Is the game still in development?

Wow. Woooow. You are the absolute master at making people sound like somebody you can put down, just so you can subsequently put them down.

I never said I felt tricked. Where did I say I ever believed a word that came out of GWB/American media/British media/Michael Moore/TAKEYOURPICK? You assume so much. A few people here asked why the world is so anti-America, I simply explain why, and now your at my throat for answering their questions? The world is pissed because the White House likes to go to war based on lies. Whether me/you/he/they believed them at the time is moot.

I'm trying to tell you that if the world is taking itself seriously in beleving any of this instead of understanding that all of the rhetoric and ideology you're spewing is part of a giant political 'doth protest too much' contest on the part of the Amerycan party system, then the worlds opinion is stupid and no intelligent American should be required to respect or feel badly about it.

I think everyone was hoping you'd have some new insight on the topic, given the vaugeness of your original post -- instead you started ranting about Iraq and George Bush looking like an idiot... and there's nothing for us there but a chance to ridicule.

Hell, the irony is I totally agree with what you said, other than your ridiculous pigeonholing of me as some kinda hippie democrat anti-war iraqi student,.

Hehe, there you go again -- that's the foreign bias we've been talking about.

Somehow everyone on the internet has diverged from reality and decided to see the Democrats as some amazing anti-war bastion. That would be the same party who involved the United States in World War I, World War II, Vietnam, the Mexican War and (arguably) the Civil War.

No thinking person would assosciate the Democrats with anti-war sentiments... but everyone on the internet does. Why? Because that's how *politics* works -- the party that's not in power has to disagree with the one that is at every turn. The error you are all making is in thinking that political rhetoric means anything.

Again, I never claimed to be a crusader. Why are you telling me I think I am something I am not? Because it makes you look more intelligent? Not in my eyes. It makes your style of argument weak - if you could stick to the point without jumping on people's backs for fictional reasons then perhaps you'd win some of these debates without them getting heated. (Not that this is heated, but a number of discussions involving you seem to get pretty heated.)

Hurrah, attacking the argument instead of making a point - one of those brilliant neologisms that those who enter into such arguments unarmed on the internet have developed.

First of all, restating the previous posters comments as you see them is an absolutely necessary thing to do in any debate; whether or not you agree with how I believe you've been portrayed is up to you - but there's no getting out of the sheer necessity of such an element in an argument (even when, perhaps as in this case, that such a statement is a rhetorical tool).

Second -- my 'style of argument'? Lets be straight here - one argument in a thousand will end in the other side 'giving up'. A thread like this is all about convincing *other* people that I'm right - and my style of argument is very, very well attuned to doing that. It should be my goal to see such a debate become "heated", because it means that I've argued my point so well that the other party has decided to yell and scream instead of responding.

(As for 'style' and the idea of personal attacks or using someones words to misrepresent them as being negative, I view this as another silly internet trend -- look at any of the great debates of history. How much of your own Milton's Second Defense is dedicated to attacking and demonizing people who've criticized him? The modern 'play fair by this set of strange rules or I'll call you on it!' style of internet debate is an abherration that won't stand the test of time.)

More like the opposite - the world is pissed because America likes to go to war too often, and can (basically, IMO, it's the "and can" portion that unsettles people).

The United States has been the unquestioned world power for half a century or more -- there has never been any question in our lifetimes that the United States can pursue any military goal it wishes.

This is so incredibly vauge, though -- what's "too often"? One more time than everyone else did? Iraq once, okay, Somalia, okay, Kosovo, okay, Afghanistan, okay... IRAQ AGAIN?! NO! TOO MANY! TOO MANY!

Add that to the threats made after 9/11 about "you're either with us or against us". Now, that makes Bush seem idiotic: that's not the way a president should speak in international matters, that's looking for trouble. Even if you think so, you can't say that - it makes countries that are not on the invade list think that by even looking at the US in the wrong way they could get in it.

I disagree on a purely historical level - strong nationalistic speeches are the mark of a very strong presidency: asking not what you can do for your country, a day that shall live in infamy, facing the evil empire, the world can never forget what they did here, etc., etc. All the great speeches are like this -- picking one and suddenly being offended by it is silly, and is wholly the result of it being an issue that the internal political debate in the US focused on.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
This is so incredibly vauge, though -- what's "too often"? One more time than everyone else did? Iraq once, okay, Somalia, okay, Kosovo, okay, Afghanistan, okay... IRAQ AGAIN?! NO! TOO MANY! TOO MANY!
Yes, it is vague.
But, trying to make it less vague, I could say that you would have to compare how many times has the US started a war against that same figure applied to other countries. You do the math, I'm not well informed. But... have in mind that what matters is what uninformed people think of, since the majority of people is made up from uninformed individuals. So, finally, whatever the real numbers are, I could say that it all boils down to publicity: the US army gets a lot of publicity whenever it gets involved in something. That makes the US seem belicious to other people, with US actions never aiming to actually defend itself from invasion, rather the opposite, invading other countries.



Bandit LOAF said:
I disagree on a purely historical level - strong nationalistic speeches are the mark of a very strong presidency: asking not what you can do for your country, a day that shall live in infamy, facing the evil empire, the world can never forget what they did here, etc., etc. All the great speeches are like this -- picking one and suddenly being offended by it is silly, and is wholly the result of it being an issue that the internal political debate in the US focused on.
That would be ok if you were talking to your own people... but if you're talking to foreigners, the tone goes from motivational to threatening: "What can you do for me? Because if you do nothing, you're my enemy and I'll invade."... it's not "What can you do for us?" (see? for foreigners, the "us" becomes "me" - Bush's idiocy, as stated, lies in using the same speech he'd use for internal affairs for international affairs).
And if you try telling me what he said he did so in an internal debate, then instead the idiocy lies in not recognizing that, with a globalized society, that debate will reach international ears and it will damage its country's image nonetheless.

Well, unless he doesn't care about his country's image, in which case the idiocy (or rather arrogance) lies in that.

In any case, that use of language was not wise.

Note: I wouldn't use idiocy that much if it weren't to make reference to earlier posts... I would use lack of wisdom - a less severe attribute.

