> Ryan M Gill Wrote:
> That
OK, from the history I have read, the NAC is supposed to encompass the UK, US,
Canada, and the rest of the western Hemisphere eventually. But in discussions
like this one involving ground units, all the NAC units I've
heard mentioned are borrowed from British military history/culture.
Were
any US Army/military units retained? Just curious.
> At 1:08 PM -0800 11/29/01, Brian Bilderback wrote:
But of Course. 10th Mountain is again a full Division. The Rangers are a force
to be reckoned with as they have now become experts at not only airport
seizure, but also space port seizure with all of the associated toxic and
radiological hazards associated with Space Port Operations. Then there are
units with history like the 1st Infantry Division (Big Red One), 1st Armoured,
etc. Units with history like the 82nd and 101st Airborne have expanded to be
fearsome units with a far greater degree of mobility due to a high proportion
of powered armour and closely attached strategic mobility assets.
I suspect that with the tribal nature of the British Military, "American"
units would retain much of their history and tradition. Likely a great deal
more than had they remained American alone. Naturally, all that I have stated
needs approval by St.John, but I think he'd like it.
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Brian Bilderback wrote:
> OK, from the history I have read, the NAC is supposed to encompass the
Were
> any US Army/military units retained? Just curious.
Problem is the US have so much less history to draw on. And as for culture...
<runs for cover, cackling manically>
> At 12:44 AM +0100 11/30/01, Derk Groeneveld wrote:
Were
> any US Army/military units retained? Just curious.
By 2183 the US army should have plenty of history under it's belt. Between the
82nd, the 101st, the 10th Mtn, Rangers, 10th Armd, 1st Armd, 1st Infantry and
a few other units I don't omit for lack of value, all have plenty of history
to make them quite noble. Hell the 101st alone has lots of history. Add the US
Marines to the mix and they are amazing.
Derk:
> Problem is the US have so much less history to draw on. And as for
This from a man whose national dish comes from the other side of the world...
Okay, to be complete - what Canadian Units should be significantly
present in the NAC ground forces?
Gracias,
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:44:43 +0100 (CET) Derk Groeneveld
> <derk@cistron.nl> writes:
Visualize this: McDonald's opening all over the world... Oh, that happened
already didn't it?
Gracias,
> At 09:00 29/11/01 -0500, Glen wrote:
> Visualize this: McDonald's opening all over the world... Oh, that
Look out, urban myth:) When MacDonald's first opened in New South Wales,
Australia they had to shut down and start again. Because the 'food' (and I use
the term loosely) didn't measure up to the minimum nutritional requirements.
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
Noo!......
> Oh, that
There is no God.
> At 09:00 29/11/01 -0500, you wrote:
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry?
> >Visualize this: McDonald's opening all over the world... Oh, that
> At 9:00 PM -0500 11/29/01, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> Visualize this: McDonald's opening all over the world... Oh, that
Yes, however, McDonalds in Japan (or Austrailia)!= McDonalds in the US. You
can't get squid on your Big Mac in the US (or wallabe for that matter).
> At 1:25 PM +1100 11/30/01, Derek Fulton wrote:
Ok. The Canadian Arctic Rangers for cold planets anyone.
This coming from the people who gave the world Vegemite... What's that old
saying about pots and kettles?
Brian
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
> From: Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com>
(and I
> use the term loosely) didn't measure up to the minimum nutritional
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Ryan Gill wrote:
> At 1:25 PM +1100 11/30/01, Derek Fulton wrote:
Infantry Regiments
From: "Ryan M Gill" <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> I suspect that with the tribal nature of the British Military,
Including re-activation of some of the older regiments, dating
back to the War of Northern Aggression :-)
Example: the 20th Maine is part of the NAC Brigade of Guards.
From: "Glenn M Wilson" <triphibious@juno.com>
> Okay, to be complete - what Canadian Units should be significantly
On or about Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 09:00:35PM -0500, Glenn M Wilson typed:
> Visualize this: McDonald's opening all over the world... Oh, that
I remember hearing a few news stories in close proximity a couple of years
ago, which made a horrible sort of sense in juxtaposition.
First was a puff piece on the Royal Marines, SBS, and so on, explaining how
they were able to live off the land, eat anything they found, and so on. Which
led me to wonder why they didn't mention the American special forces... until
I saw the second story, which was "McDonald's plans to put its shops within 15
minutes of everywhere in the world".
Cheers,
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> By 2183 the US army should have plenty of history
I note the only OLD unit you list is 1st Infantry. 2ID, 3ID, and 4ID are all
'Marne Divisions', the 3rd being especially noted for it's performance in
stopping the Germans in WWI.
HOWEVER, that's not really old--our divisions don't go
back very far. More than a few infantry, cavalry, and artillery units have
lineages back to the Revolution, as does the 1st Engineer Batallion (it wasn't
until the Civil War that the US needed more than 3 engineer
organizations--one of sappers, one of topogs, and of
course the USMA). The 2nd and 3rd ACRs trace their lineages back to the 2nd
and 3rd Mounted Rifles, some of the first formations raised for the Seminole
Wars.
> --- Derk Groeneveld <derk@cistron.nl> wrote:
> Problem is the US have so much less history to draw
Oddly enough, American culture is the world culture. If we are counting two
factors: volume, and breadth of distribution.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> OK, from the history I have read, the NAC is
Of course. It's just the the Brits have far more poetic unit names (Scots
Dragoon Guards, etc) than the
US. Unless you know the unit in question, "1-36
Infantry" just doesn't have the same ring. (Spartans! With lineage going back
to the Civil War, IIRC).
> At 08:06 29/11/01 -0800, Brian wrote:
> old saying about pots and kettles?
Still tastes better than MacDonalds. Those guys have something in common
with army cooks from every nation. They're both 'Fitters and Turners', why?
Because they 'fit' perfectly good food into pots and 'turn' it into
............. I'll call it quits here :)
> At 4:24 AM -0800 11/30/01, John Atkinson wrote:
US units place their stock in accomplishments and awards. Not the name.
:-p
> At 11:30 PM +1100 11/30/01, Derek Fulton wrote:
That's why you have Ranger Brownies and Ranger Tea!
--- Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au>
wrote:
> Including re-activation of some of the older
A militia formation raised for a specific conflict and never reactivated? Not
bloody likely. Our most likely contribution to the Guards Brigade is the 3rd
Infantry.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Laserlight wrote:
> Derk:
LOL. Good point, that.
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> Visualize this: McDonald's opening all over the world... Oh, that
And? All the world is drinking our Heineken crap, and I still don't see why as
there's far better beer available;)
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Laserlight wrote:
> > >Visualize this: McDonald's opening all over the world... Oh, that
Ouch. My stomach hurts. Too funny.
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Ryan M Gill wrote:
> At 12:44 AM +0100 11/30/01, Derk Groeneveld wrote:
But in
> >> discussions like this one involving ground units, all the NAC
All good points. I was just pulling a random leg;)
Cheers,
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:37:45 +0100 (CET) Derk Groeneveld
> <derk@cistron.nl> writes:
You haven't tried to buy a beer in middle America, have you?;)
Best,
> Including re-activation of some of the older regiments, dating
AKA the War of Southern Treason... all depends on your perspective.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Of course. It's just the the Brits have far more
That's only if you list them by their official TO&E designations. List them by
their more publically known names, and their nicknames, and American
units hold their own in the dashing department - Screaming Eagles, Big
Red
One, Devil Dogs... maybe even dredge up some less remembered nicks - I
recall the Germans in Italy referred to US paratroopers as "Those devils in
baggy pants."
> Derek Fulton wrote:
> Still tastes better than MacDonalds.
Sorry. I've tried both. While I'm not a big fan of McDonald's, I couldn't keep
vegemite down.
