Onasander

You linked a cover to the movie 300,showing only one guy posing. The formation you speak of is universal for any spear based infanty unit, and we still use it to a extent today in the airborne unfantry after a jump when everyone joins up, waiting for stragglers to show. You'll find it commonly refered to as a porcupine or hedgehog formation. Scotland exists because of their mastery of such spear tactics against the british knights. Reason why it was largely immobile is.... the Greeks sucked at driving. They lead from the front, and would of had to train a unit where the guys in front moved really slow, and at every azimuth point walked awkwardly at a bad angle, till you got to the rear, where its all backwards.... all while expected to fight a enemy. No.... Hence the hollow used in swiss pike formations, allowing for squares to be used. Must better defence, regular lines, internal freedom of movement for guys to reinforce weak sides. Even the airborne formation I mentioned uses a hollow.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece In 2011, Greek slavery remains the subject of historiographical debate, on two questions in particular: can it be said that ancient Greece was a "slave society", and did Greek slaves comprise a social class?[171] _________ Okay.... just spent hours of note taking, leaping from Zeno and ADHD to Assyrian Comedy then into Greek Slavery.... back and forth, around and around.... wrote alot, finger hurts..... then read the quote at the very, very end of the wiki of greek slavery.... Yes.... duh, the greeks owned slaves, and they has a legally differentiated classes of people known by the slaves as "Not Slaves", as opposed to themselves who were indeed still slaves. It seems stupid and obvious to me, but apparently there is some sort of debate on this subject..... So.... what exactly is the opposite argument here? How do you even defend such a position?

No, German is definitely a rude and ugly language.

I am just absolutely amazed..... I just translated several lines from Koine Greek, and it makes sense in English, in the exact same order..... What the hell? In Latin I'm confused and intimidated by where the word in the sentence will occur, in Koine you just translate the words, and they are already in place...... and life is simple. Latin is a silly old language for fools to twist and die over. It would of been better for everyone had the Greeks conquered Rome. Like.... just wow.

Oh.... I don't mind the philosophy, but lets play to the larger audience and shift it from France to antiquity..... its a ancient history site, and apparently historic Roman era fiction authors infest this site like termites in a wooden jungle shack. Its not like the French were the first nation to develop douchebags. I used Gorgias above, so Ill increasingly try to keep my responses more and more classical. It may develop the depth of argument and perspective of hypothetical characters in these authors future novels. Imagine a few philosophers sitting in Athens having this very debate, but in their era. What countries are similar to your position historically that cause you to question, and for your pet peeves to flair up?

