President Abe (Us, not Japan)

[Slobadog]

We must not forget all the great contributions Poland made to WW2. From cracking the Enigma to helping to save the British skies to inventing new tank periscopes. While overrun from day one their government and military were still in action at Germany's surrender. Argubably Churchill could presevere because of their brave example. All the more reason why poland should be in civ i guess. HRE wasn't even good enough to last till WW2.

 

[obliterate]

They don't. They just fight them.
And they occasionally win battles.

Who win the rest off the battles then? A self-firing gun?

 

[bonafide11]

BTW ... how can Lincoln switch to slavery ... it's... revolting ...

The first game I played of BTS, Lincoln was my neighbor and it cracked me up as soon as I saw "Lincoln adopts slavery."

 

[bonafide11]

We must not forget all the great contributions Poland made to WW2. From cracking the Enigma to helping to save the British skies to inventing new tank periscopes. While overrun from day one their government and military were still in action at Germany's surrender. Argubably Churchill could presevere because of their brave example. All the more reason why poland should be in civ i guess. HRE wasn't even good enough to last till WW2.

I can't tell if you're joking or not, but it's not really funny either way...

 

[tomaalimosh]

Who win the rest off the battles then? A self-firing gun?

The enemy.

(can't win 'em all)

Wars however, are won by making the most of the battles that have been won, while minimalizing the effects of those that have been lost.
And THAT is not done by soldiers.

I mean... surely... any good civ player should know that...

 

[Figaro]

Lincoln was in Civ2 and Civ3. I suppose they wanted to include some different presidents.

 

[RedRalph]

I'm trying to catch-all here:

I am not saying the USSR alone won WW2. I'm not claiming no one-else contributed to the victory in Europe. I'm not claiming Hitler didnt make mistakes. I am claiming the T-34 was a better tank precisely because it could be produced in huge numbers, ease of production is a factor in any tank, any country could build a one off tank that could destroy any other, what use is it if you cant build them in decent quantities?

The US, UK, French resistance, etc etc all assisted, helped with supplies, etc. I just dont see how, morally or logically, you can give credit for the defeat of the Nazis in Europe to the nations that supplied trucks over the Nation that actually did 90% of the fighting, sustained c.75 of the losses inflicted by the Nazis, took the Nazi capital and killed c.85% of the Nazis that died in the war. Its an absolute nonsense. Its like giving credit to a sportsshoe manufacturer over the player, or giving credit to a movie camera manufactuerer over a director (both cases relating to US supply of trucks). It makes no sense and its driven by national pride and a distorted view of history.

Nice ot have the debate though, at least it hasnt turned into flaming

 

[Ambs-Ace]

It's really really late here, so forgive the glowing nature of this post. Also, I would like to categorically state that this post is NOT about the U.S. as a whole, but merely about one great man born within its bounds.

That being said, I consider FDR to be one of the great leaders of all time. Many people give him a lot of credit for ending WWII (at least here in the States), which I think is in many ways overstated, but his economic and social policies were where he stands out. His economics helped the U.S. not only recover from the Depression, but brought us out running, not limping. (On a side note, the U.S. has a lot of gall for calling ours "The Great Depression" when its European counterpart was considerably worse in every measure. "It's no rose garden over here either," but y'all got hit especially hard.) His "New Deal" was a landmark of creative government intervention on behalf of its people. Also, though he was wheelchair-bound for his entire political career, he stood as a strong and steadfast icon of leadership through some very dark times.

Ideologically, he attempted to retain hold on the isolationist principles under which the U.S. had flourished, and which were still very popular. When Pearl Harbor occurred, it was the first time when he could reconcile the interest of the world with the will of the people he had been chosen to represent. I have tremendous respect for any person who strives to find satisfaction for competing obligations, rather than give in to the temptation to yield one to the other.

This combination of competent peace-time and effective war-time policies, along with a strong ideological background is one rarely seen throughout history, and we have been incredibly lucky to have seen his like at all, much less when he was most needed.

I'm not saying that Abe should take the backseat, but that in many ways FDR is at least as strong a choice for an American leader as Mr. Lincoln. Seeing him in the game was a pleasant surprise indeed.

 

[onedreamer]

The Red Army took massive disproportionate losses. They Kill Ratio was abysmal. They just had more manpower to burn than Germany did.

Sorry man, but it takes more than "just manpower". It takes people willing to give their life, and I believe that except Japan none could compete vs USSR in this.

 

[Thalatta]

My son is 6 years old and handles a pistol better than most adults I know. Contrary to what some people would have you think, a deregulated world full of guns is an extremely polite world.

I'm going to jump in and call this idealistic, rather than stupid or ignorant as a lot of gun control lobbyists might do. It's still wrong, though; a deregulated world full of guns is a world with a lot more graveyards.

You see, some people are downright clumsy or unwise, a few are depressed and lonely and a handful are unkind and impolite no matter what. Given the historical context, your talented son and the average colonial are actually pretty comparable in terms of probable deaths caused: A musket isn't exactly effective for criminal purposes like our modern guns, and the odds of your son or a colonial accidentally shooting themselves or someone else are probably pretty similar since ineptitude with a musket would translate into not shooting anyone.

However, the common firearm now is no longer the musket. The firearm death rate in the US is the highest in the world (about half is suicide), anywhere from just slightly more than Brazil, Estonia and Mexico to 3 times that of Canada, 10 times that of Germany and 30 times that of England to 220 times that of Japan.

 

[Jperkinson]

I'm going to jump in and call this idealistic, rather than stupid or ignorant as a lot of gun control lobbyists might do. It's still wrong, though; a deregulated world full of guns is a world with a lot more graveyards.

I don't disagree. I think a lot of 'impolite' people may end up in the ground fast... I don't really have a problem with that.

The firearm death rate in the US is the highest in the world (about half is suicide), anywhere from just slightly more than Brazil, Estonia and Mexico to 3 times that of Canada, 10 times that of Germany and 30 times that of England to 220 times that of Japan.

It's not really apples to apples here, is it? Of course, a country that allows private gun ownership is going to have a higher firearm death rates than those that heavily regulate it. Isn't the UK infamous for it's knife crime?

You really think that if the American constitutional system failed, your precious guns will protect you from a despot in charge of American military, looking to ruthlessly crush opposition ?
That is laughable really and speaks either of how much the Americans overrate themselves with guns or how much they underrate their own military and its logistical power.
War is not child's play and insurgents in Afghanistan/Iraq etc. are insanely more trained and experienced than American public is. American public vs American army would end up as a massacre really- even with guerilla warfare, it would take 20:1 numerical odds or so for a US citizen to take down its own soldier.

Funny, I thought the US soldiers were US citizens.... It doesn't matter that the US soldiers have much more training. Using your 'magic hat' statistics, even if the odds are 1:20, the psychological effect of private US citizens standing up the enlisted US citizens... even if only to get slaughtered, is enough to break resolve. But this is near irrelevant, since the 2nd amendment prevents this kind of escalation... It's not about Citizens vs. the Army. It's about individuals not taking $hit from their government. And the government not giving $hit to it's people for fear of reprisal.

What is "Laughable" is your admission to how powerless you really are.

But i suppose America needs its propaganda about pro-gun status. It is afterall America's biggest industry ( in terms of GDP earned) and America is a capitalist nation- so it makes diabolical sense that a capitalist nation will have very good cultural focus on projecting the 'you need a gun!' mentality.

Any proof to back that statement up?

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Any proof to back that statement up?

If you require proof that the weapons industry is the single biggest industry in GNP terms for US of A, you arn't aware of the US economic 'pie-chart' I suggest you pick up an economics journal sometime.

Funny, I thought the US soldiers were US citizens.... It doesn't matter that the US soldiers have much more training. Using your 'magic hat' statistics, even if the odds are 1:20, the psychological effect of private US citizens standing up the enlisted US citizens... even if only to get slaughtered, is enough to break resolve. But this is near irrelevant, since the 2nd amendment prevents this kind of escalation... It's not about Citizens vs. the Army. It's about individuals not taking $hit from their government. And the government not giving $hit to it's people for fear of reprisal.
What is "Laughable" is your admission to how powerless you really are.

Ok you are making zero sense now. First you say that owning guns by public prevents the govt. from taking a dictatorial stance towards its people and thats the shabang about the US.
Well how is the govt. going to take a dictatorial stance and get away with it ? Only by mobilizing the military.
Otherwise, if it can't mobilize the military to face your so-called citizen militia, then its not guns that is stopping your dictatorial takeover but whatever the process that prevents mobilizing the military against its own people- which is purely sociological & constitutional in nature (and have nothing to do with/without owning guns).

