> Further you were working for a prez that had no
Hmm...
Certainly Bush likes to talk the talk... Didn't Bush's Administration ignore
General Shinseki's warning about the number of troops needed to occupy Iraq?
Weren't a lot of warnings and planning suggestions by military, intelligence
and foreign policy experts ignored? Haven't they tried to get away with doing
the operations on the cheap, with not enough of lots of stuff from spare parts
to armoured Humvees? While there is still lots of money for such absurd
projects as "Star Wars" Missile defence? And for Civilian contractors in Iraq
messing up anything from logistics to security?
And can anybody give a plausible reason why a former Saddam general has been
intalled as commander of the "Fallujah Brigade", which contains at least some
of the insurgents, apparently with consent from pretty high up?
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/01/wirq01.
xml
Greetings Karl Heinz
Actually this is so OT that I must ask you move it off line.
Glenn
On Sat, 1 May 2004 22:23:45 +0200 KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
> (K.H.Ranitzsch) writes:
> This is certaintly not the case today.
While
> there is still lots of money for such absurd projects as "Star Wars"
Missile
> defence ? And for Civilian contractors in Iraq messing up anything from
How is this set of comments helpful?
Irrespective of whether or not you have a point, this is a pretty pointless
line to take in the conversation. Much better suited to *off list*. How does
*this* set of comments pertain to GZG games... this thread in general, but
*this* set of comments in particular? Though the other comments in this thread
were OT, at least the they weren't rude... Or a direct challenge...
Troll somewhere else. We don't need it here.
> At 1:31 AM -0400 5/3/04, Adrian Johnson wrote:
I think it's just Karl's way of saying "Welcome back John! I missed
you!"
:-D
On Mon, 3 May 2004 10:39:27 -0700 (PDT) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip burning powder keg>
> To yank it FIRMLY back on-topic:
Local representatives will increase in their interference...
micro-management... supervision of local events. Human Nature will not
change. The amount of 'supervision' will vary mostly based on personality.
IMO.
> How the various powers will resolve that will be
In other words - IJO - In John's Opinion <grin> you posit:
> "EuroSocialists United" will likely give wide
Or Both. When Communists can be capitalists anything is possible.
Remember that not 'Being active' could get you as court-martial'ed (is
that a verb?) as 'irresponsible adventurism' - and just as dead.
> The NSL have always permitted a certain amount of
Comfortable? I doubt it. But realistic, yes.
> The "French, Spanish, Etc". . . I don't know. What
Quite well, despite their best efforts. After a lot of misguided efforts
(Columbus in the Caribbean, Pizzaro and 'friends', French Fur
Traders/missionaries) to control the matter the crowns involved
established priorities (although with some Monarchs it changed more then
necessary) and expected those would be met unless you had a "...really,
really, REALLY good reason..."
I think the fine gradation between NSL and FSE is pragmatically minute and
more a game device.
> "Not American Completely" responses will be all over
Given the unlikely fact of this happening, I fall back onto the doggerel that
Democracies and Democratic Republics frequently fail to follow
through in the short term for consistency but geo-political realities
will eventually either be worked through or the loss of the 'outpost' will be
inevitable.
> Unless of course there are Canadians involved in the
One man's opinion, John. Remember that the NAC is fantasy at best. IMNSHO.
But then the 1,000 nations and the Native Peoples' Circle are...
extrapolations. Yeah, that's my story and I am going to stick with that one.
> The UNorganized, of course, being a beauracracy
And maybe not. The UNSC may descend (ascend?) into factionalized leadership
not unlike the Cold War Soviet empire... Union.
> Any other comments?
Well, it's interesting having you back on list.
> Like my alternate acronyms?
There are lots of possibilities, these certainly are some of them.
> John
Gracias,
On Tue, 4 May 2004 10:46:16 +1000 "Alan and Carmel Brain"
> <aebrain@webone.com.au> writes:
<snip>
> I'm going to insert an ad here.
Thank you for the suggestion, Alan.
> --- warbeads@juno.com wrote:
> Local representatives will increase in their
Now this might make for an interesting complexity in a
Full Thrust scenario--DSII and SGII are too low-level
to be affected.
The player is representing a squadron commander of a unit permanantly assigned
to Planet X and under the command of that planet's governor. Admiral Badenov
from the Home Fleet is sent to conduct operations in the area of Planet X. He
wants the player to one thing. The governor wishes the player to do something
else. The Admiral is in the player's chain of command, but after he leaves the
sector the player will revert back to the governor's command. What do he do?
