OK, it's unbelivable how I didn't ask this here before:

Can anyone here explain me WHY the Portuguese are not in this game?

Why are that Dutch guys in the game and there ae no Portuguese?!?

In Tordesilhas treaty, Portugal and Spain divided the world in 2: half for each. Consequently, Portugal stay with Brazil and Terra Nova (Canada) and Spain with the rest of the Americas.

Portugal hold Brazil till 1825. And Bazil is not a small thing: it's that HUGE thing in South America. Impossible to pass by without being noticed...

So, Why isn't Portugal there? Does anyone have any idea about it?!? :confused:

Well, it's an american game. They're not known for their historical knowledge.
You could ask the same question for civ3 (actually, you've already done that, so I won't go into it any further)

I think that it is a fair argument. The portugese were very important explorers and exceptional mariners early on. I have also heard arguments for including Norse and Swedes. Both had colonies in the new world. I would try and play as them for sure, What special advantage should they get to start with? Portugese ships travel a few extra squares? Norse farmers get more yeild from tundra areas? Swedes fish better?

As far as I know the Dutch were just as active in the colonial days as the Portuguese. We've had New York (New Amsterdam), Suriname, Indonesia and South Africa. And we were very active in piracy. :groucho:

I do agree that Portugal (and Dutch) should be in Civ3 as well, though. Of the 24 in PTW, there are some of nations far less important in history than we.

:cry:

So why are not them in the game?

I love the game,but when I played it and I see Brazil in others hands, I get :mad: and delete it!

Why did they do that for me?!? :(

Portuguese in CIV3: of course, and the Dutch too (in fact,more in CIV3, as Indonesia and South Africa are part of the world but not of the Americas. I don't understand how they get included in Col and not in CIV... Firaxians...

Piracy: So you finally admit, hugh!?! ;)

Only in the eye of the beholder of course. It's more a matter of claiming what was rightfully ours.
Dutch people look great wearing silver :D

Originally posted by Shabbaman
Only in the eye of the beholder of course. It's more a matter of claiming what was rightfully ours.
Dutch people look great wearing silver :D

meaning... :confused:

Do any you know who Drake was? (That was sarcasm)

Britainnia rules the waves! We beat you all! But I do argee the Portuguese should be inculuded.

Piet Hein!

Os portuguêses são tudo direitos por mim!

Pretty good for a english boy ehh

Originally posted by Revolutionairy
Os portuguêses são tudo direitos por mim!

Pretty good for a english boy ehh

Yes, pretty good for an non-native! :D

And thaks for the support! ;)

My freind has a mum from Spain and he speaks Spainish Portuguse and something called catatoneian(sp?) it all from the area though

What's a catatoneian?!?

Is that from Catalunya?!? :confused:

I'm not sure I'll get to you with the correct spelling

All I know it is spoken on the Eastern Coast of Spain.

Just phoned my freind it is Catalan. Spoken in somewhere called Aragon and Murcia. It is the mother tounge of only about 5 or 6 million. Ever heard of it?

Of Course. Do you know Barcelona?

Catalan is spoken there and in the rest of Catalunya (Barcelona is the capital of that "state")

If you had ever seen soccer, then you must know Barcelona. It has one of top European Football teams. :D

Figo used to play there...

That thing you said in Portuguese above: was that translated in Altavista or somewhere or did you know that?

Portuguese it looks like you ask this question for every game where your country isn't in :D

Well you can see it like this:
In this period of time and even today Portugal and Spain is very similar. They used the same methods (religious reasons,....) and colonized the same area. I agree with you the Dutch empire was clearly behind the Portuguese in military matters but their trade empire was the largest and the most important in the world. What they can't conquer they bought and from this point of view it's justified to put the Dutch before the Portuguese.

So perhaps you can just start the game as the Spaniards and imagine they are Portuguese :)

Or change txt's...

About the Dutch: they are posterior and they never reached a control of the seas or of a land like Brazil like the Portuguese...

And this game should have Portuguese. At least this one...

Tough luck.
The VOC shipped all those slaves to America, so I guess that microprose is still gracious about that.
I fully comply with de montcalm.

Originally posted by Shabbaman
Only in the eye of the beholder of course. It's more a matter of claiming what was rightfully ours.
Dutch people look great wearing silver :D

Originally posted by Portuguese
meaning... :confused:


meaning: Good bye Spanish silver fleet :goodjob:

The question was what has that to do with Port. ...

