Just HADDA vent again
Today, I read something in the news that made me go dear lord, wish its not true. Its about USA pulling out all its military bases from Germany to sink the german economy as put eloquently by a pentagon official..
Am I the only one thinking that the wrong person in power can really use the current situation? Shesh.. get sooo frustrated over Nations political games.. sooner or later we all pay for them somehow.. =/
// Anne - Forgetting my UserId's since 1982 //
Whoa, which Penatagon official said the purpose is to hurt the German economy? Heres the story:
US considers reducing troops in Europe and S Korea
A trade ar is the last thing the US wants, tho some crack-brained politican might have impied this action was to hurt Germany - this is not the official position. There's always at least one US politician who will jump on any bandwagon with the hope it will bring them attention.
Let's keep things in pespective and resist the urge to exagerate - this will only cause more tension.
- All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke
relax m8, this is old news, they've been trying to decide how to restructure the military for a role in post cold war era for the last 6 years,,it'll prob be 3 or 4 years at least before any decision is made, and this crap will be forgotten by then.Originally Posted by [b
and remember if you see the word rep or representaive, or sen or senator in front od their names, they are politicians, and the thing thier best at is making fertilizer(bullsh*t)
So, what do you call the bombing of the nightclubs in Bali, 12th October, 2002..? That was major enough terror attack for my tastes, thank you very much.
But then again, that probably barely rated a mention in the U.S. media.
-- Elwe --
I wish for a multiplayer campaign in Rome: Total War
Actually you are wrong about that, it received quite a bit of media attention in the United States. On CNN it was non-stop coverage....
There was nothing but flowers outide the Australian consulate in NYC, placed there the day of the attack by Americans.
Fair enough, I retract the last sentence from my previous post.
It just seems like some people tend to ignore what doesn't happen in their own front yards.
For the record, I don't have anything against Americans individually, but the image portrayed of them (at least by their and our own media) as a whole does leave a lot to be desired.
Thankfully, a LOT of those misconceptions were dispelled by an excellent young man from Virginia who was studying with me at Uni for 6 months a couple of years ago.
The big point I think I'm trying to make is: a LOT of our beliefs are clouded in the portrayal of a people by our native Media.
Cheers.
-- Elwe --
I wish for a multiplayer campaign in Rome: Total War
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm
From your friendly neighborhood googler :P
Yup.. But they do hold the codes for the button. ANd they do command the army. And they do make policies. Basically, when it's powerfull, and making threatening comments, it scares me.. (not that i lose sleep over it, mind you :P)
Crusades... They should stay medieval.
Its all SH*T.....................
I've always said leave the politics out of Totalwar.
It's always been a friendly community and should remain so.......only if peeps keep the politics out of it.
Want to talk politics do it on another forum and certainly not in game.
(just my likkle point of view.....not intended to upset anyone....plz don't take offence)
JOD
Jodmeister got a good idea going on..
I just vent at the TV.. :P If ppl only knew what I say in front of it.. *lol*
// Anne - Forgetting my UserId's since 1982 //
I sometimes get that impression about Americans myself, and I have relatives in the US-NY.
I find it very puzzling, and sad that there seems to be this animosity between US/Europe.
Considering how many Americans are of European decent, and who have family in Europe that they visit/correspond with.
Also everything the US/Europe have been through together,eg.:WW1,WW2.
Makes you wonder how it got to this.
e tu Brute
I think to say there's direct animosity between Europeans and Americans is far too generalistic. Any animosity is directed at the Bush administration, not the American people. Frankly Bush, with his Christian beliefs verging dangerously on fundamentalism, is downright scary. He seems so intent simply on war with Iraq, and seems totally oblivious to the possibility that it might not be necessary.
Worse, he is determined to do so with or without UN support. Us in Europe find this extremely worrying, as it means he is essentially free to declare war with whomever he likes. Given that there has been no convincing evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Queada, this is not good. From a European perspective, Bush appears to be isolating the US and turning it into almost a rogue nation.
