The remaining few

[Fly2e]

Interesting read Mark!
Especially that first story....

[Felix/FFDS]

well, i think if bin laden would have to carry out the fight himself he would declare the war as concluded (prolly with some BS how it was won)

Remember that bin Laden rose to the forefront in Afghanistan, fighting against the Soviets.  I don't think that it would be fair to say he is a leader from the rear, as he has tasted "blood" so to speak.

[Craig.]

[quote]

Remember that bin Laden rose to the forefront in Afghanistan, fighting against the Soviets.

[Felix/FFDS]

Strange how this topic suddenly veered from the horrors of the First World War & the carnage of modern conventional warfare onto terrorism.

Talk about WW1 carnage - Tannenberg is considered to be the single battle of all time that had the most casualties - upwards of 250,000 (practially all Russian) when two armies that were "led" by commanders that mutually hated each other headed West to do battle with a much smaller Imperial German force.  Advancing in an uncoordinated manner, the two armies were defeated piecemeal, without the Germans (led by Hindenburg and Ludendorff) having to worry about one Russian force supporting the other.

The "silver lining" was that this Eastern threat forced the Germans to move forces from the Western front to the East, thereby stalling their push towards Paris, preventing them from conquering Paris, and very possibly from obtaining an early end to the War.

[H]

The "silver lining" was that this Eastern threat forced the Germans to move forces from the Western front to the East, thereby stalling their push towards Paris, preventing them from conquering Paris, and very possibly from obtaining an early end to the War.

Almost the the same result in that aspect but, in WW2, not with the same type of disunity.

As for the rest of this thread......  
Andrew, what was that for, so it would get locked?  ::)
Dave

That should make Andrew happy -- lock him in a giant Iron Maiden.

[dcunning30]

What's curious about WWI was the notion that the introduction of the machine gun was "supposed" to "save lives", if you can figure that logic out.  Supposedly, less soldiers would be required to produce a given amount of firepower.  But what ended up happening was trench warfare.

Lack of mobility + lots of firepower = trench warfare carnage


And another bizzare notion was the best machine gun of WWI (the BAR) was held back for the fear that it would fall into German hands.  Another bizzare notion.  So, the Germans didn't get to get their hands on one to copy, and Americans didn't get to use it either.  Nonsensical.

[H]

And another bizzare notion was the best machine gun of WWI (the BAR) was held back for the fear that it would fall into German hands.  Another bizzare notion.  So, the Germans didn't get to get their hands on one to copy, and Americans didn't get to use it either. Nonsensical.

But common. Although they used it, German pilots were ordered not to operate over enemy lines for fear that a downed plane may reveal its coveted invention to the Allies: the synchronized firing system. Things really got fired up when Allies got it, anyway.

[cspyro21]

I never knew that the BAR was used in WWI.
And the Allies captured the synchronized gun system from a Fokker Eindecker, I believe?

It is truly very sad looking back on the events of WWI. So many died for a very pointless reason. This amount of carnage could have been prevented if the European countries hadn't formed the 'Triple Alliance' and the 'Triple Entente', because then It would have just been Serbia and Austro-Hungary fighting, and I'm sure that they could come to a resolve soon enough.

[H]

I never knew that the BAR was used in WWI.

If you read dcunning30 more carefully, he stated that the U.S. had it but it was never used for fear of capture.

And the Allies captured the synchronized gun system from a Fokker Eindecker, I believe?

Eindekker pilots were ordered to stay away from Allied territory but...

It is truly very sad looking back on the events of WWI. So many died for a very pointless reason. This amount of carnage could have been prevented if the European countries hadn't formed the 'Triple Alliance' and the 'Triple Entente', because then It would have just been Serbia and Austro-Hungary fighting, and I'm sure that they could come to a resolve soon enough.

This happens most often, including WW2. The politics of WW1, however, were (I say this rather loosely, perhaps ignoring Austria) more honorable for all sides in WW1. Conversely, especially considering the technological genesis, it was much more devestating in the "killing field."
As to the resolve, the restriction you present would have been to Austria's intended advantage.

[flyboy 28]

PENIS IN A SWEATY CLIT!

I'm truly sorry, but this is getting way, political and way too edgy. We've seen this before, as we've seen war after war.


A.


P.S This should get it locked before someone gets hurt.

Mmm... hmm.

While I agree, I don't think that comment was necessary.