Nevermind that.

I guess I'll just change my personal txt's to my amuse.

Hmmmm... Have to do that in PTW too, transforming Spain into Portugal. Isabella is quite similar to Leonor... :D

I also miss Portugese in col. They could be something between Spanish and Dutch.

I tried to add fifth nation, but resut was, that it controlled all the others.

I didn't know that Swedes and Nores were in America, but Russians colonized Alaska. Perhaps they didn't include them, because there would be almost more europeans than indans in the new world.

"I tried to add fifth nation, but resut was, that it controlled all the others." - Coooool :)

Yeah, game lacks some.
But I don't accept that Indians-Europeans ratio argument... Why is that?!?

War with indians is easier than with europeans. If there were too many european nations at once in the world, indians would soon all die and it would be almost only about europeans.
But five nations would be still good, six is too much.
I think, they could make more profiles of european civilizations, and after choosing one of them by player, rest three or four would be chosen randomly.

Hmmm.. I see. Good point.
But 5 euro-civs continue not to be tooooo many...
Especially with that idea you post at last place.

So, the original question remains...

From the Colonization manual: "If we had included a fifth nation, we probably would have chosen Portugal. Although Portugal's influence was larger than the Netherland's, Portugal fell under Spanish rule for much of the time covered by the game and its policies and circumstances were very similar to Spain's."

Which, I think, answers the question quite adequately. Part of their aim in creating Colonization was, obviously, to make each of the European powers distinctively different, so it made a real difference which one you played. If you want to conquer, you'll have a much better time of it as the Spanish. If you want a powerful trade empire, the Dutch will make it easier for you. And so on.

I'm not going to argue that Portugal has no right to be in the game, but you must admit Portugese behavior in the New World was not very different from that of the Spanish. What special traits would the Portuguese get? What would their general strategy be? How would they, in game terms, be different enough from the Spanish that you'd get a different game by playing Portugal rather than Spain?

Actually, I do have an idea on that. If England is Immigration, Spain is Conquest, France is Cooperation, and the Netherlands is Trade, perhaps Portugal could be Conversion. Maybe their Missionaries could get a bonus in establishing Missions, and it could be easier for the Portuguese to incite the Indians. Just a thought.

As for the other European powers mentioned, I can make a case against including them:

Norse: Had abandoned the New World centuries before the game begins. The scope of the game, remember, is the age of Columbus to the American Revolution. The Vikings were operating in the area roughly five centuries before the game starts. Indeed, by 1492 they had ceased to exist as "Norse" at all, and the modern nations of Denmark and Sweden had long been established. (So had Norway, but it was ruled by Denmark during the period of this game.)

Russians: Again, it is mainly a question of scope. The United States already existed as a nation when the first Russian colonies were being placed in Alaska. They arrived too late to have any influence in the "Age of Colonization", as we could call it. And the map, you will notice, cuts off at the north somewhat before we reach Russian territory. Believe me, as an Alaskan, this is something that immediately caught my notice and has been a source of some irritation.

Swedish: Lasted such a brief time and occupied such a small piece of land that their influence on the New World was negligible at best. Perhaps someone who knows the history of New Sweden better than I do can correct me if I am in error, but it seems to me New Sweden never extended past Delaware and was taken over by the Dutch within a single generation. Of course you could argue that this doesn't matter in game terms, since this could be our chance to make New Sweden triumph. And I would agree, but then there would still be the question: What would their traits be? What would be their overall strategy, and what bonuses would the player get by playing as the Swedish? This time, I have no answers. As much as I would love to see New Sweden in the game (being of largely Swedish blood myself, heh heh), it would be difficult to justify their inclusion, even setting aside history and working strictly in game terms.

Edit:
Before I finish this, I'll say one more thing. With the new Atari deal, it seems like there is a possibility that a Colonization 2 might be coming sometime in the future. If this is the case, then I hope the following changes will be made:
-Add Portugal, and, if traits and strategies can be devised, Sweden and possibly Russia. Russia would come in on the western side of the map initially.
-Make the map larger, and for the love of all that is good and pure, extend the northern boundary! I want to colonize my homeland! It's not fair to let it go down all the way to the Horn in the south, and suddenly pretend that Alaska and northern Canada aren't there. I want the map to go all the way up to Ellesmere!
-Add more Indian tribes. Nothing wrong with the ones included, but if the map is to be bigger, then there should at least be a few more. Including Alaska and the Russians would require the Inuit or Aleut to be in, and I'd also like to see the Chinook.

