Right, but you can't build a road or infrastructure without insurgents attacking them crews building the infrastructure.
I'm from the American West, so I get the concept of a crew being 50-60 miles from a settlement working on a road or pipe or powerlines, now imagine doing that when people sneak up on you to snipe, or send a car bomb in and blow up your crew.
The reaction would be to establish a perimeter with military/paramilitary support, so they are out there a km in all directions defending the construction. Then the attackers bring in mortars, so either you call in airstrikes or use drones or your own mortars.
When dealing with tribal areas, if the terrorist kills civilians, it doesn't mean the entire civilian population gets behind you, it might mean they start factional warfare (American Indian Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam are all examples).
I'm up in Alaska and no national carrier works outside the three major cities. Up here AT&T is the only national carrier that works at all. The question asker needs to look at where they are going to be and research locally what is right for them.
I had T-Mobile in Portland and it worked great, in Seattle/Everett it had meh coverage and sucked down by Tacoma/SeaTac.
I've read some history. I have an MS in History (Middle East and American Indian Wars), so I've read one or two things.
The United States does not ask for and does not get obedience, not from its client states Israel, not from the closest allies Canada, Australia or the UK.
I will say the quality of life is improving in Afghanistan. Theres power, water and health care to more people than pre-2001. Women can learn to read without being killed, in SFOR controlled areas.
Why is it that the occupation and rebuilding (Marshall Plan) are "taking away credit" but Israel's buildup (no US military or financial aid for almost 20 years after the founding), agricultural and industrial might are because of theft.
There are no recent examples because the US has only "conquered" two nations since 1950 and its way too soon to know if those are successes or failures.
The US doesn't export anything? Well lets see, ever hear of an Apache, Core 2 Duo, F-16 Fighting Falcon, Angus Beef, Corvette, Windows 7, or any of the other 2.68 trillion dollars in manufactured goods the US exports.
I grew up on a wheat farm and I can assure you we exported the majority of the wheat we grew, most of it to the Soviet Union. Rather than controlling "silicon" which is absurd, the US has more control with food.
As for CNN, nope I don't watch CNN or Fox, I'm a military historian and nope, not a troll.
First, the US is not an empire. Empires take from their subject states, the United States gives out money, technology and protection. Look at the Roman Empire or British Empire, they levied troops from their subject territories while ripping out the natural resources and taxing trade.
Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan have never been part of this American Empire you are spouting about. the US sold Saudi Arabia technology, bought oil and let Saudis come to school in the US. Afghanistan's relations with the US were even more tenuous, Iraq was more of a French and Soviet client-state than American ally, while Yemeni-American relations have been distant while the US helped Pakistan for decades against the Soviets and India.
The UK didn't conquer most of the world, at peak they controlled 1/4 of the land mass and population, and they never controlled the vast bulk of the continental United States.
Your examples of countries the US "conquered" are all wrong, here are some countries the US did control and did conquer.
Japan. Western Germany. Italy. South Korea. Central and western United States.
Look at Israel's economy (a client state of the US) compared to the economy of Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi - they have the highest per capita GDP.
Take some time to look at Vietnam - the US pulled out, the south was lost and now that its opened up to the west, its booming. Look at the quality of life in Afghanistan now, oh and it's far from conquered.
No, you mean "if we know a terrorist is there instead of using a robot to drop a bomb we could have sent a few hundred soldiers to assault a position, spend hours or days doing it and take many casualties and inflict even more civilian loses."
An example of what terrorists dug in take to root out -
"On 22 July 2003, Task Force 20, aided by troops of the U.S. Army 101st Airborne Division, had a showdown with Uday, Qusay and Qusay's 14-year-old son Mustapha during a raid on a home in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Acting on a tip from an unidentified Iraqi, the blocking element from the 101st Airborne Division provided security while the Task Force 20 operators attempted to apprehend the inhabitants of the house. The assault element withdrew to request backup. As many as 200 American troops, later aided by OH-58 Kiowa helicopters and an A-10 "Warthog", surrounded and fired upon the house. After approximately four hours of battle, soldiers entered the house and found four bodies, including the Hussein brothers' bodyguard."
Or a "police action" against armed criminals in a compound
The People's Liberation Army is large, but that doesn't mean they are an effective fighting force. They have 1.6 million in the ground force, not 3.4.
