Can someone make me a leaderhead for george bush? i really wana beat him at his own game

No need to be bashing politically either.

Thread reopened. No political bashing this time.

Well the wrole raft of current leaders would be nice! i just felt Bush would be a good starting point

that would be an easy animated face,because its dum...hm...simple. i would like it 2 ;)

I can do this LH, but not now, in too busy with some mods. And, of course, animated and era specific. :)

BTW, did someone do these animated LH, era specific yet: Osama bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Hirato (Japan), Augusto Pinochet (Chile), General Gaisel (Brazil)... since I did in the past LH like Getúlio Vargas (Brazil), Solano Lopez (Paraguay) and Evita Perón (Argentina) there is no problem to do Bush and these ones. It could be great has all these LH for some scenarios :D

No, none one has done any of thoes. But For Il Deuce and Hitler they better be Perfect or you'l lget alot of flak from many people.

Juka,

Just curious ... Do you have a masters in business administration from Harvard ... or for that matter, any post-graduate degree? I happen to have a post-graduate degree, and they are not that easy to come by. I hope my post is not confusing. I tried to keep it dum ... hm ... simple because I knew you would like it 2.

Warned for flaming.

congratulations on your wonderfull degree doodoo,i dont have one yet unfortunately.any other questions?because i dont wanna spam or go off-subject.big fat kiss for hoo boo doodoo

Warned for flaming.

Juka,

My friend! You went from being wonderfully witty to relying on ad hominems awfully quickly. :) And don't worry about not being old enough yet to have a post-graduate degree. You can always get one when you grow up. Of course, I'm not sure of exactly how old you are, I'm simply going on your choice of terms for human fecal matter. The particular term you used is generally preferred by youngsters between the ages of 4 to 8. I think it is great that Civ 3 has such an appeal to the younger people out there.

To get back on topic, I think having LHs of many of the presidents, including the current one, would be a good idea and I concur with your request for a George W. Bush LH.

I would love to stay and chat, but I have to go to work now. Nice talking to you. :D

So have we moved on from political bashing to personal bashing? Poor Chieftess...

Gourami....

I'd love to see a President Bush leaderhead. Please do something with Buckeyes in the background because we love him here in Ohio. Lincoln was truly a great President and Mr. Bush would be a worthy modern age replacement for him.

Boo Hah!

Well, I was thinking something like this:

Ancient: English or European Peasant
Medival: Pilgrim or Puritan
Industrial: Sheriff of the Old West
Modern: President Bush as he is

Well, I was thinking something like this:

Ancient: English or European Peasant
Medival: Pilgrim or Puritan
Industrial: Sheriff of the Old West
Modern: President Bush as he is

:lol: I like the sheriff idea... seems rather appropo. I don't know about the peasant though... I mean, a peasant leader doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I like the sheriff of the old west idea. That's humorous! For the medieval era, how about something like the crusades? Like a knight in shining armor with flaming minarets in the background.

for the ancient age,maybe long white hair,a medalion on his forehead.an eagle on his shoulder,something like a spiritual leader...with that calm and deep stare..

all good ideas folks!

(less bashing tho plz)

:lol: I like the sheriff idea... seems rather appropo. I don't know about the peasant though... I mean, a peasant leader doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

In alot of the old western movies, the good guy was the sole force for law and order in small towns inhabited by outlaws. Seeing as Bush is from Texas I thought it was appropriate.. :thumbsup:

I choose Peasant and Pilgrim because it charts the ancestry of America, and therefore Bush btw...

I have some suggestions:
- ancient: Romanish emperor style, cos Roma was the great Empire of that time. Ave Bush!
- middle: Puritan, religious stuff in background, maybe burn some witches :satan: , but the Crusader is a good idea too. Since the cruzaders go to war themselves and do not send poor people to it, I think puritan style is a better idea.
- industrial: cowboy definelly! This guy born in the wrong era.
- modern: like president, White House in background and I could do some alternative versions (surprises :lol: )

I think it will be a great LH and use for many scenarios

I would love to see an Bush through the Era's, I am going tired of Abe.

Everytime I see Abe it reminds me of that old episode of Star Trek were Kirk and Abe were forced to battle Ghenghis Khan on some planet. Wait a minute, sounds familiar.

On second thought, is there a Kirk LH.

I Like the crusader Idea...Considering, his war in Iraq is like his new little crusade...Maybe a big oil well for a background....

Remember that there's an excellent Reagan leaderhead by Rita Poon (it was Rita Poon, wasn't it?) which had him in Puritan getup for the Middle Ages (not entirely right chronologically, I'm sure, but fun) and as a sort of Davy Crockett woodsman for the Industrial era. I like the idea of Bush as a sherriff. He's not really from Texas, though, is he - wasn't he born in some very non-cowboy sort of state like Connecticut? A fact often mentioned by a good Texan friend of mine who is fiercely patriotic (to Texas) and anti-Bush.

