Get rid of Lincoln!

[jkp1187]

I've never said or thought he was stupid. WWII navalwarfare wasn't about winning with the "bulk" of warships. It was about aircraftcarriers, they were the key unit, and that day there was none in the port. America since then learnt the lesson of WWII and projects it's power throughout the World with the help of selfpropelled nuclearpowered Aircraftcarriers. Just as in CivIII it's not about how many units you have but rather which and how many quality units you possess. I humbly suggest you read carefully regarding that "surprise" attack. These historians are called "revisionists" I would call them realpolitik.

1.) Hindsight is 20/20. It is very easy for us to say in 2004 that battleships were not all that important. If the Japanese had launched a SECOND attack on Pearl, destroying the facilities necessary for repairs, OR if they'd tried to search for the carriers (either of which they COULD have done, and SHOULD have done,) Pearl would have been an even more serious defeat. How could FDR have known that the Japanese would not have done this?

No doubt FDR took very provocative actions against the Japanese, to stop their war of aggression against China. It is one thing to do this; quite another to suggest that he knew an attack on Pearl Harbor was coming and turned a blind eye to the attack.

Please address my earlier question about why FDR, interested in getting into the European war to defeat Hitler, would seek to get the United States in a war with Japan first.

2.) Supercarrier would indeed be a very good American UU.

 

[sealman]

Hindsight is 20/20. It is very easy for us to say in 2004 that battleships were not all that important. If the Japanese had launched a SECOND attack on Pearl, destroying the facilities necessary for repairs, OR if they'd tried to search for the carriers (either of which they COULD have done, and SHOULD have done,) Pearl would have been an even more serious defeat. How could FDR have known that the Japanese would not have done this?

Please address my earlier question about why FDR, interested in getting into the European war to defeat Hitler, would seek to get the United States in a war with Japan first.

Exactly. The Battleship was the cornerstone of every navy. The experiences during WWII showed that air power and the carrier should be the cornerstone of a strong navy.

 

[Drakan]

Sealman, If I've started a war, and I only have oil reserves for another 9 months an you cut off my only supplies, how long do you expect me to sit down until I declare you war ?

That is what happened. Pearl Harbour was clearly the first military target in a War with the japs. You have to take down the biggest military base in the Pacific Ocean to buy you time.

And you are right, they did want a war against Hitler rather than Japan, BUT, they were both allies at the time. So attacking one would surely mean war with the other, thus it was an educated guess to expect a war with Japan.

Now if you want to go on believing your politicians and military have the iq of a doughnut, so be it. Your country wouldn't be todays only and first superpower if it were so. Your military and politicians are clever enough. They needed an excuse, and japan treaded on the pitfall they had laid for her. japan hasted itself too much in the attack, had it waited longer to reinforce all the new conquered lands and islands many more americans would have perished.

And before I get warned by a mod, I wasn't flaming him.

Yeop, a Supercarrier would be a great UU for the Americans in CivIV

 

[KaDingir]

Ummm, I don't think that nearly enough attention has been given in this thread to painkiller's excellent alternative to Lincoln: Jenna Jameson. Her contributions to elevating our nation should not be underestimated.

 

[Drakan]

Who's that ?

 

[dh_epic]

If the criteria for a leader is that they didn't do something atrocious, then that eliminates about 80% of the leaders currently in the game. If the criteria for a leader is that they never made a mistake, that eliminates 100% of all leaders in history and in the future.

I'd like to think the criteria is leading America durring an important time and having high amounts of approval durring that time, even if we criticize them in retrospect.

Only three presidents since 1945 have retained a high approval rating throughout their entire term. Clinton, Reagan, and Eisenhower. Clinton and Reagan are polarizing figures with two different kinds of atrocities on their hands. Reagan in the Iran-Iraq Contra Scandal, and Clinton getting a BJ in the Oval Office -- both reasons enough that people would crap themselves if they represented the Civ. Eisenhower is far enough in the past that history has closed the books on him, and he will be remembered positively.

The same can be said for Lincoln.

 

[Red Ant]

Who's that ?

Porn star.

