Hister

Yes that would make a 3rd type of issue and I guess there is nothing that can be done about that.
 
There seems to be three types of issues?
 
1. A possible bug where units that clearly arrive in 1st scenario are then not moved into second scenario. I.e. the Panthers and MKIV's.
 
2. A unit that used to be available is no longer available due to changes in unit structures i.e. TOE
 
3. Un intended effect when units get equipment not originally planned for by designer.
 
I am really interested in trying to prove point one as that should work if a designer places units then they should carry through?
 
Point 2 is nasty as a designer has to re-check everything when new engine / patch is released?
 
Point 3 I guess happens even less but one to watch for..
 
I guess that scenarios / campaigns are not baked into frozen state and the code change can change the design? This I hope can be looked at as the life blood for the game is the playability of the scenarios and campaigns IMO as a player.
 
I guess as a company having new engines and people move to new theatres and pay for new content is what is needed to keep company alive... So if old stuff gets broken it might encourage players to move to the new shiny toys...
 
I am just slightly concerned that designers are burning out and we will lose classic Campaigns that really should still be open to people when they can get to them....

hmmm  Platoon patrol might be a worthy contender.  It is small and I think with a human German defender the German side may have an advantage, honestly not sure.  And make sure to just enjoy the experience of playing against a human.  Everything you took for granted playing the AI you can toss out the window.  Humans have an unlimited "triggers" capability. 

I think back to when I was a beginner and I was glad I started in WEGO rather than real time. Even with a platoon sized force if you're really new to the game there is a lot to do in giving orders and managing your forces. Having time to sit back and think is helpful I think as a beginner so I think your friend may find it a lot less frustrating to at least initially use WEGO. Just a thought.

Also, the H2H Helper program is now called CMHelper. Easier to find in a search if you look for the right name.

Have fun! Let us know how it went.

This thread got me play JonS' Sherrif Osterbeek scenario. I never got it going for real due to unit and map size but I just had to check what awaits us in store. So far I am loving it.

Sounds excellent. I hope you guys have a good time. One thing I do when selecting a scenario is have a look at the Blitz results. If a game has been played a handful of times you can often see a pattern and find one that is either balanced to offers a greater challenge for one side or another.  Check out the play record here (you do not need to be a member to see this):

http://www.theblitz.org/scenarios/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/b-15.htm?action=scenarios&game=153
 
 
Well I am totally bias in favour of WEGO but you should play which ever way you guys feel like.
 
It is used for PBEM WEGO to transfer files to and from the game and drop box (or similar file sharing service).  Once you have CMHelper or WTII? (see my sig ) installed and setup you can play your turn and the helper program will copy the file from your game dir to the shared location and on the other side of the world or the other side of town.  Your friend's helper program will see the new file and copy it into his game files dir and be ready to play.  No manual copying or emailing of files.
 
Helpful thread on getting started in PBEM: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118043-newbie-wants-to-use-dropbox-for-multiplayer-games-but-is-ignorant/#entry1580876
 
WTII announcement thread: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/110328-announcing-whose-turn-is-it-a-pbem-turn-management-program/

Jon, that sounds excellent.  Very exciting.  I like the idea of two scenarios, one with US troops and one with British troops fighting on the same map against the same enemy.  Cool idea.

Battlepack 1: The Great Swan
Northern France and Belgium
September 1944
 
In just two months, between 6th June and mid August, the Allied armies in Normandy destroyed the cream of the 1944 German Army. Following this resounding defeat the Allies bounded across France in just a few days. It is during this period of stunning advance that Battlepack 1: The Great Swan is set, following the advance of the British 2nd Army from the Seine River, through Belgium, and all the way to the high water mark of the advance along the Meuse and lower Rhine.
 
The first phase of the Great Swan occurred when the 43rd Wessex Division seized a crossing over the Seine at Vernon in an opposed assault crossing. The battle here lasted several days, and the first 24 hours in particular were considered to be very dangerous for the British troops. However the bridgehead was stabilised and then gradually expanded to make room for follow-on forces. Prelude, the first battle of the Campaign Amiens Tonight, is a semi-historical examination of the difficulties of pressing back the determined German resistance which was able to make good use of the thick forests along the Seine river banks.
 
