News Stories

[SeijiSensei]

I was over at Le Monde reading its coverage of the rejection of the Sarkozy government's bill to institute the "three-strikes" rule against repeat P2P sharers. While there, I happened to come across this piece on a large collection of Miyazaki's artwork being shown at Fnac. I thought I'd post it in case some of our French colleagues want to take a peek.

I couldn't tell if these pieces were for sale or just on exhibition. The event seems to have been timed to coincide with the release of Ponyo in France. (There's a review of the movie, in French of course, as well.)

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Let's be fair here. In the history of warfare, the US has traditionally suffered the least casualties. The European powers bore the brunt of WWI, China and the Soviet Union for WWII.

That is because US came LATE into the World Wars. They didn't deploy until after Pearl Harbor in 1941, in which the war had already went on for 2-3 years. And also due to the carriers being not present in the area, the US are able to have greater force projection in the Pacific, and subsequently one thing that won them the Battle of Midway.

Russia, of course, lost the most men due to Stalin's "not a step back!" tactic to push into the bloodbath.

Another thing to note is that the US are much better equipped than their Allied counterparts, given the fact that the Brits had to PURCHASE Tommyguns for firepower (the Bren gun is too heavy and only has a clip of 30 rounds, Tommy can chamber up to 100.) before coming up with the Sten, and the Russians and Germans had to copy the Garand's design to create a semi-auto replacement for their bolt action Mosin-Nagants.

One more thing to note about squad based firepower, is that the GIs had imba firepower compared to their German/Japanese counterparts, which consists of up to 2-4 tommyguns and a BAR per squad, PLUS the semi-auto Garands for successive fire and the M1A1 magazine-fed carbines for easier reload. The Germans have KAR-98s, MP40s (lower RPM) and occasionally a Gewehr/FG42/StG45 in which the last 2 were rolled out in late war. Since you have been through military training and should know something about contacts, I would just state that the group which has the most firepower in an initial contact usually wins.

Besides, the US had superior airpower, with the B-17 heavy bombers which can carry more bombs and is more mobile than the German Ju-88s. Also, US was out of range of the V2 and V1s, so their civilian deaths could be said to be 0. Only the Japanese manage to hit US (with a firebomb from a seaplane launched from a sub), but it only caused a small forest fire.

The US didn't exactly win or have less casualties by pure luck. They win and kill more by having bigger factories, superior firepower, and adaptable tactics (high buildings blasting, CQB, squad-based tactics and of course, that odd bayonet charge in Normandy).

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Someone want to explain to me why ships passing through this area don't carry guns?

Most of the sailors aren't trained in the use of weapons, and so far many international insurers frown on arming the ships they underwrite. I suppose they fear the risk of escalation and potential loss to the insurers. (It could be that the ransoms are a relatively small price to pay to avoid a ship and its cargo heading down to Davy Jones.) I also heard one commentator observe that the widespread use of armed guards could ultimately lead to scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of security personnel. Apparently there's not enough well-trained, sober people in that community to guard a large proportion of ships and their cargoes.

There are voices advocating that some ships begin to carry armed guards, though they would be recruited separately from the ships's crewmen. No one, apparently, thinks arming the crews is a good idea.

One thing that's been repeated about this incident is that the container vessel tried outrunning the pirates and took evasive manuevers. They say these container ships are pretty fast, but I'm having a hard time imagining something as large as that making quick turns to avoid speedboats.

[yezhanquan]

@SaintessHeart: Of course. It should be recognised that the US, even today, has huge wealth, be it in natural resources or manpower. It has that unique blend, which has served it well.

[danin8r44]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

That is because US came LATE into the World Wars. They didn't deploy until after Pearl Harbor in 1941, in which the war had already went on for 2-3 years. And also due to the carriers being not present in the area, the US are able to have greater force projection in the Pacific, and subsequently one thing that won them the Battle of Midway.

Russia, of course, lost the most men due to Stalin's "not a step back!" tactic to push into the bloodbath.

Another thing to note is that the US are much better equipped than their Allied counterparts, given the fact that the Brits had to PURCHASE Tommyguns for firepower (the Bren gun is too heavy and only has a clip of 30 rounds, Tommy can chamber up to 100.) before coming up with the Sten, and the Russians and Germans had to copy the Garand's design to create a semi-auto replacement for their bolt action Mosin-Nagants.

One more thing to note about squad based firepower, is that the GIs had imba firepower compared to their German/Japanese counterparts, which consists of up to 2-4 tommyguns and a BAR per squad, PLUS the semi-auto Garands for successive fire and the M1A1 magazine-fed carbines for easier reload. The Germans have KAR-98s, MP40s (lower RPM) and occasionally a Gewehr/FG42/StG45 in which the last 2 were rolled out in late war. Since you have been through military training and should know something about contacts, I would just state that the group which has the most firepower in an initial contact usually wins.