Bombshoo,

I'm not sure, but I don't think that the middle east was pumping that much oil out of the ground during the crusades. :)

Plotinus,

Bush spent his formative years in Midland, Texas. He considers himself a Texan and much of who he is comes from growing up in west Texas. I am as fiercely Tejano as anyone, and I consider him a native son, as do most Texans, even the more provincial, xenophobic Texans who grew up in the more rural areas.

BTW, does your friend still actually live in Texas, or is he an expatriate? That possibly could make a difference in his perception of Bush as non-Texan.

CivArmy,

As far as the ancient era is concerned, I think some sort of Western European theme would be better than a Roman motif. Make him the shaman/warlord of an amalgam of Goth, Frank, Celt, Germanic, Hunnish, etc. tribes. His clothing/background should be a combination of the spiritual and of war. Bush the Younger. Has a nice ring to it.

Our military is volunteer. And many who join the military are not from our poorest ranks, but rather come from the lower middle class and middle class ranks. For example, I come from a small town of 2,000 located in west Texas. At present, 37 of our finest young men and women have served in Iraq over the last couple of years. Several of them joined the military after graduating from college. They are the sons and daughters of ranchers, farmers, mechanics, teachers, and bankers. Within the last year, one of our soldiers was killed in Iraq. Almost 5,000 people from my home town and several of the surrounding small towns attended the memorial service. They had to hold the service at the football field.

As far as the cowboy sheriff idea goes, if you are going to do that, then you need to fashion GWB like Gary Cooper in the old cowboy classic "High Noon". The storyline in that movie involved a group of thugs who were coming into town by train (which arrived at noon) to terrorize the town. Cooper, as sheriff, first tried to organize a group of the town citizens to come together to provide a common defense of the town, but they, being afraid of reprisal from the thugs, didn't have the guts to back him. Cooper then faces the outlaws basically by himself, protecting the safety of others who do not have the backbone to protect themselves. At movie's end, when the cowards whom Cooper risked his life for try to thank him, he basically tells them to kiss his ass.

I'm looking forward to seeing your LH, CivArmy.

I continue thinking Emperor of Roma is a better idea to ancient era, cos Roma was a expansionistic empire like Bush is doing in America, but I don't belive his roots are Romanish or Italians (I'm pretty sure it comes from England).
And we can't debate the politics view here, like what is the composition of the troops that r fighting in Iraq or if America of Bush is expansionist or not, cos the moderators advised us that it is off topic and they could split this thread like they did in the similar one yesterday :sad:

Yes...no more Bush-Bashing, he won the election, its over... :P

I think the Middle Ages should't be the Crusades, thats what our enemies are doing, the war in Iraq was about defending this country. Some of you may disagree with this. But here in America someone is guilty until proven innocent.

On the other hand, the "Middle Ages" in the game goes to the Colonial Era, so a Pilgrim isn't a bad idea.

I know, they weren't, but I still thought it would be funny...An oil well for modern wouldnt be bad though..

I didnt mean the crusades in a bad way (though they were bad)...Its undaniable Bush brought us to the war, and since they were both in the middle east it just related.

Why have Bush in front of an oil well? His Crawford Ranch is a much better choice for a background methinks.

Don't Make him a Pilgrim in the middle ages, simply because the Regan LH is a Pilgrim. I'd put him In a powdered wig and Dress him up as George Washington.

Bombshoo,

CivArmy,

As far as the ancient era is concerned, I think some sort of Western European theme would be better than a Roman motif. Make him the shaman/warlord of an amalgam of Goth, Frank, Celt, Germanic, Hunnish, etc. tribes. His clothing/background should be a combination of the spiritual and of war. Bush the Younger. Has a nice ring to it.

I agree with that suggestion 100%, but "Bush the Younger" makes it sound as if he's Eorl the Young's cousin or something :lol:

As far as the cowboy sheriff idea goes, if you are going to do that, then you need to fashion GWB like Gary Cooper in the old cowboy classic "High Noon". The storyline in that movie involved a group of thugs who were coming into town by train (which arrived at noon) to terrorize the town. Cooper, as sheriff, first tried to organize a group of the town citizens to come together to provide a common defense of the town, but they, being afraid of reprisal from the thugs, didn't have the guts to back him. Cooper then faces the outlaws basically by himself, protecting the safety of others who do not have the backbone to protect themselves. At movie's end, when the cowards whom Cooper risked his life for try to thank him, he basically tells them to kiss his ass.

That scenario sounds oddly familiar.....

I'll be wating to see your previews, Civ Army. (I'd try some of the president LH's that have been requested, but my LH project backlist is already full).

Oh, and I aggree with the early 17th century colonial outfit for the Middle ages (like Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin wore).

BTW, does your friend still actually live in Texas, or is he an expatriate? That possibly could make a difference in his perception of Bush as non-Texan.


