Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Phmcw

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 186
316
General Discussion / Re: Knight vs.Samurai Who Is Best
« on: December 15, 2014, 08:09:24 am »
Japanese musket were very good, though, and used by Samurai, too.

But as I said, you're comparing apples to orange. Samurai were the equivalent of men-at-arms, not of knighs.

317
General Discussion / Re: Knight vs.Samurai Who Is Best
« on: December 14, 2014, 08:56:29 pm »
Well very big crossbows that you use some sort of crank to load. They can get pretty big, even for man portable ones.

Crossbows can go up to this but that's not exactly portable.


318
General Discussion / Re: Knight vs.Samurai Who Is Best
« on: December 14, 2014, 08:37:18 pm »
Once again depends by what metric.
The metric of being able to go through armour, as should be obvious from the context.

And that depend on the crossbow and on the bow. You've probably heard that about the french crossbow vs the english bows during the hundred year war, which is true because th french didn't use very heavy crossbow. Heavy crossbow, on the other hand, had considerably more power.

319
General Discussion / Re: Knight vs.Samurai Who Is Best
« on: December 14, 2014, 07:16:35 pm »
To fight against japanese armor?

What we're discussing here is futile for many reasons : first, "samurai" existed for a long time, as well as "knights", so you cannot say "they had access to x or y piece of equipement". The plate armour as you know it didn't exist for the longest part of the middle age for instance.

Second, Knights were nobility, while Samurai were not. A Samurai was any professional warrior, so they were in average less rich and equiped. Man-at-arms were a better fit.

Third, "knights" existed all over Europe and thus used various techniques and weapons at any given times.

And last the overall best and most common weapon was the spear anyway.


At the end, the Japanese didn't have or encounter any heavy armor, while European fought their share of brigandinnes, so they'd probably have an edge, and that's the only relevant thing to say.

320
General Discussion / Re: Knight vs.Samurai Who Is Best
« on: December 14, 2014, 06:50:59 pm »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanab%C5%8D
I'm pretty sure this weapon could break bones through a knight's armour.

Less efficiently than a bec de corbin, though. It's bulky and has too much contact area.

321
Life Advice / Re: Paying for college
« on: December 13, 2014, 09:31:39 am »
Germany, France, Belgium, Netherland,... all have very good and affordable university. If you can speak the tongue I think it's wroth giving them a look.

If you're trying to do anything buiness related, I know that Solvay buisness school in Bruxelles is exellent.

322
General Discussion / Re: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party
« on: December 11, 2014, 02:56:13 pm »
Well, the good thing about being Belgium is that you're too weak to do much. We didn't do much to protect our Jews in WWII. Our police was incompetent enough to search the house of our national monster (Marc Dutroux) while two kids were alive in his cave/sex dungeon and not find them. We killed Patrice Lumbumba, the last half-decent Congolese leader. We introduced ID cards with the ethnicity on them in Rwanda, and didn't do much to try to stop the genocide.

Belgium host SWIFT institution, nato, European institutions, is a hub of the Freemasons and other orders, and one of the most important actor of European construction. Our politicians are everywhere and the remaining colonials have a huge impact on Africa.

What happened to Lumbumba was a bit more complicate than that, though, and he made a decision that cost Congo a lot with his last discourse.

We are extremely rich, with a lot of savings, and could have a huge impact on the word. Despressingly, most Belgians don't realise it and believe we live in a "small, harmfull country" when we live in possibly the most influencal country for its size.

323
Does any one else get that annoying feeling of wanting to do something, but knowing they can't? Because I'm getting that right now.

Organize local political discussion group and try to have a regular attendance. You should focus on getting regular blue and white collar workers above anything else. Get the feeling of the general sentiment as accurately as possible and try to spot the issues where a mximum of peoples have a common group. Phase out divisive issues and try to keep it up for a few year and organize local actions. Write everything that is said and any decision taken.

Once you know how to organise that, seed that model to cities of the same state. Elect president of the local council and arrange reunions every three month. After that try seeding it to the other states.

Keep that organisation mostly apolitical but denounce politicans when they slip, never endorse them.

324
General Discussion / Re: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party
« on: December 11, 2014, 01:32:04 pm »
The second one sounds more like OPEC members being stupid and the Saudis raging at them.

The current deal is due to supply and demand. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if the current one was a repeat of what happened in the 1980s.

The fact that Russia is so reliant on oil is their own fault, not the US's, not Belgiums, not anybody elses.

Nope, the Saudi would just reduce their prroduction to keep prices high. They have a limited amount of oil and no post oil plan.

The Russian know it and are raging quite a bit.

Here's another prediction, the price of oil won't rise as long as Russia keep posturing.


Btw how is that a conspiracy theory? The saudi are openely allied with the US, they are armed with US weapon, Friends with the US oil producers, and ennemy of the Baasist supported by the USSR.
The level of analysis required to come up with this "plan" is low, the reward is obviously military protection. Also it was offically the cause of the first gulf war.
Quote
Iraq also accused Kuwait of exceeding its OPEC quotas for oil production. In order for the cartel to maintain its desired price of $18 a barrel, discipline was required. The United Arab Emirates and Kuwait were consistently overproducing; the latter at least in part to repair losses caused by Iranian attacks in the Iran–Iraq War and to pay for the losses of an economic scandal. The result was a slump in the oil price – as low as $10 a barrel – with a resulting loss of $7 billion a year to Iraq, equal to its 1989 balance of payments deficit.[30] Resulting revenues struggled to support the government's basic costs, let alone repair Iraq's damaged infrastructure. Jordan and Iraq both looked for more discipline, with little success.[31] The Iraqi government described it as a form of economic warfare,[31] which it claimed was aggravated by Kuwait slant-drilling across the border into Iraq's Rumaila oil field.[32] At the same time, Saddam looked for closer ties with those Arab states that had supported Iraq in the war. This was supported by the U.S., who believed that Iraqi ties with pro-Western Gulf states would help bring and maintain Iraq inside the U.S.' sphere of influence.[33]

325
General Discussion / Re: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party
« on: December 11, 2014, 01:16:07 pm »
Quote
Lemme check really quick, are you going on a conspiracy theory about the US 100% controlling the oil market?