Besides, the US had superior airpower, with the B-17 heavy bombers which can carry more bombs and is more mobile than the German Ju-88s. Also, US was out of range of the V2 and V1s, so their civilian deaths could be said to be 0. Only the Japanese manage to hit US (with a firebomb from a seaplane launched from a sub), but it only caused a small forest fire.

The US didn't exactly win or have less casualties by pure luck. They win and kill more by having bigger factories, superior firepower, and adaptable tactics (high buildings blasting, CQB, squad-based tactics and of course, that odd bayonet charge in Normandy).

Some that is true some of that isn't, but the gist of it is that if you are judging by how many men 5 Americans versus 5 Germans would kill, it ended up pretty equal.
The only soldiers who really couldn't hold their own 5 on 5 were the Japanese (after they had their initial amazing triumphs) and the Russians. America had lower casualty ratings simply because they walked in late and weren't ever fighting on their own land, let alone near their shores. In addition total American death tolls in WW2 didn't look much different from the British death tolls.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Besides, the US had superior airpower, with the B-17 heavy bombers which can carry more bombs and is more mobile than the German Ju-88s.

It's not really fair to compare a B-17 to a Ju-88 though. One is a heavy bomber, the other a medium bomber.

Also, US was out of range

This is the big reason the US got off pretty lightly in both world wars. Hard to bomb the US when it's on the other side of the ocean and all.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by danin8r44

Some that is true some of that isn't, but the gist of it is that if you are judging by how many men 5 Americans versus 5 Germans would kill, it ended up pretty equal.
The only soldiers who really couldn't hold their own 5 on 5 were the Japanese (after they had their initial amazing triumphs) and the Russians. America had lower casualty ratings simply because they walked in late and weren't ever fighting on their own land, let alone near their shores. In addition total American death tolls in WW2 didn't look much different from the British death tolls.

Considering how the Germans deployed their superior weapons a little too late (Tiger, StG, etc) and how screwed their leadership are under Hitler (he put alot of emphasis into non-strategic areas), it is probably that the US won with a significantly lower death count, and they lost their elite divisions in the desert and the snow.

The idea of Special Forces probably added a new twist to warfare, in which the side with a better armed Spec Ops unit could turn the tide of war. The more well known are the British SAS (in which all other Spec Ops are based, that is true), Sayaret Makthal, and SFOD-Delta. Winnie started out with the initial idea of forming a commando raid squad, and the US started out with a rapid deployment unit, which ended up today as the SAS and the Rangers. The Germans and Japanese probably had not have these units and lost alot of men to them.

Note : Come to think of it, I thought I wouldn't touch on history THIS MUCH since I left middle school.

[danin8r44]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Considering how the Germans deployed their superior weapons a little too late (Tiger, StG, etc) and how screwed their leadership are under Hitler (he put alot of emphasis into non-strategic areas), it is probably that the US won with a significantly lower death count, and they lost their elite divisions in the desert and the snow.

The idea of Special Forces probably added a new twist to warfare, in which the side with a better armed Spec Ops unit could turn the tide of war. The more well known are the British SAS (in which all other Spec Ops are based, that is true), Sayaret Makthal, and SFOD-Delta. Winnie started out with the initial idea of forming a commando raid squad, and the US started out with a rapid deployment unit, which ended up today as the SAS and the Rangers. The Germans and Japanese probably had not have these units and lost alot of men to them.

Note : Come to think of it, I thought I wouldn't touch on history THIS MUCH since I left middle school.

The German Tiger never served as anything but a morale crusher not because it was built too late(Tiger 1 was deployed 1942), but because they made too few. Even before the Tiger the Panzer was much better than any Allie tank. The SturmGewehr did appear a bit late at 44 but the Germans still had superior or average weaponry nearly from the beginning(no other major weapon advancements after that besides the V2). In addition to this a German platoon was often considered more battle hardened and much more fanatic than almost any Allie soldier and is usually considered to have been simply superior in 1 on 1 combat(though Americans and British were close). The Germans lost WW2 for the reasons that you say, inadequate military leadership from Hitler despite their brilliant Generals, conditions were hard for them in Russia and North Africa, and they were fighting a two front war, and the American and British intelligence network from cracking the enigma to radar played a huge role among other lesser causes.

On special forces, if any country had them in bulk it was Germany(Japan Britain and America had effective ones too as did arguably every other nation). Remember though WW2 is a rapid transition into truly modern warfare and so special forces weren't used as effectively as they are today, nor were they trained specifically like they are today. They were often simply the best foot soldiers for a while around and were sometimes given a little extra training(though this wasn't common). Special ops were a factor, and a big one in some cases, but the average foot soldier and bomber had a far greater impact.(though what you could call special forces did stop a heavy water plant from continuing operations and MAY have stopped the Germans from getting nukes)

To not get off topic http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7991282.stm Iran finally opens their nuclear facility.
p.s. @ SaintessHeart if you want to continue this you can pm me or something I like ww2.

[Shadow Kira01]

Facebook, Twitter help Moldova protester organize demonstrations

Even as the Moldovan government refused entry to foreign journalists, new media tools including Twitter and Facebook are playing key roles in organizing protesters at demonstrations in the Moldovan capital.