Perception has nothing to do with it. He's not from Texas. Period. He spent a lot of his life there, but that doesn't make him Texan. And that's not meant to be partisan. It's simply a statement of fact.

@SoG: The peasant connection still doesn't hold water. America and peasantry have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Our Founding Fathers were the richest men around. And George Bush's family hasn't been in financial trouble since the Civil War or before... they closest they've ever gotten to living like middle America is for a photo op. They are hardly the only political family that holds true for though, so it's not just a reflection on him and the family.

So basically, I'm going to take the most neutral route possible for the Middle Ages and say to go with a Knight outfit. Knights could've been crusaders but were not necessarily. If some people want to connect it with crusading and his foreign policy... sobeit. And if others want to connect it with his family's long-standing social status, his personal devotion to Christianity, and his nobility, then sobeit. It's a win-win for everybody.

As for the Ancient era, I'd like to see him looking like an aboriginal tribesman... just because I think that'd be funny as hell.

At present, 37 of our finest [emphasis added] young men and women have served in Iraq over the last couple of years.

I'm sorry... I know this thread has already been broken up and part of it closed due to politics, but this is really something that irks the hell out of me... and it's not just you I've heard this from. Politicians have been using this term for the men and women in the armed forces for ages.

The fact is, our Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves every time they hear this. One of the most critical pillars upon which our country was founded upon was a wariness of our military. That is precisely the reason why throughout the 19th century we never maintained much of a standing army in peacetime. Armies were considered tools of oppression, and indeed, much of the world has this impression of armies both foreign and domestic because for them it is a literal fact. But here, we glorify the military. For a country that supposedly is peaceful, we sure do love war! I mean, there are people who go out and work their asses off in low-paying jobs to teach the youth of this country sometimes in places more dangerous than where thousands of our soldiers are in certain parts of the world. There are fire fighters and policemen, doctors, ministers, aid workers, volunteers... all sorts of people who are making this country better with little or no recognition for themselves and even less payment in compensation. We have journalists who without them, this country would have had several dictatorships already. We have all of these people doing good right here at home, but somehow, only the people who join the military to kill things, or get a free education (or in a very few cases out of genuine desire to protect the country) are called the finest. That's absolute crap, and I think every single man who put his signature on the Declaration of Independence would be disgusted by it.

Unfortunately, we're obsessed with our military in this country... we're obsessed with the toys of war and the glory we've attached to it. We actually consider the army the PROTECTOR of our freedom rather than the press when 90% of the world has, and rightfully so, seen their armies as the ENEMY of freedom... and unfortunately, I think that the American bubble is eventually going to burst one day. Even General Franks has said so...

Dom Pedro II, I like your "Win/Win" set up for the Bush Leaderhead...especially like the idea of him looking like an aboriginal tribesman for the Ancient Era...Too Funny. :lol:

As someone who's serving in the military, and the latest generation in a family that's been paying the price of keeping this country free since its beginning, I only have this to say:

The military is just as important as the press in protecting our freedoms, because, as one of my good friends over at Megatokyo forums once said, "Those who beat their swords into plowshares are doomed to plow for those who don't." You can have all the journalists in the world, but they aren't goint to stop an all-out blitzkreig by an enemy army bent on conquest. Hell, half the wars in the past two centuries have been started by journalists bending facts in the name of fame and fortune (the Spanish-American War is a prime example of this). I also tend to distrust the media for the way they portrayed the veterans of the Vietnam conflict as a bunch of baby killing murderers, and incited riots against them. From what I've seen, the press is just like a sleazy ambulance chasing lawyer, and I've yet to meet any member of the journalistic community who was capable of changing my mind on this. You say that journalists are what guarantee freedom, I say that the press has been the best tool that dictators had to attain and maintain their power.

Even though I'm personally against war, I recognize that it is a necessary evil as long as evil exists in this world. That's all I'll say, because I really want to keep this whole thing nice and civil.

Dom, I like you and think you're a great guy, but I also think you've been reading more of Michael Moore's dime-store novels than is really healthy. If only you knew what I've been through these past 6 years, you most likey wouldn't say such things.

As someone who's serving in the military, and the latest generation in a family that's been paying the price of keeping this country free since its beginning, I only have this to say:

The military is just as important as the press in protecting our freedoms, because, as one of my good friends over at Megatokyo forums once said, "Those who beat their swords into plowshares are doomed to plow for those who don't." You can have all the journalists in the world, but they aren't goint to stop an all-out blitzkreig by an enemy army bent on conquest. Hell, half the wars in the past two centuries have been started by journalists bending facts in the name of fame and fortune (the Spanish-American War is a prime example of this). I also tend to distrust the media for the way they portrayed the veterans of the Vietnam conflict as a bunch of baby killing murderers, and incited riots against them. From what I've seen, the press is just like a sleazy ambulance chasing lawyer, and I've yet to meet any member of the journalistic community who was capable of changing my mind on this. You say that journalists are what guarantee freedom, I say that the press has been the best tool that dictators had to attain and maintain their power.

