Youtube comments of Colonel K (@Paladin1873).

  1. 2500
  2. 1900
  3. 1200
  4. 913
  5. 889
  6. 734
  7. 712
  8. 712
  9. 591
  10. 488
  11. 386
  12. 327
  13. 324
  14. I was born and raised in north Florida where Seminole culture was long popular (Florida State University was only 20 miles away). While working for the BSA in the early 1990s I was associated with the Tribe in a rather obtuse way. One of my fellow Scout executives was part Seminole and we had a popular member of our council board who was a Seminole. We called him Chief because he had served in the Navy during WWII (including being part of the flight deck crew aboard the USS Hornet when she launched the Doolittle Raid against Japan). There was an ongoing debate about FSU's merchandising and marketing arrangement with the "Unconquered People", the name the Seminole Tribe of Florida gave themselves because they were the descendants of the 300 Seminoles who managed to elude the US Army troops sent to round up all Seminoles and transport them west for resettlement. At the time the FSU Seminoles were the biggest name in college football and the Tribe was enjoying the celebrity status and the earnings it brought them. Apparently this incensed the Oklahoma Seminole Tribe because they weren't benefiting from any of the profits or notoriety. When I mentioned this to Chief, he derisively scoffed at the idea and remarked that they hadn't earned the right since they were the ones who surrendered and left. I never broached the subject again, but his comment always stuck with me and made me realize there are many hidden layers to Indian societies and history. Thanks for bringing one forgotten aspect of it to life.
    283
  15. 281
  16. 269
  17. 266
  18. 262
  19. 249
  20. 247
  21. I think he considered size when he said "equivalent". The Soviets had somewhere on the order of 400 divisions in total, which would equate to about 200 western divisions in size, so 120 -150 western equivalent divisions in Europe would have been about right. The quality of these units varied greatly, with the Guards units being rated equal to their western counterparts. At the tactical level, Soviet weaknesses would include inferior aviation fuel, electronics, air-ground coordination, and artillery fire control. At the operational level their lack of an effective Navy and advanced heavy bombers would have put littoral regions and key industry at severe risk. An even greater problem for Soviet forces was their logistical pipeline, which was overstretched and quite vulnerable. The greatest potential threat they faced, and one for which they had absolutely no defense or counter-capability, was atomic bombs. Their mere existence created a strategic problem for Stalin that would only be solved in 1949 when his scientists developed a Soviet bomb. The Soviets were well aware of this problem in 1942, which is why they developed such an effective spy apparatus in the USA and Great Britain. It successfully penetrated the Manhattan Project and saved the USSR years of research and development. What's particularly maddening is our own counterintelligence services knew about much of this but were hamstrung in trying to stop the penetrations. The resulting cold war, proxy wars, and Red Scare became hallmarks of the 1950s and 60s.
    219
  22. 217
  23. 209
  24. 202
  25. 191
  26. 183
  27. 180
  28. 172
  29. 171
  30. Jonathan, I can add some details to your presentation. During the 1980s and 90s I did a fair amount of business with Olympic Arms and often dropped by their plant outside of Olympia, Washington on my frequent trips to that state. Offhand I don't recall the name Bell, but I did chat a lot with the founder and owner of Olympic Arms, Bob Schuetz. The company originally began as SGW (Schuetzen Gun Works) and over the years offered an array of new production firearms, parts, and accessories aside from their AR series. These included the Safari Arms 1911 pistol, a plastic framed version of the Whitney Wolverine 22 pistol, and a bolt action magnum rifle originally manufactured by Bauska as the BBK, but rebranded the UltraMag. The AR was their bread-and-butter, and at the time they were the only such manufacturer demonstrating any innovation. As a result, in the 1980s they created some unique AR-based firearms before such things became so commonplace as now. This included a 7.62x39 AR and a series of pistol caliber carbines and conversion kits in 9mm, 40 S&W, 45 ACP, and 10mm. I purchased and still have a couple of their early 9mm kits. I had Bob modify them by replacing the traditional plastic handguards and barrel nuts with steel free-floating handguards with integral barrel nuts. This allowed me to quickly change barrel configuration from 4" carbine to 10" carbine. As you correctly assessed, in early production kits and carbines they used STEN mags because they were readily available and cheap. These magazines did not have a piece of metal welded onto the rear of each magazine. Instead they fabricated an aluminum block which was inserted into the magazine well and retained in place by snapping into the original lower receiver magazine catch. The bottom of the insert protruded from the magazine well and held a spring-loaded lever that functioned similarly to an AK mag release. Each STEN mag was fitted with a small Fillister head screw in back that would snap over the top of the lever as you inserted it into the magazine well. This held them securely in place. How effective was this arrangement? To be fair, we are talking about STEN mags, so it really depended upon the quality of the mags an owner purchased. I presume there were some complaints because Bob also devised another setup that used unmodified Sterling L2A3 magazines. The aluminum insert for this setup was very similar to the one for the STEN but not interchangeable with it. This system did not last long because Sterling mags were not nearly so common or affordable, but I did acquire one of these kits as well. I believe it was in the early 1990s they began modifying STEN mags to the style used in your sample. This simplified the kit by eliminating the adapter block. What I do find curious about your rifle is the fact that it has a 20" barrel. All the ones I remember from their advertisements were carbine length or shorter and used bolt carriers without any lightening slots cut in them. A full rifle stock might necessitate a lighter bolt carrier because of the longer spring it uses. Of course, the company was willing to accommodate the end user with most any modification he sought. If you wish, I can email you pictures of my kits for reference.
    170
  31. 156
  32. 155
  33. 146
  34. 145
  35. 143
  36. 142
  37. 139
  38. 138
  39. 135
  40. 133
  41. 133
  42. 123
  43. 121
  44. 119
  45.  @Algebrodadio  Soviet forces in 1941 were larger than German forces and had much better tanks, including the T-34 and KV1. But there is much more to an Army than its basic armament and size. When it came to training, leadership, and command and control, the Germans proved to be vastly superior to the Soviets. As a result, they crushed them in the first six months of the war. The Soviets responded by trading land for time. Eventually they got their act together, but it took a year or more before they could launch truly effective counteroffensives. By this point the Germans were way overextended on all fronts and beginning to fracture. When the war ended it was now the Soviets who were way overextended. I presume your statement that western forces in 1945 were smaller than the German forces in 1941 is predicated on the number of "boots on the ground" in Europe, because the US military alone in 1945 numbered exceeded 12 million men, dwarfing the German military at its zenith. The majority of them were not serving in Europe, and it is true that the total number of Allied troops immediately available there was certainly less than the number of Soviet forces present. However, all factors must be considered when planning a campaign. The Soviets had no adequate counter to Allied air and naval capabilities. Their focus was entirely on army and army air support operations (frontal aviation). This placed a premium on huge tank formations, massed artillery, ground attack aircraft, and wave infantry assault formations. Over half their soldiers were armed with submachine guns instead of rifles because of their emphasis on close assault. This lack of flexibility could be exploited by the west, especially since their logistics train was very long and difficult to maintain. Most Soviet equipment was inferior to American and British equipment, and the Soviet forces did not have sufficient forward basing of support and maintenance elements to keep their equipment running. Soviet tanks might have looked impressive with their heavy armor and large caliber guns, but our antitank capabilities could effectively neutralize it. Western Europe is not the plains of Russia, making massed armored assaults much more difficult to execute. The Soviets had another problem to contend with that the western countries did not. They were not seen as liberators by the nations they overran, meaning they had to devote much of their resources to internal security. Had the west attacked them in 1945 (as Patton wanted to do), the Soviets would have retreated quickly. The only question is how far they would retreat. Putting them back inside their own borders would have been sufficient. Going any further would have been a mistake unless we were willing to go nuclear. But the political reality of the day was that we had no desire to do this, nor did the American or British public want to drag the war on for another year. That's why we had the cold war for 44 years. It was not an ideal solution, but its the hand that history dealt us. All the rest is mere speculation.
    119
  46. 118
  47. 117
  48. 111
  49. 110
  50. 108
  51. 105
  52. 105
  53. 104
  54. 104
  55. 103
  56. 103
  57. 103
  58. 102
  59. 100
  60. As I recall, the F-104 was designed to be an air superiority fighter, but often served as point defense interceptor. With such short legs, limited payload, and few missile options, I don't think it would have made a very practical escort fighter. The F-102 and F-106 were designed as ground radar guided strategic interceptors to shoot down the Russian Bears and would have made poor escort fighters. The F-105 was really a tactical nuclear bomber pressed into the fighter-bomber role. My own boss flew F-100s in Vietnam on fighter-bomber missions, a role it was not originally designed for. He considered it the last true Air Force fighter until the advent of the F-15. The F-4 did excellent yeoman service in whatever role it was pressed into. It had to be galling for the USAF to accept this Navy fighter because we didn't have anything comparable at the time (we did soon develop the F-4E with an internal gun and leading edge slats for greater maneuverability). This was largely blamed on the "bomber mafia" that had forever ruled the Air Force until about the time we left Vietnam. Once the "fighter mafia" completed their takeover, they pushed hard for the F-15 and F-16. I came on active duty in the middle of all this in 1978, almost a decade after the F-104 was retired from the USAF. I was initially stationed next to a Texas Air Guard unit that was flying the last of the F-100s. Within a year these were retired and replaced by F4D Phantoms. Five year later I watched as the very last F-105s, all Wild Weasels, landed at Kelly AFB to be turned into static displays and training aides for our Air Base Ground Defense program. Now they're all gone , these century series fighters, and much of the romance seems to have disappeared with them.
    100
  61. 99
  62. 93
  63. 90
  64. 87
  65. 86
  66. 84
  67. 83
  68. 80
  69. 80
  70. 78
  71. 78
  72. 78
  73. 72
  74. 71
  75. 69
  76. I have a couple books on the Thompson that mention this aircraft and include a few photos, but your information about the plane is more detailed. In the 1920s the Thompson Model 1921 sold for $200 - $225, so fitting out a Junkers with 30 of them would have cost well over $6000, or the equivalent of $112,000 today. This does not include the necessary modifications required or the cost of the 100 round C-drums. These drums were far less common than the 50 round L-drums because of the weight and bulk issue (8.25 lbs loaded). So equipped, a fully loaded Thompson would have weighed 19 lbs. Since the butt stocks were removed from at least 28 of the guns, the weight would be a little less, but the rigging necessary to hold them in place would bring that weight back up. The total load-out for 30 guns would be about 570 lbs. Sixty spare drums, fully loaded, would be an additional 495 pounds, bringing the total weapons load to 1065 lbs, a not insignificant sum in those early days of aviation. I don't see how 28 drum magazines could be swapped in four minutes even if the plane was stationary on the ground. This would equate to 8 1/2 seconds per gun. Assuming you had a container holding four drums (total weight at least 33 lbs), in 34 seconds you would need to grab the first box of drums from their storage rack, move to a row of guns, pull back the actuator knob on four guns, engage their magazine releases and slide out four empty drums, insert four loaded drums, stack the empty drums in the container, return it to the storage rack, and begin the process again. Now try doing this while the plane is bouncing around in the air. Swapping magazines would have been the least of your problems. The experiment failed due to a number of factors. Aiming was highly problematic, and the muzzle velocity of the 45 ACP round out of a Thompson barrel was only 920 fps. Compare this with the 2800 fps of a typical 30'06 bullet fired from a Browning machine gun. This meant the aircraft would have to fly danger close to its intended target if there was to be any hope of hitting a target, much less inducing a ballistically significant wound on the intended victims. I believe the Soviets attempted something similar and in typical Soviet fashion, went to even greater extremes.
    69
  77. 69
  78. 68
  79. 68
  80. 68
  81. 67
  82. 63
  83. 63
  84. 63
  85. 62
  86. 62
  87. 61
  88. 61
  89. 61
  90. 61
  91. 60
  92.  @historiand9473  If size alone assured victory in battle, then world history would be far different than it is. Over 30 million Soviets did serve throughout the war, but never all at once. When you count the dead, MIA, captured, wounded, and those released from active service, the total Soviet forces available in 1945 was about 16 million. This still constituted the largest conventional military force in the world, but it was one which was highly imbalanced and focused almost exclusively on massive armored formations. The Soviet Air Force concentrated on close air support of the Army. The Soviet Navy was small and ineffectual. These forces were spread out over vast territories that were populated by people hostile to the Soviet regime. The Soviet supply system was barely able to sustain them. These were weaknesses the west could easily exploit through air and sea power. By the end of the war all military forces were seasoned and battle hardened, so this factor is a wash. As for the estimated 2.2 - 4.4 million Axis battle deaths, western Allies accounted for 400,000 of these, and the Soviets were responsible for all the rest, between 80% - 90% of total Axis loses through death. The western Allies accounted for the vast majority of Axis forces captured during the war, around eight million, while the Soviets captured about three million (some sources say closer to six million, but half died in captivity). The likely reasons for this imbalance include the Soviet penchant for shooting or starving POWs and the Axis soldier's desire not to be captured by them, therefore traveling great distances to surrender to western forces. The attrition rate between Soviet and Axis forces was 4 to 1. Based upon this figure alone, the USSR would need four times as many men as the western Allies in order to defeat them on land. They held at most a 2:1 advantage in the west in 1945 (without counting former Axis forces), and these soldiers were at the end of a very tenuous supply line. You mentioned that the west supplied only 10% of Soviet supplies but failed to note just how critical many of these supplies were to them. Among the most critical were aviation fuel additives and advanced electronics. With these supplies cut off, Soviet aviation and command and control would suffer greatly. Regarding civilian deaths, the American-British air campaign resulted in 350 - 500 thousand German deaths. During that same period Soviet forces killed an unknown number of civilians. Estimates run into the millions, but it is impossible to determine how many were the result of partisan executions, accidents, starvation, disease, or NKVD action. It is known that the NKVD executed 135,000 Soviet soldiers during the war. It's all academically moot because only the USA had nuclear weapons in 1945, and there is no way Stalin could have countered their use and he knew it. The USSR would have retreated without our need to fire a single shot if we had threatened him with them. We did not, and eastern Europe suffered under a 44 year reign of Soviet domination. Regarding North Korea, we did capture it, then China intervened. MacArthur had asked for permission to use nuclear weapons to attack Chinese airbases and staging areas. This was denied, making the war one of attrition. The Chinese rotated over half their military through Korea during the war and suffered higher casualty rates than in WWII. Chinese losses were 400,000. North Korean losses were estimated to be about 200,000. We lost 38,00 men in three years of fighting. Total UN loses were 200,000. Civilian deaths were 600,00 in North and a million in the South. In the end the old boundary line along the 38th Parallel was restored. Before you poke fun at history, try studying it more deeply.
    60
  93. 58
  94. 57
  95. 57
  96. 57
  97. 56
  98. 56
  99. 56
  100. 55
  101. 54
  102. 53
  103. 52
  104. 52
  105. 52
  106. 51
  107. 51
  108. 51
  109. 50
  110. 49
  111. 49
  112. 48
  113. 48
  114. 46
  115. 45
  116. 45
  117. 44
  118. 43
  119. 43
  120. 43
  121. 42
  122. 41
  123. 41
  124. 41
  125. 39
  126. 39
  127. 38
  128. 38
  129. 38
  130. 37
  131. 37
  132. 36
  133. 36
  134. 36
  135. 35
  136. 35
  137. 35
  138. 34
  139. 34
  140. 32
  141. 31
  142. 31
  143. 31
  144. 30
  145.  @Hero.Lone-Wolf  I have little doubt the Soviets were planning both defensive and offensive operations against the west in 1945. This would have been expected. We had plans before WWII to attack and capture Canada in case the UK surrendered (something that many people thought likely). The whole purpose of a plan is to determine what is and is not feasible. The fact that the plan was labeled "Unthinkable" indicates there was no real desire to execute it, but we weren't entirely sure what Soviet intentions would be after the fall of Germany, so having a plan is a wise move. When you say "no one can defeat Soviet Union" you need to be more specific. There were four conventional ways to counter the USSR in 1945. They included holding the line where it stood, pushing the Soviets out of eastern Europe, invading the western part of Russia, or occupying all of Russia. There would have been no reason to occupy all of Russia, and it would not have been feasible. Occupying western Russia would have been feasible but undesirable because it would have led to an unending war of attrition as Russia rightfully tried to recapture its sovereign territory. Pushing the Soviets out of eastern Europe was militarily quite feasible but had no political support in the US or UK. This would have happened only if the Soviets had tried to take all of Europe. In such a scenario there would have been very strong political will to stop them. We very likely would have rearmed Germany and turned them into an ally to defend western Europe, but I doubt we would have allowed them to accompany us as we pushed east in a counter-thrust to end the Soviet domination of eastern Europe. The fact that we alone had the ability to build more A-bombs, and were doing that, would have convinced Stalin that the prudent move would be to retreat to his own borders rather than fight. The Soviet Union was at the zenith of its conventional power, but it had been terribly mauled by four years of combat with the Axis. The lands retaken were scorched and in ruins. The Soviets wasted no time stripping Germany of its industry and shipping it back east to offset its many losses. By comparison, the USA had been virtually untouched and was continuing to produce ever greater quantities of war materiel. In the Battle of the Bulge the American forces were caught by surprise in what was supposed to be a quiet sector of the front. Typical of a surprise, this led to instances when some troops panicked. They were green and had not seen any combat. But this situation quickly remedied itself when wiser heads took charge. From the start the Germans faced stiff resistance in the north and were not able to achieve their initial goals there. The rumor of the massacre of American PoWs at the Malmedy crossroads on 17 December, spread like wildfire and stiffened the spines of many soldiers who then decided to stand and fight where they were. Within a week the situation had stabilized and by Christmas it was reversed and the Germans began their retreat. There was concern by American generals that the Germans might reach Antwerp, and a rumor was started by a captured German officer that Eisenhower and Montgomery were being targeted by Otto Skorzeny's commandos for assassination or capture. This rumor was take seriously because Skorzeny was the man considered responsible for liberating Mussolini from his captors in 1943 (actually it was German paratroopers, but the SS hogged all the glory). As a result, Ike was forced to spend a few days around Christmas under heavy security. He was so angered by it that he finally said to hell with it, if the Germans wanted to kill him, let them try. When Montgomery learned of the rumor, he boldly went forward to the American sector in his staff car, only to be arrested by US soldiers who did not recognize him. It has been reported that Eisenhower was quite amused by the incident, saying it was the best thing Skorzeny was ever responsible for. This must be the loose bowels you were talking about, except it isn't true. Bu contrast, how many times during 1941 and 42 did mass panic and surrender take place among Soviet forces? How many millions of Soviet soldiers died or were captured as a result? France fell in 1940 because the French were still fighting the last war and dismissed the notion the Germans could go around their fixed fortifications. Unlike Russia, they could not trade land for time to regroup after realizing their massive mistake. Their presumed superiority in arms was a lie. Technically, they had more tanks than the Germans, but a huge number of these were of WWI vintage. The French had poured everything into the Maginot Line, and realized after Poland was quickly captured that they lacked enough modern armor and modern aircraft to effectively counter the Germans. They tried to rapidly modernize their ground and air forces in 1939, but it was too little, too late. They had squandered a window of opportunity to attack the Germans while they were preoccupied with Poland, but the French suffered from divided leadership and their will was lacking. When the French surrendered in 1940, only a portion of the country was occupied. The whole of France would not be occupied until 1942, as a response to the Allied invasion of Tunisia. If you want to poke fun at the French, be my guest. I take the position of Patton when he said, " I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me." The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was something Stalin had agreed to earlier in the war, once Germany was defeated. It was not necessary for a US victory over Japan because by that point the Japs had no way of bringing their forces home from China and Manchuria. They were bottle up there and we had the waters around Japan completely saturated with ships and subs. There is little doubt the Japanese feared the coming invasion by all Allied forces, but they were preparing for it. The whole nation was ready to die for the Emperor. The idea that they would fight to the death against American invaders but were afraid of Soviet invaders makes no sense. The A-bomb showed them the absolute futility of fighting on. We no longer had to invade them. We could continue to systematically destroy their cites with fire bombs or A-bombs. The invasion, if it came, would still be a bloodbath. The timing of the A-bomb attacks and the Soviet capture of Manchuria collectively formed a one-two punch that convinced Japan to supersede unconditionally.
    30
  146. 29
  147. 29
  148. 28
  149. 28
  150. 28
  151. 28
  152. 28
  153. 27
  154. 27
  155. 26
  156. 26
  157. 26
  158. 26
  159. 26
  160. 25
  161. 25
  162. 25
  163. 25
  164. 25
  165. 24
  166. 24
  167. 24
  168. 23
  169. I'm a regular viewer of your program, but this one touched me in a personal way and brought back memories from my early youth. It's hard to believe it has now been over a century since WWI ended. I say this because I can clearly remember, as a small boy, visiting my grandparents in Tampa, Florida every summer. During The Big One my Grandpa had served aboard a Navy minesweeper as a boatswain's mate. After the war he joined the American Legion, serving in a variety of capacities, including Post Commander. Forty years later he remained quite active and still served as a committee member at American Legion Post 5, USS Tampa, on Bay Shore Boulevard. The Post was named after the USS Tampa, in honor of a Coast Guard cutter which was sunk with all hands to a German U-boat in WWI. This was the largest loss of life of US Navy personnel to known enemy action in WWI, and because so many of the crew were Coast Guard, this tiny service suffered the greatest loss of life per size of any branch of service. Being a Navy veteran of the same war, Grandpa always tried to honor and remember these men. Almost every day would find us at the Post, where there was always something exciting for a kid to do. I pretty much had free run of the place, so at any given moment I might be sitting on the old torpedo near the flag pole, helping scrape old paint off the building, shooting pool and sharing a "short" beer with Grandpa (I was about five years old), or watching a few veterans play cards and chat with Grandpa, whom they called Sam. At the end of the day I'd help him fold the American flag and put it away. He was always very serious when we did this, and he taught me how to properly fold and respect the flag, and why it was so important. On membership night I'd help out in the bar (I got pretty good at working the tap and sliding long neck bottles of Budweiser and Busch-Bavarian beer down the slick waxed surface of the bar). Each month the wives prepared large dinners for the great hall, and entire families would show up to participate in the always popular BINGO night, with everyone sitting below the beautifully haunting stained glass memorial of the USS Tampa. On quieter evenings, I would sit on the Post 5 veranda with my grandparents, slowly swaying in the rocking chairs, while watching the lights of ships as they entered and left the harbor, the smell of salt air strong in the warm evening breeze. I loved that old Legion Hall, and each visit there brought a new experience to my young eyes. About the only place I recall being off limits was the second floor, so naturally curiosity got the better of me, and not yet able to read and heed the sign chained across the creaky old staircase, I once sneaked upstairs to discover a musty room full of WWI era parade rifles sitting in wooden racks. Next to them were two old machine guns that now lay silent, coated with years of dust. Like the torpedo, the machine guns were defunct and forgotten relics, but the rifles still performed a solemn duty whenever the Legionnaires were asked to provide an honor guard for the funeral of a comrade, and during Memorial Day services, where they would thunder loudly as a volley of blanks was discharged to salute the fallen. They're all gone now, the veterans, their wives, even the old post itself. Another post was built some years later in a new location. Presumably, they still have the torpedo and the memorial. As for me, I will always have the memories. Thanks, Grandpa.
    23
  170. 23
  171. 23
  172. 23
  173. 23
  174. 23
  175. 23
  176. 22
  177. 22
  178. My late cousin was a slave laborer in the last year of the war. She was assigned the duty of assembling electronic components for the V1 flying bomb. She told me she sabotaged as many parts as she thought she could get away with. The guards were dumb schmucks who couldn't tell a working part from a defective one, and most likely were just glad not to be serving in combat units. Their job was to intimidate and control the prisoners, so they were given standing orders to shoot anyone who violated the rules, such as smoking. Despite this fact she often would snatch cigarette butts from the floor that the guards dropped, then hide them up her sleeve. When the guard wasn't looking she'd take a quick puff and hide it again. I was appalled that she took such grave risks, but she simply shrugged and said, "When the penalty for any infraction is death, you really stop worrying about it. You know they're going to kill you someday, so the threat has little impact." If this attitude was endemic to slave laborers throughout the Reich, I can see how small acts of sabotage could have great consequences. By the way, if you ever decide to buy a Fieseler Storch light observation plane, make sure it isn't one of the French built ones. According to legend the French workers urinated in the glue to weaken the binding of the wooden airframe. As another aside, I once owned a Belgium made FN Hi power pistol with German proof marks. It was manufactured during the Occupation and had a large chuck of steel missing from inside the bottom of the slide. The pistol worked fine but I often wondered when and how that defect occurred.
    22
  179. 22
  180. 22
  181. 22
  182. 22
  183. 22
  184. 22
  185. 22
  186. 21
  187. 21
  188. 21
  189. 20
  190. 20
  191. 20
  192. 20
  193. 20
  194. 20
  195. 20
  196. 20
  197. 19
  198. 19
  199. 19
  200. 19
  201. 19
  202. 19
  203. 19
  204. 19
  205. 19
  206. 19
  207. 19
  208. 18
  209. 18
  210. 18
  211. 18
  212. 18
  213. 18
  214. 18
  215. 17
  216. 17
  217. 17
  218. 17
  219. 17
  220. 17
  221. 16
  222. 16
  223. 16
  224. 16
  225. 16
  226. 16
  227. 16
  228. 16
  229. 16
  230. 16
  231. 16
  232. 16
  233. 16
  234. 15
  235. 15
  236. 15
  237. 15
  238. 15
  239. 15
  240. 15
  241. 15
  242. 15
  243. 15
  244. 15
  245. 15
  246. 15
  247. 15
  248. 15
  249. 15
  250. 15
  251. 15
  252. 14
  253. 14
  254. 14
  255. 14
  256. 14
  257. 14
  258. My brother was a navigator on a C-141 Starlifter at the time and participated in the mass evacuation of US military personnel and their dependents from the Philippines (Operation Fiery Vigil). Very little could be taken, a couple of suitcases per person. In the end we abandoned both Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base. Since 1988 the US government had been in difficult negotiations with the Philippine government over a treaty involving lease renewals for both bases. Between the acrimonious talks and the devastation wrought by the volcano, the US military decided to permanently abandon Clark. When the US refused to agree to massive increases in basing right leases, the Philippine Senate voted down the treaty, thus forcing the US Navy to leave Subic Bay by the end of 1992. Clark later became an international airport, a special economic zone, and home to the Philippine Air Force. Subic Bay is now a large industrial and commercial complex, but the recent bankruptcy of a major South Korean shipbuilding company there has left Filipino bankers owed over 400 million dollars. Two Chinese firms have offered to take over the shipyard, sparking fears within the Philippine government of what that could portend in the long run. The Philippine Navy also wants to take over the yard for military construction. As an aside, in recent years both the US Navy and Air Force have made frequent stopovers and conducted limited joint operations with the Philippine military. These acts of goodwill serve as a counterbalance to the looming Chinese juggernaut. Will history repeat itself?
