A late complain

[saracen31]

Originally posted by tuckson:
The problem for the Rocket shield is that apearantly the US lack the capacity to think as others than only America itself. The rest of the world has no guaranty that After coompletion of the shield America backs off and hides behind the shield leaving the rest of the world unprotected.

So America has 2 choices in your mind:

a) Don't develop the shield, although the main function of a nation's government is to protect the safety & interests of its populace.

b) Develop the shield, but don't leave the rest of the world unprotected? Let them share the shield? That's fine with me, but wouldn't that be America intervening in the affairs of others? Wouldn't that be America acting as the world's police officer? Doesn't sound like that help is wanted..

[Shiva]

Originally posted by tuckson

Nope, Revenge is a often used motive for violence. However, this does not make it more valid.

Never said it made it more valid just say that your statement about it not being vilid is false.

Originally posted by tuckson
I agree on the fact that the US buying Japanese products helps their economy. But again, that's no charity. The US needs Japan as much as Japan needs the US.

Never said that the US didnt need anyone just pointing out how your statement that the world could get along without the US is false. Right now the world economy in in a rut. Japan through its past bad money lending has basically slaved its economy to the USAs (works great durring boom times, very bad spot to be in during a bust). The EU while being a union still retains its differing economies of member states while not allowing them to retain differing monetary policies (cant do it and still have one currency). Because of this the only country in europe that could have avoided a slide (Germany) is being pulled in with everyone else. The only other option would be for Germany to break confidence with the Euro and that would kill the currency. That leaves the US as the only one who has a chance of putting the world economy back on track. Sorry its the facts.

Originally posted by tuckson
Did you pay your contribution already?

For?

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Sabre2th
Why is that? Just because you're selfish and ignorant doesn't mean everyone is. There were selfish reasons for them, but we weren't involved just because it helped us.

I'm glad you 'know' this. Tell me: Are you an important part of the U.S. government? Do you lead us in some way?

Again, no need to put it on the person, neither do I. I like a discussion based on arguments, not on personal attacks, OK?

Originally posted by Sabre2th
You can think what you want, but there were many other reasons for that. The Peal Harbor attack was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

Of course not. The situation before Pearl Harbor was the following. The US war industrie ran at full speed. The Attacked European countries could "loan" weapons in exchange for the nation's gold which was shipped to the US. After the war the gold was " bought back with which actually the weapons were being paid. Why would the US get directly involved into the war? The war was already going on for nearly 2 years before the US finally got into it.

Originally posted by Sabre2th
That was the main reason, but again, there were others.

Of course there were. But the main reason ois the reason one starts the war for.

Originally posted by Sabre2th
For once, I agree with you, but do you think the shield is the fault of America as a whole? It was a stupid decision by a not-necessarily-so-smart government.

Hmmm.. Dunno if it is that stupid. Only badly marketed
From an American point of view it's not hard to understand the desire for the shield. If only America would understand and cope with the concerns of other nations.

Originally posted by Sabre2th
I'm sorry to say that there is more to the election. The media will bring out certain aspects of a candidate's life, but that does not decide the election. This information also says something about a candidate's character and potential leadership ability.

In principle I can agree, but I think the whole thing usually is overdone far to much.

Originally posted by Sabre2th
You also mention the Monica Lewinsky case. Maybe it wouldn't have happened in your country and maybe it was his private life, but it did not affect most people's opinion of his leadership abilities. Many, including me, see Clinton as one of the better presidents in our history.

The whole circus in many parts of the (western) world is being seen as a typical american thing. Over here the most heard reaction was something like "what does it matter when he's doing a good job?" I too liked Clinton. Not only because of some of his capabilities, but especially he had the guts to show himself as a human, and not only as a advisor driven Robot.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by tuckson
The problem for the Rocket shield is that apearantly the US lack the capacity to think as others than only America itself. The rest of the world has no guaranty that After coompletion of the shield America backs off and hides behind the shield leaving the rest of the world unprotected. The balance of power in the world would seriously change. And I'm not sure that's a good thing.

First off I though the world didnt want us as the policeman of the world so why should we protect the rest of the world. You cant complain about one thing and when we do what you ask complain about that. Also we have offered to protect a number of our allies with said SDI. If they dont wish this then it is hardly our fault and hardly a reason to leave ourselves unprotected.

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Shiva


Sorry the heads of Nato asked the US to enter into the Balkans because they couldnt do the job without the US. They were also ask not to leave because it would destabilize the situation. Sure counts as being asked and just because its in our best intrest for Europe to remain stable doesnt invalidate it.

OK, You're right on that.

Originally posted by Shiva
Thing is if europe would have dealt with the problem at the start the US wouldnt have had to get involved. Just like europe at the start of WW2.

Can agree on the first one. The lack of decisive guts of our governements offended many people over here. For WW2 it's not fair to state that. I agree on that our material was old and bad, but figthing against an overwhelming enemy, Holland fougth 5 days while Hitler counted on 1. This made him mad enough to order a mass bombing onto the heart of one of our main cities (Rotterdam). The whole city heart was blown away. After that our military Commanding Officer decided to surrender as the Germans threatened to bomb the centers of other cities too. Do not forget we are their direct neighbors.

Originally posted by Shiva
False. The only western european country that didnt was Spain. Check your history books.

Don't think so. After The Marshall plan, I think no further help is received from America. If you know otherwise, please be so kind as to give an example. Always willing to learn.

[Shiva]

Re: I wasn't going to get into this but...

Originally posted by Your.Master
b) you did not save anybody in WWI. Your help is, of course, appreciated, but it was very little, very late. WWI was won without America.

Hehe sorry you need to read some history books. France held on because of American troops and suppies. Maybe you have never heard about the state of the French army and the revolt at the time. Americas entry into WW1 broke Germany's moral because they knew the couldnt out last the allies then. Germany gave up, they were still on French soil at the time. Theres a reason for it.

Originally posted by Your.Master
Nevertheless, Germany was toast without America. The Soviets were the wons who truly won the war.

False, without the lend lease shipments Russia would have fell. Both Stalin and Zukkoff ( I know its spelled wrong) stated as much. Makes you wonder why this myth is still around on the internet and in schools.

Originally posted by Your.Master
d) Evil always loses in the end. The Soviets were crumbling from within; it was not American attacks that ended the union. America and Soviet Russia really only managed to scare people to death.

False , the USSRs economy crumbled trying to keep up the cold war. In the end the USSR tried to reform its economy by adding more freedom to the mix. Once freedom gets out of a bottle its impossible to get back in (in this day and age anyway) and the rest is history. You can also say that western culture had something to do with it.

And as for more universal comments:

[Shiva]

Originally posted by tuckson
For WW2 it's not fair to state that. I agree on that our material was old and bad, but figthing against an overwhelming enemy,

No it is a fair statement. If the Versailles treaty would have been enforced then WW2 would not have happened (still might have had a pacific war). Britain and France forced a punitive treaty on Germany (President Wilson of the US did not support it and warned being to harsh would cause trouble down the line).
Frances army was far stronger than Germanys and could have easily marched in an disarmed Germany again. Instead they waited till it was too late. (you can see the same thing with Iraq now, dont put your foot on someones neck and then take it off).
At least the world learned from the most part from this mistake and it wasnt repeated (with Japan).

Originally posted by tuckson
Don't think so. After The Marshall plan, I think no further help is received from America. If you know otherwise, please be so kind as to give an example. Always willing to learn.

Sorry I took what you had posted on that the wrong way. I though you had meant that they had not received anything under the Marshall plan. My mistake. I'll dig around for anything else after the Marshall plan though just to be sure

[Sabre2th]

Again, no need to put it on the person, neither do I. I like a discussion based on arguments, not on personal attacks, OK?

I'll admit, that was uncalled for. I apologize, but my point is the same.

Of course not. The situation before Pearl Harbor was the following. The US war industrie ran at full speed. The Attacked European countries could "loan" weapons in exchange for the nation's gold which was shipped to the US. After the war the gold was " bought back with which actually the weapons were being paid. Why would the US get directly involved into the war? The war was already going on for nearly 2 years before the US finally got into it.

Not one of those 'reasons' proves your point. Yes, the industry picked up, etc., but that doesn't mean that's why we got involved. Like I said, there were many reasons.

Of course there were. But the main reason ois the reason one starts the war for.

No.... Just because it's not the main reason doesn't mean it's not a reason. Reread that. Some reasons are bigger than others, but all play a part in the decision.

Hmmm.. Dunno if it is that stupid. Only badly marketed

Poor choice of words. The government should have been more careful with the decision.

From an American point of view it's not hard to understand the desire for the shield. If only America would understand and cope with the concerns of other nations.

Again, there is quite a bit more to it. One reason for the shield is the world opinion of the U.S. Many people hate it. With the new abundance of nuclear weapons, every country is a threat. Potentially unstable third world countries and terrorist groups are the main reason for the shield.

In principle I can agree, but I think the whole thing usually is overdone far to much.

Then YOU try to change the media.

The whole circus in many parts of the (western) world is being seen as a typical american thing. Over here the most heard reaction was something like "what does it matter when he's doing a good job?" I too liked Clinton. Not only because of some of his capabilities, but especially he had the guts to show himself as a human, and not only as a advisor driven Robot.

And any American worth anything was saying the same thing.

[down th' pub]

Now you'll have to excuse me if this comes out a bit garbled, I have a bunch of stuff in my head and I do want to try and get it down coherently.

