Affentitten

I just went for my annual visit to a big charity book fair here in Sydney. I picked up a set of books called "Hutchinson's Pictorial History of the War". They are red hardback books, each one with about 5-600 b&w photos of WW2. Look to have been printed fairly contemporary with WW2. Anybody come across these before? A quick Google shows me a few individual volumes turning up on Ebay and 2nd hand dealer sites. But it looks like I have snaffled a complete set.

In general, how much are .50 cals really used in vehicle to vehicle (or anti vehicle) combat?

Fair enough. I guess I was more thinking that given the total possible number of aircraft involved (eg. just 3 Super Handleys), it was hardly going to bring Berlin to its knees.

The perfect alibi!

The Brits had plans to do it with the Handley Page V/1500. It could have theoretically reached Berlin from Norfolk with a token bomb load. But like the Germans with their UFOs and nuclear warheads in WW2, the Brits started their project much too late in the war and by the time they were gaining the capability to hit Berlin, everyone was already gathered round the table at Versailles.

The Costa Rica thing is a bit of a red herring. True, they don't have an army. But they do have some pretty well armed "border police". Technically the Vatican is unique in not having a defence force made from its own citizenry.

You seem to be conflating international law with world government. That's a very typical conservative misunderstanding. The sources of international law are various, with treaties being only one source. Is there a world government? No. Do countries abide by international law most of the time? Yes. Are there actual International Laws? Yes. Obviously if one or more parties are hell bent on making war then no, nothing can stop them. But to such parties the importance of international institutions in such cases is that they can legitimise the causus belli. Note the great pains the USA went to in trying to satisfy the Security Council over its WMD in Iraq fantasy. Yes, they went ahead anyway when the SC was vetoed because with a state as rich and powerful as the US, they could damn well do as they please. But look what it has cost in blood, treasure and reputation. For a more adroit use of the General Assembly and SC, see the British efforts over the Falklands crisis. The ICJ definitely has its weaknesses and deserves to be looked at sceptically. The damage done to the ICJ when America picked up its ball and went home over the Nicaragua case was significant. (But when you say you won't accept a court ruling, you also lose the right to use that institution for your own good.) However, when parties are genuinely looking for arbitration, instituions like the ICJ are very worthwhile. By the way, for a list of the many international agreements that are in force between the USA and Iran, see http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/24227.pdf from page 139 onwards. This of course does not include the many more agreements the USA and Iran are party to that also involve other states. Oil is a very significant carrot in the Persian Gulf for making treaties.

Go back and read your own quote. You said "International law apparently presumes that soverign nations have somehow subordinated themselves and their interests to a higher authority or a common goal, which is a total falsehood." And you are wrong. And you made no mention of Iran. And there are plenty more international organisations than the EU. That was just one quick and easy example that totally torpedoed your assertions. I'm questioning your obviously jingoistic understanding of both international law and international relations. Breaking a treaty can most definitely be a breach of domestic law depending on that state's particular legislative framework and the way in which individual treaties are ratified. In some states and cases, treaties replace domestic law, or they may place binding domestic law obligations on the government/head of state. But let's just say that all international law is crap, as you believe. And all treaties aren't worth the paper they're printed on. So how come so many treaties get made (The UN register alone holds about 150,000+) And how come so few treaties get broken?

WTF? That's totally irrelevant. You said that countries do not surrender their sovereignty. But they do and I gave an example. The EU is a supra-national governing body capable of making laws that are binding within its member states. They actually over-ride local law. There are plenty of other examples for the rest of the world. Even things like free trade agreements are abrogations of domestic law.

Though I wonder what the cost-benefit analysis is like? It would be much more epxensive for each of those wide-body drops and take longer in turn-around time. Plus fewer assets means fewer total drops. In a case of multiple fronts, you'd maybe prefer more little guys than one big kahuna.

What utter tosh. Ever heard of the European Union? Most of the last 60 years of political history have been one long example of countries surrendering traditional aspects of their sovereignty to collective international bodies. Your definition of sovereignty is a very narrow and incomplete reading of the realist stance (or perhaps classical realism). Another aspect of that same definition is that a state has a monopoly on violence within its own territory and that states are rational actors. Not exactly the case in the juicier parts of the Middle East these days.

And to put the whole thing in context, it's an ad created for a show called The Gruen Transfer. The show is a comedy based look at the advertising industry. Each week one of the segments involves two rival ad agencies creating a TVC for something that would be "unsellable". In the past they have done ads for stuff like child labour or celibacy.

Still, we got the Air Force bit right.

Still hoping for gold for NZ in some Olympic events, hey?

Welsome back JK. I for one have missed your threads. There was that whole WTC 7 report last week and we didn't have you to interpret it for us.

Apart from the ETO red herring, I would say The Battle of Brisbane would be perfect. Urban setting, tons of US troops, no expensive translation of voice wmv's, potential for blue on blue.....

Try Michelin. As a one-time playground of France, you'd probably find there are some pretty good maps out there.

Attempt at saracasm revealing fact that some people do nothing else with themselves apart from monitor hundreds of threads on the BF boards.

Or as more than a few locals have translated it to me: "God is big." :eek:

I was in El Alamein for the 50th anniversary of the battle. It wasn’t planned that way, I just happened to be passing through Marsa Matruh and suddenly noticed all these podgy old Brits in berets and blazers. They wanted to have a few drinks when they found I was an Aussie, but I never felt comfortable about basking in someone else’s glory. I like the Med coast of Egypt. You don’t get so many tourists there, though in Egypt, that’s a relative statement. Alexandria would have to be one of my favourite cities in the Middle East, though it’s very busy in the summer. As for El Alamein itself, well, as you would know, there aint a whole lot there to remark upon. I didn’t get a chance to visit any of the cemeteries, and to be honest, I wasn’t really much of a grog back then. I was on my way out to Siwa to conduct a bit of as LRDG raid over the Libyan border. Siwa is great because like many places in western Egypt, you can combine WW2 with Ancient history. Plus the Sahara there really looks like the movie version of the Sahara: big rolling sand dunes plus fabulous little oases with crystal clear ponds surrounded by date palms.

Interesting link out to the presentation, Scott. I hope no-one gets a chance to dredge that up because of some over-arrogant calamity in years to come.

Well you can't read every post on every thread. Maybe some one needs to do a summary thread: 1) Poeple don't like it because a) c) 2) People do like it because a) c) 3) Paradoxes of being for or against America 4) Latest BF invective against customers.

Gotta agree with that. The same people who are moaning about theis being a US versus Arab turkey shoot have no problem playing SS troops in the old CM.

I spent an amazing afternoon on the roof of the bazaar at Aleppo. We were taken up there by some fabric salesmen who had small elevator in the back of their shop. We spent a long while roaming over the chaotic constructions that have been jumbled together over the years. They even have loads of fig trees growing up there from cracks in the concrete. Slurping down a juicy fig and looking down through dusty window skylights at life in the bazaar was a truly unique experience.

I was very impressed with the people in Syria. They were incredibly friendly. If I had accepted every invitation for tea that was made, I would still be there. No hassle from anybody to buy anything or whatever. This was back in about 1992. I remember that I had tourist visa #14 ever issued from the Syrian consulate in Istanbul. Krak was truly impressive, especially the view over the Levantine plains below. Palmyra was impressive too. In both cases, what was most impressive was that we were the only ones there. There has been a lot of tourism in the 13 or so years since then. I imagine a place like Krak is very polished up and charging a US$30 entry fee now.