Regarding Alaska, you could make a new map of the Americas to include Alaska by using the Colonisation Map Editor.
For that matter you could make a detailed map just of Canada and Alaska including Hudson Bay, Baffin Island and the NW passage.

One option for Portugal would be to change the Colony.txt file. This file contains all the possible colony names for each country. You could give all the Spanish colonies Portuguese names then play as Spain.

However, there could be an even better option. The Game.txt file contains a parameter called &Countries which includes this list:

the Holy Roman Empire
the Portuguese
the Ottoman Turks
the Barbary Pirates
Russia
Prussia
Sweden
Denmark

Maybe the game is already designed to allow you to change your starting countries somehow. I wonder what starting advantage they would give the Barbary Pirates?

I can answer that question. Whenever the King raises the tax rate, he gives an excuse. When the excuse is that he's trying to finance a war, the computer chooses one of those names to represent the country he's fighting.

Originally posted by Loaf Warden
From the Colonization manual: "If we had included a fifth nation, we probably would have chosen Portugal. Although Portugal's influence was larger than the Netherland's, Portugal fell under Spanish rule for much of the time covered by the game and its policies and circumstances were very similar to Spain's."

Which, I think, answers the question quite adequately. Part of their aim in creating Colonization was, obviously, to make each of the European powers distinctively different, so it made a real difference which one you played. If you want to conquer, you'll have a much better time of it as the Spanish. If you want a powerful trade empire, the Dutch will make it easier for you. And so on.

I'm not going to argue that Portugal has no right to be in the game, but you must admit Portugese behavior in the New World was not very different from that of the Spanish. What special traits would the Portuguese get? What would their general strategy be? How would they, in game terms, be different enough from the Spanish that you'd get a different game by playing Portugal rather than Spain?

Actually, I do have an idea on that. If England is Immigration, Spain is Conquest, France is Cooperation, and the Netherlands is Trade, perhaps Portugal could be Conversion. Maybe their Missionaries could get a bonus in establishing Missions, and it could be easier for the Portuguese to incite the Indians. Just a thought.

"you must admit Portugese behavior in the New World was not very different from that of the Spanish." > This is almost an insult. We, and any other colonizer..., don't slaughter Indians like Spanians did! They purely treat Indian lives as sparable. As you said "Maybe their Missionaries could get a bonus in establishing Missions, and it could be easier for the Portuguese to incite the Indians.". Precisely. Portugal were much more tended to enrich with the trade with indian merchandise, winning money to waste in Netherlands, France and England luxuries (reason to our ruin in the end of the process... :-( ). We are much more represented by French or Dutch. Your missions idea was pretty good. So, playing Portugal would be VERY different from playing Spain. Besides Portuguese and Spanish nations were united under the same king for 60 years but remain different in many ways. King Filipe was king of Portugal and Spain, showing that it remained somehow appart. Also, in a country close to 900 years, 60 is to few. Even considering our control of Brazil, wich endured for 325 years, 60 is too low for being appointed for a reason to exclude Portugal.

Portugal and perhaps Russia should have been included. They are all very different from all others, both in territories dominated and in way of behaving, justifying their inclusion. Saying Spain represents Portugal is, besides offensive to almost all portuguese, historically completelly inaccurate. Portuguese influence was bigger than French and Dutch and a game that lacks it shows that someone should know history better, IMHO.

Congrats, Ricardo Magalhães

Note: I'm not displeased with anyone. Somehow, I'm used to this: Portugal is today a minor actor in Global Politics and people tend to think that it was the same way through history. Don't interpretate my words as criticism. It's just a way of saying that it's unfair and shows many ignorance from who choose the CIVs to include. But, what a hell, I'm used to that.

Okay, Senhor Magalhães. How about this:

Portugal: Conversion
All Missionaries function as experts.
Converted Natives more likely to join Colony.
Leader: Martim Afonso de Sousa
Colonies:
Salvador
Rio de Janeiro
Curitiba
Manaus
Recife
São Paulo
Santa Maria
Natal
Fortaleza
Belem
São Luis
Campo Grande
São Francisco
Boa Vista
São Gonçalo
Santarem
Januaria
Niquelandia
Uruguiana
Cuiaba

I think it could work. It would definitely be different enough from Spain that no one would think they were interchangeable. Playing Portugal would be as different from playing Spain as anyone else would be.