The interesting thing is, from the McDonald's discussion, I'd be led to
believe that non-Americans think that all we EAT is McDonald's, or that
it's representative of all American food. I'm more than happy to dispel that
ugly myth.
> Derk Groeneveld wrote:
> And? All the world is drinking our Heineken crap, and I still don't see
Just as there's far better American food. Yet somehow McDonald's is
considered a fair assessment of American Cuisine/Culture, while Heineken
is recognized for what it is.
Good beer - another reason I'm glad to live in the Pacific Northwest.
Brian
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
> From: Christopher Pipinou <cpip@juno.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Christopher Pipinou wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:37:45 +0100 (CET) Derk Groeneveld
No. But I have found heineken available in places as far apart an New York,
Indonesia, Australia etc. Of course I bought another beer;)
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Good beer - another reason I'm glad to live in the Pacific Northwest.
Oh, we got great beers arround here. Just ain't heineken...
Cheers,
Of course you have great beer, you're in Europe. I was contrasting The Pacific
Northwest with "Middle America." I think the Middle America quote was not
disputung your hatred of Heineken, it was pointing out that, bad as it is,
it's better than most American Beers (Most meaning the Big companies. Some of
the smaller American brewers out there now are putting out some pretty good
stuff.)
Brian
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
> From: Derk Groeneveld <derk@cistron.nl>
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> > Example: the 20th Maine is part of the NAC Brigade
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:49:55 -0800 "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> writes:
> Pacific Northwest with "Middle America." I think the Middle America
Yup. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
> Some of the smaller American brewers out there now are putting out
This is true. There's even a good little brewery here in Kentucky. But by and
large, the 'big brewers' in American produce lots of
marginally-drinkable stuff, leaving me to haunt the Imports section of
beer aisles.
(It takes alcohol to lure me out of lurk mode. Ain't that something?)
Best, Chris
Zooom, over my head... Huh?
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:25:06 +1100 Derek Fulton
<derekfulton@bigpond.com> writes:
> At 09:00 29/11/01 -0500, you wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 22:20:37 -0500 Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
writes:
> At 9:00 PM -0500 11/29/01, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
(Looks up) Thank you for not so small blessings!
<snip>
> You haven't tried to buy a beer in middle America, have you? ;)
> From a wine drinker (Doctor's orders, really!) in Saint louis...
Two words.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:23:27 -0800 Jaime Tiampo
<fugu@spikyfishthing.com> writes:
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
Friar Fulton has exorcised that ghost... <grin>
LOL! I like that. But I won't tell that to my 8 year old. She might understand
it...
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 22:00:03 -0500 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> >Visualize this: McDonald's opening all over the world... Oh, that
We have a joke here in the Pacific Northwest regarding the similarities
between Anheuser Busch products and sex in a canoe.... both being
****ing
close to water.
Brian B2
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
> From: Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com>
A Canadian friend of mine calls American beer 'trainer beer'...
I have to agree.
David
> -----Original Message-----
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
Sorry, hit the send button too soon.
> David Rodemaker wrote:
> A Canadian friend of mine calls American beer 'trainer beer'...
Again, depends on your defenition of "American Beer". Coors/Bud/Et Al,
yes. Some of the good micros out there, no.
I concede the point...
David
> -----Original Message-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Brian Bilderback wrote:
> We have a joke here in the Pacific Northwest regarding the
I thought that was supposed to be Budweiser?
Cheers,
> At 7:10 PM -0600 11/30/01, David Rodemaker wrote:
Well, our microbrews have a quite a bit going for them. Even Michael Jackson
has said so.
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> Zooom, over my head... Huh?
PPCLI (Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, sometimes the 'Princess
Pats') are one of Canada's Regular Ground Forces regiments. I believe they
were formed at the start of WW1, and I know they were unique at the time
because they recruited from across Canada, as opposed to the usual regional
recruiting pattern.
These days they're based in Western Canada - I think two battalions in
Winnipeg & one in Edmonton. We used to have a battalion here in Victoria.
PPCLI, the RCR (Royal Canadian Regt) & the Van Doos (can't remember their
formal French title) are Canada's three standing Regular Regiments.
TomB knows more about this than I do, though.
Brian - yh728@victoria.tc.ca -
- http://warbard.iwarp.com/games.html -
> Gracias,
***
> We have a joke here in the Pacific Northwest regarding the
I thought that was supposed to be Budweiser?
***
Anheuser Busch is the company, Budweiser, and it's slightly better brother,
Michelob, are products.
Now can we PLEASE stop before some lister from Oz goes off, again, for the
upteenth time, about how Foster is NOT Australian for beer?!?!? ;->=
The_Beast (In Nebraska, which also has some micro breweries, but nothing
exported. You don't think it all HAS to be consumed here?!?!?)
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:27:08 -0800 "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> writes:
Aaaaah! Empty e-mails..... Whew, false alarm...
Don't do that! After my (then Beth's) episode of 'blank e-mails' you
raised my blood pressure about 40 points! On the Diastolic. 80 on the
Systolic!
Fortunately your follow-up message was right underneath the empty one...
Otherwise who knows where my blood pressure would have peaked...
Gracias,
Gracias.
Of course *now* I have to brush up on Canadian Military History....
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:07:10 -0800 (PST) Brian Burger
> <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> writes:
> At 07:57 30/11/01 -0500, you wrote:
2ND BATTALION, PRINCESS PATRICIA'S CANADIAN LIGHT INFANTRY was one of three
units named in a United States Presidential Distinguished Unit Citation
awarded for the battle of Kapyong, Korea, 23-24 April 1951.
The units involved (in order on the citation) were:
3RD BATTALION, ROYAL AUSTRALIAN REGIMENT 2ND BATTALION, PRINCESS PATRICIA'S
CANADIAN LIGHT INFANTRY COMPANY A, 72ND HEAVY TANK BATTALION (UNITED STATES)
A transcript of the citation can be found here:
http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/pres_cit.htm
one perspective of the battle can be found also here:
http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/operations/kapyong/kapyong.htm
To add to the discussion, a Canadian retired military type informed me that
forces that the Canadians would contribute would probably be the Canadian
Airbourne Regiment (1st, 2nd, and 3rd Commando) and the Joint Task Force
(about 250-300 men at the moment)
> Well, our microbrews have a quite a bit going for them. Even Michael
No improper language on the list, please.
> At 12:10 AM -0500 12/1/01, Laserlight wrote:
What's the matter, did the Beer hunter not like your favorite brew?
I think my all-time favorite for humorous nicknames is the Vietnamese
nickname for the 101st Airborne. They didn't know what an eagle was so they
called them "The Chicken Men".
Bill
**************Reply separator*****************
"Brian Bilderback"
<bbilderback@hotmail.com> To:
gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Sent by: cc:
owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Be Subject: Re:
Questions regarding NAC ground units, was SG IF rkeley.EDU morale
11/30/01 04:58 PM
Please respond to gzg-l
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Of course. It's just the the Brits have far more
That's only if you list them by their official TO&E designations. List them by
their more publically known names, and their nicknames, and American
units hold their own in the dashing department - Screaming Eagles, Big
Red
One, Devil Dogs... maybe even dredge up some less remembered nicks - I
recall the Germans in Italy referred to US paratroopers as "Those devils in
baggy pants."
Brian
Well, that would make sense, except that unfortunately we no longer have the
Airborne Regiment.
It was disbanded by our @#$$%#$!@# federal government as a public relations
exercise...
As such, Canada lost its "rapid deployment" force, because when they nuked the
Airborne, they also closed down the Special Service Force (descendant
of the Fist Special Service Force of WWII and bad-but-fun movie fame),
which was a light brigade (well, a micro-brigade) structured around the
Airborne Regiment, and including para trained Engineers, Artillery, Light
Armour, a logistics unit, etc.
