MigL

Money is an exchange between two entities. If someone offers you money and you take it, you are both complicit. Blaming one side only is raather silly.

How many 'sightings' have there been in the last 75 years ? Time travellers would have an interest in being discreet, and not interacting with our present. Their future ( present ? ) depends on it. ( the butterfly effect ,and the Mcfly family dsappearing from photographs )

It is a shame that Muslim countries/Islamic cultures helped Europeans climb out of the Dark Ages, but then decided to stay there themselves. The problem isn't Islam. It is the overbearing control it has of their societies. It is fully taken advantage of, by their leaders ( Religious or dictatorial ) to keep the population ignorant and subservient.

Ha ! Niagara Falls would be the Americans' Borodino. After that, Canadian winter would set in, and the Americans would have to retreat with their tails between their legs. ( reference to Napoleon's invasion of Russia )

This reads as "Let's put all out money into breeding faster horses, because electric cars will never be as cheap. They, and the infrastructure needed to support them, may be forever out of reach." The biggest rewards come from the biggest risks.

While an autopilot is responsible for retaining heading and altitude, The MCAS system was implemented to counteract the pitch deviation caused by the new engines on the 737 MAX, and how they were mounted on the wings. The system forces the nose down when it detects "pitch deviation' on two sensors, which can maqlfunction. AFAIK, the option to turn off MCAS was always there, but information was missing from the training and flight manuals. And "hahahahaha" is not a valid argument; grow up !

I'm afraid we can't have that. It would lead to fraternization, and possibly dating, amongst members. Just kidding ! You can post about yourself as much as you wish in the lounge, and even a daily breakdown of your thoughts/actions/feelings using the Status Update feature.

I said tactics are passed down, Studiot, not that the same tactics were used at Salamis and Jutland. The tactic at Jutland seemed to be for the Brits to absorb as much damage as they could, and outlast the Germans, who it turns out, didn't have the stomach for an apparent 'victory'. Salamis was restricting the movement of the enemy's greater forces, as was Thermopylae and so was Horatius using the narrow end of the bridge. Both tactics are still used to this day; the jutland tactic seems to be popular in boxing matches 😄 .

I agree with those sentiments, but I've never stated otherwise. I have said that a 'better' outcome of WW1 would have been if Britain and Italy never entered the war, and Germany had been the victor. Lenin would not have been allowed to return from exile, ushering in the Communist revolution. Italy, having played no part, would not feel short-changed in territorial gains, and would not seek those under the Fascist Mussolini regime. Germany, although haaving no territorial ambitions, felt betrayed and taken advantage of by the Allies, particularly France and Russia, as none the battles had been fought on German soils soils, yet the Allies were the victors. Simple people were easily led astray by charismatic, convincing, leaders ( see Donald Trump Presidency and insurrection ). Sometmes we tend to over-analyze/complicate things, when the simplified version fits. I see Japan as simply taking advantage of the post WW1 situation, and filling a vacuum left by European colonials. And Austri-Hungary as well as the Ottoman Empire were already beginning to collapse even prior to WW1.

It certainly is a good job that tactics are passed down the line. Tactics like those used by the Athenians against the much greater Persian fleet at the battle of Salamis. That was 2501 years ago !

I didn't really want to get into a discussion about knowledge versus understanding, other than the example that an encyclopedia has knowledge, but certainly no understanding. I simply wanted to convey my displeasure at the way Koti was treated, when all participants understood what he meant. That turned the original OP concerning Sharia law, and education under religious governance, into one about semantics and the use of the English language, necessitating a split of the thread. After more splits, my posts no longer have context, and come across as muddled 'bitching', so I'll bow out. You guys carry on.

That is why I said the 1st collapse. And although their economy recovered, they still could not make reparation payments, which most German people felt they shouldn't have to make, as no battles had been fought on German soil, and the leadership ( including President von Hindenburg ) had sold them out by capitulating. That is the sentiment A Hitler nurtured, and grew, since 1922.

Military tactics are taught, and experience gained, is passed on. No need to keep Admirals alive, and serving, for 99 years 🙂 .

The British had built an empire on the back of her navy. The experience intactics and use of equipment was vastly superior to the fledgling German navy. Hence the susequent German navy refusals to fight after the Jutland defeat.

Wasn't meant to be a 'cheap shot'; just an observation. ( I don't do cheap shots; I prefer expensive liquors ) After a page and a half of bashing Koti for his language use, and claiming it's for his benefit, you seem very much opposed to constructive criticism ( which would be for your benefit ).

One could make the argument that the militaristic Generals of Japan simply filled the void left by the departure of former colonial European powers who could not sustain overseas occupations after the incurred costs of WW1 ( France, Germany, England ), They simply took advantage of the situation and started 'expanding' into East asia. They had previously defeated the Russians in 1905 over Manchurian/Korean ambitions.

Not in Germany, there wasn't. The Weimar Republic had its first economic collapse in 1923, due to inability to pay reparations in 1922, subsequent French occupation of the Ruhr valley. See here ... The hyperinflation crisis, 1923 - The Weimar Republic 1918-1929 - Edexcel - GCSE History Revision - Edexcel - BBC Bitesize A Hitler made his first attempt n during this time, the 'Biergarten Putsch' for which he was incarcerated ( giving him time to write Mein Kampf ). By this time Mussolini had already marched on Rome, in 1922. The 'wheels' of WW2 were already in motion in the early 20s.

My point of view is explaned in the other thread. WW1 would have happened regardless; maybe not at the same time, and maybe with fewer countries involved ( and maybe less casualties ). I have always looked at the beneficial impacts of Germany winning the war. There would still be no WW2, no Bolchevic Revolution and rise of Communism, no Cold War, no model for China to copy, no Israel/middle East instability, etc. Germany was a hotbed of scientific progress in the first half of the 20th century. Can you imagine their accomplishments without the misfortune of being the principal losers of two world wars ?

Although the example of parity between NATO and the USSR is valid, it doesn't apply to the situation in WW!. The time line is as follows ... Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia, after Serbia could not meet the unrealistic terms demanded by A-H after the assassination of arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand. Germany is obligated by treaty to participate on the A-H side ( Italy was also a member of the Triple alliance but was persuaded with promises of territorial gains to switch sides ). Russia, as the protector of the Baltic states, started mobilizing her armies even before declaring war on A-H and Germany ( because its railway system was ineffective ). France was obligated by treaty to aid the Russians, and Germany, realizing this, decided to fight the war on two fronts; a swift attack on France, using the Shleiffen plan, taking Paris in less than the two weeks needed for Russia to mobilize her troops, then using its state-of-the-art railway system to get its troops to the Eastern front to meet the Russians. Unfortunately, the swift attack on France necessitated Germany moving her troops through Belgium, and that is what brought the British into the war. Up until that point they were trying their best to stay out of the mess, even ignoring the 1904 ( non binding ) Entente Cordiale they had with France. The 'fog' of war made sure that Von Moltke ( the younger ) failed to follow the Shleiffen plan, and the hoped for, swift victory bogged down in trenh warfare almost to the Normandy coast. WW1 has always been described as a 'powder keg' that was waiting to happen, and I'm sure, with different circumstances, some might have initially stayed out ( Britain and Italy ), but would have eventually been pulled in as well.

So you will understand when I try to teach you adjustment is necessary to your brief, and usually vague, posts ?

Glad you did. Unfortunately this thread has become about the proper use of language, and not Sharia law. Everyone heaped scorn on Koti, but, I'm sure everyone knew what he meant, and he made a valid point ... If Sharia law is based on Religion, then at least some aspects of that Religion have to be taught in schools.

The strong nuclear force is actually the 'residual' or spill-over, from the color force of QCD, and which governs the interactions between quarks and is mediated by gluons. the heat from the Big Bang is a measure of the energy density of the early universe, and as such, can account for particles ( mass ) or energy, but not with forces, The CMB is accounted for by the expansion of the universe since it became opaque. The universe has expanded slightly over 3 orders of magnitude, and the temperature of the CMB is 3 orders of magnitude less than the temperature where electrons can't 'stick' to nucleii.

I believe that would have initially kept England out of WW1, as they were almost looking for an excuse not to participate, but eventually would have had to. Once the fighting had stagnated into trench warfare on the Western Front, the German fleet might have been able to keep supply lines open longer, therby prolonging the war, but eventually it would have reached the same conclusion.

Masturbation is socially frowned upon, because it's not something you should do in a social setting. Personally, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your home, nor should you care what I do in mine, the number of files on my computer, or the amount I spend on tissue 😄 . Seems like a strange conversation to be having ...

Seems everyone talks about what a good idea it is, but no-one is willing to commit. Very well, since we have quite a few Brits, and it is one of my favorites ( everyone loves to 'hate' the French ), I'll bring up the 1415 battle of Agincourt, where a numerically superior French force was defeated by the English, as part of the 100 year squabble between the English and French. The English 'provoked' the campaign, and final battle, due to unrealistic demands they made on the French, during the failed negotiations leading up to the event, but the French ( who were not led by their king as he was nuts ) should have easily defeated the English forces, led by King Henry the Fifth. Some of the proposed causes for the French defeat are the supposed location, a narrow, freshly ploughed, strip of land between two dense forested areas, on which the French cavalry was bogged down ( although the actual site may be disputed ). Another cause might be the typical French arrogance, where all the mounted nobles wanted to be in front of the charge, for the greater 'glory' and rewards, where they were easily picked off ( as opposed to chess, where the pawns go first ). Myself, being an advocate of greater firepower, and military technology, to prevent, and shorten wars, see the main cause for the French defeat due to the English longbow, which had enough force to penetrate French armor. If the English had to engage in hand-to-hand combat, the battlefield terrain would have affected them as much as it did the French, but their longbows allowed them to pick off the French like 'fish in a barrel', without having to get down in the mud. Moral of the story ... Always have superior firepower, either to dissuade others from picking figts with you, or to quickly 'best' them, if the situation escalates into war. ( I'm sure CharonY, and ppossibly Studiot, will have something to say about my viewpoint )