Yes, IIRC because my govt lowered taxation on the importation of tea and threatened the livelyhood's of smugglers, who promptly rioted.
So, what does the UN get out of "taxing" the internet? where is it's authority to tax access to the internet? It's not a govt, it has no say if the members dont agree to give it a say, and even when the members do, it has no authority or means of forcing members to comply to it's will.
Face it, the UN is a remanent of the cold war, a talking shop created in an attempt to provide a place for nations to try and resolve differences without going to war. Yet the beaucrats (bloody french words, always have trouble spelling them correctly) now want more, more more!
Greedy power hungry buggers, out to create a world authority through which they wish to push their platform.
You're dismissing one group of people, "war afficianados" on one point , their conclusion disagrees with yours and as far as you are concerned you have to be right, after all the mass killing of large numbers of civilians is morally reprehensible and the war was almost over. Therefore the decision to attack Dresden MUST have been wrong.
This runs through the basic questions. Yes it's a USAF web site, no it's not from an "unbiased" site.
Basic run down is,
We have a city that is a main communication center for German forces
Is a focal point of three main railway lines aiding German logistics against the approaching allied armies, ( 1) Berlin-Prague-Vienna, (2) Munich-Breslau, and (3) Hamburg-Leipzig)
Plus 110 or so factories and companies that were involved in supplying the German military with material.
We have a russian force 70 miles from the city in such a position that an organised counterattack by german forces potentially being brought into the region via the rail lines could have cut off and surrounded.
Thats 4 reasons why Dresden was a valid target.
Had the Germans counter-attacked and succesfully managed to hold down or destroy Marshal Koniev's forces then most likely the war would have been prolonged.
Now, I wouldnt agree to the destruction of a city nowadays, since modern weaponry allows our forces to be far more selective, instead of having to bomb an entire city block to destroy a factory they can hit the factory with the knowledge that most ordanance will fall on target. This simply wasn't the case in 1945.
That I describe those that wish to believe Dresden was a war crime as "unknowledgeable bleeding hearts" is a direct reflection on my belief that they are determining "Dresden was a warcrime" then presenting the facts to prove a pre-concluded belief based on humanitarian concerns.
"Forgive my assumption, but you sound like the sort who gets too much of your input about the conduct of wars from war afficianados who are often obssessed with presenting the conduct of military as that of clockwork machinery."
You mean from people who have been part of the system, have studied the history?
Yes, partly I have, after all they do have expertise in this area, a few of them claiming to have first hand experience in the decision making process that went behind the task to draw up targets.
You think I should listen to a well meaning but unknowledgeable bleeding heart indivudal who's thoughts at the end of the day would most likely lengthen a war?
It seems largely true that near the end of the war the allies were racing to try and capture as much of German territory as they could before the Soviets grabbed it.
It still doesn't lessen Dresden as a legitimate miltiary target. Whilst we may have been trying to prevent the Soviets from taking all of Germany we were still allied with them and still had to support them.
Also, german troops trapped against Dresden and unable to be moved out means less possible troops to be thrown against a western force (to be honest though I dont think this was a concern for us
Please, we were at war with Germany, our forces were fighting and dying in France and later Germany. The Germans at the time were quite happy to launch V2 rockets at southern england and allied held territory.
Dresden was a legitimate target hit with the appropriate level of force required to destroy the target.
Before you continue, you should remember that Dresden was a rail link hub to the eastern front with two raillines coming in, plus the city served as a communications hub for the eastern forces. Which is why it was attacked.
The fact that so many civilians died and a historical city destroyed is an often and unfortunate fact of war, in those days precision bombing usually meant a 50+ % loss suffered by the attacking bomber fleet, completely unacceptable from both RAF Bomber command and 8th USAAF POV (precision bombing by heavy bombers had been tried in the early stages of the air war, 1941 and '42 by the RAF but high losses forced bomber command to switch to area bombing instead).
Would it have been better for the allied forces to have held off? Dresden would have been over run by the Russians, had the Germans made a stand the city would have been flattened anyway.
Frankly, both Germany and Japan started their wars, and they both paid the price, a tragic and often horrific price. Nowadays both nations are fairly prosperous democracies.
Not that I am pro ID cards (especially if I have to pay for something I dont want).
How different is an ID card going to be from a passport, which from sometime soon has to contain biometric information stored in a common standard that other country's immigration systems can read?
Plus side, we can now stop ruby wax or michael moore sneaking back into our country.. even if they try and disguise themselves.. yay!
US ID cards will be readable over here as well;) and knowing how things work, as easy/hard to counterfiet , great, if the criminals crack the system they only need one system for two countries.
BTW, Americans most likely should be more worried about our Govt than Brits should be worried about the American Govt. Just because we have odd accents doesn't mean we're not authoritarian sneaky devious buggers.