How About?

Perfect :D
(I would pick another leader, but that's Ok...)

Did you have the Text files to that? :)

No. I've never seen that Colonization can be customized the way Civ II and Civ III can. I've never even been able to find any Text files for it. When I go into my Colonization folder, there aren't any in there--but somehow, the game works anyway. All I was doing here, unfortunately, was speculating on what it could be like if Portugal was in the game. (And giving a little preview of a modpack I'm attempting to design for C3C once it comes out, if I can find a decent map of North and South America.) I've also developed a city list for New Sweden, but in Colonization terms, they're harder to justify, since I don't have a clue what their strategy could be.

If you want a more accurate and in-depth historical simualtion of the golden age of European colonization try Europa Universalis II. You can play not only as the Portuguese but the nation states of Spain eg Aragon, Catalan...as well as the better known nations.

http://www.europa-universalis.com

I think they only have 4 slots in the code for some reason. One byte with 2 bits for each European Power. You will note that when SOL hits 50% ie. you can declare Independence the treaty of ... occurs and one power leaves to make way for the Royal Expeditionary Force. I supose they thought Spain and Portugal were the most similar powers so one had to go.

Still, they could've included Portugal by choosing (randomly for the AI) four of the five(or maybe more?) nations at the start.

Still, they could've included Portugal by choosing (randomly for the AI) four of the five(or maybe more?) nations at the start.
For example...

Besides, they could use 8 slots, which would allow 3 Royal forces, allowing several powers to declare independence. was this too hard?!?

Somehow, I'm used to this: Portugal is today a minor actor in Global Politics and people tend to think that it was the same way through history.

And the same for the Netherlands :) Luckily both are confirmed for civ4!

I think 8 slots was just too much. Don't forget that the game is very old.

EDIT: forget about that confirmation, I mixed some things up. Wishful thinking might work, at least it worked for conquests :p

Yes... and slaves should've been added, it's a pity they weren't. And it would be very good if you could choose from colonizing either America or Africa.

Yes, slaves would be usefull. In fact essential if we want to be accurate.

Were 8 slots too much? Come on. 1991's Civ1 was released with 16...

Os portuguêses são tudo direitos por mim!

Pretty good for a english boy ehh

Haha I had to translate it back to English to understand. You should've said that they're 'certos' I think. Direito is right as in left-right...and as in civil rights.

The Dutch didn't win their own War of Independence against Spain until well into the 17th Century, so I don't agree with the developers that the temporary Spanish rule of Portugal justified Portugese exlusion from the game in favour of the Dutch.

Hah obviously your patriotism has blinded you from the obvious facts.

Portugal was in the 17th century no power. They were a vassal state of Spain for a while and Portugal was a very poor Country with little military power.

Most Portugese sugar shipping from Brasil was intercepted by Dutch privateers and the Dutch had even conquered Pernambuco (in brasil) from the Portugese and the Dutch had also conquered several African possessions from the Portugese.

The Dutch Republic was one of the most influential and richest countries in the 17th century. Amsterdam was the intellectual center of Europe and 50-60% of the shipping in Europe was performed by the Dutch.

It was certainly not the English but the Dutch who brought down the Spanish empire (a quote by an English Historian).

So an addition of portugal is not very enriching since they did have a lot of territory but were not powerfull enough.

as per my usual, this post is not intended to disrespect or start a fuss with the orginal poster or the question posed, it is opinion submitted with respect.

I suspect the nation choices were a combination of perceived (american) marketing and personal preference on the designers. It was not meant with disresepect to the Portuguese, it was simply what Reynolds and Sid had learned after making Pirates and it stuck in their heads.

Ya gotta remember this game was made back when making games was fun, not only a business where personal flourish(and personal preference) were part of the process rather than the data taken from X, Y, or Z focus group.

which is why I think a real colonization II (turn based) could still be a big seller, with the huge sucess AgeofEmpires has had with it's american adventure the market still exists. Put a real economic model inot the game and sell it as educational and bam you got #1 game of the month (grandma's love to buy games that are educational, we won't tell her we will take our muskets and shove them up the backsides of those who oppose us...warfare is part of ecocnomics)

though I'd rather see a colonization type of trading system used for Civ5, where each "item" (unit or building) which is being built needs X amount of Y commodities to be built...and let really cut loose with the rape of the enviorment, ahem, explotiation of resources. If civ players weren't micromangers by nature we'd be playing RTS by prefence.

well its not just Portugal... i mean, there are several powerfull nations today that are not mentioned in CIV... like Canada, Siam, Australia, Argenitina...

anddo you think CIV can evolv into placing ALL European Civilizations with just Europe??