I dont recall French paratroopers wanting to bomb French civilians anywhere in the quote above, but from the context you gave me, its generuc left hemisphere rage in its full extremity (we can all do it, minus a few Syndromes that prohibit this quite natural hysteria), which is reacting to pain received on a extroverted level in observing other peoples actions that effects their sense of self and their priorities. It often accompanies lingistic analism, which doesnt make sense unless you consider the part of the brain that does syntax and grammar is in the left, and is functionally meshed in the process. A archetype for this would be the Arizona shooter. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner He reacted violently to how he perceived others, as idiots who lacked intelligence and couldn't spell, and it tormented him. A generic type of strategic, unorthodox thinking takes place initially in the left hemisphere as well.... Timothy McVeigh, Bin Laden, the Unibomber all follow this profile. Its well documented. Just 99.9999 of people just talk, or get anger and keep it to themselves, or protest. If I was to take a Nihilistic approach, like Gorgias, but adapt it to psychology, I could claim it doesnt matter the correctness of information being processed validating this anger as correct or crazy, but merely of a type that is to be categorically appreciated in and of itself. The passions that lead people into protests and counter protests is exactly of this type. We are not validating or rejecting the validity of said protests (hence leaving them unnamed), merely noting the information is being processed similarly. Now, what would cause two equally passionate movements to stir to the point of conflict, and eventually a coup? One obvious answer..... weakness of a philosophical language diverse enough to allow a peaceful resolution, and the pursuit of a narrow minded ideology that allows few rational responses outside of violence. The second is the group feeling of individuals and how they perceive themselves in the overall patterning of society. Its important to note French were/still do to a extent, conceive themselves as a universal empire. That empire was rapidly crumbling. Much of its intelligentsia on the left was obsessed with Marxist insurgency, emancipatory communes, on a international and local scale.... they literally spawned the Khmer Rouge. They blended Marxist and Nietzschean thought together in a very rebellious anti status quo that was inhumane and horrifically unsustainable.... in other words, their intellectual class utterly failed them. Counter to this you had traditionalist threatened (but really, how?) by the collapse of the French empire, foreign armies pressing against them, insurgencies, and it eventually occuring in the heart of Paris itself. The two factions were too damn abstract, full of shit and lost in the fog of their own story lines. Both sides can claim a humanism. Neither were right, but they both got degrees of political power over what was left of France after the last revolution. Hence.... the solution is NOT to learn French, and let their situation go away in a few more generations, take the occasional coup there and ignore them otherwise, while pushing a international language over them.... English, Mandarin, Swahili..... I don't care. Just so long as they grow out of this crap. Bad human traits are still human traits, and they can contribute to the good as well. Man is born neither inherently good or bad. We are born each with a early, random emphasis towards one, but most learn over time which to emphasise, any every stable personality type will exhibit features of good and bad behavior to others in situations. Man is a creature of society, society is our nature. Should individuals obsess and micro-analyse aspects of politics, sociology, philosophy, statecraft, military policy and strategy, and politics in general? Yeah.... of course, duh..... if people naturally be ome obsessive of this, its tyrannical to oppose such study, as its obviously at root, a part of human nature that takes predictible forms..... being on the nature-nurture dichotomy. We have strong traditions and schools of thought patterned on the neurology of the mind in how larger aspects of society can best function. Some contradicts. Its how personalities specialize in the mind, favoring aspects of the brain over others.... some seeks wrong. Othertimes its just a competition of our best interests. In a democracy, particularly the non imperial kind that lack marxists and roaming squads of paratroopers battling it out in the streets..... the kind of democracies that perfer deep thinking and voting...... such deep thinking individuals can be quite a boon. They can specialize on problems, and if a frew press and freedom of speech exists, can communicate their more though out ideas. Guys in the military produce a set of guys (a small population within the military) who study the military theoretically and concretely to a minutia, applying thier understandings to a whole. Doctors likewise do this with the medical field, engineers with engineering, diplomats with diplomacy, etc. Some good ideas, some bad. Democracy lets us decide what is preferable. Your caution and withdrawl from this obsessive personality trait suggests on one hand you have a strong dislike for it, likely from contact with such thinkers, or the inability to process such thinking..... yet ironically you also exhibit it in obsessing over it in like, 6 or 7 threads yourself, suggesting your doing it as well, that you ARE it, but dont realize that way of thought in you is the same as that in others, due to restrictions in your sense of self being compatible or the same as in these other groups you have a prejudice against. So if we were to strip the ideological content of your ideas and the ideas of the people you like least.... these French soldiers or soldiers in general, how much is similar, and how much actually differs in your and their thought process..... where did you diverge? Its a theory of mind question. How do you think, how do they think..... and honestly, just how different are you from them? Are they really that alien from you in your less stellar moments? Are they less deserving of their humanity and natural variation over you just because history caught a snapshot of them in their most extreme of states, whereas it completely overlooked you? How do you think others would think of you if everyone read about your childhood tantrums, or when you stole something as a preteen, or cheated, or held a stupid idea, and talked about it passionately 50 years later?

Easy solution to the Roman Commissioner, all the Philosophers adopt Cratylus' s stance on language, and question and answers would only be via finger pointing. If the Roman doesn't like it, the Philosophers can in unison give him the finger.

