The way modern warfare is conducted

You must note Hunter that I do not agree with a lot of modern day etymology! That is, I find that they tend to ignore some obvious relationships, or they are unable to actually recognize them, or they merely discard them for the most accepted version, etc.!

Thus, before you get all mired down and end up searching and find out that "hippo" actually seems earily similar to "hippa", etc., and then migrate to "potamus", etc., then perhaps you might want to read this;

The following can be found at "The word detective.com"

Dear Word Detective: A co-worker and I were having a discussion on the word "potable." Where does that word originate, and why isn't it just "drinkable"? His theory is that you put water in pots, hence "potable." I say hooey. -- Matt Meade, via the internet.

I say "hooey" too. In fact, I say "hooey" so often during an average day that one of my dogs now answers to "hooey." Of course, she also answers to "tuna," "telephone" and "lint," so maybe I just need a smarter dog. But "I say hooey" makes a fine all-purpose motto, and as soon as I finish answering your question I'm going to have some "I Say Hooey" t-shirts made up.

In the case of "potable," however, I can only declare a "partial hooey" on your co-worker's theory. Although he isn't exactly right, he's not completely wrong: there is a connection between "potable" and "pot."

It all began way back with Indo-European, the precursor to most modern European languages. The Indo-European root word "po" meant "to drink," and gave us the modern words for "to drink" in French, Russian and Welsh, among other languages. In Latin, "po" produced the verb "potare," also meaning "to drink," and "potare" begat "potabilis" ("drinkable"), which led directly to our modern English "potable," which first appeared around 1572.

Now we'll take a few steps back and explain why your co-worker is not completely crazy. That little root word "po" also produced the Latin noun "potio," meaning "a drink," which eventually gave us the English words "potion" and "poison." A related word ("potus"), also meaning "a drink," survived into medieval Latin, where it came to mean "a drinking cup or vessel." This word "potus" gave us a wide variety of modern English words, among which are "porridge," "putty," and, as you've probably guessed by now, "pot."

So while "potable" does not come directly from "pot," they do share a common (and very prolific) ancestor.

As to why we say "potable" rather than "drinkable," there's no particular reason, aside from tradition and a historic preference among English grammarians for fancy-schmancy Latinate constructions. But there's nothing wrong with saying "drinkable," especially considering that we've actually been saying it since around 1611."

And to the "Word Detective", I also say "hooey!", as well as "phooey!", ahem!

I assert, as my God given right, to propose that "potamus", etc., meaning river,or stream or even "spring", also meant "drinkable!" or "fresh!" This was of course from a time when such water supplies were certainly more drinkable than todays!

Hippos, of course, means the same as "horse" and surprisingly, horses or known to drink from rivers and streams, as were men and women during the ancient past! Boiling water to drink, was still a few centuries distant, depending upon, of course, where one lived and from what place in the stream or river one drank from! Surprisingly most humans develop a resistance to water that would make us all sick, just as horses have the same resistance!

I contend that "potamus" and its various spelling, meant at one time, only "fresh water" as opposed to "salt" or "sulfur" water, etc.! Thus in those days whilst one "could not lead a horse to water", it was certain that a horse could lead a man to "fresh water!"

This is my theory and I'm sticking to it!

Still not it.

I tried, but I kept getting the tyrant Hippias.

That could be explained by the recycling of arms and armor.

Im not saying that its true that past wars were decided by a chess game, but it would be both interesting and life saving for modern wars to be decided by single mock battles.

But think, will that not become the warfare of our future.Will wars be conducted by using only man operated machines, and at some point or another machines not powered by man at all?How long till Robots fight on the plain of battle as every part in the military.We already have Predator Drones and Recon Robots...But will it be 100?50?even 20 years till the Computer generation is running the military?

Its changed in the way that theirs absolutley no such thing as the low tech army any more.Almost half of ur fighting is now not done by humans.The times of 1 million soldiers meeting half a mile apart in two trenches is now over.

Personally it frustrates me that high-tech armies such as the US, Europe and Russia (I consider them to be in this category) are developing more and more technology when it won't help them win in their current conflicts. Obviously having an edge in technology over an opponent is an advantage but any war between two high-tech armies would break both their banks.

Originally posted by IDonT Originally posted by Omar al Hashim The last 40 years has shown that low tech determined armies who import their stingers on the backs of donkeys* can effectively challenge high tech state of the art armies. They can do this because they have better morale, better training, and a greater desire to win. When Israel fought Hezbullah many Israeli soldiers were freezing their sperm in case they were killed before going into battle against Hezbullahs forces that would happily die to defend their country. That is why Israel lost the war. Because of morale. Just like in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan, high tech fancy armies lost to low tech armies. Therefore I do not consider networked soldiers to be a useful investment. You'll spend more time repairing the computer than you will shooting at the enemy! This is just a way for IT companies to win defence contracts. *Who are a part of the complex and efficient logistics network. Low tech doesn't mean disorganised.   1.)  Not effectively challenge.  The right world is outlast.  Low tech armies, fighting on their own backyard can generally outlast, through attrition, high tech expeditionary armies.    2.)  While the Vietnamese and Afghans surely did outlast the Soviet and US armies, they never won a single battle.  That is the weakness and strengh of the low tech guerilla armies.  Currently no low tech army can prevent the movement nor deny land from a Brigade or Division size professional army of either US, Russian, Chinese, and European origin.   They can however make their lives very unconfortable the longer they hold the territory.  They never win in the battlefield, but win in the political field.  As a military tactic, it not the best way to defend (but you play the hand that your dealt)    3.)  Guerilla based armies are historically impossible to destroy because they never stood their ground and fight and are best suited for defensive campaigns of wearing down the attacker.  Their offensive strength are marginal.  They could never take an entrench position or gain ground.  The Hezbollah was playing a defensive war for their survival.  In that conflict, defined on those terms only, they "won".  However, Hezbollah could never take and hold Israeli ground from the Israeli army.  Doing so will nulify their greatest asset, despersion and stealth.

I'd say only Europe, Israel and the US have high tech armies, and they don't seem inclinded to fight each other.