Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by caketastydelish, May 8, 2008.
How does this, in any way, concern the inclusion of Stalin in the game.
Lock thread, ftw.
No country can rule the world espescially Nazi Germany which was already losing on the eastern front.
Okay then.. when all countries in Europe has Protectionist/Mercantile views for trade, did not wars occur often..
With free trade and its adoption advocated by people such as Adam Smith, did not wars decrease.. maybe we use EU all the time because it really is a good example.. bosnia/kosvo/serbian.. yes wars will happen but the frequency has gone down considerbly can you deny this?
"mercantilism encouraged the many European wars of the period, and fueled European imperialism, as the European powers fought over "available" markets." From wikipedia
But one day it'll all collapse in an orgy of hate and violence.
End of History? Nah.
If you read everything from the start, you would get it. Ban you, FTW.
Plus, they would have to eventually give up their footholds in France and such. Think about it. US is in Iraq right now, and we haven't even "taken over" they have their own government. And despite all that, there are still terrorist attacking our troops a lot, and the war is costing us a fortune! How long do you think we can stay their?
The same goes with nazi Germany, only ten times worse. They actually took over where they invaded. How long do you think they could keep France and such?
That's not true at all. If the US wouldn't have gotten involved in WW2, then the Soviets would have been an even greater threat than they were at the time. They may have ended up with all the territory that Hitler once controlled. Britain was in no position on it's own to push the Nazis back from the west, so the Russians would have been free to come in from the east all the way to the Atlantic. American involvement meant that they could only go as far as Germany. Either way the Cold War was inevitable.
Are you kidding? We make hitler look far more evil than Stalin, even though they where equally bad. One example: Stalin's in the game and Hitler isn't!
Not true. Hitlers troops were spread very thin. The reason they where able to do so well at the beginning is because they took the allies by suprise. Is Germany really better than France, England, Poland, Russia etc combined?
After a while, the nazi's would have been crushed. How long could they keep that up?
IRAQ is a total different situation.. America has to abide by the Geneva Convention human rights ect.. they dont share a common border.. no common religion.. no common history, thus assimilation = next to impossible..
Nazi Germany was successful in taking France.. sure there was a resistance, but the Nazis police state like policies were very successful.. if anything it was 100 times easier for them compared to America.. The terrorists are not attacking the troops they are not involved in the fighting.. the real terrorists are in camps training insurgents ect..
USA could stay there indefinetely, if public opinion backed them, and if they were allowed to profit from the oil and assets gained, and enacted a 'war tax' but that is not the situation..
I'm afraid you have no choice in the matter, you are the world's superpower. The only thing left to consider is how you're going to go about being involved. You did the right thing in WW2 and afterwards helping to rebuild Europe, you did the wrong thing in Iraq. You could have done the right thing in Afghanistan helping to rebuild the country and setting it on a better path than what the Taliban had in mind, but you decided to go after Saddam instead, and have all but ignored the country once again. The same thing you did after the Soviets were pushed out of the country. If you would have stepped in then and helped them out, the Taliban would never have risen to power and 9/11 would never have happened. Instead you let the Afghan people fight your war for you and abandoned them when it was over, which gave rise to a great deal of resentment towards your country.
Hitler had all of main land europe, Poland.. was conquered.. why mention them, this makes your arguement look even more weak.. France was conquered and their troops were working with the Germans.. again arguement weakened..
UK not England.. would have struggled for D-Day invasions without America, and even if they did make a foothold... There would be no chance they could maintain a eastern front against the Nazi war machine.. So it was Nazi Germany Vrs USSR.. and i have already outlined what would happen if either won the war..
I don't think so, Hitler made a huge mistake going after Russia. With the resources such a huge country had access to it was just a matter of time before the Soviets were able to overrun the Germans just by sheer numbers alone. It would have taken longer but Germany would probably have lost anyway.
