America?

[Prussia]

Originally posted by Bkeela
America along with all Americans suck. Clearly it shouldn't be in Civ.

I hope you don't run into Stephen Colbert anytime soon...

[Will9]

Originally posted by Prussia


I hope you don't run into Stephen Colbert anytime soon...

When he is with Killer.

[Prussia]

Originally posted by Will9


When he is with Killer.

[Xorbon]

Bears should replace America as a civ.

They are Godless killing machines.

[DrSpike]

Voted for the second option.

[Dis]

Originally posted by padillah


Let me get this straight. You actually believe that a man that has spent the last ~30 years of his life making one of the most comprehensive historical strategy games in the world doesn't know where Portugal is?

Are you serious? Are you high?




Until you mentioned in your other post that it's based in Brussels - no, I didn't. I've heard it reffered to, heck I've been in it (Ireland, Scotland, and England). But know where it's based? No.



Ratification of a single Constitution. Acceptance of a single, federated, government. Aquiecense of soverignty. Do you need more?



You don't need to go "deep enough" at all. The US is a collection of states who have accepted a single governing body. The EU is a collection of countries that have treaties with one another. In short, the EU doesn't have the power to decalre something illegal it only has the power to make it's members decalre something illegal.



Nope. The US has a governing body. The EU has a parliment which can be best described as a forcful advisory body. Though the sovernty transfered through treaties can be rather extreme in some instances.

Heck most of the union doesn't even use the Euro and the European Constitution is comming under huge fire from France and the Netherlands. Membership has to be renewed, the UK almost dropped out in 2005.

There is no Membership in the US. You're a state or you secede.

No, the EU and the US are two very different organizations.

Tom P.

and good luck seceding.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Dis


and good luck seceding.

[Prussia]

Originally posted by Dis


and good luck seceding.

"America, F**K yeah"

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Qwertqwert


Neigher of them stood the test of time...

Startling news- neither will any civilization.

Nothing lasts for ever, and we shall all be food for worms, our vaunted monuments but dust and rubble, our computer chips decorative objects in necklaces around the necks of mutant upright walking otters.

The name of the game is 'civilization'- and the world has plenty to choose from. It's pointless arguing which has the better claim, Aztec or Inca or Zulu or U.S.A. . The Zulus, Incas and the Aztecs had no impact outside of a limited area of their own continents.

The U.S.A. , for good or ill, has had a massive impact in cultural/economic and political terms in Australasia, Europe, Asia and Africa and in South America too.

The Mongols had a huge destructive effect on Muslim civilization and on Russia too, but also exercised an unforeseen beneficial effect on the spread of Persian and Turkish civilizations. The Mongols themselves left little in the way of lasting monuments to their fame or infamy though- no worldwide Mongol language, or style of architecture or system of law.

Well, don't tell England and Ireland. They've been at war for over 100 years .

padillah

No they haven't. Not since 1921 in fact.

And England/Ireland were fighting even after they had both joined the EU.

Err, no they weren't. You're confusing the actions of terrorist organisations (also outlawed in the Republic of Ireland) with the government of Eire.

[padillah]

Originally posted by molly bloom


padillah

No they haven't. Not since 1921 in fact.



Err, no they weren't. You're confusing the actions of terrorist organisations (also outlawed in the Republic of Ireland) with the government of Eire.

No, I'm not confusing anybody. I'm just not that picayune with my definition of "war".

I'm sure you feel the U.S.A. was never at war in Vietnam or Korea... and the war in Iraq is years over.

Nah, in my book bunches of people killing other bunches of people while innocents get caught in the middle is war. You are free to define it however you feel you need to. This is not a court of law, we won't hold your feet to the fire.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Oh, BTW.

Why is this inciteful topic full of off-topic posts still open?

Is anyone gaining any real insight into the game or ways to play the game or stories about the game...?

This is a stupid conversation that's not helping anybody. I don't care who wants America in or out (I voted for out just to annoy Will9). And I don't think our say has so much pull that they'er gonna release an x-pack to take out America or any other civ that's currently in.