 

[Drakan]

Does the world remember positively Attila the Hun? Spanish Conquistadors? No, it isn't only a matter of time. Time allows us to put things in perspective and forget petty squabling of the time. I sincerely recommend reading a biography on Abe. The man was outstanding in every sense. I like reading biographies a lot, and reading his one I can only attain a glimpse of all the difficulties (including the death of his children) he had to overcome by himself steering the ship clear through the storm until it reached the port safely. It's easy now in the year 2.004 to say, bah he didn't do that much, Clinton did more, or Reagan.

The US exists today, UNITED, thanks to him. He laid the groundwork for a truly great nation.

 

[Drakan]

Porn star.

Ahhhhh !!

 

[sealman]

Sealman, If I've started a war, and I only have oil reserves for another 9 months an you cut off my only supplies, how long do you expect me to sit down until I declare you war ?

That is what happened. Pearl Harbour was clearly the first military target in a War with the japs. You have to take down the biggest military base in the Pacific Ocean to buy you time.

This is differnent than what you were implying in you original post. Your post implied that FDR's plan was for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor and thus getting into a war with Germany and that he just let them drop the bombs so that he could justifiy a war. That is a complete falacy.

And, as I said, there were indications that Japan was plotting something. But Japan did not have to declare war. The Oil Embargo was meant to stop Japanese agression not to trigger an attack against Pearl Harbor.

And you are right, they did want a war against Hitler rather than Japan, BUT, they were both allies at the time. So attacking one would surely mean war with the other, thus it was an educated guess to expect a war with Japan.

Not really. We were allies with the Soviet Union but they did not attack Japan until the end of the war. Some of Japan's high ranking military leaders knew that they could not win a drawn out war with the US and may or may not have declared war against the US if we went to war with Germany before Pearl Harbor. It is all open to debate playing the old "what if" game. Personally, I think that the US and Japan still would have fought, but saying that it was all FDR's plan is... well, idiotic.

Now if you want to go on believing your politicians and military have the iq of a doughnut, so be it. Your country wouldn't be todays only and first superpower if it were so. Your military and politicians are clever enough. They needed an excuse, and japan treaded on the pitfall they had laid for her. japan hasted itself too much in the attack, had it waited longer to reinforce all the new conquered lands and islands many more americans would have perished.

I think we are in agreement here that the FDR did need a reason to enter the war and Japan supplied it. But again, he did not 1) know Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked 2) took any steps to instigate it and 3) is not in any way responsable for the attack - his intelligence people and advisor just missed, or mis read, the signs.

And before I get warned by a mod, I wasn't flaming him.

Yeop, a Supercarrier would be a great UU for the Americans in CivIV

No warning needed, just a lively debate although the IQ of a donut was a little over the top. Now if it was a coconut donut

 

[Drakan]

Sorry Sealman, I mislead you or I wasn't clear enough in my post. Now, as you wrote they really wanted a war with Hitler, but Japan was an obstacle for them they would have to overcome sooner or later.

Yeah sorry, about the doughnut, it was a unnecessary, in Spanish it sounds less aggressive than in English, mea culpa.

Hmm. I'm not saying that FDR really planned it all, but I think it was a good guess to expect an attack in PH. They didn't know when exactly, of course, and there were other targets at the time, but they could've been more prepared at the time IMHO at PH. I would say he was indirectly responsible in a passive way for not taking the necessary measures. At the time Japan didn't hide at all it was eager to rule all the Pacific, sooner or later it would clash against the US. And that oil embargo just started the countdown and the men who signed it new it. The embargo wasn't going to deter Japan from its ultimate imperialistic goal.

Say If i wanted a war with Spain I would take down our Rota naval base first which would give me control of the Mediterranean Basin and cut it off.

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: As interesting as this discussion is, it's way off topic. I encourage you to take it to the World History subforum.

 

[sealman]

All leaders are indirectly responsible for actions against their countries in response to actions/decisions they make. It is the nature of the world. Just for example.

Japan has two choices.

