Leaders

Whoa, I think I'm a little late for this but I really disagree on the U.S.'s traits. AGG/IMP? Thats way off! For one, America has always been anti-Imperialism, all throughout the era in which it was popular (1800's) and still is today. What would make you think we're IMP? Just because we occupy one country and our at war with another does not make us IMP. We would be IMP if we invaded Iraq for the sole purpose of conquering it and claiming it to be a territory. But did we do that? No we invaded for some pretty bad reasons, but we never ever wanted to control Iraq as a U.S. territory.

And commenting on Matty's comment about the U.S. as an "empire", that once again is totally off. For the entire life-span of the U.S. we have always been anti-Empire, and we still are to this day. Anyone who claims we are an empire really doesn't know what an Empire is. An empire, as defined by Wikipedia is
The term empire derives from the Latin imperium. Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy.
America is none of that, did we conquer people and now exert control over them as our territory, no. Every country we have invaded in the last century has been for the purpose of bringing down (or protecting from) what we considered an "evil regime". And in no way did we conquer for pure territorial acquisitions.

AGG, I agree on more or less. But IMP is the total opposite of what it should be. I'd say a more accurate trait would be IND, because, as a nation, America is very Industrious.

So America should be AGG/IND.
 
Whoa, I think I'm a little late for this but I really disagree on the U.S.'s traits. AGG/IMP? Thats way off! For one, America has always been anti-Imperialism, all throughout the era in which it was popular (1800's) and still is today.

The USA stopped being a neutral country & anti-imperalist after WW2. The USA has 865+ military bases OVERSEAS...not even including the ones on US soil. We have 200,000 troops in 144 countries (NOT including Iraq & Afghanistan). Read on for more if that alone doesn't throw up a red flag of questioning exactly what is going on with the USA, JoeCoolyo.

And commenting on Matty's comment about the U.S. as an "empire", that once again is totally off. For the entire life-span of the U.S. we have always been anti-Empire, and we still are to this day.

You're definitely taught to think that in USA's government school system that is the public and now even private schools in the USA (thank you Department of Education!). But, its certainly far from true. At one time, yes. Especially in our early years. And the Constitution does state that we are to stay out of entangling alliances. Yet...we created the United Nations. We are truly far from what a social studies/civics class in an american school will lead you to believe. Think outside the box, and look around to see what we truly do. We are definitely "anti-empire," as long as its not our empire.

The term empire derives from the Latin imperium. Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy.

The United States is currently running the world empire. 865+ overseas bases. Is pretty much a trademark of "empire." We have 200,000 troops in 144 countries (again, not including Iraq & Afghanistan). Whether you believe that is for "peacekeeping" or not...it should tell you one thing: We have the "power hand" at every corner of the globe. We make the decisions for MANY groups of countries. Today's empires are much more about financial control than anything, and that is what America goes after. We decide who gets in power, and who stays in power in many of our "tributary" governments. We put Musharref in power and overthrew their democratically elected government because it suited our interests. We have staged NUMEROUS coup d'etat's in Latin America and around the world in general. We are EASILY the world's most imperalistic country at the moment. We attack soverign states based on "ideals" that WE want to establish...but its really more about the corporations that run our government dictating the decisions of what does and doesn't get done. From Wiki:
Imperialism not only describes colonial, territorial policies, but also economic and/or military dominance and influence.
There is no country in the world that does (and attempts) to control military dominance and economic influence than the USA. George Bush may have said Iraq had WMD...but thats not why we really went there. You do realize that, right? We went there because we are installing political regimes favorable to us to allow our corporations to have a monopoly control on their oil fields and to establish Halliburton as the main exporter. If you don't see thru the state manipulated media to see that...I don't know that we can really have much of a discussion on it.

And why do you think we are making "villains" out of Pakistan and Iran. They are too unstable in our Iraqi-based corporation's eyes and pose a threat to our established corporations there, so, they are next on the list. I'm not really into "conspiracies" at all...not by a long shot. But using fact and reason, the above is the most logical point that can be made.

America, easily, is the most aggressive and most imperialistic - both militaristic and economic - country in the world. We are the Soviet Union of the 21st century. We simply do not seem as "cold and bad" here in the USA because we promote "freedom" according to our media (Even though we have the highest percentage of our citizens in a prison in the entire world...+20% more than anyone else). But...ask others in other parts or the world, or visit other parts of the world and you'll see a whole new picture through a different lens.
 
Countries still needed:

West:
Brazil:
Chile:
Argentina:
Peru:

Europe:
Balkan States: ??
Belarus: ??

