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.

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.

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.

Not against tanks which would be why the royal dragoons switched to tanks.

I understood them to be talking about cavalry, in that sentence.

Too low wage and the government will top up those being underpaid by their employer, effectively passing on part of the burden of pay to the tax payer.

If wages rise too high, the government will always step in to make sure it doesn’t continue.

Its highly externally regulated and ultra manipulated by the people who buy labour and own for their money. Sadly, some people still beleive in the “invisible hand” blessed be its name story.

Its only a special military operation. Why would they need to escalate?

Good, make Britain unsafe for facsists again

Yup, the rules are simple: you serve the empror by killing the alien, the mutant and the heretic.

All else is blasphemy.

deleted by creator

Of course, I always knew it had to be them. I didn’t know why. I just knew it. Thats how I know this is true.

As opposed to non fascist nazis?

I just don’t get how you could vote for someone as old as trump.

Because “better overall” is a silly concept to use here, and is bring deliberately done to “both sides” the debate.

For driving really fast: petrol

For not killing our planets ability to sustain himan life: electric

Its not that hard

I mean, after all, their problem is that they want more workers, so they can make more money. Letting people work less defeats the point.

It’s our fault for ever thing they would try to fix their problem by making their own problem worse.

Thanks but I didn’t need it. Maybe try the explanations without pictures next time. Thats probably where you went wrong.

Your problem is that you presumed to be saying that to someone who didn’t know anything about fallacies and not someone who knows them better than you. So, now you’ve gone and made a fool out of yourself. Even funnier that you’ve doubled down on your fallacy fallacy and had to resort to such pathetic deflections.

Please carry on though, you’re hilarious.

It might well have been, had i made that claim.

I agree completely and i respect you giving context. I hope you can understand, its not that common that people realise that.

I can understand that. I imagine the main cause is what you’ll find if you look into “operation gladio.”

Bless your little heat. Like I said, I remember when I first discovered fallacies too. So, I understand why you think they’re news for other people. Ironically though, again, you forgot the fallacy fallacy.

As in, even if you weren’t wildly wrong and falling foul of the very fallacy you claim to see, it still wouldn’t make my position wrong.

So, rather than post things you clearly don’t understand, why not engage the subject?

Lol jk, anyone reading this will know why you can’t.

Clearly you think yourself far smarter than you are. Especially considering you can’t even see yourself fall foul of the fallacy you claim to see. As adorable as it is, I remember when I first found out about fallacies too, its a bit boring and it wouldn’t make me wrong either. That is if you bothered learning any of the other fallacies.

Let me help you, as you’re clearly struggling here: why is it that only the Europeans, in this instance, that have to own their crap? Why are we not allowed to consider any other contributing factors? How is me mentioning another factor, while not denying the problems at home, not owing it?

It doesn’t make sense does it?