The Airborne armoured guys from the Royal Canadian Dragoons were a
particularly tough bunch, as were the airborne Engineers, as most of them were
commando trained. The Airborne Regiment had tasking similar to the US Army
Rangers, and did Special Operations stuff also. They were always off
cross-training with groups like the US Rangers, the SAS, etc.
When the Regiment was eliminated, the parachute capability was theoretically
retained by having an airborne qualified company attached to
the three remaining regualar infantry regiments. This was/is a joke -
the esprit de corps of the unit was lost, as was the concentrated expertise,
etc.
At around the same time, the federal government had decided that Counter
Terrorist direct action activities should move from being a responsibility
of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (with their "CERT" - Counterterror
Emergency Response Team - who were trained by the SAS and supposedly
very good) to the army. The "Joint Task Force 2" was activated to assume the
CT role. When the Airborne were shut down, their special operations roles were
absorbed by JTF2 and that unit has since become a "full service" special
operations force.
Unlike the US Green Berets and particularly the SAS, JTF2 has done an
excellent job of staying mostly invisible and not having ex-members
write books and so on, so we don't actually know very much about their
activities, how they're structured, etc. They might be operating at present in
Afghanistan, but we don't know. The government stated that they were being
deployed as part of our contribution to the "War on Terrorism" but that the
notice that they were being deployed "somewhere" would be the ONLY official
comment on their activities.
Historically, the first Canadian airborne force was the "1st Canadian
Parachute Battalion" formed during WWII and active with the British paras
during that war. There was *very briefly* a Canadian SAS, for a few years
after the was (IIRC) but that disappeared without leaving a mark. The
requirement for a unit to take on that sort of role was recognized during the
'60's, and the Airborne Regiment was formed. They saw "action" in a number of
places (Cyprus, when the Turks invaded, and a number of other UN
jobs including their now-infamous deployment in Somalia) and lasted
until '94? '95? when they were disbanded as a sop to public opinion. The
Liberal government (currently still in power, under the same Prime Minister)
decided that because there was some controversy surrounding the unit, it would
be better to get rid of the unit all together than solve the problems. So, the
government destroyed the unit, and the Airborne moved into a very sad
category, being as far as I know, one of two units in NATO history to be
"disbanded in disgrace" (though the government didn't put it quite that way at
the time). The other was the 1st REP of the Foreign Legion, who rebelled and
tried to stage a coup in Algeria. Quite pathetic really (the decision, not the
Regiment).
Yes, I'm partisan;)
> The GZG Digest Friday, November 30 2001 Volume 02 :
Number 782
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 22:11:35 -0600
********************************************
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 8:04 AM -0600 12/1/01, Noel Weer wrote:
Don't forget 'sliders' from White Castle....!
> At 8:12 AM -0600 12/1/01, Noel Weer wrote:
Are you kidding? What could be more on topic for something related to the NAC
if not beer!???
So which weapons launch bay does your NAC crew keep it's beer rations cold in?
The advent of the Beer Ration would probably have to be the most inspiring
thing for the Ex USN crew that were converted to RSN
service....
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 02:44:05AM -0500, adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca
wrote:
> Unlike the US Green Berets and particularly the SAS, JTF2 has done an
Heh!
A chap I know, who has a military background about which he doesn't talk (but
knows a lot about small boats, destroying property with a minimum of fuss and
noise, and not being seen), commented on the release
of _Bravo Two Zero_ "typical SAS, can never keep their traps shut".
--- Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au>
babbled:
> Take it from me,
On what grounds of expertise, pissant?
> it's the name and regimental traditions that are
I shout "First on Omaha" at batallion formations (or did when I still went to
them). I wear 2 Presidential Unit Citations, and three other unit awards, the
last one earned in action in Vietnam. I'm at least vaugely aware of the
significance of unit history. Asshole.
> Amongst military afficionados,
As opposed to what, real soldiers? You've been on the list long enough to
hazily recall what I do for a living.
> Chamberlain's efforts at Little Round Top rank up
Congratulations, you have heard of three battles. First of all, what I know
about Chamberlain is that he wouldn't have been up there if it weren't for
Brigadier General Warren[1]. Second, it doesn't change my characterization of
the unit. It's a militia formation raised for a single conflict and never
ressurected. It had a single engagement in
which it handled itself well--had the PUC been around
back then it would have gotten one. But that doesn't compare to, for instance,
the 3rd Infantry Regiment which is a Regular Army regiment that has honors
from every conflict from the American Revolution to WWII. Or 22nd Infantry, to
pick a more obscure unit ("Regulars, By God") who had a more uniformly
distinguished Civil War record, fought in both World Wars (including landing
at Utah Beach), and kicked some serious ass in Vietnam. That's a lineage. Not
one damn afternoon.
> Even people who know sweet fanny adams about the the
Congratulations. The only reason that is is because of that movie, the one
with the bad beards and worse accents. Not any meaningful understanding.
> At 8:12 AM -0600 12/1/01, Noel Weer wrote:
Bah! They probably do a little something like this guy did....
http://www.asciimation.co.nz/beer/
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
Right--and you'll notice I tend to refer to units I've
been associated with (in or supporting) by their
nicknames--Spartans, Catamounts, Dukes, Bandits,
Gunners, and that's the Ready First Combat Team of Old Ironsides)etc. But Joe
Citizen doesn't know those names except maybe the three you listed.
On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 08:39:54 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<much snippage>
> [1]20-points: Identify this man and his role.
GK Warren, who observed the Confederate advance on Little Round Top and
ordered Chamberlain there, to "save the honor of the Fifth Corps,"
although Chamberlain didn't believe his brigade combat-ready at the
time.
To bring this round back to topic, on a civil war note, one thing that
occurred to me is that some U.S. forces (especially National Guard units)
might NOT be incorporated into the NAC rosters, because they were part of
the civil war and were opposed to the Anglo-Canadian peacekeeping force.
Then again, if they fought with particular valour and honor, perhaps if they
surrendered, they'd be resurrected.
Myself, I'm holding out for the Prince of New York's Own Lancer battalion...:)
Best, Chris
<snip>
> And, this is drifting off off topic.
Drifting? More like Full Speed A "Head"
Gracias,
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 16:26:39 +1100 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
<snip>
> Beth - who had Mum ship me Vegemite for the 9 months I lived in
Ah, the real reason for the Scottish Nationalist Party (or whatever their
title is...) <grin>
(To quote Mulan: "...off the roof, off the roof...")
Gracias,
Perfect, Derek! This is absolutely the information I like to see.
Now I just need to get to a browser capable computer (maybe the
Library...)
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Sat, 01 Dec 2001 13:45:19 +1100 Derek Fulton
<derekfulton@bigpond.com> writes:
> At 07:57 30/11/01 -0500, you wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 16:13:35 +1100 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
> Marine movement wise its very promising as it allows for supersonic
I know about BumbleBees and their aerodynamics but Butterfly Flight
Phenomenon?
Gracias,
You mean the one on Victory Drive in Columbus closed?
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 11:25:20AM -0500, Ryan Gill wrote:
No, we have Krystal's, the Evil Lactose-Intolerant Twin of White
Castle, and, in fact, my secret addiction.
ObGZG: We really need at least a loose and cursory RPG set in this universe
for at the very least a GZGECC one year; a meeting of
dignitaries would make a great on-and-off LARP.
> --- Christopher Pipinou <cpip@juno.com> wrote:
> GK Warren, who observed the Confederate advance on
Ah, but what was his position in the Army of the Potomac?
> ordered Chamberlain there, to "save the honor of the
The Brigadier was someone else (Jenkins??), Chamberlain was a mere Regimental
Commander.