And... I didn't know it had been given so much attention internally, so that's not a factor I was considering if it did exist - it was given much more attention internationally.
 
klauss said:
Well, unless he doesn't care about his country's image, in which case the idiocy (or rather arrogance) lies in that.
International diplomacy is not a popularity contest - it's a power contest. A great image isn't as useful or easy to maintain as a powerful army.

Any faggy she-nation who actually tried it your way would be swallowed up by a neighbor within a decade. And the populace would probably rejoice for it. Only a total idiot would believe it's wise to pursue national defense in the same manner as yearbook superlatives.

Grow up.
 
Frosty: I'll say only that you're underestimating the power of alliances. In fact, LOAF feel free to correct me, but no empire has ever stood up to the challenge of having everyone as an enemy.
 
klauss said:
Frosty: I'll say only that you're underestimating the power of alliances. In fact, LOAF feel free to correct me, but no empire has ever stood up to the challenge of having everyone as an enemy.

England did a pretty good job of it. Also Rome, right up until the very end there.

Edit: Oh right, I forgot to mention that every other major nation of the world has started many more wars than the US.
 
Yes, it is vague.
But, trying to make it less vague, I could say that you would have to compare how many times has the US started a war against that same figure applied to other countries. You do the math, I'm not well informed. But... have in mind that what matters is what uninformed people think of, since the majority of people is made up from uninformed individuals. So, finally, whatever the real numbers are, I could say that it all boils down to publicity: the US army gets a lot of publicity whenever it gets involved in something. That makes the US seem belicious to other people, with US actions never aiming to actually defend itself from invasion, rather the opposite, invading other countries.

I think that were you to actually do the math you'd come up with a very unsatisfactory answer -- the other western nations all have literally centuries of warfare in their histories... the United States is a comparatively young nation that in its history has often flirted with isolationism. We think of America as being a great, world policing nation today... but it was actually dragged kicking and screaming from an isolationist policy into the two World Wars that gave it that status.

That would be ok if you were talking to your own people... but if you're talking to foreigners, the tone goes from motivational to threatening: "What can you do for me? Because if you do nothing, you're my enemy and I'll invade."... it's not "What can you do for us?" (see? for foreigners, the "us" becomes "me" - Bush's idiocy, as stated, lies in using the same speech he'd use for internal affairs for international affairs).
And if you try telling me what he said he did so in an internal debate, then instead the idiocy lies in not recognizing that, with a globalized society, that debate will reach international ears and it will damage its country's image nonetheless.

With all due respect, you're referring to a State of the Union address to the Congress - there is no type of presidential speech that could be in either form or in function *less* for other countries than that.

You're also ignoring the context alltogether - Mr. Bush was trying to reassure a very worried country after the terrorist attacks... he wasn't trying to make friends with South America.

Frosty: I'll say only that you're underestimating the power of alliances. In fact, LOAF feel free to correct me, but no empire has ever stood up to the challenge of having everyone as an enemy.

Well, England is the best example, as Halman already pointed out. There were various points in history when England had the whole of the continent after it... the natural geographic isolation of the British Isles meant that winning a war of conquest against England was very, very difficult.

And in all honesty, the United States is very much England writ large in this sense.

It's incredibly isolated in terms of location -- there's a reason that very few wars have been fought on American soil... there's no agressor capable of that kind of force projection. Even the Revolution and the War of 1812, fought against the 18th century equivalent of a superpower, ended with American victories because pursuing the war was just too difficult for England. There's a famous Lincoln quote, part of one of those Nationalistic speeches from earlier, that sticks in my head about this: "All the armies of Europe and Asia could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. " It's really the same today. For all the claims of the million man Chinese army, it's absolutely not a threat to the United States because there's no lifting capacity at all.

It's interesting to think - but also true - that all foreign policy is engaged in under what is essentially a completely unparalleled American nuclear umbrella. In that sense, almost everything is a game to the US -- in a serious conflict, the United States literally does have the option of destroying the rest of the world in fifteen minutes.

No other country can do this; all the talk about nuclear non-proliferation and the threat of Country X, Y and Z developing nuclear weapons is completely separate from the United States' ability. If North Korea starts building nuclear weapons, the unstated fear is that they can hit Japan and South Korea -- without the far more advanced ability to build and fire ICBMs, that not even the Soviets really perfected, no in is a practical threat to the United States.

It's the fact that my country has this amazing, terrifying ability but does not ever rely on it that makes me trust America all the more.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
This couldn't be further from the truth. The *reason* you think this is true, as we've already talked about, is specifically because of the *American* media and opposition have the freedom to tell you that.

You think in a very narrow way about what makes a countr a free country. (BTW, I never wanted to say that the US are no free country, they sure are). Do you know about the concept of polyarchy (not sure about the expression in english. It's a term you use in political sience when you talk about states, which would be called democracies in popular language. Democracy itself is an Ideal that never will be reached. In every politcal system there are certain defects that take them more or less away from this ideal. What you do above is this: You say: Because our media and our opposition are free to put the finger on the problems in our political system we don't have a problem. There is a famous study by two american sientists about democracies in the the 50ies and 60ies. It's called "The Civic Culture". In this study germany ranks pretty poor. yet, allready in this time germany had a full developped system of checks and balances, a working opoosition and free media. the problem was the people. they were still in this "I am nothing more than a subject thinking and I'll do what they say".
As I said, I don't argue taht the problem with defects in the political system is an american problem, but it is a problem inherent to all political systems.


BanditLoaf said:
If you're basing your opinion of what you heard children on the internet complain about on the internet, then you're going about this wrong. My (the royal my, that of Americans) opinion of France isn't based on seeing that there's a riot there on the news, my opinion of Germany isn't based on reading about how video games are edited for content.

I can ensure you that not one of my posts (except the posts about WC) is based on internetknowledge or knowlegde from newspapers or something. But the matter we are discussing here could be easyly discussed in very long papers and I try to keep it short. By the way, I posted the US Patriot Act to illustrate what I'm talking about. The original URL is un the upper line of the doc.