Shortly afterwards the British forces exploded out of the bridgehead and began racing across Northern France and into Belgium. From the first German resistance to the breakout was weak and disorganised - they were too busy fleeing back towards France to form a cohesive front. Engagements during this period tended to be small scale, and highly confusing. The Copse is a tiny scenario that takes a hypothetical look at one of these minor engagements. Overnight the advancing Allies generally rested, and prepared for the next day’s advance, while the Germans continued their relentless withdrawal. Celer et Audax and Nulli Secudus look at what happens when small British force disposed in hasty defence finds itself in the path of some withdrawing Germans in the middle of a rainy night or on a misty morning.
 
During the advance to Amiens the 11th Armoured Division was ordered to advance through the night without rest, culminating in an astonishing advance of 48 miles in just 24 hours. Tallyho follows the vanguard of this drive as they approach the location of a temporary halt at dusk. The next day found 11th Armoured at Amiens, embroiled in bitter city fighting (The Somme), and then pushing out of the city into the open ground across the river (To the green fields beyond). This was not the end of the war, and the Division soon found itself heading east once more (And the beat goes on).
 
Within days the lead elements of XXX Corps, made up as always by the armoured cars, found themselves in the region known as ‘the Crossroads of Europe’, a place where famous battles to decide the fate of nations have been fought since time immemorial (A crossroads near Brussels).
 
Soon after reaching Antwerp and the Belgian boder the advance petered out, stopped more by the logistical strain of leaping forward 200 miles in a few days than by increasing German resistance. Field Marshal Montgomery famously tried to kick-start the stalled advance with Operation Market-Garden. Those battles have been dealt with elsewhere in Combat Mission. However, in the weeks prior to the launch of Market Garden there were about a dozen planned airborne operations, all opf which were cancelled when they were overtaken by events. But what if the advance had been halted in the vicinity of Brussels?
 
One of the planned and cancelled airborne operations was LINNET II, which was to seize bridges over the Meuse west of Aachen, and open a route into Germany. A group of “what if?” fictional scenarios looks at how this never-fought battle might have played out. The flat ground between the Meuse River and Albert Canal would have provided excellent landing grounds (Drop Zone CHARLIE), while securing the river crossings was dependant on holding the high ground just east of the Meuse against counter attacks (LINNET II). As this operation was never launched, the exact details of Operation Linnet II are vague, and this vagueness has been exploited to look at the effect of differences in the detailed organisation of British and American ground and airborne forces when given the same ground and objectives, fighting against the same enemy.
 
Following the failure of Market Garden the British made a concerted effort to close up to the Rhine along its lower reaches before the onset of winter. This phase of the campaign saw a partial reversion to positional warfare, and the re-emergence of deliberate attacks against strong defences (Swansong). Often these attacks were supported by the specialist armour of the 79th Armoured Division (Hobart’s Funnies). With the onset of bad weather at the end of September the frontlines became static, and the heady days of The Great Swan became an increasingly distant memory.
 
In total Battlepack 1: The Great Swan contains over 25km2 of brand new, highly detailed handcrafted mapping.

Of course my tanks are vulnerable.. but mine are stationary and Doug will have to move his into my field of view which will effect his spotting.. in tank v tank combat the spotting battle is where the thing is normally won or lost... moving and staying buttoned up (like Doug did with his Panther) makes it very hard to see and shoot at a hull down Sherman that is not moving.  
 
I'm not a fool though, Doug's Panther will probably get a spot on my tank fairly early in the next turn which is why I am withdrawing it (after a 15 second pause to put a few more rounds downrange).  You have to take risks to win.. but make sure they are educated risks when you do, they will have a much higher chance of working out.

Awesome footage PaulMD!

The Eagle and the Bear is a narrative hypothetical campaign of a clash between NATO and Russian forces in the small Baltic country of Latvia. It is a campaign of modern war set in a "could happen" situation where you command a  U.S. Combat Brigade through a 7 day struggle for control of the Baltics.
 
