US going down the tubes

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:14:47 -0400, Cockamamie Khomeini
<Khomeini DeleteThis @camalcock.com> wrote:

>Probably for the first time in history people are leaving the United
>States for better countries. They offer 35 hour work weeks, 5 weeks
>vacation right off the bat, unlimited paid sick leave, free medical and
>dental, free college education. Yes, I'm afraid the American public is
>getting the shaft real hard. Lost control of the congress, the president
>acts like a king and the Supreme Court circumvents the constitution.
>Remember Rome?

You must be talking about France. Check their unemployment rate and
tax rates. While your at it, see if you can find some venture capital.
They are now trying to find a way out from under some of those
wonderful goodies you admire so much because they can't afford it.

The Democrats control Congress and are doing nothing, both the
liberals AND the conservatives on the Court are circumventing the
Constitution, and Bush has been a disaster. It sure doesn't look good
for the long run.

Bill Smith

Faith, n, Belief without evidence, in what is said by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Ambrose Bierce
 >> Stay informed about: US going down the tubes 

On Jul 9, 4:57 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:

> Clearly they were being punished
> for their moral terpitude.

They were very early Maryland fans?
 >> Stay informed about: US going down the tubes 

On Jul 8, 4:14 pm, Cockamamie Khomeini <Khome... DeleteThis @camalcock.com> wrote:
> Probably for the first time in history people are leaving the United
> States for better countries. They offer 35 hour work weeks, 5 weeks
> vacation right off the bat, unlimited paid sick leave, free medical and
> dental, free college education.

LOL! It's all *free?* Are you *that* gullible?
--
Rayvan
 >> Stay informed about: US going down the tubes 

<tomorrow.DeleteThis@erols.com> wrote in message
news:1184017267.321425.204670@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 4:57 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Clearly they were being punished
>> for their moral terpitude.
>
> They were very early Maryland fans?

Don't you know nothin'? "Moral terpitude" is what
you use to clean moral paintbrushes.

Bob M.
 >> Stay informed about: US going down the tubes 

"Cockamamie Khomeini" <Khomeini.RemoveThis@camalcock.com> wrote in message
news:46916fca$0$20540$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Probably for the first time in history people are leaving the United
> States for better countries. They offer 35 hour work weeks, 5 weeks
> vacation right off the bat, unlimited paid sick leave, free medical and
> dental, free college education. Yes, I'm afraid the American public is
> getting the shaft real hard. Lost control of the congress, the president
> acts like a king and the Supreme Court circumvents the constitution.
> Remember Rome?
>
>


The jobs aren't going to countries with those benefits. They are going to
those with no benefits, long hours, and low pay and certainly no vacation.
Wayne
 >> Stay informed about: US going down the tubes 

On Jul 9, 2:06 pm, Lucifer <wyrdol....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 4:28 pm, "Keith Schiffner" <schis....DeleteThis@bresnan.net> wrote:

> Pulling all their military away from the borders, winding down the
> heavy infantry and replacing them with foederati and consequently
> being thrashed in battle didn't help either. Neither did splitting
> down the middle.

My understanding is that heavy infantry had always had problems
when up against cavalry, and at about that time, they found themselves
fighting not only light cavalry with the asian compound bow, but
also heavy cavalry with lances, made possible by the adoption
of the stirrup. Certainly, heavy infantry isn't going to do well
chasing horse mounted barbarians in any case.
 >> Stay informed about: US going down the tubes 

On Jul 10, 6:32 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2:06 pm, Lucifer <wyrdol....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 4:28 pm, "Keith Schiffner" <schis....DeleteThis@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > Pulling all their military away from the borders, winding down the
> > heavy infantry and replacing them with foederati and consequently
> > being thrashed in battle didn't help either. Neither did splitting
> > down the middle.
>
> My understanding is that heavy infantry had always had problems
> when up against cavalry, and at about that time, they found themselves
> fighting not only light cavalry with the asian compound bow, but
> also heavy cavalry with lances, made possible by the adoption
> of the stirrup. Certainly, heavy infantry isn't going to do well
> chasing horse mounted barbarians in any case.

Hmm...true. The decline in the quality of the heavy infantry when
facing cavalry was still a factor at Adrianople. The military decline
was no doubt caused by a number of factors (the changes in equipment
are somewhat interesting) and the military decline was only one factor
in the disappearance of the Roman Empire. Empires that size tend not
to just disappear without there being a number of causes.

--

Lucifer - Yamaha XV535 Virago
 >> Stay informed about: US going down the tubes 

On Jul 10, 11:22 am, Lucifer <wyrdol....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 6:32 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 2:06 pm, Lucifer <wyrdol....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 4:28 pm, "Keith Schiffner" <schis....RemoveThis@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > > Pulling all their military away from the borders, winding down the
> > > heavy infantry and replacing them with foederati and consequently
> > > being thrashed in battle didn't help either. Neither did splitting
> > > down the middle.
>
> > My understanding is that heavy infantry had always had problems
> > when up against cavalry, and at about that time, they found themselves
> > fighting not only light cavalry with the asian compound bow, but
> > also heavy cavalry with lances, made possible by the adoption
> > of the stirrup. Certainly, heavy infantry isn't going to do well
> > chasing horse mounted barbarians in any case.
>
> Hmm...true. The decline in the quality of the heavy infantry when
> facing cavalry was still a factor at Adrianople. The military decline
> was no doubt caused by a number of factors (the changes in equipment
> are somewhat interesting) and the military decline was only one factor
> in the disappearance of the Roman Empire. Empires that size tend not
> to just disappear without there being a number of causes.