1) invade Manchuria/China or 2) not to invade Manchuria/China

The Unites States can respond a number of ways.
1) Do nothing. 2) Protest to the League of Nations. 3) Take Military Action against Japan 4) Take Economic actions against Japan. ect...
The US decides to take the economic route by placing economic sanctions by instituting the oil embargo.


Japan is then left with a couple of options.
1) discontinue their expansion 2) seek oil from other soruces 3) attack the US.
Japan chose to attack the US.

You really cannot blame FDR for Pearl Harbor when there were other choices for Japan to follow. After all, it Japan did not invade Mancuria, the US would not have enacted the embargo.

EDIT: Sorry - saw the moderator post after I responded.

 

[geonnyboy]

I haven't added anything to these kinda forums before, but couldn't each tribe in Civ 4 each have several leaderheads, each with a different build strength and aggression level. This could be a new revolution thing, like changing governments.

For example, each Civ could have a peaceful, a moderate, and an aggressive leaderhead, which could change productivity. The peaceful leaderhead would be great in control of the building of infrastructure and happiness, but lousy at unit creation. Adversely, the warmonger would be great at the creation of military units but terrible at infrastructure. Moderate wouldn't excel at either, but wouldn't be lousy at either.

This way I think more historical figureheads could be represented, maybe even add in some of the more dubious historical leaders (although if this raises too much ire in players, more communally accepted leaders might be best.)

EDIT: Ooops, maybe I should get back on topic.

So I guess in this case I would have Teddy Roosevelt be the aggressive leaderhead, Abe be the moderate, and the peaceful be...umm... Thomas Jefferson? Or maybe Susan B. Anthony (to have the ladies represent!)

 

[Paradigne]

I WANT TRICKY DICK!!!!
(and that does NOT mean Ron Jeremy)

 

[dh_epic]

You know, maybe every single nation should have evil, megalomaniacal leaders.

Let's bust out Nixon. Nothing would strike fear into the hearts of other Civs more than that.

 

[Mewtarthio]

I vote stick to Lincoln in CivIV, he was one of the greatest man to set foot on this planet, I wish we Spaniards had had such a president for ourselves, and we need it now desperately with all these nationalist movements (Basques, Catalans...) in my country which menace to tear it apart. Spain needs its own Lincoln right now !!! We just cannot live in a divided house.

Eek. You spend three paragraphs bashing the US and eventually cast your vote for the guy who imprisoned people without trial.

EDIT: Just in case the rolleyes wasn't blatant enough, that was sarcastic. The only person I have known who hated Lincoln for that also believed that Benedict Arnold was misunderstood and Adolf Hitler was a victim of circumstances that molded him poorly.

 

[Perfection]

So that when Russia changes to Communism they shouldn't still have a Czar as leader but someone like Lenin or Stalin.

So if America changes to fascism...

 

[slothman]

...First off, he made the keen observation that the U.S. could not exist seperately for the
following reasons (and more):
North/South bickering over control of the Mississippi
Much lowered ability to protect nation from foriegn threats
How to deal with slaves escaping to the North
The precedent for further fragmentation
...

As the topic is offtopic I will chime in. First the US and Mexico bicker about the Colorado River as well do many states. Many countries that aren't part of the US are completely safe such as Mexico and Canada. Slaves could escape to the north but many Viet Nam draftees went to Canada. As for more fragmentation, it might be better. A combined country isn't necessarily best of they are completely different as the north and south were and partially still are.
As for Lincoln being bad I still never hear rebuttals about how he illegally imprisoned newspaper printers who said bad stuff about the war. And how the EP only "freed" slaves in a part of the country which wouldn't abide by it anyways. And how the EP didn't even affect the north and isn't allowed by the president anyways.
He didn't save the Union. It split even with him. It wanted to long before him. And the only aspect he might be good at was eventually, after years, picking Grant as a general to beat Lee. All the first ones were as bad generals as he was president.
Getting back on topic I think he would be fine as a Civ4 leader. He is one of the most famous which is useful for the rest of the world and better ones like Washington would be better as great military leaders.

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: Perfection, Slothman - Warned. Take it to the Offtopic or World History forums.

Next warning will close this thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889