Africa:
Libya: ??
Algeria & Tunisia: ??
South Africa: ??
Morocco: ??
Egypt: FIN (free market of the Middle East)/??
3 African Alliances: ??

Central Asia:
CACO: PRO/??

East Asia:
Indonesia: ??
Thailand: ??
Bangladesh: ??
Taiwan: ??
Vietnam: ??
 
The USA stopped being a neutral country & anti-imperalist after WW2. The USA has 865+ military bases OVERSEAS...not even including the ones on US soil. We have 200,000 troops in 144 countries (NOT including Iraq & Afghanistan). Read on for more if that alone doesn't throw up a red flag of questioning exactly what is going on with the USA, JoeCoolyo.

So we may act as a "World Police", that doesn't make us an empire, or Imperialist. If we were Imperialist, then all the countries we would have military bases in would be our colonies, there would be no South Korea, just American governors in charge of the Korean colony. We are so far from Imperialism its funny to mention it. Our troops are there for purposes of protecting us, as a nation, and protecting those who can't protect themselves. For example, South Korea, if we had not intervened and/or kept our troops there would have been easily over run by their totalitarian neighbor to the North. We are in no way being Imperialist over South Korea, we don't own their country, we are not in charge of their country, we don't take their resources, so in no way are we an Imperialistic nation.


You're definitely taught to think that in USA's government school system that is the public and now even private schools in the USA (thank you Department of Education!). But, its certainly far from true. At one time, yes. Especially in our early years. And the Constitution does state that we are to stay out of entangling alliances. Yet...we created the United Nations. We are truly far from what a social studies/civics class in an american school will lead you to believe. Think outside the box, and look around to see what we truly do. We are definitely "anti-empire," as long as its not our empire.

Oh yes, lets blame the educators! One, the United Nations is no where near an "entangling alliance", we support it, but in now way do any country that is actual in it enforce it. We can propose, for example, a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and make it son no one other than France, the UK, the U.S., China, and Russia can have nukes. But lets see, Iran, N. Korea, Israel, South Africa, India, and Pakistan all do. I wonder what happened there?

The United States is currently running the world empire. 865+ overseas bases. Is pretty much a trademark of "empire." We have 200,000 troops in 144 countries (again, not including Iraq & Afghanistan). Whether you believe that is for "peacekeeping" or not...it should tell you one thing: We have the "power hand" at every corner of the globe. We make the decisions for MANY groups of countries. Today's empires are much more about financial control than anything, and that is what America goes after. We decide who gets in power, and who stays in power in many of our "tributary" governments. We put Musharref in power and overthrew their democratically elected government because it suited our interests. We have staged NUMEROUS coup d'etat's in Latin America and around the world in general. We are EASILY the world's most imperalistic country at the moment. We attack soverign states based on "ideals" that WE want to establish...but its really more about the corporations that run our government dictating the decisions of what does and doesn't get done. From Wiki: There is no country in the world that does (and attempts) to control military dominance and economic influence than the USA. George Bush may have said Iraq had WMD...but thats not why we really went there. You do realize that, right? We went there because we are installing political regimes favorable to us to allow our corporations to have a monopoly control on their oil fields and to establish Halliburton as the main exporter. If you don't see thru the state manipulated media to see that...I don't know that we can really have much of a discussion on it.

Ok, ok, I see who are now. So I'm guessing you also believe that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who is an avid reader of Karl Marx and also happens to fancy the Nazi's policies. You know who else was a Nazi? Bush. While he sat in office he was told secretly through a ear-phone piece what to do by his Priest at his local church too. Oh and also he staged 9-11 to get support for invading the Middle East. He purposely killed 2000 of his own people just for the big oil companies. Oh, and he hates black people with his very soul, so he made sure no help got to them after Katrina because this man is just pure evil.

Oh yeah, and I remember that last time we decided not to intervene in world politics, yes 6 MILLION Jews we burned gassed, shot and buried alive, 5 MILLION other minorities too. 100 MILLION others died and long war that wouldn't have been so costly if we had intervened earlier. Britain was almost conquered, France was destroyed, Eastern Europe was depopulated, Russia had millions of deaths just trying to fend off a fiend that could have been easily put down if it was intervened with earlier. So I'm guessing we're a terrible people to invade and destroy Europe, because our constitution told us we shouldn't. I assume you agree.

