San Antonio. “And as commander in chief, I’ve got to use the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people. … It’s a vital, necessary program.”

According to the poll, age matters in how people view the monitoring. Nearly two-thirds of those between age 18 to 29 believe warrants should be required, while people 65 and older are evenly divided.

Party affiliation is a factor, too. Almost three-fourths of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to require court warrants.

Cynthia Ice-Bones, 32, a Republican from Sacramento, Calif., said knowing about the program made her feel a bit safer. “I think our security is so important that we don’t need warrants. If you’re doing something we shouldn’t be doing, then you ought to be caught,” she said.

But Peter Ahr of Caldwell, N.J., a religious studies professor at Seton Hall University, said he could not find a justification for skipping judicial approvals. Nor did he believe the administration’s argument that such a step would impair terrorism investigations.

“We’re a nation of laws. … That means that everybody has to live by the law, including the administration,” said Ahr, 64, a Democrat who argues for checks and balances. “For the administration to simply go after wiretaps on their own without anyone else’s say-so is a violation of that principle.”

The eavesdropping is run by the secretive National Security Agency, the government’s code-makers and code-breakers.

Charles Franklin, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said most people think that the eavesdropping is aimed at foreign terrorists, even when the surveillance is conducted inside the country.

“They are willing to give the president quite a lot of leeway on this when it comes to the war on terror,” said Franklin, who closely follows public opinion.

Some members of Congress have raised concerns about the president’s actions, but none of those lawmakers who have been briefed on the program has called for its immediate halt.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, has promised hearings this year. Five members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, have called for immediate inquiries.

On top of that, a memorandum circulated Friday from two legal analysts at the Congressional Research Service concluded that the justification for the monitoring may not be as strong as the administration has argued.

The NSA’s activity “may present an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb,” the 44-page memo said.

Bush based his eavesdropping orders on his presidential powers under the Constitution and a September 2001 congressional resolution authorizing him to use military force in the fight against terrorism.

The administration says the program is reviewed every 45 days and that Bush personally reauthorizes it. His top legal advisers argue its justification is sound.

The issue is full of grays for some people interviewed for the poll, including homebuilder Harlon Bennett, 21, a political independent from Wellston, Okla. He does not think the government should need warrants for suspected terrorists.

“Of course,” he added, “we all could be suspected terrorists.”

Imperial Leader is calling other people “arrogant” . . . that’s pretty funny.
Are you saying this as an AMERICAN?  Or as another citizen of the world?  (please say American, please say American)

I am saying this as a  US’an a term i learned from a good friend. From now on thats what im calling all European- Americans. You are blinded by the light… such arrogance is a trait of those nations and people still thinking they run things but have lost their clout a long time ago. No im not talking about you!

Now for a word from our sponsers:
:mrgreen:                      :mrgreen:                          :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:                      :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

@HortenFlyingWing:

care about the environment. Loggin’ is their biggest business.

well, we do “care” about the environment - prolly more than America, as well as many other nations. We are the home of Greenpeace, afterall. Also there are many “renewable resource” programs in place, and dozens of friends of mine spend their summers working tree-planting for these logging companies, etc.
No no, not logging. Our shame is in Alberta - a province that is working against Kyoto and environmental measures (it’s the Texas of Canada - with the good and the bad), not that Ontario is so great either - much industry near Toronto etc. Also we do waste quite a bit. Nice having all that landfill room.