It is designed to be played from the blue side only. Some scenarios are large so it may be slow load times on some systems.
 
It features 11 scenarios, 9 which are playable based on the outcomes of specific battles. I've tried to include a fair number of combat situations from small infantry engagements, airlift operations, urban battles as well as large sprawling armor engagements.
 
You take the role of Colonel Mack Barnes, commanding officer of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team and your mission is to successfully take the brigade as well as other NATO forces through 7 days of modern combat. Below is a list of the scenarios and the campaign path:
 
Battle 1- Never Cry Wolf
(Win- The Water Dogs
(Lose- Campaign Over)

Battle 2- The Water Dogs
(Win- The Crossroads of Naudaskalns
(Lose- Campaign Over)

Battle 3- Crossroads at Naudaskalns
(Win- FOB Lancer
(Lose- Campaign Over)

Battle 4- FOB Lancer
(Win - Hill 289.7)
(Lose- The Bear at the Gates)

Battle 5- Hill 289.7
(Win- Operation Hammer)
(Lose- The Siege of Balvi)

Battle 6- The Bear at the Gates
(Win- Operation Hammer)
(Lose- Campaign Over)

Battle 7- The Siege of Balvi
(Win - Operation Eagle Strike
(Lose- Campaign Over)

Battle 8- Operation Hammer
(Win- Turning the Tide)
(Lose- Campaign Over)

Battle 9- Operation Eagle Strike
(Win- The Battle of Krievkalns)
(Lose- Campaign Over)

Battle 10 - Turning the Tide
(Win- The Battle of Krievkalns)
(Lose- Campaign Over)

Battle 11- The Battle of Krievkalns
(Win - Victorious)
(Lose - Defeated)
 
Here is a list of the combatants involved:
 
NATO:

Latvian 1st Infantry Brigade
Latvian 2nd Infantry Brigade
Polish 2nd Mechanized Battalion
Polish 1st Tank Battalion
Polish 6th Airborne Brigade
1st Stryker Combat Brigade Team
1st Calvary Regiment
3rd Armored Combat Brigade Team (Core Unit)

Soviet 20th Guards Army:

9th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade
5th Guards Motor rifle Brigade
27th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade
16th Spetsnaz Brigade
56th Airborne Brigade
100th Reconnaissance Brigade
6th Guards Tank Brigade
4th Guards Tank Brigade
1st Tank Brigade

(Special Note: Due to game limitations the Latvian forces were taken from the stock Ukrainian forces with standard camouflage. The Polish forces are Ukrainian forces with digital camouflage to distinguish them differently.

The Latvian military primarily uses western equipment so they have been equipped with humvee's mostly. However I used MT-LBM's as their APC's. The Poles have the KTO-Wolverine APC which I used BTR-4E's to simulate these as well as the PT-91 Twardy MBT which is simulated by the BM-Bulat MBT.)
 
There are a number of personalities besides Col. Barnes that you will meet as the campaign unfolds. Each will play a part.
 
As with my previous campaign I have included modtags and the needed files. However I do highly recommend Kieme's outstanding CMBS mods to get the full immersion.
 
I am looking for a few playtesters to check it out and help me weed out any bugs I may have overlooked. If you are interested let me know and I will send you a dropbox link to the campaign to try out.
 
 
 

I was the opponent, not lie it was a rather horrible 15 minutes.
 
It looked like we both had the same plan of throwing everything at the grain silos, where as my vanguard was BMP3's his was M1's so yeah that fire fight didn't go my way.
 
The second wave was T-90s that I moved to engage the M1's, unfortunately I hadn't even spotted the other platoon of them till I had wandered into the cross fire, Needless to say that did not end well.
 
The 120mm mortars caught another platoon just as they where disembarking and gutted it so by that point it was all over.
 
Kieme is a LOT more aggressive than anyone else I play in PBEM games and unfortunately is rather good at it as well so my initially planning constantly over estimates where I will come into contact with his forces subsequently he captures my infantry in there transports and murderizes (A technical term) them.
 
Hopefully at somepoint I will get my recording software working again with CMBS and I can make a recording of the carnage first hand.