They lack experience, the US, Israeli, UK, French and Canada are all robust militaries with all around experienced militaries. Sections of the Russian, Indian, Japanese, Pakistani militaries have experienced militaries, while at the same time the PLA hasn't had a military campaign since 1979.
The nations I mentioned are those off the top of my head, whom have had forced deployed and combat deployed constantly since 9/11/01, obviously some (US/UK/Russia/Israel/Indian/Pak) have been combat deployed much longer, but 9/11 is a good baseline.
The PLA Air Force hasn't had a plane in combat since 4/1/01 when they crashed into an EP-3, the PLA Navy hasn't had a ship in combat since 1979.
For India, Pakistan and Russia the PLA is a threat, for Japan, Southeast Asia and Taiwan the PLA Navy is a threat, but to the US and Europe only the PLA nuclear missile forces are a threat.
I've played all the Gran Turismo for PS1 and 2, Forza 2 & 3 and I'd say its more accurate to say Forza is the spiritual successor to GT. I've checked out the previews for GT5 (I don't own a PS3) and I think GT lost its way. The poster above did a really good job explaining why Forza is better now.
Yes the American and Soviet tanks were not state-of-the-art but were able to beat the state-of-the-art through tactics and numbers.
The Allies had the best bombers, medium, heavy and super-heavy of the conflict (B-25, B-26, B-17, Lancaster, B-29). The Allies had the best amphibious warfare equipment, best long range fighters, best carrier based fighters, best carriers and I'll take a New Jersey class battleship against the Yamato class.
The Pacific War was won with state-of-the-art equipment, nothing the Empire of Japan had on land could match the US, at sea the only thing they had that was better were mini-subs and torpedos.
The Allies did win with super-weapons, however they aren't the sexy and cool super-weapons that make for good TV shows or movies. The Amtrack, WINDOW, RADAR (centimeter wave), DUKW, LST, Hellcat, Mustang, B-29*, Essex-class carrier were state-of-the-art systems that won the war.
* - Watch a program or look at books about WW II heavy bombers, the Lancasters get time because of the night raids and dam busting, the B-17s because of the terrible loses they had over Germany, the B-24s because of Germany and oil field raids, but what do the super-weapon B-29s get noted for? Just the A-bomb and sometimes the fire bombing of Japanese cities.
1 the products of the graphic arts, esp. commercial design or illustration. 2 the use of diagrams in calculation and design. 3 (also computer graphics) [treated as pl. ] visual images produced by computer processing.
Visuals... a picture, piece of film, or display used to illustrate or accompany something.
They are produced by computer processing, so I stick by my word.
As for Into the Wild, the location shots didn't even happen at the real locations from the true story, and it doesn't cost that much to come rough it up here in Alaska, fly crap into Anchorage or Fairbanks and drive to the location with some generators. How much of that budget went to the director, the writers and the principal actors?
District 9 is another great example, although on a much larger scale. Do you know how much District 9's budget was? Go ahead, take a guess. $30 Million. [latimes.com] Compare the visuals to that of any big-budget CGI laden film.
Compared to the graphics of Avatar, yea, I can see how D9 was 1/10 the price.
No, in the US at least, Congress would have taken the majority of the money and thrown it towards welfare programs. Which is what they did that cut Apollo and limited the Manned Orbital Laboratory and limited the Shuttle, and cut all sorts of other NASA plans.
Slashdot Mirror
Yellowstone National Park was established by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant, as a national park on March 1, 1872.
Theodore Roosevelt became president in 1901.
Here in Alaska.
We use Polycom for room to room communications, skype and gchat for person to person.
Right, but you can't build a road or infrastructure without insurgents attacking them crews building the infrastructure.
I'm from the American West, so I get the concept of a crew being 50-60 miles from a settlement working on a road or pipe or powerlines, now imagine doing that when people sneak up on you to snipe, or send a car bomb in and blow up your crew.
The reaction would be to establish a perimeter with military/paramilitary support, so they are out there a km in all directions defending the construction. Then the attackers bring in mortars, so either you call in airstrikes or use drones or your own mortars.
When dealing with tribal areas, if the terrorist kills civilians, it doesn't mean the entire civilian population gets behind you, it might mean they start factional warfare (American Indian Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam are all examples).
And I suspect alot of Google China employees draw a paycheck from the People's Liberation Army and other Chinese Government agencies.