Too true,

When you compare the nature of colonization, as a game, (and by reflection the people who still play it) it would be possible to trade a little in the ways of graphics for an open-ended civilization set-up /and or creation process, to reflect the diverse nature of the world.

PCism aside people aren't still playing colonization cuz of the cool looks. We play it cuz we like it. The game-industry mindest of trading looks for gameplay will eventually stop. If not in this generation then the next simply because the graphics will have gotten so life like the skill to create "better" won't be possible...so then they will be stuck with an industry which forgot the basics of game design and await another Sid to take us from the dark ages of Pong & space invaders into the wonderous possiblities that are out there.

Back to point, however much it may be unpopular to say, the contributions to WORLD economic and war sciences were made primarily by the Europeans. It was spanish explorers, dutch exploiters and english engineers who took us all from the world of the 1500's into the present little slice of heaven we call earth. (yes feel free to trade any of those 'e' words with any nationality you'd like in whatever combination you'd like)

and like everythign else, question what you know. history is one of those soft sciences that politicians never object to twisting for thier own ends. Americans ...err that is residents of the USA, cuz there are alot of Americans that don't follow the stars & stripes; do it as much as any culture. But then so do other cultures. Maybe it's time to stop for thinking people to stop this national bickering about who is best/strongest/whatever. Give each person (and nation) the respect they earn by thier actions. Kinda like prison, but when someone gets shanked it's with nuclear warheads.

Kinda like prison, but when someone gets shanked it's with nuclear warheads.

you were actually making sense untill this verse...

anyways, European Colonization didnt lead to the ""earth we live in today" but the History of civilizations, and evelotion from prehistoric to Pharoes, to phonecians, to greeks, romans, Arabs, Indians, chinese etc.. lead to the Reinassance, which led to European Colonization, leading to massive resources income to the colonizing power, dividing falling powers, and weakening them in all directions, then was independance of the colonized countries, with low human resources... creating a gap, which eventually led us to today's "Heaven"...

what i mean is that every single civilization has created our world, its not fair to say that it was the Europeans, i mean, if it wasnt for Phonecians, and there creation of Alphabet major events such as the Bibel, and messages would have been delayed, or the Hitties use of Chariots, would have slowed down the rate of communication,
same thing with Chinese and gunpowder, Arabs and Medicine, Indians and geometry etc...

Very true! :),

hey that would make a great game wouldn't it!...oh wait *smirk*

no, what I meant about the prison metaphore, from gulags to county jails, traditionally, throughout history, it is the criminals who have created a working society based upon merit not birthright or material possession. Meaning, it doesn't matter who you are or what you have in prisons, --across the world from my understanding, (which granted is only limited to first hand knowledge in 3 countries) if you cross the line you pay for it within the bounds of that society. No exceptions, no "but this is different"...bam you lie, cheat or in other ways violate those unwritten rules and someone is going to create a new orifice in your skin with a sharpened bit of metal.

and I agree with everythng else you said, allow me to go off on a conspirosy theory rant for a second, nationalism, (including within a nation for one sets of people who are different than another set of peoples within that nation) is a construct based upon human instict.

Young males, --and those that manage to grow up, are naturally inclined to prove themselves as warriors by going to the next tribe over and creating mayhem (in several different predictable forms) now this "natural truth" has been used by the univesal, ahh...let's call them "bosses" to use Mr. Marx's ideal, (define boss as one who benifits by standing ontop of the pyrimid in a society) but this natural nature of man has been used by the worlds bosses to keep the rest of humanity in line. If you are all hot to go kill the phoencians, or the commies, or the "street gang across the street" you aren't looking at the fact you are staying hungry while the rich guys are throwing away food.

boy, I hope that made sense.

to put it more simply, as long as we are hating each other we are not going to hate them, and they can profit on our instictive nature to go to war...(alibeit in a tribal way it is little war...stealing a girl to breed with, stealing some horses(or other sign of wealth & power) or the other reason it "makes sense to us as men to leave our nice warm tent and go out and do some mayhem.....

