September 11 - The Day the World Changed

[Palaiologos]

Leave those damn brits to their own island i'd say.

They are a burden to the rest of the world.



As for the italian goverment, apart from the fact that Berluskoni is a rather cool guy, it was the italian people that voted him.

[techumseh]

I wouldn't put Canada as a US ally. We leaned toward France and Germany on the Gulf War issue. Britain and Australia sent troops. Canada refused.

[Prometeus]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Leave those damn brits to their own island i'd say.
They are a burden to the rest of the world.
As for the italian goverment, apart from the fact that Berluskoni is a rather cool guy, it was the italian people that voted him.

Vote for him? Never!!!



Hope you'll get from your government as many taxes as Berluskazzo is planning to put on our heads and you'll see what kind of cool guy he really his...


Hope he's going to die soon.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Leave those damn brits to their own island i'd say.

They are a burden to the rest of the world.

As for the italian goverment, apart from the fact that Berluskoni is a rather cool guy, it was the italian people that voted him.

But we've got so much to offer the world; bad cooking and cheap weapons spring to mind for starters

Berlosconi is a fascist

OzzyKP: I thing Stefan is right about lumping the Moslem world together as 'Enemies of the US'. It's this kind of attitude that's got the world in the mess it's currently in To lump a largely pro-Western and generally secular society like Turkey together with the likes of the Taliban is the same as saying Germany slavishly follows the US line because they are both Christian nations. Your point about the goverments of the US Moslem allies supporting the US while the general population are against them would apply equally to the UK, for example - only 1/3 of the population supported the war on Iraq at the outset and Parliament only gave their backing because they were hoodwinked over WMD. A similar vote now would almost certainly see Blair's Government defeated.

As for having Iran and Iraq as part of the same civ, that's somewhat like having France and Germany as a single civ on the eve of WW2.

[Stefan Härtel]

I wouldn't put Canada as a US ally. We leaned toward France and Germany on the Gulf War issue. Britain and
Australia sent troops. Canada refused.

Ever grateful to that too

But if I understood things correctly, the scenario is at the begin of the whole mess. You know, when Schröder still spoke of total solidarity to the US and all that sh*t (which is why Germany -who sent troops to Afghanistan and Djibouti- should be allied to the US no matter what). Where did Canada stand at that time?

But we've got so much to offer the world; bad cooking

I've yet to see a non-british supermarket which offers frosted lamb in mint sauce

[Mercator]

But I think you're contradicting yourself again, Stefan. On the one hand you want one EU, while you think the muslims should be split among their differing relationships.

I think it would be much better to have a more varied landscape. Not strict blocks (EU, US, Islam etc.), but rather more assigned according to their stance on the issue. E.g. have Spain, Bulgaria and Poland be part of the US allies, Turkey part of the EU, and the muslim world a bit more divided.
If not more accurate, it would at least make for a more interesting game.

Turkey should definitely pe pro-US/EU, by the way, even if you're assuming radicals taking over.

As for having Iran and Iraq as part of the same civ, that's somewhat like having France and Germany as a single civ on the eve of WW2.

I don't think that's a very good comparison. They might be opposing sides, but they both have a common enemy. Especially if you think in terms of popular support as Ozzy is saying. In a current global context, it's highly unlikely any Arab/Muslim nation would be openly attacking another. Some might support the US, but none would actively participate.

[Michael Daumen]

Since a large part of the map will be made up of cities which the US will NOT be attacking (hopefully), and that outside of American aggression there is very little combat going on in this scenario - Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine, and perhaps the Koreas. Therefore, the allegiance of these cities and the political stances of each nation are of lesser importance. I suggest you first pick the leaders that the player needs to negotiate with, make them the heads of other civs, then worry about the makeup of each civ later. Perhaps take a page from Verne & tech's Russian Civ War and make multiple versions with civs of differing members.

Thanks Mercator, I wondered how Henrik had done that in his scenario.

[Mercator]

I think he did it differently though, because he didn't use any hex-editing. There's a thread about it somewhere... I think.

[Stefan Härtel]

Sorry Mercator, but I must disagree with you.
First:

But I think you're contradicting yourself again, Stefan. On the one hand you want one EU, while you think the
muslims should be split among their differing relationships.

I don't think I'm contradicting here. After all, the EU is a political fact, while a Muslim unity isn't.
The nations of the EU might be disagreeing amongst themselves, but in the end, they have to find a way of working together again. This isn't so in the Muslim world.
Having a united Arab League player is one thing, and acceptable IMHO, although that would mean Iraq and Saudi Arabia together. But lumping all the Muslim nations is totally different. To put it open, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the former Soviet Central Asian nations and Turkey have absolutely nothing in common, neither among themselves nor with the rest of the Muslim world, which is the Arab one (except perhaps Pakistan and Afghanistan). Only because their citizens are Muslim doesn't mean they are brothers. It would be the same as if the EU were lumped with Russia, North and South America and Oceania.

I don't think that's a very good comparison. They might be opposing sides, but they both have a common enemy.
Especially if you think in terms of popular support as Ozzy is saying. In a current global context, it's highly unlikely
any Arab/Muslim nation would be openly attacking another. Some might support the US, but none would actively
participate.

Let me prove you wrong here.
-Afghanistan was torn in decades of civil war despite the fact that nearly 100% of its population is Muslim
-Iran and Iraq were in war with each other for eight years (1980-1988). Nearly one million people died, and nothing was achieved. Both regimes stayed in power, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Mullahs in Iran. Even though both countries started diplomatic relations again a few years ago, they remained hostile to each other, and would never have cooperated.
-Several times, Iran was at verge of war against the Taleban in Afghanistan
-Morocco is keeping the Democratic Republic of Sahara occupied since 1979, against the resistance of the population, which is nearly entirely Muslim, just like Morocco
-Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1990
-India and Pakistan have been hostile against each other since 1947, although India has a larger Muslim population than Pakistan has in total (and Pakistan is an Islamic Republic)

And it is a fact that the population of those Muslim countries, whose governments support the US, feels hatred towards the US, while those people, whose governments oppose the US -best example is Iran- support the US.