Hi Guys I love this game and I make my own scenarios with buildings ive made.

Steve,
 
While we're talking about the grim realities of real world computer programming, I have a question as it relates to the CMx2 Engine. Back when quite a few of us were wailing and gnashing our teeth over the inability to retrofit ever improved new CMx1 features into earlier games, you kept telling us that this was because the games were hard coded and very difficult to modify. I almost got the sense that you were talking about Charles handcrafting code for each game and in such a particular and specific manner that it was technically difficult and fiscally impossible to go back and put in the new features. In describing the radical improvements the new CMx2 Engine would bring, I distinctly recall reading that it would free BFC from the limits of the CMx1 Engine and enable changes changes to be done in software, rather than hard coded and such. It seems to me, though, that the same sorts of ugly code limitation problems have risen again, as seen in the vexed matter of elevated weapons. I find it bizarre that the code apparently can't accommodate a military design feature which has been around for decades. The M901 ITV, for example, entered service in 1979, nearly four decades ago.  Did the game engine look better initially than it turned out to be? Could you explain what happened, please, or ping Charles and then let us know what he said?
 
Extending the argument to the T-14 Armata, were it in the game, would it suffer from the same elevated weapon issue as the ITV, Krizantema, BRM-3K and other weapons with remote eyes and weapons, or just eyes of one sort or another? After all, the crew is in the hull, which would seem to make the entire turret an elevated weapon, right?
 
kraft,
 
My Mac can't read .btt format, whatever that is. Any chance you could post a pic or something?
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

re: the current Iraqi Army, Col. T. Reese wrote an unusually blunt memo in 2009 that should have made it clear that the new Army was a disaster waiting to happen, but it was widely ignored by the Obama administration.
 
 
full text here:
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/world/middleeast/31advtext.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/04/can-we-just-give-up-on-the-iraqi-army.html

I swear to god simply burning every dollar, ounce of construction material, all military equipment given to the Iraqis in a giant pit would be a less wasteful use than what the Iraqis have done with it. 

Panzersaurkrautwerfer, you make a very good point. I completely agree that it is way too simplistic and short-sited to say that all powerful states are equally bad (or good) in their actions and that their military and geopolitical ventures should always be held to the same standard. My original point is that they all operate with intention of pushing their geo-political, military, economic, and (less so) ideological interests; but the way that they go about it is by no means universal.
For the record - I don't believe that any of them are evil (nor righteous); and that their actions are driven by (first and foremost) the natural dynamic of foreign affairs (i.e. how much they can accomplish based on their strengths and weaknesses vs. those of their rivals).

The tough question (that many observers, myself included) struggle with - is how do you evaluate such actions from a moral/humanitarian standpoint. My personal view is that the value of human life is the most essential standard when evaluating the actions of these states. Unfortunately we (US) do not have a good record on that end, as we have easily been directly responsible for more deaths than any of our geopolitical rivals post WW2. Again, that's not to say that our rivals have not done tons of damage as well; but there is no escaping the fact that our military ops have brought more death and suffering to civilians all around the world than those of Soviets/Russians/Chinese/Vietnamese/Iraqis/Serbs post WW2.

An opposing view (which I don’t quite share, but still very much respect) is that the freedom of expression and speech is the ultimate virtue that is worth fighting for. On that end, we (thank God) have done a much better job than any of our rivals.

The point that I was trying to make above though - is that all powerful and independent states strive to strengthen their national interests – that is an ultimate goal of any strong country, which is to be expected. Are they all equally bad (or good) in their actions? Absolutely not! However, the impetus for their actions is generally the same, while the execution might be quite different..

panzer,
stalin as a hitler jr? Id argue senior =)  he just was on the winning side of the world war. he killed more people than Hitler, notably from his own empire that Hitlers stated intent was the entire extermination of! lol!
I also think its a sad representation of wtf is going on with Russian media and society that to date Stain remains one of if not the all time most popular leader they ever had.

