A late complain

[Rasbelin]

That map about the USA's view of the world was hilarious and
sadly it is true for a lot of people.

That shows us that there's a leak in the American
education system. Perhaps it would be time to
improve the American history lectures.

I am an american and I guess it should offend me but
I understand and in some cases I agree with it.

I'm pleased to see that you're one of those more
realistic Yankees.

Although it does seem a lot of people dislike the USA just becuase there the most powerful country in the world.

I can agree with you, but I have to add that many
persons hate USA because they spreed the western
culture mostly (well, think about all the Hollywood movies).

The Civ series bases there monuments and wonders on the nest of a certain type of thing.Many happene to be from America. But only in the modern age and industrial.

its just that the dominating country of the owrld tends to have the most wonders of the age, the USA dominated the end of the industrial age and the modern age so they get the most wonders, its that simple.

Excellent brainwork!

You share my opinion on that point. This shows us that
the Civ series is actually objective. Heck, why?
The different eras include signficant monuments/events (=WoW),
no matter what nation is behind them. The Manhattan Project
is American just because US happened to construct the
first nuclear weapon. It could be the Germans or Russians too.
So the Civ series follows the history in a quite objective
way. Of course there's some WoW could have been selected
better (red_jon mentioned that Brits were strongly represented
in Civ II, but that's due to MicroProse was in Bristol ).

I think a Russian wonder could be nice.
What about Mir as WoW?
Or The Winter Palace?

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
Please read all my posts Shiva and you might understand.

Let me explain it to you so you'll understand if you dont and this wasnt a troll.

When civilian murders some other civilian down the block (and were I live its a weekly thing) its a crime. When someone from another country knowingly targets and murders our civilians its a war.

[Mannamagnus]

You're forgiven but isn't it about time for you to go to bed?

[Mannamagnus]

When civilian murders some other civilian down the block (and were I live its a weekly thing) its a crime. When someone from another country knowingly targets and murders our civilians its a war.

I agree. But I also think that both should be delt with effectively.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
I agree. But I also think that both should be delt with effectively.

Taking away guns doesnt solve the problem. As I said its a weekly thing were I live. The problem isnt the gun, the problem is the people who are pulling the trigger. If you lived here you would see what I mean.

[Mannamagnus]

It's much harder to beat someone to death or even stab someone than to shoot somebody (BTW don't forget all the accidents with guns or children killing their schoolmates).
I lived in some of the most criminal neighbourhoods of my country, which are probably not as bad as some of your worst neighbourhoods I agree, but here because hardly any one carries a gun shootings are more the exception than rule.
So I do think that banning firearms would help.

[Fredric Drum]

Originally posted by Sabre2th
There is no 'generally.' Each American is different. Some are ignorant, yes, but many, many more are quite knowledgable. This is a classic example of how a few bad apples spoiled the entire batch. I would have hoped that the people here at Poly would be a little smarter than that.

Fortunately, we're all CIV players, and know a lot about the world. Let's end the discussion for now and resume it right before CIV 12 is released.


Fred

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
It's much harder to beat someone to death or even stab someone than to shoot somebody

Be that as it may ( and that depends on the situation) it still doesnt address the person doing the killing, which is the problem. If a person wants to kill then they will. More people here are killed each year by knives.

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
(BTW don't forget all the accidents with guns or children killing their schoolmates).

Accidents happen. If someone is stupid enough to allow a child access to a firearm then they should be delt with. That certainly should not cause a responsible gun owner any more grief than a drunk driver would cause a normal driver. In this country we try and avoid banning things because of what you "might" do. Prior restraint is a very slippery slope, especially when someone is restraining someone else.

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
So I do think that banning firearms would help.

Im sorry but I dont. I know what laws are worth when someone doesnt want to follow them. I also know police only deter crime when they are there, and when they're there they are not somewhere else. I also know that when someone wants to kill someone they will do thier damnedest no matter what the tools.

[Mannamagnus]

Lets look at it from the other side: What is the benefit of allowing people to carry a gun?
And please don't say that that would enable you to defend yourself, because if nobody was to carry a gun there would be no need to have one yourself. A baseball bat would do the trick.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
Lets look at it from the other side: What is the benefit of allowing people to carry a gun?
And please don't say that that would enable you to defend yourself, because if nobody was to carry a gun there would be no need to have one yourself. A baseball bat would do the trick.