I was asked to respond to this, so I guess I will. In our youth, we are more receptive to moralistic and emotive stories emphasizing adult behaviors that give us a sense of adult schemas. I for example, was exposed to stories about people being arrested, and confronted the concept of time and inevitability..... I couldn't imagine someone living 100 years without statistically blundering in some act in that space of time into a crime, and being jailed. I thought everyone would eventually be jailed, and it seemed deeply unfair.... and would haunt me. I also read gruesome horror stories, and Pioneer/exploration stories. Alot of my early thought bounced around these considerations. A sense of fairness and time, and my action of anger, is left hemisphere. Means my childhood was dominated by such thinking, which tends to be highly abstract and violently emotional in terms of snapping when I would see things socially that was wrong. But I also had a deep well of self restraint reacting AGAINST this, haphazardly, as well as some good old fashion Obsessive Compulsive traits in the right hemisphere, giving me a pretty impressive maelstrom psychology leaping over a few different stable psychological personality types. The self discipline and control eventually beat out the left hemisphere sense of self, and literally conquered my obsessive compulsion disorder.... I still have it, but I will the way it's ordered now. This is growing up for all of us, but I was more conscious of it.... that is all. Statement 1) You supported the Cambodians displaced sense of selfless and sense of "Frenchness" over and above seemingly more decadent, yet bona fide Frenchmen who should of responded as the Cambodian, who would have LESS reason to at face value. Statement 2) You assert a psychological inversion of your original mindset, and accept the decadence of the French as more 'life affirming' in a almost Nietzschean sense, and see the Cambodian as a oddity, something to beware of, something macabre yet threatening as a intellectual void..... something is not right, here be dragons. An alienated unknown, against your values and sense of life. Conclusion) You experienced a psychological inversion as you grew that emphasized personality aspects that are currently opposite of your youth. It doesn't make it right or wrong, it makes you specialized with a character.... a way of looking at things. Others will share traits, some won't. Many won't intact. It's not necessarily a bad thing either. Background on the French: Colonel Du Picq tried hard to reorganize the French corps around his concept of Esprite De Corps in the era running up to the Franco-Prussian war, but caught a mortar in the head, which delayed his theory from being taken seriously till WW 1, when it was barely applicable given the stagnant trench warfare..... Rommel's work "Attack!" Shows it indeed was possible, just not the French doing it, given the massive collapse of morale, leading to the collapse of French civilization in "The Four Corporals". The French would never regain sufficient trust in their military or capacity to enlist enough troops to maintain the empire, much less France, ever again to the present without substantial outside support. However, ideologically, they never accepted this, creating some hilarious yet nerve grating foreign policy decisions that made no sense, especially when it's biggest ally, the US, was in the depth of combating the Domino Effect in the early cold war era. The Americans couldn't understand what the French were doing, and the French couldn't figure out themselves. This lead to the collapse of their republic, and a much more centralized New republic under a abnormally strong executive, who is chronically alienated from everyone, be it French or Foreigner. Algeria resulted from a massive population of French citizens having colonized Algeria over a few generations, and the military's refusal to accept their defeat in Vietnam. It was a identity issue more than anything. Also was a ideological component, anyone living in the French Empire had a right to become a and claim French Nationality..... it wasn't just a French mainland issue..... so the people on the French mainland thoughts and likely that Cambodian soldier saluting thought. Ultimately, we should let the French play this one out, it's only been a hundred years, they will eventually figure it out in a century or two from now. Best thing we can do is refuse to learn French so the problem doesn't effect us. As to college kids having drug induced orgies and swapping STDs in dandelion fields, yeah..... we need babies. It's a human instinct. Having a strong military keeps wacky crazy stuff like a ISIL state like in Syria and Iraq from spontaneously popping up and bayonetting said field orgies in the stomach. Douchebags are everywhere, and they all have fantasies and delusions of grandure they want to make a social reality. If you hold these beliefs free living beliefs, and can't comprehend a alien and distant military with weird rituals and incomprehensible obsessions, then thank them for the luxury of being able to develope such ideas in relative peace. If you don't desire a interest in politics or military,then take up knitting or song worrying. A society can specialize. Thank God we had he collective foresight to create NATO and other alliances to keep war a minimum, where small specialized armies instead of emergency mass drafts can do the job. If you do not live in such a country, I will send manuals to you on how to build a bomb shelter to hide your family in so they are not raped to death when the militias are plundering your home. Any other questions?