ok, you are in egypt, I'm in atlanta usa, we have more in common than at least I do with anyone else I know in my "physical world", we coudl sit and argue historical politics, play civ/colonization, for years and and never get bored....but come a month from now I'm goign to go to my wife's family for christmas plaster a pleasant smile on my face and do my best to be affable cuz I got nothing in common with those folks.

but if you look at the "Politics of power" you being Egypt and me being in the USA should make us distrustful of one another for all sorts of reasons, if you listen to the politcs the bosses exploit to keep thier power.

sorry about the rant. I'm like one of those dolls, you pull my string and no power on earth will shut me up til I get finished saying my programmed response *grin*

i couldnt agree with you more, yes it has always been leader and led...
and rarely has the world seen leaders that are just, that usually get assasinated at the end, Rafik Hariri (lebanese prime minister), John Kennedy (US president), Julius Ceaser (Roman emperor), and lots others...

but actually we are different, not because of political views "only", but each individual is different, getting along with each others doesnt neccessariy mean we are the same...

of course we need to have similarities such as Interest to "hit it off", but politics, if your interested in it, will definatly form your relations as well, its beacuse i an Arab and you American, and increasingly since 11th september, we will have different point of views, and might even consider our selves enemies (im talking at the wider picture, and not personally me to you)

from the over 300 million Arab's point of view, America has declared a war on them and Islam, starting with Iraq's invasion, and interfearing in Sudan's Darfur, all the way to palestine, lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Lebanon etc...

from the over 300 million American's point of view, America has been attacked, and must defend its honor, by demolishing the Terrorists that are acting like a time bomb in important regions...

leaders have not formed these prespectives, but people. people tht bombed the twin towers and the pentagon, and people that started the whole arab Divisioin thing, with sykes-Picot agreement and the Belfour declaration...

even if they are considered the rich... there actions have been agreed by the poor.

I agree with you mostly,

In america at least, at this moment, active opposition to the leadership's line is nearly pointless, they're crooks who have used every dirty tactic, and the moderate stance on politcal correctness, against any disenter. The same parrell could be drawn with the ottomans and inspiring tribal warfare against the british in 1917-1919.

I've said before that somebody going to my high school, if I met up with them in New York, if they were my worst enemy in high school, they'd suddenly be my friend in New York simply cuz we'd be two peas in the same trapped pod...or two americans in Moscow, or two earthlings trapped on planet Whozit, it is all the same principle. We are not the same, but we are enough the same to make us friendly in a strange enviorment.

You are a thinking man, I like to think I am, we don't have to agree or even get along, that is the benifit of intelegence, you can disagree with someone without having to act upon it. It is in our differences where we will both learn something.

With the current situation, I'm pretty cynical about both sides. The ottomans used Islamic jihad the same way that the americans used 'manifest dystiny' both with a caculated view of profit. and the poor sonsof. .. .. .. .. .es who will suffer are not going to be the ones who get to share in the profit. The sins of the cold war are being paid now, with every dictator we shoved down the throats of the arab states (the shah comes mainly to mind) helped forment the hatred of the west by the religious right in the arab world. Our propping up profit minded leaders again pretty much assures the regular folks in the arab world are never going to embrace the US.

and in 80 years it all won't matter, the oil will be gone and replaced with new technology. Isareal will still be a thorn in the Islamic side but then the west not haivng anything to profit from keeping the arab world neutral (at best) will have no reaon to even try anymore. then every bomb that goes off from sept. 11 2001, to that date will be paid in arab blood. Which is sad but given the track record of the west is probably the way things will go.

Unless a working peace can be found now, while there are still important bargaining chips in the arab world your grandchildren are going to have a real bad time of it. 80 years is a long time, in a human way at least, so a lot can happen before then. But the long odds are with the west simply because of the technolgoical advantage (mainly I'm speaking about missile delivery systems and information tracking here)

So unless we find a solution, today, that lets us live together, someone is eventually going to be burying some people by the metric ton. Don't know which side will finish first, I hope not to learn either cuz I'm dead and buried myself or because calmer leaderships (on both sides) can be foudn that will make the difference.

just wanted to correct you on something that alot of Americans and Europeans assume, the Shah is Irani, and not Arab, Iran is a persian state, like Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, they are Muslims, but not Arabs, they are Arayans, like Europeans...

