Does Stalin really belong in the game?

[Krug]

Are you kidding? The reason the terrorist attacked us is because of our Alliance with Isreal! And it is possible to have a democratic system without parties, although its a very rare occurance. People in my country (america) are close minded these days. At least half of them close there minds to new ideas, and only vote for "there" party, which is usually ethier Democrate or Republican.

You have a point about Washington. But even so, which is worse? Owning a few slaves and them setting them free after they die, or killing 18 million people? No, Washington wasn't perfect-who is? But compared to Stalin, he is an Angel.

They did not attack us ONLY because of our alliance with Israel, but also maybe because we impose our will as "World Police" with troops stationed all over the globe. We had attacked Osama before hand, and they wanted to show that they could strike fear into the worlds last superpower.

Most single party governments end in dictatorship, just look at history to see that.

 

[Shekwan]

Two words explain why Americans are hated by many - dollar imperialism.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Gengis Khan brought the Mongols from a nomadic group of tribes to the worlds largest empire! It's not how morally wrong they are, it's how much they did to help their country.

Plenty of 12th/13th century rulers were as cruel as Genghis. It was the standard of the day. He did manage to conquer more land than all of them combined though, so he had more cities to raze, etc.

Hitler, on the other hand, had all the benefits of civilization, of culture, of christianity. He didn't grow up in a cruel nomad world, he grew up in 20th century Vienna! Hitler knew right from wrong per modern morals and ethics, and yet he chose to kill people in a most abominable way. Horrible as it is, starving millions of villagers opposing your rule is not as perverse as murdering millions of helpless victims in gas chambers. Hitler was so twisted he actually jeopardized Germany's wartime railroad capacity in order to kill more helpless victims - compare to Stalin who relocated people to Siberia out of fear they'll collaborate with the Nazi invaders. Not exactly the same.

Stalin had a country a magnitude more unruly and uncivilized than Germany/Austria, wracked with deep social and political turmoil long before he came to power. Stalin had it rough in tzarist dungeons, civil war, backstabbing communist buddies. Hitler had...what? Six million Jews, most of them as civil and educated as Einstein was.

 

[Willem]

I have been tought in school that that is the reason.

Well you were taught wrong.

And besides, people generally started hating americans AFTER Iraq.

People have been hating Americans alot longer than that. It's been going on for at least the last 50 years, ever since WWII ended and the US started pushing their weight around the world. Here in Canada people have been complaining about your country for as long as I can remember, and I'm 50 years old myself. And we're probably your best friend.

Infact, the bulk of the world felt really sympethetic with us right after 9/ll.

For awhile yes. It was a cowardly and uncalled for attack. Then you went and blew it by invading Iraq.

The terrorist attacked because

1. We are friends with Isreal
2. We have a base in Saudi Arabia.

That's part of it, but there's alot more to it than just those two things.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Two words explain why Americans are hated by many - dollar imperialism.

Only hate dollar gets these days is from people who invested in it.

 

[Willem]

Two words explain why Americans are hated by many - dollar imperialism.

Exactly!

 

[caketastydelish]

Two words explain why Americans are hated by many - dollar imperialism.

Its a shame- had the US dollar not been as extremely weak as it is right now, that would have been a great point.

 

[caketastydelish]

Well you were taught wrong.



People have been hating Americans alot longer than that. It's been going on for at least the last 50 years, ever since WWII ended and the US started pushing their weight around the world. Here in Canada people have been complaining about your country for as long as I can remember, and I'm 50 years old myself. And we're probably your best friend.



For awhile yes. It was a cowardly and uncalled for attack. Then you went and blew it by invading Iraq.



That's part of it, but there's alot more to it than just those two things.

First, England is our best friend. I'm not denying that people have been hating us. I'm saying, if you go underneath it all, it all adds up to the fact that we've been getting on other countries buisness, which is exactly what George Washington told us NOT to do!