And why do you think we are making "villains" out of Pakistan and Iran. They are too unstable in our Iraqi-based corporation's eyes and pose a threat to our established corporations there, so, they are next on the list. I'm not really into "conspiracies" at all...not by a long shot. But using fact and reason, the above is the most logical point that can be made.

One, since when were we making a villain out of Pakistan :lol:. I think we're actually supporting them, cause you know, their killing the people that have killed so many innocent souls. Iran is totally different, one, you have repressed people. Sure they have many more liberties than some in this world, but still many of the basic ones are taken away from them. That's just one reason to dislike this country. Two, they have a man in charge who is pursuing nuclear technology after denying the Holocaust and then promising to wipe Israel off the map. After denying a people's suffering and then promising to wipe those peoples' country away, yah I think that's pretty evil. Oh, and if the people (the theocratic head guys) in charge weren't evil, then why would they bother throwing this man back in? And then suppressing any protests against it. Yes, that country is pretty evil.

America, easily, is the most aggressive and most imperialistic - both militaristic and economic - country in the world. We are the Soviet Union of the 21st century. We simply do not seem as "cold and bad" here in the USA because we promote "freedom" according to our media (Even though we have the highest percentage of our citizens in a prison in the entire world...+20% more than anyone else). But...ask others in other parts or the world, or visit other parts of the world and you'll see a whole new picture through a different lens.

Aggressive, I don't mind the U.S. being called that because it is true. Imperialistic on the other hand is just hilariously so off that its actually kinda sad. Yes, we aren't bad, we do promote freedom, why do you think we have to have a large army that's stationed around the globe? Because there are people out there who don't like the idea of people not being persecuted for what they say, they don't like the idea people doing whatever it is what they feel like. Oh, and so to be a free country we have to let out people who committed mass murders, stole other peoples property and have committed corruption. Saying that is like saying "oh, that country over there isn't very safe because they import their banana stockpiles". It doesn't make any sense, your argument is very faulty and is based on over exaggeration of simple things, crazy conspiracies theories and countless misunderstandings.

America, AGG/IND
 
So we may act as a "World Police", that doesn't make us an empire, or Imperialist. If we were Imperialist, then all the countries we would have military bases in would be our colonies, there would be no South Korea, just American governors in charge of the Korean colony. We are so far from Imperialism its funny to mention it. Our troops are there for purposes of protecting us, as a nation, and protecting those who can't protect themselves. For example, South Korea, if we had not intervened and/or kept our troops there would have been easily over run by their totalitarian neighbor to the North. We are in no way being Imperialist over South Korea, we don't own their country, we are not in charge of their country, we don't take their resources, so in no way are we an Imperialistic nation.




Oh yes, lets blame the educators! One, the United Nations is no where near an "entangling alliance", we support it, but in now way do any country that is actual in it enforce it. We can propose, for example, a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and make it son no one other than France, the UK, the U.S., China, and Russia can have nukes. But lets see, Iran, N. Korea, Israel, South Africa, India, and Pakistan all do. I wonder what happened there?



Ok, ok, I see who are now. So I'm guessing you also believe that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who is an avid reader of Karl Marx and also happens to fancy the Nazi's policies. You know who else was a Nazi? Bush. While he sat in office he was told secretly through a ear-phone piece what to do by his Priest at his local church too. Oh and also he staged 9-11 to get support for invading the Middle East. He purposely killed 2000 of his own people just for the big oil companies. Oh, and he hates black people with his very soul, so he made sure no help got to them after Katrina because this man is just pure evil.

Oh yeah, and I remember that last time we decided not to intervene in world politics, yes 6 MILLION Jews we burned gassed, shot and buried alive, 5 MILLION other minorities too. 100 MILLION others died and long war that wouldn't have been so costly if we had intervened earlier. Britain was almost conquered, France was destroyed, Eastern Europe was depopulated, Russia had millions of deaths just trying to fend off a fiend that could have been easily put down if it was intervened with earlier. So I'm guessing we're a terrible people to invade and destroy Europe, because our constitution told us we shouldn't. I assume you agree.



One, since when were we making a villain out of Pakistan :lol:. I think we're actually supporting them, cause you know, their killing the people that have killed so many innocent souls. Iran is totally different, one, you have repressed people. Sure they have many more liberties than some in this world, but still many of the basic ones are taken away from them. That's just one reason to dislike this country. Two, they have a man in charge who is pursuing nuclear technology after denying the Holocaust and then promising to wipe Israel off the map. After denying a people's suffering and then promising to wipe those peoples' country away, yah I think that's pretty evil. Oh, and if the people (the theocratic head guys) in charge weren't evil, then why would they bother throwing this man back in? And then suppressing any protests against it. Yes, that country is pretty evil.