anyways, i disagree with you on an upcoming war, between Arabs and Americans, yes the oil will end within a century, but the rich arab states, have started to increase their projects and income from non-oil industry, such as Tourism, different Industries, Real-estates, farming, and owning shares in developing poorer Arab states, this year alone Arabs oil states have invested 30 billion dollars in Egypt alone, in Industry, and Farming...

see, post 11 september, Arabs stoped investing their money in the west, and headed for investments in neighboring Arab states, which is what we needed really to grow, and unite, our own sufficiency...

i might be too optemistic, but im judging on the scales of today, and today's events...

i really can't see Israel in the next 80 years, since by the year 2020, Arabs living within Israeli borders will be more than jews, so Israel will eventually become an Arab state, whether they like it or not...

an open war with America is not going to happen, from the way i see it, the US has crossed its peak point, and is starting to fall, it wont fall at the same rate that Rome or Soviets fell, but gradually, industrial investments will shift from the USA to neighboring Mexico or Asia, creating massive unemployment in the Industrial business, making the US a service depending country, with Industry out, military expenses will decrease, and will shift to agriculture...

the second scenario is that the USA will have to import alot of foreign labor into the country, which will mostly be Asian and Latin, where will demand seperat states, just like the british colonizers did , calling for an independant America...

im not saying we (unified Arab State) will become the next superpower, i personally think it will be the European Union, China or Russia, and i disagree with people that think India is the next superpower..

I did understand that Iran is a persian state, not arab, but you are right when I made the mistake of lumping them in as a whole...so for that my apologies and thank you for the reminder.

I've heard other folks from other places, india and china mostly, talking about america's day in the sun was over. They maybe right, but mostly I think it will depend on the leadership america finds over the next 40 years. Not just in politics but more in culture...which has always been america's strongest asset.

There is an arguement that can be made that Hollywood took down the eastern block...so many incredibly poor slavs & russians & everybody else would see the old Buzby Berkley or Doris Day films and see the splendor that America had, then looked around thier own lot and got pissed enough to want something better. I think there is some validity to the arguement. I'm not saying it was the only factor, but it was a cause not a symptom I suspect....

anyway in hwo that relates to this discussion is if america can re-find that creative spark, which created mickey mouse and indocrinated 3 genrations of world citizenry into the zen of materialism, and the industry leaders are smart enough to smear it all over like thick butter, rather than tieing it all up into coperate-monopolized entities (in short where they sue you for using the copywrite instead of letting the popularity of the thing grow by the free exchange of use) then I don't think america is going anywhere off the top of the totem pole.

I am hoping the current american frenzy over "unsafe toys" (made overseas) & the trend to wanting to develop green(enviormentally) friendly industry will combine with the above idea and america can go back to a place where they make thier own goods. I have no idea if this is just a short term panic or will someone in business leadership really do something with it all. Time will tell.

and the last deciding factor will be how much of our engineering we let go to other countries. If, like we did under Reagan trade away our tech. edge to create a credit card-style economy, then we are doomed. But if hold our ability to create things it gives us a another hundred years of superoity.

it will just depend on if the leadership gives bread & circuses, or actually acts in the nations best interest. I think Bush has doomed us in many ways, and it will take a miracle worker at diplomacy to undo what he's managed to do...or someone willing to drop a nuke. lacking either of those events then you are right that america will go into that dark night, and wind up like britan probably, one of the old women of power. Respected but thier opinion just doesn't matter like it used to.

I'd personally like to see a new Monroe doctrine implemented, that the world fights it out with itself and we take care of our own hemisphere. It might be bad global economics but it's probably good business. We can't be invaded,..and held....the territory is simply too big, and what folks from other countries don't undersand is that america doesn't live in new york or LA, it lives in the heartland of the states where the real descions get made and taking kansas with a military force isn't possibly by any country at the moment (and foreseeable future).

that is not meant to sound arrogant or spiteful, just looking at the facts of landmass. There is not a single heart in america that can be struck for the kill...unlike Islam or china, where the right sized warhead would definitly take the fight out of the opposition. My fear is as we get angrier (all of us, all nations) the possiblity of finding a leader who would be willing to do such things (on both sides) becomes stronger...we forget how bad war can be....civ players like to strat. it out and do things in theroy, but real war ain't about theory, its about nasty killing.