Even though I'm personally against war, I recognize that it is a necessary evil as long as evil exists in this world. That's all I'll say, because I really want to keep this whole thing nice and civil.

Dom, I like you and think you're a great guy, but I also think you've been reading more of Michael Moore's dime-store novels than is really healthy. If only you knew what I've been through these past 6 years, you most likey wouldn't say such things.

Hikaro, if I gave the impression that the soldier plays no part in keeping America safe from despotism, then I'm sorry. That was not my point. But they only protect us from foreign despotism. My point is that we tend to think that the American soldier is so much more moral than not only any other soldier in the world, but we also think that they are more moral than our own people. We have elevated them to a dangerous status in our society. We have made them the citizens and the rest of us civilians as in Heinlein's Starship Troopers. And this is very dangerous... it's dangerous because the only thing that makes the U.S. military different from any other military in the world is that we have watch dogs to assure that the troops behave themselves. Soldiers are human beings and that comes with the complete package of evils as well as the good.

My point was that a soldier is no better (or worse) than any other American, but politicians would have you thinking otherwise. They tout the "veteran" whenever they need to get a crowd clapping. And what I was trying to say is that carrying a gun doesn't mean you're doing any greater service than teaching a kid how to read.

I recognize the need for the military. It's an unfortunate need. I personally think that being a soldier should be viewed as a grim responsibility... not an invitation to join some elite above the rest of society. And it seems that you, at least, are of this opinion. You don't like war, but you recognize that it is sometimes necessary. I never believe that it is necessary to start a war... but I sure as hell believe that sometimes we have to finish one.

As for Mr. Moore, I was introduced to his earlier work before even Bowling for Columbine which I found laughable and smacking of socialism and hypocrisy. I came away thinking he was a pompous ass, and he has failed to disrupt this opinion. That said, however, I do think his latest movie raised a few interesting points once you filtered through the rest of his wacky opinions.

So let me just wrap this all up by saying that the soldier has a role in society... an unfortunate role that I hope everybody, ESPECIALLY THE SOLDIER, hopes will one glorious day be entirely unnecessary. But our Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of the military as well. They recognized the threat it proved to our liberties in spite of the fact that it could be used as a tool to secure ourselves from foreign powers. And indeed, we have come damned close to having the military march on the capital on more than one occasion. The fact that it hasn't happened is a testament to the vigilance of the people, the press, and our statesmen all acting together... but our press has become a group of ratings-hungry liars who are complete cronies to whichever political party tosses them the biggest bone, our people can't get their facts straight because they're being bombarded with so much bull**** information assuming that's even if they choose to turn off American Idol or Survivor for one damned minute, and our politicians will steal a red-hot stove... If ever there was a time when we were in danger of a despot, it is now. I'm not saying Bush. I'm saying anybody who wants the job basically... all of our defenses are gone. Take General Franks who said that if WMDs are used on America, the military WILL (not MIGHT) seize control and render the Constitution null and void thus ending the republic. Now, being the starry-eyed idealist that I am and since I tend to like the man, I hope that's a stern warning and not a veiled threat...

In short, if you give the military too much of a leash, they'll hang you by it. American or otherwise.

DP II,

With regard to Bush being Texan ... When asked to define the "South", regional sociologist John Shelton Reed, a professor at the University of North Carolina, stated that it was "that part of the country where people considered themselves to be Southerners". Bush considers himself to be a Texan. Most Texans consider him to be Texan. Millions of immigrants have travelled to the United States of America over the last two centuries. They learned our language. They worked hard to learn our history and they became naturalized "Americans", not only because they fulfilled all the requirements for becoming citizens, but more importantly because they wanted to be Americans and they believed they were Americans. In fact, I wish all of us "homegrown" Americans took as much pride in America and "being American" as some of the immigrants I have met from Vietnam, Hong Kong, Nigeria, and Albania. They cherish the freedom and opportunities that we often take for granted, or even disparage. I would respectfully disagree with you on this point. Perception has EVERYTHING to do with it.

I agree with you totally about all the unheralded heroes who work mostly without recognition and certainly without adequate compensation. I rub elbows with some of those heroes every day. I work for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. I see young, idealistic women and men working under horrific conditions every day because of their commitment to help my State's most vulnerable -- the young and the elderly. My colleagues are overworked, underpaid, and unappreciated.

I also agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of our politicians, our media, and that segment of our society that is mesmerized by the boob tube and who probably have trouble following the plot of a good Bugs Bunny cartoon. I would much rather read a book, search for something interesting to read or research on the internet, or spend time playing, reading, or talking about Civ (although I will admit that I do have a soft spot for Stargate SG 1, and I will occasionally watch the history channel and the discovery channel).