On top of what Grimz mentioned, the Nazi philosophies had alot of supporters during that time all over Europe, and the success of their military supported the view that theirs was a superior way of conducting affairs. The government that was set up in France for instance avidly supported the deportation of Jews, they were quite happy to get them all out of the country. So there wasn't nearly the kind of resistance that you're seeing today in Iraq.
Yes, but Britain could not have conducted D-day alone, I'm a little fuzzy on the Tank Wars in africa and the Invasion of Italy, but I think we were needed there too.
Right, sorry, but i have a few beefs with this.
That's a bit mean, and excessive.
Off topic, but I have to say that it doesn't in practice:
The Geneva convention states that the worst war crime is the unprovoked invasion of an soverign nation (and, let's face it, the invasion of Iraq was effectively to satisfy American self-interest. Buuuut let's not argue about that now.)
coupled with abuse of prisoners, occupation of hospitals and 600,000 civilians killed by US forces, imprisonment without trial etc etc, the Geneva convention holds little sway over the Americans.
But back to the main argument:
Simple: Hitler was far more brutal than old Joe. Is the attempted systematic destruction of entire demographics such as Jews, Romani, Slavs, the disabled not enough?
Coupled with the forceful annexation of Austria (Anschluss was rigged), Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Blegium, Netherlands, France, etc etc etc the list goes on and on, I belive it is safe to say that the actions of Hitler were immeasurably worse.
You talk about isolationism? Was it not Japn and Germany who declared war on the USA?
Yeah the USSR would have had Germany everywhere.
Of course if the US hadnt backed the Afghan rebels against the Russians they would probably be speaking Russian right now.
As far as claiming that we did the wrong thing in Iraq, I guess leaving a tyrant who systematically killed people in power is ok. I will say we did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Gassing your own people, and enemies (Iran-Iraq war, which I know the US backed for fear of Iran) is ok right? The world holds the USA to such high standards and yet everbody else can do what they want? The same can be said for Israel. Its ok for the palestinians to bomb markets but not ok for the Israeli's to retaliate. Its all hypocritical, none of it really makes sense and there are arguements on all sides that have warrant. As an American I support our actions in Iraq, and the middle east, mostly because of my contempt for Religios zealots that have such a strong foothold in the region. Hating people for their religion is the most idiotic thing out there, and to kill because of it is just as ********, no different then blindly following anything including your own countries policies, but in many cases a choice must be made between the lesser or two evils, and while it may be frowned upon, it is the better thing to do.
On this note I will suggest that Mr. Saddam Hussein belongs in Civ IV. Iraq before the war was well regarded as one of the most "relaxed" muslim countries in the middle east, having very strong education systems for women, better rights for women and a higher standard of living then other oil rich middle easter countries. He also managed to keep a level of peace between the many cultural groups that have given the US so many problems right now. He did it with an iron fist but I will end that in many cases it takes a Tyrant to control any muslim country, becuase of the rampant fanatics in the religion. Sad when there are millions of peaceful muslims that get a bad rap because of the actions of a few.
I think you should check out this link
look at the bottom ones
if your really intrested in what if scenarios i think you should buy the book or find the .pdf and share the link with me
You realise, in doing so, the US installed the Taliban? The subsequent US invasion of Afghanistan just seems to be laced with irony, in my opinion.
I'll agree wtih you about the Kurds (which is what you're talking about, right?), which was awful. BUT, the invasion has cost more civilain lives (even if you only count direct killings by American soldiers) than Saddam Hussein has ever taken, so still I'd assert that it was the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.
Considering the Israelis stole the native Palestinians' land, and currently force them to live under a system of apartheid, I'd say it is ok...
Your country is ran by a Zealot.
I agree with you there. Except for the massacre of the Kurds, Saddam Hussein was a pretty good leader, who has been trumpeted as a figure synonymous with biblical evil and malevolenceby the US, much like Emmanuel Goldstein.
Separate names with a comma.