And if you speak of the psychological impact on US soldiers firing upon US citizens, trust me, it would work 1000x better if the US citizens showed up unarmed.
This is called Gandhi-ism, tried tested and true. You make it a helluva lot difficult for a soldier to shoot his own countryman when his countryman isnt even armed and just standing there.

Then you do a twist again and say 'but it doesnt matter, its about individuals not taking sh!t from the government'- so basically you are promoting hooliganism and saying that each time a citizen has a problem with the government, it should take up guns and blow/shoot some stuff up.
Again that is rather ******ed and a reflection of a dysfunctional society than a sane one.

And as for being 'powerless', maybe because i have fired guns before and i know several ex-military personel, but i can assure you- if your government wanted you dead, you'd be dead from a single shot and it wouldn't matter squat if you owned a 100 guns and went to the range thrice a week. Besides, as far as 'power' goes to me- i have a technical degree in applied science- i can find a job in practically any part of the world that can speak English in the office (which would then include most of western europe & east asia amongst other places) in under 3 months. So basically, all i need is 3 month's living expenses in the bank & a VISA. And then i'd be infinitely better equipped to deal with the crisis than your lil John Wayne dude- since i will be outta there in a jiffy when $hit really hits the fan and mob rule rules the country. I find that kind of 'power' to be far reliable a bet than being the gun-toting cowboy for dealing with troubled times and i am sure many here will agree as much.

But then again, American mainstream culture is given to promoting the 'cowboy gun-toting pickup truck driving burger-eating joe' image. Besides, i've lived in far rougher scenarios than you probably have ( lived straight through a riot and communal violence killing hundreds in the city) and i didn't feel the requirement for a gun- the imperetive to hide/stay indoors & away from troubled areas was far bigger on the list and far more sane.
So i don't think you are making any sense whatsoever.
Owning a gun might give you a false psychological comfort but fact is, it hardly serves as any sort of protection, except maybe other gun-toting hooligans breaking into your home/store. But that problem wouldn't exist in the first place if guns were a damn sight harder to get hold of.
The stats do not lie, US gun related crimes are astronomically higher in proportion than most other western nations and that is simply because of its ******ed gun-culture.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

It's not really apples to apples here, is it? Of course, a country that allows private gun ownership is going to have a higher firearm death rates than those that heavily regulate it. Isn't the UK infamous for it's knife crime?

This is false and circular reasoning.
US overall crime rate per capita is one of the highest, if not THE highest in the western world and a large part of it is because of guns ( and in gun-related crimes, its astronomically higher than most western nations).
Think about it for a second- guns are a great equilizer amongst the citizenry(ie, we are not talking about shooting a military dude here, we are talking about break-ins & shootings/jacking up a store etc). You just point and shoot. And the target is almost always caught unawares/with no weapon so is deadmeat.
With knives or bats, there is an element of you can still get owned by the one you are attacking since it involves getting within close proximity of your victim.
This is why societies with stupidly relaxed gun-laws (like the US) have far far higher crime rate in general than societies with tighter gun laws- not everybody who is shooting people in the US will switch over to a knife or other means if they didn't have access to guns. There are lots of punks who'd shoot you form across the street but wouldn't pick a knife-fight/fist-fight with you if you look tough.

 

[Jperkinson]

If you require proof that the weapons industry is the single biggest industry in GNP terms for US of A, you arn't aware of the US economic 'pie-chart' I suggest you pick up an economics journal sometime.

Now there's a good counter argument... Show me where you read that the 'Weapons industry' is the "single biggest industry in GNP"?

You can't. I don't know where you get your 'facts'... but unless you can back them up, I suggest you stop throwing out ridiculous accusations...

US DoD budget was about 4% GDP.... Heath services is around 15%.


I was going to continue to respond to your other comments... but it just seems futile to try and rationalize with your post, when you are obviously struggling to come up with any kind of tangible argument.
..............................................................
The rest of the forum probably doesn't want us to 'flame out'... so let's agree to drop it.... before we both get thrown out of here.
..............................................................

This has gone too far off topic... If you could only pick two US leaders... who would they be? Mine are Washington and Jefferson.

 

[Duuk]

Sorry man, but it takes more than "just manpower". It takes people willing to give their life, and I believe that except Japan none could compete vs USSR in this.

If the Russian soldier was so willing to die for his country, why on earth was there a commissar corps?

