So the news has been saying that N. Korea is, as usually, being testy with the US. The President said a few days ago that he wouldn't stand for any type of aggression from NK, but he also said we should keep talking. It was all fairly obvious and has been said a dozen times, but it got me thinking.
Given the fact that we're done with Iraq, and we have plans to get out of Afganistan by the end of the year (supposedly), what do you think will happen next? Are we destined to forever war with other nations? If so, what's next on the list? North Korea seems the most likely, but you never know where things will take us in the next few years. Still, with over ten years of constant war, it's hard to imagine not fighting anyone.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Seoul, a city with a population of 10,421,782, is within artillery range of NK guns. It's a democratic first world country that probably designed your phone or your computer. There's a lot to lose here, and everyone knows it. The U.S. is not going to start a war with NK.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Nope. We won't start it. But I bet this time we will win it if it happens, as much as anyone wins a war in the first place.
I hope we can keep talking, but I don't think they negotiate in good faith either.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Being in the military, you hear a lot of things. One of those things is that at some point in the next decade, after we've pulled out of Afghanistan, we're going to start closing down our European bases and building new ones all over Asia.
Of course, there's no telling if that is true or if it will even happen, but it's a pretty big rumor and most people seem to think it's going to happen (a friend of mine in S. Korea has been hearing the exact same things), so I have to take it a little seriously.
The general consensus is that this is going to happen because of China and N. Korea, but nobody knows for sure. I guess we'll see.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The artillery trained on seoul is a problematic 'advantage' for them. The DPRK knows that if they use it, they are absolutely, squarely, wholly done as a country.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The artillery trained on seoul is a problematic 'advantage' for them. The DPRK knows that if they use it, they are absolutely, squarely, wholly done as a country.
Yes, but not before they destroyed my favorite bar and probably me along with it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Here's the thing: while I agree it's very unlikely NK would use its weapons, conventional and otherwise, so bluntly...I'm leery of relying on the rationality of North Korean leadership. Now I can understand how someone might say, "This is the way things are, and there's really no wriggling out of it for the forseeable future." But when folks start saying, "They wouldn't use 'em, that'd be crazy!" I just wait for people to say, "Oh, yeah. They are kind of freaking nuts."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The artillery trained on seoul is a problematic 'advantage' for them. The DPRK knows that if they use it, they are absolutely, squarely, wholly done as a country.
Yes, but not before they destroyed my favorite bar and probably me along with it.
Another thing to be happy about: north korea's moldering encampments aren't very, uh, entrenched. or safe. nor have they moved their old artillery around very much and uh
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Basically the second there's any message to the artillery line saying 'bomb the south' or any of them start to light up, the whole thing is bomb food.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who imagines a potential NK first strike would come from conventional artillery?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
doesn't have to be, it's just for the second the artillery starts doing what it has been meant to do for decades, stuff happens
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: doesn't have to be, it's just for the second the artillery starts doing what it has been meant to do for decades, stuff happens
Also, don't they periodically fire on nearby countries? I remember hearing about how they recently fired on the South.
I think the biggest worry right now is that they're going to start using nukes. If that ever happened, the world would have a serious problem, obviously.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Being in the military, you hear a lot of things. One of those things is that at some point in the next decade, after we've pulled out of Afghanistan, we're going to start closing down our European bases and building new ones all over Asia.
This is more than just a rumor for the Marine Corps. We're in the process of restructuring our whole mission to focus on SE Asia and the Pacific in general. This includes new bases in Guam and Australia that are already under construction, and probably quite a few other ones are being planned.
Of course, this is more of a return to status quo for us since we *are* an amphibious strike force, and are trained as such. The fact we've spent the past 10 years in the desert and mountains is a little awkward. Like a frog out of water, so to speak.
The president is very interested in increasing our military presence in Asia, though, and I think this is a excellent goal. Despite 3 major wars, our military is still somewhat trapped in a cold war mindset - over bloated, poorly deployed, and structured for large scale battles. There's no need to waste billions of dollars stationing troops in Europe because the chances of war breaking out in Europe at the moment are negligible.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Dogbreath, you are totally correct. The Air Force is making major cuts right now, especially with personnel. I just read in the Air Force Times that they are cutting 10,000 airmen (there are less than 300,000 in the branch, mind you). I wouldn't be surprised if the Marines see similar cuts to their numbers. This really does feel like a transitional period for the military, where we move from being a large (and as you said, bloated) desert-based military to something else entirely.
It makes me happy that I'm getting out in two years, to tell you the truth. My job isn't secure (I was told recently that I'll have to pick a new career field if I stay in because there are too many people in my job), and nothing in the foreseeable future tells me otherwise. Hopefully once I'm out I can use the skills I've learned to find something more secure, like a teaching job. Hopefully things will get better for the people who stay in once this whole thing is done and in place. I guess only time will tell.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
We're cutting 30,000. That's 15% of our current manpower.
My job is pretty secure. I'm highly proficient at it, and it's a rapidly growing field. (which means our numbers are staying consistent while everyone else drops dramatically)
In some ways the Marine Corps will handle this transition better than the other branches because we're already small, and already designed for rapid deployment and small conflicts. (which is incidentally why we were so grossly overused in the past 2 wars. We're 4% of the DOD budget but have compromised 34% of all troops actually in combat, because we're far superior at actually getting our men where they need to go)
It's definitely time for fresh leadership and fresh ideas. Our current top leadership were in their respective Service Academies during the Vietnam War, which ended 14 years before I was born. The world simply isn't the same place, and we're bankrupting the country trying to pretend like it is.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
You have some solid points, definitely.
I think the reason the Air Force is downsizing so much is the opposite of what makes the Marines so useful. We're mostly operators, pilots, technicians, and mechanics (sure, we've got cops, too, but that's not our primary function), which is completely different from a strike force. Because of this, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the Air Force, at some point, completely disappears or merges back into the Army (which is where it started out in the first place). I mean, other than handling cyberspace, we don't really do anything that the other branches don't already.
Furthermore, right now, even as I write this, technology is getting better, more proficient, and less reliant on human hands. Pretty soon we won't even need pilots, just people to fix the remote-controlled aircraft when they break down.
It also doesn't help that we now have missiles that can hit anywhere in the world, all from within our borders. It's all so very different from the way wars have always been fought. Who knows where we'll be in forty years? Or even ten? I think in five years we'll see some big changes in the military as their focus shifts to something new.
The whole thing is very daunting, but it makes for an interesting thought.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Also, don't they periodically fire on nearby countries? I remember hearing about how they recently fired on the South.
The Yeonpyeong shelling wasn't from the artillery that the DPRK has situated and sighted on Seoul. It also resulted in the resignation and replacement of south korea's defense minister, the adoption of a immediate massive response policy (basically, if the north shells the south again anywhere, whether in seoul or a border island or anywhere, it's on).
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Jeff, the existence of the Air Force has always baffled me too.
I mean, as Marines we're distinct from the Navy due to our traditions, appearence, ethos, and role, but we are also almost completely dependent on the Navy for logistical support and completely dependent for medical services, and we're pretty heavily integrated in other respects as well. It'd be an absurd waste of resources for us to build our own ships or train our own corpsmen when when we already have that infrastructure in place. And yet, the Air Force seems to have done exactly that.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Jeff, the existence of the Air Force has always baffled me too.
I mean, as Marines we're distinct from the Navy due to our traditions, appearence, ethos, and role, but we are also almost completely dependent on the Navy for logistical support and completely dependent for medical services, and we're pretty heavily integrated in other respects as well. It'd be an absurd waste of resources for us to build our own ships or train our own corpsmen when when we already have that infrastructure in place. And yet, the Air Force seems to have done exactly that.
It's silly, I agree. In fact, I've noticed that a lot of what happens in the military is extremely redundant. I attribute this to a lack of communication, although I'm sure there are other reasons.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The airforce is important to keep separate and distinct to have an objective ability to analyze the overall strategic and tactical situation on a theater and theater to sector to sector basis to strategically choose where to best allocate resources as well as final say over the tactical or theater use of strategic weapons.
Essentially for as long as there is the possibility of conventional wars between nation-states you need an independent air arm.
Additionally if we ever manage to successfully make the leap into being a space faring civilization the airforce not the navy, is the one most intuitively suited for the foundation of such a service.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The airforce is important to keep separate and distinct to have an objective ability to analyze the overall strategic and tactical situation on a theater and theater to sector to sector basis to strategically choose where to best allocate resources as well as final say over the tactical or theater use of strategic weapons.
You're talking to someone who has a pretty strong working knowledge of military strategy, and I can't make heads or tails of what the heck you're talking about.
quote:Essentially for as long as there is the possibility of conventional wars between nation-states you need an independent air arm.
Why?
quote:Additionally if we ever manage to successfully make the leap into being a space faring civilization the airforce not the navy, is the one most intuitively suited for the foundation of such a service.
Again, why?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not well-schooled enough to answer the first two (though I think the argument for an independent air arm is highly questionable given military history and the problems inherent in interservice cooperation).
But I've seen enough Stargate to know that Blayne's right on the money about the Air Force being in charge of our space forces.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not well-schooled enough to answer the first two (though I think the argument for an independent air arm is highly questionable given military history and the problems inherent in interservice cooperation).
But I've seen enough Stargate to know that Blayne's right on the money about the Air Force being in charge of our space forces.
Right now, they are. The Air Force is the organization that handles Space in the military, but it currently doesn't really do as much as you might think. Space is mostly left to missiles and UAV's. NASA has typically been in charge of manned missions, so until they get back on the ball we're very unlikely to see any progress. Furthermore, the AF's primarily function right now is cyberspace operations, which is something that no other branch really takes part of, so I'd chalk that up to their reason for still existing.
Stargate always struck me as odd, given that when going through the gate, they weren't piloting anything; they were just a strike force. As a small group of soldiers, the Seals or Marines would probably have been a better choice, but the producers/writers probably wanted to cement the idea that they were "in space".
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not well-schooled enough to answer the first two (though I think the argument for an independent air arm is highly questionable given military history and the problems inherent in interservice cooperation).
Obviously, when you're planning an operation you're going to want some way to distinguish your FW aircraft, and furthermore give them some autonomy from ground troops and RWs. However, the Navy and Marine Corps fly more planes on a daily basis than the Air Force and we do a excellent job - we keep our air forces (and their support personnel) in "wings", which are distinct from divisions and have some autonomy, but without the bulkiness of a separate chain of logistical/administrative support.
Blayne (and our military leaders) seems to think it's imperative to have an entire branch of service dedicated to the Air Force, which is just an overkill. I wouldn't mind seeing the Air Force being integrated back into the Army and maintaining a distinct role, but complete independence costs way too much for no apparent purpose.
I haven't seen much Stargate, but how often do they actually fly aircraft/spacecraft in that show?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
About halfway through the series, spacecraft become a pretty major facet of the plot. Once the US Air Force starts to build their own aircraft, there are a lot of space battles, and ferrying people around my spacecraft all becomes important.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: About halfway through the series, spacecraft become a pretty major facet of the plot. Once the US Air Force starts to build their own aircraft, there are a lot of space battles, and ferrying people around my spacecraft all becomes important.
Lol, I forgot about that. I could see the AF heading up something like that, but right now we just aren't at that level. Hopefully one day, though, things will change. I'm a huge advocate of space travel and the like. It's too bad the boys in charge don't agree.
As I said before, cyberspace is becoming the primary focus of the Air Force. Their new slogan is "Air, Space, and Cyberspace", and from what I have seen, Cyberspace is becoming much more dominant.
However, the branch as a whole is diminishing very quickly. My own leaders are saying that we'll probably lose about a sixth of the branch over the course of the next decade. That's about 50,000. It doesn't seem like a lot, but when you only have about 300,000 people in your entire organization, it's actually quite a bit. We've also switched our uniforms over to the ABUs, which are what the Army has been using for years, so it already feels like we're heading in that direction (also, our PT standards are back up to the Army's now, apparently).
I'm not saying that the Air Force doesn't have a place anymore, but with so few people and only a few specializations, it really doesn't seem like it needs to be its own branch anymore.
But who knows? With cyber-warfare becoming such a large and substantial form of combat, maybe the Air Force will find more of a reason to be its own entity. Right now, however, things aren't looking so good.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I nearly joined the Airforce as an officer after college when the job market was terrible and I was something like 8 months without a (real) job.
I was told I'd likely end up being sent off to get my Master's in Meteorology and then used in that capacity. The existence of a branch of the military I could join where I could be reasonably sure I'd not be given a rifle and sent to shoot people was pretty important in their ability to recruit me .
Of course in the end I went a different direction. Still, perhaps there is some benefit of having a military branch for those who prefer to push buttons than to pull triggers? Or maybe not.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Additionally if we ever manage to successfully make the leap into being a space faring civilization the airforce not the navy, is the one most intuitively suited for the foundation of such a service.
Many, many sci-fi writers seem to disagree with you here. According to all the space opera I've read, the navy would appear to be the branch most suited to running ships and fleets in space.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Many, many sci-fi writers seem to disagree with you here. According to all the space opera I've read, the navy would appear to be the branch most suited to running ships and fleets in space.
To be fair, I think most space combat in fiction is pretty ridiculous. It's pretty much 18th century ship combat with energy weapons instead of cannons. It's exciting when you suspend your disbelief, something I can usually manage without issue.
I can't say what space combat will eventually look like, but I can almost guarantee it wouldn't look anything like the exciting stuff in most science fiction.
I think the Hyperion series did it fairly well. The enemy fleet would be destroyed pretty much before they even knew they were under attack. That tends to be anti-climactic on the big screen though.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Many, many sci-fi writers seem to disagree with you here. According to all the space opera I've read, the navy would appear to be the branch most suited to running ships and fleets in space.
To be fair, I think most space combat in fiction is pretty ridiculous. It's pretty much 18th century ship combat with energy weapons instead of cannons. It's exciting when you suspend your disbelief, something I can usually manage without issue.
I can't say what space combat will eventually look like, but I can almost guarantee it wouldn't look anything like the exciting stuff in most science fiction.
I think the Hyperion series did it fairly well. The enemy fleet would be destroyed pretty much before they even knew they were under attack. That tends to be anti-climactic on the big screen though.
Well yeah, unless we actually develop some serious shielding technology there's no way you'd have a long-winded space battle. Still, anything's possible with Science! Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Well, yeah. IMO, space combat in sci-fi runs the gamut from ridiculous to somewhat realistic, depending on the author. I don't know how the ships would actually be armed and what a battle would be like, but for any ship with more than a pilot and copilot and a purpose other than a quick sortie from a base, I would think the navy would be better suited than the air force. Maybe there would never be a purpose for a ship manned like a battleship on earth taking extended voyages, much less a fleet of such ships. But if there were, isn't that right up the navy's alley?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
What AFR said.
I'd read that the main idea behind navy-as-space-farers had very little to do with space combat, which is sufficiently different from anything we do here that it must be relearned anyway. It had more to do with space voyages, months upon months in tight confines with a small group of people. Evokes thoughts of battleships and submarines and so on.
This is all armchair theorizing, of course (not that Blayne's comments are anything else), but it makes a certain amount of sense.
Also yeah seriously Blayne the beginning of your post is pretty incomprehensible. Try dumbing it down for those of us that haven't played Total War or whatever it's called?
Posted by Tullaan (Member # 5515) on :
There are a couple missions that the AF has that are (somewhat) unique. Though, they could probably be easily integrated into the Army.
1. Massive airlift capacity 2. Mid air refueling
As far as space combat goes, the Honor Harrington series is somewhat based on science. At least it's entertaining.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Does anybody else read the second part of the thread title and think of Tom Lehrer?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: About halfway through the series, spacecraft become a pretty major facet of the plot. Once the US Air Force starts to build their own aircraft, there are a lot of space battles, and ferrying people around my spacecraft all becomes important.
Lol, I forgot about that. I could see the AF heading up something like that, but right now we just aren't at that level. Hopefully one day, though, things will change. I'm a huge advocate of space travel and the like. It's too bad the boys in charge don't agree.
As I said before, cyberspace is becoming the primary focus of the Air Force. Their new slogan is "Air, Space, and Cyberspace", and from what I have seen, Cyberspace is becoming much more dominant.
However, the branch as a whole is diminishing very quickly. My own leaders are saying that we'll probably lose about a sixth of the branch over the course of the next decade. That's about 50,000. It doesn't seem like a lot, but when you only have about 300,000 people in your entire organization, it's actually quite a bit. We've also switched our uniforms over to the ABUs, which are what the Army has been using for years, so it already feels like we're heading in that direction (also, our PT standards are back up to the Army's now, apparently).
I'm not saying that the Air Force doesn't have a place anymore, but with so few people and only a few specializations, it really doesn't seem like it needs to be its own branch anymore.
But who knows? With cyber-warfare becoming such a large and substantial form of combat, maybe the Air Force will find more of a reason to be its own entity. Right now, however, things aren't looking so good.
Thank God at least one branch is finally taking a serious look at cyber combat. The creation of USCYBERCOM in 2009 was a big step in the right direction in a long neglected area of national defense. It's the future of combat, and we've already seen several nations both take it seriously and actually employ it, as Russia and China have done, one in an actual combat situation. And apparently Iran hacked one of our drones. The internet is a battlefield, and we've just begun to train our troops while potential enemies are already fielding digital special forces.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Still, perhaps there is some benefit of having a military branch for those who prefer to push buttons than to pull triggers? Or maybe not.
I chose the Marine Corps for precisely the opposite reason. I understand your point, but it is called the military for a reason... I think it's naive to join any branch without accepting the fact that you may have to kill people.
AFR: I've spent long periods on time on a ship, and my first reaction to being on the inside of one was "holy crap, this looks just like a spaceship!" Of course, I then realized that spaceships look like Naval ships, not the other way around...
But many of the traditions and jobs associated with the Naval service would be easily transferable to space travel. Heck, even the internal hanger bays we kept the Harriers in could easily be modified for small space fighters. (BSG for example deliberately made the inside of their spaceships/hanger bays look as much like USN ships as possible)
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
In some sort of major space battle, the last thing I would want to be in is a big, massive, slow target. Give me the smallest, lightest, fastest craft you can possibly build and strap a high velocity guided nuke to it, game on.
Thrust to weight ratio is everything when there is no armor to stop nukes or kinetic penetrators going several thousand miles per hour. The only way I see a massive ship full of people being useful in space combat would be as either a carrier for the small fighters, or if shields that can stop nukes are developed but require massive amounts of machinery and energy to create.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Stargate always struck me as odd, given that when going through the gate, they weren't piloting anything; they were just a strike force. As a small group of soldiers, the Seals or Marines would probably have been a better choice, but the producers/writers probably wanted to cement the idea that they were "in space".
Quick note: Marines were used everyone once in a while on Stargate Atlantis. Also, I think there are a couple of alternate realities where different branches of the military are in control of the Stargate programme.
Posted by dansigal (Member # 12661) on :
This has gotten wildly off topic, but in the interest of providing correct information, while the SG program was run by the AF and the SG1 was an airforce team, there were also marine teams, I believe SG3 was one of them.
Signed A Nerd
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
By the end of the show, the Air Force isn't in control. They create a separate branch of the military for Space Command.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Then at some point do that let the people of Earth in on what's happening? I remember that being a major plot point in the first few seasons.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This site works basically has a massive resource for people who wish to write hard scifi space opera's and is very detailed and awesome. Reading through it it becomes very clear that how we would consider "space warfare" to act like under ideal realistic circumstances will have more in common with how the airforce fights and is organized than how the navy is.
Now it could evolve into a "navy" but only after a few centuries have passed and space travel becomes very cheap and needs to better take into account civilian traffic and a civilian economy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Then at some point do that let the people of Earth in on what's happening? I remember that being a major plot point in the first few seasons.
They talked about it for the plot for the third made for TV movie. But it's on extended hiatus.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Then at some point do that let the people of Earth in on what's happening? I remember that being a major plot point in the first few seasons.
They talked about it for the plot for the third made for TV movie. But it's on extended hiatus.
Which means it will probably never happen Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's extremely unlikely at this point. Continuum was barely made and released. A lot of the actors have moved on, RDA is pretty much retired at this point.
They were talking about perhaps doing an Atlantis movie that covered the same ground, and that's a little more likely since the actors are slightly more available and the studio has shown a willingness to consider it.
But not for some time.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Another SG movie is not going to happen. Alas!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Does anybody else read the second part of the thread title and think of Tom Lehrer?
No! Just you!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: We're cutting 30,000. That's 15% of our current manpower.
My job is pretty secure. I'm highly proficient at it, and it's a rapidly growing field. (which means our numbers are staying consistent while everyone else drops dramatically)
In some ways the Marine Corps will handle this transition better than the other branches because we're already small, and already designed for rapid deployment and small conflicts. (which is incidentally why we were so grossly overused in the past 2 wars. We're 4% of the DOD budget but have compromised 34% of all troops actually in combat, because we're far superior at actually getting our men where they need to go)
It's definitely time for fresh leadership and fresh ideas. Our current top leadership were in their respective Service Academies during the Vietnam War, which ended 14 years before I was born. The world simply isn't the same place, and we're bankrupting the country trying to pretend like it is.
Believe it or not, that's in part because of my aunt. My aunt was in charge of rapid mobilization protocols for the Corps during desert storm and desert shield, and not only helped write those protocols but actively trained officers and NCO's at Quantico to ensure they worked.
She's a full-bird, one of the first women to make it to that rank, and only missed her star because she had health issues. Still got 100% on every PT test, but was overweight because they had to remove her thyroid.
She was a graduate of the very first class at OCS that allowed women, and spent 35+ years in the Corps, including almost 15 years active duty, 8 of them during (and between the Iraq wars.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Does anybody else read the second part of the thread title and think of Tom Lehrer?
No! Just you!
It has an extra word.
So your attempt to instill an earworm in my brain has UTTERLY FAILED!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Another SG movie is not going to happen. Alas!
Something to keep in mind is that the movie franchise fell apart right around the time that MGM entered bankruptcy, and they've been there ever since. That's not really the time to funnel millions of dollars into moderately successful direct to dvd movies. MGM has finally gotten out of it with a new financing deal that was just announced in the last couple weeks, and they're pushing ahead with a lot of new money for film and television development.
Does that mean Stargate is coming back tomorrow? No, but it means that the biggest block in the way of new Stargate material was just removed. It still might not happen, but now it just requires someone at MGM to pick up the ball, whereas before there simply wasn't any money for it.
I think what's more likely is, after a hiatus of a few more years, someone will suggest a reboot.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Kwea: what's her name?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Does anybody else read the second part of the thread title and think of Tom Lehrer?
No! Just you!
It has an extra word.
So your attempt to instill an earworm in my brain has UTTERLY FAILED!
*Sings* See Cassius Clay and Mrs. Wallace dancing cheek to cheek! /sings
How about now?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's a different Lehrer song altogether. Bits of two competing means none wins.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think what's more likely is, after a hiatus of a few more years, someone will suggest a reboot.
And we know how much I love those. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: That's a different Lehrer song altogether. Bits of two competing means none wins.
I've always found National Brotherhood Week to be more catchy than Who's Next. The lyrics are genius too.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not nearly as catchy as Pollution. Or the Vatican Rag!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
A stargate reboot Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Stargate SG-1 would be awesome with updated effects, but I don't think I'd want a reboot. If they tried to do one, I'd imagine it would end up being similar to Stargate Universe, and that show was nothing like the original.
This discussion has actually gotten me to start watched the original show again on Netflix. Man, does it look crappy. Still fun, but it doesn't hold up very well at all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Universe was a failure, I think, because it tried to follow the trend of making sci-fi edgy. That was never what drew people to SG1, which was far more about the funny and the great chemistry between Daniel and Jack. It's a formula they barely did justice to in Atlantis, and only after juggling the cast around for a few years before getting it right. They didn't even try to do it in Universe.
It's ironic too, because the original movie was very serious, and they made a pretty goofy remake but with a lot of heart. Now they want to go back to the serious and they're shocked that SG1's fanbase isn't making the switch. I wouldn't mind seeing a more serious version that still retains the camaraderie of the original, and stops trying to make it all backstabby with lots of childish drama. But it will be hard to retain the magic of the original unless they find a couple of fantastic lead actors who have great chemistry. I think that was the heart of the whole show.
I think it holds up well, crappy graphics and all...though I admit going back through, I skip over a lot more episodes than I used to. However, I do the same thing with TNG.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That was never what drew people to SG1, which was far more about the funny and the great chemistry
You should have stopped there. It was never just -- or even mostly -- about Jack and Daniel. Heck, their real rapport didn't develop for a couple seasons.
Now, Jack and Sam, OTOH . . .
But seriously, even from pretty early on, the cast as a group had pretty decent chemistry.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
It's a shame SGU didn't catch on; it was easily my favorite of the three. It wasn't good because it was edgy, it was good because it was the first sci-fi series I'm aware of to not portray its characters as infallible gods. An entire crew of second stringers and also-rans! I love that concept, and wish it had time to grow.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That was never what drew people to SG1, which was far more about the funny and the great chemistry
You should have stopped there. It was never just -- or even mostly -- about Jack and Daniel. Heck, their real rapport didn't develop for a couple seasons.
Now, Jack and Sam, OTOH . . .
But seriously, even from pretty early on, the cast as a group had pretty decent chemistry.
Oh lord, a Sam and Jack shipper. I've always imagined that Mos Eisley Cantina was entirely patronized by Sam and Jack shippers. I'll admit there were a few moments where I was sucked in, but I never really got the draw to the will they/won't they. Frankly, I always found Daniel and Vala to be the more entertaining couple, and they only had that going for like two years.
It took Atlantis forever to get the chemistry right. I honestly didn't care for most of the actors. The acting to start off was incredibly stiff. And they had all these weird vocal mannerisms that kept repeating and just sounded very odd to me. David Hewlett as Rodney McKay was the only one I liked from the beginning and felt only got better. He's delightful. Sheppard was alright. I liked the interplay between the two of them, but he's one of the stiff actors I think, he was just never the anchor that RDA was. Getting rid of Ford was a great choice, as Jason Momoa was a VAST improvement, as was Jewel Staite over Paul McGillion (though I liked McGillion). I never really liked Teyla either. Or Weir all that much. She had her moments, but I also thought she was too wooden an actor. Robert Picardo and Amanda Tapping were improvements.
I will say that I thought Atlantis did a much better job of utilizing their secondary characters like Major Lorne, Colonel Caldwell, Zalenka, Grodin (who died too early), Jeannie Miller (played by Hewlett's real life sister, whose episodes were my absolute favorites on the show).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Oh lord, a Sam and Jack shipper.
HECK, YEAH!
And I've definitely outed myself as such before, for those paying attention. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Who's jack, and why do I have to get all improbably cozy and carnal with him
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Who's jack, and why do I have to get all improbably cozy and carnal with him
Because he's MacGuiver. Duh.
Anyway, the show kinda lost my interest after Richard Dean Anderson left. He was essentially the everyman main character of the show (sarcastic, doesn't understand the techno-babble), so watching it without him (replaced by that other guy) just wasn't the same. I really like the first five seasons, though. Classics.
Did any of you ever hear about those proposed sequels to the movie? The guy who made the original film has said that he wants to make direct sequels to the movie and that the TV shows aren't part of his continuity. Apparently in his version, the stargate only goes to the one planet, rather than all over the galaxy. Personally, while I enjoyed the movie, I prefer the show. It has much more interesting stories.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes, that idea has been bouncing around for a couple of years. I always find it interesting when someone takes a one-off and makes it dramatically more popular than the original, only to have the first guy come back and try to reclaim it. Sure, he came up with the original idea, but then he dropped it, and wants to simultaneously piggyback on the fame created by others while disavowing their contribution.
Tsk tsk.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Who's jack, and why do I have to get all improbably cozy and carnal with him
Now you know why I call you Samp.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yes, that idea has been bouncing around for a couple of years. I always find it interesting when someone takes a one-off and makes it dramatically more popular than the original, only to have the first guy come back and try to reclaim it. Sure, he came up with the original idea, but then he dropped it, and wants to simultaneously piggyback on the fame created by others while disavowing their contribution.
Tsk tsk.
Yup. Also, if it only goes one place, the scope is too limited to make even another movie all that appealing, let alone anything further.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yes, that idea has been bouncing around for a couple of years. I always find it interesting when someone takes a one-off and makes it dramatically more popular than the original, only to have the first guy come back and try to reclaim it. Sure, he came up with the original idea, but then he dropped it, and wants to simultaneously piggyback on the fame created by others while disavowing their contribution.
Tsk tsk.
Yup. Also, if it only goes one place, the scope is too limited to make even another movie all that appealing, let alone anything further.
Did you guys ever see that cartoon they made?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was aware of both, but have little interest in either.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yes, that idea has been bouncing around for a couple of years. I always find it interesting when someone takes a one-off and makes it dramatically more popular than the original, only to have the first guy come back and try to reclaim it. Sure, he came up with the original idea, but then he dropped it, and wants to simultaneously piggyback on the fame created by others while disavowing their contribution.
Tsk tsk.
Yup. Also, if it only goes one place, the scope is too limited to make even another movie all that appealing, let alone anything further.
It doesn't even make sense. Why would they have to figure out the address or the point of origin if it was merely a door between two places? Address doesn't matter if you can only go one place. And it's also a little hard to believe that with space ships, they only found one other planet worth colonizing, and that place was a desert wasteland.
It seems pretty obvious that it must go other places. From a technical standpoint though, I never got the seventh symbol as a point of origin though. There are only so many symbols on the gate, and they've been to way, way more planets than there are symbols.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yes, that idea has been bouncing around for a couple of years. I always find it interesting when someone takes a one-off and makes it dramatically more popular than the original, only to have the first guy come back and try to reclaim it. Sure, he came up with the original idea, but then he dropped it, and wants to simultaneously piggyback on the fame created by others while disavowing their contribution.
Tsk tsk.
Yup. Also, if it only goes one place, the scope is too limited to make even another movie all that appealing, let alone anything further.
It doesn't even make sense. Why would they have to figure out the address or the point of origin if it was merely a door between two places? Address doesn't matter if you can only go one place. And it's also a little hard to believe that with space ships, they only found one other planet worth colonizing, and that place was a desert wasteland.
I honestly never thought about that, but you're right. Seems like a pretty big plot hole.
quote:It seems pretty obvious that it must go other places. From a technical standpoint though, I never got the seventh symbol as a point of origin though. There are only so many symbols on the gate, and they've been to way, way more planets than there are symbols.