 

[caketastydelish]

Plenty of 12th/13th century rulers were as cruel as Genghis. It was the standard of the day. He did manage to conquer more land than all of them combined though, so he had more cities to raze, etc.

Hitler, on the other hand, had all the benefits of civilization, of culture, of christianity. He didn't grow up in a cruel nomad world, he grew up in 20th century Vienna! Hitler knew right from wrong per modern morals and ethics, and yet he chose to kill people in a most abominable way. Horrible as it is, starving millions of villagers opposing your rule is not as perverse as murdering millions of helpless victims in gas chambers. Hitler was so twisted he actually jeopardized Germany's wartime railroad capacity in order to kill more helpless victims - compare to Stalin who relocated people to Siberia out of fear they'll collaborate with the Nazi invaders. Not exactly the same.

Stalin had a country a magnitude more unruly and uncivilized than Germany/Austria, wracked with deep social and political turmoil long before he came to power. Stalin had it rough in tzarist dungeons, civil war, backstabbing communist buddies. Hitler had...what? Six million Jews, most of them as civil and educated as Einstein was.

I saw a thing on the history channel that hitler and stalin had a lot of child abuse. I heard one time, hitlers father beat him so bad, his urine had blood. (and I'm not saying any of this makes it ok for all the horrible things he said and did)

Christianity has had violence, ever since the crusades, and maybe even before that! I know the holy roman emporer spread it by sword!

Say whatever you want, but the fact solidly remains that killing 18 million innocent people is wrong. And besides, I give up, you win! Stalin belongs in the game.

 

[Willem]

Its a shame- had the US dollar not been as extremely weak as it is right now, that would have been a great point.

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. The US has been attempting to gain economic domination of the world for a long, long time now. And quite often using under-handed tactics to achieve thier goals. You really should stop listening to the propaganda your teachers are feeding you and take a look at how things really are in this world.

 

[caketastydelish]

When has there been a successful single party democracy, where democracy was upheld, oldschooler?

Well one example is the very early United States Democracy.

 

[Willem]

First, England is our best friend.

We've been your largest trading partner for many, many years now. We share the longest undefended border in the world and we have cooperated jointly on a large number of projects over the past several decades, including NORAD. The British just joined in your dirty little war in the past few years. That makes us your best friend whether you choose to recognize it or not.

I'm not denying that people have been hating us. I'm saying, if you go underneath it all, it all adds up to the fact that we've been getting on other countries buisness, which is exactly what George Washington told us NOT to do!

Partly true. It's more accurate to say that Americans have been trying to ram their business, meaning economics mainly, down everyone else's throats for years now.

 

[Willem]

Well one example is the very early United States Democracy.

Well that's to be expected in very young democracy, it takes awhile for like-minded people to get themselves organized politically. It didn't take very long for things to become polarized then did it? Parties are a natural evolution of the democratic process. There's strength in numbers and people with agendas will seek out others with the same desires in order to get their voices heard.

 

[caketastydelish]

We've been your largest trading partner for many, many years now. We share the longest undefended border in the world and we have cooperated jointly on a large number of projects over the past several decades, including NORAD. The British just joined in your dirty little war in the past few years. That makes us your best friend whether you choose to recognize it or not.



Partly true. It's more accurate to say that Americans have been trying to ram their business, meaning economics mainly, down everyone else's throats for years now.

Well, I could be wrong (which I probably am) but Canada is not exactly completly Independent from England in the first place. Remember that the Queen of Canada is the same as the Queen of England. America had there famous revolution for independence. As far as I know, Canada never had one. England might have granted Canada some "independence" but to say the least, they are still VERY influenced by England. So through Canada, indirectly, to at least some extent, that is just part of England being friends with us.

Secondly, England has also worked with us for many things.

Viatnam for example. What buisness did America have in Viatnam? None, thats what! And the same goes for Iraq. Or Korea. We also helped Cuba get there dictator. We should have listened to Washington, and left these people alone.