The Book I gave you is taken from the seven military classics, which are not exactly dry texts of pure theory..... many come from historic strategists in China, and the historical examples come from canonical works of imperial Chinese history, which itself formed from it. It's dualistic structure, I am guessing, comes from Ying-Yang dualism.... in the west, Platonic Dialectics does as well from a symmetrical dualism. I have little toleration for unscientific works on military strategy..... the writer either needs a background in strategy, or psychology or statecraft, or a form of mathematics like Leschesters War Calculas. I tolerate it in say, the occasional history magazine or a history book for light reading. I also strongly promote classical writers on statecraft and strategy. I support for example, the idea of Virgil reading Arrian in multiple editions. That is a great classical source. I however, would reject the whole of say, Oxford 's history department if they were winging a consensus opinion as a trustworthy fact. Most put on the net is by default this latter, best we can offer in conversations is a link and a wink, or huff and puff. But if you sit down, and start the dialectic process of integrating the information in terms of the intellect, taking works from diverse eras and looking for similarities, and compare it to what is known about neurological studies on how people think, you can be a little more sure about yourself. It's why I say I don't take any modern historian seriously unless they read Ibn Khaldun. He started the movement to sociology and a modern concept of history. We continue in his steps, and continue to find new, verifiable methods that other historians can check and counter. The Hundred Military Strategies is a awesome work. One of the most important in history. Deng Xiaoping was quoting it in his writings while still in the army in answering questions other generals were asking. I don't become attached to such works without deep reason, it's one of the best Strategy Primers in the Art of War category, internationally and historically. Some of the dual structures not exactly as dualistic as I would like, but most is, and blows Clausewits attempt to change On War out of the water in terms of simplicity and compactness. In fact, I'm mailing a copy to the commander of my state's national guard..... I don't know if he read it, it's that essential of a text