Seems to be from Fujitsu,
http://www.fujitsu.com/global/services/microelectr onics/product/micom/tools/
From the 1.0.3 firmware update;
Softune REALOS/FR is Realtime OS for FR Family, based on micro-ITRON COPYRIGHT(C) FUJITSU LIMITED 1994-1999
So who controls Galileo ? Are they going to turn off galileo if a power or terrorist group uses it in a war against the US, UK, France, etc ?
Funny that a poster stated that they had issues with the US GPS system because it's controlled by a foreign govt, yet as far as I see, Galileo will also be controlled by a foreign group, from my (British) POV.
Re:Everyone already HAS a VCR!!!
on
The VHS is Dead
·
· Score: 1
I dont... had one VCR, about 7 years ago that I got free from the college I was studying at (an old model they were throwing out). That lasted a year.
Since I jumped on the DVD bandwagon I really see no point in returning to an inferior system. Ok I dont have a TV either (had a TV card in the computer but in the UK oyu have to pay a 110 pound licence fee, still debating whether it's worth the yearly fee) so dont record shows or movies.
Because if you dont drive, you dont need a drivers licence.
I walk around every day and don't carry any document that can legally prove my ID.
Those rare days that I need to legally prove who I am (opening a new bank account for example, something I've only done twice in my life, or flying to some place, usually about twice a year) I take my passport.
The police have (as far as I know) no legal right to stop me and demand that I prove who I am.
Even with drivers licences I believe that if you get stopped without yours whilst driving you have 5 days to turn up at the police station with your licence in hand.
Most people I think want ID for conveniance, since they percieve more and more places are requiring legal ID (how many bank accounts do you open a week?), security and fraud protection are rather woolly issues most people seem to see as more of a nother argument for rather than a personal pressing issue, where is conveniance is more personal issue. If this makes sense.
More accurately, had Iraq not invaded Kuwait, or had the UNSC stuck to just pushing the Iraqi's back into Iraq and not trying to force Iraq to give up their CBW's and delivery systems (permantly), or had Iraq complied with the resolutions leveled against it, or had France Germany Russia or China simply backed their previous agreements and not constantly fight against upholding resolutions that they (excluding germany) had agreed to in the first place. Or finally had the US foolishly decided that sanctions and "containment" were really (despite the evidence to suggest otherwise) working and to continue to stick it's head, ostrich like, in the sand and sung "La la la la la I'm not listening!!" .
Oddly enough, Israel doesn't figure in this fiasco at all, so your last comment is as inaccurate and irrelevant as your first comment.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, IIRC because my govt lowered taxation on the importation of tea and threatened the livelyhood's of smugglers, who promptly rioted.
So, what does the UN get out of "taxing" the internet? where is it's authority to tax access to the internet? It's not a govt, it has no say if the members dont agree to give it a say, and even when the members do, it has no authority or means of forcing members to comply to it's will.
Face it, the UN is a remanent of the cold war, a talking shop created in an attempt to provide a place for nations to try and resolve differences without going to war. Yet the beaucrats (bloody french words, always have trouble spelling them correctly) now want more, more more!
Greedy power hungry buggers, out to create a world authority through which they wish to push their platform.
You're dismissing one group of people, "war afficianados" on one point , their conclusion disagrees with yours and as far as you are concerned you have to be right, after all the mass killing of large numbers of civilians is morally reprehensible and the war was almost over. Therefore the decision to attack Dresden MUST have been wrong.
r esden.htm
Not a very objective view.
https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/d
This runs through the basic questions. Yes it's a USAF web site, no it's not from an "unbiased" site.
Basic run down is,
We have a city that is a main communication center for German forces
Is a focal point of three main railway lines
aiding German logistics against the approaching allied armies, ( 1) Berlin-Prague-Vienna, (2) Munich-Breslau, and (3) Hamburg-Leipzig)
Plus 110 or so factories and companies that were involved in supplying the German military with material.
We have a russian force 70 miles from the city in such a position that an organised counterattack by german forces potentially being brought into the region via the rail lines could have cut off and surrounded.
Thats 4 reasons why Dresden was a valid target.
Had the Germans counter-attacked and succesfully managed to hold down or destroy Marshal Koniev's forces then most likely the war would have been prolonged.
Now, I wouldnt agree to the destruction of a city nowadays, since modern weaponry allows our forces to be far more selective, instead of having to bomb an entire city block to destroy a factory they can hit the factory with the knowledge that most ordanance will fall on target. This simply wasn't the case in 1945.
That I describe those that wish to believe Dresden was a war crime as "unknowledgeable bleeding hearts" is a direct reflection on my belief that they are determining "Dresden was a warcrime" then presenting the facts to prove a pre-concluded belief based on humanitarian concerns.
"Forgive my assumption, but you sound like the sort who gets too much of your input about the conduct of wars from war afficianados who are often obssessed with presenting the conduct of military as that of clockwork machinery." You mean from people who have been part of the system, have studied the history? Yes, partly I have, after all they do have expertise in this area, a few of them claiming to have first hand experience in the decision making process that went behind the task to draw up targets. You think I should listen to a well meaning but unknowledgeable bleeding heart indivudal who's thoughts at the end of the day would most likely lengthen a war?