 

[caketastydelish]

Well that's to be expected in very young democracy, it takes awhile for like-minded people to get themselves organized politically. It didn't take very long for things to become polarized then did it? Parties are a natural evolution of the democratic process. There's strength in numbers and people with agendas will seek out others with the same desires in order to get their voices heard.

Well you said give you one example.

 

[Ekmek]

check out the graphics section we've made a lot of cruel leaders History is history after all and I tend to want to taken on the badder ones.

if you click on my 4 Roman link in my signature I've got Caligula in there, he's gotta be worse than Stalin!

 

[Willem]

Well, I could be wrong (which I probably am) but Canada is not exactly completly Independent from England in the first place. Remember that the Queen of Canada is the same as the Queen of England. America had there famous revolution for independence. As far as I know, Canada never had one. England might have granted Canada some "independence" but to say the least, they are still VERY influenced by England. So through Canada, indirectly, to at least some extent, that is just part of England being friends with us.

Secondly, England has also worked with us for many things.

Viatnam for example. What buisness did America have in Viatnam? None, thats what! And the same goes for Iraq. Or Korea. We also helped Cuba get there dictator. We should have listened to Washington, and left these people alone.

You really need to work on your world affairs. You're sounding like a typical American who knows nothing about what happens outside of your borders. First of all Canada is an independant country with our own constitution and political system. Yes we still recognize the Queen but it's just a ceremonial thing that has absolutely no bearing on our political process. She's a figure head, nothing more and has no say in how things are done here. And there are many of us who feel that we should just get rid of her altogether and have a true republic like Australia has done. But the political will to take that step is lacking. We were granted full independance without any bloodshed by Queen Victoria in 1867. And no we are not VERY influenced by England, in fact we've had very little to do with them since WW2. The US has much more influence on our culture and politics than England does, and has for a long time now. Even before the war we were more closely tied to the US than we were to England.

And England had nothing to do with Vietnam, in fact they were opposed to US involvement there IIRC. At least towards the end anyway. Though my recollections of that period are a bit vague, as I was quite young at the time. They certainly did nothing to help the US out. It was an American show, no one else was involved. Even France didn't help out and Vietnam used to be one of their colonies.

And how do you figure that the US helped Cuba get their dictator, if that's what you want to call Castro? During the revolution there the US backed the other side, providing them with weapons and even some men. And later they organized a botched attempt to try an assassinate him. They've never wanted Castro in power, and done everything they possibly could to thwart him ever since his political movement began. It was the Soviets that supported Castro and helped him gain power, not the US. I'm not sure where you're getting your info from, but it's hopelessly wrong.

PS: Oh and Korea was a UN action, not an American one. It involved troops from countries all over the world, including Canada. The US played a dominant role there only because they had the strongest military at the time.

 

[bentley004]

I'm not sure where you're getting your info from, but it's hopelessly wrong.

This thread had me shaking my head constantly

c'mon now oldschooler! Atleast stop by wikipedia for few minutes so you can atleast pretend you know what you're talking about

 

[Endure]

Yeah, don't believe everything you read. Just make up your own facts!

There's a difference between hard facts, and the conclusions authors will draw from those facts.

 

[Ceritoglu]

There hasn't been any relevant discussion here from the 4th page onwards, just tangential historical debate which has become increasingly less informed and improperly argued.

The issue isn't concerning each leader's individual 'crimes' (whether you believe they exist or not), it's regarding the premise that game developers should wield a moral sword of righteousness cutting out the leaders that controvene whatever moral agenda they see fit to impose. For reasons I've pointed out, such censorship would be utterly useless and would probably be detrimental to the overall gameplay - leaders should be chosen based on the influence they've had on their civilisation, on the impact their civilisation had under them. Noone has actually argued against this stance, probably because they realise it's right .

If the thread keeps going in such an inane and, in some cases, offensive direction I'd advise locking it...