Personally for a little reconciliation I'd hand bush over to a 'nuremburg' style court for his crimes....by those statues he could be rightly considered guilty, but saddly even such a gesture would be viewed as the act of the weak by your nation and others..even if we could catch the bastard who'd start running for it the moment it was clear the cops were out for him.

With your comment abotu isreal, you maybe right, but it will end up being a spartan/heliot situaion. and when the west's only concern is supporting isreal, (I keep misspelling it don't I) I don't see much luck for the arab world, cuz the war will be fought on your soil not ours, yeah we may get bombed, but again any civ player knows they'll trade a building to bombardment for an entire country in retaliton...

and something to consider, we havent' started our own terror campagin, (at least as it is practiced at the moment) we are doing a good job of being a bully and threatening with unspoken threats, but its a little different. Iraq was a war of liberation (in america's mind at least) to free the iraqi people of saddam....and we resent all hell the fact we never got thanked...but happily most of it (on both sides) is being laid at bush's doorstep rather than each others. I don't know if arabs "blame" the average america for the last 7 years of history. In this country outside of a hateful wariness (mostly from self-created paranoia) towards the average arab but we still (as a whole) believe it is leaders like saddam which are the problem...not the people themselves.

but time will tell I suppose, and I thank you sir for this conversation. I dont' know if anyone else is reading it, but it's been englightening for me...it is always good to get another point of view seperate from what you are being told on a daily basis.

yes indeed it has been enlighting, i mean,it is pretty rare to find an American in these forums that can take a minute and think and analyse the world around him rather then debate what he has been fed by the media, our while our governments have taught us how to stay away from politics good... thats why its pretty rare tofind an Arab on these forums...hehe

anyways...

sir, Israel's fight will ofcourse be on our soil, it has always been, it just comes with being an Arab, Arab soil has been wanted by almost all civilizations, if for its location (colonial era), or its Holyness (Crusades, Israel), or wealth (Oil age, and colonial era), or science (Mongol Empire, Andalusia)...

we are used to the Invaders, they come they leave, and come again and leave once more, it just comes with the land i guess...

as for America being invaded, i agree, there is just too much land to control by invaders, especially if your invaders are a rich lowpopulated country such as Canada or a Poor overpopulated mexico, but a chinese official (dont know the name) said once during the cold war, and following some statement by Nixon (i think) for bombing china, that china can be bombed, but the US will be delivered the bodies of the chinese dead...

the US is hard to be invaded from the outside, but can easily be invaded from the Inside... it is called immigration... something that Europe is finally starting to fear...
i personally disagree with Migration... i mean, your country = dont leave it, and keep its natives, so you wouldnt loose your identity...

the American culture of Macdonalds, levise Jeans, Rock, Hip Hop, Hollywood, and F.R.I.E.N.D.S. are not American anymore, ppl dont look at a guy wearing jeans in Europe or China or here in the Arab world as an Americanized kid, but a regular kid, American culture has been Globalized, and became the culture of the Modern world, the real american culture today is probably Rednecks, and cowboys... something that is not found in the rest of the world...

as for Iraq... well the US has no right to invade Iraq, even if it was for "liberating them from Saddam", which wasnt even the case, it was searching for Nuclear arms!!!
i mean, Americans cant be that nieve... to believe excuses like that... when Bush came on Television, and claimed that Iraq has developed Nuclear power... the Arabs in the street literaly laughed at him... and didnt really think he was serious, but i dont know who advised him to say that... anyways... Sadam is a dictator, dont invade the country, but support opposition and rebelion groups, i mean the guy was gonna die like in 3 more years...

invading a country just because it is ruled by a dictator is BullS**T... this will give any nation the greenlight to invade another... i mean, the US can simply invade most Arab states, SEAM (South East Asian Mainland), Indonesia, China, N Korea, Persian Republics (Iran, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc...), Balkan states and Latin America... pretty mush the entire globe...??

and now after Bush is going bye bye due to the 2008 american elections, he is trying to fix some things he ignored when he was in power, like the Arab-Israeli Conflict...

i dont know if you heard about that Annapolis, Maryland Conference, where the Arab League, EU, India, China, Russia, Brazil, Japan, Canada, USA and Israel are all attending, for a peace meeting!!!

i mean, i hope it works out, but im pretty sure they will all go home empty handed...