-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
New Unit: Canadian Mountie
- Thread starter Doragon
- Start date
I know it's off topic, but I think some posts here deserve an answer.
"The U.S. has to intervene... Who is going to stop Saddam from killing his own people."
I'm very sorry, but this is perhaps the poorest reason you may have selected... I'm sure the American people is a generous people, and that you really think Saddam harshness to is people should be a sufficient reasons to intervene. And your are not the only one. Even French people think it.
But there's a big difference between people and their government. I don't think the US government (not people) has ever really done something out of generosity or to protect freedom as a concept. As any other government in the world, they only do things because they have an interest, and they think the cost is lower than what they will gain. Otherwise, why don't the US declare war to every country were the government is killing his own people (by the way, the US would have to invade... some american states were death penalty still exists
)
"We intervene because we have too. We are for freedom everywhere, freedom of speech, religion... "
It's true, you intervene because you have too. For your own good, not to protect freedom.
The US intervene to settle the Taliban, to fight the communist ennemy. I don't think the Taliban are a good exemple of freedom of religion. The CIA financed the strikes which enable the General Pinochet to seize power in Chile, when legal ELECTION had given the government to Allende, an evil socialist... I don't think this is a good exemple of freedom of political thinking. When a country, France here, express a different opinion, and propose a different way to do things (with the same goal as you!), it get harsh criticism and childish reaction. I don't think this is a good exemple of freedom of speech.
Where were the US troops in Bosnia? French and their european allies were there, and the US refused to come, even after we have asked their help several times. The same in Rwanda : French and Belgian troops tried to save what they can. It's true France is no longer a superpower, and cannot do what the US can. But we takes our share of the burden when we can.
The US went at war against Germany after 7th december 1941, after they have been themselves attacked. And IIRC, Germany was the one to declare war, not the US. France was defeated in June 1940, one year and a half before. France was defeated because of German military superiority at that time. So were all European countries : Great Britain survived only because the Channel and the Home Fleet protected here long enough to prepare a counter attack. But even defeated, some French didn't give up, and fought in Africa, as partisan in French moutains, and then with Free French Forces.
We are very thankfull to the americans who died to free our country, but if someone save your life, will you let him do everything without question afterward? Or will you give him your opinion, and try to convince him?
In Kuwait, the US intervened immediately to protect oil supplies, not the Kuwait people. Bush senior didn't finished the job because he thought removing Saddam will probably give more unstabilty to the region than keeping him.
In the current "crisis", everybody claim to have the same goal: disarm Saddam. The US want to disarm him by force, when there's still no blatant clue of such weapons. The French want to let the inspectors do their job first, and if that fail, I don't remember any statement by a French official that we will not help our allies.
But why do French and US governement really disagree? Go above the feeling of righteousness of a simple citizen, and try to decipher what is the real meaning of all that.
Saddam is probably not the real goal of the Bush administration. Do you think a country, after 12 years embargo, a war that destroyed most of its military, several years of inspection, and regular bombing, is a real threat? Saddam is a tiger of paper. No. Who finances most of the fundamentalist groups in the World? Saudi Arabia. But it's the largest oil supplier. So Bush needs to secure on other source of oil, just in case. How convenient : Iraq is the second largest, and Bush has a good pretext to go there.
And why do the French refuse to endorse this war? Because we don't think it's necessary... and because France is the country that is the most involved in Iraq oil right now, and doesn't want the US to take the place!
That's as simple as that. Iraq is not only an ideological dispute between the old Europe and the young America, it's also a battle of the ever lasting economical war the US and Europe are fighting, while giving the impression we are good friends.
I want to be very clear: this message is not to tell French or American are best. My goal here is to give some highlight on some forgotten aspect of the situation.
Once again, a government, any government, does what it think is the best for his own good (and then it's a dictature), or what it think is the best for the country it represent. It very seldom does thing which are good for the people of other countries.
So before criticizing, try to look at the situation from all the points of view, and to find the facts behind the words.
"The U.S. has to intervene... Who is going to stop Saddam from killing his own people."
I'm very sorry, but this is perhaps the poorest reason you may have selected... I'm sure the American people is a generous people, and that you really think Saddam harshness to is people should be a sufficient reasons to intervene. And your are not the only one. Even French people think it.
But there's a big difference between people and their government. I don't think the US government (not people) has ever really done something out of generosity or to protect freedom as a concept. As any other government in the world, they only do things because they have an interest, and they think the cost is lower than what they will gain. Otherwise, why don't the US declare war to every country were the government is killing his own people (by the way, the US would have to invade... some american states were death penalty still exists
)"We intervene because we have too. We are for freedom everywhere, freedom of speech, religion... "
It's true, you intervene because you have too. For your own good, not to protect freedom.