Re: National Interest
 
But we can discuss which national interest is less malevolent quite handily.  Which is getting back to Orwell.  Throwing your hands up and declaring they're all evil is sort of a cheap cop-out.  Effectively some national interests are less helpful, and others more.  So looking at say, the Cold War, we can compare the actions of the two competing super powers:
 
The US broadly wants you to buy their stuff, not be communist or too socialist, and to not mess with their ability to do business in your country.
 
The USSR wants more or less complete political and military control of your country, and a strict adherence to political doctrine.
 
That's really the loose version of it.  But the sort of freedom enjoyed by much of the west despite being firmly within the US sphere of influence vs the treatment of Soviet dominated Eastern Europe is worth noting and discussing (as is the occasionally "better dead than Red" policies of the US relative to the "sorry, you're not Soviet enough Hungary, hope you like our new tanks!" policies).  As in the relative virtues of Chinese investment in Africa's infrastructure vs the balance of trade and often willingness to work totally within corrupt systems in corrupt ways.
 
It's really easy to simply declare all parties are equally evil and walk away because that removes the importance of an educated, involved population in a country, and ultimately works against the accountability that we all as citizens should demand of those who nominally rule in our interest.  The blind acceptance of either total good, or total evil is just as inexcusable.  And worse when simply declaring everyone equally evil, it actually favors countries that do the least good (of which I'm comfortable saying the USSR/Russia historically has been one of those).
 
Which is really tragic in that the Russian people deserve better leadership than they've...uh, perhaps ever had?  Some of the Czars were about par for the course of the era, none of the various communist leaders were really worth a damn in retrospect (Lenin's actual accomplishments as a ruler are pretty lame, especially in light of the human suffering of the various people of the USSR, Stalin is at best Hitler Jr, Khrushchev was divisive, but likely some of the better leadership, but after that it was all "how many senile angry old men can we put in power?" until the whole mess burned down.  Gorbachev was pretty good in recognizing the world had changed, but really was the pilot of a crashing plane at that point, Yeltsin eeeeeeeh, and Putin is simply a well disguised robber-baron vs a "good" leader).

My two biggest pet peeves that I would love see addressed in the upcoming patches are:

1) RPO-As and RPO-AMs need to be buffed in their accuracy, penetration (i.e. enough to penetrate light APC or non-reinforced walls), and anti-personnel lethality. I personally find both to be completely useless right now; which does not seem to be the case IRL, based on Russian appreciation for them. Moreover, Ukrainians have an extremely short supply of RPO-As - both for their designated RPO teams (each gunner should be carrying a pack of 2 tubes instead of one) and supply vehicles (i.e. one RPO per vehicle)

2) ATGM and RPG/LAW teams wait to reload their weapons before following the "flee" order which often times leads to their death before they can seek cover; this is completely counter-intuitive and goes against standard training/SOPs for such units.

On the other hand, NATO doesn't have a history of setting up concentration camps, or going into UN safe areas and shooting every male and burying them in ditches.  Even if you handwave Serbian operations in Kosovo as merely causing collateral damage (and by most accounts they'd gone well beyond collateral damage), the Serbian military was still led by the same folks who'd killed a boatload of innocent folks, were unrepentant about same, and were by most observations about to do the same thing all over again.
 
There's a practical limit to just how permissive the world at large was going to be, and the Serbian military strode over that line handily.
 
 
Dunno.  Maybe you shouldn't have shot so many ethnic Albanians.  Perhaps then they'd remember you more fondly.  There's certainly a backlash, and certainly less Serbians in Kosovo today, but I have not seen proof of this mass killing outside of Serbian apologist sources, and frankly sounds like your problem should be with how Kosovo acts as an independent country vs the NATO campaign which was to keep Serbians from having another go at ethnic cleansing.  
 
 
And Hitler's actions are simply Germany going through what the Mongols went through.  We just have to let this all play out.
 
Like I've said, I have a strong distaste for:
 
1. The Russian government.
2. The unapologetic view of the USSR (which is not to be confused with "the USSR is pure satan and should be hated by all" but the crimes and misdeeds need to be recognized)
3. Russian military actions in Eastern Europe.
 