Off Topic-
About me: I'm English (British/European), I live in Oregon, West Coast, United States of America. I am a resident alien, having married a wonderful US lady. I've been here three years (as of last Friday), so I am eligible to become a citizen when I take the exam.

My Observations:
The people of the United States are as informed as the English in terms of current affairs.
World news is difficult to come by here, so it doesn't really fall into "current affairs" in a conventional sense. (I tend to watch BBC America in addition to CNN, and read The Times online).
People have very natural feelings of pride towards their home nation, some inevitably stray into the realms of Xenophobia. There are extreme right wing organizations all over the world.

The years since I came here are the happiest of my life. There is a culture here that has allowed me to succeed. I intend to become a citizen, I will have pride in both the nation of my birth and of my residence. The American people are in my experience warmer and friendlier than those I grew up with. I am made to feel at home here and many people share their "English" story with me, for which I am grateful. ("My grand mother is from...", "I have a cousin in..", "I was stationed in" etc).

Needless to say it pains me to see such bitterness between people who are essentially allies, and if they are here necessarily have something in common.

I thought long and hard before adding my ingredients to the melting pot for fear of what they might cause. I hope I made the right decision.

On topic-
A bank of names for each of the minor wonders would be more appropriate, though undoubtedly a difficult task. One name for each country for the great temple, military HQ, Moon Mission, Atomic weapons project and so on. With the combined brains trust here however this is, I'm sure, an achievable goal.

Thanks for provoking me, this is by far my longest post.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by down th' pub
World news is difficult to come by here, so it doesn't really fall into "current affairs" in a conventional sense. (I tend to watch BBC America in addition to CNN, and read The Times online).

Yep, thats the biggest prblem here. You have to go out of your way for world news. I almost never watch the big 3 for news because you only get what they want you to hear about. I mostly watch Fox,MSNBC, and of course BBC America (I was so glad when they added it).

[saracen31]

I too live in the States but watch the BBC for a lot of my news. The big 3 networks here really do have their own news agendas.

[BigBear]

Really, many Americans are great. But on average, they are worse than most other developed countries (I have statistics to back this up: Canada, Sweden, and Norway have the brightest individuals, almost everybody is more informed about the world than Americans...remember, these are averages. THis is not an attack on you, but it does mean that it doesn't "balance out in the end".

Worse? That is seriously one the most generalizing and dumbest things I have seen yet. How can you say a group of people is "worse?"

Also, I was not saying that America is strong because they invented the Television. I am saying that because the United States developed to become a world power during the age of television, we have more global influence (power) than any other nation could possibly have ever had. Honestly, how much Canadian news and television do you watch (unless your from canada)? They may be Comedian-rich, but no one in Germany watches a canadian Bay Watch, (i don't know, forest watch or something).

Whatever though, you took my previous post way to seriously. I was trying to lighten up the mood.

[Stuie]

I give up! I'll no longer attempt to get this thread back on topic. You people are like the Borg - resistance... you know...

Originally posted by aiin
Oh new game idea

Sid Meier's Americalization

You and the computer throw insults at each other to praise or bash America's place in history.

Plus MP will be build in and you will be able to talk trash with players all over the word.

Actually MP will not be included.

[pg]

just to put these arguments into civ terms... you know when you were doing really well in civ2 and the ai players would make pacts to contain 'xxx country's aggression' even if you weren't attacking but just because you were powerful? that would be happening to the usa in todays world if the real world leaders had the ai and bloodthurstiness of civ2. luckily the world seems to be evolving faster as time goes by and maybe someday wars, and their like will be a very rare occurance(we haven't gotten to that stage yet). in civ3 terms usa could be coined the 'dominant culture', but maybe tomorrow it'll be the chinese, french, the islamic fundamentalists, etc.

couldn't pass up adding, but anyhow i don't really care one way what they name the wonders, improvements, etc as long as i can easily recognize what they mean. i would actually lean towards generic terms for everything since that makes the most sense to me as you usually aren't playing the americans(or whatever country that matches wonder names to country).

one more thing, i always find these discussions meaningless. you can't help the ignorant on either side by discussions like this, you just make things worse as some people(believe it or not) take these discussions very seriously.

[CygnusZ]

Quality of Life Index as established 1998

High Income Countries

Canada .935
Norway .934
United States .929
Australia .929
Sweden .926
Japan .924
United Kingdom .918
France .917
South Korea .854

Middle Income

Poland .814
Lithuania .789
Russian Federation .771
Ukraine .744

Low Income

Democratic Republic of the Congo .430
Guinea .394
Ethiopia .309
Sierra Leone .252


I think we can all agree upon one thing. It's not bad to live in western Europe or America. However, it'd really suck live in Ethiopia. The difference in Quality of Life between America and Europe just isn't that great...