New major military powers
- Thread starter mexsoldier
- Start date
- Status
Huh?
What do Saudi AWACS have to do with the topic we discuss?
Maybe he thinks that Saudi Arabia is part of Europe or NATO.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Maybe he thinks that Saudi Arabia is part of Europe or NATO.
If "Europe" keeps expanding its borders maybe it will be one day.
nfloorl:Actually, the British E-3Ds are under NATO command (unlike the E-3As not owned by NATO though).
They're part of COMNAEW&CF (Command, NATO Airborne Early Warning & Control Force) as the "E-3D component", just like the "E-3A component", which are the 17 NATO AWACS (in addition to the 23 E-3, the command also operates 3 Boeing 707 Trainer/Cargo aircraft).
The French aircraft however of course aren't (blame DeGaulle).
They're part of COMNAEW&CF (Command, NATO Airborne Early Warning & Control Force) as the "E-3D component", just like the "E-3A component", which are the 17 NATO AWACS (in addition to the 23 E-3, the command also operates 3 Boeing 707 Trainer/Cargo aircraft).
The French aircraft however of course aren't (blame DeGaulle).
But they still remain british assets and so are free to be used for british operations when seen necessary by the british government.
Unlike the NATO AWACS which are restricted to NATO approved missions.
That our french neighbours are not that deeply implemented into NATO structure as it should be the case has always been something I thought of needing to be changed.
Unlike the NATO AWACS which are restricted to NATO approved missions.
That our french neighbours are not that deeply implemented into NATO structure as it should be the case has always been something I thought of needing to be changed.
Incognito129
Banned Member
I'm well aware of the factor of institutions and human capital. One of the biggest reasons between S.K and N.K. is institutions. But even if you have strong institutions you will not grow without capital. You can grow without good institutions and highly specialized human capital but you cannot grow without investment. You may never grow to conditional convergence but you will grow.
Admin: Text deleted. Please avoid using this type of response. It's unhelpful and will lead to a response from the aggrieved parties. Make your point without getting personal.
Whats more is all evidence goes against the endogenous growth model that you are talking about.
Every developed modern country form financial policies based on the solow model.
Last edited by a moderator:
How is managing a European military different to any other? In this scenario we assume that the militaries of Europe are voluntarily giving up command of their armed forces to a unified chain of command. Once they submit, are you saying its going to be difficult to tell one unit to move wherever? Whoever is in charge will have all the information he needs to command. Also since its a large military, there would be delegated responsibility. How they split it up is up to them.
I think you're exaggerating the complicity of giving out orders.
Also Xander, you should probably cease calling everyone else stupid or an idiot when you've gotten just as many points wrong as everyone else. You are not superior, so stop acting like it. This is a debate, so let's debate civilly. If you want to correct someone, do so politely. No need to say "omg u stupd idiot omg u r so dumb". Not every has precise knowledge of every military in all the world. Some may have remembered false or old information.
Just makes the debate a bit more smooth if everyone is learning rather than flaming.
I think you're exaggerating the complicity of giving out orders.
Also Xander, you should probably cease calling everyone else stupid or an idiot when you've gotten just as many points wrong as everyone else. You are not superior, so stop acting like it. This is a debate, so let's debate civilly. If you want to correct someone, do so politely. No need to say "omg u stupd idiot omg u r so dumb". Not every has precise knowledge of every military in all the world. Some may have remembered false or old information.
Just makes the debate a bit more smooth if everyone is learning rather than flaming.
Not quite sure England is in Somalia but anyway.
But also, there is an obvious age difference between the two of you and so, you have both learned different things in economics due to changes and such. It's not a constant thing. :X You should know what they teach in economics has changed over time in educational institutions, seeing as you studied it.Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Boys can we keep this respectfull? Instead of "your stupid & your wrong" how about "i think you might be mistaken because of a), b) & c)" were gonna get mod comming in here soon and it would be a shame for annother interesting thread to get closed because people take it personally. So lets not mention each others level of education???? You can still prove that your right without having a personal dig at the other bloke.
Any further posts that become personal and are insulting will result in the member being banned for 3 days.
This does not require a response from anyone.
Read the forum guidelines if unsure.
This does not require a response from anyone.
Read the forum guidelines if unsure.
No. I'm sorry, it does require a response.
Good moderation used to be the hallmark of this forum. That's what made it different from the rest.
Twelve months ago, this thread and plenty of others like it currently on here, would have been closed within five minutes. The standards on here are slipping very quickly.