Of those, the first two are things that honestly I agree with you that years and years from now, maybe Russia will get over.  And I support the Russian ability to choose its own leadership, even if that leadership is Putin.  But that right to choose their own path ends where other countries begin.  If Russia wants to behave like it does, then it needs to accept that it won't win it friends and allies.  It cannot "make" allies out of its neighbors at bayonet point, or carve off pieces of its neighbors to make "buffers" against invasions that frankly will never happen. 
 
 
Like I said earlier about Iraq, the government needs to grow organically by the people its ruling.  A strong Russian leader isn't bad for the Russian people...I just object to when he defines his Russian people to include other country's citizens, in places that Russia by treaty gave up the rights to.
 
Re: 4th of July
 
It actually celebrates the day in which the rebelling colonial government folks got together and agreed that we were not simply rebelling in protest against British actions, but were in fact rebelling to become and independent nation.  The conflict to settle that matter would go on for some years after.  So we celebrate the birth of our country, and honestly some pretty cool founding ideals (especially given the era in which the nation was founded!) on the 4th of July.   There's no day set aside to represent the final victory at Yorktown.
 
Additionally in terms of pillaging you'll find that the American text books are quite clear these days on who's the "bad guys" in western expansion, and it's not the natives.  That's really my objection to the way Russia does history, it ignores the massive suffering Russia has caused historically in favor of this "everyone is out to get Russia!" narrative that does a disservice to history on a whole.  And leads to confusing situations like when Russia makes references to Ukrainians as "brother" while ethnic Ukrainians likely would rather be called "brother" by some forms of sea slugs.
 
If in future Victory Day parades took place in a greater understanding of the USSR's role in World War Two (the complete role, from the high point of taking Berlin, to the low point of invading Poland hand in hand with the Nazis), I wouldn't object so strongly.  But I imagine many Russians would be deeply concerned if the US had a Victory over Japan parade without owning up to what the nuclear bombs actually did to tens of thousands of civilians.
 
 
Eeeeeeh, I think you're biting off a bit more than you can chew.  The US racial issues are to put it mildly very complex and vary widely from place to place. The issue at hand has virtually nothing to do with "slavery" and a lot to do with economics. Not to mention you're overstating the role of slavery and its relevance to the wealth of the United States.  The US economy owes more to the anti-slavery North and it's industrial output than it did to the cotton grown in the south.  Which is not to deny that it was an important part of the US economy prior to the Civil War, but it was an increasingly less important part of the economy and the South's attempts to leverage Cotton as a weapon simply hastened its irrelevance in the greater world.
 
That said about 24.2% of African Americans live in poverty.  This is a problem, but it can also be tied into some of the regional issues of areas that are largely African American (the South especially is struggling as an economic area which remains where a significant number of African Americans live) but this is not "half" and of that half making statements of their quality of life vs Russian quality of life really should be supported more than simply saying its a thing.
 
 
And that's fine, and not even "bad" in terms of being proud, it's just a false pride without understanding the entire picture.  I'm very proud of being an American and my country.  This does not prevent me from recognizing the terrible sin of slavery (although it does mean I'm a huge William T Sherman fan), the appalling treatment of the Native Americans, the whole Spanish-American war fracas, the Philippine Insurrection, ongoing racial and economic tensions, etc, etc etc.  You don't really love your wife until you know her well enough to find she's secretly the biggest fan of "Twilight" series, or was into Vampire LARPing as a teenager.*  And to that end I wish Russians would love their country like I love mine, with eyes wide open and willing to question the "official" version of events.
 
 
 
In terms of "polite" war, a lot of it for the US draws at least from nominally high societal ideals, and historically a past of going to war to "help" (IF YOU WANT IT OR NOT/roads to hell are paved with good intentions etc) people.  Either way I think the Russians are smart enough to learn without needing "Good" examples.  And honestly might go a long way to helping their military be viewed a bit more positively.
 
 
1. British on French on native violence was pretty much mutual.  Everyone raided everyone else's villages.  Also Americans...like the French and Indian war is important because some of our super-old National Guard units trace their lineage back to it, and it's where a lot of the very important Colonial officers get their start....but it's not a popular conflict in the US.  The feeling was basically here we are, enjoying our colonies more or less doing our thing unmolested, and then the British roll in and start a war next door, and now there's French and Indians burning down our villages and kidnapping our family members.
 