Aggressive, I don't mind the U.S. being called that because it is true. Imperialistic on the other hand is just hilariously so off that its actually kinda sad. Yes, we aren't bad, we do promote freedom, why do you think we have to have a large army that's stationed around the globe? Because there are people out there who don't like the idea of people not being persecuted for what they say, they don't like the idea people doing whatever it is what they feel like. Oh, and so to be a free country we have to let out people who committed mass murders, stole other peoples property and have committed corruption. Saying that is like saying "oh, that country over there isn't very safe because they import their banana stockpiles". It doesn't make any sense, your argument is very faulty and is based on over exaggeration of simple things, crazy conspiracies theories and countless misunderstandings.

America, AGG/IND
Imperialism definition, from Wiktionary: "The policy of forcefully extending a nation's authority by territorial gain or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations."

This "freedom" that America fights for could have been anything. It could have been "oil", or "money", or "Allah", or any of a hundred different names. However, it is of no consequence. At the end of the day, the USA still has a massive body of troops stationed in other countries. What they supposedly fight for does not matter. The truth is that they are imposing this "freedom" ideal on other countries via their military power.

Remember: nothing is universal. The "freedom" that the USA fights for is a USA-flavoured brand. The USA's concept of freedom does not necessarily correlate to that of other cultures - nor is it necessarily the "right" form thereof.
 
Thanks Henrebotha for understanding what I was trying to get at.

For now, use of spoilers to condense this and not hijack this thread for others' sake

Spoiler :
I'm not going to comment on some of the things that you attempt to poke fun at, but will instead try to reason with you using logic. Here goes...

#1 People dislike our country because we meddle in their affairs. We try to throw our military weight around and tell others what to do and what to believe. We practice Militarism (more on that in #3 and how it makes Imperialism more correct for this trait list). Maybe USA-type freedom is the best thing. Maybe it isn't. That is not up to us to decide for others. But...that is what we do. We have no right telling a country and its citizens what to do and not to do. Iran's citizens as well as others we are discussingwho have EVERY RIGHT to leave their country as they wish - the citizens in Iran, etc., are not "trapped" in their country. They can get up and leave as they wish. But they don't, so it must not be THAT unbearable for them with their cultural understandings of how things work for them. Their affairs do not equal our affairs. Until a problem actually appears on the total brink of happening - then and ONLY then do we get involved IF our citizens VOTE it thru their representatives in Congress. Until then (and that is Consititutionally correct)...if it does not threaten our national security/sovereignty, we have no basis of being involved. And c'mon man. North Korea has a GDP smaller than the state of Delaware. They couldn't invade and sustain an invasion of an exponentially more militarily powerful South Korea if they wanted to. Same goes with the middle east. No one would DARE attack Israel. And not because of the United States. But because of Israel. Their military technology/strength/professionalism >>> any threat to them. And why is that true? Because the market determines the need for that. Israeli citizens identify a need for defense spending & military technology along with necessary purchases, and do so. They are not safe because of "us." They are safe because the market determines their need for safety and they adhere to that need.

#2
Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who is an avid reader of Karl Marx and also happens to fancy the Nazi's policies. You know who else was a Nazi? Bush
Obviously you're joking. But...there is no doubt, none from an economic point of view, that both promote and support corporatism. That is an economic fact (no, not Keynesianism (and yes I know you said Kenyan, not Keynesian) - but true economic fact). That is what I do for a living...economist. And they both support economic fascism, or in other words, a national-corporatist ideology. Which, simplified is corporatism. They are both Keynesians, with high leanings toward corporatism. Which would make them both economic fascists.

#3 We as a country pre-emptive attack/occupy "hostile" countries just as bad as we pre-emptively arrest people who have alcohol in their system while driving a car who have yet to do anything wrong and other various charges that fill the jail/court system. Its the same principle. If you're doing something "different" from one person's views of the way things "should be"...it doesn't mean you're doing something wrong. Just because you're drinking and driving doesn't make you a bad person. Its only when you cross the line and hit someone and cause a problem are you doing something wrong. At that point - there should be a severe penalty. More severe than what there is now. But there shouldn't be "escalating penalties" - in fact there should be NO penalties at all UNTIL there is an incident that affects a life other than your own. And IF you inflict harm on a person outside of yourself - there should be serious penalties. If Iran wants to taunt Israel and vice versa...let them. That is their business. Let either country do as they please. It is not our "job" to police and tell them to play nice. If Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon...let them. Nuclear weapons are mankinds greatest peace instrument yet. No one has dared to use it with the mutual threat of it being used against them. The USA used it...but there was no mutual threat. Only when a problem escalates into an actual altercation does it start to threaten our security. And then - IF the citizens decide action needs to be taken - then AND ONLY THEN, do we take action. We have no business policing anyone. And that, to me is imperialism. We most certainly practice economic imperialism. There are many great books you can read about it. I had to read them all the way thru graduate school after I got my first degree (economics). I also suggest to read about our practice of militarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism). There are many great books on both. And for this argument: Economic imperialism with militarism is best represented in civilization with: imperialism. A good read just to get you started would be this: http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=5625