    14
  259. 14
  260. 14
  261. 14
  262. 14
  263. 14
  264. 14
  265. 14
  266. 14
  267. 14
  268. 14
  269. 14
  270. 14
  271. 14
  272. 14
  273. 14
  274. 14
  275. 14
  276. 13
  277. 13
  278. 13
  279. 13
  280. 13
  281. 13
  282. 13
  283. 13
  284. 13
  285. 13
  286. 13
  287. 13
  288. 13
  289. 13
  290. 13
  291. 13
  292. The author of the book on which the movie is based was Pierre Boulle, himself a Free French agent who was captured by Vichy loyalists in Indochina in 1943 and subjected to harsh treatment. After the war he wrote the highly fictional novel. Your recounting of some of the actual events is a rare and refreshing treat for those of us who have studied WWII history and would like to see the record set straight. To this end I'd like to tell a highly truncated companion story involving a late friend of mine who was born and raised on the island of Bali before the war. His father was the military commander of colonial Indonesian forces there, so Carl enjoyed a privileged, but strict and colorful military upbringing. As luck would have it, Carl was attending the Dutch version of West Point (or Sandhurst) in Holland when his home country was invaded by the Germans. He spent the rest of the war serving in the Underground, eventually assisting British ground forces during their drive to liberate the Netherlands. Meanwhile, the Dutch East Indies remained independent but unable to assist. This became a moot point when the Empire of Japan invaded the Indonesian island chain in January of 1942. His father's engineering battalion retreated to the jungles and fought the Japanese for months until their supplies ran out. After their surrender they became part of the group of Dutch POWs who were pressed into constructing the Railway of Death. Carl would not see his father again until he returned to the Far East following the Japanese surrender in 1945. It was then that he learned the details of his father's plight. Major (later Colonel) Hazenberg's experiences in many ways mirrored those of both LTC (Brigadier) Toosey and the fictional Colonel Nicholson. When he refused to order his men to work on the railway, he was beaten and put in a hot box, but he did not break. Eventually the camp commander had to negotiate a deal with him. In exchange for their labor, he promised adequate rations and medical care, an action which saved many lives. When the war ended the Japanese commander surrendered his sword to Major Hazenberg, who later gave it to his son, Carl. I have seen and handled this sword, which remains in the family to this day.
    13
  293. 12
  294. 12
  295. 12
  296. 12
  297. 12
  298.  @solarnaut  Sol, I can actually top that. When my wife and I were first married we lived in a small house on my tree farm. All we got was UHF and VHF reception, and it was poor even with the aluminum foil I added to the rabbit ears (it didn't work on the UHF loop antenna). Even though this was in the mid to late 90s, I couldn't afford to add cable or satellite TV, so when we built a larger house, I installed a roof antenna for better reception. I had "cleverly" mounted it to a pole which itself was held in place by two extended brackets that I'd bolted to the outside wall of our second floor bedroom. We soon discovered that the best reception could only be achieved by "tuning" the antenna for each channel. The only way to do this was for me to rotate the antenna, but the only way to rotate it was for me to climb out the rear bedroom window onto the back deck roof, walk to the edge of the house, and carefully lean around the corner so I could just barely grab the pole and twist it. Meanwhile, my wife, who was in our downstairs living room checking the reception, had to repeatedly run up the stairs and shout to me the result of each minor twist. When a major change in antenna direction was required, my only option was to take a short ladder onto the deck roof and use it to climb onto the main roof of the house, then move to the edge of the roof where I could get a good grip on the antenna and rotate it as much as needed. In these situations my wife had to run up the stairs and into the bedroom, lean out the back window, shout the results to me, then dash back downstairs to check the progress before running back up again for the next report. Mind you, this feat was normally performed at night. Rainy nights were particularly challenging.
    12
  299. 12
  300. 12
  301. 12
  302. During the Cold War my good friend, Bud, spent part of his career stationed in W. Germany. At one point the situation thawed enough that he was able to take leave with another Air Force NCO and spend a couple of weeks traveling through the East Bloc in a VW Minibus. They took along blue jeans, Playboy magazines, and whiskey for horse trading with the locals. It was quite an adventure which included drives over dangerous mountain passes, encounters with border guards (where their trade ware came in handy), and even a run-in with an overbearing Russian tourist that did not end well for the Russian when he picked a fight with Bud's friend (who happened to be a USAFE wrestling champ). This last incident, while applauded by the locals who detested the pompous Russians, resulted in a lot of back road driving in an earnest effort to avoid contact with any authorities who might want to discuss the recent incident with them. As a result they ended up in Transylvania, which he described as primitive and inhabited by very superstitious peasants who were wary of outsiders. They spent the night camping at what was supposedly the ruins of one of Vlad's castles. The area was darkly forested, not unlike the setting of many Dracula movies. His friend was so creeped out by the place that he sat up most of the night holding a tire iron that happened to be shaped like a cross. Come morning, Bud went down to the stream to wash up while his partner slept, tire iron still in hand. After a few minutes he heard yelling from the minibus, "Bud! Bud! Where are you?" He rushed back to find his friend seething, almost in panic because when he awoke he saw Bud's sleeping bag crumpled on the ground and camping equipment strewn about. He was nearly convinced a vampire or werewolf had gotten him. Bud burst into laughter and this only angered his friend more. When he finally calmed down, they agreed it was time to leave the place. Bud later told me he was secretly glad they did; he just didn't want his macho friend to know the place gave him a touch of the willies too. The impact of Vlad the Impaler lives on!
    12
  303. 12
  304. 12
  305. 12
  306. 12
  307. 12
  308. 12
  309. 11
  310. In the role of blocking the attacker, yes, the security team failed. In their other roles they succeeded. We studied the photos and video footage of the shooting when I went through protective service training in the USAF a year later. Our instructor pointed out that a police officer assigned to screen the crowd was looking at Reagan instead of the public, thus providing Hinckley an opportunity to penetrate security. As Hinckley opened fire, Secret Service Agent Tim McCarthy spread his body in front of President Reagan and was shot in the abdomen. Meanwhile, the agent in charge, Jerry Parr, quickly shoved Reagan into the limo. As he was doing so, the President was hit by Hinckley's last bullet, which had ricocheted off the armored body of the limousine. According to forensic evidence, had Parr not pushed Reagan so violently into the car, the President would have been struck in the head instead of the arm and abdomen. While racing toward the White House, Reagan's only complaint was of a broken rib which he assumed was caused by Parr's action. But when Parr noticed blood frothing on Reagan's lips, he instantly realized the President had likely been hit in the lung, so he diverted the limo to George Washington Hospital. Collectively, the actions of the Secret Service that day saved Reagan's life. As an interesting aside, Parr first considered becoming a Secret Service agent while still a boy, after watching Ronald Reagan in the 1939 movie "Code of the Secret Service". How's that for coincidence or providence?
    11
  311. 11
  312. 11
  313. 11
  314. 11
  315. 11
  316. 11
  317. This Brevard County shootout between Deputies Potters and Thoman and Mr. Deadly Dreadlocks is a case poor situational alertness and poorer tactics. In the originally released video the Sheriff is seen extolling the professionalism of his officers (roll eyes), while deflecting any potential criticism of their actions by lambasting the perp and our ineffective judicial system (all true, but irrelevant in a gunfight). I can only presume he has a reelection campaign to consider, hence his attempt to turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse. My takeaway is about 180 degrees opposite that of the sheriff. Given the lax behavior and poor police procedures used by these officers, it is indeed a miracle they survived this encounter. For example, I do not understand why Potters or any officer would have music playing in his patrol car. Nor do I understand the stationing of the officers such that the detained people are between them. Each officer, but in particular, Potters, keeps looking away from the potential threat. Once the firefight starts, Potters develops tunnel vision and is about two seconds behind the action. With the sheriff repeatedly claiming the perp put the baby at risk, could you explain why it is Potters who keeps firing into the vehicle when its only occupants are a two month old baby and a puppy? Deputy Thoman is a bit more alert, though he appears to be suffering from diarrhea of the trigger finger and has to reload at least twice. His first reload occurs at the worst possible moment. Fortunately, the perp’s weapon had failed by this point or I fear both deputies would have died. I know I am Monday morning quarterbacking, but I believe more alert and tactically aware officers would have been less likely to end up in such a desperate fight for their lives.
    11
  318. 11
  319. 11
  320. 11
  321. 11
  322. 11
  323. 11
  324. 11
  325. 11
  326. 11
  327. 11
  328. 11
  329. 11
  330. 11
  331. 11
  332. 10
  333. 10
  334. 10
  335. 10
  336. 10
  337. 10
  338. 10
  339. 10
  340. 10
  341. 10
  342. 10
  343. 10
  344. 10
  345. 10
  346. 10
  347. 10
  348. 10
  349. 10
  350. 10
  351. 10
  352. 10
  353. 10
  354. 10
  355. 10
  356. 9
  357. 9
  358. 9
  359. 9
  360. 9
  361. 9
  362. 9
  363. 9
  364. 9
  365. 9
  366. 9
  367. 9
  368. 9
  369. 9
  370. 9
  371. 9
  372. 9
  373. 9
  374. 9
  375. 9
  376. 9
  377. 9
  378. I may be showing my age a bit, but back in 1959 a short-lived, but popular, western series titled "Johnny Ringo" made good use of a highly modified LeMat revolver. The show was created by Aaron Spelling and produced by Four Star Productions (so called because it was formed by major motion picture stars Dick Powell, David Niven, Ida Lupino, and Charles Boyer). The series starred Don Durant as former-gunfighter-turned-honest-sheriff Johnny Ringo (yeahy, they really rewrote history there) and Mark Goddard (better remembered later as Major Don West in "Lost in Space") as his trusty deputy. Ringo's "seven shooter" was really a 10-shot Lemat that had been converted to fire nine 44 rimfire blanks and one dummy shotgun shell (using a pistol blank insert). The writers called it a "410" because they thought that sounded bigger than 18 gauge or 20 gauge (roll eyes). The gun had been acquired by producer Dick Powell, who I believe was a collector. It was in nonfunctional shape at the time, so he had the gunsmiths at Hollywood's premier prop gun company, Stembridge Gun Works, modify it so it would break open and close in a fashion similar to a S&W Model 2 or Model 3 revolver. Actually, it was a very clever conversion, and one that I am surprised LeMat didn't think of. Indeed, it's a pity nobody is offering such a pistol today. After the series ended, Powell gave the gun to Durant, who owned it until his death in 2005. I don't know what became of the revolver after that, but it certainly would be an interesting find for "Forgotten Weapons". If you want to learn more about the Ringo revolver, I suggest you visit the Johnny Ringo website, specifically page http://www.johnnyringo.net/lemat.htm. It contains links to more information, including a somewhat inaccurate article from a 1961 issue of GUN WORLD. Keep up the good work!
    9
  379. 9
  380. 9
  381. 9
  382. 9
  383. 9
  384. 9
  385. 9
  386. 9
  387. 9
  388. 9
  389. 9
  390. 9
  391. 9
  392. 9
  393. 9
  394. 8
  395. 8
  396. 8
  397. 8
  398. 8
  399. 8
  400. 8
  401. 8
  402. 8
  403. 8
  404. 8
  405. 8
  406. 8
  407. 8
  408. 8
  409. 8
  410. 8
  411. 8
  412. 8
  413. 8
  414. 8
  415. 8
  416. 8
  417. 8
  418. 8
  419. 8
  420. 8
  421. 8
  422. 8
  423. 8
  424. 8
  425. 8
  426. 8
  427. 8
  428. 8
  429. 7
  430. 7
  431. 7
  432. 7
  433. 7
  434. 7
  435. 7
  436. 7
  437. 7
  438. 7
  439. 7
  440. 7
  441. 7
  442. 7
  443. 7
  444. 7
  445. 7
  446. 7
  447. 7
  448. 7
  449. 7
  450. 7
  451. 7
  452. 7
  453. 7
  454. 7
  455. 7
  456. 7
  457. 7
  458. 7
  459. 7
  460. 7
  461. 7
  462. 7
  463. 7
  464. 7
  465. 7
  466. 7
  467. 7
  468. 7
  469. 7
  470. 7
  471. 7
  472. 6
  473. 6
  474. 6
  475. 6
  476. 6
  477. 6
  478. 6
  479. 6
  480. 6
  481. 6
  482. 6
  483. 6
  484. 6
  485. 6
  486. 6
  487. 6
  488. 6
  489. 6
  490. 6
  491. 6
  492. 6
  493. 6
  494. 6
  495. 6
  496. 6
  497. 6
  498. 6
  499. 6
  500. 6
  501. 6
  502. 6
  503. 6
  504. 6
  505. 6
  506. 6
  507. 6
  508. 6
  509. 6
  510. 6
  511. 6
  512. 6
  513. 6
  514. 6
  515. 6
  516. 6
  517. 6
  518. 6
  519. 6
  520. 6
  521. 6
  522. 6
  523. 6
  524. 6
  525. 6
  526. 6
  527. 6
  528. 6
  529. 6
  530. 6
  531. 6
  532. 6
  533. 6
  534. 6
  535. 6
  536. 6
  537. 6
  538. 5
  539. 5
  540. 5
  541. 5
  542. 5
  543. 5
  544. 5
  545. 5
  546. 5
  547. 5
  548. 5
  549. 5
  550. 5
  551. 5
  552. 5
  553. 5
  554. 5
  555. 5
  556. 5
  557. 5
  558. 5
  559. 5
  560. 5
  561. 5
  562. 5
  563. 5
  564. 5
  565. 5
  566. 5
  567. 5
  568. 5
  569. 5
  570. 5
  571. 5
  572. 5
  573. 5
  574. 5
  575. 5
  576. 5
  577. 5
  578. 5
  579. 5
  580. 5
  581. 5
  582. 5
  583. 5
  584.  @ok-zc1mm  Indeed there were. Lindbergh held a reserve commission and wanted to be recalled, but FDR said no for both political and personal reasons (he hated Lindbergh's isolationist work before the war). Lindbergh went around FDR by going to the Pacific as a technical advisor. While there he taught P-38 pilots how to lean their engines to greatly increase the fighter's range and he demonstrated to the Marines that it was possible to double the bomb load of their Corsairs. LeMay was a newly promoted major when we entered WWII. He was one of Arnold's handpicked boys and was expected to lead the way in the first few years of combat because of his competency, fearlessness, and aggressive nature. He did not receive his first star until September 1943. Jimmy Doolittle was a pioneering race pilot with a doctorate in aeronautics, but he had to fight to get back in the military (he had resigned his regular commission before the war and accepted a reserve commission, which was something regular Army officers looked upon with disdain). Eddie Rickenbacker was too old to recall to service and also an enemy of FDR, but he performed inspection tours and fact-finding missions for the government, one of which resulted in his being lost at sea for 23 days. He eventually received the medal for Merit, a civilian award equivalent to the Legion of Merit in the military. If any of these men had been caught or killed by the enemy, it would have been a serious blow to American morale. I have to wonder, do we have such people today in positions of fame and influence?
    5
  585. 5
  586. 5
  587. 5
  588. 5
  589. 5
  590. 5
  591. 5
  592. 5
  593. 5
  594. 5
  595. 5
  596. 5
  597. 5
  598. 5
  599. 5
  600. 5
  601. 5
  602. 5
  603. 5
  604. 5
  605. 5
  606. 5
  607. 5
  608. 5
  609. 5
  610. 5
  611. 5
  612. 5
  613. 5
  614. 5
  615. 5
  616. 5
  617. 5
  618. 5
  619. 5
  620. 5
  621. 5
  622. 5
  623. 5
  624. 5
  625. 5
  626. 5
  627. 5
  628. 5
  629. 5
  630. 5
  631. 5
  632. 5
  633. 5
  634. 5
  635. 5
  636. 5
  637. 5
  638. 5
  639. 5
  640. 5
  641. 5
  642. 5
  643. 5
  644. 5
  645. 5
  646. At 28:23 you state that FDR invited the entire US Olympic Team to the White House, with the exception of Jesse Owens. Everything I've read claims that FDR refused to invite any members of the team to the White House and made it a point to stay out of the controversy surrounding American participation in the 1936 games. In so doing, he was preserving a 40 year tradition of keeping politics out of the Olympics. I think the myth that FDR snubbed Owens is a result of comments Jesse Owns made afterwards, including "I wasn’t invited to the White House to shake hands with the president either" and “Hitler didn’t snub me—it was our president who snubbed me…The president didn’t even send me a telegram". Taken out of context, one would assume Owens was singled out for abuse, but I can find no evidence to support this claim. Similarly, there are numerous reports that Hitler refused to shake hands with Jesse Owens after his wins. Some stories claim he left the game stand each time Owens won, but these statements have been proven false or incomplete. Hitler did not leave, and while it is true he did not shake hands with Owens, he did not shake hands with any athletes - with the possible exception of German and Finish winners. By Owens own admission he did exchange waves with Hitler after each of his wins (Dolf must have loved that 🙂). There is one point of controversy that has truly become forgotten history. Although the IOC (International Olympic Committee) required Germany to accept qualified Jewish athletes, Jewish-American athletes Marty Glickman and Sam Stoller were not allowed to run in the 400-meter relay by the American Olympic Committee (AOC). Many claim this was done to avoid angering Hitler. Perhaps that is true or perhaps there was a fear if the two Americans lost, it would become a propaganda coup for the Nazi uberman myth. Or maybe the US team had two runners who were faster than Glickman and Stoller. So who were the two men were replaced them? Black athletes Jesse Owens and Ralph Metcalfe. Whatever the reason for the switch, America won the relay race and the rest is forgotten history.
    5
  647. 5
  648. 5
  649. 5
  650. 5
  651. 5
  652. 5
  653. 5
  654. 4
  655. 4
  656. 4
  657. 4
  658. 4
  659. 4
  660. 4
  661. 4
  662. 4
  663. 4
  664. 4
  665. 4
  666. 4
  667. 4
  668. 4
  669. 4
  670. 4
  671. 4
  672. 4
  673. 4
  674. 4
  675. 4
  676. 4
  677. 4
  678. 4
  679. 4
  680. 4
  681. 4
  682. 4
  683. 4
  684. 4
  685. 4
  686. 4
  687. 4
  688. 4
  689. 4
  690. 4
  691. 4
  692. 4
  693. 4
  694. 4
  695. 4
  696. 4
  697. 4
  698. 4
  699. 4
  700. 4
  701. 4
  702. 4
  703. 4
  704. 4
  705. 4
  706. 4
  707. 4
  708. 4
  709. 4
  710. 4
  711. 4
  712. 4
  713. 4
  714. 4
  715. 4
  716. 4
  717. 4
  718. 4
  719. 4
  720. 4
  721. 4
  722. 4
  723. 4
  724. 4
  725. 4
  726. 4
  727. 4
  728. 4
  729. 4
  730. 4
  731. 4
  732. 4
  733. 4
  734. 4
  735. 4
  736. 4
  737. 4
  738. 4
  739. 4
  740. 4
  741. 4
  742. 4
  743. 4
  744. 4
  745. 4
  746. 4
  747. 4
  748. 4
  749. 4
  750. 4
  751. 4
  752. 4
  753. 4
  754. 4
  755. 4
  756. 4
  757. 4
  758. 4
  759. 4
  760. 4
  761. 4
  762. 4
  763. 4
  764. 4
  765. 4
  766. 4
  767. 4
  768. 4
  769. 4
  770. 4
  771. 4
  772. 4
  773. 4
  774. 4
  775. 4
  776. 4
  777. 4
  778. 4
  779. 4
  780. 4
  781. 4
  782. 4
  783. 4
  784. 4
  785. 4
  786. 4
  787. 4
  788. 4
  789. 4
  790. 4
  791. 4
  792. 4
  793. 4
  794. 4
  795. 4
  796. 4
  797. 4
  798. 4
  799. 4
  800. 4
  801. 4
  802. 4
  803. 3
  804. 3
  805. 3
  806. 3
  807. 3
  808. 3
  809. 3
  810. 3
  811. 3
  812. 3
  813. 3
  814. 3
  815. 3
  816. 3
  817. 3
  818. 3
  819. 3
  820. @Redsand His US Organization (a play on "US", but meant to be pronounced "us") was in direct competition with the Black Panthers (who mockingly said the "US" meant United Slaves). The situation grew extremely ugly, in no small part due to illegal operations carried out by the FBI which were intended to exacerbate the friction between the two groups. The FBI tactics worked, and the two groups did commit violent actions against each other, culminating in a series of shootings and murders. I suspect this would have happened even without FBI participation, given the nature of the leaders involved. If you want to judge people by their actions, which is a reasonable thing to do, then I would classify Ron Everett (Karenga's original name) as a narcissistic, sadistic, misogynistic opportunist. After all, he did go to prison for physically torturing women (I think he liked it). He, of course, will argue he was really a political prisoner. Since he's now a professor in California, his prison time no doubt added to his bona-fides, rather than detracting from them. The last time I looked, California is not a bastion of right-wing ideology, especially within its educational system. I have not read Everett/Karenga's writings, but I have looked at his seven principals of communitarian philosophy. It mirrors Mao's collectivist thinking. There is no emphasis on the individual, only on the community or the state. I do not see how nationalism alone qualifies an ideology or person as being a right-wing, especially when you consider that Everett was specifically disavowing the majority of Americans (whites). In my opinion the man is either a loon or a nutter, but such men have risen to power in the past. When I look at Kwanzaa and what purpose it is supposed to serve, I must also look at its creator, a man who was and remains a self-serving political animal. Unlike Christmas and Hanukkah, the celebration of Kwanzaa is a mask for his true political intentions. For this reason I remain wary of its purpose, not its celebration.
    3
  821. 3
  822. 3
  823. 3
  824. 3
  825. 3
  826. 3
  827. 3
  828. 3
  829. 3
  830. 3
  831. 3
  832. 3
  833. 3
  834. 3
  835. 3
  836. 3
  837. 3
  838. 3
  839. 3
  840. 3
  841. 3
  842. 3
  843. 3
  844. 3
  845. 3
  846. 3
  847. 3
  848. 3
  849. 3
  850. 3
  851. 3
  852. 3
  853. 3
  854. 3
  855. 3
  856. 3
  857. 3
  858. 3
  859. 3
  860. 3
  861. 3
  862. 3
  863. 3
  864. 3
  865. 3
  866. 3
  867. 3
  868. 3
  869. 3
  870. 3
  871. 3
  872. 3
  873. 3
  874. 3
  875. 3
  876. 3
  877. 3
  878. 3
  879. 3
  880. 3
  881. 3
  882. 3
  883. 3
  884. 3
  885. 3
  886. 3
  887. 3
  888. 3
  889. 3
  890. 3
  891. 3
  892. 3
  893. 3
  894. 3
  895. 3
  896. 3
  897. 3
  898. 3
  899. 3
  900. 3
  901. 3
  902. 3
  903. 3
  904. 3
  905. 3
  906. 3
  907. 3
  908. 3
  909. 3
  910. 3
  911. 3
  912. 3
  913. 3
  914. 3
  915. 3
  916. 3
  917. 3
  918. 3
  919. 3
  920. 3
  921. 3
  922. 3
  923. 3
  924. 3
  925. 3
  926. 3
  927. 3
  928. 3
  929. 3
  930. 3
  931. 3
  932. 3
  933. 3
  934. 3
  935. 3
  936. 3
  937. 3
  938. 3
  939. 3
  940. 3
  941. 3
  942. 3
  943. 3
  944. 3
  945. 3
  946. 3
  947. 3
  948. 3
  949. 3
  950. 3
  951. 3
  952. 3
  953. 3
  954. 3
  955. 3
  956. 3
  957. 3
  958. 3
  959. 3
  960. 3
  961. 3
  962. 3
  963. 3
  964. 3
  965. 3
  966. 3
  967. 3
  968. 3
  969. 3
  970. 3
  971. 3
  972. 3
  973. 3
  974. 3
  975. 3
  976. 3
  977. 3
  978. 3
  979. 3
  980. 3
  981. 3
  982. 3
  983. 3
  984. 3
  985. 3
  986. 3
  987. 3
  988. 3
  989. 3
  990. 3
  991. 3
  992. 3
  993. 3
  994. 3
  995. 3
  996.  Philip Freeman  Phil, like you I was born in the 50s and grew up in the south when racism and segregation were still common, but my parents fought against it, as did most Americans from all over the country. Our nation remains a work in progress, and always will be as long as we are free to make our own choices, be they good, bad, or ugly. Each generation has to experiment and learn for itself. We're not born wise, but we can obtain wisdom, even if some never do. Hatred is a strong emotion, but it is one which can ultimately destroy a person, assuming he isn't killed by somebody else first. Racism and bigotry are learned behaviors. They can be taught by your parents, your friends, your teachers, or yourself through your own life experiences. I try not to hate or despise entire groups of people because I know that each person is an individual whose ideas and behavior are not always in lockstep with others in his group. But I must admit that some people are making it awfully hard for me to think kindly or respectfully of them when I see them so many of them behaving badly. I'm always willing to be polite and listen to somebody's story, but I do so while checking my back because sometimes it's just a ruse to get me to drop my guard. Long ago I learned that if you don't feel right about a person or situation you are in, maybe it's time to get the hell away. Most folks are decent, but there wolves among the sheep, so let your prejudices work for you, but don't let them rule you. It's a balancing act, to be sure.