So it's not really celebrated.
 
2. The treatment of Native Americans is extensively taught at all levels of schooling.  No punches are pulled.
 
3. Same deal with slavery
 
4. You need to be a lot more specific on raids into Mexico.  If you're talking about the Mexican American war, that's pretty much two mutually flawed groups thinking they could exploit the other's weakness.  If you're talking about the cross border anti-Indian raids, that's it's own bag of worms (largely done with Mexican approval).  If you're discussing the Pancho Villa pursuit, then that's a story into its own.
 
5. The Chinese showed up as contract laborers for the railroad.  It was expected they'd leave at the end of railway construction.  They did not.  And their story is not at all much different than any numbers of large immigrant groups from there.  Calling it slavery is pretty much not understanding what you're talking about though (or you should also be talking about Irish, Italian and Polish slavery in the same breath).
 
6. You're mistaking western movies for the American west man.  Or you're talking about the US-Native fighting which was discussed in point 2.
 
7. Gangs of New York was a terrible movie.
 
Your point is to indicate both histories are bloody.  Okay.  That's not what we're debating though.  We're debating that the Russians stand up to their chin in blood, and deny they're standing in it (and if you did the last 300 years side by side Russia has killed way more people anyway).  The US has largely owned its sins to the degree of ensuring their taught in schools, erected monuments to same and you can discuss those topics without skinheads on motorcycles stomping you for insulting the motherland.
 
 
On several occasions actually!  They're less uncommon than you'd think.  My "partner" (they paired you with someone to do gunnery with, so we did all the simulators and firing together) at Armor school was of either Latvian or Lithuanian origin.  Funnily enough he once commented his dad had been a Colonel, but when they read off all the senior officers attending our graduation, his dad wasn't on the list.  I asked him what was up, and it was because his dad had been a Colonel in the Soviet Army.  My last unit had a pair of Russian born officers too.  They acted pretty much as American as American can be, you wouldn't have known they weren't from LA or something except the accents (one had a mild accent, but the other had one that was frankly outrageous).
 
None of them had much nice to say about the motherland (to be fair, the one with the crazy accent was from Vladivostok which I hear is pretty terrible by most accounts).
 
 
Again, missing the point.  Firstly if it comes time to weigh dirty laundry...nah I think the French and the British pretty much have that one.  
 
If you're fighting an illness, and it's causing the throat to constrict, you need to clear the airway while addressing the underlying illness.  Drone strikes keep the airway clear.  The problem is addressing the underlying illness is something that's a lot more ethereal and relies on a lot of things outside the control of the US government.  We've just become the folks to blame for all the ills of the middle east, while ignoring a lot more of it has to do with the Syrian/Saudi/etc government behavior (and while we might support those governments to a degree in some cases, this cannot be confused with being at the heart of how they treat their populations).
Re:14 years later
 
Missed the point.  It's not "retaliation" it's "trying to reduce the threat from people who've vowed to kill every American ever" and to a large degree, the organization that did the attacks was pretty well curbstomped.  This ISIS mess has a lot more to do with the Arab Spring and Syrian actions than anything we've done.  Pakistan's Northwest where most of the drones have done their work remains pretty much anti-american as it ever was, but just as largely irrelevant outside of Pakistan-Afghanistan as ever.
 
Okay.  I'm seriously done for the day.  Unless I start getting paid for writing these things I'm going to have to start keeping the replies short.  
*Note, Mrs. Panzersaurkrautwerfer hates twilight from the top to bottom, and is by far too practical to have ever gone at it with foam rubber swords.  She is from Roswell though so I do sometimes wonder if she's "native" if you get my drift.

Sublime, USA was/is more under the spotlight 'cos it is #1 global player who proclaims itself to be one of the "good guys" while it's actions are sometimes somewhat "debatable". Russia is making up for it with it's Ukrainian debacle so USA is less under global attention now.