|
bartlebyshop posted:That's New Yorker house style to make it clear that the second vowel is pronounced (that the pair don't form a diphthong). I've seen them write "connexion" as well. Isn't that an affectation of Tolkien's created languages as well? I've never seen it elsewhere, and while it's not without value, it's still a little strange.
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
PT6A posted:Isn't that an affectation of Tolkien's created languages as well? I've never seen it elsewhere, and while it's not without value, it's still a little strange. Umlauts are an archaic device you see a lot in 19th century and early 20th century writing, mostly British. coöperate or co-operate coördinate or co-ordinate coöpt or co-opt zoölogy or zo-ology The diaeresis has been dropped gradually, on the assumption the reader knows how it's supposed to be pronounced. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Umlauts are an archaic device you see a lot in 19th century and early 20th century writing, mostly British. Perhaps the New Yorker's readership is mostly comprised of 19th century robber barons and imperialist diplomats?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Umlauts are an archaic device you see a lot in 19th century and early 20th century writing, mostly British. Mitä vittua sää sönkötät
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Edit: Disregard, forgot which forum this was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
bartlebyshop posted:That's New Yorker house style to make it clear that the second vowel is pronounced (that the pair don't form a diphthong). I've seen them write "connexion" as well. PT6A posted:Isn't that an affectation of Tolkien's created languages as well? I've never seen it elsewhere, and while it's not without value, it's still a little strange. Yeah I've never noticed that before, it's weird. The article was exactly as depressing as I had guessed, but still managed to summon more anger than I'd expected. What did Assad Sr. say to his son to galvanize him into such a loathsome piece of poo poo? Do you think Bashar realizes that had he just made concessions this all could have likely been avoided? gently caress, what a monster. I worry terribly that he'll die of old age.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
quote:Suhail’s assistants told Hamada that if he admitted to carrying weapons he would be released. He didn’t confess, so they cracked four of his ribs. At that point, he agreed that he had been armed with a hunting rifle, and they let him down. But, to better suit terrorism charges, Suhail wanted the confession to include a Kalashnikov. Hamada refused, so, he said, “they stripped me out of my underwear and brought a plumbing clamp,” of the kind typically used to moderate pressure in hoses. “They put it on my penis, and started tightening it.” Hamada recalled Suhail asking, “Are you going to admit it, or shall I cut it off?” Hamada agreed that he had carried a Kalashnikov, so Suhail released the clamp and asked how many clips of ammunition Hamada had carried. “How many clips do you want me to have?” Hamada asked. Suhail reminded him that he had to confess on his own, so Hamada said, “I had five bullets.” That wasn’t good enough, Suhail told him: “I need two magazines.” The torture escalated until Hamada confessed to everything they asked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:What did Assad Sr. say to his son to galvanize him into such a loathsome piece of poo poo? Do you think Bashar realizes that had he just made concessions this all could have likely been avoided? gently caress, what a monster. I worry terribly that he'll die of old age. I always wonder how Bashar's brother would have handled this whole thing. He was probably a really lovely person as well, but maybe he would have been smarter about this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Late, but I'll still never stop getting a chuckle out of envisioning Mahmoud Sheikh al-Zour wearily patiently nodding as Caro goes on a schizoid rant about creating air vortexes over Syria using "some mathematical stuff" Wonder what he was thinking. "poo poo, from Tice to this????"
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
The whole "Middle Eastern forces are incompetent" is mostly based on a small sample size of forces that are meant to be pretty useless at doing things other than shooting protesters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:The whole "Middle Eastern forces are incompetent" is mostly based on a small sample size of forces that are meant to be pretty useless at doing things other than shooting protesters. That and the Yom Kippur war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:That and the Yom Kippur war. And 1948, 1967, the Libyan/Chad conflict, Egypt's intervention in Yemen and their border scuffles with Libya, the short Syrian invasion of Jordan, all the various Iraqi rebellions, Iran-Iraq War, and the performance of the Arab coaliton in the Gulf War...
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Vietnam, Barbarossa, Gallipoli, Arnhem, the Somme, Emu War, Boer War, Algerian War, Italy, Italy again, still Italy...