There is no unity in the Muslim world, despite what some people may want us to believe.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Prometeus


Vote for him? Never!!!



Hope you'll get from your government as many taxes as Berluskazzo is planning to put on our heads and you'll see what kind of cool guy he really his...


Hope he's going to die soon.

Heh, heh, heh.

Cool down!
Greece has been ru(i)nned by the same socialist party for 25 years now, but i don't see any right wingers wishing them dead.
In the last elections the socialists brought shiploads of Azeris, Tatars etc. from Cyprus and the Caucasus, legalized them in a week, and forced them to vote for them. These caucasians numbered about 300.000 and the socialists won the elections by 150.000(IIRC)
But nobody in Greece was upset about it. Take things easy!

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Michael Daumen
Since a large part of the map will be made up of cities which the US will NOT be attacking (hopefully), and that outside of American aggression there is very little combat going on in this scenario - Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine, and perhaps the Koreas. Therefore, the allegiance of these cities and the political stances of each nation are of lesser importance.

Well the premise was not that it was a scenario of the US beating up on the Islamic world. But a challenge to see whether or how the rest of the world will get involved. Can attitudes be changed in the events file? Like a terrorist attack against the United States makes other nations like the Islamic civ less, and when the US takes an Islamic city they like the US less. But it depends on the city. Like if the US took Istanbul then the other countries would really hate the US, but if the US took Kabul, then they don't care as much.

The intention was to bring the political aspect into the game. As relations sour between the US and the rest of the world, could the US cross some line and actually get the world to go to war with it? Anything is possible, and thats what the scenario will draw on. Look at the huge change of attitudes toward the US in Europe between 9-11 and the Iraq war. Thats a big shift.

Anyways thats the idea. Perhaps because of the polorized world today its difficult for you guys to seperate the reality of current politics with the semi-fantasy of this scenario. This is a game. Damn near every scenario I've ever played had to bend history to make it playable. But you guys excuse it more because it happened decades or centuries ago. Since this is happening right now, perhaps that is more difficult.

I don't want this to be a traditional shoot 'em up scenario, I want it to be clever and innovative. I like the idea of having leader units that can be objectives. They could have the missle flag, so they'd have to stay within a city. So for example, Osama could hide in any Islamic city and the only way the US can win the scenario is to find that city. However attacking cities will get the world pissed off at the US and bring on a huge war it can't win. The Bush unit could be the same way, but it would have movement of 1, and couldn't go anywhere without the Airforce One unit perhaps. A state visit to another nation would improve relations dramatically, but it would put W in more danger of being attacked.

And after attacks by the US many new terrorist units are created to show the outrage on the Arab street. Only difficulty though is getting to the US. Pulling off an attack on US soil should be a key priority for the Islamics, but it would have to be difficult. I'm not sure how to do this. Also, building and transporting a nuclear weapon would be a key priority. Pakistan would have some nukes, but they'd be extremely short range. Only far enough to reach India

Maybe the great wall could be a wonder the US can build, renamed "Department of Homeland Security" which would help defend itself from terrorists, but would have a trigger of angering the US people. I like the idea of having civilian units like in the World Today scenario. Another interesting idea.

As for Iran and Iraq, of course they don't like each other, and its stupid to put them together. But thats exactly what President Bush did, they are both charter members of the "Axis of Evil" so its not my oversight its his. So assume this is from the perspective of a US neo-con or a Islamacist radical. They see the world polarized and so will the scenario.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Stefan Härtel I don't think I'm contradicting here. After all, the EU is a political fact, while a Muslim unity isn't.

More like an economical fact. Indeed the EU should be a

The nations of the EU might be disagreeing amongst themselves, but in the end, they have to find a way of working together again. This isn't so in the Muslim world.

Yes, that's true... But a scenario would mostly consist of the military and diplomatic aspects. Diplomacy is ratehr simplistic, and limited to general attitudes of the 7 leaders, so the exact composition of the different civs doesn't matter too much anyway.

As for the military aspect, while the EU might agree on one position, in practice, countries could choose not to make troops available or so.

In any case, there IS a large amount of disagreement within the EU, which leads to compromise at least. By representing the EU as one civ, there is no way you can represent this compromise.

To put it open, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the former Soviet Central Asian nations and Turkey have absolutely nothing in common,

I agree to some extent. The former Soviet states would fit better in the Russian civ, Turkey better as an EU member or US ally, and Afghanistan as barbarian or so. But I think Iran and Pakistan can safely be lumped together for the purpose of this scenario.

Let me prove you wrong here. [...]

I know plenty about history. So I'm quite aware that the Muslim world is and has been far from a united front. But apart from, say, Afghanistan, the entire Muslim world can probably be split in one or two "factions" (pro, and anti US, basically) as far as their foreign policy on the global (non-Muslim) theater is concerned.

[EZRhino]

I wonder if this thread will degenerate into a flamewar? I hope not

[Mercator]

I'm trying my best to keep the discussion limited to the context and implementation of the scenario, rather than world politics.

[Palaiologos]

I think that Pakistan is pro western now(actually i think that it was always so) after the coup. India , their main enemy, is pro Russian, so they went to the other side.

I mean look at their army: F-16s, M-16 rifle etc. It is all western based.

That is in contrast to Iran that is tottaly anti-american.

Most propably the Paqis should be US' allies while the persians belong to some anti US islamic civ group.