    3
  997. 3
  998. 3
  999. 3
  1000. 3
  1001. 3
  1002. 3
  1003. 3
  1004. 3
  1005. 3
  1006. 3
  1007. 3
  1008. 3
  1009. 3
  1010. 3
  1011. 3
  1012. 3
  1013. 3
  1014. 3
  1015. 3
  1016. 3
  1017. 3
  1018. 3
  1019. 3
  1020. 3
  1021. 3
  1022. 3
  1023. 3
  1024. 3
  1025. 3
  1026. 3
  1027. 3
  1028. 3
  1029. 3
  1030. 3
  1031. 3
  1032. 3
  1033.  @erebostd  I think you are treating unrelated events as being equivalent. They are not. There was never a policy of native genocide in America. The tragedy of the American Indian was the result of two centuries of ad hoc policies, not some master plan. Though there were voices in both government and the general public who endorsed organized genocide, it was never a popular idea, nor was such a plan ever adopted. The dropping of the Atom Bombs was a strategic decision that hastened the end of WWII. In so doing, "The Bomb" saved far more lives than it cost. You can question the wisdom and effectiveness of large-scale bombing of cities, but it makes no sense to treat Hiroshima and Nagasaki separately from those earlier raids over Poland, England, China, Germany, and Japan. Sometimes mass destruction worked, sometime it did not. Any killing of noncombatants is regrettable, even tragic, but it is often unavoidable in war. It's the motives that matter. There is a clear distinction between killing people to end a war and killing them because you don't like the color of their skin, their religion, their form of government, or because you covet their land and resources, or wish to enslave them. I'm not convinced the world is an evil place, but I am convinced there are evil forms of government and some "well intentioned" people in and out of government who endorse terrible ideas. In the recorded history of the world it is governments that have ended more lives and enslaved more people than the collective acts of all individuals acting on their own. Neither is acceptable, and I agree with you that we must work every day to make the world a better place. It is an unending goal.
    3
  1034. 3
  1035. 3
  1036. 3
  1037. 3
  1038. 3
  1039. 3
  1040. 3
  1041. 3
  1042. 3
  1043. 3
  1044. 3
  1045. 3
  1046. 3
  1047. 3
  1048. 3
  1049. 3
  1050. 3
  1051. 3
  1052. 3
  1053. 3
  1054. 3
  1055. 3
  1056. 3
  1057. 3
  1058. 3
  1059. You make it sound like the USSR had a victory lock on the Axis by the time of D-Day. If they had, Stalin could have controlled all of Europe in the end instead only the east. So why did Stalin keep pressuring the West to attack the continent head-on as soon as possible? This would have been counterproductive to his postwar aims. For the record, the Germans were conducting a strategic withdrawal from much of the USSR during this time. It wasn't a rout or full retreat. They had a very hard time going on the offensive because so much of their artillery and fighter aircraft were defending the fatherland, and fuel shortages were becoming endemic. Meanwhile, the Soviets were benefiting from the critical supplies we were giving them such as high performance aviation fuels, trucks, and radios. There is much more to war than who is winning the land battles or how many casualties one has endured. Nobody here is saying the Soviets didn't absorb the lion's share of suffering and fighting against the Nazis. The same is true of the Chinese against the Japanese. It was a joint effort all around. Had it been otherwise, I doubt anyone could have stopped the Nazis, Fascists, and Imperialist, certainly not without prolonging the war with even more suffering. There's a popular belief floating around these days that it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that led to the rapid surrender of Japan, not the A-bombs we dropped. I don't believe it. What I do believe is the Japanese saw the hopelessness of fighting in the face of starvation, isolation, nuclear attacks, firebombings, and an all-out invasion by the US, UK, and USSR.
    3
  1060. 3
  1061. 3
  1062. 3
  1063. 3
  1064. 3
  1065. 3
  1066. 3
  1067. 3
  1068. 3
  1069. 3
  1070. 3
  1071. 3
  1072. 3
  1073. 3
  1074. 3
  1075. 3
  1076. 3
  1077. 3
  1078. 2
  1079. 2
  1080. 2
  1081. 2
  1082. 2
  1083. 2
  1084. 2
  1085. 2
  1086. 2
  1087. 2
  1088. 2
  1089. 2
  1090. 2
  1091. 2
  1092. 2
  1093. 2
  1094. 2
  1095. 2
  1096. 2
  1097. 2
  1098. 2
  1099. 2
  1100. 2
  1101. 2
  1102. 2
  1103. 2
  1104. 2
  1105. 2
  1106. 2
  1107. 2
  1108. 2
  1109. 2
  1110. 2
  1111. 2
  1112. 2
  1113. 2
  1114. 2
  1115. 2
  1116. 2
  1117. 2
  1118. 2
  1119. 2
  1120. 2
  1121. 2
  1122. 2
  1123. 2
  1124. 2
  1125. 2
  1126. 2
  1127. 2
  1128. 2
  1129. 2
  1130. 2
  1131. 2
  1132. 2
  1133. 2
  1134. 2
  1135. 2
  1136. 2
  1137. 2
  1138. 2
  1139. 2
  1140. 2
  1141. 2
  1142. 2
  1143. 2
  1144. 2
  1145. 2
  1146. 2
  1147. 2
  1148. 2
  1149. 2
  1150. 2
  1151. 2
  1152. 2
  1153. 2
  1154. 2
  1155. 2
  1156. 2
  1157. 2
  1158. 2
  1159. 2
  1160. 2
  1161. 2
  1162. 2
  1163. 2
  1164. 2
  1165. 2
  1166. 2
  1167. 2
  1168. 2
  1169. 2
  1170. 2
  1171. 2
  1172. 2
  1173. 2
  1174. 2
  1175. 2
  1176. 2
  1177. 2
  1178. 2
  1179. 2
  1180. 2
  1181. 2
  1182. 2
  1183. 2
  1184. 2
  1185. 2
  1186. 2
  1187. 2
  1188. 2
  1189. 2
  1190. 2
  1191. 2
  1192. 2
  1193. 2
  1194. 2
  1195. 2
  1196. 2
  1197. 2
  1198. 2
  1199. 2
  1200. 2
  1201. 2
  1202. 2
  1203. 2
  1204. 2
  1205. 2
  1206. 2
  1207. 2
  1208. Around 1959 my Dad and a couple of his friends each chipped in $200 to purchase a 1929 Curtiss Robin that one of them had seen wasting away on a farm in central Florida. The man who owned it had bought it many years before to haul his family and possessions cross-country to his new farm, whereupon, no longer having a need for it, he parked it in a corner of his property and built a hangar around it. After acquiring legal ownership from the farmer, my Dad, who was a licensed A&E (aircraft & engine) mechanic, removed the wings from it because the hangar supports blocked them, and they feared if they simply moved the supports, the roof would collapse onto the plane. They put the Robin on a flatbed truck and drove it 175 miles back to our hometown airport in north central Florida where they spent the next two years rebuilding it in an open bay hangar they had constructed for this purpose. When the 225 HP Continental engine was inspected, they discovered it was in excellent shape and only needed new oil before they could fire it up. All the fabric was rotted, and after they stripped it off they found only a few small sections of the tubular frame had rusted and required replacing. New linen was fitted over the fuselage and wings, and then coated with dope before applying the paint. Their biggest concern at this point was finding replacement tires, which were actually large rimmed 1927 automobile tires. As luck would have it, the owner of a local tire dealership remembered still having an unsold set of 1927 Chevrolet tires in the back of his store which fit perfectly. With a beautiful new blue fuselage and yellow wings, finished with a hand-painted robin on the tail (courtesy of my grandmother, who was an artist), this rare four-seat Robin was ready to take flight again. And fly it did. It lifted off the ground like a homesick angel, though after half an hour behind that thundering Continental engine on a hot Florida summer day it felt more like we were headed to the other place. It was a roomy beast which featured dual stick controls in front and car windows you could roll up and down. We used to take it to airshows around the region, and after several years of fun, the group sold it for about 60 times what they paid for it. As the years passed I would occasionally see her listed in the trades for sale again, each time priced much higher than before. I've been told old 563N now sits in museum somewhere. I certainly hope so. I would hate to think she ever suffered the fate of so many of her brethren, forgotten hulks scattered about the fields, forests, and junkyards of America, or other parts unknown.
    2
  1209. 2
  1210. 2
  1211. 2
  1212. 2
  1213. 2
  1214. 2
  1215. 2
  1216. 2
  1217. 2
  1218. 2
  1219. 2
  1220. 2
  1221. 2
  1222. 2
  1223. 2
  1224. 2
  1225. 2
  1226. 2
  1227. 2
  1228. 2
  1229. 2
  1230. 2
  1231. 2
  1232. 2
  1233. 2
  1234. 2
  1235. 2
  1236. 2
  1237. 2
  1238. 2
  1239. 2
  1240. 2
  1241. 2
  1242. 2
  1243. 2
  1244. 2
  1245. 2
  1246. 2
  1247. 2
  1248. 2
  1249. 2
  1250. 2
  1251. 2
  1252. 2
  1253. 2
  1254. 2
  1255. 2
  1256. 2
  1257. 2
  1258. 2
  1259. 2
  1260. 2
  1261. 2
  1262. 2
  1263. 2
  1264. 2
  1265. 2
  1266. 2
  1267. 2
  1268. 2
  1269. 2
  1270. 2
  1271. 2
  1272. 2
  1273. 2
  1274. 2
  1275. 2
  1276. 2
  1277. 2
  1278. 2
  1279. 2
  1280. 2
  1281. 2
  1282. 2
  1283. 2
  1284. 2
  1285. 2
  1286. 2
  1287. 2
  1288. 2
  1289. 2
  1290. 2
  1291. 2
  1292. 2
  1293. 2
  1294. 2
  1295. 2
  1296. 2
  1297. 2
  1298. 2
  1299. 2
  1300. 2
  1301. 2
  1302. 2
  1303. 2
  1304. 2
  1305. 2
  1306. 2
  1307. 2
  1308. @J Thorsson Orientals are the most xenophobic people I've run across. The Japanese top the list. By the way, the word Oriental is no more offensive than the word Occidental, so if anyone doesn't like it, please explain why. Most Americans are not xenophobic. If we were, we would not be made up of so many different cultures and nationalities, all blended into e pluribus unum. What we are is nationalistic. These days the words nationalist and xenophobe are reviled and purposely misinterpreted to mean the same thing. A nationalist loves his country; a xenophobe fears foreigners. The terms are mutually exclusive. America was built on a simple idea that when you immigrate here, you bring the best your culture has to offer and you accept what the American culture offers - freedom of opportunity, independence (self-reliance), and a republican federalist form of government. All of this is taught to you so you can gain your citizenship. You also must learn English, not because we're xenophobic or nationalistic, but because it's practical and allows you to get ahead in our society. I admire and envy people who are multilingual. I've studied four other languages myself, but have mastered none of them. However, remaining rooted in your native tongue and refusing to blend into our culture is an invitation to isolation and control by others who have much to gain from keeping you down. America welcomes all legal immigrants, but we do not tolerate those who cheat, lie, and steal to be here. They subvert the system and become a drain on our limited resources. Enough illegal immigrants are here now that there is a significant political block that supports them, despite the harm they cause. The vast majority of illegal aliens come from Mexico, followed by Central and South America. They have few, if any, skills we can use, so they become trapped in a permanent subculture that does not reflect American values and lifestyles. Another group of immigrants who have been brought here are from the Middle East. Most of them came in through a dubious immigration program. Their cultures and beliefs are quite anathema to ours. Why we have allowed so many of them in is a puzzlement to me. The majority refuse to blend with us and many openly defy our laws and insult our traditions. For Europe it is a far greater problem and it is fast approaching a point where it can no longer be contained. What will happen next in Europe is unknown, but I am concerned it may become very ugly (if history is any guide). To sum up, I understand your concerns and your conflicts. I see nothing unusual about them; you just need to reason them through, not apologize for them.
    2
  1309. 2
  1310. 2
  1311. 2
  1312. 2
  1313. 2
  1314. 2
  1315. 2
  1316. 2
  1317. 2
  1318. 2
  1319. 2
  1320. I have an unusual Colt revolver in my collection that has stumped me and the Colt historian I spoke with. It is a Colt Official Police 38-200 that was factory acquired by the British Purchasing Commission in 1941. As far as I can tell, the markings and dimensions are all original except for the grips and a missing lanyard swivel. What makes it unusual is the barrel and cylinder were made for the 38 Special cartridge, which is dimensionally narrower and longer than the 38-200 cartridge used by the British military at the time. Despite the wrong chambering, the barrel is marked 38-200. I once read an online article that in the rush to satisfy the British, Colt did use standard 38 Special barrels instead of true 38-200 barrels, though I cannot verify this claim to be accurate. I suppose it is theoretically possible, given the rather anemic nature of the 38-200 load, but it does seem like it would cause potential accuracy problems. I would have accepted this explanation as plausible except for the fact that the revolver’s cylinder is also chambered in 38 Special. I know many postwar gunsmiths altered 38-200 cylinders to 38 Special by boring them through to accept the longer case, but the result was always an oversized chamber which caused case splitting. The chambers in this cylinder are a perfect fit for a 38 Special cartridge and include a step inside to prevent a 357 Magnum cartridge from being inserted. Further, since a 38-200 round is too fat to go into any of the chambers, this cannot be an altered 38-200 cylinder. I can only think of two possible explanations for this anomaly. Either this is a factory mismarked 38 Special (there was a war on) or else somebody later replaced the cylinder (but not the numbered crane) with a 38 Special cylinder. The condition of the cylinder matches that of the rest of the pistol, so I’m inclined to think it might be original to the revolver unless Colt marked the Purchasing Commission cylinders in some way. You’d think the British acceptance inspector would have checked cylinders and bores with a gauge before approving them, but who knows, given the exigencies of the time. To date it remains a mystery gun.
    2
  1321. 2
  1322. 2
  1323. 2
  1324. 2
  1325. 2
  1326. 2
  1327. 2
  1328. 2
  1329. 2
  1330. 2
  1331. 2
  1332. 2
  1333. This episode was very uplifting because it reminded me of the only electrical elevator we had in our small town in the 1960s. It was in the five-story Masonic building and was operated by an elderly black woman who opened and closed the cage door and managed the operating lever. We also had a rope and pulley operated cargo lift elevator in our two-story hardware store, which was certified annually by a state inspector. We used it from the late 1920s until the 1970s, when the state decertified it. Because we could no longer lift material upstairs, the upper floor storage room became frozen in time. The few items we could store upstairs had to be manually carried up the staircase, but eventually rain rot through the roof made it unsafe to use the second floor for this purpose. This presented a bit of a problem because the lavatory was on the second floor, so in order to use it one had to be careful where to step, lest a foot went through a floorboard. Everything began to decay, including an old 48 star flag, unused display cases, a glass cutting table, and sales record books dating back to 1909 (a different store had been used across the street prior to the construction of the new store around 1929). In the end an electrical spark ignited a fire that burned the place to the ground. Aside form a safe, the only other things I salvaged were a few hundred bricks from the outer wall which I used to pave a walkway in front of my house. When I sold my home and moved away, I took a couple of leftover bricks as a reminder of a time and place that is no more. All this because of a a faulty elevator.
    2
  1334. 2
  1335. 2
  1336. 2
  1337. 2
  1338. 2
  1339. 2
  1340. 2
  1341. 2
  1342. 2
  1343. 2
  1344. 2
  1345. 2
  1346. 2
  1347. 2
  1348. 2
  1349. 2
  1350. 2
  1351. 2
  1352. 2
  1353. 2
  1354. 2
  1355. 2
  1356. 2
  1357. 2
  1358. 2
  1359. 2
  1360. 2
  1361. 2
  1362. 2
  1363. 2
  1364. 2
  1365. 2
  1366. 2
  1367. 2
  1368. 2
  1369. 2
  1370. 2
  1371. 2
  1372. 2
  1373. 2
  1374. 2
  1375. 2
  1376. 2
  1377. 2
  1378. 2
  1379. 2
  1380. 2
  1381. 2
  1382. 2
  1383. 2
  1384. 2
  1385. 2
  1386. 2
  1387. 2
  1388. 2
  1389. 2
  1390. 2
  1391. 2
  1392. 2
  1393. 2
  1394. 2
  1395. 2
  1396. 2
  1397. 2
  1398. 2
  1399. 2
  1400. 2
  1401.  @nrsrymj  The Founders were wise enough to realize the purpose of government was to preserve out liberties. The rest was up to us. Healthcare and education are not rights under the US Constitution. They did not fall under the purview of the federal government. They were the responsibility of state and local governments, which acted on them as each state saw fit. At best they are privileges, for nobody has the right to be healthy or educated (anymore than there is a right to deny the same), but almost everyone has the desire to be healthy, and many also desire to be educated. It costs money to do both. The states found it to be in their best interest to provide basic education to children, then later on they determined it desirable to have some form of higher education. Private schools and colleges predated them, but not everyone had access to them. State and local taxes made these educational opportunities possible. Public healthcare followed a similar path and coexisted with private care. As for federal taxation, it was authorized but very limited in scope, and its purpose was to pay for the basic functions of government. That worked well until progressives (that is what men like Wilson called themselves) saw an opportunity to greatly expand the power and reach of government. Once armed with the power to tax and spend as much as it liked, our federal government has been on an ever increasing trajectory to do just that. Free education and healthcare for all are chimeras offered by a government indifferent to the reality that we cannot afford the cost.
    2
  1402. 2
  1403. 2
  1404. 2
  1405. 2
  1406.  Florian Held  At last we find some common ground. Yes, I've read Rand and agree with much of what she said about individualism and selfishness. She was being brutally honest, but she meant it in the context of honoring one's commitments and being ethical in all dealings with others. This applies to all parties. When one party violates an agreement, the other party is no longer obligated to honor it. I detest the word capitalism, which was derived from Karl Marx's writings. History has proven just how wrong Marx was. Free enterprise and free trade are what I believe in, not crony capitalism, mercantilism, monopolies, or cartels. They are perversions of the idea, largely because they favor one group over another. A level playing field is the last thing their supporters intend. What makes you think people today are any more selfish, greedy, and indifferent than at any other time in history, and why focus your comment only on Americans? The primary difference I see between Americans and the rest of the world is that we enjoy a greater degree of freedom and independence. For it to continue, it is necessary for people to act in a morally responsible way. John Adams warned us of this when he said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". So in a sense you are correct. We risk becoming our own worst enemy. As to your last statement, you'll have to clarify it for me. I didn't quite understand what you meant to say.
    2
  1407. 2
  1408. 2
  1409. 2
  1410. 2
  1411. 2
  1412. 2
  1413. 2
  1414. 2
  1415. 2
  1416. 2
  1417. 2
  1418. 2
  1419. 2
  1420. 2
  1421. 2
  1422. 2
  1423. 2
  1424. 2
  1425. 2
  1426. 2
  1427. 2
  1428. 2
  1429. 2
  1430. 2
  1431. 2
  1432. 2
  1433. 2
  1434. 2
  1435. 2
  1436. 2
  1437. 2
  1438. 2
  1439. 2
  1440. 2
  1441. 2
  1442. 2
  1443. 2
  1444. 2
  1445. 2
  1446. 2
  1447. 2
  1448. 2
  1449. 2
  1450. 2
  1451. 2
  1452. 2
  1453. 2
  1454. 2
  1455. 2
  1456. 2
  1457. 2
  1458. 2
  1459. 2
  1460. 2
  1461. 2
  1462. 2
  1463. 2
  1464. 2
  1465. 2
  1466. 2
  1467. 2
  1468. 2
  1469. 2
  1470. 2
  1471. 2
  1472. 2
  1473. 2
  1474. 2
  1475. 2
  1476. 2
  1477. 2
  1478. 2
  1479. 2
  1480. 2
  1481. 2
  1482. 2
  1483. 2
  1484. 2
  1485. 2
  1486. 2
  1487. 2
  1488. 2
  1489. 2
  1490. 2
  1491. 2
  1492. 2
  1493. 2
  1494. 2
  1495. 2
  1496. 2
  1497. 2
  1498. 2
  1499. 2
  1500. 2
  1501. 2
  1502. 2
  1503. 2
  1504. 2
  1505. 2
  1506. 2
  1507. 2
  1508. 2
  1509. 2
  1510. 2
  1511. 2
  1512. 2
  1513. 2
  1514. 2
  1515. 2
  1516. 2
  1517. 2
  1518. 2
  1519. 2
  1520. 2
  1521. 2
  1522. 2
  1523. 2
  1524. 2
  1525. 2
  1526. 2
  1527. 2
  1528. 2
  1529. 2
  1530. 2
  1531. 2
  1532. 2
  1533. 2
  1534. 2
  1535. 2
  1536. 2
  1537. 2
  1538. 2
  1539. 2
  1540. 2
  1541. 2
  1542. 2
  1543. 2
  1544. 2
  1545. 2
  1546. 2
  1547. 2
  1548. 2
  1549. 2
  1550. 2
  1551. 2
  1552. 2
  1553. 2
  1554. 2
  1555. 2
  1556. 2
  1557. 2
  1558. 2
  1559. 2
  1560. 2
  1561. 2
  1562. 2
  1563. 2
  1564. 2
  1565. 2
  1566. 2
  1567. 2
  1568. 2
  1569. 2
  1570. 2
  1571. 2
  1572. 2
  1573. 2
  1574. 2
  1575. 2
  1576. 2
  1577. 2
  1578. 2
  1579. 2
  1580. 2
  1581. 2
  1582. 2
  1583. 2
  1584. 2
  1585. 2
  1586. 2
  1587. 2
  1588.  @dovetonsturdee7033  I just finished reading Hore's 22 page article and find it does not actually contradict the article by Barker I recommended. However, Hore does leave out some critical information. The 18 aircraft from Ark Royal that he mentions were part of an earlier plan. The ongoing evacuation at Dunkirk delayed and eventually scraped this plan. I could find no mention by Hore that long range tanks would not be required for the operation. In fact, he quoted Admiral Dudley Pound’s statement that 60 Swordfish were already configured with long range tanks. Pound, however, was incorrect. Only 18 aircraft aboard Glorious had the tanks and they were not presently installed (a process that took a day to complete). The Swordfish that had conducted the 510 mile round-trip mine-laying mission to Stavanger had used them, and it was the results of this test operation which showed one serious flaw in the plan. The aircraft lacked sufficient engine oil to ensure their safe return, two having been lost on the homeward flight from the raid when their oil tanks ran dry. Both articles (Hore and Barker) deal in a degree of conjecture because critical information is missing and won't be released until 100 years has elapsed (a unique and extraordinary secrecy requirement in itself). About the only thing I believe everyone agrees on is that Churchill very much wanted to mine Lulea, and damn the political consequences. It would all be overcome by events shortly as the Germans overran the French iron ore region and the country capitulated. Maybe we'll learn more in 2041 when the official records into the Glorious loss are finally released.
    2
  1589. 2
  1590. 2
  1591. 2
  1592. 2
  1593. 2
  1594. 2
  1595. 2
  1596. 2
  1597. 2
  1598. 2
  1599. 2
  1600. 2
  1601. 2
  1602. 2
  1603. 2
  1604. 2
  1605. 2
  1606. 2
  1607. 2
  1608. 2
  1609. 2
  1610. 2
  1611. 2
  1612. 2
  1613. 2
  1614. 2
  1615. 2
  1616. 2
  1617. 2
  1618. 2
  1619. 2
  1620. 2
  1621. 2
  1622. 2
  1623. 2
  1624. 2
  1625. 2
  1626. 2
  1627. 2
  1628. 2
  1629. 2
  1630. 2
  1631. 2
  1632. 2
  1633. 2
  1634. 2
  1635. 2
  1636. 2
  1637. 2
  1638. 2
  1639. 2
  1640. 2
  1641. 2
  1642. 2
  1643. 2
  1644. 2
  1645. 2
  1646.  @danbenson7587  I'm both a pilot and former bird hunter. You are making a great number of assumptions. What are you going to see from a 1000 feet up? If you are directly over the enemy line of trenches, you will be subjected to both observation and ground fire. If you are ahead of or behind the trenches, you must employ slant range, which restricts your observation of enemy troops. The best way to strafe a trench is with enfilade fire, meaning you must fly parallel to and above the trench. You are not heading in the direction of your on lines; you are flying along the same basic course as the trenches, so you remain over enemy lines at all times. If you attempt to attack from behind and perpendicular to the trenches, you have placed yourself behind enemy lines and are now firing into defilade where your enemy is better protected from you. Not all of your adversaries machine guns are placed in forward firing positions. Some guns will be arranged to provide protective overwatch, interdicting crossfire, and aerial interception. The German M18i machine pistol saw limited use in the very late stages of the war as an individual weapon primarily in trench raiding. The Thompson SMG was never used in WWI. Gen Thompson called it a trench broom because he envisioned it being carried by individual soldiers to clear trenches with massed fire. He later coined the more popular term submachine gun. Massed fire is not the same thing as sustained fire. A soldier on foot cannot keep up a steady stream of fire as he slowly advances across no-man's land. He must pause to reload and his number of reloads are limited. He must coordinate his advance with other soldiers so that one or more of them is placing suppressive fire on the same enemy strong point at all times until they can enter the trench and begin working their way through it. If the trenches are more than 100 yards apart, the supporting fire from any SMG will be inaccurate and very dispersed. The Russians tried this tactic in WWII and found it worked at close range and during urban fighting, but in open terrain or against a well entrenched enemy it was next to useless.