But thats it for me. And for you. No more on this so we don't hijack the thread. Agree to disagree. We're going to have to agree to disagree. I am a very libertarian-freedom minded person. As long as you don't conflict with my rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...then you are doing nothing wrong.
 
Suggestions for the rest (please dispute if necessary):

3 Brazil - FIN/PRO (world's 8th largest economy & largest air force in Latin America)
4 Argentina - EXP/CRE (2nd highest HDI in Latin America & top educated country in Latin America)
5 Peru - AGG/CRE (continuous territory disputes with Chile & a mix of many different cultures)
6 Chile - FIN/CHM (most prosperous nation per capita in South America & most free press & highest democratic development)
7 Colombia - CRE/SPI (crossroads of Latin & Central American cultures & spiritual for their never-ending political disputes)
16 Turkey - PRO/IND (high level military in the unstable middle east & one of fastest growing industrial complexes in the world)
21 Libya - AGG/SPI (contested the USA & didn't back down & Islamic "state religion")
22 Egypt - FIN/CRE (free market of the middle east & the countries cultural history)
23 Morocco - PRO/PHI (refusal to mix with African Union & allied with USA as well as 50 univerisities and 20% of budget spent toward education)
24 Algeria - PRO/SPI (a leading North African military power & 95+% Islamic following)
28 South Africa - EXP/CRE (leader of promoting African Union & mix of many cultures)
34 Vietnam - FIN/PRO (2nd fastest growing world economy last 20 yrs & military history)
36 CACO - CRE/ORG (for lack of a better choice for both, haha)
 
Assuming those seem okay these are the ones left...anyone feel like taking these on?:

25 West African Alliance
26 Central African Alliance
27 East African Alliance
40 Thailand
41 Indonesia
47 Balkan Union
48 Taiwan
 
I'll take a look at post 187 and come back with suggestions.

Re the Imperialist or Industrialist debate, I can see both sides. America certainly WAS industialist, but I'm not sure this is a great trait going forward. Protective would be better judging by how America (over?)reacts to threats against them (think invading countries under 'terrorism'/security and complaining about Al Megrahi whilst steadfastly refusing to extradite IRA terrorists to Britain and stop funding the IRA before September 11th introduced Americans to international terrorism too).

Re Imperialist, as I say I can see both sides and I don't see America as searching for any sort of military empire. HOWEVER it is absolutely correct that America matches the definition given in post 185, more in an economic, corporate and political fashion than the military fashion of old. An example is the 'Washington Consensus', under which America basically decided that the only countries that should receive aid from the West were those that matched American ideals- ie not just democracy, but free market etc. I can provide the whole list if necessary. America is absolutely fashioning the world in its vision and is using her immense influence to do so, through carrot or stick.

As a non American I will try and stay out of this, but whilst Imperialist could make sense, this is controversial in the same manner as siding with Palestine or Israel in traits and is highly political.
 
Re the Imperialist or Industrialist debate, I can see both sides. America certainly WAS industialist, but I'm not sure this is a great trait going forward.

Well, seeing as we have had over a 200% drop in manufacturing in the last 20 years (mostly since NAFTA was signed), then I can't see how we are possibly industrious. And as I've said, there is no doubt that America throws its economic weight around the world (we have notoriously not given out aid to countries unless they have our "ideals" or democracy, free markets, etc. and let millions starve because of it). So acting like we're some country coming to "save the world" is a joke. We've enabled the starvation of a fraction of the amount that we've aided...but, the fact remains that we do sanction countries and let them starve if they don't adopt "American ideals." And, going with Militarism (look it up if needed) - there is no doubt that the USA adheres to strict militarism and has since the days of the Cold War. That economic "imperialism" and militarism to me = imperialism in the game of civilization.
 