When I use the term "finest" about those 37 kids from my home town, I'm not talking in generalities or speaking patriotic or political bull****. I personally know most of those kids and/or their families. Those 37 soldiers are some of the best kids to come out of my home town ... period ... and not because they decided to join the military. Those 37 kids were some of the best athletes in school; they were in National Honor Society; they represented the school in UIL events; and they were well liked and respected by their classmates. The kid that died recently was wounded earlier and shipped home. After he healed, he was given the option to stay home, but he chose to return to Iraq. He didn't go back for glory or because of hubris. He confided in some of his old hometown friends that he had an almost overpowering fear that he was going to die if he went back, but that his friends and comrades were still in harm's way and he still had a job to do. He went back because of his strong sense of duty.

I'm not trying to glorify the military and I personally do not have the view of the military as being romantic or glamorous. However, I do not consider the military to be a necessary evil. Nor do I consider our military personnel to be "monsters" or "oppressors". I respect our men and women in uniform and appreciate the sacrifices they make so that you and I can sit in relative safety and comfort and debate their worth.

I am fully aware of the unease with which the citizenry of various governments have viewed their militaries throughout history. I agree that the Founding Fathers were familiar with the military coups that had occurred throughout history. However, I happen not to share your strength of conviction as to the Founding Fathers' strong negative views of the military -- but hey, reasonable minds can differ on that particular point. I am also aware of how our military is perceived by the rest of the world. And to be completely honest, I don't give a big rat's ass what they think.

From what I have seen and read on this website, you appear to be an intelligent, thoughtful individual. You also have shown a good sense of humor and an ability to laugh at yourself and not take yourself too seriously. I respect the opinions you have offered in this thread and even more respect the strength of your convictions because I know that the opinions you express are not mindless repeats of something you heard, but honest conclusions you have reached after considerable thought. Your ideas were thought provoking, and I thank you for getting my synapses popping this Friday night ... um, better make that Saturday morning. :) BTW John Shelton Reed also defined the South as "that part of the country where you are more likely to be killed by a relative than by a stranger". I didn't mention this in the discussion above because I had a good rant going. But in the interest of full disclosure ... :mischief:

Hikaro Takayama,

Hey, I like old westerns. Any similarity to current events is purely coincidental. ;) And if you ever happen to be passing through Austin, PM me. I'd like to buy you dinner.

Let me finish the Native South Americans city graphics and I can make Bush LH, of couse, I'll use the suggestions that u people choice for eras. Maybe some pictures of the clothes and scenarios suggested would be great. I can make Bush LH in the same time I continue the artworks to American Continent Mod.

Bush as an alternate leader for the ACM would be nice too.

Some years before ww2 Heidegger and some other german philosopher (well known, i just dont remeber his name atm) were talking about Hitler and his rise to power. The other philosopher was noing that such a crude person should never rule over a nation like germany etc etc etc. Heidegger, according to the "anecdote", said: "that is true, but look at his hands!". I guess by that M. Heidegger (who anyway was forever associated with the nazi movement due to his support) meant that such people arent intelligent or creative, but they can move the crowds and move things to the direction they want to, albeit with violence. G.Bush jr. in my view is really just a man who isnt very intelligent, possibly he is even below the average IQ level, and sadly he (like millions anyway) tied himself up to the idealistic world of christianity, and ofcourse has no understanding of what religion is as of its psychological application to individuals. Not many people really do, its just that most are atheistic due to instinct. I think that if in his life Bush jr had met people who were kind enough and intelligent enough to understand his situation they would have helped him become an average person that can lead a happy, normal life, without much pyrotechnics. But as things are now he is really a danger to world peace, and i hope that he doesnt make many more horrible mistakes, which could lead to a massive outbreak of terrorism. Im worried though that in the balcans things will get out of hand due to american policy + bush jr is really a puppet of other (more intelligent, but most importantly totally corrupt and misanthropic) people in the us power-system.

Sorry for writing such a political post, but ofcourse this wasnt a hate-post or anything.

Hikaro, if I gave the impression that the soldier plays no part in keeping America safe from despotism, then I'm sorry.

Heh, no problem. I guessed I missed what you were trying to get at. I'm just glad you haven't bought Moore's crap wholesale like so many other people have. I aggree with what you were saying about the military/government getting too much power. That's the reason that the 2nd amendment was added to the constitution, and even now, Washington power-mongers are trying to erode those (and other) key rights. One of the reasons I joined the military (other than job training, advancement opportunities and to get the heck out of my home town) was so that if worse ever came to worst, I'd have the training and skills to do what my family did almost 230 years ago, and overthrow any tyrants that rose to power.