    2
  1647. 2
  1648. 2
  1649. 2
  1650. 2
  1651. 2
  1652. 2
  1653. 2
  1654. 2
  1655. 2
  1656. 2
  1657. 2
  1658. 2
  1659. 2
  1660. 2
  1661. 2
  1662. 2
  1663. 2
  1664. 2
  1665. 2
  1666. 2
  1667. 2
  1668. 2
  1669. 2
  1670. 2
  1671. 2
  1672. 2
  1673. 2
  1674. 2
  1675. 2
  1676. 2
  1677. 2
  1678. 2
  1679. 2
  1680. 2
  1681. 2
  1682. 2
  1683. 2
  1684. 2
  1685. I live in Montana and have read several accounts and books on the operations of various vigilance committees around here. According to these sources, in the case of the "Plummer Gang", each member was tried before a miner's court. Some men were freed by the court, but most were convicted and hanged. While this may seem illegal by today's standards, there was no other law available in their communities at that time. The general consensus since then has been that Plummer was guilty as charged. This assumption is based partly upon eyewitness testimony and on the fact that the murder spree began after Plummer was elected sheriff and ended with his death. His family has long proclaimed his innocence, but one need only look at Plummer's past violent history to realize he was easily capable of murder. In many ways he was the precursor to another more famous legend of the old west, a tuberculous-ridden gambler and dentist by the name of Doc Holiday. Today, the history of early "civilized" life in Montana has been preserved by the Montana Historic Commission which operates a seasonal tourist attraction in the twin mining communities of Nevada City and Virginia City. Visitors can ride a small gauge railroad between the two towns (only a mile apart), tour over 150 period buildings that have been relocated to the two sites, enjoy some fine dining, pan for gold, spend the night in a historic hotel, ride a stagecoach, get photographed in 1900 costumes, shop for souvenirs, and enjoy live performances at the local theater. Oh, and everyday the crowd gets to participate in a reenactment of an actual arrest and hanging of a convicted murderer. 3-7-77 (If you don't know what these mysterious numbers mean, you aren't alone, but you can do a quick Google search to learn more)
    2
  1686. 2
  1687. 2
  1688. 2
  1689. 2
  1690. 2
  1691. 2
  1692. 2
  1693. 2
  1694. 2
  1695. 2
  1696. 2
  1697. 2
  1698. I was stationed at the Pentagon when the various field uniforms were being tested and fielded by each service. At the time I was wearing the standard woodland pattern BDU every day. When I went TDY to the Mideast I wore my old CENTCOM DCUs (available in both light and heavy weight material because even the desert gets cold). The first time I saw the Army grey-on-grey digital pattern I thought to myself, hmm, interesting urban camo. My opinion has never changed. Mind you, being Air Force, I was not in a good position to criticize the Army's choice. We were developing a blue camo uniform that made us look like SMURFs and had no functionality outside of a circus tent. One of the NCOs in my section had the poor misfortune of having to model it for Air Force Times, which ran a multi-page spread on it. The expression on his face said it all. Fortunately, after the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Chief Mastersergeant of the Air Force wore it on a Mideast tour, someone in the film development section made sure the colors come through very bright and very blueberry. Once the laughter subsided, the uniform died a quick and painless death. Meanwhile, the Navy, not wishing to be upstaged, fielded a uniform that made them look like the surrounding sea. Good luck spotting the errant sailor who fell overboard. As silly and wasteful as all this seems, one need only glance at some of the retro dress and duty uniforms the Army and Air Force have dreamed up in the past 20 years to conclude mad clothiers are in charge. What next, the return of the Shako and Plume?
    2
  1699. 2
  1700. 2
  1701. 2
  1702. 2
  1703. 2
  1704. 2
  1705. 2
  1706. 2
  1707. 2
  1708. 2
  1709. 2
  1710. 2
  1711. 2
  1712. 2
  1713. 2
  1714. 2
  1715. 2
  1716. 2
  1717. 2
  1718. 2
  1719. 2
  1720. 2
  1721. 2
  1722. 2
  1723. 2
  1724. 2
  1725. 2
  1726. 2
  1727. 2
  1728. 2
  1729. 2
  1730. 2
  1731. 2
  1732. 2
  1733. 2
  1734. 2
  1735. 2
  1736. 2
  1737. 2
  1738. 2
  1739. 2
  1740. 2
  1741. 2
  1742. 2
  1743. 2
  1744. 2
  1745. 2
  1746. 2
  1747. 2
  1748. I presume it has to do with the three Gs the plane is pulling. The only way you can pull positive Gs is in a fairly tight turn, loop, or split S. The effect of these Gs is to create an upward acceleration of the projectiles above the line of sight of the gun barrels relative to the target. In other words the rounds are climbing above the target in a greater arc than they would if the two aircraft were flying straight and level. Since practically all dogfighting involves constant turning, diving, and climbing, having your gun barrels tilted downward will counteract the effect of the increased bullet arc that results. But if you are ambushing an unsuspecting aircraft or bombers flying straight and level, you are now shooting too low. Added to this is the effect of spin on a projectile. The flight path of projectiles will curve toward the direction of their longitudinal spin. From the shooter’s perspective this means rounds spinning clockwise will curve to the right and those spinning counterclockwise will curve to the left. This is called the Magnus Effect, and applies to any object that is rotating along its axis while moving through the air. It’s caused by the difference in air pressure from one side of a spin to the opposite side. Think of it as akin to the torque or gyroscopic effect that caused planes such as the Sopwith Camel to snap sharply to the right and turn sluggishly to the left. Now imagine some pilot in aerial combat trying to maneuver his fighter while simultaneously estimating range, bullet arc, and curve while aiming at a target and trying to avoid being jumped by another aircraft - all at the same time. It’s amazing they hit anything.
    2
  1749. 2
  1750. 2
  1751. 2
  1752. 2
  1753. 2
  1754. 2
  1755. 2
  1756. 2
  1757. 2
  1758. 2
  1759. 2
  1760. 2
  1761. 2
  1762. 2
  1763. 2
  1764. 2
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803.  John Cornell  Third Army was stalled because of Eisenhower's "pause" decision. Supplies were rationed and redirected as part of the buildup for Market-Garden. For Patton the timing could not have worse. The Germans feared he would avoid the fortresses protecting Metz and attack north of the city where Allied success was almost guaranteed. But Eisenhower's "pause" decision deprived Patton of the supplies to do this, so he engaged in something he personally despised, limited frontal assaults. Historians believe that after he made this choice, he then became obsessed with the idea of taking Metz, if for no other reason than he wanted to ensure his replacement troops were kept "blooded". The moment the Allies stopped their advance, the initiative was lost, and the Germans were handed the one gift they most desperately needed, the opportunity to organize and prepare an adequate defense. The broad front strategy had been swapped for a narrow front strategy, and Patton's front was not the one selected, so the great dash across France was over. Eisenhower's decision to switch strategies was born of necessity. It had taken much longer to secure the necessary ports to support the broad front strategy, and the supply lines had grown ever more tenuous as they continued to stretch closer to Germany. The Brits were having a rougher go up north because they faced stronger resistance than units further south. Since Ike lacked the resources to continue the broad front campaign, he faced a tough choice. Patton wanted to smash through the Siegfried Line while it was still undermanned. Monty wanted to drive into the Ruhr Valley, which was Germany's industrial center. Hodges was stuck in the middle between these two flamboyant leaders and would be required to support whichever plan Ike chose. Some strategist argued that southern Germany was of little strategic value, while occupying the Ruhr could end the war quickly. I'm not sure I fully subscribe to this theory. A drive through the south would have cut off German forces in Italy. In any case, Eisenhower was under enormous political pressure to allow Monty's plan to be executed, and I suspect a good part of this pressure was Churchill's desire to keep the Soviets out of western Europe, particularity areas as industrially rich as the Ruhr Valley. In theory, Monty's goal seemed more desirable, but his plan was a shambles, as events later proved. Ironically, it was Monty's failure in Holland that set the stage for the Battle of the Bulge and Patton's redemption when he wheeled his army 90 degrees north and rushed to save the beleaguered forces at Bastogne.
    1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846.  @yariboi5  Thank you for the clearer explanation. I have a pet peeve regarding the common misuse (some might say overuse) of the word "science". It's done to add a sense of legitimacy to something which does not fit the general definition of science (the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained). Unfortunately, for the last century there has been an ongoing effort to add the word to just about any area of study, hence we now have social science, political science, behavioral science, and climate science. With regard to the last term, its heavy reliance on computer modeling and associated assumptions leaves me highly skeptical of its legitimacy and accuracy. When I hear news reports about umpteen thousand scientists supporting a climate science claim I shake my head in disgust. Who are these purported scientists? What are their backgrounds and qualifications? If the report says the majority of the world's scientists believe the Earth is cooling or warming, how is this relevant? Scientific truths are not subject to personal opinions or majority rule. If they were, science itself would be completely corrupted. There is nothing wrong with conjecture, theory, or wishful thinking. These often have served as the genesis for great discoveries such as the secrets flight and splitting the atom. They often are accompanied by a multitude of failures and changes to theories before hitting upon the right answer.
    1
  1847.  @CD-kg9by  You are engaging in several logic fallacies, the first of which is ad populum, or jumping on the band wagon. It may be a fact that a majority of people who think of themselves as climate experts believe the same thing, but science is not based on popular opinion. You next engage in the fallacy of appeal to authority. I've listened to the arguments of plenty of experts with whom I've disagreed. I do not blindly assume their titles, credentials, uniforms, or lab coats automatically mean they are right. I am inclined to seek the opinions of other experts who may or may not hold contrary opinions, then form opinions of my own. Lastly you also engage in ad hominen attacks to belittle and dismiss anyone who questions climate science by labeling them climate change deniers. Such attempts to shut down debate do not conform to the tenants of the scientific method and should be avoided. If you think I am skeptical of the climate change debate, you would be right, for in my lifetime I have witnessed the dramatic morphing of arguments by the "experts". For me it began in the 1960s and 1970s when experts proclaimed the next ice age was just around the corner. This was followed by fears the Earth was warming too much and we see continents disappear as the ice melted. Then came the latest terminology - climate change, which allows for multiple contradictory points of view. You say we have about two centuries worth of data to review. In fact, we have millions of years worth of data to examine and it tells a quite different story than that being preached by the likes of Al Gore. You are free to believe what you wish, but I will remain skeptical of alarmist arguments, particularly those which try to shut down debate.
    1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. Tunner, not Turner. Unlike Britain's 'Bomber' Harris, who firebombed German cities largely for the terror effect, LeMay's firebombing campaign was aimed primarily at dispersed Japanese war production. It was the Japanese leadership who purposely distributed military manufacturing into heavily populated civilian areas. According to a late friend of mine who served under LeMay in WWII, the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan had already been made a US general in the Pacific, and not by Truman, even though the history books claimed it was Truman who gave the orders. This notion dovetails with Indy's comments about the need for tighter control of nukes. It would be an interesting point to research and clarify. As for nukes, LeMay viewed them as just one more weapon for winning a war. I doubt it matters to the people who die in a war just how they are killed. LeMay definitely had a well earned reputation as one hard, tough, no-nonsense SOB, so much so, that as a brand new 2nd Lieutenant in 1978 I saw him at a BBQ sitting alone at a picnic table. He had long since retired from the USAF, but like everyone else, I was too intimidated to approach him, much less join him at his table. You may think he was dick, but his actions saved thousands, perhaps millions of lives, which explains why SAC's motto was "Peace is Our Profession". Those were dangerous times, and we were dealing with the likes of Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin. It takes a warrior, not a saint, to stand up to such levels of evil.
    1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. Indie gave an excellent description of how suppressors (silencers) work. The US Army did in fact use the Maxim suppressor on the 1903 Springfield in both the Punitive Expedition of 1916 and in WWI. The purpose then, as now, was to eliminate the flash and muzzle blast (report), thus reducing the likelihood that a shooter's position would be revealed. The loud sonic crack caused by the transonic or supersonic pressure wave of a high speed rifle bullet will accompany a projectile for as long as it travels over approximately 1100 FPS. However, that wave is omni-directional, and therefore impossible to trace back to the source. A short history of the Maxim is provided at https://medium.com/war-is-boring/hiram-percy-maxim-was-a-firearms-suppressing-genius-6b01240d614c The US military is again testing suppressors, only this time they are being considered for mass issue to all combat troops. The image of Hollywood assassins aside, it's utility as a training tool and health aid to protect long term hearing loss cannot be undervalued. An effort is afoot in Congress to remove suppressors from the current onerous demands of federal registration. This effort is endorsed by the Bureaus of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Even with registration, the private ownership of suppressors in the USA is growing rapidly and currently numbers in the hundreds of thousands. In countries such as England, Finland, New Zealand, and Sweden, ownership is commonplace and restrictions are minimal to nonexistent when compared to the USA.
    1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. In a book I read about the OSS in WWII there is a section describing their operations in Yugoslavia. One interesting aspect of it was the different strategic goals of the US and the British at that time. British operatives were adamant that supplies only go to the Chetnik forces, while American operatives were willing to support anyone who would fight the Axis. The British desired a postwar Europe devoid of communist governments, while the Americans simply wanted to end the war as quickly as possible, the future cost be damned. The result was the Partisans had a better relationship with the OSS than they did with British SOE. This was well illustrated by an incident where the OSS had to intervene to free some SOE men captured by Partisan elements. Eventually, the British, for more immediate pragmatic reasons, did start supplying the Partisans. One would think the Partisans would have been more appreciative of the USA's efforts in all of this, but Tito, ever the deft political operator, simply told his people that the supplies marked "US" were actually an abbreviation for USSR, their true socialist friend and supporter against the decadent forces of capitalism and fascism. Postwar, Tito proved equally adept at keeping the country "united" for the sake of maintaining Yugoslavian independence from Stalin (the only east bloc nation to do this). In the end it may all have been for naught because ancient rivalries reared their ugly heads once Tito died, and the long anticipated civil wars erupted again, resulting in the nation-states of Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Kosovo (sort of). Forged on the anvil of post-WWI politics, the nation of Yugoslavia is no more. Does anyone really morn the passing of the country that gave us the Yugo? I think not.
    1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096.  @CharlesHallESP  I get the impression you don't see what the big deal is. Ryan touched on it, but a little understanding of the unique role of the Guard requires a bit more historical context. Long before the National Guard existed, each state had its own militia. It was how our nation fought for its independence and most of the wars until WWI. But the Guard is different, and while it is derived from the militia concept, it has not replaced it. Both the Army and Air Force National Guards differ from the militia in two unique distinctions. Firstly, the vast majority of funding for the Guard is federal money even when conducting only state missions. By contrast, state militias are funded entirely from state coffers or by volunteers. Because the Guard has subsumed many of the militia duties, few states today are willing to provide sufficient money for their militias to perform even the most rudimentary functions. Secondly, during WWI federal law was reinterpreted and subsequently changed to allow the Guard, when federalized, to serve outside the territorial boundaries of the United States. Militias do not. A legal battle has been brewing for the past year over how much control over the Guard the federal government is allowed to have and how much control belongs to the states. It has long been codified in law that when federalized, the Guard operates exclusively as an arm of the Department of Defense. At all other times it is a state asset. A new wrinkle in command oversight arose earlier this year when the President, through the offices of the Secretary of Defense and affected service chiefs, decided unilaterally to relocate Air Guard assets to Space Command without the participation and approval of the states affected. This not only upset the governors and the affected Guardsmen, but it appears to be a violation of existing law. If this decision is allowed to stand, what would prevent the federal government from moving any or all Guard assets from a state, reassign them to another state, turn them into Reserve or active arm organizations, or eliminate them altogether? it is very much a big deal and the reason why the governors of all 50 states and five U.S. territories wrote to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and President Joe Biden, challenging the unilateral movement of Air Guard assets to Space Force. Read more at: https://www.stripes.com/branches/space_force/2024-05-07/air-space-force-national-guard-governors-troops-13783950.html Source - Stars and Stripes
    1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. 1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186.  @mikeakachorlton  Indy and Spartacus stated their belief that judges should not legislate from the bench. This is precisely what the high court did in its 1973 decision. The court is now correcting the error and restoring the bench to its traditional role. It is up to the legislatures of each state to decide the issue of abortion, not the federal courts. The argument you make grants power to the federal government that the Constitution does not recognize. This is always a dangerous course of action, for it makes the Constitution little more than a scrap of paper to be manipulated or ignored according to what is expedient or popular at the time. If there is popular support for abortion at the state level, then existing or future state laws regulating it will have no trouble being passed or preserved. Regarding the leaking of the draft document, this is a major breach of ethics and a violation of federal law. Whoever committed this act did not release a decision prematurely, but released an early draft. We don't know what the final decision will be, so why was this information leaked? The most plausible explanation is somebody wanted outside pressure applied to the justices to influence their vote, which is also a federal crime. And this is precisely what is happening now with the threats and protests being conducted at the homes of several justices. If you think this is acceptable behavior, then pray you are never tried in a court where both judge and jury have no privacy and are subjected to daily threats from outside actors who want to influence the outcome of your case.
    1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213.  @davidchase9424  His comments are his opinion and should not be accepted on face value as accurate, even though they are sincere. The ship was not ordered to parts unknown because such an order makes no sense. They were given a destination just off the coast of Egypt and Israel which was in a lane rarely used by commercial freighters and which Egypt had declared closed to neutral vessels. This location was reached on 8 June 1967, three days into the war. We can only speculate as to their mission, but since they took on Arabic translators in Rota Spain to augment their Russian translators, in all likelihood their assignment was to monitor radio traffic between Egypt and the USSR. Captain McGonagle reported his discomfort with the chosen location to his superior, Sixth Fleet commander, Vice-Adm. William Martin, and requested permission to pull back from the shore or be provided with an escort. Vice-Adm Martin rejected these requests, stating the Liberty "is a clearly marked United States ship in international waters and not a reasonable subject for attack by any nation." Neither Vice-Adm Martin or Capt McGonagle were aware at the time that the JCS had repeatedly cabled the USS Liberty the previous night with instructions to withdraw to a distance of one hundred miles from the Egyptian and Israeli coasts. The transmission was delayed by the Navy's overloaded communication system, which routed messages as far east as the Philippines before relaying them to their destinations. The JCS orders would not be received until the following day, June 9, by which time the tragedy had already begun.
    1
  2214.  @FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL  In what war does anyone have time not to attack? I'll quote from an Israeli investigation into the attack since it shows how the Israelis came to misidentify the ship. At 5:55 a.m. on June 8, Cmdr. Uri Meretz, a naval observer aboard an Israel Air Force (IAF) reconnaissance plane, noted what he believed to be an American supply vessel, designated GTR-5, seventy miles west of the Gaza coast. At Israeli naval headquarters in Haifa, staff officers fixed the location of the ship with a red marker, indicating "unidentified," on their control board. Research in Jane's Fighting Ships, however, established the vessel's identity as "the electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the United States, the Liberty." The marker was changed to green, for "neutral." Another sighting of the ship - "gray, bulky, with its bridge amidships" - was made by an Israeli fighter aircraft at 9:00 a.m., twenty miles north of El-Arish, on the Sinai coast, which had fallen to Israeli forces the day before. Neither of these reports made mention of the 5-by-8-foot American flag which, according to the ship's crewmen, was flying from the Liberty's starboard halyard. The crew would also testify later that six IAF aircraft subsequently flew over the ship, giving them ample opportunity to identify its nationality. Israel Air Force reports, however, make no further mention of the Liberty. There may indeed have been additional Israeli overflights, but the IAF pilots were not looking for the Liberty. Their target was Egyptian submarines, which had been spotted off the coast. At 11:00 a.m., while the hunt for Egyptian submarines was on, the officer on duty at Israel's naval headquarters, Capt. Avraham Lunz, concluded his shift. In accordance with procedures, he removed the Liberty's green marker on the grounds that it was already five hours old and no longer accurate. Then, at 11:24, a terrific explosion rocked the shores of El-Arish. The blast was clearly heard by the men on the Liberty's bridge, who had been navigating according to the town's tallest minaret, and who also noted a thick pall of smoke wafting toward them. In El-Arish itself, Israeli forces were convinced they were being bombarded from the sea, and the IDF Southern Command reported sighting two unidentified vessels close offshore. Though the explosion probably resulted from an ammunition dump fire, that fact was unknown at the time, and both Egyptian and Israeli sources had reported shelling of the area by Egyptian warships the previous day. There was therefore good reason to conclude that the Egyptian navy had trained its guns on Sinai. Minutes after the explosion, the Liberty reached the eastern limit of its patrol and turned 238 degrees back in the direction of Port Said. Meanwhile, reports of a naval bombardment on El-Arish continued to reach IDF General Staff Headquarters in Tel Aviv. Rabin took them seriously, concerned that the shelling was a prelude to an amphibious landing that could outflank advancing Israeli troops. He reiterated the standing order to sink any unidentified ships in the war area, but also advised caution: Soviet vessels were reportedly operating nearby. Since no fighter planes were available, the navy was asked to intercede, with the assumption that air cover would be provided later. More than half an hour passed without any response from naval headquarters in Haifa. The General Staff finally issued a rebuke: "The coast is being shelled and you - the navy - have done nothing." Capt. Izzy Rahav, who had replaced Lunz in the operations room, needed no more prodding. He dispatched three torpedo boats of the 914th squadron, code-named "Pagoda," to find the enemy vessel responsible for the bombardment and destroy it. The time was 12:05 p.m.
    1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. The title of this video calls it a Plan, but it's a Directive, and that's a huge difference. I first heard about it ten days ago when a friend of mine sent me a video link about changes to DoD Directive 5240.1 and asked for my opinion because I been a staff officer at the Pentagon. The rumor has been spreading like wildfire that a very recent change to DoD Directive 5240.01, DOD INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENCE-RELATED ACTIVITIES AND DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE COMPONENT ASSISTANCE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER CIVIL AUTHORITIES, now authorizes the military to use lethal force against the citizenry. As is the case with most such videos and articles, I find the devil is in the details. The problem here is the details appear to be missing or are at least sparse. For example, at the 5:40 time mark the content creator of the video I watched read the applicable paragraph from the DoDD, but he failed to read the last line of this paragraph (DoDD 5240.01, 3.3.a.(2)(c)) which states "Such use of force must be in accordance with DoDD 5210.56, potentially further restricted based on the specifics of the requested support." I downloaded and read 5240.1 and 5210.56. The latter deals with the arming and use of force by DoD personnel and contractors, to include private arms, for official duty and self-protection. From my reading it appears these provisions only apply to government property, so any use of force outside of government property (aside from self-protection) would seem to be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. At the very least it makes for a confusing mess, so I passed it along to several legal beagles for their review and comment. They agreed it appears to be a bit vague and therefore open to some wild misinterpretation, but it does not rise to the levels of concern which have been portrayed in so many video, articles, and commentaries.
    1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401.  @bipslone8880  No, I use stats that can easily be found by searching the internet and using critical thinking skills. According to numerous sources, including the Kellogg School of Management at NW University, Syracuse University's Institute for Veterans and Military Families, US Chamber of Commerce, Department of Veteran Affairs, and the U.S. Census Bureau, veterans make good employees because of their training, discipline, team spirit, and experience. Employers would not seek or retain veterans if they thought they represented a risk group. This would especially be true of law enforcement, yet 19% of all law enforcement positions in the US are filled by military veterans. To counter this argument there is a recent study performed by a criminal justice think tank which claims 1-in-3 vets has been arrested at some point in his life as compared to 1-in-5 for the non-veteran population, but an arrest is not a conviction. It also claims that veterans comprise 8% of all state and federal prison populations. Before accepting these claims as fact, let's take a closer look at the details. The first factor worth considering is that the military is not a true reflection of American demographics. For example, women make up only 14% of the active and reserve force, and no more than 10% of the veteran population. By historical comparison, women comprise a very small portion of prison populations (7% female vs. 93% male). This factor alone can heavily skew a general population comparison if not properly accounted for. Another factor to include is PTSD, which has been associated with many veteran arrests. A diagnosed PTSD vet has a 61% greater chance of being arrested than a non-PTSD vet. This alone means the preponderance of issues is not with vets as a group, but with a select subset of predominantly male PTSD vets and PTSD combat vets. The vast majority of veterans do not experience PTSD or serious combat, so lumping them into the subgroup would taint every vet in much the same way as race does. Another problem with this study is that it claims over 181,000 vets are currently serving time in state and federal prisons, yet a different report places this figure at 107,000. Which number is correct? If the former, then 8% of all prison populations is veteran; if the latter, then 4.7% are veterans. The Census Bureau claims there are 19 million living veterans, which is about 5.7% of the US population. If you include the 2 million active duty and current reserve personnel, this increases the percentage to 6.3% of the population. In conclusion I will reiterate that most veterans comply with the law. An argument can be made that a particular subgroup of veterans is less likely to comply than does the general population, but that same argument can be applied to many demographics. The devil is in the details.