If you don't want America (or any other civ) in you can edit the CIV4CivilizationInfos.xml and set "bPlayable" to 0.
If you don't want the AI to be America (or anyother civ) either set "bAIPlayable" to 0.

There. Problem solved. Now can we stop kicking up crap and talk about the game?

Tom P.

And, no. I'm not trying to get this closed because I've been shown wrong two or three times. The fact that I was wrong simply shows how much I don't care about this subject. I'm on the Internet by definition, if I cared I would have looked that stuff up.

[DirtyMartini]

i think it's still open so we can all continue to annoy Will9.

Picayune -- nice.

[timstam001]

It's true no civilition will ultimately stand the test of time. Even China didn't - today's China is not even like the China it was before since that idiot of a communist called Mao Zedong seized power.

However, I do think today's civilizations will last for many more years than previous civs. Simply because nowadays the world is much smaller, we have globalisation, and co-operation between nations has never been this close. We are too economically and militarily interconnected to take eachother down.

We benefit from eachother's existance, wether we like eachother or not.

The only real thing that is in danger imo is the middle-east. In my eyes they are the last remnants of the barbarian middle-ages that won't be able to stand the test of time in the modern world. Already they have angered the entire world (Iran-Iraq-Palestine-Pakistan etc.) with their uncompromising attitude. The middle-east always finds itself in war with a neighbouring country, be it Israel, India, China, Russia, USA, EU or anything else. With too many enemies it's impossible to survive.

I don't see the US or China go down so easily, nor Europe or Japan for example. Then again, if you look at these four powers they all need eachother. Japan, EU and US being the economical pillars of the world, and now China which is making it's entry in that system. Also militarily we need eachother. The US needs it's allies to help fight it's wars (otherwise it would become too wide) and the others are always occupied with peacekeeping forces or defending befriended nations (usually in the shape of peacekeeping forces too). China itself is a military powerhouse, but does not have the ambition to expand, and it couldn't. Too many nations would interfere with it.

Ultimately globalisation is what will stand the test of time, be it with or without todays civilizations.

[padillah]

I'm sorry. The "nationalist" in me can't let this pass.

Originally posted by molly bloom

Well, don't tell England and Ireland. They've been at war for over 100 years.

padillah

No they haven't. Not since 1921 in fact.

OK, just because England says it's over doesn't mean it's over. The Government of Ireland Act was signed by England and British installed Unionists, not Irish Parliment. You are going to have to work hard to convince me that the 75 seats (of the 105 seat parliment) controlled by Sinn Fein were planning on voting for Unionism.

And England/Ireland were fighting even after they had both joined the EU.

Err, no they weren't. You're confusing the actions of terrorist organisations (also outlawed in the Republic of Ireland) with the government of Eire.

Is that why England signed the Northern Ireland Act in 1998? IIRC Englands treatment of Irealnd was a condition of being accepted into the EU - steps toward the unification of Ireland.

What you call terrorists some called the legitimate Parliment of Southern Ireland. All but 4 of the 128 MP's elected were Sinn Fein. How is that a terrorist organisation? And, again outlawed by whom? Since Southern Ireland never took seat in Parliment (as a means of protest) who dubbed these organisations terrorist and who made them illegal?

Would you consider the Home Rule movement in India terrorist? It was illegal. Several people went to jail for it so obviously it was illegal. But were they terrorists or freedom fighters?

It depends on what side you are fighting.

I'm not saying one side is better than the other, there were horrible things done by both sides. I'm saying to just accept one side of the story without question is dangerous in century-long geo-political debates.

Tom P.

[Prussia]

Not to mention the fact that these are NOT terrorists, since normal every-day terrorists don't WARN THE PUBLIC WHEN AND WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO ATTACK, and warn them to stay clear.

I thought the definition of terrorist was someone who attacks innocents and those who cannot defend themselves purposefully and causes general collateral damage.