 

[RedRalph]

The commisars were taken off frontline military duty by 42 and reduced to giving political speeches and morale advice in barrcks. you really think the commisars could have forced all those millions of soldiers to fight as hard as they did? to quote Ned Flanders, sounds like youre straining to do some explainin

 

[sansloi37]

Hi sansloi37, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your quotes. Clearly you are emphasizing that Lincoln's priority during the civil war was to maintain the union and then you have a quote from Machiavelli about leaders required to do evil. A lot of Americans think of Lincoln as the President who freed the slaves and it seems to me that you quoted him hear because you wanted to point out that that was not his main goal during the civil war. Is that the point you are trying to make?


If that is your argument then I strongly disagree and I think your quote of Lincoln needs to put in context. Yes Lincoln's main concern was always the preservation of the United States as one country however he felt that the US could never remain one country while slavery existed. He never wanted a destructive civil war. When he first ran for President his intent was to bring about the end of slavery gradually over a long drawn out period so as to avoid a destructive civil war. Also his feelings about slavery ( as well as the feelings of Americans in general ) changed quite a bit as the civil war progressed. So I think this quote is more reflective of Lincoln's beliefs at the beginning of the war and not necessary his beliefs later, for example, when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

I think what made Lincoln one of the best American Presidents was his humility and his ability to truly lead. As a politician it is never really effective to be opposed to the majority will of the people. Lincoln learned that from his term as a congressman opposing the Mexican-American war which was very popular. What a true political leader does is learn to read that will and to push it in the right direction, to persuade the population that your ideas and goals are the right ones. Lincoln did that most noticeably with slavery. He helped Americans realize that slavery is fundamentally wrong and is a direct contradiction of the constitution and the freedom that the constitution guarantees.



P.S. If you haven't read the new biography of Lincoln called "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin it is wonderful and I highly recommend it.

Hi Pericles, sorry I wasn't clearer in my post. The second quote (Machiavelli) was mainly in reference to an action Lincoln took to preserve the Union, namely the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

As for the Emancipation Proclamation, he held off on issuing it until he felt there was no other choice. He was a pragmatist throughout his Presidency and took the step of violating the US Constitution in order to save it...the essence of "the ends justifies the means."

And to go even further off-topic, I have always found it ironic that Robert E. Lee (the leading Confederate General) had manumitted his own slaves years before the Civil War started. For him the war was truly about States Rights, not slavery...

 

[Halt]

I'm trying to catch-all here:

I am not saying the USSR alone won WW2. I'm not claiming no one-else contributed to the victory in Europe. I'm not claiming Hitler didnt make mistakes. I am claiming the T-34 was a better tank precisely because it could be produced in huge numbers, ease of production is a factor in any tank, any country could build a one off tank that could destroy any other, what use is it if you cant build them in decent quantities?

T-34 Was a better tank than any other tank in WWII.

Why?

Because unlike the Supposedly "better" German tank's... The T-34 worked. Yes, some German tanks had bigger guns, better armor, faster etc.. but their treads would fall off, guns jam, engine malfunction.. etc... It is the difference between a theoretical battlefield and the real world. I choose the tank that works.

 

[RedRalph]

T-34 Was a better tank than any other tank in WWII.

Why?

Because unlike the Supposedly "better" German tank's... The T-34 worked. Yes, some German tanks had bigger guns, better armor, faster etc.. but their treads would fall off, guns jam, engine malfunction.. etc... It is the difference between a theoretical battlefield and the real world. I choose the tank that works.

Also the introduction of sloped armour was a huge improvement. the first time Germans attacked T-34s their shells bounced off, literally

 

[Halt]

The 2nd Amendment discussion is boarding on the surreal.

The NRA uses the 2nd Amendment to protect the right all Americans have to keep and bare arms. But the 2nd Amendment is not about the rights of Americans to own firearms.

It is about the rights of Americans as individuals to retain the means to provide an armed resistance to a potentially tyrannical government. I know this sounds alien to non-US citizens and to some less well read US- Citizens and modern warfare can be assumed to potentially render this Amendment practically unworkable. But the point is not what we think of it today, it is what were the writers of the constitution thinking. They had established that the Government both State and Federal were responsible for both Civil and Foreign threats (Whiskey Rebellion one of the earliest tests of a Civil threat). The 2nd Amendment was thought of as a reasonable step to make a clear statement that the power of the Government was secondary and responsible to the Governed.

In the 16th 17th and 18th century they saw that words alone would not safe guard this right, therefore they enshrined within the Constitution these affirmative rights.