I'm not a big math person, but somebody should do the math on that, just to see.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You're missing the point.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote: Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It seems pretty obvious that it must go other places. From a technical standpoint though, I never got the seventh symbol as a point of origin though. There are only so many symbols on the gate, and they've been to way, way more planets than there are symbols.
I'm not a big math person, but somebody should do the math on that, just to see.
Forget the math. It makes no sense in the first place. It's like me addressing a letter to someone in Canada, and adding USA on the last line, after the complete Canadian address.
You need six points to define/describe a unique 3-dimensional location. The 7th makes no sense; either the point of origin should have its own 6-point identifier (which it does, when going TO there), or it shouldn't have to be specified at all.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(Except we keep MOVING GATES TO DIFFERENT PLACES!!!!)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think the footnote is speculation anyway. AFAIK, in SG1 they only had the one offworld gate prop and they also usually re-used the same DHD prop from episode to episode.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I believe the point was so that the DHD's could keep track of gate activation which couldn't be done without a DHD so it was required to dial with the dialing computer.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For the footnote to make sense, there would have to be millions of different glyphs. We've never seen that many.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I think the footnote is speculation anyway.
I think it's actually semi-canonic, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't make sense!
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: AFAIK, in SG1 they only had the one offworld gate prop
Two physical props (one complete and one partial) and frequent CG ones, especially in the last few seasons.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For the footnote to make sense, there would have to be millions of different glyphs. We've never seen that many.
And gates work when moved to a new location, but the the POO glyph doesn't stay the same.
The seventh symbol requirement makes absolutely no sense. Someone thought it was a cool/clever puzzle, and we're stuck with it, but all the after-the-fact apologetics in the world can't get around the simple fact that it does not make any sense. It never did.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Precisely.
The 8th symbol doesn't work for the exact same reason. There are thousands of galaxies, and having a single glyph stand for each galaxy makes no sense, especially when they're actually seeding random galaxies with random gates. There's no way for the gates to know where one glyph goes, and apparently there aren't six glyphs to pinpoint the galaxy's point in space.
This is especially true when, as you say, gates can be moved. If there are a million glyphs for each theoretical point, then certain gates could only ever work on 36 different planets.
Oh the hell with it...::puts on first disc of season 1 dvd and hits play::
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Oh the hell with it...::puts on first disc of season 1 dvd and hits play::
Hah! I may join you when I get home. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*does*
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I still got the last half of babylon 5 season 5 to get around to one of these days before I remarathon stargate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bah.
Once you get to the end of Season 4 of Babylon 5, you're pretty much done. Just jump ahead and watch the series finale that was originally the Season 4 finale and you're good to go.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Heck, these days, I don't even watch season 1 anymore. Once you watch it once, you never need to do it again. The main bulk of the story and character arcs are in 2-4.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Still watching SG1, Lyr? I'm roughly 1/3 through S3. Just skipped Deadman's Switch (which I find mostly annoying). So now it's time for medieval English and witch burning! Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Are they cutting personnel from every branch?
I'm looking into joining the coast guard, and that doesn't really sound good for me.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I'm rewatching SGU, and I'm finding it surprisingly more impressive than the first time around.
From Rush's time in the chair, reliving his wife's final days before dying of cancer or realizing that when they thought they were going to die by flying straight into a sun Grier decided to face the end by undressing and staring out the window.
It helps knowing how Eli's character changes by the end of the series.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Still watching SG1, Lyr? I'm roughly 1/3 through S3. Just skipped Deadman's Switch (which I find mostly annoying). So now it's time for medieval English and witch burning!
I'm a third of the way through S4. I just finished Window of Opportunity, which might be my all time favorite episode. It's right up there with The Fifth Race.
I'm skipping a bit here and there, but I was surprised by how much of S3 I didn't skip. There are a lot of great episodes in that season.
I suspect we aren't skipping the same episodes though. I think Deadman Switch is a great funny episode, and I skipped Demons. And Urgo is one of my favorites, but I seem to recall you having a special place of hatred for it.
As I'm watching, I don't see how they could possibly remake this and make it better, or even as good. The only thing that would likely be better is the graphics.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm a third of the way through S4. I just finished Window of Opportunity, which might be my all time favorite episode. It's right up there with The Fifth Race.
Agreed with you on both of those.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm skipping a bit here and there, but I was surprised by how much of S3 I didn't skip. There are a lot of great episodes in that season.
Yeah, S3 has a bunch of great ones.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I suspect we aren't skipping the same episodes though. I think Deadman Switch is a great funny episode, and I skipped Demons. And Urgo is one of my favorites, but I seem to recall you having a special place of hatred for it.
Yeah. No accounting for your taste.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As I'm watching, I don't see how they could possibly remake this and make it better, or even as good. The only thing that would likely be better is the graphics.
So agree.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Are they cutting personnel from every branch?
I'm looking into joining the coast guard, and that doesn't really sound good for me.
Yes. But you'll be fine as long as you...
1) Don't get wounded or hurt in any way. This includes getting diagnosed with something.
2) Make sure you research your career field and pick one that is in high demand. A lot of jobs are getting cut because they have too many people in them. My job happens to be one of those, which means if I stay in, I'll have to pick a new field to work in.
3) Be OK with doing a lot of extra work that was previously spread out. The whole military is cutting its numbers, but the work those people are doing doesn't just go away. It has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is you.
4) Know that going in, everything your recruiter is telling you either bends the truth or is a flat-out lie. These guys are paid to get you to sign, and it is all a numbers game, just like in any sales job. Have you ever noticed that all of them are typically attractive or in shape? There's a reason for that. They have to be able to sell this thing to you, and it has to sound amazing. Don't listen to anything they say. My recruiter actually told me that my job was something completely different from what it actually ended up being (he said it was an Intel Network Security job when it was actually just Tech Support). I was a fool and took him at his word, and then I discovered (when it was too late) that everything he'd told me was a lie.
If you want to know more, I wrote a blog entry called "Six Things You Really Need To Know Before Joining the Military". None of what I've just told you is mentioned in this blog, so it shouldn't be redundant. Maybe it will shed some light on it for you. Just keep in mind that I wrote it from an Air Force enlisted perspective. It could be drastically different in the other branches.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I misread that post. I thought he was asking if they were taking Coast Guard folks into SG service. They have Marines and Air-Force. Atlantis could have used the Coast Guard.
That's what they need to make--SG42. The last SG Team. Consists of the not-brightest scientists, some Coast Guard drop outs, and a couple of nephews of Senator Brand's who are useless type nerds. They go out and have silly adventures.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Speaking of SG-1, I'm currently in season 2, episode 10 (Bane). I've been really enjoying the show, much more than I did as a kid (although I liked it back then, too).
Being in the Air Force has allowed me to appreciate it on a different kind of level (the uniforms, the ranks, medals, terms, etc, which I'd never really understood before). I've noticed a few abnormal things about that stuff here and there, but for the most part they are pretty spot-on with the way they portray the branch. It just adds to the fun, I suppose.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Speaking of SG-1, I'm currently in season 2, episode 10 (Bane).
That would be one I skipped.
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I've noticed a few abnormal things about that stuff here and there, but for the most part they are pretty spot-on with the way they portray the branch.
Considering they had an on-set AF adviser for all or most of the series' filming, I would hope so.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Speaking of SG-1, I'm currently in season 2, episode 10 (Bane).
That would be one I skipped.
Me too!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
From what I understand so long as North Korea doesn't significantly escalate tensions beyond their current salami tactics the United States will not start World War III or military unilaterally engage North Korea.
1) The United States cannot afford it unless it is a vital interest. 2) It would harm world economy. 3) Would not possess unaninimous support.
Assuming its just another incident like the Norks bombarding an uninhabited island or randomly shooting across the DMZ, if it ain't an invasion it ain't a threat to world peace.
Afterall I would consider Iran to have significantly crossed the line in actuality that Iraq we only pretended to believed had crossed and the US isn't doing anything beyond supporting terrorist attacks on Iran.
Is Iran more likely to be the next confict? Yes, if some combination of Isreal doing an osirik style strike (not logistically probably but it might happen), Iran getting the bomb, or Iran providing a bomb to Hezbollah; blocking the straights,etc. It would take a significant escalationary type of event before a conflict would erupt.
Not to say there aren't tensions, things are pretty intense (like camping) right now with iran making noises about blocking the straights and the sanctions damaging Iran's economy and the ratcheting rhetoric etc. But rapid troop redeploymentsand increased arms shipments to Hezbollah aren't crossing the line before US military intervention becomes required.
What makes the situation much more uncertain is the power struggle in Iran right now between the different factions, the Revolutionary Guards, the Supreme leader and the office of the President; moderates vs hardliners, etc, its very chaotic from what I hear so that's why we get the inconsistent stances and messages from iran's leadership and mouthpieces that borders on shizophrenic.
Now interesting question, I actually believe this argument is bullshit but I'll bring it up anyways:
Do anyone believe that the embargo on Iran falls under the category of 'collective punishment' and illegal under international law?
Argument here:
quote: Yes. If you ship embargoed goods, perform financial transactions for, or are involved with any company that does these things and the government can prove you did it knowingly, your ass is trash and US companies are not allowed to do business with you.
The financial transactions is a particularly big one. Iran is now having problems because no one is allowed to take payment for the grain that is being shipped to them, and naturally no one will deliver until they're paid. Thus, the sanctions are starving citizens, and yet no one has any expectation that this will hurt the leaders in the slightest, only that it might piss people off enough to revolt and overthrow their leaders (hint: it won't, it gives them yet another reason to hate the Evil Empire).
If these rules result in people starving, which is the stated intention (to cause "hate and discontent at the street level" and "regime collapse"), then they're working entirely as intended and it should be viewed as such whether or not President Obama flies Air Force One to Tehran and physically takes bread out of people's mouths.
*****************
If you consider the ability to eat in a world that wastes as much food as we do a human necessity, and the country doing the boycott explicitly enacts policies that forceably shut down other countries ability to export food thus shrinking the number of food exporters any single country can work with, and then shut down a country's trade with the people that feed them leading to food supply shocks, then yes, those people who are now living through food supply shocks are having their human rights violated.
This is less a trading scenario and more of a hostage taking scenario that is being done in attempt to overthrow a nation's government. The US is trying to corner people into starvation in an attempt to subvert the people's ability to choose their way of life. If that isn't human rights abuse, then the words become meaningless.
If we were at war with Iran, this would fall under the collective punishment clauses and would be illegal. In a sane world, attempted social destruction would constitute an act of war and these sanctions would be intensely illegal right out of the box.
The people making these posts, and I direct this to Rakeesh, if its any consolation over our past disagreements, *are* in fact who even *I* would consider to be anti American pro terrorist useful idiots, not that you ever used or implied those words or sentiments to me or anyone, I am just showing that yeah, there's a line even I won't cross; the "give Iran nukes just to spite (ie "counter balance the US") the US" is pretty much the line.
Just in case though you ever did think I happened to be anywhere near the extreme end of leftist geopolitical spectrum, I'm just showing, I'm downright near the damn middle compared to some people on the internet. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Afterall I would consider Iran to have significantly crossed the line in actuality that Iraq we only pretended to believed had crossed and the US isn't doing anything beyond supporting terrorist attacks on Iran.
Claim all you like that Iraq didn't do enough to justify invasion-there's a case to be made, there. But it did cross, as a question of public record *fact*, multiple really thick dark black lines over a period of years. And we're doing quite a bit more than 'supporting terrorist attacks on Iran'
As for the sitch in Iran, absolutely, much more complex than most Americans (or Europeans, Asians, Africans) credit, you're right.
As for other people, as exasperating and silly as I find some of your arguments (Iraq as 'aggressive war', we only pretended to think Iraq crossed lines), I've always rated you as, y'know, an actual person when it comes to politics and not just a total foaming fanatic, such as the link described.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: 4) Know that going in, everything your recruiter is telling you either bends the truth or is a flat-out lie. These guys are paid to get you to sign, and it is all a numbers game, just like in any sales job. Have you ever noticed that all of them are typically attractive or in shape? There's a reason for that. They have to be able to sell this thing to you, and it has to sound amazing. Don't listen to anything they say. My recruiter actually told me that my job was something completely different from what it actually ended up being (he said it was an Intel Network Security job when it was actually just Tech Support). I was a fool and took him at his word, and then I discovered (when it was too late) that everything he'd told me was a lie.