> To bring this round back to topic, on a civil war
Why? The old Confederate Regiments were ressurected
as National Guard units in the South--my old unit in
the Virginia Guard traced it's lineage back to the Warrenton Rifles, who's
commander was the first soldier killed by enemy action during the War of
Northern Agression--shot dead on the steps of the
Fairfax County Courthouse as he hauled down the US flag.
> --- Alexander Williams <thantos@telocity.com> wrote:
> ObGZG: We really need at least a loose and cursory
Hrm. . .
I've already got the tattoo for it...
Now to learn enough Greek to verbally abuse the IFed delegate properly.
> At 12:09 PM -0800 12/1/01, Michael Brown wrote:
?Hmm, could be there. But columbus is practically SC. I've never seen
one in Atlanta, Savannah or any of the other big towns/cities.
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> I shout "First on Omaha" at batallion formations (or
... which more than excuses any lack of diplomacy in the rest of the post.
I unreservedly apologise for causing offence, none was intended.
And rather than doing it in private e-mail, I'm doing it
publically on the list.
> First of all, what I know about Chamberlain is that he
Gouverneur Kemble Warren? What about Strong Vincent's role? See, for
example.... (quickly rummages for some *GOOD* URLs..)
http://www.gdg.org/savior1.html
But this is starting to look like a p*ssing contest regarding military
history, and the US Civil War isn't my specialty. Nor do I have anything to
prove, just a lot to learn.
> But that doesn't
> Or 22nd Infantry, to pick a more obscure unit
At the risk of adding insult to - er- insult, may I really
--- Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au>
wrote:
> I unreservedly apologise for causing offence, none
Sirrah, you are a gentleman for owning up to it. I snap quickly when people
question my professional competence.
> BTW Your starter for 10: The 22nd's unofficial motto
"Deeds, not Words" is the motto of the 36th Infantry
Regiment--to whose 1st Batallion my unit was attached
in Kosovo. AKA the Spartans.
> On 1-Dec-01 at 11:30, Ryan Gill (rmgill@mindspring.com) wrote:
Crystal has the same burgers and is the same chain. My girlfriend forces me to
stop and have "nasty little hamburgers" every time we drive through Georgia.
I think I am going to make a 1/300 Crystal restaraunt (I use the
term loosely) and have the game objective be destruction of the place.
This is the only part of the NAC culture/history I have a hard time
swallowing. While I can see us rejoining with England in a democratic
government (And that's only because I have a good imagination), I have SERIOUS
doubts that Americans would EVER accept the imposition of nobility on American
Culture. I suspect the diversity across the NAC will be quite broad, with
local regions retaining their own cultures, while still being loyal to the
NAC.
Brian B2
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
> Myself, I'm holding out for the Prince of New York's Own Lancer
> I have SERIOUS doubts that Americans would EVER accept the
Did someone say "Kennedy"?
Sorry, I should have said, "Nobility", not "nobility" - I was referring
to
the possession of titles/peerage, NOT the personal quality (The two
seeming to have no direct connection).
Brian B2
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> Sorry, I should have said, "Nobility", not "nobility" - I was
I was referring to inherited wealth and political power, not personal
qualities. As you might have guessed, if you're at all familiar with the
family.
I don't live in a cave, of course I'm familiar with the history of Joe and his
kin. But it's beside my point, which has to do with the trappings of peerage
imposed on America, e.g. "Prince of New York, Duke of Pittsburgh", et al.
Brian B2
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> I don't live in a cave, of course I'm familiar with the history of
"Senator of Massachusetts"
Still at least NOMINALLY an elected position, IIRC. And a comment made more to
be difficult than to actually shed light on my original point.
Brian B2
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
Q. Why do Aussies call their beer 'XXXX'
A. Cuz they can't spell 'beer' <GD&RVVF>
[quoted original message omitted]
But who is/was Princess Patricia ?
[quoted original message omitted]
In a message dated 02/12/01 21:32:37 GMT Standard Time,
> bbilderback@hotmail.com writes:
> Sorry, I should have said, "Nobility", not "nobility" - I was
Most Nobility currently are "Life Peers". The title is not passed on to
descendants. Also they are generally awarded to People making an outstanding
contribution to the country. Senior military officers, Chief Constables, civil
servants, retired politicians, and very successful businessmen. Of course
there also those who get an award for sucking up to the right person, i.e. the
Prime Minister. They are really a pat on the back for a job well done. As for
Americans accepting them I don't think there is much doubt they would. t's not
as if they are any more modest about their achievements than the
English. There are a couple of Americans given a title every now and again, I
think normally a Knighthood. General Stormin Norman (sorry can't spell his
surname) got one after the Gulf war. Just my opinion
> --- WJAL21@aol.com wrote:
> Most Nobility currently are "Life Peers". The title
> retired politicians, and very successful
That's what they have become. That's not what they were.
> As for Americans accepting them I don't think there
There's not much doubt in my mind that more than a few of us would kill the
man that claimed peerage among Americans. It's forbidden in our Constitution.
> t's not as if they are any more modest about their
Always honorary. You can't knight an American, nor make him a baron et al
without revoking his citizenship.
You're forgetting the basic premise of a
Republic--there is neither higher nor lower title than
citizen. A free man kneels to no one and need no one to kneel to him. Nobility
is only significant if you've got serfs. That's why there's something like 12
men that own 80% of Scotland.
> > As for Americans accepting them I don't think there
John A said:
> There's not much doubt in my mind that more than a few
Come now, no one shot a certain very well known national
politician/reprobate who is now living in New York, did they? And I
believe there was, a few months ago, talk in the UK of giving him a
knighthood--God knows why.
> Always honorary. You can't knight an American, nor
If it's honorary in the US, but functional elsewhere...and besides, remember
that we're postulating a collapse of order and a second Civil War. The
Constitution no longer applies.
In a message dated 03/12/01 00:54:21 GMT Standard Time,
> johnmatkinson@yahoo.com writes:
> --- WJAL21@aol.com wrote:
And I hope never will be again.
> > As for Americans accepting them I don't think there
Was in your constitution. But will it be in the NAC constitution?
> > t's not as if they are any more modest about their
And that's all the titles really are in the UK, honorary.
> You're forgetting the basic premise of a
Every society has its social ranking structure, adding titles just formalises
portions of it. And more importantly as this is a fictional future it sound
cool to have
'General Sir John Atkinson" or "Admiral Lady Beth Fulton" commanding your NAC
forces.
Every society has its social ranking structure, adding titles just formalises
portions of it. And more importantly as this is a fictional future it sound
cool to have 'General Sir John Atkinson" or "Admiral Lady Beth Fulton"
commanding your NAC forces.
> At 11:34 2/12/01 -0800, you wrote:
Are you sure, Have closer look at the 'big end of town' in the US and you will
find 'default nobility', the Kennedys for example:)
> Every society has its social ranking structure, adding titles just
commanding your NAC forces.
Both of those sound quite dangerous for the NAC--especially Admiral
Beth, given that "it's better to be lucky than smart" and we all know how
Beth's dice work.
> At 11:36 2/12/01 +0000, Iain wrote:
Lifted from a page about PPCLI:
http://www.brunnet.net/infsch/corps/ppcli_e.htm
"Her Royal Highness Princess Patricia of Connaught, daughter of Canada's
Governor-General, consented to give her name to the regiment - Princess
Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry."
So she was a member of the royal family either by blood or marriage.
> At 04:52 2/12/01 -0800, John wrote:
<snip>
> There's not much doubt in my mind that more than a few
<snip>
> Always honorary. You can't knight an American, nor
What John is overlooking is the simple fact that in the GZG time line the
United States of America NO LONGER exists. The Constitution isn't there,
there is NO US citizenship to revoke. There is only the NAC, GOD SAVE THE
KING!