That said, I agree with some of Bush's policies. Certainly I don't know anyone who feels that the American people themselves aren't still allies - but Bush seems far too unstable, and that's got people seriously worried. Had it been Bill Clinton or even Al Gore calling for Saddam to be removed, I think there would be much more support.
NATO and the UN will be put through some crucial tests in the next few weeks, but I reckon they'll make it.
I too think that Bush scares people... He has quite often shown himself to be not the brightest of people, that in turn makes one wonder if other people are pulling the strings more than is really safe... Not that it is certainly like that, but the fear is there.
I have a few times now thought of a scenario that is most likely never going to happen, but nontheless it is an interesting (and downright scary) situation:
The CIA one day notices that Bin Landen and the top 5 of Al-Quada is sitting in a doubbledecker bus in Copenhagen in the rushhour. They have no chance of warning the Danish administration and the planes overhead haven't got much fuel left, so they need to deside what to do now, they know Bin Laden will wanish into the shadows again should he escape.
At times I actually come to the conclusion that the poor pilots would be ordered to attack the bus... Mostly I don't. But the simply fact that I'm doubting shows something is wrong... I was a staunch supporter of the US in Afghanistan and most other things.
The very hard line often put forth makes for a conclusion of 'rather 100 allied civilians today than 1 American tomorrow'. I would actually say 'rather 1 Dane today than 100 Americans tomorrow', not because I have greater love for Americans, but because I value the lives of allied peoples as highly as my own countrymen.
I know it is a hard statement, but that is how I at times feel, today have been one of those times. Most likely tomorrow I will look at this post and feel silly, but it doesn't change that I actually fear it is like that at times.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Here is an excellent article on the topic of why france hates the US:
I especially liked the conclusion, which i will post again for those who decide not to read the article:
Which is why, in the end, France will go along with the Bush administration on Iraq. If France vetoes a Security Council resolution, and the Bush administration goes to war anyway, France will have been proved powerless. But if it accedes to the war after demanding more evidence, it will be able to claim that it influenced American policy—whether it's true or not. Germany will likely stand on principle and oppose the war. But France would never do such a thing. As a U.N. diplomat said last week, It matters to matter for France.
This is my world
And I am
World leader pretend
sorry m8, that one slipped by me, i'll try and find the actual bill and see what it says...Quote[/b] (Ranges @ Feb. 17 2003,07:13)]http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm
From your friendly neighborhood googler :P
Yup.. But they do hold the codes for the button. ANd they do command the army. And they do make policies. Basically, when it's powerfull, and making threatening comments, it scares me.. (not that i lose sleep over it, mind you :P)
and as to those codes, i believe the only politician who has control of our wmd, is dubya, but their is dual control, he cant do it by himself, and although it's prob no comfort, not even dubya would be stupid or crazy enough to pop a nuke of, they were built for deterence, basicaly if we go, everyone gonna go,
but i will do some research on it when i get some time, cause that one gave me goose bumps...
Sorry, the url didnt seem to post correctly. Read it here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2077874/
This is my world
And I am
World leader pretend
As far as the whole french issue goes, i think the following article could prove enlightening;
http://www.opendemocracy.net/....eId=978
Please remember that in europe, even the countries supporting the war against Iraq face a majority AGAINST it if it happens without security council approval.
So in that sense, any politician in europe who supports the war is ignoring the people who voted for him. Many leaders are not willing to do this.
(oh, with a security council resolution, there would be a LOT more support).
Crusades... They should stay medieval.
An interesting article (IMO) from The Economist. For your reading enjoyment.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/di...ory_id=1592571
Old America vs New Europe
Best regards,
Louis,
Well, here in Latinamerica we can tell you what happened with the brutal dictators supported by USA during 20th century. The excuse was then la amenaza comunista (the red menace or communist threat, i don't know how it was in english) and only in my country 30000 were tortured and killed.
We could discuss in terms of strategy why Bush wants to invade (and occupate) Irak, but please don't come with the fight for freedom and war against terrorism tales. That's only slogans to american public opinion.