Sorry for the late reply, a POW from my old unit got traded the other day for some taliban, and it has emotionally knocked the wind out of me. Okay.... your doing good work with this, but instead of trying to synthesize logically the range of meaning of a concept dualisticallt via a spectrum of extremes..... "Offense vs Defense" trying to isolate its functional isolates piecemeal..... something which will exhaust you given the necessity of hysterical questioning and pitiful returns in terms of new insights achieved, I would rather recommend a more consistently mapped out approach by one of the great classical authors, and work it into a "theory of mind" of how human commanders think and rationalize, on a neurological model that take a range of similar dualism from warfare and work them out stategically/operationally into a conscious-unconscious map of warfare..... a psychomachia that is able to map the labyrinth of the mind. A daring and challenging task, but it already has a good beginning. Be careful to consider other cultures writing that avoid a Indo-European or Anglo-Saxon linguistic outlook of expression as well.... youll find many societies lack a conception of "Offense and Defense" in their theory, while by every measure we would empirically observe them as having/doing just that. They thought in a more varied and intrinsic matter. Have of warfare isn't mind, or psychology, and the other half a unspecified other. Its all mind.... we emphasize a real, a concrete, a methodology and a status quo against the active, more nebulous and changing intellectual capacity of man to invent and adapt, to see through..... this is as much a necessity as a bad habit.... and its all too wrong to casually approach war theory as Is vs Ought in application..... the more inventive and adaptive opponent you face wont care. Friction in warfare.... the Clausewitzian kind, arises from a lack of intuition and a unwillingness to explore alternative against the ease of the status quo. War is all mind..... always. Via kindle app (Amazon.com), I strongly recommend.... very strongly recommend, you download "One Hundred Unorthodox Strategies", a Southern Song Dynasty Text that organizes 100 concepts taken from the "Seven Military Classics" into 50 Dualistic couplets..... similar to your "Offense-Defense", with historical illustrations from a battle in history to underline its point concretely within the larger context of warfare. From here, I suggest you do what the Stoics did, and what I in turn am doing to them, and map the logic out via a stratification of the principles onto larger theories of statecraft, and them both into a neurological model of the mind via conscious-unconscious feedback loops. Hard but doable.... hence my attention to Arius Didymus. From the one hundred: Chapters 67 "Slowness and 68 Quickness deals with aspects of time dilation you described,as well as 63 "The Distant" and "The Nearby". 59 "advancing" and 60 "retreating" would be of component stratification interest to you, in working out larger formulas that point to larger concepts. So would 49 "Security" and 50 "danger", 39 "Initiative" and 40 "response", 43 "the vacuous" and 44 "the substantial", 33 "Contentious Terrain" and 34 "advantageous terrain", 37 "Offense" and 38 "Defense", 23 "Disposition" and "strategic power", 17 "The Host" and "The Guest". Host and Guest relations underline the dichotomy of what constitutes Offense and Defense, as well as inititive and response to the Orthodox (42) and Unorthodox (41). Thats just a beginning to the mass of a formulaic approach to what your metely writing off as Offense and Defense. How can you give a statistical prevalence to offense if your not in a position to objectively differentiate what offense is at root, and how it relates to defense cognitively? Are you not merely stating the attraction of a Ronano-Medieval udeal of the Machismo seeking feats and impressing women? Your statistics quickly fall apart as such: one antagonistic state surrounded by three non-antagonistic states..... three states play defense to one state offensively.... on a very superficial level. However, the antagonistic Prussian like state is likely playing defense too, splitting its forces on a degensive-expeditionary basis, and the three states are likely to form alliances to strike, confuse, stress out and contract the belligerent state. Ultimately, a chicken and egg paradox arises.... was the prussian like belligerent state actually playing defense via aggression all along to keep it from being destroyed by its overwhelming enemies, or vice versa? Alot of other chapters deal with that. Well, I said enough..... just look for formulaic axiomatic principles from world history, and map it on cognitive conscious-unconscious feedback loops. You can use cranial nerves, or 3d geometric shapes.... catholics have mapped out the Stoic 7 deadly sins on cubes with conscious-unconscious feedback loops, I did via the middle gyrus. Easy Peasy, Japanesee. Even Forest Gump could do this. Or... you can continue on, completely missing the point, emphasiving nuances, ignorant of a larger structure. Just remember, Wittgenstein's Language Games. Now..... back to sulking over Bergdahl.

http://books.google.com/books?id=c61DAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Origo+Gentis+Romanae&source=bl&ots=Q7HoIo9l4z&sig=GuQwfUSXGFk3wRN5r-zK187Qk7E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=krSHU8GuPMmKqgaAsIKYDA&ved=0CCIQ6AEwADgK A recent free ebook commenting on the history of research and criticism of the text. And this, the text in English: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/origo_01_trans.htm A scholastic commentary on this history, dating it to the 3rd Century AD

Origins of the Aventine Hill: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aventinus_of_Alba_Longa It apparently had a lot of birds. Also, a nearby river (the Tiber?) is supposedly the root the Samnites gave to the hill's name, as the hill was named after the river.... unless by river they mean a stream....

Supposedly, the Tiber River was known as Albula (or not), until a latin king named Tiberinus Silvius managed to drown in it, which js the only thing he is known for. Apparently, people either liked him enough, or hated him and were just thrilled with his passing that they made him the god of the Tiber River. He had a temple built for him at Volturnia. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberinus_Silvius Tiber, the descended of Aeneas who lived many generations after 'Aeneas' came, apparently was already dead and a God in this link, creating one hell of a Grandfather Paradox: http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/tiberinus.html So take this one however you wish.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_kings_of_Alba_Longa A very questionable list of Latin kings 400 years prior to the establishment of Rome.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicels I read this tribe is the alternative origin for the Roman people. Supported by a few roman historians in antiquity.