The US intervene to settle the Taliban, to fight the communist ennemy. I don't think the Taliban are a good exemple of freedom of religion. The CIA financed the strikes which enable the General Pinochet to seize power in Chile, when legal ELECTION had given the government to Allende, an evil socialist... I don't think this is a good exemple of freedom of political thinking. When a country, France here, express a different opinion, and propose a different way to do things (with the same goal as you!), it get harsh criticism and childish reaction. I don't think this is a good exemple of freedom of speech.
Where were the US troops in Bosnia? French and their european allies were there, and the US refused to come, even after we have asked their help several times. The same in Rwanda : French and Belgian troops tried to save what they can. It's true France is no longer a superpower, and cannot do what the US can. But we takes our share of the burden when we can.
The US went at war against Germany after 7th december 1941, after they have been themselves attacked. And IIRC, Germany was the one to declare war, not the US. France was defeated in June 1940, one year and a half before. France was defeated because of German military superiority at that time. So were all European countries : Great Britain survived only because the Channel and the Home Fleet protected here long enough to prepare a counter attack. But even defeated, some French didn't give up, and fought in Africa, as partisan in French moutains, and then with Free French Forces.
We are very thankfull to the americans who died to free our country, but if someone save your life, will you let him do everything without question afterward? Or will you give him your opinion, and try to convince him?
In Kuwait, the US intervened immediately to protect oil supplies, not the Kuwait people. Bush senior didn't finished the job because he thought removing Saddam will probably give more unstabilty to the region than keeping him.
In the current "crisis", everybody claim to have the same goal: disarm Saddam. The US want to disarm him by force, when there's still no blatant clue of such weapons. The French want to let the inspectors do their job first, and if that fail, I don't remember any statement by a French official that we will not help our allies.
But why do French and US governement really disagree? Go above the feeling of righteousness of a simple citizen, and try to decipher what is the real meaning of all that.
Saddam is probably not the real goal of the Bush administration. Do you think a country, after 12 years embargo, a war that destroyed most of its military, several years of inspection, and regular bombing, is a real threat? Saddam is a tiger of paper. No. Who finances most of the fundamentalist groups in the World? Saudi Arabia. But it's the largest oil supplier. So Bush needs to secure on other source of oil, just in case. How convenient : Iraq is the second largest, and Bush has a good pretext to go there.
And why do the French refuse to endorse this war? Because we don't think it's necessary... and because France is the country that is the most involved in Iraq oil right now, and doesn't want the US to take the place!
That's as simple as that. Iraq is not only an ideological dispute between the old Europe and the young America, it's also a battle of the ever lasting economical war the US and Europe are fighting, while giving the impression we are good friends.
I want to be very clear: this message is not to tell French or American are best. My goal here is to give some highlight on some forgotten aspect of the situation.
Once again, a government, any government, does what it think is the best for his own good (and then it's a dictature), or what it think is the best for the country it represent. It very seldom does thing which are good for the people of other countries.
So before criticizing, try to look at the situation from all the points of view, and to find the facts behind the words.
I agree, it's to much of a controversial subject for us to help ourselves from not replying
. And besides, having my thread temp. banned for trying to 'move' this discussion over to OT, was, in my thinking unforgivable, let the discussion take place where it is, if they will act like that. To clarify Im against Bush btw.Steph-
"The U.S. has to intervene... Who is going to stop Saddam from killing his own people."
I'm very sorry, but this is perhaps the poorest reason you may have selected... I'm sure the American people is a generous people, and that you really think Saddam harshness to is people should be a sufficient reasons to intervene. And your are not the only one. Even French people think it.
But there's a big difference between people and their government. I don't think the US government (not people) has ever really done something out of generosity or to protect freedom as a concept. As any other government in the world, they only do things because they have an interest, and they think the cost is lower than what they will gain. Otherwise, why don't the US declare war to every country were the government is killing his own people (by the way, the US would have to invade... some american states were death penalty still exists
As you will see later in this post, Americans have, helping Europe in WWII on part of the Americans was entirely for the sake of the reasons you say we do not cause wars for. We supplied the Allies before Hitler declared war on us, and because he severed that link, we put out more men than we had to, we even went so far to form a standing army that was large, one we didnt have since our Civil war. A death penalty for convicted criminals, some of which rape children, is much different than going to war and killing innocent civilians for their leader? Isn't that what anti-war people think?
And in that case it's ridiculous, as Tony Parson of the Daily Mirror put it;
"To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein. Once we were told that Saddam gassed Kurds, tortured his own people and set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street. Save me the orange center, oh mighty one!"
We, or at least I, someone who never thought worse of your country, don't disagree with you, we disagree because in gaming rooms, we get French people saying "France only no [expletive deleted] usa!" Who is acting childish? Both sides im sure, and while your post is well thought out of, it is just as slanted as any. It's these little encounters over the internet, not media propaganda, that makes Americans think the way we do against nations.
No one is saying the French are cowards, or not interested in world peace, but we aren't saying you are not angels either, as I discussed with Ralendil, and he obviously saw, no nation is flaw-less. The ultimate part of this, is that Americans feel we are overlooked, that the rest of the world is more critical and think we should do what the UN feels it right, without acting with our other threats, N. Korea has many cannon artillery pointing at S. Korea, which would engulf Seoul in flames and kill millions, if France had 30.000 troops there, and had many soldiers who were drafted, fought, and died there, they would think less of N. Korea having Ballistic Missiles, Im not saying Communism is a bad theory government, but more often than not, it has been used as an excuse for Tyrants.
Seeing as you brought up WWII, I am going to point out, that once again foreign nations are more critical of the US, Your nation was completely run over, I am not surprised you kept fighting in Rebel ways, we as Americans have done nothing but admire that, yet we see irony, at the fact that after all was said and done, when thousands of Americans died on foreign soil fighting the Germans, for French freedom, we see the French and Germans joining forces in American-bashing. And having elections on who-can-do-more-harm-to-the-Americans kind of view. And you seem to hold the evil communist enemy thinking of the Americans in contempt, but you completely forget about Russia in WWII! Not even mentioned, and forgotten, when they probably would have won the war with American funding by themselves!
And he didn't finish the job because the UN said he shouldn't, and this same kind of talk was going on, that slip your mind? We arent going to war for oil, we've done fine without his oil for a long time now. Yes, helping Kuwait was mainly for free trade, but do you think we are heartless? Do you think we want Kuwait in existence solely for free trade?
Look at it this way, the surrender of Saddam was a conditional surrender, he had plenty of time to disarm from 1991, the fact that he hasn't shows us he won't. So you want us to give Iraq another 12 years? Yes I believe the French will never give support, even if we wait that long before acting, these same subject will be shown, and while France hasn't said they wouldnt eventually give support, they never said, ok, if you wait a year, and the UN inspectors fail we will give support. If your nations government said that, we would be much closer to compromising. But even so, I won't forget this Anti-americanism, and if this is any proof, look at my post in that OT thread I created a long while ago that seemed to entomb this thread for a while, it was completely anti-war. This recent out burst of anti-Americanism has changed my mind, as it did many other Americans minds, im sure.
I already went over that rigorously, and I won't do it again, as for Saudi Arabia, having 30.000 troops on there border might convince them otherwise (as it did N. Korea), and modernizing Iraq would not hurt either. Which reminds me someone posted earlier saying why should the UN indorse this war? The American won't put a UN 'president' there" Of course we won't, it would be a Iraqi.
Wise words, but you did not follow them as much as you may think, and did not look at it from the other point of view, something we did not pretend to do
.Redking
Prince
Can this thread PLEASE be moved!
And what? Get rid of Doragon's unit and put it in OT
, seeing as how he deserves none of this. If you want it the discussion gone so bad, do as I did and create a new topic in the Off topic forum, maybe you will have better luck than I... If not the only other thing would be to close it, with Doragons approval.
, seeing as how he deserves none of this. If you want it the discussion gone so bad, do as I did and create a new topic in the Off topic forum, maybe you will have better luck than I... If not the only other thing would be to close it, with Doragons approval.thisismysn20
Warlord
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 255
I don't see why everyone is so perrsistant one removing the thread. I think this, of ANY thread has been one of the most interesting ones. True it is ot, but this is the only thread I still read in civF.
I second you again, Redking.
Forum rules should be respected, otherwise there soon
will be total chaos.
I have been interested in politics during my whole life
and of course I have a opinion concerning the current
crisis but I will never I repeat never discuss it here
at Civ3-Creation and Customization Unit Graphics.
Since Post 7 (out of 108) September 04 2002
nothing on this thread have been related to the
Canadian Mountie Unit.
zulu9812
The Newbie Nightmare
spam spam spam 
This thread should be about feedback on the unit that was posted in the first post. Everything else is threadjacking.
This thread should be about feedback on the unit that was posted in the first post. Everything else is threadjacking.
Welllllll.... It's another great unit. I read somewhere here that the Cavalry and such had no great use in the typical game. I like to use them for garrison units when I have to occupy a captured city. It frees up the heavier forces to finish the job. Since the "mounties" are RCMP, they serve well as a police force with some military strength (if you give them that). It's difficult to tell from the sample, but I don't think the hat should be brown - all the ones I saw were more of a tan or fawn color with the dark brown or perhaps black band.
Most the griping about colors and tones here seems to be relevent to the viewer's monitor settings - someone will say it's too yellow or too whatever, when it looks fine on my screen. But then, I take the trouble to calibrate my monitor often.
Most the griping about colors and tones here seems to be relevent to the viewer's monitor settings - someone will say it's too yellow or too whatever, when it looks fine on my screen. But then, I take the trouble to calibrate my monitor often.
Link please.
WITH MOST OF THEM IN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC!!!
***My 1st post there
***
TopGun
258 kills
hey folks... in an attempt to bring this thread back to what it was supposed to be (Unit-Related), a quick question on my part:
Is this unit civ-colored or is it simply red, red, red?
Is this unit civ-colored or is it simply red, red, red?
