Fair enough, that makes way more sense.
I think they meant front line cavalry which, tbf, they should have specified.
For sure, I think horses, donkys and mules are still the best way to carry large supplies for fighting deep in jungles too. Well, outside of helicopters but they're not ad good at hiding under the jungle canopy. So, I 100% agree. I was just letting you know.
I don't think I explained it very well.
They dont look to own the country when they overthrow it. Thats old school colonialism. Its expensive to maintain and people will dislike you for it. Neo colonialism has them pay for their colonisation from the start.
It'll be for access to specific resources. Say they had, oh I dunno, oil. You install a puppet government thats 100% dependent on you, who knows they'll be killed if they lost US backing, and you force them sell you their oil fields for a fraction of their worth.
Then, any revolution or even democratic vote that tries to take them back, despite how wrong and unlawfully they were obtained, would be seen as breaking international law and have them cut off from the rest of the world. Cuba was and still is meant as a warning to the rest of the Americas.
You don't need the rest of the country to be prosperous for that. In fact, that would just push up the labour costs.
Its strange, you reply with the appearance of disagreeing but then say things that don't refute anything I've said and that I broadly agree with.
For sure and even before machine guns, there's examples of that like the seige of Badajoz which, for its time, was brutal (Napoleonic - like 5k in an hour or something).
To me though, and apologies if you know already, at the Battle of the somme the British army believed the germans to already be dread after days of shelling. As well as this, the many of the british troops were so poorly trained that they ordered mass sections to literally March, with their arms locked out in front of them with the barrel of their rifle pointing upwards, right at German machine guns hoping to charge at the end. Thats literally napoleonic tactics, only they were all "rifles" or light infantry, so they formed skirmishers lines instead of columns. The British artillery stopped shooting for the advance, so that they didn't shoot their own troops.
By the end of the war, soldiers huddled behind tanks advancing behind a rolling barage. The germans just did it on mass and had the armour more concentrated. One of the reasons they jumped so far ahead is the hard lessons they had suffered towards the end of the war. I mean, it was still a blood bath for everyone but for them it was an even worse blood bath. So, I agree very much with what you're saying.
My only point I'm making about the speed of change in warfare, to my understanding, is even greater still in ww1.
Funny they would say that, I've just restructured my remuneration package so that all of my pay now technically counts as tips.
Yay me!
I don't disagree with anything you're saying. However, I think the reason it's not sitting right with you is your assumption of good faith on their part.
What if they never cared if the country is more profitable generally and they just wanted to rip them off as much as possible before they realise what's going on?
To me, their actions make far more sense if I presume that was what they really intended to do. More so, any assumption of good faith, as you point out, makes their behaviour seem, at best, bizzare.
Most historians I've read consider ww1 to have had a far greater evolution, starting with napoleonic tactics and ending with rolling artillery barrages and tanks.
However, I'm not sure of the point you're looking to make here. I mean, the polish army sending cavalry against the germans was an act of wild desperation. I think thats the point they were making there.
Tbf, he would've also had an entire team of professionals there specifically to make sure this exact thing didn't happen
And he STILL fucked it up
Not just racism. His platform was racism AND a magical wall that pays for itself.
I understood them to be talking about cavalry, in that sentence.
The media report the news people want to read about/generates clicks.
Democrats and trumpers care if Biden has all high facilities. Although, both for entirely different reasons.
Democrats and just about any neutral too know that trumps mind isn't aging well either. Some will but won't get many who want to read a lot about that when its just confirming what they already believe themselves to know.
Trumpers wouldn't care if they watched a livestream of trump being lobotomised. They'd still vote for him. More so, they've been groomed to presume any and all media that speaks about trump as anything less than perfect is to be dismissed as lies and fake news. So, they won't read it either.
To me, the problem is that "the news" is the most profitable stories that will generate the most traffic. Trump being senile doesn't do that. Therefore, its not "news."
I agree with what they're saying.
Another problem with centrism is that its just an appeal to moderation fallacy, that the right wing have manipulated for as long as they've existed.
"The 6 for 1 half a dozen for the other" argument wrong presumes that both parties lie equally. If one lies like crazy and the other tells the truth, the middle only serves the lier. Centrism just means that the right have to adjust their views and what they attempt to normalise rightwards.
Centrism needs no more explanation in its dismissal than "if I said the sky was predominantly yellow and you said no, the sky is predominantly blue, would it be reasonable for a third person to presume the sky was green?"
I think you're right but, also, we a tend to discount the effect of having the most greedy and sociopathic people in our society leading it and owning most of the assets.
Not that you've said either way but I think that then gets confused with "human nature."