I agree that America has some imperialist leanings, and I am not a big fan of neoliberalism. However, with regard to giving Obama the Agg/Imp traits, that is unfair, because he's merely maintaining what his predecessor started, and only in the case of Afghanistan. Obama supported pulling out of Iraq, and closing the prison at Guantanamo. No matter what happens, his critics from the extreme left and from abroad will say he's cut from the same cloth as Bush, but the distinction is clear enough to the point that he shouldn't have the same traits, and besides, you can just as well replicate the world situation by giving America control over all the current territory it currently has, rather than making every American leader ready for a new bout of imperialism.
 
with regard to giving Obama the Agg/Imp traits

We've already discussed. We're not giving "leader traits." Because for all intents and purposes - the mod will surely go over time that a leader would not be involved. Thats why we are giving "country" traits. Because like you said, after all,
because he's merely maintaining what his predecessor started, and only in the case of Afghanistan. Obama supported pulling out of Iraq
- the fact is we are sending another 40+ thousand troops overseas. The President of the USA has "final say," but they are not the actual decision makers on these things. The military-industrial complex is making these decisions, and no matter who is president (outside of a select few who really will never be president) the decisions won't change from one guy to the next. Bush, Obama, and whoever is next will run the same foreign policy that has been the American way since the fall of the USSR.

Hence - "country traits" instead of leader traits.
 
Imperialism definition, from Wiktionary: "The policy of forcefully extending a nation's authority by territorial gain or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations."

This "freedom" that America fights for could have been anything. It could have been "oil", or "money", or "Allah", or any of a hundred different names. However, it is of no consequence. At the end of the day, the USA still has a massive body of troops stationed in other countries. What they supposedly fight for does not matter. The truth is that they are imposing this "freedom" ideal on other countries via their military power.

Remember: nothing is universal. The "freedom" that the USA fights for is a USA-flavoured brand. The USA's concept of freedom does not necessarily correlate to that of other cultures - nor is it necessarily the "right" form thereof.

That is true, its just you just have to think about what the creators where thinking about when they created the traits. As Civilization is a game based on history, I think they were mostly focusing on the type of Imperialism that Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc. had during the 17-1800's. And that type of Imperialism the U.S. is no where near.

Well, seeing as we have had over a 200% drop in manufacturing in the last 20 years (mostly since NAFTA was signed), then I can't see how we are possibly industrious. And as I've said, there is no doubt that America throws its economic weight around the world (we have notoriously not given out aid to countries unless they have our "ideals" or democracy, free markets, etc. and let millions starve because of it). So acting like we're some country coming to "save the world" is a joke. We've enabled the starvation of a fraction of the amount that we've aided...but, the fact remains that we do sanction countries and let them starve if they don't adopt "American ideals." And, going with Militarism (look it up if needed) - there is no doubt that the USA adheres to strict militarism and has since the days of the Cold War. That economic "imperialism" and militarism to me = imperialism in the game of civilization.

We're a very powerful, no need to dispute that. But one, if we were a strict militaristic country than there wouldn't be any protests over war, as the military would make sure that everyone supports the war, you can't be a militaristic country that allows its citizens to criticize the government or protest. And two, if we were truly militaristic as you say, why don't I see soldiers and tanks patrolling the street? We don't because the military is there for merely protecting the U.S.'s interests, not being in control of the state.

And yes, in terms of industry, we have lost a lot of it to over seas countries and such, but what I'm thinking of in term (once again) is the shear production power the U.S. Its amazing that we're able to have two wars and countless troops all over the world and still get Humvees, helicopters, planes, and tanks, along with guns, ammunition, and everything a soldier carries around with them to all those millions of troops. And resupplying them too. That alone shows a nation that has a huge industrial and production capacity. And along with that our companies still produce millions of cars, hundreds of airplanes, tons of trains, millions of iPods, heaping amounts of computers, etc. We are defiantly an nation deserving the IND trait, especially if you look at the bonus's its gets, 50% wonder production I believe suits the U.S. perfectly. We're always building monster size projects that all get completed with a couple years, we're a nation that clearly deserves the IND trait.