Other than hunting? It would still make you able to defend yourself. The gun was known at one time as the great equalizer. Or as my drill sergeant put it "a fat man with a rifle will kill you just as well as a thin man so always be aware". As I said I know what laws are worth, the paper they are printed on and thats it. If someone wants a gun they will get a gun. We can ban them about as well as we have banned drugs. Also anyone with the right set of tools can make a gun in thier garage (and im not talking a zip gun either). As for the ammo, thats much much easier to make yourself.

[Fredric Drum]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
Lets look at it from the other side: What is the benefit of allowing people to carry a gun?
And please don't say that that would enable you to defend yourself, because if nobody was to carry a gun there would be no need to have one yourself. A baseball bat would do the trick.

But if you ban guns, crooks and criminals will still carry a gun.. they're already criminals, so why not keep the firearms? They're already set for yeaaars in prison if they're caught.. If you can take away all the weapons, then ban guns by all means. But you can't. Another way to view it is that if everybody has a gun, then everybody is a criminal.

Fred

[Akaoz]

Originally posted by Fredric Drum



But if you ban guns, crooks and criminals will still carry a gun.. they're already criminals, so why not keep the firearms? They're already set for yeaaars in prison if they're caught.. If you can take away all the weapons, then ban guns by all means. But you can't. Another way to view it is that if everybody has a gun, then everybody is a criminal.

Fred

Where in Oslo do you live Fredric? There are a lot of ppl (criminals) in Oslo who would like to have a gun. But guns are hard to come by. It is actually easier to get a hold of a G-3 assault rifle then a 9mm in Oslo! (Nobody need an assault rifle to rob a bank I guess, but a lot of them have been stolen from army depots.)

---

I agree that ppl who want to kill someone can do it with a knife, baseball bat or their hands. That's not the problem.

The problem is with ppl who don't really want to kill someone, but with a gun it is soo very easy... With a bat you would have to take some time and you would have a chance to 'change your mind'. With a gun, it is a split second of anger and someone is dead...

---

There are valid points for having guns to tho...

---

-Alech

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Shiva
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).

Hmmm, it's often the choice between more not-so-good options. Too bad often economical reasons prevail. Hope was there that the rise of Germany would benefit trade, so I do understand the choice because of the economical situation in those days. However I agree on the part that the military growth should have been stopped before it was too late. It's unforgivable that Hitler was able to build such a massive army and such a huge airforce without intervention of anyone at all. And indeed with Iraq, the head of the serpent should have been crushed, but who would have taken his place?

Originally posted by Shiva
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

NHF

[tuckson]

Originally posted by down th' pub
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.

OK, Time to clear up some things. At least for my part of the discussion. I made a lot of posts in this tread, often provocing reactions from others. I hope it's been clear I try to discuss based on arguments, not on attacks. Some of the more frequent repliers in this tread seem to pick this up (e.g Shiva). I like and appreciate that. One tactic in a discussion or debate is to make statements a bit more radical to provoke reactions. That's the way I like to discuss.

I do like America. I do think US and the world need each other and the times have passed by anyone could say "we'll do it on our own". I do agree on some of the stereotypes that are staed on Americans, but I also do beleive the majority of US citizens are kind, hardworking people who don't deserve to be entitled as the "satan of the world" as the more radical islam fractions tend to do. I do believe America needs the world's support and compassion at the moment and I do hope the things happened make America realize that a bit more of a humbled attitude would not harm the nation. The world does not need a father. It needs a warm and helpful friend.

So far my real thoughts on the subjects.

OK, back to the discussion
America is...

Originally posted by down th' pub
Thanks for provoking me, this is by far my longest post.

Always welcome

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Akaoz
The problem with the US SDI program is that it gives the US the option of using nuclear weapons without having to worry about someone nuking them back. The threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) was what kept the peace in this world for over 50 years. And that is almost unheard of in Europe.

Hear hear, couldn't have stated it better

Originally posted by Akaoz
And yes, the world does ask America to help. But America usually only helps when it's in it's own self interest to do so. I don't really blame them, but it would be nice if they stopped acting like they are doing it out of the goodness of their harts. Sure, it's good of them to help, but that isn't why they are doing it.

AS for removing the US from the planet... Yes that will severely hurt the world economy. What do you expect if you remove over 200 million of the richest ppl on earth over night?

I repeat : Hear hear, couldn't have stated it better

Originally posted by Akaoz
But selling arms to a country at war is good business. And it was the Russians who did the dying. By the time America joined the war on Germany (after Germany declared war on the US) the war was starting to go against Hitler. And the war was over before Americas might could be brought to bear. By the time Stalingrad was liberated in early 43, the war was lost for the Germans. This is over a year before the western landings.

And to bring up the pain a bit higher, over here in Holland, it were actually the canadians who liberated us.