Only one cause, Romans didn't take Rome serious anymore. They could of pulled themselves out of it, regardless of external pressures by good old fashion spite, defiance, and pragmatic know how. They just let themselves go, and the Germans and Arabs reaped the rewards. If it was mandated every Roman household, in five years, save for circumstance of no heirs or disability, be required to equip and provide for the seasonal training of a low grade soldier responsive to the local governor, how long do you honestly think this decline would of lasted? I pity the fool barbarians pillaging such a armed countryside. Under a republic, this wouldn't of been a issue. In a Empire prone to revolts, a issue. Something to consider for countries signing anti-gun suicide pacts. Very easy to occupy and hold such weak populations. Had the average Roman been treated as a true son of the state, and took up arms, the Romans would still be around. Nothing short of Ebola could of broken them. Hence this list is no good. Doesn't focus of the imperial indifference and Cynicism (modern negative Cynicism, not the ancient philosophy) of a increasingly useless and backwards government. This list assumes a orthodox, centralized military state under direct imperial control got overwhelmed is the cause of the collapse.... because it couldnt assert enough force in all places. This is obviously wrong, they could of levied it for free. The mere fact they were unwilling given how the government, increasingly tyrannical, wouldn't for ideological reasons, point to the reasons why. Hence we end up looking to the Punic and Civil Wars for the reason why the empire, prior to its birth, was destined to alienate itself from the people and decline.

The Aristotelian basic concept of a middle class, as opposed to the higher castes in the Vedas, or Proletarian Revolution.... middle class means they belonged to the polis, were the body politic to a great extent, and relatively educated. Hence leadership paid attention to the categorical concerns of the troops, but not to individual troops persay. Axioms are king in such a environment.

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27599827 Just like in the movie "Children of Men".

Not true, the kids here don't play it anymore than I did, which involves tossing a ball to kids during first grade recess and kick it around the edges of the basketball court. At least for boys. Now girls, they play it alot, I see them put in the field playing it. Its a very quaint, safe game that empowers them without actually requiring effort or contact, and since people only score accidentally, the stress of winning or victory is not priority, drinking Capri Suns, wearing long designer socks, and having your hair cutely bundled up is. Hence why its not a sport. There isn't even a real need for a ball, people should just run around waving at one another, with some douchebag tripping people and acting like they hurt them, not the other way around. That is what soccer is, the ball is pure propagandic distraction. A Simulacrum of a Sport.