EDIT: Couldn't upload it, it's too big. But here is the link:
from: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c107:./temp/~c107xGC3jY on: 21:47 27.2.05

Our pal charlieg makes the same mistake - you're putting yourself in the middle of an internal debate that isn't important at all. Why do you read about Bush being an evil tyrant and Iraq is a horrible mess? Are the American people ready to rise up? Do people actually believe these things in the US? Of course not -- the whole point of any of that is that someone who isn't Bush would like to be president next time around, and part of doing that means showing that their party disagrees with everything the Republicans do.

You are sure right this is a popular discussion. But there is some importance in it, not such grave importance as your examples suggested but it's interting in order to learn about the behavior of people in democracies and about how different democratic systems work. I guess the misstake I made was this: I study political science and american literature (I do know my english is lousy, no need to point this out ;) ) and I have a professional interst on this topic.... aditional... I really enjoy internet discussions because they are fats and well structured by nature.
I guess the little stuff i'm intersted in is taken here to make a big deal out of things... I'm sorry for this.

You must have the same concept in Germany - the party that isn't in power is obligated to force criticism of the one that is wherever possible. The difference is that in other countries you don't have Americans seeing the scale of the thing and assuming there's actually some grand battle between good and evil going on.

I guess this is our strcutural defect. That not one constitutional body controlls the other ones.But that the parties are in charge to controll each other.

You're seeing words like 'tyrant' and 'oppresive' because they're negative buzzwords -- not because anyone believes that a legitimately elected president serving his Constitutionally mandated term is a terrible dictator, or that the government is actually going to start censoring everything because it's a theoretical possibility that such a law could be passed when one party controls the legislature and the executive branch. (Well, okay, American teenagers probably believe this - but only because they read it in the same place you have and also have no concept of what oppression or a tyrant is.)

I never said something like and I never would. It's silly. Easiest counterevidence is that he can't be elected a third time.
It's true there is a huge gap between political reality and it's interpretation. But I guess it's better to know about the gap than to try to choose sides.

Wing Commander is the *Pacific* theater of World War II in space.

The war begins when the Kilrathi - the Japanese in space, complete with their own Bushido honor code - launch a sneak attack on the Terran Confederation. The entire makeup of the games is built as an analogue for the 'island hopping' campaigns -- you fight for one system after another until you get close to the enemy homeland.

(... and then, of course, the war ends when you drop the secretly developed "t-bomb" on the enemy home planet, forcing him to surrender.)

Ah,... when I think about wwii i think about europe. But hey, as an excuse, I'm german... It's hard enough to deal with our own history in this point...


The complaint people (and don't confuse people with me) have with the "AWACS" plot is that it's incredibly contrived, not that it's some kind of continuity error.

But then they should say: "Work it out or take it out" and not just "take it out, you can't do this"
 
Halman said:
England did a pretty good job of it. Also Rome, right up until the very end there.

Edit: Oh right, I forgot to mention that every other major nation of the world has started many more wars than the US.
Great argument. Let's argue about a country with a history of a few hundred years compared to others with histories of thousands of years. That's really relative.
 
Master Wooky said:
Says nothing about Iraq. But in combination with Iraq it might explain why people from all over the world perceive the US as they do.
But I don't think any Americans of any reasonable intellect and education really wonder about that, because it's obvious. The issue is whether it's reasoned well, and I don't believe it to be.
 
Well... I wouldn't take the Rome example seriously, because it did fall in the end.
But England is a good one... I stand corrected.

Anyway, still, that's overestimating the power of armies. Yes, the US could destroy the whole world, and that is one thing preocupying people: noone should have that power - hey, the Americans say that from time to time, but their "noone" means "noone else". Well... those who don't have that power (everyone else), when they say "noone", they mean it.

But, in any practical sitation of the modern world, like economic and electronic warfare, an army is less than useful. Destroying the whole world isn't useful.

Take a look at Iraq... after occupying it, did they accomplish anything? (I'm actually asking - was there any economic benefit from the occupation, which is what the US was seeking out?) Well... it's probably too early to answer propperly... it should be answered 10 or 20 years from now.


And about America's unwlilingness to use its power to destroy the entire world (or the entire opposition) proving it's trustworty, well, that's an overstatement. That someone didn't do something yet doesn't prove that he won't do it ever, or that he's unwilling to do it. And... that kind of fate is not to be left to just faith in America's integrity. Mostly since the prevalent idea that "the US can invade whoever they want, and they do it" is contrary to the former idea.
 
You think in a very narrow way about what makes a countr a free country. (BTW, I never wanted to say that the US are no free country, they sure are). Do you know about the concept of polyarchy (not sure about the expression in english. It's a term you use in political sience when you talk about states, which would be called democracies in popular language. Democracy itself is an Ideal that never will be reached. In every politcal system there are certain defects that take them more or less away from this ideal. What you do above is this: You say: Because our media and our opposition are free to put the finger on the problems in our political system we don't have a problem. There is a famous study by two american sientists about democracies in the the 50ies and 60ies. It's called "The Civic Culture". In this study germany ranks pretty poor. yet, allready in this time germany had a full developped system of checks and balances, a working opoosition and free media. the problem was the people. they were still in this "I am nothing more than a subject thinking and I'll do what they say".
As I said, I don't argue taht the problem with defects in the political system is an american problem, but it is a problem inherent to all political systems.

I don't think I've talked about what I think makes a country free -- I pointed out that one particular example because it was part of our argument and it showed an amount of freedom. Freedom of the press is certainly not the end all mark of freedom -- but the United States has certainly taken that particular aspect of common law to heart (although, really, the issue here is omnisciousness of the press).

I haven't taken a political science class in a long, long time, but I seem to recall polyarchy is some form of measure based on a societal attributes -- free press, sufferage, representation of elections and such. Is that right?

An aside, I don't think people in Europe appreciate how bland the American political spectrum is. You have people in Europe whose opinions run the gamut -- there are 'far right' supporters (or left, I know some countries switch them) who will actually advocate dictatorship and there are far left beleivers who'd advocate putting down government all together.

In the United States we don't have this *at all*. The political spectrum is much, much, much narrower -- and I wonder if the rest of the world doesn't understand that. The actual difference between an Republican and a Democrat is how his party tells him to vote on a few symbolic issues and nothing more. The rest of the world sees our political battles, assigns how the system works in their own country and takes it as some kind of epic battle that doesn't exist.