> You're forgetting the basic premise of a
Nice idea, too bad it doesn't work, have a look at just what it takes to be a
US President. I'll paraphase 'Animal Farm'..... All animals are equal, some
more so than others:)
> --- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
While America does not mind inherited wealth, or even hereditary sucession in
control of political machines, the idea of some drooling inbred yahoo lording
it around because his family happened to choose the right
side of the Harold/Willie dispute would tend to make
most of us reach for weaponry.
> --- WJAL21@aol.com wrote:
That's why we took the safe course--outlawed the
bastards.
> Was in your constitution. But will it be in the NAC
I have a strong feeling that the Confederation will be
just that--local customs (including wierd American
penchants for personally owned firepower and refusal to accept nobility) will
be strongly respected. Either that, or the Americans lost about 200 million
people in the civil war.
> > Always honorary. You can't knight an American,
That depends. There's more than a few that are tied to some seriously sick
chunks of land.
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> Come now, no one shot a certain very well known
Sure. A nice honorary one. Doesn't bother me. Hell,
make him Grand Duke of Luxembourg--with the promise
that he'll never come back.
> --- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
> What John is overlooking is the simple fact that in
When 80 million amalgamate with 300 million, guess who's mores get respect.
It's the Mongols and the Chinese, but not quite as lopsided.
> Nice idea, too bad it doesn't work, have a look at
Really? Keep in mind some of our Presidents are about
2-3 generations removed from being white trash. . . Of
course they are all lawyers et al--we do kind of
require an education of some sort.
> > Come now, no one shot a certain very well known
John said:
> Sure. A nice honorary one. Doesn't bother me. Hell,
Didn't know that Luxembourg had offended you that seriously. :-)
> On 2-Dec-01 at 22:43, Derek Fulton (derekfulton@bigpond.com) wrote:
> Nice idea, too bad it doesn't work, have a look at just what it
So a peanut farmer is more equal than others? (Jimmy Carter), how about an
actor (Ronald Reagan)? Yes, the Bushes are Oil Barons, but that isn't a
requirement.
> Derek (Who lives in a country where the lowest can actually rise to
I would bet my last dollar that you don't get elected in OZ without having
significant financial backing, just like it is here.
> "Admiral Lady Beth Fulton"
Yeah, even I was going to say "that fleets in trouble then!!";)
Beth
I don't doubt the RECIPIENTS would accept the honors. But the people of
say, Dallas, might object to the honor being called the "Count of Dallas."
American culture has historically been anti-monarchist.
Brian B2
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
> From: WJAL21@aol.com
> From: WJAL21@aol.com
> Was in your constitution. But will it be in the NAC constitution?
It can probably be assumed that any agreement that brought the US back into
the NAC fold would have made some considerable concessions to the US
constitution/history. We're stubborn enough that, bad as things get,
we'd probably prefer to go right along with our second civil war before we'd
cave on certain issues. Any history that does not take the US Constitution and
culture and the will of Americans into consideration in the formation of the
NAC isn't REALLY an NAC, it's a reborn British Empire inspired merely to
say, "Screw you, Yanks."
> Derek Fulton wrote:
This is assuming that the "Big End of Town" as you call it even marginally
represents the Average American. That's a big assumption. And you'll find
that the farther west in the US you go, the stronger the anti-nobility
sentiment will get. Westerners are justifiably proud of their pioneer
heritage, the same as most Strines or South Africans.
> Derek Fulton wrote:
> What John is overlooking is the simple fact that in the GZG time line
Now it's regressing into pretty ugly territory, and this reinforces my point
in a post a few moments ago, that the timeline has a lot more to do with
sticking it to Americans than any connection with reality. I find it Ironic
that most other groups gets pretty fair representation in all the politics of
the Tuffleyverse, but it seems that even the suggestion of a free America or
American based entity in the future is met with such disdain by so many.
Realistically speaking, any NAC that took the attitude Derek just displayed
would have not a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by any American,
no matter how desperate they were to end the Civil War. Since the movie
Gettysburg has already come up, I would reccommend a review of the
dialogue between the Confederate officers and Captain Freemont of the Queen's
Own Teasippers. Any factions in a second US civil war would have a hell of a
lot more in common with each other than with an English monarchy. LIVE FREE OR
DIE!!!!
> You're forgetting the basic premise of a
It's been doing pretty well for the last 200 or so years here. To borrow
loosely from Churchill (IIRC), It's a lousy system, but it's better than the
alternatives.
> have a look at just what it takes to
It may not be as open a contest as it used to be, but at least we still have
some say in it.
> Derek (Who lives in a country where the lowest can actually rise to
That's because it's such a short rise. ;-)
G'day guys,
> Brian wrote:
As a non American having seen so many films/stories/games where the US
effectively reign supreme (and hearing the US of today proclaim themselves
leaders of the free world fairly or not), its just so much fun to take the
mick...and being the warped sardonic b@st@rds we Aussies are its all the more
fun when the USAians get all upset about it;););)
> Realistically speaking, any NAC that took the attitude Derek
Just like Master Atkinson you have to know when he's joking... I'm considerate
enough to add ";)", Derek isn't always as kindly.
> Derek (Who lives in a country where the lowest can actually
I'll pay that one;)
Atkinson said:
> While America does not mind inherited wealth, or even
....in the interests of international diplomacy I'll resist jokes about the
shrub (nickname for the little bush down here);)
> When 80 million amalgamate with 300 million, guess
I'm torn between saying your side or the ones at the top?;)
> Really? Keep in mind some of our Presidents are about
And along the same lines Roger added:
> So a peanut farmer is more equal than others?
I think Derek was thinking back to the fact (or at least that is how it has
been portrayed in a few docos down here) that no non-Greek (uni frat)
and fairly rich guy has been President since the earliest of days. Maybe its
media hype from outside the US (especially in Australia were "US
bashing/stirring" is considered a national past time), but your
Presidents are painted as being larger than life and effectively royalty in
all but name. Our PMs and our governor generals certainly don't get the
treatment (on the way up or afterwards) that the Presidents SEEM to (at least
in what we get to see of them), but may be its all a cultural misunderstanding
(for one you probably respect your pollys, here the general opinion is you'd
have to be desperate, demented, out of touch or crooked to want to be one).
> I would bet my last dollar that you don't get elected in OZ without
You can get elected in Australia with VERY little if any financial
backing -
the biggest point Pauline Hanson's rise to fame has proved. Heck in a country
where the slumber party has a chance of getting a seat anything can happen.
Having said that the party that gets into power as the government (liberal or
labour) gets a fair whack of money thrown at it (but still a pittance in US
terms), individual candidates are a different matter and the PM is only the
head of the most successful party not a directly elected thing. So by US terms
that last dollar is on shakey grounds;)
However, as much as Derek will have enjoyed getting a rise out of USAians (he
is an Aussie bloke after all) I think its time we let this one die a natural
death... I hate discussing politics at the best of times, but when its wasting
good gaming time, heaven forbid!!!;)
G'day,
> I know about BumbleBees and their aerodynamics but Butterfly Flight
The lift to thrust ratio and other features of the take-off/landing and
short flight dynamics of some insects (e.g. butterflies) break the rules of
flight/energy use etc as they're understood by current engineers and
physicts.... the insects shouldn't be able to do it they way they do, but they
obviously do;)
Cheers
> At 05:11 3/12/01 +1100, Beth wrote:
<snip>
> As a non American having seen so many films/stories/games where the US
Note to self must remember to supply 'laugh track'
:):):):):):):):):):):):):)
> >> Derek (Who lives in a country where the lowest can actually
Me too, especially if you realize just how 'short' our current Prime Minister
is.:)
<snip>
> However, as much as Derek will have enjoyed getting a rise out of
What she said;) But I will admit I always have a chuckle because of the
'return of the colonies' premise in the GZG timeline and the response it
draws from quite a few Americans. It's important to remember that the GZG time
line is simply a background to provide a bit of colour to the games we play,
not a serious attempt at defining the future of humanity.