Why Bush wants to occupate Irak? USA economy depends on oil like no other economy in the world, like human body depends on blood, and USA wants to ensure his oil provision for a long time. And seeing from this (synthetic) point of view, his decission is less controversial (plenty of us would do the same in his place) but he (or you) will never convince us of the America's good intentions (we already suffered them).
Why France defends Saddam? because they do have oil contracts with him. A good reason as well.
I don't have a lot to say about this subject and that is because no matter where you go or who you meet there will always be people that dont get along whether they be americans/americans, British/British, americans/british, etc. Take the government and ideology out of the discourse and more probably get along than not. Personally, I think the British are more tolerant than the americans. I've talked and shared battles and conversation with some of the nicest people on-line truly nicer and seemingly more genuine than at home. I think it still comes down to how you were brought up, and how your parents percieved the world and people in general. Longer than I wanted it to be
and its just how I would like my children to carry on and if they do I will count myself a lucky individual.
Gareth
Imagine this sentence in a different forum with the same thread
Well maybe the reason other countries dont think America considers their opinion, is that it doesnt matter. as the big fish in the pond, everyone hates us (the US govt that is) no matter what we do. We want to get involved (Afghan, Iraq) we're villified, we want to stay out (Kosovo, some places in africa) we're villified, we give tons of aid (public and private) we're meddling, we decline to do so we're heartless. Maybe if Europe (govts) took on some of the responsbility they could get this special (note sarcasm) treatment too. If we back down here and go along with France saying Saddam's a great guy, let him keep what he's clearly hiding, the first time saddam sends a bio weapon into israel or iran guess whose fault it will be?
So who gives a Sh**. The muslims despise us no matter what we do. (a bit off subject: How did the israel-palestine deal become the US's fault? i dont recall us being around when muhammed took over the holy lands, during the Crusades or even much involved when country of israel formed.)
Personally i think we should take saddam out, 12 years should have been enough time, whats 4 months gonna do? to paraphrase the Clash, Guns of Brixton, i dont want to go out with my hands on my head but rather on the trigger of a gun.
Well, it doesn't matter is somewhat a problem : you decide for everyone. There has been criticism in other drisis, but never real opposition. Success has not always been there, but USa have applied their plans without true opposition - because there was a basis on their acts.
This time, the opposition is real. Why? Hey, because we are still seeking for a legitimate reason to ATTACK. There are legitimate reasons to watch out, contain, inspect & disarm. But we have yet to find a reason to attack. In Afghanistan, Ben Laden was hiding - and he probably(still not proved, but probable) led massive terrorists attacks. In Kosovo, Serbs were leading attacks(even if their size was smaller than described). & so on.....
Last Saddam's offensive action dates back from 1990, and he's already been punished for that. Not enough? Maybe. But legitimate defence is long gone. So is legtimate reason to engage forces. Remember colonial times, and errors we old Europeans did : everytime we conquered a country to democratize it, it ended very bad. We have done these errors several times. We advise you not to do the same huge kind of mistakes. You have been warned.
Side note : if there is effectively war, You can count on France. We don't want it, but won't let our allies fight alone.(ahem, if socialists were in the gov, I wouldn't bet...)
War is not about who is right, only about who is left
Having a point of view upon everything is good
Having a view upon every point is better
US and European difference is likely to survive this conflict. I think the US is more likely to consider using force as a mean of solving international problems than Europeans because of capabilities and historical developments. Europeans have found success in peaceful integration (not quite yet) after hundreds years of fighting, which supplies us with material for this game. However, the world in general, I believe, is not as willing to sit down and negotiate through conflicts as the European did after WWII. Americans had supplied the force for the last fifty years and are used to projecting power.
As a person on the left, I find myself not in disagreement with W's foreign policies. However, what he says is terrible. It is like the reverse of Speak softly and carry a big stick. And the trading of insults between US and European leaders resembles bickering over who's dad is richer at your local prep school.
However, Jacque Chirac is also without blame. The French has carried the anti-US sentiments because they resent their loss of power in international affairs. It's just as arrogant for Chirac to lecture the new NATO nations as GW Bush telling UN to grow a backbone.