> In other words - IJO - In John's Opinion <grin> you
Hey, it's as good a guess as any. I'm trying to start a conversation, not
pontificate ex cathedra. Good
Romans don't _do_ that.
> >The NSL have always permitted a certain amount of
They will do what they always have done: Strong general staff system to
standardize doctrine and practice across the officer corps, and issuing
'mission directive' that are more concerned with end results than how one
achieves them.
> Given the unlikely fact of this happening, I fall
There is an old English tradition of considerable autonomy for colonial
administrators. One of the Zulu wars was started on the authority of
beauracrat in Cape Town, IIRC. And I look at some of the adventurism in India
where the first time Her Majesty's government would be informed of the
existence of some of the smaller entities would be when the message informing
them of their conquest arrived.
On the other hand, the US example is a mixed bag--the
tension between the agents of the Federal Government (Indian Agents and the
military) and the local settlers is instructive. Usually the locals
consistently pushed for a far more agressive policy than the Feds wanted.
> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 04:30:39PM -0500, warbeads@juno.com wrote:
[ESU]
> Or Both. When Communists can be capitalists anything is possible.
It's a very simple procedure.
You won You lost
You did nothing "Sensible caution" "Insufficient initiative"
You did something "Active tactics" "Irresponsible adventurism'
Some would say that this principle applies, though usually with fewer
executions, throughout the GZGVerse and indeed throughout human history.
> I think the fine gradation between NSL and FSE is pragmatically minute
How much time have you spent in Europe? There is a _huge_ cultural gulf
between "northern" and "southern" Europeans, and while it isn't quite as
cleanly along national borders as the NSL/FSE depicts, it should
certainly not be ignored.
In a message dated 5/4/04 1:00:36 AM,
> owner-gzg-digest@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU writes:
<< The player is representing a squadron commander of a
unit permanantly assigned to Planet X and under the
command of that planet's governor. Admiral Badenov
from the Home Fleet is sent to conduct operations in
the area of Planet X. He wants the player to one
thing. The governor wishes the player to do something
else. The Admiral is in the player's chain of
command, but after he leaves the sector the player
will revert back to the governor's command. What do
he do? >>
Well as a member of a game where this was resently done.. It makes for
confusion within the command and not be helpful for the defense of system.
below was our Battle Summary:
Fleet Admiral was in direct Command, but Planetary Governor was defecto head
of all system defense ships and normally the in system FTL ships as well.
End-up with 3 different defense system, none of which was as strong as
the whole should have been.
Fleet Admiral moved to engage directly enemy incoming fleet, while issueing
Orders to both the normal insystem fleet and after he realized the system
defense ships and platforms where not "in the plan" he issued orders to them
as well.
Planetary Governor, who has defended his system before issued standard orders
to his forces to keep the enemy at bay. He also sent comm traffic to Fleet
Admiral Who had not fought in this space before, that he had a defense plan.
And was ignored.
Insystem FTL Squadron, started to received a # of conflicting orders, and
while attempting to follow them, ended up being placed out of support of the
others.
End Of Mission: Fleet Admiral Battledread, still had some hull and systems
when it disenaged from enemy but at the loss of over 60% of his fleet.
Insystem FTL Squadron, was taken out complete by a flanking attack. And when
it died, didn't take out any of the ship but it did cause some damage.
System Defense boats and Defense Stations did manage to turn back the fleet,
but at a great cost to the system defense systems. Thankfully the
enemy's SML had been used up.
The raiders fleet came in at high speed, which also allowed them to divide the
defense group (due to conflicts in orders and command authory [ie: who had
it]) into 3 sub groups, while the Raiders had a manage 1 major thrust and 1
flanking attack path.
Defending players had: 2500 points under Fleet Admiral
1500 points in the FTL System Fleet
2000 points of System Defense Fleet
Attacking players had:
3500 points in Direct attack
1500 points in Flank attack
Have a Good One,
> Well as a member of a game where this was resently done..
While I assume you meant 'recently', it's often a pleasure how appropriate
a typo can be. I can tell there was plenty resentment to go around! ;->=
The_Beast
> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
-------
I will grant that Saddam was a 'student' of Stalin, politically if not on the
military side.
> Weren't a lot of warnings and planning suggestions
-------
Foreign policy types at the state department didn't want ANY action at all!
> Haven't they tried to get away with doing the
--------
Thank Pres Clinton for the cuts in the military and intellegence, as well as
the supporting votes by Kerry and the rest of the democrats while they ran the
show.
While
> there is still lots of money for such absurd
I can accept that but hopefully it will not spawn a flame war.
On Wed, 5 May 2004 08:00:39 +0200 KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
> (K.H.Ranitzsch) writes: