Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

Thanks a bunch for your suggestions. I have actually read all of those as they are extremely popular. And rightfully so. They are incredible stories worthy of mainstream publication. When they all of those stories were recommended to me and I finally got around to reading them my mind was blown. Stories similar to rlfj epics and same with the human Phoenix universe would really be great reads but I have yet to find any that really grab me and don't make me cringe.

I agree all those could be mainstream.

Another one. It is definitely military, but slightly offbeat as well...
Oscar Meyers by Lazlo Zalezac

Another two very well written ones are by black_coffee
Sparks
and
The Gunny and Lenore.
Both military but character driven, but need to be read in that order

I have read oscar Meyers and the whole universe is amazing. But I will try the black coffee stories thank you.

I have read oscar Meyers and the whole universe is amazing. But I will try the black coffee stories thank you.

The two Black Coffee stories are IMHO good individually. After The Gunny and Lenore Black Coffee suggested that there would be a third story but nothing yet unfortunately; I'm waiting!.

After The Gunny and Lenore Black Coffee suggested that there would be a third story but nothing yet unfortunately; I'm waiting!.

I'm still hoping for a follow up to McAllister's Redemption.

Only minimally. If it goes to far into sci-fi realm I can't continue suspending my belief. But if it a little sci-fi. I can handle. I love normal sci-fi and fantasy stories. But if is a military slant I like it to be realistic.

I have read your story already. It was a very touching and thought provoking tribute. I want to read the clan amir stories and universe but it is a little confusing and overwhelming. I can't figure out in what order I should read the stories. I have been trying to start that universe for over a year but could never figure out where to start

I probably should let the expert, the author, guide you, but there are numbers associated with each story, the lower the number, the earlier in the sequence the story. You probably should read 1.1 before you look at 5.3.

Thank you for your help and I shall start ready with much enthusiasm. I just read another of your stories. It was the top rated story on your page. I really liked it because the people in the story treated the marine with the respect that every veteran, and every person who defends another person should receive.

The Private

This is Story (with big S) where I spent most time waiting for new chapters, and have eaten most of my nails for any indication of news about ...

Only advice I can give you for this masterpiece:
- Story is one of "must read",
- But read it only if you have nerves enough to wait year(s) for new chapter...

Jade Force of Misera Universe

I was going to suggest that one also but, frankly, it can be just a tad off putting to those of us of the more liberal persuasion. But, come to think of it, so could Hunter (from the same author) which I also recommended.

Actually both of those are a comforting read for those of the "scorched earth, poisoned wells, salted fields, leave nothing alive behind" asymmetrical warfare philosophy with a fair bit of xenophobic, racist application of rules of warfare of a ruthless cold-blooded machine logic: submit, comply or die.

Not for the faint of heart. After millions of men, women, children and infants--combatants and non-combatants guilty by proximity--are run through the grinder, the protagonist feels twinges of remorse but finds consolation in feelings of "they forced me to do it."

Actually both of those are a comforting read for those of the "scorched earth, poisoned wells, salted fields, leave nothing alive behind" asymmetrical warfare philosophy with a fair bit of xenophobic, racist application of rules of warfare of a ruthless cold-blooded machine logic: submit, comply or die.

That describes Hunter to a T. Jade Force of Misera is a more subtle dig at the idea that there should exist "rules" for warfare, e.g. The Geneva Conventions. Personally, I find it a little offputting that Western civilization's response to the absolute horror that war represents is to introduce "rules" to make it more palatable. Apparently, so does Lazlo.

Personally, I find it a little offputting that Western civilization's response to the absolute horror that war represents is to introduce "rules" to make it more palatable.

Well, the point of the Geneva Convention rules isn't to make war more palatable, but to prevent the annihilation of civilian populations.

Well, the point of the Geneva Convention rules isn't to make war more palatable, but to prevent the annihilation of civilian populations.

And this works to make war less palatable? Or more palatable? No grey area here. It's either/or

And this works to make war less palatable? Or more palatable? No grey area here. It's either/or

No, it isn't necessarily either/or, it could well be neither.

But that isn't the point. Your original comment to which I was replying implies that making war more palatable was the intent not just an unintended consequence.

Your original comment to which I was replying implies that making war more palatable was the intent not just an unintended consequence.

I don't see that in my original quote. I see it implying the effect. Which was my intent.

But it isn't the first time that an altruistic policy of the liberal (modern day definition, not classical) mind resulted in unintended consequences. I'll put forth another example -- The War on Poverty. I'm sure that said "war" was not intended to destroy the structure of the African-American family in the US (to name just one) but to alleviate poverty. Which, apparently, it hasn't done as poverty hasn't retreated in the intervening years.

One must tread lightly when considering things that might significantly impact the social structure. But that's a topic for another time.

I'll put forth another example -- The War on Poverty. I'm sure that said "war" was not intended to destroy the structure of the African-American family in the US (to name just one) but to alleviate poverty.

While I doubt that destruction of the African-American family structure was an overall-intent (it may or may not have been an intentional feature of some of the individual anti-poverty programs), alleviating poverty was also not the intent.

There are two main features that put the lie to any intent to alleviate poverty.

1. The insistence on measuring poverty relative to median income rather than the ability to acquire basic needs. This insures that economic growth can not reduce poverty.

2. Anti-poverty subsidies/support payments (cash welfare) are excluded from income for the purpose of determining poverty. This insures that anti-poverty programs can never reduce poverty levels.

If the consequence of divorce was for the employee to lose his job, or at least the preference that got him his job if he had to get another one, there might be less dissolution of marriages.

Yep, got to keep those couples together, no matter how much damage it causes them, their children, friends, associates etc.

Right now the system is set up so that couples that try to stay together are penalized financially. Richard was just offering some ideas on ways to keep that from happening, focusing on married couples currently being rewarded for splitting up.

I personally think that rather than making an abrupt cutoff of benefits when income reaches a certain level, put in some kind of graduated tapering off of benefits. I know that because my income is just over the limit I don't qualify for any benefits, even though there are months when unexpected bills make things extremely tight.

If the consequence of divorce was for the employee to lose his job, or at least the preference that got him his job if he had to get another one, there might be less dissolution of marriages.

The act of divorce indicates that either a) the man made a poor choice and his judgement is faulty and/or b) the wife made a poor choice and her judgement is faulty and/or one of them broke their marriage vows so that one is a disgrace.
For very many years and certainly during my early years of work to be involved in divorce automatically made the employee not only out of a job in the City but he was not to be spoken to or of for life.
I know of one man who was forced to flee to Paris in disgrace and from there to Havana where he lived and died in poverty. His family were shunned by everyone. In about 1960 it was suggested that the family club together to have his body returned to the UK; his disgrace was such that nobody offered a single penny.

So, for me Lazlo has made very good point in his "Jade Force of Misera" - make war so unpalatable, that at the end nobody is never ever going to think to start another war.

Precisely. I think he is making the same statement in Hunter, just not as blatantly.

Precisely. I think he is making the same statement in Hunter

He definitely made that statement. I like to put it as follows however since the same statement can apply to different situations:

No one goes through the valley of hell without being changed.
The changes and scars are not always visible or detectable by either the eye or medical instruments.

But those scars and changes are always there, although they can fade over time.

Its also why I think it takes going through that valley in order to be able to understand another person's walk through it.

All the trips through that valley leave a life long scar of one form or another. There is no way to deny that fact.

Ernest, you wrote these words, and they resonated in me in the same way as what Doc wrote.

"All returned service personnel leave something behind them, be it in the jungle or in the sand. Some leave their lives, some leave a body part, some leave blood, some leave their minds, but all who return alive and sane leave behind a lot of their peace of mind.

Its funny how even thou I never served in the military. I get along so well with veterans who served in combat. Like I said, different hell, but made it possible for me to understand theirs.

Heck a retired "Ranger Sergeant" once told me to never get any training after pulling me off a bully. (got what he was looking for)

make war so unpalatable, that at the end nobody is never ever going to think to start another war.

Those that start wars aren't the ones that fight them.
It doesn't matter how unpalatable war might be, they will still occur as long as there are people that believe they can win one, or do what ever they like without the rest of the world opposing them.

1. Is it acceptable to go to war against a country that allows terrorists to have training centres in ti and even provided material support to them?

In my opinion no. One thing I would love to see happen is for the news media to stop making them the major headline news events. Publicity that just costs more lives.

Of course that bit about the publicity is just my opinion. But all bully type thugs seem to want to have a great big reputation as "Bad asses".

Publicity that just cost more lives

You think like publicity for "The story about two cities" - Aleppo and Mosul?

In both, legal government tries to free city from rebels (IMHO rebels = rabid animals in both of them) and look at the press coverage for both of them.

It's so stupid that even Al Jazeera has text about it - can you imagine this?

The ultimate solution to war is to punish aggression:

"Should any nation take up arms against another, all nations should unitedly arise and prevent it."

You do realise that what you are saying is that the ultimate solution to War is War?

You do realise that what you are saying is that the ultimate solution to War is War?

It was my experience growing up that a playground bully could generally be stopped with a quick punch to the nose. Does such an observation apply to a nation? I don't know. But turning the other cheek won't work in my view. I remember seeing a quote to the effect that "....the meek shall inherit the earth but, unfortunately, it will only be measured 6 by 3."