When Americans complain about someone being "far right", it means they're a few centimeters right of the center -- you find a lot more variety in other countries, and I think a lot of the misunderstanding regarding what's going on in the US comes from this.

I can ensure you that not one of my posts (except the posts about WC) is based on internetknowledge or knowlegde from newspapers or something. But the matter we are discussing here could be easyly discussed in very long papers and I try to keep it short. By the way, I posted the US Patriot Act to illustrate what I'm talking about. The original URL is un the upper line of the doc.

USA PATRIOT act -- it's an acronym.

Again, though, this is part of the everyday American system that for some reason the media (and then by extension the world) decided to pick out. They're opening up the body, ripping out the liver and calling it disgusting. Duh.

The Congress can pass any law it wants -- and it does. The legislature is not required to determine the constitutionality or the appropriateness of a law by itself. The system doesn't end when the president signs something into law -- it's the ordinary duty/job of the court to declare bad laws unconstitutional.

Note that this is exactly what is happening with the internet-vaunted Patriot act -- more and more parts of it are going to the Supreme Court, and the court is ruling on whether or not they're constitutional (some are, some aren't). *That's* how the system works, and it is working.

The purpose of the American media complaining about a bad law isn't to say that the coutnry is doing something awful -- it's because the electioneering system in the US involve attaching names to bills when yuo're campaigning. So and so voted for {X bad law}!

I guess this is our strcutural defect. That not one constitutional body controlls the other ones.But that the parties are in charge to controll each other.

I'm talking about political parties, not parts of the government.

You are sure right this is a popular discussion. But there is some importance in it, not such grave importance as your examples suggested but it's interting in order to learn about the behavior of people in democracies and about how different democratic systems work. I guess the misstake I made was this: I study political science and american literature (I do know my english is lousy, no need to point this out ) and I have a professional interst on this topic.... aditional... I really enjoy internet discussions because they are fats and well structured by nature.
I guess the little stuff i'm intersted in is taken here to make a big deal out of things... I'm sorry for this.

Your English is fine -- besides, there's a big difference between studying Literature and being able to interact with the language. I have an English Lit degree myself, and I couldn't teach grammar to save my life.

But then they should say: "Work it out or take it out" and not just "take it out, you can't do this"

As far as I know, no one here has talked about it outside this thread -- I certainly haven't... so, I'm not sure if we can ascribe some kind of royal decision regarding that element it as coming from anywhere but your own Vega Strike forums.

Great argument. Let's argue about a country with a history of a few hundred years compared to others with histories of thousands of years. That's really relative.

Halman was answering a question Klaus asked about history, he's not arguing anything.



Anyway, still, that's overestimating the power of armies. Yes, the US could destroy the whole world, and that is one thing preocupying people: noone should have that power - hey, the Americans say that from time to time, but their "noone" means "noone else". Well... those who don't have that power (everyone else), when they say "noone", they mean it.

But, in any practical sitation of the modern world, like economic and electronic warfare, an army is less than useful. Destroying the whole world isn't useful.

I think it's more complex than this -- America's unique nuclear perspective has lead to a lot of things... not the least of them, a certain guilt about the technology. If North Korea drops the bomb, it's a straight shot through history back to the fact that the United States created the thing in the first place (and allowed the Soviets to copy it).

As I mentioned earlier, vis a vis ICBMs, it doesn't matter to the *United States* in a practical sense whether or not every rogue country in the world gets their own nuclear warhead -- they will never have the capacity to launch a missile attack on the US. There's something more to it, which is where America's belief (and lets be fair, the rest of the worlds frequent claim) that it should police the world comes from.

Take a look at Iraq... after occupying it, did they accomplish anything? (I'm actually asking - was there any economic benefit from the occupation, which is what the US was seeking out?) Well... it's probably too early to answer propperly... it should be answered 10 or 20 years from now.

Well, there's your problem right there -- the claim that the US was looking for an economic benefit isn't a given. Rather, it's a cheap criticism that

For all the ranting and raving that the opposition does about America going to Iraq for oil, there was no practical way for the country to *ever* do that.

The US has spent billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq -- but it's not getting that money back. It's the Iraqis who are going to be able to sell and profit from their oil, not some kind of fictional American Empire.

The United States went to Iraq for several reasons, but economics wasn't one of them. A ground war in 2005 is not the economic boost it was in 1940. When the US went to war with Germany and Japan it meant that an entire war industry was created -- but that doesn't happen during a tiny little war today. There's no call for troops (the US has a modern volunteer army), there's no building of new weapons, there's no technological advances made to help win the conflict. For all the arguing about Halliburton and a war for oil, the Iraq war is and always was going to be a huge economic loss.

Rather, the country went to war (well, define war) for several reasons, completely separate from the 'war for oil versus weapons of mass destruction' debate that everyone pretends to have:

* To destabilize the region and create an American military presence. The United States invaded Iraq as a "check" on countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, etc. These countries were all 'off limits' no matter what their involvement in recent terrorism. By nature of its previous relationship with the United States, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not -- the country took advantage of this fact, and can now garrison all the military power it wants right in the center of Middle East.

* Revenge. Iraq probably wasn't involved in the September 11th attacks -- but the individual hijackers did claim that the United States' 1990 war was American's big offense against them. It was a supremely satisfying move to the American populace on the part of the executive to invade Iraq. There was also a necessity here -- the US needed to respond to the terrorist attacks in a visible, military way... Afghanistan worked great, Iraq was the next logical choice. Iraq was the 'safe' target - because from the perspective of American politicians, it was an old enemy *and* a legitimate reason to put down a terrible dictator.

* Guilt/political necessity. Anyone who tells you they're shocked that Mr. Bush invaded Iraq is either a liar or an idiot - it was a given the day we voted him into office. What was the *one* thing that his father did that gained him immense popular support? The Persian Guilf War. In eight years Hussein had remained the boogeyman, and we had gone on to harshly criticize the original PResident Bush for 'abandoning' Iraq at the eleventh hour... and then President Clinton for his indecisive handling of the situation (lots of bombing raids, nothing more over two terms). When you elected George W. Bush, the *one thing* you knew about him was that he was going to 'finish' the job in Iraq.