I've seen Adrianople identified as a transition point between
Roman and medieval warfare tactics with medieval tactics
placing the greater emphasis on heavy cavalry.
 >> Stay informed about: US going down the tubes 

On Jul 10, 7:30 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 11:22 am, Lucifer <wyrdol... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 6:32 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 2:06 pm, Lucifer <wyrdol... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 9, 4:28 pm, "Keith Schiffner" <schis... RemoveThis @bresnan.net> wrote:
> > > > Pulling all their military away from the borders, winding down the
> > > > heavy infantry and replacing them with foederati and consequently
> > > > being thrashed in battle didn't help either. Neither did splitting
> > > > down the middle.
>
> > > My understanding is that heavy infantry had always had problems
> > > when up against cavalry, and at about that time, they found themselves
> > > fighting not only light cavalry with the asian compound bow, but
> > > also heavy cavalry with lances, made possible by the adoption
> > > of the stirrup. Certainly, heavy infantry isn't going to do well
> > > chasing horse mounted barbarians in any case.
>
> > Hmm...true. The decline in the quality of the heavy infantry when
> > facing cavalry was still a factor at Adrianople. The military decline
> > was no doubt caused by a number of factors (the changes in equipment
> > are somewhat interesting) and the military decline was only one factor
> > in the disappearance of the Roman Empire. Empires that size tend not
> > to just disappear without there being a number of causes.
>
> I've seen Adrianople identified as a transition point between
> Roman and medieval warfare tactics with medieval tactics
> placing the greater emphasis on heavy cavalry.

An interesting theory. I always thought of it as the victory of
Germanic cavalry based tactics over classical infantry based tactics.

--

Lucifer - Yamaha XV535 Virago
 >> Stay informed about: US going down the tubes 

On Jul 11, 3:22 am, Lucifer <wyrdol....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 7:30 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 11:22 am, Lucifer <wyrdol....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 6:32 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 9, 2:06 pm, Lucifer <wyrdol....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 9, 4:28 pm, "Keith Schiffner" <schis....DeleteThis@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > > > > Pulling all their military away from the borders, winding down the
> > > > > heavy infantry and replacing them with foederati and consequently
> > > > > being thrashed in battle didn't help either. Neither did splitting
> > > > > down the middle.
>
> > > > My understanding is that heavy infantry had always had problems
> > > > when up against cavalry, and at about that time, they found themselves
> > > > fighting not only light cavalry with the asian compound bow, but
> > > > also heavy cavalry with lances, made possible by the adoption
> > > > of the stirrup. Certainly, heavy infantry isn't going to do well
> > > > chasing horse mounted barbarians in any case.
>
> > > Hmm...true. The decline in the quality of the heavy infantry when
> > > facing cavalry was still a factor at Adrianople. The military decline
> > > was no doubt caused by a number of factors (the changes in equipment
> > > are somewhat interesting) and the military decline was only one factor
> > > in the disappearance of the Roman Empire. Empires that size tend not
> > > to just disappear without there being a number of causes.
>
> > I've seen Adrianople identified as a transition point between
> > Roman and medieval warfare tactics with medieval tactics
> > placing the greater emphasis on heavy cavalry.
>
> An interesting theory. I always thought of it as the victory of
> Germanic cavalry based tactics over classical infantry based tactics.

I assume you're also familiar with Carrhae. Seems like Roman
infantry often had serious problems with cavalry.
 >> Stay informed about: US going down the tubes 

On Jul 11, 8:04 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 3:22 am, Lucifer <wyrdol... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 7:30 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 11:22 am, Lucifer <wyrdol... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 10, 6:32 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 9, 2:06 pm, Lucifer <wyrdol... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 9, 4:28 pm, "Keith Schiffner" <schis... DeleteThis @bresnan.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Pulling all their military away from the borders, winding down the
> > > > > > heavy infantry and replacing them with foederati and consequently
> > > > > > being thrashed in battle didn't help either. Neither did splitting
> > > > > > down the middle.
>
> > > > > My understanding is that heavy infantry had always had problems
> > > > > when up against cavalry, and at about that time, they found themselves
> > > > > fighting not only light cavalry with the asian compound bow, but
> > > > > also heavy cavalry with lances, made possible by the adoption
> > > > > of the stirrup. Certainly, heavy infantry isn't going to do well
> > > > > chasing horse mounted barbarians in any case.
>
> > > > Hmm...true. The decline in the quality of the heavy infantry when
> > > > facing cavalry was still a factor at Adrianople. The military decline
> > > > was no doubt caused by a number of factors (the changes in equipment
> > > > are somewhat interesting) and the military decline was only one factor
> > > > in the disappearance of the Roman Empire. Empires that size tend not
> > > > to just disappear without there being a number of causes.
>
> > > I've seen Adrianople identified as a transition point between
> > > Roman and medieval warfare tactics with medieval tactics
> > > placing the greater emphasis on heavy cavalry.
>
> > An interesting theory. I always thought of it as the victory of
> > Germanic cavalry based tactics over classical infantry based tactics.
>
> I assume you're also familiar with Carrhae. Seems like Roman
> infantry often had serious problems with cavalry.

Yes, they do seem to have done, at least when they weren't part of an
effective combined force. Carrhae was also a pretty superb piece of
tactics by the Parthians. Infantry tended to only beat cavalry if they
could take them on on their own terms.
 >> Stay informed about: US going down the tubes