Of course, if it ever does come to that, the Federal Republic of Pennsylvania will be more than willing to discuss the terms for an alliance with the Big Apple Republic ;)

HooDoo: I'll be going home at the end of my enlistment on the first of Febuary. Since I'm driving cross-country, and there's too much likelyhood of getting snowed-in along more norther routes, (I especially don't want to get trapped in Donners' Pass or Soldiers' Summit, due to the nature of why those two places got their names...) I'll be taking I-8 east from San Diego, which should take me through Austin, so I'll be taking you up on your offer :)

Civ Army: No big hurry, we're all patient people here. ;)

HooDoo: Okay, I jumped to conclusions then about what you meant about our finest citizens, and I'm glad to see that for the most part we are on the same page. :goodjob:

With regards to Bush. Okay, he's Texan, but like an immigrant who considers themselves American, that doesn't mean he's from Texas. But with regards to most Texans believing he is Texan, I think if you took a survey of how many people think he was born there... the results would be troubling. And that's not a criticism of the people of Texas. I think you'd find that a similar percentage of the population across the country is equally misinformed about any given topic.


Hikaro: I agree with you that the 2nd Amendment is important to protect us from tyranny; however, most of the people who use that as a justification also support a wholesale expansion of the military. Well, if you expand the military while allowing lax gun laws, you're really diluting the effect of the 2nd Amendment for protection against tyranny. We can have assault weapons again... YAY! But an M-16 is not a tank. An AK-47 is not a B2 bomber... if a civil war broke out today and none of the military opted to support the people, we'd be in BIG trouble.

Also, the people supporting the New York Republic are hoping for a referendum... we'd rather not have to fight the U.S. military for our independence :p We're counting on the reluctance of the federal government's leaders to be setting off bombs near Wall Street and the United Nations ;)



With regards to the Bush LH, It's not only useful as a Lincoln replacement or something for the ACM, it's also useful for any scenario taking place between 2001 and 2008... and hopefully not any time after that ;)

It is not the fact that the soldier is a soldier that we honor, but the fact that they give their lives in defense of this country, of their family, and friends. The American soldier does not fight for glory, but for what really matters in life, family, friends, and freedom.

It is not the fact that the soldier is a soldier that we honor, but the fact that they give their lives in defense of this country, of their family, and friends. The American soldier does not fight for glory, but for what really matters in life, family, friends, and freedom.

Yeah... right... I'll tell you what, you can choose to take all of the millions of men (and women) who have served in the U.S. armed forces and make a blanket statement about the interests and intentions of all of them, but that doesn't make it true. They're people like everybody else, and as such, they all have different motives. Some do it for glory, some do it selflessly, some do it just because they get a rush from battle, some do it out of patriotism... you can't just say: the soldier does this for X, Y, and Z.

Never mind the fact that I never said we couldn't honor the soldier. I think the veterans of wars deserved to be honored and respected (although that doesn't mean we should think they're all these really great people because many are not). I merely said that once we start treating them as being better than the rest of the people in society, we have a very serious problem. And frankly, we have a serious problem.

The fact is that so few people choose to join the armed forces makes the best of the best. Anyone willing to give up their lives to live under the military's strick chain of command and willingly put their lives under the line makes them heroes. But the military aren't the only heroes, just one of many professions, and one of the best. Never forget also that firemen and police also put their lives on the line. There are many heroes.

I used to hate America...as late as 2001 in fact. I was a Neo-Communist as a teenager. I didn't believe Americans(or anyone else) was worthy of Democracy, because I saw how hedonistic and greedy many people were at the time(Who wants to be a Millionaire, the over-hyped stock market etc). My political views were a hybrid of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and many communist ideals(No money for example). Funny how much I've changed..lol

Personally i do not see anything in a soldier that would make him (or her) worth my admiration. In my view soldiers exist just because either one wants to fight wars, or wants to guard oneself against that possibility. Europe is a nice example of that, Flaubert wrote just before the franco-prussian war "All of Europe is in uniform" and "millions paid in Europe to hold the peace by arms". Soldiers only exist so that one can defend against other soldiers.


Every boy at some stage realises that on his room's carpet, towering over the wartoys, war looked like fun, but in reality it isnt, and nor is war something one enthousiastically contemplates while hurrying home from school. One can argue for armies for aeons, the reality is that no idea is worth the death of a single person, and perhaps the people who so easily ignore the deaths of others should wake up and see that someone else, in their mind-set, might in the future regard their lives as equally insignificant and worth to be sacrificed for his grand scheme.

I think the Middle Ages should't be the Crusades, thats what our enemies are doing, the war in Iraq was about defending this country. Some of you may disagree with this. But here in America someone is guilty until proven innocent.

I hope you're being either cynical or sarcastic there, SOG... But it's true. Even Tony Blair can't make Bush either charge or release the Britons held at Guantanamo. The ones that were eventually released came back here, were questioned and then released without a stain on their character - no evidence of any kind found against them. Doesn't say much for American justice, does it?