A war is won when the enemy surrenders. Until that point happens, operations should continue as normal
It seems largely true that near the end of the war the allies were racing to try and capture as much of German territory as they could before the Soviets grabbed it. It still doesn't lessen Dresden as a legitimate miltiary target. Whilst we may have been trying to prevent the Soviets from taking all of Germany we were still allied with them and still had to support them. Also, german troops trapped against Dresden and unable to be moved out means less possible troops to be thrown against a western force (to be honest though I dont think this was a concern for us
Please, we were at war with Germany, our forces were fighting and dying in France and later Germany. The Germans at the time were quite happy to launch V2 rockets at southern england and allied held territory. Dresden was a legitimate target hit with the appropriate level of force required to destroy the target. Before you continue, you should remember that Dresden was a rail link hub to the eastern front with two raillines coming in, plus the city served as a communications hub for the eastern forces. Which is why it was attacked. The fact that so many civilians died and a historical city destroyed is an often and unfortunate fact of war, in those days precision bombing usually meant a 50+ % loss suffered by the attacking bomber fleet, completely unacceptable from both RAF Bomber command and 8th USAAF POV (precision bombing by heavy bombers had been tried in the early stages of the air war, 1941 and '42 by the RAF but high losses forced bomber command to switch to area bombing instead). Would it have been better for the allied forces to have held off? Dresden would have been over run by the Russians, had the Germans made a stand the city would have been flattened anyway. Frankly, both Germany and Japan started their wars, and they both paid the price, a tragic and often horrific price. Nowadays both nations are fairly prosperous democracies.
Not that I am pro ID cards (especially if I have to pay for something I dont want). How different is an ID card going to be from a passport, which from sometime soon has to contain biometric information stored in a common standard that other country's immigration systems can read? Plus side, we can now stop ruby wax or michael moore sneaking back into our country .. even if they try and disguise themselves .. yay!
US ID cards will be readable over here as well ;) and knowing how things work, as easy/hard to counterfiet , great, if the criminals crack the system they only need one system for two countries.
BTW, Americans most likely should be more worried about our Govt than Brits should be worried about the American Govt. Just because we have odd accents doesn't mean we're not authoritarian sneaky devious buggers.
Seems to be from Fujitsu, http://www.fujitsu.com/global/services/microelectr onics/product/micom/tools/
From the 1.0.3 firmware update;
Softune REALOS/FR is Realtime OS for FR Family, based on micro-ITRON COPYRIGHT(C) FUJITSU LIMITED 1994-1999
We have to wait 24 years ... damn I'll be 54 !!
So who controls Galileo ? Are they going to turn off galileo if a power or terrorist group uses it in a war against the US, UK, France, etc ? Funny that a poster stated that they had issues with the US GPS system because it's controlled by a foreign govt, yet as far as I see, Galileo will also be controlled by a foreign group, from my (British) POV.
I dont ... had one VCR, about 7 years ago that I got free from the college I was studying at (an old model they were throwing out). That lasted a year.
Since I jumped on the DVD bandwagon I really see no point in returning to an inferior system. Ok I dont have a TV either (had a TV card in the computer but in the UK oyu have to pay a 110 pound licence fee, still debating whether it's worth the yearly fee) so dont record shows or movies.
Because if you dont drive, you dont need a drivers licence. I walk around every day and don't carry any document that can legally prove my ID. Those rare days that I need to legally prove who I am (opening a new bank account for example, something I've only done twice in my life, or flying to some place, usually about twice a year) I take my passport. The police have (as far as I know) no legal right to stop me and demand that I prove who I am. Even with drivers licences I believe that if you get stopped without yours whilst driving you have 5 days to turn up at the police station with your licence in hand. Most people I think want ID for conveniance, since they percieve more and more places are requiring legal ID (how many bank accounts do you open a week?), security and fraud protection are rather woolly issues most people seem to see as more of a nother argument for rather than a personal pressing issue, where is conveniance is more personal issue. If this makes sense.
More accurately, had Iraq not invaded Kuwait, or had the UNSC stuck to just pushing the Iraqi's back into Iraq and not trying to force Iraq to give up their CBW's and delivery systems (permantly), or had Iraq complied with the resolutions leveled against it, or had France Germany Russia or China simply backed their previous agreements and not constantly fight against upholding resolutions that they (excluding germany) had agreed to in the first place. Or finally had the US foolishly decided that sanctions and "containment" were really (despite the evidence to suggest otherwise) working and to continue to stick it's head, ostrich like, in the sand and sung "La la la la la I'm not listening!!" . Oddly enough, Israel doesn't figure in this fiasco at all, so your last comment is as inaccurate and irrelevant as your first comment.