I'm up in Alaska and no national carrier works outside the three major cities. Up here AT&T is the only national carrier that works at all. The question asker needs to look at where they are going to be and research locally what is right for them.
I had T-Mobile in Portland and it worked great, in Seattle/Everett it had meh coverage and sucked down by Tacoma/SeaTac.
I've read some history. I have an MS in History (Middle East and American Indian Wars), so I've read one or two things.
The United States does not ask for and does not get obedience, not from its client states Israel, not from the closest allies Canada, Australia or the UK.
Is the US hegemonic, yes, is it imperial, no.
I will say the quality of life is improving in Afghanistan. Theres power, water and health care to more people than pre-2001. Women can learn to read without being killed, in SFOR controlled areas.
Why is it that the occupation and rebuilding (Marshall Plan) are "taking away credit" but Israel's buildup (no US military or financial aid for almost 20 years after the founding), agricultural and industrial might are because of theft.
Sounds like you are the ignorant redneck.
There are no recent examples because the US has only "conquered" two nations since 1950 and its way too soon to know if those are successes or failures.
Oh, I did miss two. Panama 1989 and Grenada 1983.
Panama is doing very well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama
Grenada would do better if it weren't being hit with hurricanes.
The US doesn't export anything? Well lets see, ever hear of an Apache, Core 2 Duo, F-16 Fighting Falcon, Angus Beef, Corvette, Windows 7, or any of the other 2.68 trillion dollars in manufactured goods the US exports.
I grew up on a wheat farm and I can assure you we exported the majority of the wheat we grew, most of it to the Soviet Union. Rather than controlling "silicon" which is absurd, the US has more control with food.
As for CNN, nope I don't watch CNN or Fox, I'm a military historian and nope, not a troll.
Nonsense.
First, the US is not an empire. Empires take from their subject states, the United States gives out money, technology and protection. Look at the Roman Empire or British Empire, they levied troops from their subject territories while ripping out the natural resources and taxing trade.
Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan have never been part of this American Empire you are spouting about. the US sold Saudi Arabia technology, bought oil and let Saudis come to school in the US. Afghanistan's relations with the US were even more tenuous, Iraq was more of a French and Soviet client-state than American ally, while Yemeni-American relations have been distant while the US helped Pakistan for decades against the Soviets and India.
The UK didn't conquer most of the world, at peak they controlled 1/4 of the land mass and population, and they never controlled the vast bulk of the continental United States.
Your examples of countries the US "conquered" are all wrong, here are some countries the US did control and did conquer.
Japan.
Western Germany.
Italy.
South Korea.
Central and western United States.
Look at Israel's economy (a client state of the US) compared to the economy of Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi - they have the highest per capita GDP.
Take some time to look at Vietnam - the US pulled out, the south was lost and now that its opened up to the west, its booming. Look at the quality of life in Afghanistan now, oh and it's far from conquered.
No, you mean "if we know a terrorist is there instead of using a robot to drop a bomb we could have sent a few hundred soldiers to assault a position, spend hours or days doing it and take many casualties and inflict even more civilian loses."
An example of what terrorists dug in take to root out -
"On 22 July 2003, Task Force 20, aided by troops of the U.S. Army 101st Airborne Division, had a showdown with Uday, Qusay and Qusay's 14-year-old son Mustapha during a raid on a home in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Acting on a tip from an unidentified Iraqi, the blocking element from the 101st Airborne Division provided security while the Task Force 20 operators attempted to apprehend the inhabitants of the house. The assault element withdrew to request backup. As many as 200 American troops, later aided by OH-58 Kiowa helicopters and an A-10 "Warthog", surrounded and fired upon the house. After approximately four hours of battle, soldiers entered the house and found four bodies, including the Hussein brothers' bodyguard."
Or a "police action" against armed criminals in a compound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege
What a fight against a large group of insurgents is like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Phantom_Fury
The People's Liberation Army is large, but that doesn't mean they are an effective fighting force. They have 1.6 million in the ground force, not 3.4.
They lack experience, the US, Israeli, UK, French and Canada are all robust militaries with all around experienced militaries. Sections of the Russian, Indian, Japanese, Pakistani militaries have experienced militaries, while at the same time the PLA hasn't had a military campaign since 1979.
The nations I mentioned are those off the top of my head, whom have had forced deployed and combat deployed constantly since 9/11/01, obviously some (US/UK/Russia/Israel/Indian/Pak) have been combat deployed much longer, but 9/11 is a good baseline.
