James Arryn

Luckily or otherwise, our only territorial transactions have been to revert native control of a native-run territory the size of Mexico. Your assumption that we would have just acted as the British did is disputed most ways possible ( and sounds ‘vaguely’ like one of those kind of comments I just mentioned above). For example, at the end of each WW Canada had a top 5 military and top 3 navy in the world. And that’s when we went around establishing bases and ports across the planet to ‘protect our freedoms’, ie expand our acquisition capability, right? No, that’s when we disbanded to ~ pre-war levels in a matter of weeks. We have never shown the slightest interest in trying to expand, and polls and studies show Canadians almost universally find the idea childish and completely contrary to our vision of global relations and human rights.

Authoririans down the ages have. I even once read a paper that showed a lot of correlation between authoritarian/imperialistic states and the degree to which their prominent government buildings are meant to appear ~ Roman. Have you seen Germania? So other things I’ve noticed on the way by; all western democracies are imperialist. Well, I’m Canadian, and we have conquered or tried to conquer exactly zero other states since we became a nation. So, that seemed odd. It was later clarified by the…and honestly, treading on the fringes of my core field, he offered the interpretation that Canada is geo-strategically indistinguishable from the United States. Lol. Well, we’ve said no to many American wars/invasions, we’ve even fought off 3 or 4 American invasions ourselves and we routinely disagree on geopolitical issues; for example Canada is decrying the export of cluster munitions to Ukraine and upheld the CCM. But he does have a point that Canadians and Americans mostly speak England’s tongue, and two of those three are or have been imperial, so I guess by his way of thinking Canada is actually being pretty disruptive in not inviting invasion from one of the imperialists and just recognizing that anyone who can conquer does. There is no other way of thinking. Or at least that’s what people in the acquisitive/expansionist countries always say. Whole swathes of civilization disagree on point and by example, but maybe they’re all geo-strategically indistinguishable from the nearest aggressor too.

Another factor to consider is that we are realizing more and more that he changes his mind a lot, and sometimes when he does some of the elements wither on the vine, others can become ‘mistakes’ which were more like roads begun that are left undone, it’s not like he just forgets about these aspects, but when he changes his mind he can also give us some ruthless moments that play pretty well, like Aerys Oakheart’s last valour. The first 18 chapters were submitted alongside that outline that he/we hate so much now, but that’s roughly where he was heading at least well into Game, so I’ve only very recently heard this and become fascinated in trying to do like a forensic read-through and see if I can figure where his garden started growing sharply away from where he thought it was going to go.

Lemme guess, it was really all about state’s rights?

“They make a desert and call it peace.’” -Tacitus Those Romans?

Oh, sorry, saw Holdomore mentioned a lot, assumed yours was continuation. On above, agreed.

Lmao. Hey, there WERE Jewish Nazis, ergo it was equally supported by everyone!

Well, to be fair, Holdomor IS slightly mischaracterized in common discussion. It was not an intentional plan to wipe out anyone, it was a genuine desire to use more modern approaches to resolve the constancy of massive famines that plagued what had become the Soviet sphere for as long as we’ve been keeping records. The evil gets in by way of callous indifference to the massive famine it either triggered or amplified under the guise of ‘it’s a process, it’s a process’ growing pains and then treating the affected areas like they’d been tourniquet’d for the Greater Good. If you think that’s much morally superior, well, as mentioned, everyone gets very realpolitik about their own empires’ evils. Edit: to be clear, I think Stalin may have even been a worse human than Hitler, so nothing above is designed as apologist rhetoric for one of the worst people to ever walk the planet.