> Don M wrote:
For what it's worth, "knight" is a higher rank then "esquire", so you would
not style anyone as both.
In substance, both are of equal meaninglessness.
On 3-Dec-01 at 01:15, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au (Beth.Fulton@csiro.au)
wrote:
> G'day,
I saw a recent article on the "insect flight violates physics". It turns out
that many of them are making efficient use of energy that would normally be
lost in vortices spinning off the wing tip. They are making giant dragonfly
wings in a fluid that recreates air at the larger scale. It doesn't look like
it will have much affect
on human flight, but if you were making a 1/300 scale air unit
that actually flies...
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> John said:
My ideal future involves him being declared Caliph and taking over the Islamic
world... At least then he could officially have a harem instead of trying to
call them "interns".
> At 2:41 PM +1100 12/3/01, Derek Fulton wrote:
> d
I should point out that the NAC is a Confederation. You should look up the
meaning of the word.
Thanks Derek!
[quoted original message omitted]
<<the idea of some drooling inbred yahoo lording it around...>>
Which member of the Kennedy Clan did you have in mind? <GD&R>
[quoted original message omitted]
<<I find it Ironic that most other groups gets pretty fair representation>>
Brian (and others), I cannot agree with this as the Universe really feels like
it is written from a Western perspective. It doesn't really cater for
the potential super-powers of the future such as India, and I wouldn't
be in the least surprised if the Islamic World became THE dominant force on
Earth, purely down to numbers if nothing else. There are a great many
scientists, doctors, artists, etc in the Islamic and Asian worlds who are just
as good as western ones, and yet their countries are not represented in as
good light as the USA.
Since China takes over the ex-USSR to a large extent, why on earth would
it revert to Nova Moskya when they move to space. Now that really doesn't make
sense to me....
At the end of the day, there are a certain number of unalterable facts
(I'm
going to regret writing that ;-)
1. The game is written by a Brit, so why not have a Brit-centred
universe, just for a change. We aren't that bad.... 2. It is just one of many
thousands of possible futures. 3. You are perfectly at liberty to write your
own universe, that's even in the manuals (unlike a rather larger UK games
manufacturer...) 4. It is only a game. 5. It is just an excuse to get some
ships together on a table top and blow the hell out of your opponent whilst
they are trying to do the same back to you. Or subtle variations of that
scenario. The background is just something to hang that on. 6. It is still
only a game, honestly. 7. I'm on a losing wicket, so I'll give up here.
BTW, between 75% and 100% of this is tongue in cheek.
Cheers, Iain.
[quoted original message omitted]
I forget...
Is Free Cal-Tex Canon?
If so, doesn't this solve a certain amount of this discussion?;)
David
> -----Original Message-----
> Brian (and others), I cannot agree with this as the Universe really
a notable lack, someone really out to do a planet Kshatriya.
> and I wouldn't be in
IMHO, the cohesiveness isn't there.
> Since China takes over the ex-USSR to a large extent, why on earth
I believe it's mentioned in Canon, essentially the Russians wrested control
away.
I grant you that China taking over Russia (without nukes flying) is
extremely implausible--much more so than the NAC.
> At 05:43 3/12/01 -0600, you wrote:
Yes it is cannon
2159 California and Texas declare themselves independent from the NAC, and
claim all rights to the colonies on Austin and Fenris (which they rename
New Pasadena). After much diplomatic protest and sabre rattling, plus a few
token military strikes, the NAC accepts the declaration and the FCT (Free
Cal-Tex) is formed.
There's even 25mm SG2 miniatures for them:)
> --- David Rodemaker <dar@horusinc.com> wrote:
Yes.
> If so, doesn't this solve a certain amount of this
No. Those are the ones who didn't want to compromise.
> --- Iain Davidson <iain@arath.org.uk> wrote:
Since I'm not from the People's Republic of Massachussetts, AFAIC the Kennedys
can attempt carnal relations in a solitary manner.
> --- Iain Davidson <iain@arath.org.uk> wrote:
> Brian (and others), I cannot agree with this as the
Yes, well who's invented 99+% of the things you use in
the world today?
> doesn't really cater for
Too disunited--and too dirt-poor. Too many structural
problems in that society.
> the least surprised if the Islamic World became THE
Too backwards--and the more agressive they are, the
more backwards they are. The educated ones are mostly the guys who want to be
left alone to drink their coffee in peace.
> Since China takes over the ex-USSR to a large
Because if you can imagine the Chinese with a viable space program you've got
well more imagination than I
do. They're not the most forward-looking people
around. No imagination.
Problem,
> I should point out that the NAC is a Confederation. You should look
Meaning and true nature are two different things. Besides, I don't really see
it as that big of a change, other than in name. By the time
the NAC comes around, Queen/King in the UK may be no more than President
in the US. Afterall, going to Parlament is a lot like going to Congress.
The US and the UK have always come together when things were really dark, this
is just an extreme example of it. Besides, everybody acts as if the NAC signed
some massive edict abolishing Americanism. Over time being American would
likely become like being Canadian, Scottish, or Irish. Keep your identity, but
ya know what if the Queen is willing to foot the bill and pay me for doing a
job cool, better than starving on some street and wishign for the good ol'
days.
Yeah, you'd have seperatists, but I honestly think that America would rather
become part of the NAC than fall in on itself. The US would likely become a
very influencial part of the NAC.
Eli
Hey folks,
Ok, this is a bit long. I had plenty to say...:)
> Seriously, you guys need to develop a sense of humour. You may be smart
> enough to understand reality and the media, though these days I think
Hear, hear, Derek.
Look, this is getting a wee bit out of hand.
As (I think) Iain said, it's only a game, and what the heck is wrong with a
Brit-centered universe/history for once, anyway...
Jon T. has, IIRC, mentioned *on this list* that the history he provided in
the game is meant for fun, partially tongue-in-cheek, as a means of
providing an excuse to have battles. He's British, so *why not* write a
Brit-centered history?
It isn't "realistic" enough?
This is science fiction. I could think of several ways to justify having the
US fall completely to pieces and dissappear all together as a world power in
the next 50 years, let alone the next 200. I could think of ways
the US could form a fascist-ish world government subjugating everyone
else, in the next 50 years, too. Either is just as "realistic". The Roman
Empire covered much of the "known" world, then disappeared. The British Empire
ruled more of the world than any other, ever, in recorded history. And ended
up in the dustbin inside of 50 years. And so on. Things change. But in the
end, that stuff really doesn't matter.
If you don't like the canon history, then don't play using it.
> Any history that does not take the US Constitution and
Oh crap. That's just silly.
That's verging on paranoid, and reading a lot more into what is and isn't said
in the Canon than is really there.
What you mean is that any history that doesn't let the US be the
US-in-space isn't satisfying to you.
I don't know what Jon T's motivations were while writing the Canon history,
but I'm sure it wasn't a big conspiracy designed specifically to stick it to
the US...
Why do you assume that the US must be the
US-as-you-know-it-now-mostly-and-maybe-changed-a-bit in any future
history, or the history is just out to "Screw you, Yanks."?
Good grief.
> Sadly, it's so popular to lampoon Americans these
Balls.
Up here in the Great White North, we get AmericaAmericaAmerica as much as
we can take. Don't get me wrong, Candians (including me - very much so)
generally love our Southern Brethran - there were over 20,000 Canadians
that turned out at the Canada-Loves-New York rally, *in New York city*,
this past weekend, including our Prime Minister - for example. But
don't give me the "no one really knows us" line... I took a year of American
history in *highschool* for pete's sakes. America is lampooned because it's
the big boy on the block, and because too many Americans take themselves way
too seriously sometimes. That's how it goes. Canada is
lampooned for being backwards and too nice and wishy-washy. The Brits
are
lampooned for being a bunch of toffee-nosed-prigs. The French are
lampooned for being.... er... French. The Australians are lampooned for being
just like Crock Dundee. And so on. It's all in fun.
Ever looked at Revolution-era US political cartoons? English political
cartoons of the same era, for that matter? Lampooning the Crown like
crazy...
Why?
Big boy on the block...
> I
I wonder if you read the GZG history in the GZG rule books? The formation of
the AC (later NAC) comes 50 years from now, after the US economy and
government collapse, after a big civil war, and after years of putting things
back together. Look at US during the period from, say 1775 to 1830. British
Colony to powerful republic, with a completely different ethos, different
politics, different social structure, etc. Remember that the American heroes
who started the revolution considered themselves to be, in a large part, loyal
Englishmen. They tried and tried to get the Crown to recognize their issues
and grievences, and make changes within the context of the existing system,
before they took the big leap into rebellion. It
took a LOT for their politics and loyalties to change - but change they
did, and a nation changed with them. Look at the British Empire from say 1895
to 1945, or maybe 1918 to 1968. Largest Empire the world has ever
seen, to a few remaining colonial holdings - an island here and there.
Ever study history? 50 years is a long time, and lots and lots can happen.
Who knows what the US of 2057 (when the AC is founded) is like? Could be a
*completely* different place than the place you know now. Given what the Canon
says happens around the world, I'm sure it would be.
> As for the NAC controversy, I'm not disputing the NAC. But the Canon
> only says we were rejoined, it doesn't say we were dragged in in
The canon doesn't say much about how the US joined the NAC. Rather than taking
it all personally, lets look at what the canon actually says.
In the intro to the timeline in the SG rulebook, the NAC is introduced as
"...a primarily British-controlled alliance encompassing Canada and the
former USA which grew out of the rubble of the Second American Civil
War..."
And from the various timelines, we see:
"2049 The US economy collapses, followed by the Federal Government as the
President is assassinated in the bombing of the White House. General Parham
declares the creation of a military government. Many states ignore the
military proclamation, violently opposing the armed forces atttempts to assume
control."
"2050 Parham requests UN military involvement to restore order in the US. The
request is denied. The military government turns toward Britain and Canada for
help. The 'Pacification' of the former USA begins."
"2057 Britain, Canada and the United States unite under the Crown and create
the Anglian Confederation. Admiral Dewsbury appointed Lord Governor of the
territory previously known as the United States of America."
and then we skip through the War of the Americas, into space, and right on up
to
"2098 Conflict again between the Anglian Confederation and the LLAR as border
clashes escalate into all out war. Within two years, the LLAR loses all
possessions on Earth..."
and then
"2135 The Anglian Confederation moves its Parliament to Albion, which now has
a population almost as large as England thanks to massive immigration and
engineered population growth programmes. The reigning monarch, King Charles V,
divides his time between palaces in England, Vermont, Ottawa and Albion."
"2136 The Anglian Confederation renames itself the New Anglian Confederation
and revises its Constitution to include all related colonies as independent
members."
And then that's pretty much it, other than when California and Texas break off
in 2159 and form the FCT. There are more mentions of NAC battles, led by
Ennobled senior officers (ie "Sir Andrew Le Throux" and "Rear Admiral Dame
Jayne Oppenburger").
Not a lot else.
So, what does that tell us.
In the Canon, the US dissolves. The AC (and later NAC) if formed from the
three countries joining, and goes on to take over all of Central and South
America, not to mention a bunch of off-world colonies.
All the colonies are recognized as independent members. Depending on how you
read this, and knowing that the *capital* of the NAC is on one of the colony
worlds (an "independent member"), I think it is reasonable to suggest that
maybe the former UK, the former Canada and the former USA are all also
independent members... Probably not exactly the same as they were in 2001,
though.
We know that the US was led by a "Lord Governor" after Parnham. No more
President, ie no more US Constitution. It doesn't say the US got all kinds of
negotiated concessions. It doesn't say that it *didn't* get negotiated
concessions. It did say that the US doesn't get a President... And it says
that the US was wrecked (ie "out of the rubble of the Second...")
But it says almost NOTHING about the current political state of the NAC, how
it is composed, etc etc. We know there is a Parliament. We know there is a
King as the head of state. We know there is a nobility. What *kind* of
nobility, whether landed gentry or created as rewards of some kind, we don't
know. Maybe the nobility is a meritocracy...?
We know that the Texans and Californians didn't like it enough to get out.
That and the bit about "primarily British-controlled" sorta suggests a
British-ish dominance in the way it was put together.
I have a good idea how those who get miffed about the
"British-controlled"
leanings of the Canon feel. Canada would have almost as strong, probably just
as strong, a reaction to British dominance as the US would. The US fought for
its independence against the British Crown in the late 18th century. Canada
fought for its independence during the Boer War, in the fields of France and
Belgium in World War I, and in Italy, Holland, France and Germany during WWII.
We just didn't fight *against* the British. But
*many* Canadians died as *Canadians* - not as Englishmen... We have
just
as strong a claim to our independence as the Americans do - it's just
younger. And we didn't dissolve in a civil war in the Canon history (though,
given the heavy dependence of the Canadian economy on trade with the US, a
civil war in the US would probably muck things up here pretty well, also). The
British were almost certainly the strongest of the three countries and were
able to influence things heavily during the formation of the AC. But the sense
of nation that the Canadians and the Americans would bring to the AC (later
NAC) would I'm *sure* be reflected in it's composition. At least it does in
*my* version... And that's really the point.
To conclude this vast ramble, there is LOTS of space and "wriggle room" in
what is said in the Canon for you to interpret things how you like. It doesn't
say that the US was dragged in to the AC in chains.
The *greatest* thing, in my opinion, of these games is that Jon wrote them
to be setting-independent. You can play with the setting how you like.
You can throw it out the window or bend it wildly, as John Atkinson has done.
And you're encouraged to do so.
But *please* can we stop with the "The US should be more dominant", "The US
would never subject itself to a new Monarchy", "We would kill anyone who tried
to be a noble here", "It isn't *realistic*".
It is as realistic as you want it to be.
And if it isn't realistic to you, and least it sure is flexible.
Well, that's a bit more than my $0.02. I'll get off the soapbox now.
:)
Back in the dark days of WW2, Churchill - in a fit of enthusiasm extreme
even for him - proposed a partial unifcation of the English-speaking
world - totally free trade and common passports is what I recall. Oh,
and the Americans in Roosevelt's entourage nodding and smiling politely.
This is somewhere in his WW2 series probably volume two.
> Eli Arndt wrote:
> Problem,
Ok, I'm replying to myself...
Kinda silly, but upon re-reading this bit, I realize it doesn't say what
it was supposed to.
> We know that the Texans and Californians didn't like it enough to get
What I meant was that Texans and Californians didn't like the way the NAC
worked. They disliked it enough to get out.
I *thought* that's what I said, anyway...
> --- adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> in the next 50 years, too. Either is just as
Depending on how you want to date the downhill slide,
it took about 1000 years to reach rock-bottom.
> Up here in the Great White North, we get
Where you get American TV statios, American radio stations, Americans on
vacation, and 90% of your populations lives within about 4 hours drive from
the US. You're practically us. Real Foreigners (ie Euros) don't really
understand us. If you want proof, start shouting at English railway workers in
an American accent. It's amazing how apologetic they
get--they've seen the movies, they know we're all
psychotic.:)
> I wonder if you read the GZG history in the GZG rule
We've had economic collapse before. We've had a civil war before. We've had
governmental crisis of every stripe imaginable.