Coming slightly closer to topic, you could draw comparisons between the war on Iraq and the Crusades, given that the Crusades were wars against the Muslims which were sold as a *reaction* to the aggression of the Muslims. That is, the Arabs had conquered North Africa and Spain, and most grievously, taken the Holy Places. The idea of the Crusades (at least, as they were presented) was simply to retake them. Hence the Crusades in Spain were the "Reconquista". Of course, the Muslim nations at that time probably really were more of a threat to Europe than Iraq was to the US - after all, the Turks were knocking at Europe's back door right up to the seventeenth century, whereas, as we all now know, Saddam Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with either al-Qaeda or any terrorist attacks against American interests.

So it might seem that Bush shouldn't be a Crusader for the opposite reason to SOG's - whatever the rhetoric, the Conquests were more defensive or reactionary than the Iraq adventure (and I say that not because I'm opposed to the war, because I'm not, particularly, but simply as a matter of fact). Although a more important parallel would be that the reasoning behind the Crusades was a barely recognisable distortion of Christianity, which is supposed to be about the rejection of worldly power structures and reliance on strength. It amazes me that Bush is popular among American Christians, since every speech I have ever heard from him is profoundly unChristian in a number of ways. That's not to say he's good or bad - I'm no Christian myself either - but it is quite remarkable that there seems to be such disjunction between appearance and reality.

Hikaro Takayama,

As you are driving cross country, when you start hearing the music from "Deliverance", turn right and you'll be close to home. I look forward to meeting you. In the meantime, keep your head (and ass) down. Neither one of them need a bullet. :lol:

DP II,

I would agree with you on the ignorance of many of my fellow Texans, as with the rest of the country. And I will go you one further. I am sure that a survey would find that many Texans believe that Bush was born in Texas. Hell, a survey would probably find that some Texans believe JESUS was born in Texas. :eek:

I hate to be pessimistic or elitist, or whatever you wish to call it, but I have come to believe that the average American is way below average! :sad: And unfortunately, when you look at the national numbers, Texas is always in the bottom ten ... okay, the bottom five, on things like education. I imagine that if you gave every American a map of the US and asked them to write the name of each state over that state, only a small percentage would get even one third of the states right. I would go so far as to say that if you gave high school seniors across the country a globe, they could not name the seven continents and/or pick out five major bodies of water, much less name individual countries within those continents.

I remember seing a statistic about 20 years ago that said the US, although comprising only 6% of the world's population, was consuming 35% of the resources consumed each year. When you look back over the last 40 years, we haven't much to show for it, do we? Well, now that I have thoroughly depressed myself, I'm going to sign off now, curl up into a fetal position under my desk, and whimper.

and you're polluters number 1...i'm not saying that so you'd curl up some more..altough i'm a bit yelaous of that degree ;)

Okay, okay, too many politics view, I desagree some of them, I agree with others, but I think I is becaming a political debat, we are here to do Bush LH, okay?
So...

- Ancient: Native America, Romanish or European Barbarian (Britain)?
- Middle: Crusader, Priest or Puritan?


I think these two next eras will be this:
- Industrial: C.O.W.B.O.Y. , yahoooo!!!
- Modern: A good tux with botton of US flag... and two alternatives versions, to the people who, like me, hate this guy :mad: . BTW, the background of this era could be Republican Partie Simbol, that elephant.

maybe some pool could solve this question, what do u think? That is my votes:

- Ancient: Romanish, Ave Bush!
- Middle: Crusader (I changed my idea of him like Puritian)


anyone to vote? (no more frauds, please)

I like more this perver animal then Bush.
I read somewhere Bush is coming to Brazil in february, in the Carnival :lol:

http://img.terra.com.br/i/2004/08/29/162735-0023-ga.jpg


That could happens... :lol:

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/bushmane.jpg

Jeez, Civ ... you just said too many political views and then you trash Bush by comparing him unfavorably to a "perverse animal"! :( How about we sign a new treaty of Versailles or something and stop making political comments altogether, including any comments about how one feels regarding Bush's politics, his nature, his religion, his intelligence, his shoe size, his body odor, etc.? :cool:

Ancient Era Bush ... The more I think about having Bush draped in a wolf's pelt like you have that one native American advisor in the other thread, the more I like it. Not delving into politics here, but Bush is known to be more comfortable in shirt sleeves than in suits or tuxes. I just think that Bush as a clan or tribal leader is more realistic than Bush gussied up in a Roman toga. And for those of you who do not like Bush, think of the imagery! Conan the Barbarian ... Bush the Barbarian! :D

If we are putting it to a vote, I vote Bush the Barbarian over Ave Bush in Ancient Era. :p

Juka,

I'll send you a copy of the law degree if you want to help pay the student loans! :lol:

I think this Ancient one would be hysterical

http://www.leavingcal.com/binladen/bush_laden1.jpg


A little less Ayatollah though... something more akin to Biblical dress.