The 60s was famous for peace, love and understanding. And that "we won't study war no more." I don't think that is in mankind's immediate future. We need a few more millennia before we reach that level of social development.

Until then, we must retain the resolve the punch the bully in the nose or watch innocents die.

Heck wrong target. I always put my foot in their balls as the opening move. Funny how they always said I didn't fight fair. I never started them but I usually was the only one standing when it was over. Nice part about being a loner, I did not have to worry about hitting the wrong person.

Until then, we must retain the resolve the punch the bully in the nose or watch innocents die.

I don't disagree.
The fact is unless you are prepared to allow other countries to do as they wish, armed conflict (War) is the only way of opposing them.

Well, the USA tends to use sanctions restricting trade and sometimes like Cuba for years, refuse to let its citizens go there. And/or promising refugees from the sanctioned country refuge. And of course proxy attacks. Bombastic statements can be made, usually without result, but may make the speaker feel better. War is not the only way. They may not work, or as well, but no-fly zones sometimes help.

War is not the only way.

It is when the other side chooses armed conflict.

If you are not prepared to enforce any peacefull forms of control, then there is no point in negotiating them in the first place.

Either you are prepared to enforce them- ie armed force, War. Or you're not; might as well just let them do as they wish.

They may not work, or as well, but no-fly zones sometimes help.

It's nice that it's possible to have limited forms of war that aren't wars at all. Sort of like the police action in Korea all those years ago.

War, what war?

One of the major problems I think with war now a days. Is the way the politicians even after declaring the war, regardless of label. Then turn around and tell the military how to fight it. Those darn so called dmz lines just turn the soldiers (regardless of country) into defenseless targets when the enemy sets up on the other side and takes free shots. How many soldiers have been killed because of those darn dmz lines.

Conflict resolution depends on how the players choose to play the game, right?

In England it was possible for the police to enforce the law unarmed as the lawbreakers generally recognized the rules: no gun violence. In America, we've accepted that those kinder & gentler rules never would fly in our inherently violent nation.

If an aggressor nation comes across the border with tanks, artillery and armed troops, the only feasible way to stop the carnage is with a superior opposing force. Call it "war" if you wish, or call it defense.

The preferred solution is the "no guns" approach but that requires both sides to agree to the rules.

The element of unity is essential to stop armed aggression. Just as the old film, "High Noon" illustrated, the sheriff, alone and isolated, would die in defense of the town and would fail against superior numbers. When the townspeople finally rose up in unity and stood behind the sheriff, the criminal element was put down.

It's the same with outlaw nations. A united defense is necessary to put an end to aggression. Or you can isolate yourself behind a closed door and wait until they finally come for you, too.

Someone mentioned terrorists. That's asymmetrical war, involving insurgents hiding among non-combatant civilians. In the early history of European dominance in the Middle East, the British used the "Jade Force" approach: scorched earth, smoking foundations, and no surviving village population. That quickly resolved the problem of insurgency.

Today that is not acceptable, although the result is usually the same. It just takes much longer with incredible suffering by the trapped populations. Example: Mosul or Aleppo, to name two. Perhaps the Jade Force approach would be more merciful, who knows?

A body of world statesmen with supporting nations, and a respected world organization that could provide resources and personnel to resolve the multitude of issues would eventually ease tensions to a point where the terrorists and their leaders could be isolated and eliminated. But that requires much more unity, dedication to purpose, the elimination of aggressor nations that indulge in "proxy warfare" in the afflicted region to further their own interests, and much, much patience and dogged determination.

At this point, none of that exists. Perhaps we should offer the opportunity to television networks to cordon the area, engage squadrons of TV-camera equipped drones, and commercialize it all as a gritty "reality" series. Real blood, real bodies, and real violence. Real, raw entertainment. With an occasional crucifixion of a terrorist leader for prime time specials.

The Jade Force approach would be almost acceptable if it was restricted only to those countries who actually engaged in war. Unfortunately, both the Russian bloc and USA were/are more into waging war by proxy rather than getting involved directly. Sending arms, trainers, special forces 'assistants' and money to rebels or anarchists just results in the local civilian population being killed and maimed but those who incited the violence still don't get to face justice. Nowadays it is primarily those funding the terrorists who are the warmongers, not the citizens of any particular country, and since those warmongers often control the UN through veto, and ignore international courts and law, modern warfare is more about maiming civilians and spreading fear outside your own borders.

The term used was "WAS POSSIBLE". The situation has changed over the last 50 or so years, starting with the Yardies coming in from Jamaica, who had no respect for the police or life generally.
Prior to that the enforcement was done by criminals themselves to a large extent, as if a police officer was injured or shot at, the police would investigate, raid, and otherwise disrupt any criminal activity in that particular area, which made earning a living as a criminal far harder. Criminals were known to turn in offenders who killed cops, just to get back to a more peaceful life with less visible street presence by the police.
As for armed police, special units that are permanently armed when on duty have been around for decades, but most people are unaware of the fact and because the arms were not visible, the public perception was that they didn't exist. The best public example of that was hostage PC Trevor Lock, who was armed during the Iranian Embassy siege in 1980 and neither the other hostages nor terrorists were aware, nor was he ever checked for weapons because everyone knew the English police didn't carry them.

It wasn't actually me that wrote the initial comment, but no matter, we obviously read it different ways.

A certain amount of crime is always going to be of a nature where it couldn't be prosecuted, but could be contained by visible policing.
Personally, I believe that they did consider that a certain amount was acceptable and possibly even desirable, but have no proof to sustain that belief.

Your use of the term "English population" answers a large part of that question. There is a fair amount of violent crime by natives, but the majority of gun crime is within the black immigrant population and their descendants, to the extent that there is a task force dedicated solely to black gun crime. Bearing in mind that a higher proportion of immigration is from the Asian subcontinent and (more recently) eastern Europe, violent gun crime is generally confined to a small minority of immigrant groups.
The incidence of violent crime seemed to rise parallel with the knowledge that the death penalty was to be rescinded, and the removal of police officers from walking the beat to being almost entirely car bound, thus removing their contact with the public.

Overall, police in the UK still are generally unarmed and even a Taser requires permission before use (and is only issued to certain officers), but the availability of arms from abroad is now greater, as is the number of people prepared to use them. It would be perfectly possible to enforce the law with only specialized groups being armed - as is the case in most areas - but to be successful at that the police would have to stop alienating the public and take their job seriously, which is not the case at present. Investigation of crimes often does not even occur, unless politically convenient. I would stress that the political element is not derived from central government of either party, but what was a professional force is now tainted by internal empire building and political correctness. Success is determined by successful prosecutions, not the prevention of crime, and minor crimes by non-professional criminals are easier to win.

I wrote "was possible" and thought the language was clear in the context the comment was made... not as a complete dissertation of that particular example, but as a brief introductory phrase to a more comprehensive point I was trying to make. Hence, "was"... meaning "then" and not "now." (Now I wonder what fuzzy wooliness will come of this explanation?)

ustourist's explanation of the English police situation speaks volumes to the evolution of violence and the breakdown of "civil" enforcement. Please pay particular attention to the point (in fact) that only a minority of players refusing to honor the culture is needed to force the civil breakdown. In effect, one thug with a gun trumps a city full of cops with night sticks and whistles.

Here in the US, we graduated from clubs, saps, knives and hatchets, to (thanks to Prohibition-motivated organized crime) automatic weapons and interstate operations. In typical US fashion, our federal forces upped the ante, and state and city police forces soon followed. What had been initiated as Special Weapons and Tactics squads for exceptional situations were almost overnight applied to civil disturbances such as Ferguson, MO being confronted with phalanxes of SWAT teams, armored vehicles, automatic weapons, and roof-mounted body-armored snipers training their sights and gun-barrels on unarmed civilians. But, since the majority on the streets were minority malcontents, and some had taken to bricks through storefronts, a few pistol shots (mostly at each other) and unseemly, insulting shouts and gestures directed at the helmeted, face-shielded RoboCops, the police response was deemed commensurate and appropriate.

And that's where it stands in the US today. I do suspect the incoming Administration will have even more dramatic riot control methods in mind.

That's just one example of the polarization that is taking over our society. No longer do people try to get along, it's "My way is the right way, and you can go to h*ll", and usually they are willing to help them on their way. You have to go out to the far edges of extremism, because that is how one gets the sound bites and film clips to get your 15 seconds of fame.

"My way is the right way, and you can go to h*ll",

I suspect you are looking for "My way or the highway".

That may be the traditional phrase, but in today's adversarial environment, I think mine is more accurate.

Perhaps, it would be better to let the two groups fight it out. The police can surround the groups to prevent the violence from overflowing into the surrounding neighborhood. Anyone wanting to leave the combat area can just walk through the police lines. When all is said and done, the police can move in and take control. Send the injured to the hospital and do whatever else is necessary to clean up the aftermath.

Sounds like the fans at a typical Rugby game. :-)

Australian Rules Football fans.

You obviously newer have heard of "fans" of real football (for you from wrong part of the pond -soccer) from Balkan area or Russia.

Most important rule if you want to stay alive in towns where real football sport match is held - newer walk near sport arenas or ways to them near time of match ...

They can eat your Australian rules Football fans for breakfast, and then go to kill each other for desert :D