A hint that you aren’t seeing how your camera is squarely in the way of your picture: are you contending that this nuanced view of the ‘high civilian casualty’ friendly strategic m.o. makes MORE sense than Ukrainians killing themselves at rates of friendly fire never once recorded in any modern conflict…or anything close…yet they keep doing it because, dunno, something something the West? Get a grip. You are saying the Russians aren’t doing it because it’s not part of their ‘motivation’…psst, remember you have already said military doctrine > motivation, but I digress. IOW you are saying they aren’t doing it because it does not directly conform to their officially stated objective. But do you use this logic with the Ukrainians? Do you ask what their reasoning is for regularly mis-firing missiles at their own population centres and keeping that up despite knowing the results? Does w/e convoluted word salad you’ll throw in the air to bridge the gap really convince you that Ukrainians fighting a defensive war and deciding to maintain a policy of regularly killing their own population…and, incidentally, eroding their capacity to wage war…makes more sense than it just being a tactic completely in line with Russian ‘philosophy’, a million times more than it fits in Ukraines. If you come back at me with ‘it makes them look like victims to the West’ I will not respond, it’s just insane. And I would like to address the Orwellian language you are using about Russia’s military philosophy involving accepting ‘high casualty rates’. Now, you actually have a slight friend in this in that I am willing to acknowledge that the US has rained down death on millions of civilians…still do, averaging ~ 40 bombs dropped on somewhere every day of every week of every month of every year for the past 25 years ( ie not even including Linebackers, et al) and Americans generally do a massive ‘war is hell’ shrug about it, completely ignoring the motivation behind the statement, ie, then stop bringing hell to so many brown people. But the same applies here. Deciding that because Russia wants Ukraine and because their ‘philosophy of war’ accepts high civilian casualty rates, that this somehow excuses their responsibility in invading and introducing this philosophically approved hell upon the civilian population of Ukraine is just as morally bankrupt, not to mention facile. Don’t intentionally bring hell to people because you want something of or from them. Or, if you do, take real moral responsibility for that fact, for the countless dead children your hell has caused, for the human result of dehumanizing military policies of imperialists on the humans you choose to send to hell. Ans btw, they all do it with lip service to infrastructure. Infrastructural and military targets were the ‘official’ motivations for US carpet bombing in Germany and Japan, but the guy actually in charge of the Japanese operation (LeMay) admitted (on camera, btw) that the true motivation was to ‘kill as many Japanese people (“japs” or ‘Japos’ or ‘monkeys’ or ‘savages’ as stated in official US I.D. communiques) as possible’. So when you write ‘infrastructure is a valid target’ you are just joining the chorus of Imperialism Apologists Provided It’s My Empire club that’s been going strong for yonks.

Dust and Shadow, seconded. I read the first series of mysteries nominally from Arthur Conan Doyle and Prof. Bell…a knife in the fog, I think…Harkness or similar…good job maintaining the ‘voice’, good development, maintaining that slight, er, innocence of the originals, etc. while dealing with the brutality of the Ripper. No idea if they’re good from here but I’m intending on reading more.

Just to be clear, it is your contention that a majority of the strikes against Ukrainian civilians have been friendly fire. That’s your actual position? Sure, both sides use propaganda and yes, the West has more motives than altruism involved here, but shit like this should let you know when the noises you are making are coming from the hand shoved up your analysis.

Reminder from across the pond: often cruelty IS the point. They see it as toughness/resolve/willingness to act.

The vast majority of Americans at the time were even opposed to MLK’s walks, too. https://news.gallup.com/vault/246167/protests-seen-harming-civil-rights-movement-60s.aspx It’s always been the same, lip service to the cause, opposition to anything that furthers the cause that in any way affects them or makes them uncomfortable when they’d rather be comfortable. Kaepernick vilified and black balled for doing something so awful that he’d been doing it on national television for several weeks before anyone even noticed, Ali most hated person in America, etc. ‘I fully support the right to protest…it’s part of what makes America so free…but not like that, that’s not the time, place, or way.’ should be a bumper sticker. There’s discussion here about whether or not America is moving left or right, and my own opinion is that Americans do not generally recognize how far to the right their center is to begin with, which partially explains all the confusion about which way it’s moving. The US could move steadily to the left for decades and still be very far to the right of the majority of its peers. (Remember they are not static either.) Which may be a generally accurate summary of what has been happening, btw, though in this case ‘steadily’ would be better expressed as generally, as it’s in fits and starts with plenty of walking back under guises like ‘family values’ and ‘enough is enough, they go too far.’ Conservatives always think anything actually being done beyond platitudes is too far too fast. That’s kinda what defines conservatism.

So Trump today announced that if re-elected he will immediately establish an immigration ban on anyone who is ‘Marxist, communist, or socialist’. He then mused upon what to do with those ‘already here’ and said that he would create new laws to ‘deal with’ them. He lead into this with a call back to his earlier ban on muslims as being the new template for dealing with the unwanted. So, we’re about 50/50 away from having a leader of the US who is now openly and literally walking the footsteps to historical fascism to cheering crowds of seemingly irrationally devoted followers, another box ticked.