    1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435. 1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459.  @joshmeijer4140  Your comment is off target, for I never said anything about winning WWII, much less winning it alone. But since you brought it up, let's take a closer look at some key events between 1939-45. The Soviets were not much involved in the war in 1939 except to greatly aid Hitler's invasion of western Poland by invading eastern Poland. Then Stalin turned his sights on Finland, which gave him such a drubbing that Hitler realized the Soviets could be defeated if he could mass enough forces to invade the USSR. The only problem was those damned stubborn Brits who kept harassing him instead of suing for peace. This drained resources, particularly those of the Luftwaffe, which would be sorely missed when Operation Barbarossa was launched in June of 1941. During the interim, from mid 1940 to mid 1941, it was Great Britain that stood alone fighting the Nazi juggernaut, but they could not have done it without a sympathetic US providing material aid in the form of direct purchases and eventually lend-lease. Had the US refused them, Britain might well have been forced to reach an accommodation with Hitler and left the war early, freeing up even more German resources for Barbarossa. Despite not having these additional forces, Hitler went forward with his plan, even though the Brits had caused him delays that forced a significant postponement of the invasion until June. This deprived the Nazis of some of the best invasion weather and compressed their timetable for victory. Even so, the Nazis nearly destroyed the Soviet Army and Air Force in the first six months of operations on the eastern front. Imagine how much more they might have achieved if they could have invaded earlier and with far greater resources at hand. Their problem was further compounded when the US entered the war at the end of 1941. More and more German resources were drained away from the eastern front to face the growing Allied threat of air, sea, and land campaigns. This greatly aided the Soviets and gave them precious time to reconstitute their own forces and go fully on the offensive. Other critical US aid to the Soviets came in the form of supplying them with badly needed materiel, among which were critically important aviation fuel additives and advanced electronic components that they were incapable of producing. That the Soviets engaged the lion's share of the Nazi forces in WWII is not disputed, but they could not do it alone. It was very much a team effort. The same can be said of the Pacific/Asian campaigns. The Soviet contribution there was negligible and occurred only in the last few weeks of WWII. It was the US that dominated the Pacific fighting, ably supported by the UK, Australia, and other allies. But this was largely made possible because of the fighting on the second bloodiest war front, China, which tied down millions of Japanese and Japanese allied forces. China could not go it alone, so the US, UK, and India provided much needed manpower and material assistance. Had it not been for the China Burma India (CBI) theater, the Japanese would have sent far more troops to fight in the Pacific campaign, making it that much bloodier for the Americans. So again, it was a combined effort that helped bring victory.
    1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474.  @Bureaucromancer  Kidnapping is the unlawful detention of anyone against his will. Using this definition, every single person a policeman stops to question could be considered a potential victim of kidnapping. If lawmen believe they can be prosecuted for this, they will simply stop detaining people for questioning. This will destroy effective policing. Hamstring them too much and they will stop doing their jobs. We already see this happening in NYC and LA. I'm not a lawyer (insert favorite joke here), but the issue here boils down to probable cause and reasonable suspicion on the part of the officers involved. In the video above the officers had neither, so what we really have is unlawful detention and unlawful arrest, both driven by an emotional desire to project dominance over an alpha male private citizen who knows and vocalizes his rights. Since cops are taught to establish immediate dominance, for many of them this means the listening and discussion modes are switched off in favor of a "win at all costs" mindset. This is Barney Fife level behavior of the first order and should never be tolerated by fellow officers, superiors, and government leaders - but it is. Closing ranks may be good for unit morale, but it's bad for community relations. It only deepens the divide that already exists between law enforcement and the general public. In an ideal world every street cop in America would be the personification of Adam-12's level-headed officer Pete Malloy, but in the real world they aren't. They have their foibles and some have feet of clay. The job of any supervisor is to weed out the ones who are unsuited for such work and counsel the rest. In this case I believe the female officer has demonstrated she is unsuited for police work and should lose her job. The sergeant has years of experience and should have stopped her actions, apologized to the blind man, and asked him if he wished to file a complaint. Instead, he backed her play, thus compounding the problem. For this reason he should not simply be demoted; he should be fired and permanently banned from any type of police work. These are both administrative actions. By demanding that serious criminal charges be brought against these officers, any control the department might have over the handling of the situation is lost to the judiciary. It will cost the state a lot of money to prosecute the individuals and the results could be exoneration. In such a case, the officers would be within their own civil rights to sue the state for malicious prosecution in civil court, and they just might win large damage awards. This is why I say be careful what you wish for.
    1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480.  @Bureaucromancer  What I actually said was "Kidnapping is the unlawful detention of anyone against his will. Using this definition, every single person a policeman stops to question could be considered a POTENTIAL victim of kidnapping." Even if a detention is later determined to have been unlawful, it does not rise to the level of kidnapping. Under Florida law there must be intent to conduct at least one of the following acts: 1. Hold for ransom or reward or as a shield or hostage. 2. Commit or facilitate commission of any felony. 3. Inflict bodily harm upon or to terrorize the victim or another person. 4. Interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function. (b) Confinement of a child under the age of 13 is against her or his will within the meaning of this subsection if such confinement is without the consent of her or his parent or legal guardian. As for qualified immunity, its origins can be traced back to at least 1871 when Congress adopted 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which makes government officials personally liable for monetary damages if they violate a person’s federal constitutional rights (also applied to the States). In 1967, the SCOTUS recognized qualified immunity as a defense against § 1983 claims (few of which had ever been successful). I don't like that decision and agree "QI" is too often abused, but until Congress or the SCOTUS changes it, we are stuck with this ruling. If QI is ever eliminated, there well may be a flood of lawsuits against individual officers, but given the history prior to 1967, I suspect most of them will be dismissed and the few that aren't will have limited success. I never said serious criminal charges should not be filed against police officers. I said if they are filed, then the matter is taken out of administrative hands and placed before the judiciary. in court there is no guarantee of conviction and there is every possibility that a failed case could result in a civil lawsuit by the officer. If an officer really has committed a serious crime, he should face serious charges. The example given in the video does not rise to this level. At best the officers are guilty of a misdemeanor and should be punished accordingly. In my opinion the administrative punishment they ultimately received was insufficient, however I do not believe jail time is warranted, but termination from employment was.
    1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510.  @theangrycheeto  You completely misinterpreted my comments. As for 400 years of systematic racism, how do you explain the fact that we freed the slaves in the bloodiest conflict in American history, along with later saving the world from Nazism, Japanese imperialism, and Soviet communist enslavement? You'd think if Americans were so beastly and racists, we'd have joined with these latter monsters instead of destroying them. By the way, if we're supposed to constantly dwell on past sins then why aren't we berating the Japanese, Germans, and Russians? For that matter, what people or nation on this planet should escape our constant berating? Do you really believe the average American today is a racist? If so, how did Obama get elected? Why were any Blacks ever allowed to served on the Supreme Court or become captains of industry, military leaders, and successful actors? Even before our founding as a nation there was ongoing debate over the wisdom and morality of slavery. Most Americans opposed it, including many in the South. We could not remain a free people while it existed. As an example, draconian laws were passed in some slave states to punish people who spoke out against it, thus curtailing First Amendment rights. The century following the Civil War was a uphill battle for Blacks, but they had a lot of help from Whites. Today the idea of systemic racism has become a bad joke. We have laws against it which are vigorously enforced. We bend over backwards to accommodate anyone who is seen as different or oppressed or a minority. It's not limited to race. If anyone of these group members fails to measure up to the commonly accepted standards, we lower the standards just for them. We don't dare criticize them or treat them as we would a WASP. So in a way, you are right. There is a systemic problem, but it isn't anti-black racism. It's the ever changing values of our society, a society less and less willing to judge a man by his merits when skin color or some other arbitrary measure can be substituted instead. We have returned to the thinking of the past with vigor and a new twist on what constitutes prejudice.
    1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. I spent 30 years in the military, so I well understand the need for good communications and coordination. I also understand how an organized retreat can be done without suffering the sort of losses the Soviet military did in 1941. The Germans did not engage in constant blitzkrieg. No army does because no army can. Lightening strikes require quick followup by support troops, and preparation for the next strike. The only way to trap your enemy during these attacks and lulls is to cut of his means of escape. This is much easier said than done because the deeper into enemy territory you go, the harder your logistics become. Flank security requires the deployment of more troops, thus further straining your supply chain. As an example, in 1940, the German army was unable to take full advantage of the rapidly unfolding ground situation in France after the success of their initial attacks. They had the French and British forces trapped around Dunkirk, but they lacked the ability to quickly crush them on the ground because the Allies had formed a strong, tight defensive perimeter. The same thing happened to US and UN forces in Korea in 1950 in the retreat to the Pusan peninsula. Stalin, by contrast, did not take advantage of the vast Soviet landscape to begin a strategic withdrawal. Instead, prior to the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, he placed the bulk of his front-line forces in exposed offensive positions. This led to massive Soviet Air Force losses on day one of the attack. The Soviet army in 1941 was quite capable of executing the traditional Russian tactic of trading land for time, but during that crucial time this policy was mostly abandoned by order of Stalin, resulting in millions of men being captured of killed in the first few months of fighting. The blood was on his hands, not that he much cared. Mass murderers never do.
    1
  2526. Vlad, you quote the opinion of Liddell Hart as though it should be accepted as fact, yet there has never been any clear documentation supporting the claim that Hitler issued a stop order so he could negotiate with the British. You also engage in the fallacy of an "either/or argument" without considering other options with regard to Dunkirk. I've little doubt Hitler and his generals were considering any and all options during this phase of battle. If he could have negotiated England out of the war, he would have. If he could have smashed the forces at Dunkirk, he would have. He certainly preferred not to continue the war against England because he had bigger fish to fry - the invasion of the USSR. But he had to contend with the politcla reality that England had a new British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, who steadfastly refused to surrender or negotiation. This put Hitler in the position of having to continue a costly war with England and postponing the timeline for operation Barbarossa, all leading to fatal results in the long run. And to answer your question, yes I would argue with anyone who believes there is a single explanation for the German failure at Dunkirk. As in most battles, there are a number factors that, collectively, will result in defeat or victory. Even before the dust has settled, those responsible are busy touting their genesis or denying their culpability. If you don't believe that, read a couple of books about the American general Mark Clark. One will paint him as a great military leader, while another will claim he was our worst commander, if only for his failure to block the German 10th Army's retreat after the coordinated Allied breakout from Anzio and breaching of the Hitler Line. This is just an example. Similar works have been written by or about other leaders, with Montgomery being perhaps the most egregious example of a selective self-serving memory. As for Korea, what do you mean by "untrained, unprofessional Korean "troops""? If you are referring to the South Koreans, you would be correct, but North Korea at the start of the war had a professional army built around the Soviet concept of heavy armored forces and fully equipped with Soviet weapons. They steamrolled over the South, despite the mountain ranges, and were only stopped in the Pusan area by the UN buildup of forces and the lack of supplies reaching the North Korean army. Like the Wehrmacht in France and later Russia, their supply line was incapable of sustaining their advance in the face of increasing opposition. The terrain may have differed, but the results were the same, and that is the point I am making. The rest of your comments conveniently ignore the fact that Soviet forces were forward deployed into vulnerable positions, without proper defenses, and were not allowed to redeploy to more effective positions or retreat in a timely fashion by direct order of Stalin. This is well documented historical fact, not supposition. As a military planner, Stalin was a complete imbecile, who had a nasty tendency to shoot anyone he thought too competent (and thus a perceived threat to him), those who might disagree with him, and occasionally, just to keep everyone on their toes, he'd even shoot his loyal sycophants. To address your last few comments that question my comprehension of rapidly unfolding tactical situations, I should point out that I spent most of my career in logistics, including deployment planning and execution, and command and control. If you think I don't have a grasp on all the factors involvement in military operations, you are mistaken, but you'll have to take my word for it, which it appears you do not.
    1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. 1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. 1
  2644. 1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. 1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651.  @patrickscalia5088  Since you specifically asked, I'm going to provide a tediously detailed answer. You have been warned! Yes, the 38 S&W (aka 38-200, 38 Colt New Police) cartridge uses a .361" diameter projectile, while the 38 Special uses a .357" diameter projectile. The 38 S&W projectile is seated in a brass case that is much shorter (.775") than the 38 Special cartridge case (1.155"). The 38 S&W case is larger in diameter and slightly tapers down from .3865" at the base to .3855" at the mouth. The 38 Special case is straight-walled and only .379" in diameter. In 38 S&W revolvers with short cylinders it may be possible to insert the smaller diameter 38 Special cartridge, but it would stick out the front of the cylinder and prevent it from closing. The 38-200 caliber Colt and S&W revolvers the British purchased during WWII were full-sized pistols originally intended for the 38 Special cartridge, thus they had to be built/rebuilt to only allow them to chamber the 38-200 cartridge. This was done by boring the rear of the cylinder to chamber the 38-200 case. The remainder of the cylinder was bored smaller to only allow the passage of .361" projectile. The result was stepped chambers inside each cylinder that prevented the longer 38 Special case from seating flush. This prevented the cylinder from closing. Postwar, may 38-200 revolvers were returned to the USA as surplus and dumped on the public market. Enterprising gunsmiths realized they could bore out the step in the cylinders so the revolvers would chamber and fire 38 Special cartridges, albeit rather sloppily. These converted pistols are easy to spot by their markings and by measuring their bores and chambers. Even if you lack the means to gauge the chambers, you'll find out soon enough when you shoot 38 Specials through them. The empty casings will bulge and/or split inside the oversized chambers. For the occasional shooter this may not be a problem, but for those who like to reload their empty brass, it is a nonstarter. In theory the barrels of these wartime guns should have been bored and rifled for the larger 38-200 projectile, but it is possible to fire the larger diameter projectile through the smaller 38 Special bore. However, accuracy will suffer because the projectile will deform as it squeezes down to fit the tighter bore. This raises several questions. In their early rush to acquire firearms did the British Purchasing Commission allow under-bored barrels? Did Colt goof by putting the wrong cylinder in this gun? Did Colt accidentally mismark the barrel caliber? How many such guns exist?
    1
  2652. 1
  2653. 1
  2654. 1
  2655. 1
  2656. 1
  2657. 1
  2658. 1
  2659. 1
  2660. 1
  2661. 1
  2662. 1
  2663. 1
  2664. 1
  2665. 1
  2666. 1
  2667. 1
  2668. 1
  2669. 1
  2670. 1
  2671. 1
  2672. 1
  2673. 1
  2674. 1
  2675. 1
  2676. 1
  2677. 1
  2678. 1
  2679. 1
  2680. 1
  2681. 1
  2682. 1
  2683. 1
  2684. 1
  2685. 1
  2686. 1
  2687. 1
  2688. 1
  2689. The image of those two planes at time mark 1:50 brought back some powerful memories. My Dad learned to fly in a Taylorcraft and a Cub, then later purchased his first plane, a Luscombe (the plane in the foreground). When I was a teenager his second Luscombe was the first "tail dragger" learned to fly. One of my brothers and a sister also learned to fly it. I spent many hours in it buzzing around north and central Florida and much of Georgia. By the way, the first combat use of Cubs by launching them from ships during Operation Torch in North Africa proved to be something of a disaster. Navy gunners on other ships were unfamiliar with the aircraft and opened fire. After evading naval gunfire the three little planes continued to the beach where one was forced down by friendly Army antiaircraft fire. French gunfire brought down the second plane, flown by the unit leader, Capt Ford E. Allcorn. He managed to drag himself from the wreckage before it exploded and was promptly captured by the French, thus earning him three dubious distinctions. He was the first pilot to fly a Cub from the deck of a carrier into combat, the first Army aviator to be wounded in the campaign, and the first one to be captured. The third plane made it to the improved landing strip, but when the pilot attempted to fly his first artillery spotting mission he was again shot at by US Army units unfamiliar with the aircraft, and was forced to return to the strip. Matters only got worse after this, and the entire program was in jeopardy of cancellation. The situation was eventually rectified as new tactics and leadership evolved, but like the Army itself, much was being learned on the job under combat, a less than desirable state.
    1
  2690. 1
  2691. 1
  2692. 1
  2693. 1
  2694. 1
  2695. 1
  2696. 1
  2697. 1
  2698. 1
  2699. 1
  2700. 1
  2701. 1
  2702.  @termitreter6545  England has been declining as a world economic power since the end of WWI. WWII was the final nail in the coffin that ensured the sun did set on the British Empire. Arguably by the 1970s the situation was so dire that the country was teetering on the brink of complete economic disaster. Thatcher pulled Britain back from this abyss and changed course away from ever increasing socialism, nationalization, and out of control unions. Her actions provided the Kingdom with a respite, not a panacea. Ronald Reagan was doing much the same thing in the USA around the same time period. But neither leader could eradicate the policies and programs their predecessors had spent decades enacting and expanding. Reagan could not get Congress to balance the budget. The most he achieved was to temporarily slow the rate of spending increase. America has not managed to balance its budget or end deficit spending in over half a century and the situation has steadily gotten worse. We have programs such as Social Security that are underfunded and over-tasked with responsibilities never originally envisioned, yet we keep kicking the financial can down the road. You can blame any leader you like, but the truth is they are all culpable to varying degrees, as are the people who elect them. Whenever the voters allow their government to grow and assume greater responsibility for what was formerly a personal or local issue, this will inevitably be the result, regardless of political philosophy. The primary difference I see between the US and the UK is that in the USA we have several significant advantages thanks to our size, geography, natural resources, and climate. Few countries come close, but even those that don't are still capable of having viable and vibrant economies if they are industrious and operate within their means. When they don't, they become failed states like Venezuela and Zimbabwe. It can happen anywhere. You can blame past leaders for your plight, but it really comes back to a willing populus that allowed the situation to arise in the first place. As Reagan so elegantly put it, "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."
    1
  2703. 1
  2704. 1
  2705. 1
  2706. 1
  2707. 1
  2708. 1
  2709. 1
  2710. 1
  2711. 1
  2712. 1
  2713. 1
  2714. 1
  2715. 1
  2716. 1
  2717. 1
  2718. 1
  2719. 1
  2720. 1
  2721. 1
  2722. 1
  2723. 1
  2724. 1
  2725. 1
  2726. 1
  2727. 1
  2728. 1
  2729. 1
  2730. 1
  2731. 1
  2732. 1
  2733. 1
  2734. 1
  2735. 1
  2736. 1
  2737. 1
  2738. 1
  2739. 1
  2740. 1
  2741. 1
  2742. 1
  2743. 1
  2744. 1
  2745. 1
  2746. 1
  2747. 1
  2748. 1
  2749. 1
  2750. 1
  2751. 1
  2752. 1
  2753. 1
  2754. 1
  2755. 1
  2756. 1
  2757. 1
  2758. 1
  2759. 1
  2760. 1
  2761. 1
  2762. 1
  2763. 1
  2764. 1
  2765. 1
  2766. 1
  2767. 1
  2768. 1
  2769. 1
  2770. 1
  2771. 1
  2772. 1
  2773. 1
  2774. 1
  2775. 1
  2776. 1
  2777. 1
  2778. 1
  2779. 1
  2780. My association with air-sea rescue is rather tenuous and pretty much limited to developing an assessment test for USAF Pararescue (PJ) candidates in the 1980s. But I do have three somewhat related stories I'd like to share. The first involves a late friend of mine who began his Air Force career just after WWII when he was assigned to a B-17H Dumbo. During a training mission the plane developed engine trouble and the pilot ordered the crew to bailout over the base. His frightening initiation into the "Caterpillar Club" proved to be unnecessary as he witnessed the pilot safely land the plane shortly after his own parachute touched ground and planted him firmly on his tuchus. He decided maybe air-sea rescue wasn't the smartest life choice. He eventually became an Air Force armorer and gunsmith. The second story involves one of the few movies made about the Air Rescue Service. While I was completing my last active duty assignment at the Pentagon, my newest supervisor and I were getting to know each other. When I mentioned my much earlier work with the PJs, she asked me if I'd ever seen the 1964 movie "Flight from Ashiya". I responded that I had watched it a couple of times as a kid. She then wistfully added, "My Dad was in it. He was piloting the first SA-16 Albatross during the takeoff sequence. Whenever the movie's on TV I try to watch it just for that scene, and for a moment it's like he's still with us." The third story isn't so much about air-sea rescue as it is about one of the crash boats, specifically R-1-661, an 85 footer that was kept in active service at Tyndall Air Force Base, FL. I grew up in the area and spent a lot of summers at nearby Mexico Beach. Anytime we went to Panama City, Florida we would pass by Tyndall AFB and see the handful of reddish-orange, yellow, and white painted crash boats which were used for drone recovery. All the other boats had long since been decommissioned. In 1971 the USAF decided to donate R-1-661 to the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, but the plan fell through. Subsequent donation efforts failed to varying degrees and she eventually wound up a rotting derelict beyond salvation. But before this final ignominy afflicted her, I was assigned as a young lieutenant to supervise the writing of promotion tests for the small career field of USAF enlisted men who manned these boats. One of the senior NCOs we brought in to write the tests had been chief of this boat. Having grown up watching PT-109, They Were Expendable, and McHale's Navy, I was all too willing to pick his brain about the very similar crash boats (which, incidentally, had stood in for PTs during the filming of PT-109). My main takeaways from these discussions were the career field was a dead end, but the fishing opportunities were great.
    1
  2781. 1
  2782. 1
  2783. 1
  2784.  @spartacus-olsson  It is not a false trope; it is a critical distinction. In a democracy the people vote directly on all matters. The majority rules. This is akin to mob rule. In a republic the people elect representatives to run the government. Our republic operates under a set of rules established by our Constitution. At the federal level there is no mechanism by which the people can vote directly on an issue. Our government was crafted this way to prevent a simple majority from dominating the minority. As a society we have become quite lazy and cavalier over the years with regard to these important distinctions, and we do so at the peril of losing our republic. I will give you a specific example of the threat we face. The people elect the President, not by popular vote, but through an electoral college whose composition is based on the number of members of Congress from each state. Since every state has two senators, regardless of size, this provides some counterbalancing safeguard for the smaller states. Currently there is an effort afoot in some states to undermine this process by assigning all of the state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the majority of the nationwide votes, regardless of how the citizens in that state voted. This has the potential to invalidate the votes of the majority within that state. Another safeguard which has already been eroded is the election of senators. Prior to the 17th amendment being added to the Constitution in 1913, the people in each state voting district were provided a voice in Congress through the direct election of their member of the House of Representatives, while each state government was given a voice through the selection of senators by their state legislative bodies. The 17th amendment changed the selection process of senators to direct election by the citizens of the state. This change removed the state governments from having direct representation in Congress. The wisdom of this choice has been debated ever since, partly because it meant states with one or more large population centers tended to dominate the selection of senators without regard for the needs and desires of voters in the rest of the state. Regardless, the change was achieved thorough a constitutionally correct process and remains the law of the land. For this reason it will remain valid until it is rescinded. When it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), the people have virtually no direct say in its membership or composition. The President nominates a potential justice and the Senate approves or disapproves the selection by simple majority vote. There are no qualifications for being a justice, so anyone can be nominated. There is no set size for the SCOTUS; it is set by Congress. There is an inherent risk in this arrangement because if one party controls the Senate and the Presidency, collectively they can shrink the court, expand it, or impeach justices (following a recommendation by the House of Representatives). Though rare, all three have been accomplished, except the lone impeachment trial of Justice Samuel Chase in 1805 ended with an acquittal and the looming impeachment of Justice Abe Fortas led to him resigning from the court in 1969. With regard to your comment about common law and civil law, our Constitution limits the power and scope of the federal government, and under the 10th Amendment it specifies that all other powers belong to the states or the people. The issue of abortion is not addressed in the Constitution, therefore it is left to the states to regulate. If a state does not regulate it, then the choice is left to the individual. In 1973 the SCOTUS disregarded the Constitution and struck down both Texas and Georgia criminal laws that made certain abortions illegal. This ruling was then applied to all states. The reasoning provided by the court was that a woman's right to privacy was being violated. The problem is that the Constitution does not address any such right. In so doing, the SCOTUS exceeded its constitutional authority. If the pending SCOTUS decision reverses Roe v. Wade and its corollary, Doe v. Bolton, it will be restoring the court to its proper role of interpreting law in accordance with the Constitution, not creating it. Whatever follows is up to the states and to the people.
    1
  2785.  @milamber319  When discussing the Constitution, people often omit the Declaration of Independence, which is the founding document from which the Constitution ultimately arises. The Declaration of Independence specifically address three inalienable rights, meaning rights conferred by our Creator. These include, but are not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These particular rights are listed precisely because that they are not granted by government. They are deemed to be natural rights of all human beings and not subject to government restriction or abolishment. The government recognizes these rights and is supposed to operate within their framework. When drafting the Constitution, the framers were focused on developing rules under which a federal government would function and how this government would relate to the states and to the people. The word "right" appears only once in the body of the Constitution. The word "privilege" appears but three times. This was not an oversight; it was done on purpose because it was assumed the existing state constitutions adequately covered them. However, there was enough fear of future centralized federal power that the Constitution could not get ratified until it contained amendments that fully recognized other natural and civil rights, along with the authority that was reserved for the states and for the people. The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War to ensure the states did not "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and to ensure no person was deprived "of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". It also guaranteed "equal protection of the laws." What the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill Rights, and all subsequent amendments to date do not address is the definition of life. I find this curious. How can we deny a life by abortion if we first do not define the beginning of life? In the current environment I have seen arguments for abortion ranging from conception to postpartum infanticide. Excepting cases where both mother and child are doomed to die, where do we draw the line or do we draw a line? Isn't it only appropriate that someone speak for the unborn child? If not, are we any better than those who endorsed slavery or genocide? Until we come to some consensus on the definition of life, I would prefer to err on the side of caution and return to state determination of the legality of abortion. This will not prevent abortion, legal or otherwise, but it is consistent with our Constitution. To do otherwise is to tacitly admit the federal government can legally control whatever aspect of our lives it desires. It reduces the state governments to mere vassals of the federal government - the very thing the founders feared most (as should we). With regard to rights, for something to be an inalienable right, it must apply equally to everyone without encumbrance. If it does not, then it is a privilege or possibly a civil right (ex: the right to vote at 18). Therefore you cannot have the right be free from want or free from fear, despite what Roosevelt claimed in his four freedoms speech. These are lofty goals, but they are not freedoms for the simple fact that if someone is to be free from want, it can only occur if something is taken from another and given to him. One cannot be free from fear unless someone is ordered to protect him even at the risk of his own life. There cannot be a fundamental right to abortion because the rights of the unborn child are abrogated. It can only be a privilege or civil right granted to the mother when we have written laws stating the unborn child is not a human life. Regarding the super majority you mentioned, it does not exist. If it did, then it would be very easy for Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment defining life, then get it ratified by the states. Failing that, each state could easily pass a law granting abortion under whatever specified standards it deems appropriate.