The PLA Air Force hasn't had a plane in combat since 4/1/01 when they crashed into an EP-3, the PLA Navy hasn't had a ship in combat since 1979.
For India, Pakistan and Russia the PLA is a threat, for Japan, Southeast Asia and Taiwan the PLA Navy is a threat, but to the US and Europe only the PLA nuclear missile forces are a threat.
Apples to oranges. Road and Track is a magazine, Top Gear is TV.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/ - http://www.topgear.com/uk/
You should have said Road and Track and Car.
I've played all the Gran Turismo for PS1 and 2, Forza 2 & 3 and I'd say its more accurate to say Forza is the spiritual successor to GT. I've checked out the previews for GT5 (I don't own a PS3) and I think GT lost its way. The poster above did a really good job explaining why Forza is better now.
No, anti-trust laws kept the US from being a feudal state.
The erosion of them and the reestablishment of monopolies are the danger, not the erosion of labor unions.
But I see your point of view, and we've already had our bickers over labor and tech ;)
Depends on the theatre and the role.
Yes the American and Soviet tanks were not state-of-the-art but were able to beat the state-of-the-art through tactics and numbers.
The Allies had the best bombers, medium, heavy and super-heavy of the conflict (B-25, B-26, B-17, Lancaster, B-29). The Allies had the best amphibious warfare equipment, best long range fighters, best carrier based fighters, best carriers and I'll take a New Jersey class battleship against the Yamato class.
The Pacific War was won with state-of-the-art equipment, nothing the Empire of Japan had on land could match the US, at sea the only thing they had that was better were mini-subs and torpedos.
The Allies did win with super-weapons, however they aren't the sexy and cool super-weapons that make for good TV shows or movies. The Amtrack, WINDOW, RADAR (centimeter wave), DUKW, LST, Hellcat, Mustang, B-29*, Essex-class carrier were state-of-the-art systems that won the war.
* - Watch a program or look at books about WW II heavy bombers, the Lancasters get time because of the night raids and dam busting, the B-17s because of the terrible loses they had over Germany, the B-24s because of Germany and oil field raids, but what do the super-weapon B-29s get noted for? Just the A-bomb and sometimes the fire bombing of Japanese cities.
No, we are using a bomber from 1961-62, from the article you linked to.
The B-52H is the variant the USAF uses right now.
Vietnam you mean, no C-130s were built during Korea.
Yes it did, looked more like movie of twice the budget. The aliens in it looked more realistic than those of Avatar, thats for sure.
I thought they were visuals?
I stopped calling them ATMs long ago, I just use "cash machine" now.
I'll try and revert back to special effects, but I like graphics because, well they are computer graphics.
Graphics...
1 the products of the graphic arts, esp. commercial design or illustration.
2 the use of diagrams in calculation and design.
3 (also computer graphics) [treated as pl. ] visual images produced by computer processing.
Visuals...
a picture, piece of film, or display used to illustrate or accompany something.
They are produced by computer processing, so I stick by my word.
Thats apples to oranges.
Compare Blackhawk Down to Modern Warfare I, compare the Pacific to World at War.
Blackhawk Down - 95,000,000 in 2000/2001 dollars
The Pacific - 200,000,000 in 2008-current dollars
http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/06/trailer-hbos-the-pacific.html
As for Into the Wild, the location shots didn't even happen at the real locations from the true story, and it doesn't cost that much to come rough it up here in Alaska, fly crap into Anchorage or Fairbanks and drive to the location with some generators. How much of that budget went to the director, the writers and the principal actors?
District 9 is another great example, although on a much larger scale. Do you know how much District 9's budget was? Go ahead, take a guess. $30 Million. [latimes.com] Compare the visuals to that of any big-budget CGI laden film.
Compared to the graphics of Avatar, yea, I can see how D9 was 1/10 the price.
Labor Unions only add about 14% to the cost of public works in Mass for example, so its not going to be half of a movie or video game.
Just 14% or so.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/20/the_unfair_price_of_union_labor/
WoW launched with Molten Core and Ony, both were high end content.
No, in the US at least, Congress would have taken the majority of the money and thrown it towards welfare programs. Which is what they did that cut Apollo and limited the Manned Orbital Laboratory and limited the Shuttle, and cut all sorts of other NASA plans.