America, once again should be AGG/IND, its the most suited for that.


edit: Just wanted to say, I'm actually really liking this debate, we haven't had one like this in a while (if ever in this mod?), this shows that we can really get stuff done and get the most accurate of things for this mod :D
 
Militarism is (from wiki)
the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.[1]
It has also been defined as "aggressiveness that involves the threat of using military force"

Nothing about patrolling the streets with the military. And truly, if you are "against the war" you are labled "unpatriotic" in the media. It is DEFINITELY popular to be anti-Bush administration's use of troops by sending them over "unprepared and with less than adequate funding." But...being against the war is seen as being against the troops. If you are against the military - you are called unpatriotic - no doubt about it. There is dissent vs. Bush because being against him/Cheney became very popular. There is not nearly ANY talk about the war (comparably as when Bush was in office) with Obama. Mostly because Obama has continued the same practice (sending even more troops), but it is currently popular to support Obama.

Its amazing that we're able to have two wars and countless troops all over the world and still get Humvees, helicopters, planes, and tanks, along with guns, ammunition, and everything a soldier carries around with them to all those millions of troops. And resupplying them too.

Much more attributable to the financial resources we had...and currently have as a result of the massive deficit spending and borrowing. Its not unreasonable to have the size of the military we have when we spend more on our military than the rest of the world - COMBINED. Once financial credit is ceased being given to the USA by mostly China - the ability to fund that will end. Similar to when the USA 'called' on British notes and forced the British military to withdraw from the Suez due to financial reasons. Same will happen to the USA at some point in the future since we deficit spend & borrow 250 million/day just to fund the war - alone.

And along with that our companies still produce millions of cars, hundreds of airplanes, tons of trains, millions of iPods, heaping amounts of computers, etc.

iPod: produced: Longhua, China
Computers: 85% are built in East Asia
Cars & trains: Japan produced more trains/cars than anyone in the world by a factor of two (and USA was not in the top 5)

If by produce, you mean "buy from other countries" as imports into our country. This is what the financial crisis is about. The country borrowed its way to this point. We 'borrowed wealth' in order to pay for this stuff. And everyone is finding out that you can't "borrow" your way out of debt - especially at the national level. Boeing is our largest export - by a MILE - and even with that we have garnered a massive trade imbalance. The reason we're in such dire straits financially, is because we DONT produce anything anymore (compared to what we consume that is produce by others). Many cars may be produced in the USA. But, for the first time, the majority are built by foreign companies. That means that the capital made from those plants is not actually American capital. That capital goes to the foreign countries.

50-60 years ago I 100% agree with you. We're not the same country we were then.
 
... Its amazing that we're able to have two wars and countless troops all over the world and still get Humvees, helicopters, planes, and tanks, along with guns, ammunition, and everything a soldier carries around with them to all those millions of troops. And resupplying them too. That alone shows a nation that has a huge industrial and production capacity. ...
IMO that is included in the Aggressive trait.

And of course you can change traits to you own use ;)
 
edit: Just wanted to say, I'm actually really liking this debate, we haven't had one like this in a while (if ever in this mod?), this shows that we can really get stuff done and get the most accurate of things for this mod :D

Not if we don't get anything done because we're against each other. Does Matty ever consider that maybe policy evolution starts with new leaders? Would it be fair to give modern China the same personality Mao had? No. National traits as opposed to leader traits make some sense, but not when there is a chance that new leaders can fundamentally alter what a nation is fundamentally about, and I would rather Matt doesn't deny Obama the capacity to do that just because the president doesn't exactly share his hippy attitudes.
 
Nothing about patrolling the streets with the military. And truly, if you are "against the war" you are labled "unpatriotic" in the media. It is DEFINITELY popular to be anti-Bush administration's use of troops by sending them over "unprepared and with less than adequate funding." But...being against the war is seen as being against the troops. If you are against the military - you are called unpatriotic - no doubt about it. There is dissent vs. Bush because being against him/Cheney became very popular. There is not nearly ANY talk about the war (comparably as when Bush was in office) with Obama. Mostly because Obama has continued the same practice (sending even more troops), but it is currently popular to support Obama.

Hmm... one, what news are listening too? If its Fox (or affiliates, achem Washington Post achem), don't listen to them as they hate anything that the conservatives hate. And two, if you say that everyone who is against the Iraq war is unpatriotic, then I think a good portion of this country would be called that by your definitions. Most of the country is against that war, and no one saying that is being called unpatriotic (once again ignore Fox News).

Oh and Obama is taking troops out of Iraq, not putting them in. He's putting more troops in Afghanistan, where they actually need them.



Much more attributable to the financial resources we had...and currently have as a result of the massive deficit spending and borrowing. Its not unreasonable to have the size of the military we have when we spend more on our military than the rest of the world - COMBINED. Once financial credit is ceased being given to the USA by mostly China - the ability to fund that will end. Similar to when the USA 'called' on British notes and forced the British military to withdraw from the Suez due to financial reasons. Same will happen to the USA at some point in the future since we deficit spend & borrow 250 million/day just to fund the war - alone.

