Comments by "milcoll73" (@thurin84) on "The Critical Drinker"
channel.
-
90
-
57
-
50
-
29
-
28
-
26
-
16
-
16
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SirSpence99 sure people will vote this time but so will a correspondingly amount of "people". and theyll have had 2 years to make the most secure election of all time look less ham handed then 2020. no more video of counters most securing ballots more them once. such a record turnout in fact that in many precincts it exceeded the number of eligible voters. i guess eager campaign workers can do wonders these days.....
yeah, republians arent only dropping the ball. theyre drop kicking over the fence into the neighbors yard with their vicious pit bulls. they have the stink of controlled opposition at this point.
possible. but people were already suffering at that point. and the lockdown made sense, at least on the surface. with what we knew (or thought we knew) at that time. and i think the lockdowns wouldve lasted as long as they have in any case due to rabid governmental power grabs and sheeple submission. it definitely was damaging to our economy. but that seems to be the intention at this point.
a lot yes, but we still have all the judges he appointed (for all the good thats doing us), the trade deals he worked out, and a lingering bit of the international prestige he restored (for awhile anyway). and the wall that he built is still standing and cant be voted away, or unbuilt be executive fiat. i think any attampt at tearing it down would cause too much of an uproar if only for the cost of doing so as opposed to just letting it sit and languish. of course its illegal. everything creepy bejing jao bie dein does is illegal!!! hes the meat puppet of an illegal usurper regime! trump did fail. he was robbed. and he IS the best president in living memory. no one can take that away. they can just try to retcon belief in it.
yes he had many failings and some of his progress has been undone. but he still accomplished a lot and was not only a speed bump to "progress" but a reversal for 4 precious years. just think how much worse things would be know without him. an acceleration that opened many eyes and awakened many a sleeper. whether that has any positive effect remains to be seen.
i dont know about that. i guess it depends on what you mean by progress. back when the word meant something there were quite a few. teddy roosevelt springs to mind. so does woodrow wilson, but by another definition of "progress" if you catch my drift.
it hindsight it seems obvious given the nature of the NPC character of their followers. but yeah, initially it seems quite counter intuitive. and its not like many of them were actually voting for creepy nejing jao bie dein or kamallawalla. they mostly know they were placeholders for the deep state establishment. i know, right? anything for the cause! or styled another way BAMN, "by any means necessary".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Icetea-2000 not really, certainly not at the beginning of the war. the internal combustion engine vehicle was maybe only 30 years old. not in its infancy, but maybe adolescence. and nobody really had any concept how to utilize it for mobile warfare. so they relied on what they already knew, horses, bicycles, and foot slogging. the technology just wasnt there yet and the killing power of machine guns and artillery had been perfected and was just to great to be resisted. hence digging into the earth. very true about the pace of war increasing. and ww1 was exponential. and in some ways unique in that it was a transition period of technology. as ive said to another commenter, the american civil war was really the 1st industrialized warfare. ww1 turned it into an art form.
yes. because america wanted to more adhere to wilsons 14 points, but the other entente powers were hell bent on revenge at any cost. no, not at all. the usa absolutely decided ww1. not only did they support the entente almost exclusively prior to out involvement, but i think the morale boost knowing that america was in the war and that millions more fresh doughboys were on the way was the key element that allowed britian and france to absorb and survive the german 1918 offensive. given the manpower and morale problems the entente was facing in late 1917 and early 1918, i dont think they wouldve been able to hold on and wouldve caved to the negotiated peace that hindenburg and ludendorf were aiming for. and i think the world wouldve been better off with that instead of the harse treaty of versailles. i think they wouldve had to accept such a treaty as none of the combatants had the remaining wherewithal for anything else.
in retorspect all sides should striven to avoid the damn war in the 1st place. but of course, thats wasnt an option, they all wanted war. just not the war they got.
well, yeah. you could say ww1 had no winners. just lesser losers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
read the source material. you seem to have made the same mistake verhoven and company did misunderstanding it and its intentions. the book has nothing, what so ever, to do with militarism or facism, or any kind of totalitarianism. i mean, have you ever heard of any kind of authoritarianism that encourages its populace to learn more information, admitted to a military debacle instead of trying to cover it up, held its leadership accountable for said debacle, and not only allowed, but actively discouraged people from joining the military? reading heinleins book, if anything, its society comes off as a libertarian paradise. and a small but important correction. not only military service granted a citizen the franchise but ANY CIVIC SEVICE, as well. in the book a grizzled old vet discusses how, if a prospective citizens only talent was counting hairs on a caterpillar, they would set up make for for them to do so while simultaneously doing everything in their power trying to get the individual to quit. sargon of akkad did a video breaking it down way better then i could. give it a watch.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Stranger true of gatling guns, but ironclads were actually quite prevalent. more than i even knew as i recently learned.
yes. very true. but it presaged the slaughter of the devils paintbrush. so much so, as i pointed out in another conversation, its still in use. just electrically powered instead of hand cranked.
also true. but massed single shot muskets at close range, to an enemy basically standing in the open will produce similar results as a machine gun. and those large, slower moving, big chunks of lead do horrible things to the human body.
yes balloons were only for observation, but they were an aerial force multiplier for artillery that presaged the same thing, and observation aircraft of ww1.
actually grenades had been in common use for around 200 years prior to the civil war. armies had whole regiments of grenadiers.
mines were newer and mostly naval. but some were used on land and once again presaged ww1. but even during ww1 mines were rudimentary. the most effective were literal mines dug under enemy lines, stuffer with explosives and detonated prior to a "big push".
scoped rifles were crude, yes. but they were used to good effect "headhunting". and even during ww1 sniping was in its infancy. the very name comes from british forestry "snipe hunters" impressed for sharpshooting (most often without even a scope!!!).
it absolutely has to so with weaponry. the rifled bore vs the smoothbore tactics and the industrialization that put said rifles into so many hands absolutely had an effect. its what made the cw what it was.
not true at all. snipers learning proper fieldcraft was a painful lesson taught by the enemy. the would call in entire artillery barrages to deal with a sniper.
and counter battery fire was perfected by ww1. with aerial observation it made artillery duels a common occurrence.
sorry for the book lol. had to use a lot of words to say what i wanted to lol.
1
-
@fusilier3029 yes, certainly true to a lesser extent. far from knowledgeable about it, but i believe it had more mobility and less massed industrialize slaughter.
yes, they were crude. no most werent ocean going. but they were a new kind of warfare presaging what came later. which is my point.
gatling guns were used, on a small scale. certainly insignificant to the outcome of the war. but they were used, and presaged things to come in ww1. grenades were used at least as early as the 1200s in china. and im pretty sure the romans and greeks had a hand fused version.
man more "automatic" weapons were known. volly gun, puckle gun. billinghurst battery gun, pepperbox, chambers flintlock, cook volly gun, kalthoff repeater, cookson volitional repeater, belton flintlock, jennings rifle and girandoni air rifle. other then the volly gun and pepper box, none were widely used. but the technology was known.
no not useless. still a threat in being to dissuade charges.
the big differnece about ww1 was that all the technology im referring to was turned up to 11. and then armored, aerial, and chemical warfare was added liberally on top (though greek fire and other similar chemical weapons were well known).
yes disease pestilence is always a companion to war. and will likely always be so.
youre forgetting the american rail system which allowed amazing rapid troop movements. plus the force multiplier of telegraphy to put them where they were needed.
and the pursuit of those quick decisive victories is what led to the slaughter of ww1.
1
-
1
-
1