    1
  2786. 1
  2787. 1
  2788. 1
  2789. 1
  2790.  @milamber319  I am unable to follow much of your reasoning, but I will try to respond to each of your points in turn. Where do you get the idea that I am very happy to take a life to ensure the liberty and property of another? Gerrymandering is generally frowned upon by the courts, but I suppose it depends on which court you are in. The filibuster is an internal mechanism of the Senate; it is not part of the Constitution. There are currently attempts to undermine the electoral college in some states by disregarding the votes of its citizens and assigning all electoral college votes to whoever wins the most votes nationally. If this were allowed to stand then the minority would be the most impacted by it. The vast majority of our criminal laws are state laws, not federal laws. If you take the life of another person, unless it is a specific federal crime, you will be tried in a state court under state laws. It is rarely a constitutional issue. The states do have the authority to incarcerate and even execute those found guilt of heinous crimes. The states have the authority to decide how and when an abortion is legal. The states created the Constitution and the federal government it describes. It was the will of the people. The Constitution can be amended to change this, but I doubt very many state would ratify it. State governments do not like giving up their power, especially to a central authority who can then easily abuse it. This super majority you keep mentioning does not exist when it comes to the topic of abortion or even the definition of life. If it did exist, then such a constitutional amendment would already have been proposed and ratified. But there is no such consensus. I did not hear Sparty say there is a super majority or a consensus on this topic. You say the problem with the American system is this process can be sidestepped or short circuited by a minority. That is not a design flaw, this is a feature of our republic.
    1
  2791. 1
  2792.  @milamber319  Our republic was designed to prevent simple majority rule by giving the minority some counterbalancing power. This does not mean a single person or small group of people can squash the will of a much larger group. It does mean that a significant minority can thwart the wishes of a larger group. This is important because it helps deter radical change and contributes to to a negotiated compromise when necessary. If we applied a simple majority rule to all voting, we will disenfranchise the minority and likely fracture the nation. I would no more want to see this happen than I would want to face a jury trial where a 7-to-5 vote could send me to the death chamber or life in prison. The filibuster is not an endless tool; it is a delaying tactic. If only one senator is filibustering, the best he can hope to accomplish is to bring attention to his concerns for a limited period of time. The longest single protest on record was 24 hours by Democrat Senator Strom Thurmond when he opposed the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1957. It subsequently passed. The longest group filibuster was 60 days and was conducted by a six southern Democrats (Richard Russell (GA), Strom Thurmond (SC), Robert Byrd (WV), William Fulbright (AR), and Sam Ervin (NC)) to protest the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964. This filibuster concluded when enough senators of both parties voted to end it. The Act subsequently passed. Since the filibuster is an internal senate rule, there are only two legal ways to end the practice. The Senate can vote to eliminate it or a constitutional amendment can be passed to prevent it. The latter seems doubtful because it would require the overwhelming support of the Senate. I cannot envision the Senate ever allowing itself to be controlled in such a manner. The Senate has from time to time changed the rules for ending a filibuster. It used to require a 2/3 vote of the Senate, was later reduced to 60 votes, and now is 51 votes on certain issues such as the appointment of executive branch nominees, federal judges, and Supreme Court justices. This raises an interesting question. Is it wise to place such nominees in powerful positions without significant support from the Senate, or is a simple 51-to-50 majority vote sufficient? Your concern about gerrymandering is partly correct. It is an attempt to preserve a party's political power by carving out districts in such a manner that their party stands an excellent chance of winning. It also is an attempt to weaken the opposing party by either lumping most its voters in a single district (packing) or dividing them into multiple districts where they have no influence on the vote (cracking). Generally speaking, the party in power gets to decide district layout, hence it is a tool of suppression by the majority, not the minority. The affected party can challenge gerrymandering in court, but there is no guarantee of a favorable outcome. The court could just as easily conclude no gerrymandering took place. I'm not sure you grasp the significance of the electoral college. it is to ensure that a few heavily populated states do not alone determine the outcome of a presidential election. Under the electoral college system in 48 states, the electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the popular vote, thus the voters in each state do decide which presidential candidate gets their support. Nebraska and Maine appoint individual electors based on the winner of the popular vote within each Congressional district. The remaining two electors are assigned to the overall winner of the state-wide popular vote. I'm not sure how this would work in a three-way split where no candidate receives a majority of the popular vote. Their approach, while somewhat novel, dilutes their influence on the election outcome, which might explain why they are the only two states to adopt it. I already live in a state which many politicians and political pundits derisively call flyover country, meaning they don't care about us or our concerns. Elimination of the electoral college would dilute the power of smaller states such as mine, so what would be the incentive for a state to remain loyal to the union if its residents believed they can be run roughshod over by a federal government controlled by the voters in the biggest states? The will of the states is the will of the people. The people in the states vote for their own state legislators, governor, members of Congress, and electors for the presidential race. It is easier to change the constitution of Australia than it is that of the USA. That which is made easy to change is easy to change again and again and again. Our process is slow and cumbersome, but it provides stability and allows for thoughtful deliberation. This is why it so rarely changes - not only because it is difficult, but because debate reveals the potential pitfalls of change. In my state we can change the state constitution almost on a whim by a simple majority of those voting. As a result we have added amendments that garnered far less than half of the voting public's support. It is not a practice I recommend. Few voters ever educate themselves on a topic before voting, assuming they even bother to vote. This destabilizes the system when bad law is so easily made. I do not know what state tyranny you are talking about, but I presume you would prefer all the states behave alike. This is not what the founders intended - and for good reason. Nobody has a handle on the best path forward, but with 50 states you have 50 laboratories in which to experiment. Each state is free to learn and adapt the practices or avoid the mistakes of other states. If you do not like the laws of your state, you are free to try to change them or else move to another state that better fits your values. Anything less is tyranny. On your last point I will only say the government closest to you is most responsive to you. It is where you will have the most direct influence. As you move further up the governmental chain from city to county to state to nation, your ability to influence change is diminished. As former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill liked to say, "All politics is local".
    1
  2793. 1
  2794. 1
  2795. 1
  2796. 1
  2797.  @milamber319  What people say they want in a poll and what they actually are willing to work to achieve are two different things. And where are these people concentrated. If 70% of the population of one state opposes homosexual marriage or raising the state minimum wage, while 70% in another state support both, how is it fair to force both states to adopt it? It is not a federal issue; it is a state issue. Nationalizing every local issue in order to get what you want done in your own state against the wishes of a majority of citizens in each state is a form of tyranny. It does not matter if this is accomplished by the courts, Congress, or the executive branch. I chose to live in Montana because I prefer its beauty and its laws to those of many other states. I do not interfere with what other states do internally, but I will resist any efforts to force their ideas onto my state through the federal authorities. Saying you oppose gerrymandering sounds nice, but the issue is not so simple. Gerrymandering for political advantage is ethically wrong, but can be difficult to prove. Gerrymandering for other reasons has been tolerated by the courts. It has been allowed based on skin color, political leanings, income level, heritage, and geography. The main requirement is that each voting district be similar in population, though even here the courts may take issue because there is no agreed upon standard for what constitutes a similar population. Adding another wrinkle, under the Federal Voting Rights Act districts are required to have boundaries that offer minority voters an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. This is a very subjective notion and it can only be achieved in some cases through gerrymandering. Some states have adopted additional criteria, such as requiring districts to encompass compact, contiguous areas or to keep counties, cities and communities of interest together whenever possible. Cloture and filibustering are internal rules of the US Senate. Only the senators have the power to change these rules, but few seem inclined to do so. The reason is simple. Power switches back and forth between the two main parties every few years. You hate the 60/40 rule when you are in power and love it when you are out of power. By the way, in the past the rule was 2/3 (67 votes), so 60 is actually an improvement. I agree there exists a form of oligarchy among our elected members of Congress, but that is the fault of the voters. They keep sending the same people back to Congress. This is all done by popular vote (until 1913 all senators were selected by their state legislature) so we do have proportional elected representation - far more so now than in the past when only landholding (tax paying) white male citizens over 21 could vote. Each branch of government is in constant tension with the other two branches and ignores them as much as possible. This is how it is supposed to be. When they all are in agreement we get such wonderful outcomes as Executive Order 9066 (the removal and detention of people of Japanese ancestry from the west coast during WWII).
    1
  2798.  @milamber319  The federal minimum wage does not apply to all jobs. States are free to set higher minimum wages if they desire, but they are not allowed to lower them. What makes the states unique is their relationship to all other levels of government. The federal government was a creation of the collective states with certain powers assigned to it. All other powers reside in the states. Each municipality, be it a township or county, is a creation of the state and subordinate to it in all matters of law. Counties and cities can set higher minimum wages if state law allows it. When you ask why a community can't change or ignore any law when an overwhelming majority of residents want it changed, the reason is simple. If they can disregard state laws, they can disregard federal laws and do whatever they like. But why stop there? If one block of a city wants to be independent, why can't it be? For the same reason, why can't one household or one person be a law unto themself (sovereign citizen argument)? This is exactly what happened in Seattle during the CHOP protest. The result was lawlessness and rule by thuggery. Even before the country became a nation, the colonies formed communities that operated under colonial, and by extension, royal rule. These later became the states. Every form of ogvenrment we have in America can be traced back to these roots. At the local level, if you want to change the process you will have change the state constitutions and state laws first. Even then, the state and it communities must conform to the Constitution where it is applicable, e.g., you can't reintroduce slavery. Regarding gerrymandering, if I understand you correctly, you would not allow the state to use gerrymandering to draw up any voting districts that favors minority groups which the state believes are underrepresented. If this is your position, then I agree with you. The only boundaries that make sense to me are logical, simple physical ones that group people geographically into similar sized voting blocks, regardless of their political views or demographics. If you disagree, please let me know.
    1
  2799. 1
  2800. 1
  2801. 1
  2802. 1
  2803. 1
  2804. 1
  2805. 1
  2806. 1
  2807. 1
  2808. 1
  2809. 1
  2810. 1
  2811. 1
  2812. 1
  2813. 1
  2814. 1
  2815. 1
  2816. 1
  2817. 1
  2818. Lockheed AFB??? I have to raise the BS flag on the conspiracy theory in this video. The "second crash" was due to pilot error and there were survivors. According to Wikipedia (that fountain of accurate information) the second aircraft technically crashed the day before Flight 739 went down, having occurred on March 15, 1962 (the international dateline may explain the discrepancy). This would have been "Flying Tiger Line Flight 7816/14, an L-1049H Super Constellation (N6911C), which crashed on approach to Adak Island Naval Air Station, Alaska due to pilot error, killing one of eight on board. The aircraft was operating a Military Air Transport Service (MATS) cargo flight from Travis AFB to Kadena Air Base." Since it is possible Wikipedia got this information wrong, I checked two other sources that validate the Wikipedia account, Aviation Safety Network and Bureau of Aircraft Accident Archives. Aviation Safety Network provided the following details. Statuts: Date: jeudi 15 mars 1962 Heure: 01:11 Type/Sous-type: Silhouette image of generic CONI model; specific model in this crash may look slightly different Lockheed L-1049H Super Constellation Compagnie: Flying Tiger Line Immatriculation: N6911C Numéro de série: 4804 Année de Fabrication: Heures de vol: 16038 Equipage: victimes: 1 / à bord: 7 Passagers: victimes: 0 / à bord: 0 Total: victimes: 1 / à bord: 7 Dégats de l'appareil: Perte Totale Conséquences: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Lieu de l'accident: Adak Naval Air Facility, AK (ADK) ( Etats-Unis d'Amérique) Phase de vol: En approche (APR) Nature: Cargo Aéroport de départ: Cold Bay Airport, AK (CDB/PACD), Etats-Unis d'Amérique Aéroport de destination: Adak Naval Air Facility, AK (ADK/PADK), Etats-Unis d'Amérique Numéro de vol: 7816 Détails: Flying Tiger Line flight 7816/14 operated on a Military Air Transport Service (MATS) cargo flight from Travis AFB to Okinawa-Kadena AFB with refueling stops at Cold Bay, Adak and Misawa (Japan). The flight departed Travis AFB at 21:00 GMT with a 142.050 pound gross weight (just 50 pounds below the maximum allowable takeoff gross weight). Buffeting developed on climbout due to an open hydraulic reservoir access door. The captain decided to return and make an overweight landing (max landing weight was 119.975 pounds). The plane landed at 21:32 and departed Travis again one hour later, landing at Cold Bay at 08:05. Departure from Cold Bay was at 09:19 GMT. The enroute portion of the leg from Cold Bay to Adak was uneventful. Instrument weather prevailed and a Ground Controlled Approach (GCA) was started. The flight was cleared for a runway 23 straight-in approach. During the approach, the GCA controller warned the crew on 7 times that they were below the glide slope and finally advised them to execute a missed approach. At about the same time the captain reported having the field in sight and continued the approach. Initial contact with the ground was some 328 feet short of the threshold and struck an embankment at the runway threshold, about 4 feet below runway elevation. The main gear separated and the plane veered right leaving the runway at the 1000 feet marker. The right wing was torn off and the main portion came to rest 2000 feet from the threshold. A severe fire erupted. Weather at the time of the accident was ceiling indefinite 1000 feet, sky obscured, visibility 3 miles, light drizzle, fog, temperature 40deg F wind ESE 12 gusts to 18 kts. Probable Cause: PROBABLE CAUSE: "The pilots' misjudgement of distance and altitude during the final approach for landing." Sources: » CAB Aircraft Accident Report File No. 1-0036 » ICAO Accident Digest No.14 Volume I, Circular 71-AN/63 (21-23) Bureau of Aircraft Accident Archives contained the following report: Date & Time: Mar 15, 1962 at 0114 LT Type of aircraft: Lockheed L-1049 Super Constellation Operator: Registration: N6911C Flight Phase: Landing (descent or approach) Flight Type: Cargo Survivors: Yes Site: Airport (less than 10 km from airport) Schedule: Travis – Cold Bay – Adak – Misawa – Kadena MSN: 4804 YOM: 1957 Flight number: FT7816 Location: Adak Alaska Country: United States of America Region: North America Crew on board: 7 Crew fatalities: 1 Pax on board: 0 Pax fatalities: 0 Other fatalities: 0 Total fatalities: 1 Captain / Total flying hours: 13000 Captain / Total hours on type: 3055 Copilot / Total flying hours: 19000 Copilot / Total hours on type: 1211 Aircraft flight hours: 16038 Circumstances: A Lockheed Constellation, model L-1049H, N 6911C, owned by The Flying Tiger Line Inc., and being operated under contract with the Military Air Transport Service, crashed during the hours of darkness at Adak, Alaska, March 15, 1962, at 1214 G.m.t. Impact and subsequent fire destroyed the aircraft. There were seven occupants, all crew members. Six received minor injuries and one, the duty flight engineer, was trapped in the cockpit and died in the fire. This was a scheduled cargo flight, designated by the carrier as Flight No. FTL 7816/14. It originated at Travis Air Force Base, California, for Kadena Air Force Base, Okinawa, with stops planned at Cold Bay, Alaska, Adak, Alaska, and Misawa, Japan. Shortly after departure from Travis Air Force Base, buffeting developed and the aircraft was landed back at Travis. Inspection disclosed an open hydraulic reservoir access door. This was closed and secured and the flight proceeded uneventfully to Cold Bay, Alaska. The flight from Cold Bay to the vicinity of Adak was also uneventful, with the copilot flying the aircraft from the left seat and the captain acting as copilot in the right seat. Instrument weather prevailed at Adak and a ground controlled approach (GCA) was started. The flight was advised several times that it was below the glide slope and then was advised to execute a missed approach. The aircraft’s captain replied that the field was in sight. The approach continued, visually. At a point 328 feet short of the runway threshold and four feet below its level the landing gear struck rocks. The main landing gear was torn off and the aircraft slid about 2,000 feet on the runway coining to rest just off its edge. A severe fire developed. Probable cause: The Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the pilot’s misjudgment of distance and altitude during the final approach for landing.
    1
  2819. 1
  2820. 1
  2821. 1
  2822. 1
  2823. 1
  2824. 1
  2825. 1
  2826. 1
  2827. 1
  2828. 1
  2829. 1
  2830. 1
  2831. 1
  2832. 1
  2833. 1
  2834. 1
  2835. 1
  2836. 1
  2837. 1
  2838. 1
  2839. 1
  2840. 1
  2841. 1
  2842. 1
  2843. 1
  2844. 1
  2845. 1
  2846. 1
  2847. 1
  2848. 1
  2849. 1
  2850. 1
  2851. 1
  2852. 1
  2853. 1
  2854. 1
  2855. 1
  2856. 1
  2857. 1
  2858. 1
  2859. 1
  2860. 1
  2861. 1
  2862. 1
  2863. 1
  2864. 1
  2865. 1
  2866. 1
  2867. 1
  2868. 1
  2869. 1
  2870. 1
  2871. 1
  2872. 1
  2873. 1
  2874. 1
  2875. 1
  2876. 1
  2877. 1
  2878. 1
  2879. 1
  2880. 1
  2881. 1
  2882. 1
  2883. 1
  2884. 1
  2885. 1
  2886. 1
  2887. 1
  2888. 1
  2889. 1
  2890. 1
  2891. 1
  2892. 1
  2893. 1
  2894. 1
  2895. 1
  2896. 1
  2897. 1
  2898. 1
  2899. 1
  2900. 1
  2901. 1
  2902. 1
  2903. 1
  2904. 1
  2905. 1
  2906. 1
  2907. 1
  2908. 1
  2909. 1
  2910. 1
  2911. 1
  2912. 1
  2913. 1
  2914. 1
  2915. 1
  2916. 1
  2917. 1
  2918. 1
  2919. 1
  2920. 1
  2921. 1
  2922. 1
  2923. 1
  2924. 1
  2925. 1
  2926. 1
  2927. 1
  2928. 1
  2929. 1
  2930. 1
  2931. 1
  2932. 1
  2933. 1
  2934. 1
  2935. 1
  2936.  Joe Mamma  It's common for the guy at the pointy end of the bayonet to think the guy at the other end of the command chain is a coward who doesn't know what he's doing. I've read enough about MacArthur from people who worked with him to know he was both revered and hated. However, stories about him showing up in combat zones in slippers strike me as being just a bit apocryphal. Another popular myth was that he left the Philippines in 1942 with all his personal furniture stuffed on PT-41. No less an authority than Lt John D. Bulkeley, the skipper of PT-41, dispelled that rumor, but the story caught on with people who had a grudge agasint Mac. My old high school ROTC instructor, First Sergeant Dixon, served as an infantry platoon sergeant under Mac on Luzon, then again in Korea as a ILT platoon leader. He earned the Silver Star at Pork Chop Hill (I've read the citation), after which he resigned his commission and went back to being an NCO. He always referred to Mac as Dugout Doug. He didn't care for the man personally, but he acknowledged his skill as a strategic planner, especially when you consider he was operating on a fraction of the resources allotted to the European theater, or in the case of Korea, was constrained by the political limitations that Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff imposed. Was Mac a showman and a prima donna? Yes, I'd say so, in the same way Patton and Monty were. Did other senior brass despise him? Admiral King certainly did, but Mac got along well with Bull Halsey. Joe, I would never accuse combat veterans of lying about the leaders they despised, even if I knew the stories were false. If hating Mac or any other leader helped them cope, then maybe it's a good thing. But if you want to truly know a man, you have to study every aspect of him. Mac had a lot of faults, but he also possessed a lot of genius. To claim otherwise is to be disingenuous in the face of facts. The war the flag officer fight is not the same war the grunt fights. If it were, then anyone could be a successful general or admiral.
    1
  2937. 1
  2938. 1
  2939. 1
  2940. 1
  2941. 1
  2942. 1
  2943. 1
  2944. 1
  2945. 1
  2946. 1
  2947. 1
  2948. 1
  2949. 1
  2950. 1
  2951. 1
  2952. 1
  2953. 1
  2954. 1
  2955. 1
  2956. 1
  2957. 1
  2958. 1
  2959. 1
  2960. 1
  2961. 1
  2962. 1
  2963. 1
  2964. 1
  2965. I came close to joining EOD after I supervised the writing of a promotion test for their career field. I only mention this because of an incident that occurred a few years later while I was on leave in Africa. After a night of drinking with some folks I'd met at my hotel who were working on a nearby movie set, I decided to take up an offer from a member of this group, a pretty young Australian nurse. Having been warned I likely would not get past the security guards who manned the entrance to the set, I took a circuitous route through the Zimbabwe bush, eventually finding myself in a large open field. When about halfway across it, I suddenly remembered a warning I'd received from one of my drinking companions that there was an old minefield near the set that was left over from the country's recent civil war. At this point I wasn't sure what to do, but then I noticed a nearby vehicle trail that ran all the way to the movie set. This was when my limited EOD knowledge kicked in. I figured if a vehicle could cross these tracks without exploding, so could I. When I eventually made my way up the path to the set, the young nurse was quite shocked to see me. Rather pleased with myself, I told her how I had successfully traversed the minefield. She replied, "It isn't mines you should have been worried about. It's cape buffalo. One of the women here got mauled by one in that field last week." Oh well, I got some good photos of the place and returned to my hotel via the front gate. As I expected, the guards only noticed the people coming in, not going out.
    1
  2966. 1
  2967. 1
  2968. 1
  2969. 1
  2970. 1
  2971. 1
  2972. 1
  2973. 1
  2974. 1
  2975. 1
  2976. 1
  2977. 1
  2978. 1
  2979. 1
  2980. 1
  2981. 1
  2982. 1
  2983. 1
  2984. 1
  2985. 1
  2986. 1
  2987. 1
  2988. 1
  2989. 1
  2990. 1
  2991. 1
  2992. 1
  2993. 1
  2994. 1
  2995. 1
  2996. 1
  2997. 1
  2998. 1
  2999. 1
  3000. 1
  3001. 1
  3002. 1
  3003.  @Myoron  No, it is not. The decision is 92 pages long and resulted in a 5-4 slit decision with each justice concurring or nonconcurring on parts of the ruling. This hardly qualifies as plain English. The Court failed in its primary duty - is the question constitutional? The answer is a resounding yes. That's where it should have ended. Instead, the Court decided to issue a partial ruling wherein the question was ordered removed from the census because five members of the Court felt it would lead to an under-count of citizens. The Court even recognized that these under-counted citizens would be violating the law of their own cognition if they failed to respond, and that the likely reason for their actions was that they were harboring illegal aliens (itself a crime) whom they feared would be targeted by the government for arrest. Despite the fact that the Court agreed the government would not use census data in this way, they still considered this rationale an acceptable excuse for violating the law. At the same time, the SCOTUS concern about an under-count completely ignored the possibility, indeed, the likelihood, of an over-count, which would deprive other sections of the country of fair voter representation and federal funding. The primary function of the census is to get an accurate counting of citizens for the establishment and redistribution of Congressional districts. The SCOTUS ruling, whether it allowed or disallowed the citizenship question, would not have achieved this effect. They should have limited their decision to the constitutionality of the question. As is so often the case of the Court, they decided instead to legislate from the bench.
    1
  3004. 1
  3005. 1
  3006. 1
  3007. 1
  3008. 1
  3009. 1
  3010. 1
  3011. 1
  3012. 1
  3013. 1
  3014. 1
  3015. 1
  3016. 1
  3017. 1
  3018. 1
  3019. 1
  3020. 1
  3021. 1
  3022. 1
  3023. 1
  3024. 1
  3025. 1
  3026. 1
  3027. 1
  3028. 1
  3029. 1
  3030. 1
  3031. 1
  3032. 1
  3033. 1
  3034. 1
  3035. 1
  3036. 1
  3037. 1
  3038. 1
  3039. 1
  3040. 1
  3041. 1
  3042. 1
  3043. 1
  3044. 1
  3045. 1
  3046. 1
  3047. 1
  3048. 1
  3049. 1
  3050. 1
  3051. 1
  3052. 1
  3053. 1
  3054. 1
  3055. 1
  3056. 1
  3057. 1
  3058. 1
  3059. 1
  3060. 1
  3061. 1
  3062. 1
  3063. 1
  3064. 1
  3065. 1
  3066. 1
  3067. 1
  3068. 1
  3069. 1
  3070. 1
  3071. 1
  3072. 1
  3073. 1
  3074. 1
  3075. 1
  3076. 1
  3077. 1
  3078. 1
  3079. 1
  3080. 1
  3081. 1
  3082. 1
  3083. 1
  3084. 1
  3085. 1
  3086. 1
  3087. 1
  3088. 1
  3089. 1
  3090. 1
  3091. 1
  3092. 1
  3093. 1
  3094. 1
  3095. 1
  3096. 1
  3097. 1
  3098. 1
  3099. 1
  3100. 1
  3101. 1
  3102. 1
  3103. 1
  3104. 1
  3105. 1
  3106. 1
  3107. 1
  3108. 1
  3109.  @z3r0_35  I don't quite see it that way. I agree that for Germany oil was a critical concern throughout the war, but there were many other factors at play which also prompted the timing and decision to invade the USSR. Prior to hostilities in 1939, Germany imported about 2/3 of its oil from the western hemisphere. This source was effectively shut down by British naval blockades, so Germany upped its imports from Austria, Romania, and even the USSR until they accounted for 1/4th of their oil supply. This was not enough. Even when augmented by synthetic fuel production, which by 1944 had reached more than 124,000 barrels per day before the 8th Air Force and RAF bombed it into the stone age, Germany could not meet its war machine needs. What is most interesting is why from 1940-41 the USSR sold Germany nearly six million barrels of crude oil (about 250 million gallons). Stalin assumed Hitler would invade someday, so he attempted to placate him with a trade agreement. In theory the Nazis could have kept buying oil and grain from the Soviets, but their visceral hatred of the Communists was only rivaled by their hatred of Jews. They wanted to destroy the USSR, eradicate most Slavs, create some living room for an expanded Germanic empire, acquire a breadbasket (Ukraine), and have access to more oil by attacking through the Caucasus and capturing the Soviet oil fields. This last goal would serve the dual purpose of providing the Nazis with much needed oil, while denying it to the Soviets. But why invade in the summer of 1941? Why not attack earlier in the spring or better yet, wait until 1942? One reason is that the German economy was running or borrowed money it could not pay back. So, when in debt, attack your neighbor and steal his wealth (robbing Ivan to pay Paulus). But the Wehrmacht was not built as a strategic expeditionary force, nor did it have suitable numbers of long range bombers to attack Soviet industry behind the Urals. It also lacked a properly sized and equipped armored force for this mission. And it remained primarily dependent upon a horse-drawn transportation system throughout the war. In a protracted war of conquest, logistics is the key to victory, not the mere size, leadership, and training of an army. The deeper the Nazis drove into the USSR, the more they had to detail forces to protect their rear and flanks, and the more they expended transportation resources to feed the needs of the Heer and Luftwaffe. Prior to the start of Operation Barbarossa, Hitler wasted time, aviation resources, and fuel trying to subdue Britain after the fall of France. This forced a crucial delay in the timetable for Operation Barbarossa, which would contribute greatly to German failure in the long run. It also meant the Luftwaffe was not at full strength when their invasion began. But Hitler believed the longer he waited, the more powerful and capable the Soviet military would become. He saw the effects of Stalin's massive purges of his officer corps. Tiny Finland greatly bloodied the Soviets in the Winter War of 1939-40, so Hitler wanted to attack the USSR before the Soviets could correct their leadership deficiencies. Germany was gambling on a short campaign that would cause the Soviet forces to rapidly collapse. German planners did not accurately account for the size of Soviet manpower and materiel reserves, nor did they consider how incredibly stubborn Soviet forces could be. All of these factors came into play. I don't believe any single one dominated the decision to invade or was the cause of Germany's defeat. It was an aggregate effect that led to the invasion, its timing, and its ultimate failure.