It's our misfortune that we have elected politicians with small brains, but big egos.
I'm probably going to cancel my trip to Europe because of the brewing storm. France was a big part of the trip but they have me so ticked off right now, that I don't want to spend any money or time there, nor do I want to put up with their attitude. Too bad, because I was really looking forward to working on my language skills. Chirac's indignant statements against incoming EU members was particularly comical, ironic, arrogant, and self defeating all at the same time. US opinion against France has reached levels I could not have imagined, and while I have been a Francophile in the past, the spell is now broken.
George W. isn't real bright, doesn't understand much about economics, business, the environment, or international relations; but he is right about Iraq. (Too bad his father failed so miserably to complete the victory of the first war by seeking to keep the status quo and thereby satisfying the Arabs, Turkey, and Russia.) The French, German, and Russian leaders know it would be in the best interest of the world to end Saddam's rule, but it is in their best interest to be jerks about it if they can weaken the US in the process.
Bush senior fumbled by not threatening the Serbs early. Everyone with any sense knew Europe would follow its traditional pacifist course and let Serb nationalism turn into a blood bath, unless the US made some serious threats and took action if needed. Ironically, Clinton finally stopped the bloodshed, although I thought we might have to polish off some of the so-called Russian peacekeepers before it was said and done.
We are going to be cleaning up Russian messes for a long time. Afghanistan was one. Serbia was another. Chechnya is one that is effecting us now (Russians were fools to go in the first time and should have realized where it would lead. However, they didn't really have any choice about going in the 2nd time.)
Have to admire Blair's foresight on 9/11. The speech he made that day had a Winston Churchill quality about it. That speech was truly appreciated by people in the US and has greatly renewed our respect for the UK.
It would be good if the leaders of the free world could learn when to do the right thing rather than just what makes their electorate or national pocketbook happy. (Bush is definitely included among this list.) This war is not particularly popular in the US and most of us think it will cost us a fortune, but after 9/11, WE as a people do believe it is necessary and unavoidable. Perhaps, one day, a powerful EU will deal with messes like this, and we won't have to send our troops to do it. Yeah...right...and by the time that happens Hell will be a skating rink with flying pigs overhead.
Next up, what to do about those crazy friggin' North Koreans.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
why MTW is great. because i was feeling real angry yesterday (see my post in this thread) so i continued with my campaign last night particularly continuing in my replay of the Reconquista and i get a smashing defeat over the almohads in Cordoba killing Prince Idris in the process. I feel better already. one comment on the remark that there is no need to attack because saddam hasnt shown agression (thats debatable) but assuming thats true, do we have to wait until he does something horrible? (oh look there goes some terrorists with bombs onto a plane, but we have to wait til they blow it up before we arrest them). But i'm feeling nicer today so i would say that my comments were directed to govts not people, i've traveled in europe many times, particularly France even speak a bit of French, and found the people to be as nice as anywhere (and the food and drink fantastic) i have no intention of changing my plans on going to italy this spring (umbria's gotta be safer from terrorists than Washington). as for argentina, obviously the US made huge mistakes in the past, i hope we've learned from them but that doesnt mean we should sit around and never do anything. Afghanistan seems to be working, though a long process, we are not propping up a dictator just trying to provide an environment where the people can decide for themselves. they've gotta be better off than with the taliban, at least 50% of them (the women) certainly are. anyway, maybe i'll take grenada tonight and feel even better, but those AUM's are tough.
When did Chirac say Saddam is a nice guy?
The reason the Europeans are against the war isn`t that we think Saddam is alright. Yes, Saddam has attacked other countries (that are quiet as totalitarian as his), he has used WMD and killed many thousands of people. Nobody doubts that. But an attack would only then be justified when we would know that he still has WMD. Maybe he has, but we have inspections there to find it out and the US-gov failed to proof the Iraq sabotages the inspections in a serious way. But as things are going I`m about to change my mind over the war. For a simple reason: when G.W. Bush says he`s going out of patience, that means nothing to me; when Hans Blix says he`s going out of patience, that means a lot.
