I’d say that’s the fundamental tenet of remaining one.

Nothing cures Christianity like reading the bible with even the mildest of assumptions that God’s moral reasoning might be, at best, somewhat to be desired.

Hey, what accent is that?

All of them

Fair enough, that makes way more sense.

I think they meant front line cavalry which, tbf, they should have specified.

For sure, I think horses, donkys and mules are still the best way to carry large supplies for fighting deep in jungles too. Well, outside of helicopters but they’re not ad good at hiding under the jungle canopy. So, I 100% agree. I was just letting you know.

I don’t think I explained it very well.

They dont look to own the country when they overthrow it. Thats old school colonialism. Its expensive to maintain and people will dislike you for it. Neo colonialism has them pay for their colonisation from the start.

It’ll be for access to specific resources. Say they had, oh I dunno, oil. You install a puppet government thats 100% dependent on you, who knows they’ll be killed if they lost US backing, and you force them sell you their oil fields for a fraction of their worth.

Then, any revolution or even democratic vote that tries to take them back, despite how wrong and unlawfully they were obtained, would be seen as breaking international law and have them cut off from the rest of the world. Cuba was and still is meant as a warning to the rest of the Americas.

You don’t need the rest of the country to be prosperous for that. In fact, that would just push up the labour costs.

Its strange, you reply with the appearance of disagreeing but then say things that don’t refute anything I’ve said and that I broadly agree with.

For sure and even before machine guns, there’s examples of that like the seige of Badajoz which, for its time, was brutal (Napoleonic - like 5k in an hour or something).

To me though, and apologies if you know already, at the Battle of the somme the British army believed the germans to already be dread after days of shelling. As well as this, the many of the british troops were so poorly trained that they ordered mass sections to literally March, with their arms locked out in front of them with the barrel of their rifle pointing upwards, right at German machine guns hoping to charge at the end. Thats literally napoleonic tactics, only they were all “rifles” or light infantry, so they formed skirmishers lines instead of columns. The British artillery stopped shooting for the advance, so that they didn’t shoot their own troops.

By the end of the war, soldiers huddled behind tanks advancing behind a rolling barage. The germans just did it on mass and had the armour more concentrated. One of the reasons they jumped so far ahead is the hard lessons they had suffered towards the end of the war. I mean, it was still a blood bath for everyone but for them it was an even worse blood bath. So, I agree very much with what you’re saying.

My only point I’m making about the speed of change in warfare, to my understanding, is even greater still in ww1.

Funny they would say that, I’ve just restructured my remuneration package so that all of my pay now technically counts as tips.

Yay me!

I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying. However, I think the reason it’s not sitting right with you is your assumption of good faith on their part.

What if they never cared if the country is more profitable generally and they just wanted to rip them off as much as possible before they realise what’s going on?

To me, their actions make far more sense if I presume that was what they really intended to do. More so, any assumption of good faith, as you point out, makes their behaviour seem, at best, bizzare.

Most historians I’ve read consider ww1 to have had a far greater evolution, starting with napoleonic tactics and ending with rolling artillery barrages and tanks.

However, I’m not sure of the point you’re looking to make here. I mean, the polish army sending cavalry against the germans was an act of wild desperation. I think thats the point they were making there.

Not against tanks which would be why the royal dragoons switched to tanks.

100%. People only think them failures or the CIA as incompetent as they presume the CIAs illegal actions, in those instances, to have been done in good faith, despite the contradiction.

As always, the intended outcome was access to that particular country’s resources, for a very small group of wildly wealthy people, at regime-change prices.

When it comes to that, the CIA are amazing at what they do.

I understood them to be talking about cavalry, in that sentence.

Too low wage and the government will top up those being underpaid by their employer, effectively passing on part of the burden of pay to the tax payer.

If wages rise too high, the government will always step in to make sure it doesn’t continue.

Its highly externally regulated and ultra manipulated by the people who buy labour and own for their money. Sadly, some people still beleive in the “invisible hand” blessed be its name story.

Gotcha, you’re only used to arguing with people dumb enough to fall for your cheap tricks and poor, invalid arguments. If that’s all I had, I’d run away too.

You also!

Its only a special military operation. Why would they need to escalate?

Not to someone who’s determined to deny it, no matter the cost, and engage in any manner of fallacious, underhanded, side stepping nonsense they believe will further their cause.

Unfortunately, it would take some intellectual integrity from you and you’ve shown yourself to be utterly devoid of any, over and over again.

I mean, you can’t even prove the assertion you originally made. Instead you claim I have to prove you wrong, burden of proof fallacy, even after your argument of “you can’t prove a negative” falls to pieces.

So, you can’t prove trump isn’t a racist, despite claiming the media is lying about him being racist? In fact, even worse, you won’t even attempt to demonstrate the claim you made to be true.

Again, nice try but 'you cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true.

I’ll add that one to your long list of invalid arguments shall I?

I’ll take that as a “no, I’ve suddenly decided I no longer like the rules I failed to impose on you.” I’ve only ever seen cult members use as many fallacious arguments as you do. You didn’t even attempt to argue that trump wasn’t a racists despite claiming it to be thus and such, without a shred of evidence. Youre happy to believe it despite your own false claim that you can prove a negative.

Sorry but youre going to have to do a lot better than invalid arguments and sealioning. I can’t even blame you for it, as it must work on people.

I love how you keep doubling down on the presumptive arrogance.

As strange as it may sound to you, I actually don’t need to prove what I know myself to have seen, to your personal satisfaction, in order to maintain that belief. Its just bizzare that you think that plus the inevitable burden of proof fallacy you plan on using is going to work here. I mean, you’ve worked your way through a good list of invalid arguments, in an attempt to make me refute the evidence of my eyes and ears. I don’t know what to say to you really.

This is the internet, not a criminal court of law where I’m the state and you’re the defendant. If anything, its on you to disprove the commonly accepted consensus. As if you think you can assign homework to people you disagree with.

You made the claim that the media is wrong about trump being a racist. I said but he is.

You own logic puts the burden on you. Let me guess, you don’t like your own rules anymore?

Good, make Britain unsafe for facsists again

I’ll take that as a “yes, I did expect you to justify your feelings to my personal satisfaction.”

He is racist. In fact, his first election campaign was just racism and a magical wall that paid for itself. He acts exactly like a modern “strongman” facsist leader and his policies and attempts to overthrow and circumvent American democracy, such as it is, speaks for themselves. I don’t think he’s as bad as hitler. At least we can agree on that. Although, I haven’t seen any news reports try to make him out to be as bad as hitler.

Wow, for someone not on either side, you sure went to that one real fast.

Let me get this straight, you think I have to justify what I think of someone to your satisfaction before deciding if my reasons for me choosing them are good enough for me?

Is that how you see this going?