Conspiracy theory? Let me see. The crash of the market price of oil is known to be the leading factor of USSR demise. That isn't contested anywhere ,though peoples love to add "in conjuction with" to try to lump other causes in there. Sitll it's clear that if the USSR had more money, their other problems would have disapeared. They'd have imported anything they needed and could pay for their army.

How did the US achieve that? Well first
Quote
In April 1979, Jimmy Carter signed an executive order which was to remove market controls from petroleum products by October 1981, so that prices would be wholly determined by the free market. Ronald Reagan signed an executive order on January 28, 1981 which enacted this reform immediately,[12] allowing the free market to adjust oil prices in the US.[13] This ended the withdrawal of old oil from the market and artificial scarcity, encouraging increased oil production.[citation needed] The US Oil Windfall profits tax was lowered in August 1981 and removed in 1988, ending disincentives to US oil producers. Additionally, the Alaskan Prudhoe Bay Oil Field entered peak production, supplying the US West Coast with up to 2 million bpd of crude oil.

It removed the limits on its own production.

And in a second time :
Quote
In September 1985, Saudi Arabia became fed up with de facto propping up prices by lowering its own production in the face of high output from elsewhere in OPEC.[16] In 1985, daily output was around 3.5 million bpd down from around 10 million in 1981.[17] During this period, OPEC members were supposed to meet production quotas in order to maintain price stability, however, many countries inflated their reserves to achieve higher quotas, cheated, or outright refused to accord with the quotas.[18] In 1985, the Saudis were fed up with this behavior and decided to punish the undisciplined OPEC countries.[19] They abandoned their role as swing producer and began producing at full capacity, which created a "huge surplus that angered many of their colleagues in OPEC".[20] High-cost oil production facilities became less or even not profitable. Oil prices as a result fell to as low as $7 per barrel.

Which I understand a bit differently than the rather naive author of the article. Saudi Arrabia didn't need to do that, and in fact it didn't help.

326
General Discussion / Re: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party
« on: December 11, 2014, 12:52:23 pm »
They help the US lower petrol price anytime the US need it. It destroy Russia economy since it's so reliant on its petrol exportation.

It's especially blatant this time, but it was basically the same strategy that allowed the US to bankrupt the USSR.


Also I called it.

The US is torturing prisoners to death and I'm not even surprised. Keep in mind that they were put there without trial and that a fair number of them have been found innocent. They even put one of Al jazzra's journalist in there.

I feel like Americans will end up finding this clip slightly less humorous in the coming years.

The CIA is not supposed to be doing that anymore, though I'm not entirely sure that they stopped. The torture stuff is old, back in the Bush adminstration, the report is simply getting released just now because it took so long to make it.

Yes the world is recoiling at the torture report, and they should, because it's our shame to bear. Better to be honest and bear the shame and move past it than hide it like an embarrassing secret and deny it never happened.

Also, the ACLU apparently thinks Obama should pardon everybody involved in that whole thing.

I'm sorry to infom you of this but the CIA has been supposed to stop doing things like that for most of its existence, they never did.

In all probabilities, this rapport change nothing, the government will say "this is very bad and not the American way", and they will punish absolutely no one, or maybe a few low level scapgegoat. Politicians will say that "they didn't know" and the American public will find that normal.


This IS the American way, and it has been the American way since the Vietnam at least.

327
General Discussion / Re: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party
« on: December 11, 2014, 12:44:56 pm »
Yeah one rather important thing is : every governement tend to do that kind of stuff. You have to keep a short leach on them if you don't want it to happen.

I think that the problem is more that the population doesn't believe it happen/may happen than the fact that it happen.
Let anyone have total control on someone without oversight, and 50% of the time you end up with this.

American MUST take a serious look into the CIA actions and I can tell you what you'll find : vast operations of domestic opinion shaping, funing of terrorist groups operating on ennemie's country soil, diverse operations of destabilistation of ennemies/rival countries, a rather large network of agent infiltrated in various European/Australian/japanese institutions, large scale collusion with American corportations, decrebilisation campains against opponent (including Assange)... ... ...

How do I know that? Well, partly because you can see them in action, partly because that's what every secret services ever has done.  And there is a possibility that they knew that they let 9/11 happen on purpose. We know that the higher up knew that something may happen, and they took it suspiciously lightly.
It also was used to attack Iraq, which is suspiciously convenient, since it was a good way to repay the Saudi for the USSR demise.

329
In the end supremacism is false and disprovable, and once you disprove it and improve lining conditions it disapear.
???


You can prove that a race isn't superior to another, and supremacism is often a way to use other as scapgegoats. If you treat the root causes, you can make it disapear.

eg : skinhead in Russia would be best fought by raising the average Russian standard of living and is a reaction to Russian misery.

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 186