Saturnus,
No disrespect to you personally at all. I'm just glad that we both live in countries that allow us the freedom to disagree. This avenue is not open to the inhabitants of those countries over whom we seem to be having a disagreement. I remember the same sort of discussions about Iraq the first time around, and about Serbia, and about Afghanistan. I'm sure the U.S. was wrong then as well...
I cannot agree that it makes any sense to allow ruthless nutcases like Saddam to continue their weapons and arms programs when they have a history of gassing the cities of their own Kurdish population, gassing their neighbor, trying to produce nuclear weapons, trying to cause environmental catastrophe and attacking their neighbors in pure land/oil grabs. Arms inspectors were never really necessary anyway, he has remained out of compliance throughout the peace. No one is really in doubt of the man's intentions, and his failure to produce ANY hard evidence of dismantlement, coupled with over a decade of dancing around silly weapons inspections programs without teeth. I'm only sorry that France, Belgium, and Germany seem to have lost their collective common sense in this matter. Hint: when you are allied with a ruthless military dictator vs. other democracies who have liberated your soil from the same such in the past, you might want to reconsider your position. Enough, we have no interest in continually playing foolish games with this madman any while the above patiently wait for him to hit someone with a banned weapons system AGAIN. Too bad if it does cost the above a few lucrative contracts.
If someone slits a man's throat with a knife, is apprehended, convicted, and later paroled, then violates his parole at every turn and occasionally takes a swing at this parole officer, do you: a) wait for him to kill again? b) force the parole officer to produce greater and greater levels of evidence ALL without action? or c) lock him back up and throw away the key?
Military aggressors and bullies only understand one thing, FORCE. You can't appease them and you can't just live with them (unless you want to be run by them.) History is the best teacher in this regard. Those that forget history are bound to repeat it.
With some luck the Kurds will finally get their homeland this time around (although it might take another two decades to get actual full autonomy.)
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
By giving the Kurds a homeland you will create (or increase) a new (or an existing) issue which IMO is far worse than a powermonger down in Iraq. Im sure you know that Turkey also has a quite rebellious Kurdish Minority.
Could turn middle east further towards ex-Yugoslavia by removing hussein while not thinking of long term consequences. A dictator, no matter how vile, is IMO more preferable than the chaos of a civil war spreading across some countries.
Also by your post it seems like if you have a conflicting opinion than the states you are an very enthusiastic supporter of their 'enemy' and staunch ally? Right
*wonders when the states will start disarming*
Red Harvest, so the weapon inspections weren`t necessary from the beginning? I definitely disagree with that. If there were a way to remove Saddam and replace him with a democratic ruler, I wouldn`t wait a second to support any such action, but that`s unfortunately not the case. Before I support a war I like to know what threats are really there. And the inspectors did good work in the last years. They have found a lot of evidence that Iraq has disarmed, so when you say we know Irag has WMDs it`s just a dogma. Otherwise, proof it.
the reason why they say they know he has wmd, because when the inspectors left 4 years ago, their were still a lot of biological and chemical agents unaccounted for. now 4 years later saddam says, well we destroyed them and expects us to take his word. IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILTY TO PROVE HE DISARMED not the other way around. when he signes the peace treaty that ended the gulf war, he admitted guilt and was bound to prove he rid himself of them..
the ispectors did do good work the first time around, they just got tired of having to jump through hoops to get them, and all of these former weapons inspectors are all saying the same things.. that saddam still has them, their still hiding them, etc, etc. and no offense i think they'd know more about it than the current weapons inspectors, seeing as the current ones have been on the job for 4 months and are already getting frustrated. whereas the first group went through what 5 or 6 years of this crap. saddam has had 12 years to dissarm, and prove he destroyed his wmd.. well people just got tired of waiting, and the only reason hes being coooperative right now, is becasue hes staring down the barrel of a couple hundred abrahms tanks, and about 200,000 us/uk troops, and hes their main focus. if they werent their i doubt he'd even be trying to entertain the inspectors, and thats all hes doing is entertaining them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks