I remember that, the funny thing is as a libertarian I mentioned it at the time to some college republicans in my class, they didn’t really know anything about it. It is funny how spthis all seems related. Shame KIA got converged.
The community split and now has a .win.
Or Pete Buttigieg, his electoral corruption was the most blatant of all. He was a major shareholder of some of these companies.
Yeah uh...watch that and then Bidens speech.
Reddit, replaced some mods, they split off and kia2 had the problem of not liking censorship but wanting to be left wing so it got converged even quicker.
Who would have thought the only way to get republicans to fight was for the Left to actually threaten their future?
I mean that is basic Sun Tzu. And he knows a bit more about fighting than you do pal... because he invented it.
23. Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength.
Historical examples: Battle of the bulge, Stalingrad, Verdun. More of course. Of course in two of these the Position of no escape was metephorical as they had drawn a line and were going to fight tooth and nail to make sure it is not crossed
This isn't really a jab at you two but more a pet peeve of mine at the phrase. That statement really should have come with a caveat of "in some positions where they have no escape said utmost strength will be negated by the sheer disadvantageousness of the position they are stuck in." because there have been more then enough cases of soldiers stuck in doomed positions with no way out who got slaughtered as a result. Cannae alone should be more then sufficient of an example.
Generally the soldiers stuck in such a position often fight to make it hell for the ones attacking them. Thermopalye is an example
Only if they're still able to muster effective resistance in that position. And for Thermopylae I've been unable to find how effective the rear guard who actually was encircled and fought to the death truly was on the day they were encircled, rather then the total casualties the Persians suffered which included those taken trying to take a pass blocked by a phalanx via frontal assaults with predictable results. Taking more effort to kill doesn't matter if ultimately you're killed to a man for far less causalities then would have been required otherwise.
You can look at the Battle of the bulge at Bastogne as an example. Outnumbered and outgunned by the germans, the 101st held.
The 101st was still able to mount effective resistance from their position though. To use an analogy, it's the difference between being outnumbered and besieged inside a castle whose walls are still intact and being in one whose walls have all collapsed and is now being overrun. In one the situation while dire is defendable and effective resistance is possible, in the other the fight is effectively over.