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
WW1 in general imo
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
It might just be that - despite the militarism often attached to them - authoritarian states just aren't great at creating professional militaries. Any time adherence to a religion, political ideology or personality cult becomes a higher priority than doing the most pragmatic thing, bad decisions get made from top to bottom. Also, keep in mind that there have been many western military boondoggles, despite often having the advantage of stable, unified societies, decades (if not centuries) of uninterrupted military tradition and considerably more financial, technical and material resources. Furthermore, giving a country a developed military infrastructure is a hell of a lot more complicated and time-consuming than giving them flashy new hardware. Logistics, Communications, NCO training (and initiative), cross-training, doctrines, infrastructure, etc are so much more important than having new rifles and tanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
Lustful Man Hugs posted:It might just be that - despite the militarism often attached to them - authoritarian states just aren't great at creating professional militaries. Any time adherence to a religion, political ideology or personality cult becomes a higher priority than doing the most pragmatic thing, bad decisions get made from top to bottom. Are there any examples of authoritarian states that have relied on a professional military? In modern times, it seems like all-volunteer professional militaries are limited to ostensibly liberal democratic societies like the US, UK, France and other such states. Are there any examples to the contrary? Kopijeger fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
It's a fine balancing act between having a strong military to fight for you and a military too fractured or loyal to coup.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
I'd assume corruption more often than not is endemic to totalitarian regimes and that corruption is not useful if you want solid state institutions. If generals are appointed based on loyalty rather than competence the necessary reforms will probably not be implemented because that's work and just showing off shiny parades to your buddies is less work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Are there any examples of authoritarian states that have relied on a professional military? In mordern times, it seems like all-volunteer professional militaries are limited to ostensibly liberal democratic societies like the US, UK, France and other such states. Are there any examples to the contrary? I assume you mean aside from the Soviets?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
There's also the theory that states with no legitimacy but force are in perpetual danger of coups and will choose officers accordingly. Hezbollah, ISIS, Kurds, even Iran are more competent than the arab dictatorships because their government's paramount concerns aren't a combination of 'who won't betray me' and 'who do I owe a favour to?', and maybe the rank and file soldiers are there for something more than picking up a cheque.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I assume you mean aside from the Soviets? When did the Soviets have a professional military? Wikipedia posted:Throughout the Cold War (1945–91), Western intelligence estimates calculated that the Soviet strength remained ca. 2.8 million to ca. 5.3 million men. To maintain said strength range, Soviet law minimally required a three-year military service obligation from every able man of military age, until 1967, when the Ground Forces reduced it to a two-year draft obligation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Are there any examples of authoritarian states that have relied on a professional military? In modern times, it seems like all-volunteer professional militaries are limited to ostensibly liberal democratic societies like the US, UK, France and other such states. Are there any examples to the contrary? This is a good point. Without a strong commitment to democratic rule, strong militaries will just stage a coup and take over. Megalomanic dictators tend to survive by having weak armies and strong secret police, or strong armies that they lavish so much money and attention on that the army doesn't see any advantage in taking over. Pakistan and Turkey are two countries with long histories of military take-overs whenever the civilian government gets too corrupt or ineffective. North Korea is one that maintains a decent military by funneling most of the national wealth to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
A Russian Helicopter went down in Homs. Both pilots are dead. http://www.interfax.ru/world/503263
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
Is "too corrupt or ineffective" code for "not having the same priorities as the military commanders"? Because the armed forces in Turkey and Pakistan are most definitely not knocking over the civilian government for the good of the people. And calling the North Korean military decent is quite charitable. Two top NK officers just defected to the South. Things in the North aren't going so well if even the favored class are bailing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
Peel posted:There's also the theory that states with no legitimacy but force are in perpetual danger of coups and will choose officers accordingly. Why don't monarchies have decent milltaries then? They do have legitimacy (in a different form to democracic governments, but they have it) but SA military is undeniably poo poo (see: Yemen)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
It's been posted here before, but this career army officer's piece "Why Arabs Lose Wars" is a good read, if not a little dated by this point. He cites information hoarding, paranoia about coups, and internal tensions in autocracies as reasons why Arab militaries tend to be ineffective forces. I'd like to see an update that accounts for why some Arab unconventional forces are among the best in the world though (thinking of Hizballah.) http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:It's been posted here before, but this career army officer's piece "Why Arabs Lose Wars" is a good read, if not a little dated by this point. He cites information hoarding, paranoia about coups, and internal tensions in autocracies as reasons why Arab militaries tend to be ineffective forces. I'd like to see an update that accounts for why some Arab unconventional forces are among the best in the world though (thinking of Hizballah.) Yeah, I mean, "20th century Arab state armed forces didn't historically perform too well" is not at all controversial and is actually the majority opinion among professional military analysts, at least in the West, although there is a small body of revisionism that has focused mostly on the Iran-Iraq War