Star Wars Quirks

Just now joining the conversation. Star Trek Discovery is in my top two favorite Star Trek series.

It has:

I’ll go out on a limb here an say most of TNG was just plain boring. There were a few interesting episodes but for the most part, boring. Every series after that followed suit until Discovery.

To me, it feels like Battlestar Galactica, The Expanse, Star Trek Original Series, and some of the Star Trek movies (new and old), and the result is great. The tie-in to the pilot was genius and basically solidified my opinion of the show.

Though, it must be blindingly bright everywhere on the ship with all of those lens flares. Even J.J. Abrams admited he over used it; why is this series doing the same? “Captain, getting those readings for … arrrgggh, the console is as bright as the sun!”

Today marks the 100th anniversary of the event that is commonly held to be the end of World War I: the armistice on the Western Front. Germany’s war effort was on the verge of collapse both militarily and domestically, and its allies had already signed separate armistice agreements during the preceding months. The signing took place early in the morning, the ceasefire went into effect at 11 AM.

Formally speaking, the notion that World War I ended with this armistice is incorrect. Hostilities had ended, but unlike the end of World War II, the armistice did not constitute a formal capitulation. So legally speaking, the war continued until the various parties involved had reached separate peace agreements, a process which took several years to complete – in the case of Germany, the Versailles treaty which was signed in 1919 and took effect on January 10, 1920. And the state of war with Turkey even continued until the 1923 treaty of Lausanne.

@Jermofoot:

@Gargantua:

Call it Progress.

Call it Change.

Call it Reform.

Call it War.

Like rolling the dice in Axis and Allies, anything can happen and there are no garuntees; But if you don’t like the gameboard and you want to improve your control of “progress/change/reform/victory” for your side, you have to move your pieces in play to “take the chance” on better results.

What Peters is saying is that the Bush administration set the pieces in order to contribute to a possible “roll of the dice” in Egypt; and that some credit is deserved for this.

Anyways - want to know who I think deserves Credit? And like Deanin his time, I was lamblasted for saying had a “level of grace” about this process?

Mubarak.

Unlike Assad, or Ghaddafi, Mubarak saw the writing on the wall, knew what was at stake and basically resigned without a shot fired - all the while knowing he would likely face criminal proceedings. �You have to have some respect for that.

Call it dumb.

Some change.  Where is Egypt now?  In complete turmoil right now.  What an improvement.

@Gargantua:

What was wrong with the Iraq war again?

Sorry, I tuned out to the news on it for about 5 years… far away up here in Canada you know.

IMO, at the time, there was no significant justification for it.  It seemed pretty clear to me the motivation for it was not what was being sold to the American public, who ate it up anyway post WW2.  And the conflict of interest, cronyism and outright corruption involved in bidding contracts, infrastructure, supply, etc. just about makes me sick.  And hardly anyone even cared.  The public was duped and we are paying for our bamboozle.

Like politics, Sausage is ugly when made.

I wonder what the “world” said about the American Civil war during the 1860’s.  “It’s in complete turmoil right now”.

The “turmoil” in Egpyt is a piddlance in comparison to the turmoil in Syria… or what we saw in Libya.  Considering the players, the location, and the stakes, it is a fairly well moderated shift.  There aren’t 1000’s of people dying in the streets.

The “shift to what” is the question we should be asking.

@Amon:

@cyan:

@Petrucci08:

The indian Sepoy mutiny of 1857.

…. and if you stretched it enough i suppose you could call the reformation a civil war in the church  :-D

they forgot a lot of them without haveing to strech. like all the english civil wars and the glorious revolution. and they forgot the war where more americans died than any other war. (also happens to be the second modern war) the Civil War. (what a creative name) Does the Hungarian Revolution count as one and all the other minor communist revolts. Does Italian Renuifaction count as a civil war. because it just this one dude going around and forcing others to join the great italian cause. but someone said something about Greece. they did have a civil war right after world war I i think.

Greece had its civil war after WWII

the communists tried to seize power

the USA and UK backed up anticommunist forces which eventually win

very important event was closing the borders of Yugoslavia and Albania to Greece, that how Greek communists found themselves trapped
-it happened after the Tito-Stalin split

and the Greek communists were i think ideologicaly connected to Soviets

yeah i think that happened after both wars. first the brits and the french were dividing up Turkey and the Russians and Americans created the coldwar.

One last: Jen made the point that to almost win is the same as losing. Not true. For example, if I punch someone in the face repeatedly, and ALMOST knock him out, did I somehow lose the fight? Meade’s forces were defeated on the first day… Meade was punched repeatedly on the 2nd, but stayed on his feet… Lee thought he could land the knock-out blow with Pickett, and failed.

That is basically Gettysberg, in one paragraph.

Edit:

Just to extend the metaphore further, Gettysberg was like a three-round fight:

Round 1: Lee cautiously approaches Meade. Lee lands several devastating blows. Meade staggers. Lee continues pummelling Meade, but Meade is saved by the bell. Meade retreats to his corner and regroups.
Lee wins the round.

Round 2: Meade assumes a defensive stance. Lee pummels Meade the entire round, opening up several cuts. Meade reels, staggers, drops to the ground twice, but Lee misses several knockout blows. Meade counters and bloodies Lee.
Lee narrowly wins the round on points.

Round 3: Meade keeps his defensive stance, knows Lee will go for the knockout blow to the center. Lee begins the round with a weak attack that Meade easily counters. Lee and Meade circle each other warily. Lee, unaware he is ahead on points, throws one last desperate haymaker. Meade guards his center. Lee breaks his hand on Meade’s forearm. Meade, barely conscious, has a chance to finish the fight, but is too battered, bruised and bloodied to do anything but wait for the bell.

Lee is unable to continue the fight. Meade wins a TKO.

Edited cause I like boxing.

Industrialization was bound to kill slavery.  however there were enough radicals in both parties to make it a major issue in the conventions.  so much so in the Charlestown convention that democrats were willing to lose the election rather than nominate stephan douglas who was THE states rights candidate.

Jeepers :) I think we can all agree that “ctm” is right. Let’s leave it at that