    1
  3110. 1
  3111. 1
  3112. 1
  3113. 1
  3114. 1
  3115. 1
  3116. 1
  3117. 1
  3118. 1
  3119. 1
  3120. 1
  3121. 1
  3122. 1
  3123. 1
  3124. 1
  3125. 1
  3126. 1
  3127. 1
  3128. 1
  3129. 1
  3130. 1
  3131. 1
  3132. 1
  3133. 1
  3134. 1
  3135. 1
  3136. 1
  3137. 1
  3138.  @skabbigkossa  The problem with your thesis is that you are allowing some unknown entity to determine whose knowledge and judgment is acceptable and should be listened to. This is a great way to shut down debate, but it in no way encourages different ideas and opinions. Some of the smartest men I've known lacked scholarly education, but I trusted their judgment and insight far more than anyone with a sheepskin. Were they to watch the TimeGhost series and offer comments, I would not dismiss them because they lacked a sheepskin in history. A degree does not make one savvy or wise, especially a degree in a topic that is mired as much in opinion as it is in recorded fact. My grandfather used to say that history is agreed upon error. I believe he was right. Despite our easy access to information via the internet, we can't be certain what we read, hear, and see is being presented in an accurate and unbiased way. We can't even be sure that the scholars and biographers of the past really got it right. Some famous historians now have been charged with whitewashing or embellishing history. Indeed, when I see the number of contradictory sources and opinions propagated on the internet, I am forced to make selective choices. Do I accept Schlesinger, Ambrose, and Shirer as gospel? What about Roosevelt, Kennedy, Churchill, and Speer? Are their portrayals accurate or simply self-serving? Reading some of the comments in this chain I see posters who are trying to separate history from politics. Politics is an enormous part of history. Without it history is reduced to numbers, places, and dates, and becomes little more than pablum, the dusty refuse many of us learned as small children. History should be presented as vibrantly as possible, and in the joint context of technology, geography, politics, economics, sociology, and the human condition. I think Indy and the crew are attempting to do just this. It will propagate discussion and disagreement. This a good thing and should be encouraged. If you find some posts inane, simplistic, or off topic, then say so, but don't tell others to shut-up and color. This isn't kindergarten. This is HISTORY!
    1
  3139. 1
  3140. 1
  3141. 1
  3142. 1
  3143. 1
  3144. 1
  3145. 1
  3146. 1
  3147. 1
  3148. 1
  3149. 1
  3150. 1
  3151. 1
  3152. 1
  3153. 1
  3154. 1
  3155. 1
  3156. 1
  3157. 1
  3158. 1
  3159. 1
  3160. 1
  3161. 1
  3162. 1
  3163. 1
  3164. 1
  3165. 1
  3166. 1
  3167. 1
  3168. 1
  3169. 1
  3170. 1
  3171. 1
  3172. 1
  3173. 1
  3174. 1
  3175. 1
  3176. 1
  3177. 1
  3178. 1
  3179. 1
  3180. 1
  3181. 1
  3182. 1
  3183. 1
  3184. 1
  3185. 1
  3186. 1
  3187. 1
  3188. 1
  3189. 1
  3190. @Matthew Morycinski You are making an assumption, not stating a fact. In 1979 the airlines were deregulated. As a result, many routes were redrawn into a hub and spoke system which maximized efficiency for some, but not all, carriers. Because of increased competition, fares dropped dramatically, and regional carriers arose to provide feeder service for the major airlines. Fearful that areas where population densities were small would lose all service or pay exorbitant prices, the Essential Air Service program was established. This amounted to a subsidy for each passenger carried in these sparser regions. The subsidy was not fixed, but varied according to the cost of service. The program was supposed to have been eliminated after ten years, but continues to exist, and its expenditures continue to rise. Such programs, while well intentioned, are quite costly and inefficient. They serve a very small segment of the traveling public and should be phased out as originally planned. For those people who will be are affected by this there are alternatives, such as driving to a regional airport. You use the term feudalism, but I would point out that using my tax dollars to favor someone else is just the sort of abuse that existed under feudalism. By the way, I live in Montana a place where the subsides range from $20 to over $400. Eliminating the subsides will drive costs up for us, but it will not destroy or financially harm commercial aviation since they won't be required to service these areas.
    1
  3191. 1
  3192. 1
  3193. 1
  3194. 1
  3195. 1
  3196. 1
  3197. 1
  3198. 1
  3199. 1
  3200. 1
  3201. 1
  3202. 1
  3203. 1
  3204. 1
  3205. 1
  3206. 1
  3207. 1
  3208. 1
  3209. 1
  3210. 1
  3211. 1
  3212. 1
  3213. 1
  3214. 1
  3215. 1
  3216. 1
  3217. 1
  3218. 1
  3219. 1
  3220. 1
  3221. 1
  3222. 1
  3223. 1
  3224. 1
  3225. 1
  3226. 1
  3227. 1
  3228. 1
  3229. 1
  3230. 1
  3231. 1
  3232. 1
  3233. 1
  3234. 1
  3235. 1
  3236. 1
  3237. 1
  3238. 1
  3239. 1
  3240. 1
  3241. 1
  3242. 1
  3243. 1
  3244. 1
  3245. 1
  3246. 1
  3247. 1
  3248. 1
  3249. 1
  3250. 1
  3251. 1
  3252. 1
  3253. 1
  3254. 1
  3255. 1
  3256. 1
  3257. 1
  3258. 1
  3259. 1
  3260. 1
  3261. 1
  3262. 1
  3263. 1
  3264. 1
  3265. 1
  3266. 1
  3267. 1
  3268. 1
  3269. 1
  3270. 1
  3271. 1
  3272. 1
  3273. 1
  3274. 1
  3275. 1
  3276. 1
  3277. 1
  3278. 1
  3279. 1
  3280. 1
  3281. 1
  3282. 1
  3283. 1
  3284. 1
  3285. 1
  3286. 1
  3287. 1
  3288. 1
  3289. 1
  3290. 1
  3291. 1
  3292. 1
  3293. 1
  3294. 1
  3295. 1
  3296. 1
  3297. 1
  3298. 1
  3299. 1
  3300. 1
  3301. 1
  3302. 1
  3303. 1
  3304. 1
  3305. 1
  3306. 1
  3307. 1
  3308. 1
  3309. 1
  3310. 1
  3311. 1
  3312. 1
  3313. 1
  3314. 1
  3315. 1
  3316. 1
  3317. 1
  3318. 1
  3319. 1
  3320. 1
  3321. 1
  3322. 1
  3323. 1
  3324. 1
  3325. 1
  3326. 1
  3327. 1
  3328. 1
  3329. 1
  3330. 1
  3331. 1
  3332. 1
  3333. 1
  3334. 1
  3335. 1
  3336. 1
  3337. George Gay, the only survivor of the Devastators launched from Hornet that day, was my cousin's neighbor in the 1980s. My late cousin Sidney had been an electrical engineer assigned to the Navy Department at the start of the war and was involved in acquiring special radio equipment for the Doolittle Raid. As you know, this raid played a crucial role in the Japanese decision to attack Midway. In a strange way, the work Sidney performed had in some small way contributed to Gay's predicament at Midway. When he and Gay met four decades later at a cocktail party, they became fast friends. Gay inscribed a message for him on a copy of his autobiography, Sole Survivor. I read the book while visiting with Sidney (regrettably I never got to meet Gay). I don't recall all the details (it's been over 30 years), but I do remember Gay spoke very highly of his squadron commander, Waldron. I also remember Gay stating that the first time he ever launched a torpedo was at Midway and he believed it missed the carrier. Such was the state of American preparedness in 1942 that men were rushed in combat without adequate preparation. In the case of the Hornet and Air Group 8 this was especially true. Prewar thinking still infected much of the Navy and the Army. The crucible of war would quickly separate effective leaders from pretenders, but only at the cost of much blood. I'll have to find a copy of Gay's book and reread it because I don't remember if Ring and Waldron got into an argument over the radio or if their flights simply became separated. I thought it was the latter. That effective command and control were lacking is pretty obvious. Anyway, Waldron died and became a Navy legend, while Ring lived and rose to flag rank.
    1
  3338. 1
  3339. 1
  3340. 1
  3341. 1
  3342. 1
  3343. 1
  3344. 1
  3345. 1
  3346. 1
  3347. 1
  3348. 1
  3349. 1
  3350. 1
  3351. 1
  3352. 1
  3353. 1
  3354. 1
  3355. 1
  3356. 1
  3357. 1
  3358. 1
  3359. 1
  3360. 1
  3361. 1
  3362. 1
  3363. 1
  3364. 1
  3365. 1
  3366. 1
  3367. 1
  3368. 1
  3369. 1
  3370. 1
  3371. 1
  3372. 1
  3373. 1
  3374. 1
  3375. 1
  3376. 1
  3377. 1
  3378. 1
  3379. 1
  3380. 1
  3381. 1
  3382. 1
  3383. 1
  3384. 1
  3385. 1
  3386. 1
  3387. 1
  3388. 1
  3389. 1
  3390. 1
  3391. 1
  3392. 1
  3393. 1
  3394. 1
  3395. 1
  3396. 1
  3397. 1
  3398. 1
  3399. 1
  3400. 1
  3401. 1
  3402. 1
  3403. 1
  3404. 1
  3405. 1
  3406. 1
  3407. 1
  3408. 1
  3409. 1
  3410. 1
  3411. 1
  3412. 1
  3413. 1
  3414. 1
  3415. 1
  3416. 1
  3417. 1
  3418. 1
  3419. 1
  3420. 1
  3421. 1
  3422. 1
  3423. 1
  3424. 1
  3425. 1
  3426. 1
  3427. 1
  3428. 1
  3429. 1
  3430. 1
  3431. 1
  3432. 1
  3433. 1
  3434. 1
  3435. 1
  3436. 1
  3437. 1
  3438. 1
  3439. 1
  3440. 1
  3441. 1
  3442. 1
  3443. 1
  3444. 1
  3445. 1
  3446. 1
  3447.  @TimeGhost  You use the incorrect word "homophobia" to describe anyone who does not openly condone homosexuality. This is a corruption of a medical term that actually means to have an irrational fear or aversion to homosexuality. Yet today it has been repurposed to malign and silence anyone who does not conform to the corrupted meaning of the word. As historians who claim objectivity, you have just demonstrated your personal bias by using it as a pejorative. With regard to "safe sex", there is no such thing. Using a condom does not prevent the transmission of AIDS; it merely lessens the probability of acquiring it during a single encounter. However, like a game of Russian roulette, each repeated play increases the probability of failure at some point. Yet I well remember seeing commercials that propagated the lie of telling men they would be safe from infection if they simply used a condom during anal sex. The only truly safe sex is that between two partners (whether heterosexual or homosexual) who remain monogamous while also being HIV free. In such situations the likelihood is very small that they will contract HIV from some form of tainted blood transfusion (unless they are intravenous drug users). You claim I said HIV was only transmitted among homosexuals and intravenous drug uses when I actually said it was mostly transmitted among them. That it sometimes crossed into the heterosexual population was well documented back then. It is still transferred to the heterosexual population by tainted blood transmission and by sex with a partner who has HIV. But it has not spread widely into the general population because it is far more difficult to transmit through heterosexual intercourse than it is through male homosexual intercourse. To this day the disease exists predominantly among homosexual males in America. I do believe the initial backlash against homosexuals in the 1980s has been exaggerated. There were those who said it was God's punishment, but they were a vocal minority. Others preached abstinence, but few humans ever seem able to manage this feat, no matter what the topic may be - gambling, drinking, drugs, sex, tobacco use. This left only two options, either use some form of prophylaxis or create an effective treatment/cure. These options were exercised after it became apparent HIV was spreading rapidly among the predominantly male homosexual population. Were we too slow to respond effectively? I'm not sure such a question can be definitively answered. One could try drawing a comparison with our response to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. But at this point about all we can conclude is that he have responded more quickly to the ongoing pandemic than we did initially with HIV/AIDS. It's far too early to tell if that response has been the best course of action or will be as effective in the long run as has our subsequent treatment of AIDS patients and HIV infected individuals. The history of both is still being written.
    1
  3448. 1
  3449. 1
  3450. 1
  3451. 1
  3452. 1
  3453. 1
  3454. 1
  3455. 1
  3456. 1
  3457. 1
  3458. 1
  3459. 1
  3460. 1
  3461. 1
  3462. 1
  3463. 1
  3464. 1
  3465. 1
  3466. 1
  3467. 1
  3468. 1
  3469. 1
  3470. 1
  3471. 1
  3472. 1
  3473. 1
  3474.  @FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL  Yes, and if I recall correctly, the magazine was kept in a black leather magazine pouch. They were under strict orders not to load their handguns unless the situation warranted it. Of course, by then you are probably dead. This was in the early to mid 1980s when security functions were somewhat fragmented between the different military services and the General Services Administration (GSA). As I understand it, prior to 1971 the GSA's United States Special Policemen (USSP) provided physical security for the Pentagon. This left much of the internal security and personal protection to the separate services. In 1971 the USSP's mission was expanded to focus more on personal protection and the agency was rename the Federal Protective Service (FPS), but was still operated by GSA. In 1987 the GSA delegated all authority for protecting the Pentagon Reservation to the Department of Defense (DoD). The DoD then created the Defense Protective Service (DPS) and expanded it duties to other DoD facilities. This was pretty much the setup that existed when I arrived in early 2001. I know that the Pentagon Police still guarded all authorized access points, but within highly classified areas such as mine we had armed Air Force Security Force troops controlling access. The same situation existed in other service areas, but my impression was security was spotty. After 911 we were augmented for about a year by Army MPs who guarded every possible entry point and patrolled the parking lots. During this period there was a concerted effort to expand and upgrade the Pentagon Police. I noticed a lot of the aging, heavyset cops were being replaced by more youthful and athletic types. I can't speak for the environment today, but when I retired in 2007 we (USAF) still maintained our own internal security where needed. I believe the security details that escorted major department heads such as the SecDef and JCS chairman were also upgraded. No more five rounds per guard for easy bookkeeping.
    1
  3475. 1
  3476. 1
  3477. 1
  3478. 1
  3479. 1
  3480. 1
  3481. 1
  3482. 1
  3483. 1
  3484. 1
  3485. 1
  3486. 1
  3487. 1
  3488. 1
  3489. 1
  3490. 1
  3491. 1
  3492. 1
  3493. 1
  3494. 1
  3495. 1
  3496. 1
  3497. 1
  3498. 1
  3499. 1
  3500. 1
  3501. 1
  3502. 1
  3503. 1
  3504. 1
  3505. 1
  3506. 1
  3507. 1
  3508. 1
  3509. 1
  3510. 1
  3511. 1
  3512. 1
  3513. 1
  3514. 1
  3515. 1
  3516. 1
  3517. 1
  3518. 1
  3519. 1
  3520. 1
  3521. 1
  3522. 1
  3523. 1
  3524. 1
  3525. 1
  3526. 1
  3527. 1
  3528. 1
  3529. 1
  3530. 1
  3531. 1
  3532. 1
  3533. 1
  3534. 1
  3535. 1
  3536. 1
  3537. 1
  3538. 1
  3539. 1
  3540. 1
  3541. 1
  3542. 1
  3543. 1
  3544. 1
  3545. 1
  3546. 1
  3547. 1
  3548. 1
  3549. 1
  3550. 1
  3551. 1
  3552. 1
  3553. 1
  3554. 1
  3555. 1
  3556. 1
  3557. 1
  3558. 1
  3559. 1
  3560. 1
  3561. 1
  3562. 1
  3563. 1
  3564. 1
  3565. 1
  3566. 1
  3567. 1
  3568. 1
  3569. 1
  3570. 1
  3571. 1
  3572. 1
  3573. 1
  3574. 1
  3575. 1
  3576. 1
  3577. 1
  3578. 1
  3579. 1
  3580. 1
  3581. 1
  3582. 1
  3583. 1
  3584. 1
  3585. 1
  3586. 1
  3587. 1
  3588. 1
  3589. 1
  3590. 1
  3591. 1
  3592. 1
  3593. 1
  3594. 1
  3595. 1
  3596. 1
  3597. 1
  3598. 1
  3599. 1
  3600. 1
  3601. 1
  3602. 1
  3603. 1
  3604. 1
  3605. 1
  3606. 1
  3607. 1
  3608. 1
  3609. 1
  3610. 1
  3611. 1
  3612. 1
  3613. 1
  3614. 1
  3615. 1
  3616. 1
  3617. 1
  3618. 1
  3619.  @danbenson7587  Then we are roughly the same vintage. Grandpa served in the Navy in WWI aboard a mine sweeper. Granddaddy avoided war service due to a heart issue, which is just as well since he was in Germany. His brother-in-law did serve and earned an Iron Cross and a war wound badge. My Dad served in the Air Force during the Korean War as a B-29 mechanic in Alaska. I spent 30 years in the USAF. I learned to use a slide rule in high school, and my aviation and war knowledge came from books and mentors who were there, not from YT or Wiki sites whihc did not exist then, though I sometimes check them for accuracy. My knowledge of Richthofen's death comes from two primary sources, a book written by a friend of my Dad's named Dale Titler and a documentary that recreated the events right down to firing live ammo from a Vickers to verify the ballistics required to make the kill. Granddaddy used to say that history was an agreed upon error, and our debating bears this out. I try to go where the most reliable and plausible data lead me, but nothing is 100% guaranteed. Unfortunately, I have learned over time that many eyewitness accounts, though as faithfully and honestly reported as the years and memory allow, are often filled with mistakes and false impressions. But I hope I would never tell a man who was there and shed his blood, sweat, and tears, that he was wrong about a certain gun, plane, tank, or event. I'd chalk it up to the fog of war and sometimes even false memories born of postwar lore and commonly repeated tales (don't get me started on the Sherman tank and German Panthers and Tigers). I sympathize with you about bird hunting, which for me mainly involved dove and the odd quail. My wife successfully hunted ducks, but that was before I met her. My Great Uncle Ralph who served in WWI told me tales of doves blackening the sky in the years prior to The Big One. He and his brothers would bring home a hundred or more birds after a single day's shooting. I think on my best day I got no more than six. Even so, it was the most fun I ever had hunting, including one trip to Africa which was fun in itself, but I never derived much satisfaction from killing mammals, small or large. Now I'm rambling, a sure sign of senioritis, so I'll stop.
    1
  3620. 1
  3621. 1
  3622.  @kevinconrad6156  No, it was not genocide. It was the forced removal of native people from Georgia, Florida, Alabama, NC, and Tennessee. That they were deprived of their lands, their possessions, and their natural rights is not in dispute, nor is the fact that many of them died along the "Trail of Tears". It was an often merciless and bungled relocation effort, not an extermination program. The Indians fought the extradition in federal court all the way up to the Supreme Court, which sided with them. But President Jackson demurred and went forward with the relocation. For those who prefer to castigate his decision, I would like to point out the ugly fact that if he had sided with the high court, in all likelihood the local White populations and state governments might well have gone to war with these tribes. If Jackson had confronted these states with Federal troops, the Civil War could have started almost 30 years earlier than it did. Perhaps I am being too charitable, but I think Jackson chose the lesser of two evils. It is not my intent to diminish the suffering of American Indians throughout colonial and early American history, but to put it in perspective. By contrast, I believe what happened to the Trojans, Carthaginians, Herero, Armenians, European Jews, Roma (Gypsies), Tutsi, and the Ukrainian Holodomor qualify as true genocides. Tragedies such as the American Indian diaspora, the Irish famine, and the Bengal famine were avoidable atrocities, but not calculated genocide. Since the legal definition of genocide did not exist until 1944, it is hard to retroactively apply this term without diluting its impact. We should do so cautiously.
    1
  3623. 1
  3624. 1
  3625. 1
  3626. 1
  3627. 1
  3628.  @kevinconrad6156  The statement "in whole or in part" is easily misconstrued or abused. The UN declamation clarifies this point to a degree in the subsequent two paragraphs: The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element. Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.” What really strikes me as odd about the UN declaration is that it specifically rejects what might be otherwise called "political genocide" and "cultural genocide". Because it does not specify the size of a target group, one could argue that the purposeful elimination of a small tribe or group qualifies as genocide. The UN does agree that under case law there must be an organized plan of destruction even though the international law does not require it. This brings me back to my central point. We should not apply the word genocide broadly because it dilutes its impact. Used too often and too easily, in time it will come to mean little to anyone. It should remain the most horrific term we can apply to an event or action.
    1
  3629. 1
  3630. 1
  3631. 1
  3632. 1
  3633. 1
  3634. 1
  3635. 1
  3636. 1
  3637. 1
  3638. 1
  3639. 1
  3640. 1
  3641. 1
  3642. 1
  3643. 1
  3644. 1
  3645. 1
  3646. 1
  3647. 1
  3648. 1
  3649. 1
  3650. 1
  3651. 1
  3652. 1
  3653. 1
  3654. 1
  3655. 1
  3656. 1
  3657. 1
  3658. 1
  3659. 1
  3660. 1
  3661. 1
  3662. 1
  3663. 1
  3664. 1
  3665. 1
  3666. 1
  3667. 1
  3668. 1
  3669. 1
  3670. 1
  3671. 1
  3672. 1
  3673. 1
  3674. 1
  3675. 1
  3676. 1
  3677. 1
  3678. 1
  3679. 1
  3680. 1
  3681. 1
  3682. 1
  3683. 1
  3684. 1
  3685. 1
  3686. 1
  3687. 1
  3688. 1
  3689. 1
  3690. 1
  3691. 1
  3692. 1
  3693. 1
  3694. 1
  3695. 1
  3696. 1
  3697. 1
  3698. 1
  3699. 1
  3700. 1
  3701. 1
  3702. 1
  3703. 1
  3704. 1
  3705. 1
  3706. 1
  3707. 1
  3708. 1
  3709. 1
  3710. 1
  3711. 1
  3712. 1
  3713. 1
  3714. 1
  3715. 1
  3716. 1
  3717. 1
  3718. 1
  3719. 1
  3720. 1
  3721. 1
  3722. 1
  3723. 1
  3724. 1
  3725. 1
  3726. 1
  3727. 1
  3728. 1
  3729. 1
  3730. 1
  3731. 1
  3732. 1
  3733. 1
  3734. 1
  3735. 1
  3736. 1
  3737. 1
  3738. 1
  3739. 1
  3740. 1
  3741. 1
  3742. 1
  3743. 1
  3744. 1
  3745. 1
  3746. 1
  3747. 1
  3748. 1
  3749. 1
  3750. 1
  3751. 1
  3752. 1
  3753. 1
  3754. 1
  3755. 1
  3756. 1
  3757. 1
  3758. 1
  3759. 1
  3760. 1
  3761. Ryan, I spent six years working COOP (Continuity of Operations Plan) at the Pentagon (2001 - 2007). On 911 nobody knew where the SECDEF was. He was supposed to be in his office, but when the terrorists crashed the airliner into the building he went dashing down the hall to see if he could help, therefore breaking the chain of command at a very serious moment. When he was finally located and brought back to his office, President Bush spoke to him on the phone. He refused to follow protocol by leaving the building and relocating to our primary emergency site (you probably know its name). Upon hearing this, an associate of mine who served as a COOP support team member in the SECDEF's office, turned to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and quickly explained to him the required protocol, after which Wolfowitz agreed to relocate. This cock-up was made possible because nobody above the rank of O6 or GS-15 ever bothered to attend a COOP planning meeting or participate in a COOP exercise. After 911, almost everyone participated in the exercises for the next few years. However, by the time I left it was apparent than interest had waned as the shared experience of 911 faded. I don't know how well COOP has been practiced in the nearly 17 years since I retired, but I would not be the least bit surprised if the news reports are accurate. I suspect the White House is attempting to do damage control right now and thoroughly cocking it up just as we did in 2001 when the situation was far more grave.