> recognize their issues and grievences, and make
Getting shot at does that for you. Oddly enough, one of the biggest heartburn
for Brits is the gun
issue--the same damn issue they lost the US over
(Lexington would never have turned into a firefight if the Brits weren't
running around confiscating weapons and ammunition).
<snip bunch of discussion>
Well, the truly important thing is this: After the politicians were done
arguing about it, the US would simply take the expedient way out and conquer
the UK through cultural imperialism. Phase I will be sending over thousands of
Southern men to teach y'all how to cook barbeque and their wives to teach
y'all how to make fried chicken. And whatever you Brits may think, you don't
know what fried chicken is. I saw what passes for fried chicken in an
"American style" restraunt and ran in terror. Phase II will be extensive
courses in "How to cook beef and I don't mean boiling it until it's gray!"
> David Rodemaker Wrote:
I've decided to drop the issue altogether. Despite the list's disdain for NAC
splinter groups, if I really want free Americans, I can always make one up
anyway. That was not my point to begin with, I was merely arguing that a
British return to America would require some major concessions to Americans.
As for free Cal-Tex, the odds of America becoming British again are,
IMO, several orders higher than the odds of Texans ever having anything to do
with California. ;-)
Actually, I meant (and badly phrased) that when the ESU leave Earth at a time
when the Chinese element is ascendant, then why did they suddenly revert to
Russian names, make the capital a Russian planet etc. That was the bit I could
not understand.
I hadn't thought about the non-nuclear takeover, but if we extrapolate
that
the USA keeps paying the ex-USSR to dismantle its nuclear warheads,
combined with the recent talks on reducing the US and USSR stockpile, then
maybe there really are too few nukes to defend when the Chinese expand into
the Asian republics.
Just an idea of the top of my head.... ;-)
[quoted original message omitted]
> Because if you can imagine the Chinese with a viable
Perhaps, but they are also the only country that has a stated goal to put
somebody on the moon within the next few years. As far as system wide
exploration goes the technology to do so isn't really that 'advanced'. Te
problem is if (like us) the country in question has 0-tolerance for crew
loss *and* wants to have a whole bunch high-tech research to go along
with
it....
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 08:46:09PM -0000, Iain Davidson wrote:
That's something I'm working on for my ESU writeup for the GZGPedia (to be
followed by a web site, I hope). Speaking from my (very slight) position of
authority as the man who gave the world the words
"voyenna-kasmicheskiy flot", the approach I'm taking is that the
Russians did to the Chinese the same thing the Chinese did to the
Mongols several thousand years earlier: take over the record-keeping,
the logistics, the tedious stuff that conquering heroes don't want to do.
Then, once you're indispensable, identify yourselves as a group and start
grabbing power...
In a message dated 04/12/01 18:20:33 GMT Standard Time,
> johnmatkinson@yahoo.com writes:
> Well, the truly important thing is this: After the
This bit of Americanism I think I could appreciate quite a lot. I assume when
you talk about REAL fried chicken you don't mean like "colonel Kentucky greasy
chicken". And I don't like boiled grey beef, need to see some blood.
HMMM fried chicken :-)
> Well, the truly important thing is this: After the
That could be "Northern Fried Chicken", which I found somewhere in
Pennsylvania. I was young and foolish, so I sampled it. Used chewing gum is
better.
On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 19:43:12 +1100 Derek Fulton
<derekfulton@bigpond.com> writes: <sniP>
> What she said ;) But I will admit I always have a chuckle because of
With the Kravak, among other 'neighbors', that in itself is, once again, an
open question...
Gracias,
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 19:50:20 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> While America does not mind inherited wealth, or even
Minor point, under current American law I think that's called murder if fatal,
and assault in all the other cases. <grin>
Of course, I can only speak for myself since I am not a delegate from any
tribe, nation or group. Current practices, beliefs, and perceived "American"
responses have absolutely no direct correlation to what might occur that far
in the future after a general collapse of society as postulated by GZG's
setting.
I am sure there would be a diverse response to the people who brought
control to a civil war - remember we are talking a fictional setting,
not a perceptual or actual generalization of anyone's stereotyped view(s) of
reality.
Gracias,
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:10:40 -0000 "Iain Davidson" <iain@arath.org.uk>
writes:
> <<the idea of some drooling inbred yahoo lording it around...>>
All of them?
Okay, there are exceptions to (almost) anything. I hope.
Gracias,
Adrian.
Well said.
Gracias,
> Roger Books wrote:
One of our demo' games featured a branch of McD's on the tabletop which had
already been reduced to rubble. We used the plastic coffee stirrers available
in the restaurants to make both the logo and the golden arches sign.
That's so amusing, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me copy you. :-)
Brian B2
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
> From: Tony Francis <tony.francis@kuju.com>
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> That could be "Northern Fried Chicken", which I
Oh, the folly of youth! Buying fried chicken north of Maryland!
> it. Used chewing
No, they are silenced.22 caliber pistols...
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:11:39 +0000 (GMT) Phillip Atcliffe
> <Phillip.Atcliffe@uwe.ac.uk> writes:
Precision is a standard aspect on Urban Myth - Accuracy on the other
hand...
Gracias,
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 02:49:03PM -0800, John Atkinson wrote:
> Oh, the folly of youth! Buying fried chicken north of
A few years ago, in the UK, Kentucky Fried Chicken made a lot of money;
so a few local chains and single-shop businesses decided to copy it. We
got Southern Fried Chicken, Tennessee Fried Chicken, Dixie Chicken, and my
personal favourite: New Jersey Fried Chicken.
I'll shut up until I have something on-topic to say.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 09:46:50 +0000 Roger Burton West
<roger@firedrake.org> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 02:49:03PM -0800, John Atkinson wrote:
Even as a California Kid I have only one word to this abomination:
Gross!
Much I love "junk chicken" like KFC (Believe it or not, it beats **all**
the other fried chicken in Saint Louis) but for self-respecting fried
chicken I cook it myself (not so much since wife lost Gall Bladder.)
Gracias,
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
Try it and we will of course sue you for appropriating our ideas and the
likeness of our ideas (so don't go off building a 'McBilderbecks' model,
we'll sue your a$$ off for that as well) :-))))
I'll try to dig out the model in question if possible and take some pictures
(if I ever get my home PC working again...). IIRC the model was 20mm scale and
made from the assorted bits of building that come
with Matchbox 1/76th plastic vehicle kits, plus the ubiquitous plastic
coffee stirrers.
Diverging slightly, one of the Matchbox kits (the Sdkfz 11 half-track +
PaK40) contains a ruined building with a Nazi eagle / swastika emblem.
The swastika can easily be cut off and the wings straightened to make a
halfway decent imperial eagle which can be used to adorn SF scenery.
Again, if I can find an example model I'll photograph / post pictures
(it'll be amongst the stuff that still hasn't been unpacked since I moved 12
months ago).
> Tony Francis wrote:
model,
> we'll sue your a$$ off for that as well) :-))))
Bring it. I'll just spill your coffee on my lap and countersue.
> I'll try to dig out the model in question if possible and take some
I'm thinking of doing one more in line with sentiments here in the Pacific
Northwest, and demolish a Star(bilder)backs - or as I like to call it,
mcCoffee.
> Diverging slightly, one of the Matchbox kits (the Sdkfz 11 half-track +
Speaking of such things, I was wondering if smaller 1/32nd scale
vehicles can be converted into larger 25mm ones. A local shop has some
Scimitars and a Wiesel, as well as some smaller WWII stuff (Including a model
of a renault converted by the Germans into a PanzerWerfer carrier).
That makes sense. You can come and do paperwork for me just anytime you like
;-)
Cheers, Iain.
[quoted original message omitted]
I'll have to take your word for it as I'm not personally acquainted with the
whole clan ;-)
[quoted original message omitted]