And I know that I am not a lonely voice on this.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Why does it immediatly require closure? The fact that is was not closed shows some inteligent discretion IMO and is a sign of good moderation. Closing legitimate threads that do show promise of decent conversation, because one or two individuals take it personaly when others have discussed the relevent points in a calm and respectfull manner is akin to punishing the class for two boys fighting. Sanctions should be inforced on the individuals involved not just cuting threads (that are not blatently flamers or stupid) willy nilly because some cant stop from getting personal. GF'sdesision not to close the thread but adress the individuals involved shows more a more inteligent and productive approach to moderating and IMO does not show that the moderators standards are "slipping". On the contrary it shows they are thinking about they way they moderate this forum and deserves commendation.
There's a few issues then:
- we can only respond to poor posts if we are advised by the reporting system - or if we are online and see it. some areas I stay away from as I know other mods are more frequent guests there - but any one of us will kill a post if we see it get ridiculous
- we copped a bit of flack for killing posts when people wanted us to just purge the poster. we still actively ban users, in fact I've banned 4 in the last week or so, at least 3 others have had warnings
- we've recruited additional Mods to pick up the gaps when some of us are overseas or unavail due to work committments.
- one of the active senior members posts to us as soon as he sees a poor thread - without doubt, it will result in the member banning, closure or editing of that thread within hours.
- there is a moderators section that is not publicly viewable, there is a substantial amount of discussion that goes on in there with respect to some individuals
- you may have noticed that we encourage more self moderation, and in a number of instances, senior members will tell newbies or the more passionate members to modify their approach to posting. if they don't, they get banned.
- Our job is to not going around closing every thread that breaches the guidelines, but to encourage wherever possible people to take responsibility for themselves. We don't want to spend our mod lives acting as surrogate parents on here.
- when we went through the "close any defaulting threads" stage, we had complaints by members that killing good posts due to poor posting behaviour by some was unfair - hence the prev comments made
gf
well, perhaps you could open up a thread topic in the "suggestions area" and see if it acts as a catalyst for others opinions?
but, continuing the discussion in here will result in someone complaining about Mods hijacking threads off topic.
.
very well said !!
i was just going to say this.
Admin: Text deleted. Leave the moderation issues to the Mods - as you know first hand already. You don't need to reinforce Snaykes comment - you need to contribute to the debate and demonstrate your own skills rather than be concerned about others. We will attend to members off topic where its required.
No response required
.
Last edited by a moderator:
1. I wish it were only one or two. The influx of one-liner idiots and nationalistic crackpots on here lately is for all to see.
2. And they are all repeat offenders who degenerate nearly every thread they get involved in. Yet seemingly get away with it.
Anyway, this is not the thread for this.
Correct, & I have never said otherwise. But as Ragnar Nurkse wrote, 'capital is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of progress'. The latter is the part you seem to have trouble with.
Not so. Forget models for a while & study real world examples. You will find that there are cases where investment (e.g. a large part of the old Soviet food-processing industry) can destroy value. The raw materials were worth more than the output. If that investment had not been made, & the raw materials had been sold unprocessed, the economy would have been larger. The world is full of cases of investment which has failed to produce growth, in which the goods & effort invested have produced as much growth as a man digging a trench while someone else fills it in behind him. Foreign aid is responsible for some of the most egregious examples, e.g. the infamous groundnut scheme, or the massive CIDA-funded bakery in Dar-es-Salaam. Occasionally, a whole (usually centrally-planned) economy functions on that level for a while.
If you invest productively you will grow. For investment to be productive requires the right conditions, & the right decisions. Wrong institutions, wrong incentives, & wrong decisions will be made, as in the above examples.
When young, & still studying, there is a tendency, easy to fall prey to, to be very enthusiastic about what one has most recently learned. One can become carried away with it. It seems to explain everything, to be . . right. Twenty five years later, having watched things one learned as the latest, cutting-edge ideas having been modified, perhaps completely replaced, & having tested them against the real world & found that they need a bit of bashing & bodging into something less elegant to make them work, one tends to be rather less easily enthused with theories, & tend more towards pragmatic solutions.
I'm put in mind of the communists I knew when I was a teenager. They were so sure . . .
I think it's past time to call this discussion to a halt. We're a long way off topic, & we've more or less beaten it to death.
Also Xander, you should probably cease calling everyone else stupid or an idiot when you've gotten just as many points wrong as everyone else. You are not superior, so stop acting like it. This is a debate, so let's debate civilly. If you want to correct someone, do so politely. No need to say "omg u stupd idiot omg u r so dumb". Not every has precise knowledge of every military in all the world. Some may have remembered false or old information.
Just makes the debate a bit more smooth if everyone is learning rather than flaming.
I agree that nobody is superior and i was never acting like one ,
Admin. Text deleted. This does nothing to reduce the pressure we have been painstakingly talking about. I do not want to see this issue given any more oxygen.
A number of senior and established members including those with military experience in the areas that you argue and debate in have directly complained about your posting behaviour - so it would serve you well to pay attention to the messages that have been generated on this and other threads about posting etiquette.
Stay on track and debate the topic from this point on.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status