This looks fairly interesting.. I wonder if their coup d'etat will succeed or not. Certainly, it isn't okay for the politicians to get away with a "rigged" poll; that would be unfair to its citizens!

[Sazelyt]

Another victim to Soros funded no-care for nation, citizen, or state liberals. I wonder, how much money is enough to stop the hunger of those money-hungry beasts? Hopefully, sooner or later, all of those Soros funded liberals, in every country they are leeching on, will lose to their nations.

[yezhanquan]

With the global economic crisis, Eastern Europe and many other ex-Soviet republics are having it bad. The shakeup begins.

[LynnieS]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

With the global economic crisis, Eastern Europe and many other ex-Soviet republics are having it bad. The shakeup begins.

How is Central Europe doing these days also, BTW? I thought that I read about some rumblings in that space recently, and friends of mine from Romania aren't happy either.

[yezhanquan]

I'm afraid the news is pretty grim. Credit crunch + drop in exports = businesses closing, unemployment going up. But, the people there are getting angry. It seemed to them that the West, after "encouraging" them to adopt capitalism after communism, are now leaving them in the lurch. Protests of protectionism aside, some are truly are at a loss. Communism has failed them. Now, it seems that capitalism too has failed them. What other system are they going to turn to?

[Nosauz]

ANARCHY!!!!

Well its not really capitalism that failed them, its more like globalism which ties into the very big threat of protectionism, which drives me nuts because recently the obama administration just devoted bailout money to buy gm/ford/chrysler cars for the government when in fact the government should buy the BEST vehicle for the purpose and not just the American brand. Its completely hipocritical when Obama says he won't allow protectionism, buy America is stupid too, buy the best product not the one made by your country, if your country happens to make the best prodcuts than thats great. But to stifle competition for the sake or the guise of "patriotism" goes against what capitilists believe, and this makes us no different then those that pander to special interests. Welcome to the fall of the American system, protectionism is the first step toward the isolation tendencies and in the end a weaker economy.

[Vexx]

Protectionism is one end of "globalization" but the other end contributes to the problems we face as well -- corporations that play nations against each other driving the quality of life to the bottom. If the definition of "corporation" is not serving society well, then it is a poorly defined instrument -- just another version of "robber baron" or refined "warlord".

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Protectionism is one end of "globalization" but the other end contributes to the problems we face as well -- corporations that play nations against each other driving the quality of life to the bottom. If the definition of "corporation" is not serving society well, then it is a poorly defined instrument -- just another version of "robber baron" or refined "warlord".

I remember that same thing said by my General Paper teacher. The reason why I remembered it is because I dozed off in class and woke up just to hear that.

From what I know, when people don't have a leader or something to turn to, they go wild. What the world really lack in are real leaders, leaders who are willing to go to ends to make sacrifices to make things right.

But one interesting thing to note about human behaviour is that, when all hell breaks loose and crap like these happens that could affect their life and death, people cling onto something that is denounced as unpragmatic called hope. When small stuff happens, they often turn to religion, experts, etc. It seems that there is always a wet blanket to be thought of for every situation, but the people never cling onto that thing they initially hold & have and empowers them to continue walking out of the shitstorm.

[Shadow Kira01]

CNN in third place in prime time for first time

Regardless of the negativities I keep on hearing here at AnimeSuki, Fox News scored the highest rating in prime time, once again. A little strange, it makes me wonder why do the guys here make them sound so negative, when in fact.. Fox News is actually quite popular.

On the contrary, I already knew the reasons..

[aohige]

^It might just be because FOX is a hate-monger station, that spews hatred towards seemingly everything foreign or non-white?

Also the fact that this is an international forum?

[WanderingKnight]

Freedom can never be absolute. That would be anarchy. The trick would be to allow freedom without anarchy to set in. That level is different for every society and every country. As a person, I am pro-US. But, I can understand why some do not trust the US and her intentions.

I'm pro freedom to do whatever the hell you want as long as you don't hurt your neighbor. Sort of the words Christian attribute to Jesus, but without the contradictory religious nonsense.

The US, however, have been proving time and time again to be doing exactly the opposite of that. Both with indirect and direct aggression. But that's only natural--every ruling empire or group of people throughout humanity's history has been the same.

The only thing that gets me angry as fuck is the fact that people still pretend to hide that. Hypocrisy and condescending attitudes are, in a sense, much worse than a war. A truthful justification for a war (like, "We just want your oil and pump the arms market") is, at the very least, an honest excuse.

At the very least the slaves of yore could see the hand holding the leash. Nowadays, who can truly say it's still so?

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

CNN in third place in prime time for first time

Regardless of the negativities I keep on hearing here at AnimeSuki, Fox News scored the highest rating in prime time, once again. A little strange, it makes me wonder why do the guys here make them sound so negative, when in fact.. Fox News is actually quite popular.

On the contrary, I already knew the reasons..

Popular =/= good. They pander to the right wing base which is around half the country. Telling them what they want to hear makes them come back.