A few, off top of my head, smattering of extant and extinct: House Bittersteel: Forged in Blood House Clegane: Faithful Unto Death House Reyne: Beware Our Pride House Fossoway of New Barrel: True To The Core House Blackwater: We Hold The Line House Dayne: We Bring The Light or if you don’t think D= LB, Darkest Before Dawn House Justman: Let Justice Reign House Langward: As Above, So Below House Teague: By Might and By Right House Manderly: Our Course Is True House Tarbeck: We Keep Faith House Dustin: First and Last House Bar Emmon: Right To The Point House Mertyns: Understand and Overcome House Tarth: Ever Rising House Grimm: Ironbane House Qohaerys: Beyond Fear Or Foe House Darry: Reap The Whirlwind (As You Sew makes more sense, just the first is an awesome phrase, so…) And a few ideas I think I’ve picked up elsewhere, might be mine but more likely not: House Frey: We Stand Together House Blackwood: Our Strength Gathers House Costayne: First To Rise

I mean, we went through the whole Mueller thing only to find out he did not believe that Constitution allowed him to charge a sitting President. That’s what’s got me worried, something as ridiculous as that.

By the by, I occasionally get Neil Oliver stuff, and ….what’s happened? Expecting some interesting historical discussion, I am unwittingly putting my foot into Conspiracy Central, with straight up monologues about how the One World Government is making us all take Vacccines which are killing us, and other such. WTF? He’s always seemed a reasonable bloke, and dealing with history, he’s often strayed into political discussion and I must have missed all the signs of impending crackpotting. Always seemed fairly reasonable, mostly grudging anti Scottish independence, which seems to be pretty standard, and I’d have put him at moderate something at worst. Is he Scotland’s Russel Brand?

She stole my heart and my cat. I’d forgotten about that one, the inverted tv/movie cop boss, my mind went to stuff like Glengarry Glen Ross (unsure on spelling here), Grosse Point Blank and this even older movie whose name escapes me, but it starred an older Audrey Hepburn as a blind woman and Arkin as this really chilling villain. Fantastic character actor who sometimes headlined. Oh, just remembered another shrink role, Freud in a….wanna say 60’s or 70’s film of the great novel The Seven Per Cent Solution.

Exactly the kind of dumb ‘accelerate the process’ move I was worried about/stupid teams make because cap room must be spent or it turns into Chernobyl. 43 mill/year for fucking Fred VanVleet. I’d have been ok with going after a vet 5 because right now they can’t really go big, but not this shit.

I will say it should really be called Jon Arryn’s Rebellion. In that, well, he did the rebelling, alone at the time, and if he does not rebel, but obeys, there is no Robert or Ned to even try rebelling. He was the first to put his neck on the line for anything other than protecting himself and/or his family. And then it was his political nous that consolidated a fragmented kingdom back into one functioning entity, and it was his death that began the unravelling.

I think many assume fAegon might have a dragon by that point. Because otherwise, yeah, dragons still mean victory most of the time, Aegon’s Conquest is mostly a story about Targaryens getting outgeneralled until, oh no, dragon.

Said it before, brutal as he is Randyll Tarly is probably the most engaged father we see in the books, constantly suffering trouble, expense, embarrassment and wasted time on behalf of developing/securing Sam, then ‘entirely devoted himself’ to raising Dickon after he decides he’s the heir. So it might mean something, but I think it was just more of an example of how desperate he was getting with Sam, and his prioritization of Sam’s development, to the point of trying anything he could think of/hears might work.

Every single feudal lord is opportunistic scum underneath it all. Understand that in principle, feudal subjects are closer to slavery or serfdom than any modern understanding of citizens or w/e, they are forced into an iniquitous relationship, forced to support the lords above them at risk of imprisonment, torture, violence and death. Forced to fight in their wars regardless of cause or in any way involvement in the causes, ie just as dead if your lord is ‘defending’ against an attack or attacking because their lord wants more, or had an argument or is annoyed about a broken betrothal or w/e, your life is forfeit at their whim. How many died in the BF Rebellions which would have meant a lot to their rulers but almost nothing to the small folk, just a family squabble that cost thousands of lives who had little understanding of why they were fighting except they were ordered to.

1) it’s actually the norm, heirs/lords marrying the daughter of one of their more powerful vassals. That’s in part why the ‘Southron Ambitions’ might just have something to it, deviating from the norm that much all of a sudden. Those aside, in the time of the books we see Mace marrying a Hightower, Steffon marrying an Estermont, Jon Arryn marrying a Royce and then an Arryn, Rickard marrying a Locke, Hoster Marrying a Whent, Tywin marrying a Lannister, Balon marrying a Harlaw, and Doran marrying a non-royal Essosi. What IS weird is that as the books begin, not one heir…all but two are well into adulthood…are even betrothed. Wyllis is like approaching 30, Edmure’s in his late 20’s, Tyrion around the same, Arianne is early 20’s (which is older than for guys who don’t have limited fertility period) Theon/Asha early 20’s, and then Joff is early teens and Sweetrobin 9 going on 3. Not a one of them are married or betrothed as the books start. That’s kindof crazy. 2) George loves turtles.

Met many two year olds?