Hey ... I like that beard! I could live with old testament "Bush the Prophet" if we don't go Bush the Barbarian. However we go ... I like that beard! You're a sick man, DP II! Show us more. :lol:

"Bush the Prophet" might be interesting as we have nothing else quite like it, although I'm not sure how authentically American that might be... the Roman one is a nice idea, and I say that if Civ Army is the one doing the work and he likes that one best, he should go with it. But I also like the idea of Bush the barbarian.

So that post doesn't help matters much, does it?

It's a shame that Clinton one was never finished, as it looked very good, I thought (although the hair wasn't exactly right...).

On a related subject, I would love to see a Boris Johnson leaderhead. I don't know what earthly use it would be, but wouldn't it be fun?

A little less Ayatollah though... something more akin to Biblical dress.



yes,biblical thats the word i've been searching for. civarmy make him biblical. and we're talking old testament here,if you know what i mean...the angry,egomaniac god...

Isn't that picture of Bush from the cover of "The Clash of Fundamentalisms" by Tariq Ali?

Oh well. I think that this is a shining example of why all of the leaderheads firaxis provided are of dead guys. Living people just generate too much controversy.
Leaving politics aside (which is just as well, because I tend to become extremely angry and that can't be good for my health), I would suggest Roman emperor Bush for the first era. In the second era, he should be a crusader or a knight, wearing extravagant, shining armour which is clearly impractical for fighting, but makes for a great photo-op ;)
Third era absolutely has to be some kind of a sheriff from the Old West, preferably standing in front of a dirt road with salloons and smithies, there can be no question about that. You might consider giving him some kind of facial hair for this era.
Fourth era- He either has to be waring his usual dark blue suit and standing in front of an American flag, or he has to be wearing a paratrooper uniform and standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier (preferably pictured from an angle which doesn't show the San Diego skyline off on the horizon)

ssaaagihsjkoadu shasgufh

Hikaro Takayama,

As you are driving cross country, when you start hearing the music from "Deliverance", turn right and you'll be close to home. I look forward to meeting you. In the meantime, keep your head (and ass) down. Neither one of them need a bullet. :lol:

Sounds kind of like my hometown :lol: except that we got the "Deuling Banjos." I'll PM you with my cell phone # closer to when I'm lieaving. Since I've just got back from the Gulf, and won't be going back in the next 2.5 months that I have left, you've no need for concern (unless I end up driving trhough Compton...).

As for the LH, I'm kind of torn between the Old-Testament Prophet (Bush was, after all featured in the Christian Mens Magazine a while back) and the wolf-pelt draped barbarian. For the Middle ages, American Revolutionary Officer's (like George Washington's) uniform would probably be the best.

And yes, I aggree with the Gary cooper/Roy Rogers type of Old west Sherrif or Marshall holding a big ol' Colt Buntline special revolver for the Industrial Era (We could also replace the American UU with the Cowboy/US Cavalry instead of the regular cavalry) :lol:

Your idea is even better than mine....

If you REALLY wanted to have a truly American Bush, than it would be a Pilgrim in the Ancient Age, a Minuteman in the Middle Ages, a Wild West Sheriff for the Industrial, and plain ol Bush for the Modern Era...

Perception has nothing to do with it. He's not from Texas. Period. He spent a lot of his life there, but that doesn't make him Texan. And that's not meant to be partisan. It's simply a statement of fact.


I disagree. Using that logic, nobody from Mexico\Africa\England\etc. could be an American. Are you prepared to go down that road?

Ahhh. The Crusades and flaming minarets. Reminds me of a saying "Give me ambiguity or give me something else!". That wasn't just a suggestion taking a perceived jab at W. I respect him and would join him. I meant it as a tribute to this great leader. I think that if someone with a negative bias does this LH, it is going to show and not be appreciated by us few. The world at large would probably like it though. Us 51% of Americans would like to see the LH done respectfully.

Edit: DP II - I withdraw my disagreement after reading more of the thread.

For people that did not see it yet, check the http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=104972 to see the Bush under construction (and post the suggestions, if u want :) )

Hmm, intriguing choices. "Cool", certainly, but historically correct?

I think the crusader is as off as the samurai armour I mentioned. The Americans did not take part in the crusades in the time period that Civ categorizes as Middle Ages (from Feudalism to Theory of Gravity) or at all for that matter, but it - i.e. the states that were to become the United States in 1776 - DID play a major role in the conquest of the West and acted as a haven for people who had been persecuted in Europe because of their background, religion or politics. This is what you should emphasize: real history.

This is why I still suggest the Pilgrim outfit. If you want to make him more military and avoid similarities with CivLincoln, then dress him in the uniform of Colonial Militia (perhaps with a musket and everything).

As to Eagle Armour... Well, I don't think this New Rome thing is more than rather doubtful national romanticism, and not very original at that either. The Third Reich was also supposed to be the descendant of the Roman Empire...

Thus, I suggest, well, the trapper/hunter... Of course your choice depends on which majority/minority population you wish to emphasize, but I think the furry trapper's outfit would be rather neutral.