That's the funding, I'm talking about the actual equipment. As in HMMWVs, Abrams, Bradleys, F-18s, Apaches, etc. All of these are manufactured by the U.S., and with thousands of these vehicles being operated, produced, and ammunition supplied to them shows the Industrial capacity of the U.S.


iPod: produced: Longhua, China
Computers: 85% are built in East Asia
Cars & trains: Japan produced more trains/cars than anyone in the world by a factor of two (and USA was not in the top 5)


If by produce, you mean "buy from other countries" as imports into our country. This is what the financial crisis is about. The country borrowed its way to this point. We 'borrowed wealth' in order to pay for this stuff. And everyone is finding out that you can't "borrow" your way out of debt - especially at the national level. Boeing is our largest export - by a MILE - and even with that we have garnered a massive trade imbalance. The reason we're in such dire straits financially, is because we DONT produce anything anymore (compared to what we consume that is produce by others). Many cars may be produced in the USA. But, for the first time, the majority are built by foreign companies. That means that the capital made from those plants is not actually American capital. That capital goes to the foreign countries.

50-60 years ago I 100% agree with you. We're not the same country we were then.

We may not have the highest amount of produced cars in the world, but this isn't a contest. We still produce hundreds and thousands of cars every year, and that alone shows massive industrial capacity. And great example, we produce Boeings, what other country can do that, only a couple (France is the only one I can think of now). Once again, you can't produce anything remotely the size of 747 without a massive production capabilities. But you know, we don't only produce Boeings, we produce Space Shuttles, rocket fuel, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, ISS parts, HMMWVs, trucks and cars, guns, ammunition, cargo ships, and Cruise liners. BUT WAIT! There's more! We also make highways, houses, record braking skyscrapers, dams, power plants, roads, railroads, powelines, factories to make all these things, food, McDonalds, computers, board games, toys, art work, websites, etc. etc. ECT! You cannot deny the industrial poweress of the United States. Sure, we may pale in comparison to the car output of Japan and the electronics output of China, but there is a whole world out there besides those countries, and do we sure do kick its ass in industrial power.


@Bahmo: Sure, with debate it may take longer, but through debate we learn, and make more informed decisions.
 
#1 - I most certainly do NOT watch Fox News. Or MSNBC. Or CNN.

#2 - Notice I said many people ARE against the war. But, the fact remains that being against the war comes down to being "against the troops" in the overwhelming majority of the country & that leads to being called unpatriotic.

#3 -
produce Space Shuttles, rocket fuel, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, ISS parts, HMMWVs, trucks and cars, guns, ammunition, cargo ships, and Cruise liners. BUT WAIT! There's more! We also make highways, houses, record braking skyscrapers, dams, power plants, roads, railroads, powelines, factories to make all these things, food, McDonalds, computers, board games, toys, art work, websites, etc. etc. ECT!

Spaceship parts are made in Taiwan. The next 10/13 things you list are produced by and for the military industrial complex. Hmmm...more militarism traits. Every country that is not completely backwards produces: highways, houses, skyscrapers, dams, power plants, railroads, etc., etc.

Maybe we should give EVERY country the IND trait then? That seems to be what you're getting at. Since we make LESS of EACH per capita & per GDP compared to the next 12 countries...I'd say we are not doing so hot with production (outside of military production).

Food & service industries (McDonalds, etc.) - that is true. We do produce a majority of world food. But that is not industrious.

Here is how this is going to be solved:

The mod is coming with USA: AGG/IMP.
When you or anyone else DL's the mod and wants to change it...simply go into the XML and change it.
 
By the way...I finished all the leaderhead pictures. So thats done. The last thing is getting the last few nation traits done that need to be completed.

Next up, I believe, will probably be finding art for the unique units and buildings. I've done a LOT of work...so I'll leave that up to whoever wants to get it done. Please post info about that in the Unique units/buildings threads.
 
The last trait missing on your list in the Organization Thread is Palestine's. I vote for giving it the same traits as Israel (PRO/EXP) because of said reasons and for not siding with anyone of them. Then we'd have a complete list.

Do we need unique art for unique buildings and units for the first test release (Besides...I think all existing art for our unique units has already been found and listed)? I mean it isn't important for the game to work. This is something we could do later... Maybe first fixing the map and all the errors popping up when you start the mod, setting international relations and off we go?
 
Top Bottom