    1
  3762. 1
  3763. 1
  3764. 1
  3765. 1
  3766. 1
  3767. 1
  3768. 1
  3769. 1
  3770. 1
  3771. 1
  3772. 1
  3773. 1
  3774. 1
  3775. 1
  3776. 1
  3777. 1
  3778. 1
  3779. 1
  3780. 1
  3781. 1
  3782. 1
  3783. 1
  3784. 1
  3785. 1
  3786. 1
  3787. 1
  3788. 1
  3789. 1
  3790. 1
  3791. 1
  3792. 1
  3793. 1
  3794. 1
  3795. 1
  3796. 1
  3797. 1
  3798. 1
  3799. 1
  3800. 1
  3801. 1
  3802. 1
  3803. 1
  3804. 1
  3805. 1
  3806. 1
  3807. 1
  3808. 1
  3809. 1
  3810. 1
  3811. 1
  3812. 1
  3813. 1
  3814. 1
  3815. 1
  3816. 1
  3817. 1
  3818. 1
  3819. 1
  3820. 1
  3821. 1
  3822. 1
  3823. 1
  3824. 1
  3825. 1
  3826. 1
  3827. 1
  3828. 1
  3829. 1
  3830. 1
  3831. 1
  3832. 1
  3833. 1
  3834. 1
  3835. 1
  3836. 1
  3837. 1
  3838. 1
  3839. 1
  3840. 1
  3841. 1
  3842. 1
  3843. 1
  3844. 1
  3845. 1
  3846. 1
  3847. 1
  3848. 1
  3849. 1
  3850. 1
  3851. 1
  3852. 1
  3853. 1
  3854. 1
  3855. 1
  3856. 1
  3857. 1
  3858. 1
  3859. 1
  3860. 1
  3861. 1
  3862. 1
  3863. 1
  3864. 1
  3865. 1
  3866. 1
  3867. 1
  3868. 1
  3869. 1
  3870. 1
  3871. 1
  3872. 1
  3873. 1
  3874. 1
  3875. 1
  3876. 1
  3877. 1
  3878. 1
  3879. 1
  3880.  @kaseyboles30  One size does not fit all. When under a crunch, be it from forced wage increases, taxes, or market factors, companies tend to retain their best workers and dispose of those who prove to be less able or motivated. Summertime and entry level jobs for teenagers become scarcer as a result. You say you'd rather have 12 happy workers than 20 semi-functional ones. This means eight people are now unemployed. Frankly, I do not see this scenario as desirable, but no business exists to hire employees. They hire employees because they exist and wish to grow. I find it preferable to let each company run itself as it sees fit, even if it means running itself into the ground. There is more than one road to success and to failure. I do not believe government should prop up companies or be allowed to pick the winners and losers, directly or indirectly, but if you force wages up, the likeliest winners will be the larger businesses and chain stores, not the "Mom and Pop" operations. Now that brick and mortar operations are seriously threatened by online retail giants such as Amazon, a curious new wrinkle is developing, the closing of once popular chain stores. The impact tends to be a local one because the jobs and tax revenue lost are local in nature. The SCOTUS decision to legalize out-of-state taxation will have some negative effect on internet based businesses, but again, it will most affect those who are least able to track, collect, and pay those taxes to the thousands of affected state, county, and city governments. Like you, I would very much like to see young mothers raising their children through their formative years rather than dropping them off at a daycare center. But we now have several generations of women who consider child rearing somehow demeaning, and a professional career as necessary to high self-esteem even when the father's income is sufficient. One possible solution that has gained traction over the last few decades is working from home. Obviously it won't suffice for all jobs, but a surprising number of careers can adapt to the newer technologies now available. As an example, several years back a friend came to visit from Florida in his RV. He was on a two month vacation from teaching college, but still managed to interact with his students over the summer via satellite. My own sister spent 20 years working two days out of five from home in a state government job, and linking into her office via a computer connection. I suppose what I am driving at is the idea that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I'm far from convinced that minimum wage laws or UBI are the wisest courses of action. In a nation where there is more opportunity for work than there are willing or able candidates, much better solutions are available. It does require folks to break with tradition and think outside the box, but in so doing they may find they have much more potential than they ever realized before. Giving them permanent cocoons tends to dull the drive within many people. One need only look at our failed inner city government housing projects to know this to be true. On the other hand, a little hunger can reignite that drive if they are shown better opportunities await them. Call it the carrot and the stick approach if you like, but it does work.
    1
  3881. 1
  3882. 1
  3883. 1
  3884. 1
  3885. 1
  3886. 1
  3887. 1
  3888. 1
  3889. 1
  3890. 1
  3891. 1
  3892. 1
  3893. 1
  3894. 1
  3895. 1
  3896. 1
  3897. 1
  3898. 1
  3899. 1
  3900. 1
  3901. 1
  3902. 1
  3903.  @Post-Trib  George Bush was far from being the last major political figure to fight in a war. Most members of Congress in the years following WWII were veterans, including quite a few decorated combat vets and some Medal of Honor recipients. Today we have 97 veterans in Congress, some of whom received debilitating wounds and medals for valor in the war of terror. Even Biden's late son, Beau, served with honor. Are they not worthy of consideration? Nobody has suggested false flag operations don't happen. Both Japan and Germany engaged in them when they started their wars with China and Poland. But these wars were not started to bolster the coffers of weapons manufacturers. They were wars of conquest intended to expand their empires. One can reasonably argue LBJ wanted to expand our involvement in Vietnam by exaggerating the Gulf Of Tonkin incident, but where is the evidence he did it to make money? Did he profit from the war? It certainly appears so, but that was more incidental than causal. Do you really believe he sat down and said to himself I can make a lot of money off a war and all it'll cost is thousands of American lives? As much as I detest the man, I do not believe this was his reasoning. A far more plausible explanation is he feared communists expansion (Domino theory) and wanted to check it, but his hamfisted incompetent execution of the war turned into his greatest liability and forced him not to seek reelection. Five years later he was dead. Weapons, hotels, and prisons are not the causes of war, travel, and crime. They are the effects. If only those who are in combat are risking their lives, then how do you explain that over 1-in-4 American deaths in WWII were noncombat related? The fact that some care nothing for others disregards the reality that most do care and will do what they can to help.
    1
  3904. 1
  3905. 1
  3906. 1
  3907. 1
  3908. 1
  3909. 1
  3910. 1
  3911. 1
  3912. 1
  3913. 1
  3914. 1
  3915. 1
  3916. 1
  3917. 1
  3918. 1
  3919. 1
  3920. 1
  3921. 1
  3922. 1
  3923. 1
  3924. 1
  3925. 1
  3926. 1
  3927. 1
  3928. 1
  3929. 1
  3930. 1
  3931. 1
  3932. 1
  3933. 1
  3934. 1
  3935. 1
  3936. 1
  3937. 1
  3938. 1
  3939. 1
  3940. 1
  3941.  @kazoranzo3984  I can't speak with any authority for western Europe, but from what I've read and witnessed over the past 50 years, I would tend to agree with you. They have grown soft and decadent, thanks in large part to being protected by the USA against any potential Soviet aggression for half a century. But it's more than that. Each of the European democracies has adopted some form of socialism to one degree or another, and this always appears to work at first, before it begins to falter and fail. As the late Margaret Thatcher used to say, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Sustainability is only one of its problems. Government guarantees of jobs, wages, work hours, healthcare, and retirement sound great in theory but they tend to dis-incentivize people. Why work harder or better than the next guy if you aren't suitably rewarded for your extra effort? When the quality of work degrades, the resultant product or service degrades as well, so the economy slows to the point that it begins to contract. Socialism contains another trait that most Americans detest - centralized, overbearing bureaucracy and its accompanying regulations. Socialism cannot coexist with people who prefer freedom of choice. Not everyone wants to be told what is best for them and forced to comply with the dictates of the faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats who produce nothing but consume much. I don't know what your life is like today in the former Yugoslavia, but I do know that life here in America was and remains much better than you ever had it under Tito. To be blunt, he was a hard-nosed dictatorial butcher who understood the only way to keep such a disparate group of people united under one government was to be ruthless. He also knew he could not trust the Soviet Union. They were even bigger butchers. He held his country together through a combination of collective fear of a Soviet invasion and intimidation by his secret police. He also experimented with a degree of of localized power and limited forms of free enterprise. It served more as relief valve to prevent the lid blowing off the country while he was alive and in charge. Once he died, the facade disintegrated and much of the country resorted to internecine warfare. Things seem to have settled down now, so perhaps your seven "new" countries can cooperate with each other better than they ever did when somebody was always trying to take control of all of them. Getting back to the topic of western Europe, I think perhaps their greatest blunder since the World Wars was allowing the European Union to replace much of their native sovereignty. As with Yugoslavia, you can't expect such a mix of cultures and national identities to operate as one well-oiled machine. To do so requires sacrificing individual identity and freedom to an ever increasingly powerful and centralized bureaucratic apparatus. I do not think it will end well for Europe if they continue along their current course. In the USA we foresaw the problem of overbearing centralized government at the founding of our republic and adopted the concept of federalism (dividing power among national, state, and local government). Even so, for at least 100 years now there have been many efforts at the national level to consolidate powers they do not legally possess. Many of us have long fought a rearguard action to forestall going the way of Europe or the USSR, but it's a battle of mind over heart that must be won with each succeeding generation of youth. When people are young their passion tends to override their reason, which is why socialism has so much appeal for them. But we continue to fight these false ideologies and offer a better way if people will only take the time to listen and think. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
    1
  3942.  @kazoranzo3984  There is nothing worn out about truth. Man is born in a free state and desires to retain it. This is why the USA was founded and continues to thrive. Just look at the millions of people who try to immigrate here each year, both legally and illegally. You asked me to look at the poor people living in out cities, but you did not ask me to look at anyone else. Break each city down by neighborhood and you find some areas suffer while others thrive. Overall, most of the cities are doing quite well. A few are not. The few major cities experiencing major economic problems have one thing in common. They have been run by socialist minded Democrats for decades. I should say ruled rather than run because they are practically one-party states. The voters in those metropolitan areas always have a choice. They can allow the situation to degenerate further, they can relocate to another city or state, or they can change their political views and their leaders to ones who offer better alternatives. A good example of failed cities is Detroit, Michigan. It was run by left leaning Democrats for 60 years and it went from being the best city in Ameirca to being a toilet. Over 60% of the population left. The citizens willingly chose this path and they paid the price for it. They believed the lies of politicians who kept telling them everything was the fault of big business and the banks, so they voted men into office who wanted to provide abundant social services to the people by overtaxing and over-regulating the industries that had made their city great. When it got to be too much, these businesses either collapsed o relocated to friendlier climates. So yes, it very much is the fault of the citizens; they brought these troubles on themselves. You say banks rip people off. If this were true, why would anyone use a bank? If you are referring to the loan market, again we only have to look first at government to find the cause of loan failures. In the 1960s our Congress created two programs called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the purpose of which was to make it easier for people to qualify for loans. This was accomplished by the government promising the loaning institutions that it would guarantee their loans if the borrowers defaulted. Over the years the government kept lowering the requirements to qualify for loans. This alarmed many lending institutions because they believed much of the money was going to people who could not possibly pay them back. The government told them to lend the money anyway. A few institutions did take full advantage of the new guidelines and made loans that in earlier times would never have been authorized. It all came to head around 2007 when the market bubble collapsed. The American taxpayer wound up having to bail out the banks that some said were "too big to fail". I'd prefer to see them fail. When they do, somebody else, who is smarter and leaner, will come along to replace them. It's the same with the automobile industry. The government bailed out GM. This was a mistake. They too should have been allowed to fail. Rewarding people for doing a poor job is always a bad idea. But you would be mistaken if you believe these are examples of free enterprise. They are not. They are examples of crony capitalism, a system where the government picks the winners and losers instead of the natural market place deciding. You claim our courts are unjust. How so? If somebody believes he has been falsely convicted, there is an appeals process that can go from the state appellate court to the state supreme court to the federal appellate court and the US Supreme Court. Few people receive the maximum penalty for any crime of which they are convicted. Many plea bargain to a lesser charge. I personally don't approve of plea bargaining. I'd rather the government go forward with its charges or drop them if they think their case is weak. If your claim is that we put too many people in prison, I would agree. Most of them are there because of some sort of drug related charge. Drug abuse is a serious issue that we are still grappling with. Our courts have not been unjust in dealing with these offenders, but they have become overcrowded, so the wheels of justice have slowed. I would agree that is unfair to all parties involved. You state our education system is bad. Well, it has been better. Public education (not private) has gotten steadily worse over the past 60 years because it is no longer a local issue. When our nation was formed we did not have a federal Department of Education. The US Constitution never recognized this as a federal power, but reserved it to the states and local communities. It was under this original concept that we were able to educate nearly our entire population for close to 200 years. In the 1960s there was a clash between the states and the feds over religion being taught in schools and public school integration. The federal courts became involved and judges began removing all references to faith and ordering desegregation plans without regard to neighborhood schools. This latter move proved to be a terrible idea because students were now spending hours riding on buses to schools across town simply in order to achieve some judge's notion of what constituted a proper balance of races in each school. Many parents became quite angered and pulled their children from the public school system and put them in private schools. The quality of public schools began to drop. In response, Congress created the Department of Education, and like any good bureaucracy, they began issuing general edicts to schools across the nation, without regard to what the states desired. Failure to comply would result in the loss of federal aide money. Schools learned that if they failed students or kicked them out then their federal aide money would be cut, so they lowered their standards and now produce graduates who cannot read or comprehend at the level their grandparents could. In case you haven't noticed, all of the problems you identified have either been caused by or exacerbated by government interference. Left alone to solve their own problems, people have an amazing ability to do just that. The Founders understood this, which is why on each U.S. coin appears the phrase "E pluribus unum" - from the many, the one. It speaks to the fact that while we do not share the same ethnicity, race, religion, or origin, we do share a common bond, a belief in individual liberty. In a country as large and diverse as ours, the only other thing that binds us is our common language and shared understanding of our history. Trying to find one answer to fit us all will never work, but that's how a bureaucrat sees it. He cannot envision it any other way, for to do so would put him out of a job.
    1
  3943.  @kazoranzo3984  I doubt anyone ever accused Tito of being dumb, but I believe he had your people snookered. You may consider him fatherly, but a good father does not murder or incarcerate the children who disagree with him. I do think he was a product of his age, an age that endured tremendous suffering regardless of who was in charge at any given time. All he ever knew was that brutal repression worked. Perhaps being under the heel of the Soviet Union, there was no kinder, gentler course to follow. Look what happened when Hungary and Czechoslovakia tried. Perhaps Tito really believed there was a third way, one that blended aspects of communism with democratic ideals. But it isn't true. If it had been, his ideas would have survived him. They did not. As for my own country, it was not the banks that created Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, nor were they the driving force behind their creation. It was the U.S. Congress, the same Congress that created Medicare and Medicaid, both programs that the medical community strenuously opposed. But once programs are forced on the general public by our elected officials, everyone looks for a way to benefit from them. The only other option is to go out of business. In time some companies learned how to profit from these programs. Some did so honestly; other proved to be less than scrupulous. Our leaders were warned of these dangers, but they saw the programs as sacred cows that guaranteed them votes come reelection time. I don't think that Fanny and Freddie were originally conceived as pyramid schemes, only because I don't think our leaders are bright enough to conceive them that way. What many of them are is too dumb to grasp the basics of economics. They simply don't care. They are always focused on the next election, not the next generation. As a result, I will grant you that we have quite a few politicians who are easily swayed by the lure of money and power. This is one reason why I support both term limits and the ability for the state to recall its senators. Neither of these conditions exists and I'll try to explain why. In 1913 the States and Congress ratified the Sixteenth Amendment to our Constitution. It was written specifically to invalidate a Supreme Court ruling in 1895 that had made a nationwide income tax impossible because it violated the Constitution. The new taxing authority granted by this amendment was sold to the American public as being one that would only apply to the super wealthy. Greed and envy being what they are, the public lapped up the idea despite warnings that they too could be subject to such a tax someday. Too few people heeded this warning, and our federal government was handed a blank check. This government has been growing ever since, despite the fact that for over 50 years now it has been writing checks the public treasury can never cover. I fear it's an economic time bomb that will someday go off and adversely affect the entire world's economy. You would think that because the situation is so dire, our Congress would pass a balanced budget law. They did; then they proceeded to ignore it. As long as they can keep writing those checks, then most of them are guaranteed jobs for life. Two months after the 16th Amendment was ratified, the 17th Amendment was ratified. It fundamentally changed the balance of power between the federal government and the state governments, disrupting our system of federalism by weakening the power of the various States. It did so by removing from the state legislatures the power to choose their U.S. Senators, and gave that power directly to voters in each state. This meant that the Senators no longer represented the interests of their state government. They were now immune from the state government and could chart their own independent course from Washington, DC. Their interests soon coexisted with those of the federal government. It is an unholy alliance to be sure. Until we fix the fundamental problems with these two amendments, I don't see how we can ever reign in their abuses of power and spending. Regarding your comments about education, I agree. A big part of the solution is getting the federal government out of education and returning that power to the states and the local citizenry where it rightfully belongs. As for drugs, some people resort to it to escape misery, others to escape boredom. It's the same with alcohol Opportunities for a better life existed before these people resorted to using drugs and alcohol. The cure for this is not a job; it is a spiritual awakening. This won't happen as long as the government provides them a crutch in the form of free housing and free food. I've watched some of these bums spend their federal credit cards (yes, that's what they give them now) on tobacco, alcohol, and junk food. There is no accountability for them. If they didn't have these crutches, they'd either sink or swim. As it is, they just float in their own sea of despair. You say the government does not care. Why should a bureaucrat care about anything other than his own family and satisfying his boss? They get paid regardless of what happens. They are almost never held accountable for anything, and the things they are accountable for need not be something positive. Have you ever met a bureaucrat who saw his mission as shrinking his department, his funding, and his authority? If my job is to get people off of welfare, I'd consider it a success if I worked myself out of a job. Somehow that never happens. Indeed, it always seems to go the other way - more power, more people, more authority. It's like a cancer that keeps on growing and spreading (remember that blank check). As for the war in Iraq, I participated in its planning and execution. You are wrong in your assumption that we knew they had no weapons of mass destruction. In fact we did find evidence of such programs, but much of it had been dismantled, buried, or sent to Iran. We invaded Iraq because we considered it a regional destabilizer and supporter of terrorism. So is Iran, but we thought we could use Iraq as counterweight to them. I believe we executed the war well, but went about reconstructing the county the wrong way. Saddam was a thug on the order of Stalin (a man he idolized). He ruled by fear and intimidation (sound familiar?). Once he was deposed, the ancient animosities that each group harbored against the other arose again with a vengeance. We made the mistake of thinking Iraq was a real country. It was no more real than Yugoslavia was. I believe we would have been wiser to have turned it into a loose confederation of member states that operated semi-autonomously rather than try to build a central government from the top down. But voices like mine were a minority that was never heeded. Maybe someday they'll sort out the mess, but it will take a very long time. In the meantime we have to contend with Iran. I doubt we will invade them, and I'd prefer we limit any attacks to those targets deemed most vital. They do need to be taught a lesson about engaging in acts of terrorism, but there's a right way and wrong way to go about this. Our ultimate goal should be to bring about a transition to a better government by alienating the Iranian people from their current government (easily achievable) and having them topple it from within. Outside attacks tend to have the opposite effect, bringing enemies together to face a common foe. I'm not sure I understand your last statement, but if you mean God and freedom are unrelated, I strongly disagree. Freedom is much more than being unchained from poverty or government oppression. One must be freed spiritually or he has gained nothing. To quote Milton, "The mind is its own place; it can make a hell of heaven or a heaven of hell".
    1
  3944.  @kazoranzo3984  The people of the Balkans were killing one another long before there was a USA. The First World War started there and we got dragged into in the last year of that bloody conflict. The seeds of World War Two were planted by the unfair peace treaty that followed, and the end of that horrible conflagration resulted in 44 years of Cold War. You are free to denigrate my country as much as you wish, but I will point out one fact you entirely overlooked. In 1945 the United States was by far the most powerful country in the world. Our nation did not suffer devastation at home, our economy was the strongest in the world and still growing, the Axis were smashed, Europe lay in ruin, England was broke, Japan was crushed, China was once again in civil war, and the USSR had no nuclear weapons with which to challenge us. We could have owned the world at that moment. Instead we did what Americans have traditionally done. We went home and turned our weapons back into plow shears, we financed the rebirth of Europe and Japan, we opposed communist aggression, and we even helped Yugoslavia remain autonomous from the Soviets. This is fact, not fancy. Hate us if you wish; you won't be the first or the last. But while you're doing that, try envisioning what the world would be like if Germany, Russia, China, or Japan were the dominant force on the planet, instead of us. We never asked for the job of world policeman, but we are the only nation capable of doing it. If you don't approve, offer a better way, not sophomoric lies that are easily dispelled. As the saying goes, walk a few miles in my moccasins. You'll acquire a better understanding of what we are trying to do, which is maintain some semblance of peace, freedom, and shared prosperity so we don't have a World War Three. It certainly isn't conquering the world (done that already) or entertaining ourselves with foreign wars (no nation kills for fun, and contrary to popular myth, there are much better ways to make a profit than fighting a war). I admit we are imperfect, as are all men and thus all nations. Every decision we make impacts somebody adversely. You can't please everyone. It is a thankless job, but the last time we walked away from it, WWII resulted. If in the end we fail and a disaster greater than the last world world results, it won't be for lack of trying to avoid it.
    1
  3945. 1
  3946. 1
  3947. 1
  3948. 1
  3949. 1
  3950. 1
  3951. 1
  3952. 1
  3953. 1
  3954. 1
  3955. 1
  3956. 1
  3957. 1
  3958. 1
  3959. 1
  3960. 1
  3961. 1
  3962. 1
  3963. 1
  3964. 1
  3965. 1
  3966. 1
  3967. 1
  3968. 1
  3969. 1
  3970. 1
  3971. 1
  3972. 1
  3973. 1
  3974. 1
  3975. 1
  3976. 1
  3977. 1
  3978. 1
  3979. 1
  3980. 1
  3981. 1
  3982. 1
  3983. 1
  3984. 1
  3985. 1
  3986. 1
  3987. 1
  3988. 1
  3989. 1
  3990. 1
  3991. 1
  3992. 1
  3993. 1
  3994. 1
  3995. 1
  3996. 1
  3997. 1
  3998. 1
  3999. 1
  4000. 1
  4001. 1
  4002. 1
  4003. 1
  4004. 1
  4005. 1
  4006. 1
  4007. 1
  4008. 1
  4009. 1
  4010. 1
  4011. 1
  4012. 1
  4013. 1
  4014. 1
  4015. 1
  4016. 1
  4017. 1
  4018. 1
  4019. 1
  4020. 1
  4021. 1
  4022. 1
  4023. 1
  4024. 1
  4025. 1
  4026. 1
  4027. 1
  4028. 1
  4029. 1
  4030. 1
  4031. 1
  4032. 1
  4033. 1
  4034. 1
  4035. 1
  4036. 1
  4037. 1
  4038. 1
  4039. 1
  4040. 1
  4041. 1
  4042. 1
  4043. 1
  4044. 1
  4045. 1
  4046. 1
  4047. 1
  4048. 1
  4049. 1
  4050. 1
  4051. 1
  4052. 1
  4053. 1
  4054. 1
  4055. 1
  4056. 1
  4057. 1
  4058. 1
  4059. 1
  4060. 1
  4061. 1
  4062. 1
  4063. 1
  4064. 1
  4065. 1
  4066. 1
  4067. 1
  4068. 1
  4069. 1
  4070. 1
  4071. 1
  4072. 1
  4073. 1
  4074. Regarding Admiral Earnest King's reaction after reading a surprising detailed newspaper account of enemy ships involved in the fight, here's a bit more detail. King read the story in the Washington Times-Herald, but it originated in the Chicago Tribune. Like King, FDR was infuriated by the printing of such extremely sensitive information, so much so that he wanted to send Marines to secure the Tribune Tower building and arrest its publisher, Robert McCormick. Cooler heads prevailed, and while the subsequent investigation led to a grand jury investigation, the jury threw out the indictments against the Tribune, its reporter (Australian war correspondent Stanley Johnston), and the Tribune's managing editor (J. Loy "Pat" Maloney) after Navy Secretary Frank Knox refused to allow Navy cryptanalysts to testify. This action effectively nullified the case because these were the only men able to explain and confirm exactly what damage had been done to military operations by the information leak. Without their testimony, the entire matter was rendered mute. At the time this no doubt perplexed those involved in the case, but Knox was acting on the prudent advice of Admiral King, who had come to realize the Japanese had not changed their codes after Midway. This meant they were not aware we had broken them, therefore any public trial would greatly increase the chances of the Japanese discovering the underpinning reason why they were ambushed at Midway. It was far better for the war effort to let sleeping dogs lie. Admiral King, well known for his vindictive nature, had to settle for scuttling the promising career of one of his rising stars, Commander Morton Seligman, the wounded executive officer of the Lexington. King blamed him the most for the security lapse. Seligman was "beached" by direct interference of King and later passed over for promotion to captain. He retired in 1944, still suffering from the effects of his injuries, though the slight from King meant his career was over and he no doubt knew it. War claims all kinds of victims.
    1
  4075. 1
  4076. 1
  4077. 1
  4078. 1
  4079. 1
  4080. 1
  4081. 1
  4082. 1
  4083. 1
  4084. 1
  4085. 1
  4086. 1
  4087. 1
  4088. 1
  4089. 1
  4090. 1
  4091. 1
  4092. 1
  4093. 1
  4094. 1
  4095. 1
  4096. 1
  4097. 1
  4098. 1
  4099. 1
  4100. 1
  4101. 1
  4102. 1
  4103. 1
  4104. 1
  4105. 1
  4106. 1
  4107. 1
  4108. 1
  4109. 1
  4110. 1
  4111. 1
  4112. 1
  4113. 1
  4114. 1