So a series of shockers have occured, the United States has discovered it has a male Soccer team, whose name and home location remains unknown. They better not be tax payer funded, but I can't possibly see how they are funded otherwise. Anyway.... its a logical paradox, unless this is some weekend amateur team of factory workers who noticed there was no national team, and just started showing up to international matches. Its like when tropical countries send someone to the winter Olympics. Other big shock is.... apparently the world cup isn't just one match. I couldn't figure out how the US was facing Germany to win the cup (better be a big cup).... there is no way there are enough grown men in the US who know how to play soccer well enough to select a competent team capable of beating anyone. Well, it appears we are playing to our strengths now. A bunch of members of the German team we (and by We I mean whoever supports the US team, not including myself as I dont watch Soccer) are set to play against have been hit by a car in Italy. I suspect this is our underlining syrategy.... just prior to every match, a new tragedy will occur, untraceable back to the US, taking out the best players of opposing teams just prior to playing the match. Heck, we will probably still lose. But it will give us a fighting chance. Hopefully, we wont qualify for the world cup again for a few decades. Its deliberately effeminate and distracts the youth from pursuing real sports. Countries who are good at Soccer tend to require UN peace keepers to stabilize their countries.... lets keep foreign problems foreign, and not play soccer. No need to import such depravity here to the US. I wonder if Hitler, Stalin, or Mao had a soccer team, or the Khmer Rouge, or Mugabe? Willing to bet bin Laden was a big soccer fan. I only know the name of one team, Manchester United. I wonder if he like, knew all about them, and had opinions and team Jerseys, and would shout at the TV, watching excited for hours as the teams kicked the ball back and forth without any apparent intention to score. Bet Binny was a big soccer fan. Likely watched the Taliban Soccer Team in home games.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_infantry_tactics It has all your answers. Basically, the Roman army was a middle class affair originally, and the parents of drafted soldiers had some democratic imput.... so the Romans put emphasis of leadership on rotating fresh men into the front line, and gave everyone the equal chance to fight and die. They promoted these heads micromanagers from inside the ranks, and maintained even a strategic reserve to swap out the whole army. Who decided? Bottom-Up and Top-Down leadership working together. Everyone understood how the system worked, and could read the cues. Generally, so long as there wasnt a SNAFU which, well, happens in any system. Id rather know my kid is going to be rotated out in battle over just being chucked into the frontlines and left to die. Being in the front ranks was a curse in ancient armies, a death sentence even if the enemy was weak.... they will have a attrition factor on your abilities after a while even if you are personally a superstar. But for the Romans, not that bad of a prospect, beyond light infantry and archers screwing with you before you close ranks, but thats life.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4523670,00.html Oh no, its way worst than I thought. Half the town voted to keep it.

You dont know how stupid the US is, the left will demand we save the French. Its always the French. Why? No good reason. Alot of good reasons infact not to save them..... but it doesn't change the fact Ill be drafted to drive a old mothballed APC to.... save the art or organic food farms from national socialism. It never made much sense in the first two world wars, so dont expect a rational explanation for the third, beyond mere reflex. Everytime Europe does this, we end up being dragged into a war. And we end up liberating "the French" each time. Its very tiring.

Actually, the EU has a wall, it has a very terrible track record in killing Africans in the Spanish enclaves in Mocorro and a aggressive coast guard. It was built with EU funds. Ever hear of fortress Europe? Most parts of the US lack a official language. We haven't mandated stasis over the English language either. And we don't elect social nationalists to congress, unlike Europe. Spool..... yeah, this thread is real, legitimate gripe seeing the post WW 2 era go the way of the Weimar Republic. Surest formula for a WW 3. I don't want to save the French again. Tired of doing it all the time.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5390011 Okay.... so I guess the last time the US invaded Europe, via Normandy, likely wont work this time around, given everyone expects us to go that way.... I didnt know the national socialists in germany were allowed to march, much less successfully achieve political office, I thought the allies left rules saying not to do that. Im usually a very strong supporter of freedom of speech, but tend to glaze over hypocritically when it comes to Germany, for the very selfish reason I dont want to be thrown into a draft situation and sent to Germany in my 40s driving some mech unit for a bunch of infantry guys to jump out of and liberate the living daylights out of people in Berlin..... again. Like.... Germany, France, England.... these are not real countries, they are like New York, or Rhode Island, or Georgia under the Articles of Confederation.... quasi-states. I honestly dont see what the hold up is here.... the longer you delay on unifying Europe, the more chances for a European War. If you live in Europe, your country is Europe. Stop being afraid of Gypsies, and knock the Social Nationalism thing off, cause the US isnt going to do the selective D-Day fighting through the hedges, paratrooping onto spikes again.... we'll just nuke you this time, and forget about you. Your not worth the trouble anymore. Like, two world wars centered in Europe hasnt given you guys the hint.... just unify and be done with it. And stop spazzing out over immigrants, the US has plenty, they intergrate well, we have more white people in the US than ever before, so a few Turks isnt going to lead to a great white extinction. Not having babies does that..... make more babies, duh. A good, time tested trick to making more babies..... dont abort them. Very successful, but little know trick. I am very dissapointed in Europe.