And about America's unwlilingness to use its power to destroy the entire world (or the entire opposition) proving it's trustworty, well, that's an overstatement. That someone didn't do something yet doesn't prove that he won't do it ever, or that he's unwilling to do it. And... that kind of fate is not to be left to just faith in America's integrity. Mostly since the prevalent idea that "the US can invade whoever they want, and they do it" is contrary to the former idea.

Can they? Because there's lots of countries we'd like to invade but can't for political reasons -- places like Iran, North Korea or Saudi Arabia. Iraq was the 'safe choice' -- the rest of the world just got stuck thinking it was impo rtant to what's essentially an internal debate.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
As far as I know, no one here has talked about it outside this thread -- I certainly haven't... so, I'm not sure if we can ascribe some kind of royal decision regarding that element it as coming from anywhere but your own Vega Strike forums.
Yes, this was in VegaStrike's forums.

Bandit LOAF said:
For all the ranting and raving that the opposition does about America going to Iraq for oil, there was no practical way for the country to *ever* do that.
I'm not talking about oil...

Bandit LOAF said:
* To destabilize the region and create an American military presence. The United States invaded Iraq as a "check" on countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, etc. These countries were all 'off limits' no matter what their involvement in recent terrorism. By nature of its previous relationship with the United States, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not -- the country took advantage of this fact, and can now garrison all the military power it wants right in the center of Middle East.
I think so myself... but there's an added reason I've suspected (yep, sorry for stating this suspicion as if it were a fact - I should have thought twice)

Bandit LOAF said:
* Revenge. Iraq probably wasn't involved in the September 11th attacks -- but the individual hijackers did claim that the United States' 1990 war was American's big offense against them. It was a supremely satisfying move to the American populace on the part of the executive to invade Iraq. There was also a necessity here -- the US needed to respond to the terrorist attacks in a visible, military way... Afghanistan worked great, Iraq was the next logical choice. Iraq was the 'safe' target - because from the perspective of American politicians, it was an old enemy *and* a legitimate reason to put down a terrible dictator.
Most obvious. However, Afghanistand didn't work that great internationally due to the bombing of historically relevant sites, and the high civilian loss, and the move on Iraq was mostly seen as oportunism.

Bandit LOAF said:
* Guilt/political necessity. Anyone who tells you they're shocked that Mr. Bush invaded Iraq is either a liar or an idiot - it was a given the day we voted him into office. What was the *one* thing that his father did that gained him immense popular support? The Persian Guilf War. In eight years Hussein had remained the boogeyman, and we had gone on to harshly criticize the original PResident Bush for 'abandoning' Iraq at the eleventh hour... and then President Clinton for his indecisive handling of the situation (lots of bombing raids, nothing more over two terms). When you elected George W. Bush, the *one thing* you knew about him was that he was going to 'finish' the job in Iraq.
I thought so as well...

The other reason I was talking about is what seems to be an American goal as a whole (both major parties): the liberalization of every other country. Doing that ensures economic infiltration by American "multinationals", which drain the more liberalized economies far more than they enrich them.
That's been evident since... well... ever. This recent meeting between Bush and our president (and many others) was just so that we did just that: liberalize even more our economy. This would be suicidal to us... and we were actually worried that our president would not reject the proposal: our industry isn't well developed, and liberalization would literally kill it.
My suspicion is that, as America is attempting that worldwide, in the case of those "terrorist" countries it couldn't do so with diplomacy... so one of the objectives of the invasion, IMHO, is to set up a dummy government that will follow America's commands. In that way, American companies will benefit from yet another economy to drain.

It may sound too much as a conspiracy theory... but from this POV, that's what it looks like.


Bandit LOAF said:
Can they? Because there's lots of countries we'd like to invade but can't for political reasons -- places like Iran, North Korea or Saudi Arabia. Iraq was the 'safe choice'
Well... the feeling is that Iran is next. North Korea, however, is another issue... some think the US won't invade North Korea simply because it won't be able to avoid huge losses in such a fight, others think it will use Iraq as a staging area (and so that Iraq was just a step towards invading North Korea)... but there's no much conensus in that front... anyway, the political side of it never got considered, US' image is simply like that: "They don't care about politics, they think they don't need it". That brings me back to my earlier point: I don't think it's wise to promote such an image, no matter how powerful you are.
 
klauss said:
Anyway, still, that's overestimating the power of armies. Yes, the US could destroy the whole world, and that is one thing preocupying people: noone should have that power - hey, the Americans say that from time to time, but their "noone" means "noone else". Well... those who don't have that power (everyone else), when they say "noone", they mean it.
This is a confused statement. How can it be possible to "over-estimate the power of armies" if there is a level of military power that no one should have?

And let's be honest, here, the USA was dragged bodily into this situation by the rest of the world - precisely the same people who jealously covet our military power now. Perhaps it would be wise, if you don't like super-powers hanging around, to avoid creating them in the first place. The States had no interest in foreign wars until they knocked on our door, and we were damn sure going to see them ended, after that. The fact that we - unlike the rest of the world - are able to learn from our past mistakes is the reason there haven't been any gigantic world wars since then, and our nuclear arsenal and professional army is precisely the tool we've used to make sure of that.
But, in any practical sitation of the modern world, like economic and electronic warfare, an army is less than useful. Destroying the whole world isn't useful.
That's not a very wise point of view. The ability to destroy the world gives you immense leverage. It's very useful.
Take a look at Iraq... after occupying it, did they accomplish anything? (I'm actually asking - was there any economic benefit from the occupation, which is what the US was seeking out?) Well... it's probably too early to answer propperly... it should be answered 10 or 20 years from now.
A great deal has been accomplished on behalf of and by the Iraqi people. I consider the chief benefit to the United States being a friendly nation in a key region of the world, and one less autophagious rogue dictatorship on the loose.


I heard some talk about the Patriot Act.

Not to get too deep into it, because I don't want to, but it's a lot less scary than everyone yells and screams (for example, the word "library" appears nowhere in the text.) In fact, it's pretty boring, typical law-enforcement fare.