I want to reply to this: it really depends on your recruiter. I had one recruiter who slung me the standard "it's the greatest thing ever and all your wishes will come true!" line, and another recruiter saw he was losing me fast, so he stepped in and pretty much told me straight up how it would be. The important thing, though, is I didn't trust either of them. I went and researched the MOS I wanted, then made sure my contract specifically stated I would get that MOS.
You can only be fooled by recruiters if you let them fool you, and some of them will try and pressure you into signing a contract right away. This is how a lot of young people get screwed over. Instead, look at all your options (if necessary, ask for a different recruiter who won't pressure you), and spend a few months negotiating your contract before you sign anything.
I went in knowing exactly what to expect, and I haven't been disappointed so far.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I just finished Window of Opportunity, which might be my all time favorite episode.
I hit Window shortly before Shabbos. (Watched it and half of the commentary; had to stop to finish getting ready for Shabbos.)
I'm about to head over to my parents' place for game night (my brother is in town), but I know what I'll be doing when I get home. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think I've ever watched the Stargate commentaries, which is odd because I love DVD commentary. On the whole, is it pretty good?
I just started S5, descending on the dark and hopeless road to Ragnarok (otherwise known as Season 6).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't think I've ever watched the Stargate commentaries
!!!
How else would one know all the funny and amusing backstory stuff?
There are none on S1, S2, S3. After that, watch all the ones with Peter DeLuise with someone (pretty much anyone) else. He's hilarious, but when it's just him talking to himself, it gets rather tedious. Martin Wood is not as good, but is sometimes interesting. Any of the ones with the actors are usually good. Skip ones that have none of the above unless you're really into technical details.
As for S6, I happen to like most of that season. I like Daniel quite a lot, but I liked Jonas too. I never felt it was a loyalty thing either -- Shanks made the choice to leave. (And the choice to come back, as well.)
Anyway, the whole season would be worth it for Abyss alone. That episode is brilliant, in so many ways. Other great S6 episodes: The Other Guys and The Changeling. Many of the rest are quite good as well.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Why did Michael Shanks leave in the first place? Did he come back because of a failure to find new work?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Why did Michael Shanks leave in the first place?
I don't think he's ever made a definitive statement (lots of interviews with vague reasons), but the usual story I've heard is that he was tired of the smaller and smaller bits he was getting.
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Did he come back because of a failure to find new work?
I suspect it had more to do with the fact that the fan demands to bring him back encouraged the producers to offer Shanks more money. And that he got them to agree to give him meatier parts.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Skip ones that have none of the above
Oh, oh! Almost forgot. Except if it has Mallozzi & Mullie. They're not only an awesome writing team, they do great commentaries too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Other Guys is one of my favorite episodes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Same here. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
A must-watch commentary: Prodigy (5th disc of S4). It's DeLuise & Mallozzi & Mullie.
If you're not laughing before the end of minute 6, there is no hope for you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Just started S6. I think I'm going to finish this season and then go back to where the commentary started and rewatch them, then I'll watch it concurrently afterwards.
I read that on one disc, they make up lyrics to the theme music.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I read that on one disc, they make up lyrics to the theme music.
Please refer to my previous comment.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I just started Season 9. Broke my pledge to go back and watch the commentaries, but I have watched a couple here and there, and starting with Season 9 I'll watch them all. Very informative. The ones with the actors are the best, especially Claudia Black because she's just delightful.
I had no idea that Season 9 was actually supposed to be the pilot of a whole new show, Stargate Command. I wonder what the plot was supposed to be if it didn't involve SG1.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I do support Israel's right to defend itself against belligerents who openly declare they will destroy them. I also recognize we have a formal agreement with Israel to assist them if they need our help. But if our country has already spent out purse elsewhere, how can we keep this commitment if it does come to war?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Without us, Israel simply would not exist...but our help to them isn't a suicide pact. Just because they want to attack Iran doesn't mean we help them out. We've paid a heavy price for our support of Israel over the years, and it's a price that by and large I think was well worth it, from a moral as well as strategic point of view.
But attacking Iran is a whole different kettle of fish, and I'm not in favor. Israel simply doesn't have the capability to attack Iran, not without a minor miracle happening, and even then, their weapons are unlikely to fully destroy Iran's nuclear facilities without us supplying them with far more powerful weapons that even then might not totally do the trick. And then the cat's out of the bag. All the while, world oil prices will blast out of control, despite the fact that Iran's total output actually isn't a huge percentage of worldwide production.
I'm fine with giving sanctions more time to work.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I do support Israel's right to defend itself against belligerents who openly declare they will destroy them.
Well, more specifically, there's a number of ways this could shake out, there's self-defence if Iran really attacks Israel first. There's coming to the aid of an ally if Israel attacks Iran, Iran retaliates in self-defence, and the US joins in. There's pre-emptive war on your own behalf, the case having been made for that by President Bush. And then there's pre-emptive war on behalf of someone else, if it is the case that the US attacks first on Israel's behalf.
I guess we'll see which one this turns out to be.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I do support Israel's right to defend itself against belligerents who openly declare they will destroy them.
Well, more specifically, there's a number of ways this could shake out, there's self-defence if Iran really attacks Israel first. There's coming to the aid of an ally if Israel attacks Iran, Iran retaliates in self-defence, and the US joins in. There's pre-emptive war on your own behalf, the case having been made for that by President Bush. And then there's pre-emptive war on behalf of someone else, if it is the case that the US attacks first on Israel's behalf.
I guess we'll see which one this turns out to be.
Setting aside what the US should do about it, I think that the case for Israel initiating a preemptive war is much stronger than ours could ever be.
Assuming they have reasonable intel suggesting a potential threat, the reality is that a surprise attack against the US would be highly unlikely to completely incapacitate us. Even if they destroyed our seat of government, that would still leave many millions of very stunned, angry Americans willing to retaliate.
Israel, by comparison, is extremely vulnerable because of their small size and density. It's even more important for them to take threats seriously, and strike to disable or neutralize threats preemptively, because failure to do so could essentially result in the nation's complete eradication.
Now, I generally support aiding Israel, but I think Lyrhawn's concerns over our reaction (more specifically, our capacity for reaction) are probably justified.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Other Guys is one of my favorite episodes.
Just watched that one. So now it's time for Poisoning the Well-- no, it's called Cure the first time.
SGC was one of several options considered after S8, as I recall. Including the ever-discussed feature, which took a few years longer to happen.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)