and on Egypt's performance in the Sinai. That said, this is a much different take than that weird racist diatribe posted a page or two earlier, so probably best to ignore that. The Middle East definitely has some excellent non-state combatants, and in addition to Hezbollah I would start adding some of the rebel groups in northern Syria. Widely mocked for their disorganization over the past few years, I'd say that any non-state actors capable of seizing Idlib or halting the IRGC before reaching the M5 highway are legitimately good by unconventional standards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Dusty Baker 2 posted:Dug up an old atlas of the 1920 census and took some pictures. Lemme know if you want any specific countries. Funnily enough of all the countries depicted current Somalia hews closest to this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:Is "too corrupt or ineffective" code for "not having the same priorities as the military commanders"? Because the armed forces in Turkey and Pakistan are most definitely not knocking over the civilian government for the good of the people. Iunno, looking at Erdogan maybe they had the right idea.  Free Gulen with purchase of Gulen of equal or lesser value Edit: SA might just be a funny special case, possibly as a result of the government in general's tendency to farm out professionalism to foreigners, the Jordanian military is... decent. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0X90D1 Strap yourselves in: quote:KABUL (Reuters) - The Taliban announced the start of their spring offensive on Tuesday, pledging to launch large-scale offensives against government strongholds backed by suicide and guerrilla attacks to drive Afghanistan's Western-backed government from power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
BlackJosh posted:lol holy poo poo. They're people not dogs. There is nothing intrinsic to "The Arab" that makes any of this so you big racist dummy. http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars The article deals with arab military culture and the inherent problems in it; it's obviously not a race thing but it runs alot deeper than you might think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Postorder Trollet89 posted:http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars This claim - that "Arab" militaries are deficient due to deficiencies inherent to "Arab" culture - has been around for a long time and several people have made careers in academia researching and building on this claim. Kenneth Pollack is probably the person most widely associated with it. Although he wasn't the first person to make this or related claims hinging on the inherent inferiority of Arab culture, he spelled it out very clearly in his PhD dissertation. Needless to say, there are a ton of undefended (and indefensible) assertions and assumptions in the linked article, e.g., that Arab armies of the conquest can be considered as part of the same cultural unit as modern Arab militaries; that the Egyptian army struggling to defeat guerrillas in Yemen proves the inferiority of "Arab" culture (as it applies to the military), but the failure of Israel to defeat Hezbollah over several decades doesn't prove the inferiority of "western" culture, etc. Somebody in r/askhistorians took this apart pretty well: quote:I'd like to take this question and break it down a bit, because I think as it's currently framed it won't be particularly useful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Maybe it's more accurate to state that Arab state militaries are dysfunctional at the organisational and tactical level. While Western powers in the middle east have been lacking a proper strategy. Which is arguably worse as "tactical excellence covering up strategic failure" is something I saw mentioned in some threads, either this one or GIP or the cold war thread. If you lose a few battles you might adapt, if you win every battle with out a overall strategy, you just might keep on trucking straight into defeat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Good report on the Small Arms Survey report on Libya arms sales on Facebook https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py6QrAT0E-A
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Valley Troll posted:This claim - that "Arab" militaries are deficient due to deficiencies inherent to "Arab" culture - has been around for a long time and several people have made careers in academia researching and building on this claim. Kenneth Pollack is probably the person most widely associated with it. Although he wasn't the first person to make this or related claims hinging on the inherent inferiority of Arab culture, he spelled it out very clearly in his PhD dissertation. Needless to say, there are a ton of undefended (and indefensible) assertions and assumptions in the linked article, e.g., that Arab armies of the conquest can be considered as part of the same cultural unit as modern Arab militaries; that the Egyptian army struggling to defeat guerrillas in Yemen proves the inferiority of "Arab" culture (as it applies to the military), but the failure of Israel to defeat Hezbollah over several decades doesn't prove the inferiority of "western" culture, etc. Israel is not a Western country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Iranian counter-offensive around al-Eis on the South Aleppo front seems to have not gone all that well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Radio Prune posted:Iranian counter-offensive around al-Eis on the South Aleppo front seems to have not gone all that well.  /NSFL/given disturbing descriptions; all of the above means I'm not going to touch those links with a 10 foot pole.Suffice it to say al-Eis is very bloody on both sides right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Iran seems to be stepping up its involvement in Syria. Not only is the IRGC itself deployed, along with its foreign legions of Shia jihadists (Hezbollah, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, Kata'ib Hezbollah, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, Badr, Liwa Fatemiyoun, Liwa Zaynbiyoun etc.), but now units from the Artesh are being deployed and suffering combat deaths.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Yep, also lots of videos on r/ Syrian Civil War from that area tagged as In one of those videos there is a JN machine gun nest protected by cinder blocks. Anything high caliber will eat trough them no problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Are there any examples of authoritarian states that have relied on a professional military? In modern times, it seems like all-volunteer professional militaries are limited to ostensibly liberal democratic societies like the US, UK, France and other such states. Are there any examples to the contrary? Chinese PLA nominally conscripts but is de facto all volunteer
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:38
|
|