There's a lot of paranoia about it because of the way the opposition painted it, but all it really does is encourage better communication between the various agencies, as well as provide means to get warrants for things. Warrants aren't scary, and you need a judge to get them.

It's a primary example of what LOAF is talking about, as far as overblown opposition rhetoric being taken as factual reports.
 
Frosty said:
This is a confused statement. How can it be possible to "over-estimate the power of armies" if there is a level of military power that no one should have?
Because, although you can do dreadful things with it, you can't do everything... including saving yourself from the situation where everybody is against you. As stated before, what saved England was its geographic placement. Now, the US may be in a similar position if the aggressor comes from Europe... but it's not so if it comes from America (the continent). Moreover, as 9/11 prooved, there are forms of attacking that go beyond armies, and conventional armies can't protect you against them.
Hence... armies aren't as useful as they're deemed to be.

Frosty said:
And let's be honest, here, the USA was dragged bodily into this situation by the rest of the world - precisely the same people who jealously covet our military power now. Perhaps it would be wise, if you don't like super-powers hanging around, to avoid creating them in the first place. The States had no interest in foreign wars until they knocked on our door, and we were damn sure going to see them ended, after that. The fact that we - unlike the rest of the world - are able to learn from our past mistakes is the reason there haven't been any gigantic world wars since then, and our nuclear arsenal and professional army is precisely the tool we've used to make sure of that.That's not a very wise point of view. The ability to destroy the world gives you immense leverage. It's very useful.A great deal has been accomplished on behalf of and by the Iraqi people. I consider the chief benefit to the United States being a friendly nation in a key region of the world, and one less autophagious rogue dictatorship on the loose.
You have to be more specific. How was the USA dragged into this position? I don't think you mean the UN, because, face it, the USA has done nothing but disregard UN decisions over and over. And don't be so naive to think (if this is what "knocking on our door" referred to) that the USA wasn't involved in WW2 prior to pearl harbor... it was financially and technologically aiding the allies, and Japan knew that - hence the attack. It wasn't an unexpected attack - only an overwhelming one, one that may have bruised some egos in the chain of command back then.
And... also... you don't have a friendly nation in Iraq. You have a friendly government, which is not the same.


About the Patriot Act, I understand what you're saying (and what LOAF was saying), since that's exactly how things work around here: laws can be passed that are, basically, outrageous. That doesn't mean you have to abide by them... if they are so, you can just claim its unconstitutional nature. What I find wrong, though, is that such claim is never general - only specific to your case. There should be an organism checking every law for inconstitutional parts, because the very existence of those laws brings quite some chaos to the legal system, and allows lots of abusive situations.
 
klauss said:
Because, although you can do dreadful things with it, you can't do everything... including saving yourself from the situation where everybody is against you.
That's precisely what it's for, though. And precisely what ours could do, with no great strain.

You obviously are aware of the total lack of any sort of parity between the armed forces of the United States and the rest of the world, so even you know that even such a mind-blowingly unlikely situation as a USA vs. Planet Earth war wouldn't be difficult to pursue.
As stated before, what saved England was its geographic placement.
And its invincible navy, and powerhouse economy, which placed it on a completely different level than the rest of the world. The Channel is not so significant a bar to invasion as what floats on it, and the unlimited funds with which more might be procured.
Now, the US may be in a similar position if the aggressor comes from Europe...
Which it wouldn't, because for all our disagreements with western Europe, we actually get along quite well. And eastern Europe adores us.
...but it's not so if it comes from America (the continent).
You're joking, right? Precisely who would that be? The Ewoks in South America don't even exist in the same era as the United States, socially, economically, or militarily. There are police forces and vigilante groups with more firepower and greater cash flow than that.

Mexico is probably still hurting from the last few times we walked all over them, so that leaves Canada. You tell me: does Canada strike you as particularly warlike?
Moreover, as 9/11 prooved, there are forms of attacking that go beyond armies, and conventional armies can't protect you against them.
There are not enough airliners in the world to achieve a military victory over the US by crashing into stuff.
Hence... armies aren't as useful as they're deemed to be.
Deemed by whom? Certainly not anybody who actually knows what they're for.
You have to be more specific. How was the USA dragged into this position?
Lusitania. Pearl Harbor.
I don't think you mean the UN...
No, I don't. And there was no reason to bring the UN up at all, but since you have...
...because, face it, the USA has done nothing but disregard UN decisions over and over.
As is the prerogative of a permanent Security Council member.

The UN is impotent and corrupt, and it doesn't deserve to exist.
And don't be so naive to think (if this is what "knocking on our door" referred to) that the USA wasn't involved in WW2 prior to pearl harbor... it was financially and technologically aiding the allies, and Japan knew that - hence the attack. It wasn't an unexpected attack - only an overwhelming one, one that may have bruised some egos in the chain of command back then.
Yet more revisionism. I'm not a historian, but I know that's simply untrue, and I'll leave it to someone with a better education, like LOAF or Halman, to set the record straight.
And... also... you don't have a friendly nation in Iraq. You have a friendly government, which is not the same.
That remains to be seen, but I have a hard time believing that liberating people from the grip of a corrupt and brutal dictator - whose legacy of cruelty is only surpassed by Hitler and Stalin - could earn anything but friendship.
About the Patriot Act, I understand what you're saying (and what LOAF was saying), since that's exactly how things work around here: laws can be passed that are, basically, outrageous. That doesn't mean you have to abide by them... if they are so, you can just claim its unconstitutional nature.
That's not really at all what we were saying.

LOAF's point was that a law still had to pass Supreme Court muster, even if Congress loved the hell out of it.

I was saying that the Patriot act is not outrageous in the first place, but is instead rather prosaic. All it's got is an ominous name.
What I find wrong, though, is that such claim is never general - only specific to your case. There should be an organism checking every law for inconstitutional parts, because the very existence of those laws brings quite some chaos to the legal system, and allows lots of abusive situations.
That's pretty much the primary purpose of the Supreme Court of the United States, so I don't see where you're going with this.
 
Most obvious. However, Afghanistand didn't work that great internationally due to the bombing of historically relevant sites, and the high civilian loss, and the move on Iraq was mostly seen as oportunism.

