11th April 1814 Napoleon abdicated for a first time

Pink Flyod is what I grew up on in Junior and Senior High…can’t say anything else that would get me in trouble… :wink:

I love Oasis’s first US album.  Wonderwall, Morning Glory, and Champagne Supernova are songs I can use to reference every major event in 1995-6.

@Karl7:

probably December 1942, Stalingrad… what!?!?!?   :-o

that’s the last place I’d want to be… or is it?  :wink:

As a Russian or German?

Maybe not surprising, ajgundam5, but certainly deserving of praise.  The US invented the game of basketball, but now struggles for dominance…point of reference.

Cystic Crypt, congratulations to the gold medal winners.  Their hard work paid off! :-D

You can get the one form Sean Hannity’s site if you want the red and blue only map.  But you said you did not think the one that was just “red” whehter 501% or 99.9% was valid.

@Yanny:

This has nothing to do with Valerie Plame and Karl Rove. The Dems want answers for why we were misled into going to War with Iraq.

Reminds me of the “Spot” act introduced into the House by Abraham Lincoln.

Question is, will President Bush claim executive privelage if this move actually results in a serious investigation.

This isn’t posturing. It’s a serious move by a lot of Senators on both sides of the isle (The Dems don’t have enough votes to call a motion of secrecy without Republican support).

Not only that, but we won’t hear about what goes on. Since 1830, the Senate has only gone secret 3 times. All three were concerning highly sensitive cold-war era paramilitary interventions.

This is serious stuff.

I think that this could be a bombshell, or a buch of crap.  Closed sessions are a good thing.  Sorry folks, national security takes presidence over the national enquires “need to know”.  If they have proof that they don’t want to reveal for national security, hats off… a good move and not at all politicaly motivated.  Mcarthy did not betray this country by telling ppl how he got his info, and that is noble (I bet I get a bunch of people down my throat for that one).

If it is a political stunt, than it is an act of a desperate entity that is about to die.

@No?isdum:

Could someone explain how a universe that wants to go from order to disorder(2nd Law of Thermo?) can have evolution (theory) as a key element (no pun intended.) Or is mixing law from one science with theory from another science impermissible?

We had that in other threads.
The point is semi-understanding of thermodynamics.

2nd law of thermocdynamics: more correctly:
In a closed system processes that reduce entropy are not happening.

The earth as a system is not closed: we get energy from the sun!

just short, but that covers the point

On 2001-12-09 17:31, Yanny wrote:
if Us takes a Japan first strategy russia can put his head between his legs and kiss his butt goodbye.

I agree. For logistic reasons it is far easier for Japan to defend itself than it is for the US to attack it. Japan should be able to destroy most of the USs initial navy in round 1 while retaining most of its own fleet. There is no reason for Japan to build a navy to confront the USs navy if the US goes after Japan. Japan should be building a force of tanks to go after Russia and if the US wants to go after Japan that force can easily be turned on the US if Japan has to defend NE Asia. Japan should retain several fighters that are great for defense as well and one round of buying infantry can go a long way towards providing a defense against the US if they are foolish enough to go after Japan. Remember, it only costs Japan 3 ipcs for a unit of infantry in Asia and 5 for an armor plus a one shot 15 or so for an IC or two. It costs the US 7 for a unit of infantry ((3+3+8)/2) that only attack at a 1, and 13 for a tank (5+8).

Germany would love to have to contend with two countries rather than three. US goes after Japan is a very bad move IMO.

[ This Message was edited by: xenophobe on 2001-12-10 10:42 ]

On 2001-11-16 18:00, e_prime wrote:
first– greetings to all,
it’s good to see some nice discussion.

i’d like to know how many people play with russia not being able to attack in the first turn?

i haven’t played a+a in quite some time (hmm. almost 5 years) and i’ve recently started playing with a couple of new people who are quite skilled players (which is nice) however, when i played before russia was never allowed to attack first. these guys play with the russian’s being able to attack first. i don’t know if it’s my skills being rusty or what. . .but i haven’t been able to have a dominating win with axis yet!! one ipc victory (only because of japan) and two losses. it’s quite frustrating.

help?

If you say these guys are skilled players, then that explains it all. Skilled players don’t loses convincingly when playing the Allies under the normal set of rules.

I just had a dominating victory as the Axis against some friends who have a lot of experience but haven’t played in a while. They are convinced that their poor rolling was the reason they lost so badly. They believe this because there was no single move that they made that proved to be devistating to their objectives. However, it was obvious to me -and my partner- that their over all strategy (or lack there of) was very weak. They should know better.

If these guys have a good understanding of the fundamentals of the game as well as Allied strategy, you are probably going to have to forget about a dominant Axis victory and learn to settle for just a victory.

Good luck