I couldn't disagree more strongly; Afghanistan was *terrifying* from a military perspective, and the conflict ended very easily. We're talking about the country that was the Soviet Union's equivalent of Vietnam -- except it wasn't public pressure that forced them to abandon their war, it was legitimate military loss.

I don't know what kind of press it got in your neck of the woods, but there's no one on the world stage seriously criticizing the conflict there. There's a reason countries like Germany (as cited above) continue to support operations in Afghanistan -- it was a great, great success from a public relations standpoint.

The other reason I was talking about is what seems to be an American goal as a whole (both major parties): the liberalization of every other country. Doing that ensures economic infiltration by American "multinationals", which drain the more liberalized economies far more than they enrich them.
That's been evident since... well... ever. This recent meeting between Bush and our president (and many others) was just so that we did just that: liberalize even more our economy. This would be suicidal to us... and we were actually worried that our president would not reject the proposal: our industry isn't well developed, and liberalization would literally kill it.
My suspicion is that, as America is attempting that worldwide, in the case of those "terrorist" countries it couldn't do so with diplomacy... so one of the objectives of the invasion, IMHO, is to set up a dummy government that will follow America's commands. In that way, American companies will benefit from yet another economy to drain.

It may sound too much as a conspiracy theory... but from this POV, that's what it looks like.

Eh, no offense, but criticizing anyones perspective on how to help the Argentinian economy is the cliche about the glass house and the bricks -- you've "literally killed it" yourself several times in very recent history.

Well... the feeling is that Iran is next. North Korea, however, is another issue... some think the US won't invade North Korea simply because it won't be able to avoid huge losses in such a fight, others think it will use Iraq as a staging area (and so that Iraq was just a step towards invading North Korea)... but there's no much conensus in that front... anyway, the political side of it never got considered, US' image is simply like that: "They don't care about politics, they think they don't need it". That brings me back to my earlier point: I don't think it's wise to promote such an image, no matter how powerful you are.

The US won't invade either of these countries; anyone who is claiming that it will is, once again, doing so for press and not because they have some better understanding of the geopolitical situation.

North Korea isn't a legitimate worry to the United States because it's a 'common' situation - a powerful dictator running a country into the ground economically. North Korea is the Soviet Union writ small, an economic disaster waiting to happen. The US knows not to worry about this beyond playing it up as an example of evil in the world. Kim Jong Il will ruin his country himself or he will die and leave a power vacuum that will be followed with a new government. For all the ranting and raving about nuclear weapons, North Korea can't deploy them because it knows Japan would react immediately... and for all the ranting and raving about how "historically" there's still a war between North and South Korea, North Korea knows it can't attack the south because the world would not allow it to.

Because, although you can do dreadful things with it, you can't do everything... including saving yourself from the situation where everybody is against you. As stated before, what saved England was its geographic placement. Now, the US may be in a similar position if the aggressor comes from Europe... but it's not so if it comes from America (the continent). Moreover, as 9/11 prooved, there are forms of attacking that go beyond armies, and conventional armies can't protect you against them.
Hence... armies aren't as useful as they're deemed to be.

No, the American military is on a completely, completely different level than any in South America. There is no way that even in a ground war a South American power could set foot on the United States. I'm not "knocking" the various South American countries -- but they're not on par with any of the western armies.

In a defenseive war, which the US would never have to fight in the first place *because* of the threat of nuclear retaliation, the country is completely secure. It's in exactly the same place as England in the 19th century -- completely isolated from a ground conflict.

You have to be more specific. How was the USA dragged into this position? I don't think you mean the UN, because, face it, the USA has done nothing but disregard UN decisions over and over. And don't be so naive to think (if this is what "knocking on our door" referred to) that the USA wasn't involved in WW2 prior to pearl harbor... it was financially and technologically aiding the allies, and Japan knew that - hence the attack. It wasn't an unexpected attack - only an overwhelming one, one that may have bruised some egos in the chain of command back then.
And... also... you don't have a friendly nation in Iraq. You have a friendly government, which is not the same.

The UN didn't exist in World War II. Frosty is referring to the fact that the United States entered both World Wars because the allied powers literally begged them to do so. And I mean literally in the actual meaning of the word, not the internet form -- in World War II, Churchill actually travelled across the Atlantic to beg FDR to help England (which lead to Lend Lease, which is what you're referring to).

Now, you're completely wrong about Japan. The Pacific War is, for all intents and purposes, completely different from the European War. While England, Russiand the US got together to plan their aspect of the war together, the 'Axis Powers' did not.

Japan and Germany were connected by a mutual defense treaty and nothing else. Japanese aggression in the Pacific was part of a much larger campaign of expansion that ran into some very poor planning - Japan's military government actually believed that attacking Pearl Harbor and knocking out the Pacific Fleet would force America to withdraw from its Pacific holdings (Hawaii, Midway, the Philipines, etc.).

Japan was not at all worried about Lend Lease or even the fact that the US was preparing to enter the war against Germany (although they did take advantage of this, believing quite incorrectly that if the US focused its military power on Germany it would be forced to cede the Pacific to Japan rather than fight).

About the Patriot Act, I understand what you're saying (and what LOAF was saying), since that's exactly how things work around here: laws can be passed that are, basically, outrageous. That doesn't mean you have to abide by them... if they are so, you can just claim its unconstitutional nature. What I find wrong, though, is that such claim is never general - only specific to your case. There should be an organism checking every law for inconstitutional parts, because the very existence of those laws brings quite some chaos to the legal system, and allows lots of abusive situations.

The problem is that a country which does this would not be a democracy -- it would be completely ruled by the decisions of a court rather than the legislature... and then what would be the point of having an elected body in the first place, when appointed judges ultimately decided anything?

No, the current system may seem awkward, but it's the best one available -- when there's a problem, a special group of people rule on it... when there's not a problem, they have no say at all in anything and can't change the government to suit their whims.
 
Frosty said:
You tell me: does Canada strike you as particularly warlike?
I was just talking about a hypothetical situation. No country in America strikes me as particularly warlkike, except the US. Troubled, yes. But not warlike.

Frosty said:
There are not enough airliners in the world to achieve a military victory over the US by crashing into stuff
That's limited imagination, man.

Frosty said:
No, I don't. And there was no reason to bring the UN up at all, but since you have...As is the prerogative of a permanent Security Council member.
My point was that if you were referring to the US being part of the security council, and you were not, then I would say the council itself is useless since all it does is disregard UN decisions - it's not its place to do so, the security council is there to enforce those decisions, not to mock them. In fact, the UN is now a joke thanks to the security council - as you say, corrupt and useless.

Frosty said:
I'm not a historian, but I know that's simply untrue, and I'll leave it to someone with a better education, like LOAF or Halman, to set the record straight.
Perhaps. That would mean the military chronicle I read was lying, though, and I don't see that as very likely. But feel free to point out imprecisions.

Frosty said:
That remains to be seen, but I have a hard time believing that liberating people from the grip of a corrupt and brutal dictator - whose legacy of cruelty is only surpassed by Hitler and Stalin - could earn anything but friendship.That's not really at all what we were saying.
I won't get into this matter, it would turn easily into a flaming war. But... I'll gather some books, written by Americans themselves, showing what it's like now on Iraq, and how, by whatever reason, the people don't love them at any rate.

Frosty said:
LOAF's point was that a law still had to pass Supreme Court muster, even if Congress loved the hell out of it.
Ok... let me explain how it works here, which by LOAF's comment seemed identical to how it works there. Perhaps it's not:

You have an unconsitutional law... say, that in order to cross X street you must ask permission to the local Police forces. (just an example - that would be unconstitutional here).
Now... the police will set everything up, and will stop anybody trying to cross. You may be put to jail for not following their orders not to cross (that's disobeying a policeman).
Your lawyer (provided you get one willing to do all this), will have to go to court, alleging the unconstitutionality of the law that made the policeman order you not to cross... since if that law is unconstitutional, then the order was illegal, you would have not disobeyed a policeman (for he cannot be acting as policeman while doing illegal things). So, they have to set you free.
Now... getting all the way up to the supreme court, I'm not sure out there, but here could take a few months (or a year, if you're out of luck). By that time you'll have fulfilled your entire sentence (since it's not that long), and you'll have been deprived of your freedom ilegally.
You could sue the State, and ask for compensation. But the deed is done.
So, unconstitutional laws do take effect. They're anullable, but that doesn't mean that they don't affect your freedom.

I imagine a similar mechanism in place in the USA, so, laws deemed unconstitutional after such a case should be automatically submitted for revision by some authority, to see if such inconstitutionality is general or was it a particularity of your situation.

And I'm not talking in the air... we recently had a bunch of outrageous laws passed which were all unconstitutional. The passing of such laws was merely a political move, but that doesn't mean they're not troublesome still. And, even if they're declared unconstitutional almost every time, you still have to fight your way towards that declaration every time as well.

Now, I don't know about the Patriot Act, and reading it won't help, since I don't know the US constitution. But that "Supreme Court" barrier, although real and actually useful, IMNSHO is not enough.
 
klauss said:
...written by Americans themselves...
Take it to heart when I say that carries no weight with me whatever.

Nor should you constantly believe everything published in a book, as you seem wont to do.
But that "Supreme Court" barrier, although real and actually useful, IMNSHO is not enough.
Oh believe me, it has proven to be far, far more than simply enough.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
I couldn't disagree more strongly; Afghanistan was *terrifying* from a military perspective, and the conflict ended very easily. We're talking about the country that was the Soviet Union's equivalent of Vietnam -- except it wasn't public pressure that forced them to abandon their war, it was legitimate military loss.
Militarily, yes... it was an overwhelming victory.
As for public relations... well... that wasn't the feeling arounds this side of the world. But I can't extrapolate that to other countries...

Bandit LOAF said:
Eh, no offense, but criticizing anyones perspective on how to help the Argentinian economy is the cliche about the glass house and the bricks -- you've "literally killed it" yourself several times in very recent history.
Hehe... yes, we're not very bright economically speaking.
Anyway, that proposal was certain death for our economy. I doubt Bush's advisors are that incompetent as not to see that. Rather, I have to assume they didn't care.
That doesn't speak bad for them... it's not their country or their people, the don't have to care. We were just worried that our own president wouldn't either have the guts to reject the proposal (for, in fact, the US has us by the balls due to all that FMI-thing), or just be incompetent enough not to realize of the danger in accepting it (it wouldn't be the first time).



Bandit LOAF said:
The US won't invade either of these countries; anyone who is claiming that it will is, once again, doing so for press and not because they have some better understanding of the geopolitical situation.
As I said... it's public opinion, of course they don't know anything about the geopolitical situation. It's just an example of how public relations for the US were all except wise.

Bandit LOAF said:
No, the American military is on a completely, completely different level than any in South America. There is no way that even in a ground war a South American power could set foot on the United States. I'm not "knocking" the various South American countries -- but they're not on par with any of the western armies.
That's true... but I was saying that there are other forms of attack - not always material attacks, for example, economic attacks are possible (although, I imagine, very few countries could economically attack the US).

Bandit LOAF said:
Japan's military government actually believed that attacking Pearl Harbor and knocking out the Pacific Fleet would force America to withdraw from its Pacific holdings (Hawaii, Midway, the Philipines, etc.).
That would be silly... the US would have never leaved the Pacific to the Japanese, it would have been an invitation for an invasion on US territory.

Bandit LOAF said:
Japan was not at all worried about Lend Lease or even the fact that the US was preparing to enter the war against Germany
I thought that was the reason for attacking even when it was certain to draw the US into the war: they were already going to anyway.
But perhaps, as with many things, it was just an excuse.

Bandit LOAF said:
The problem is that a country which does this would not be a democracy -- it would be completely ruled by the decisions of a court rather than the legislature... and then what would be the point of having an elected body in the first place, when appointed judges ultimately decided anything?

No, the current system may seem awkward, but it's the best one available -- when there's a problem, a special group of people rule on it... when there's not a problem, they have no say at all in anything and can't change the government to suit their whims.

That's a valid point... but I still think something has to be done to avoid that flagrant violation of civil rights.
 
Back
Top