1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

President Abe (Us, not Japan)

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by RedRalph, Sep 10, 2007.

  1. bovinespy

    bovinespy Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    310
    You have made a large amount of unqualified assertions and ad hominem attacks on American culture, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to delve into them in depth. This statement above, however, is just flat out FALSE. On many different levels:

    1. You should be aware that the U.S. Constitution, written in 1787 and ratified by the states in 1789, also allowed for the abolition of the foreign slave trade, effective January 1, 1808. By contrast, the UK only passed the Slave Trade Act in 1807, a full 20 years after the U.S. committed itself to the abolition of foreign slave-trading.

    2. The Confederacy was not, by any conceivable applicable criteria, richer in any way than the North (U.S.). Not in land, not in population, not in industry, not in infrastructure, not in technology, not in foreign reserves. The very fact that the war even went on for 4 years can largely be attributed to: A) early U.S. incompetence, and B) superior (on average) Confederate military leadership. If the U.S. had truly gotten serious about winning the war in 1861, it would've been over within a year.

    3. Finally, not only did the UK (and to a lesser extent, France) not hinder the Confederate war effort - they actually supported the South. Other than bombarding forts and blockading harbors, most action that the U.S. Navy saw during the Civil War consisted in trying to track down and intercept Confederate trading ships that were running cotton to the mills of Manchester and Leeds. Not to mention the fact that Lincoln had to do some serious diplomacy to prevent UK intervention (see The Trent Affair) on behalf of the Confederacy. The South's basic war strategy planned on holding out long enough against the North to warrant de jure recogntion of the CSA's independence by the European powers, especially the UK and France.
     
  2. Dubzilla8

    Dubzilla8 Just Right of Center

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    89
    I cant help but question why we, as humans on this earth, have to debate over the contribution of various nations in a conflict as large as World War II. I'm an American, and I cant help but get chills and goose bumps when I hear about the successful invasion of Normandy; all the sacrifice, loss, and gain. But I look at World War II as a UNITED effort. How could America have stopped Germany if it was not for our good friends (hopefully, somewhat these days) from across the pond - the British. They stood, alone, for so long against the fascist machine. If they fell, Germany's ability to produce war materials would have gone off the charts. America wouldnt have been able to stop them if Germany controlled Europe.

    Then there is Russia. The country that sacrificed millions (all though their tactics were questionable). The casualties dealt to Germany are undeniable. They sacrificed the most and gained the least in the end.

    And there is America. Who knows what would have happened if we were not involved at all? I do not believe we won the war for the world, that is ridiculous. But I do believe that we ACCELERATED the arrival of the end of the war. And, as someone already said, we carried on the fight in the Pacific with little to no help.

    It doesn't matter how the war was one. It doesn't matter who contributed the most. What matters, in my eyes, is this: a whole lot of good - from differing cultures, language, power, ethnicity, you name it - UNITED and stood as a single power in the face of, what I believe to be, absolute, undeniable EVIL.

    And here we are today. On a forum, bickering over who contributed the most, spitting in the faces of those who sacrificed their lives for all of us, to diminish the importance of other countries. We should be sitting around a camp fire, drinking beer, and talking each other up: "Oh but we couldn't have done it without you England!" "And we couldn't have done it without you Russia!"

    My 2 cents.
     
  3. agentsmith952

    agentsmith952 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    139
    Location:
    Da 'Burgh
    As a side note, about Lincoln, if anyone looks at his presidency they will find it absolutely fascinating.

    I know people have a tendency to look at modern America and think or feel that this is the most devisive and polarized times in our history, yet they completely forget that times were so devisive before that Americans fought and killed each other. On top of that, Lincoln at the time was both loved and hated for the same reasons, both in th South and the North. But, he stuck to his guns and he led through principle.

    It tooks decades to figure out how great the man really was, but in any respect, he is universally seen as one of the best leaders in our history.
     
  4. Jperkinson

    Jperkinson Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    100
    Well said...

    I do disagree about the opinion that modern warfare renders the amendment useless tho... The Iraqi insurgency is far from modern and seems to be constantly confounding our modern militarys best efforts....
     
  5. Halt

    Halt Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    276
    That is a rebellion against a foreign power (USA) trying to stop two sides funded by the rich countries in the region (Saudi’s, Iran, etc..) engaged in a proxy war for extending the sphere of influence of take your pick Arabs vs Persians or Shia vs Sunni, that have wanted to kill each other for 1000 years. The US is just an enabler masquerading as an excuse for human beings to blame others for their desires to do harm to other human beings who do not share the same color of skin, language, or belief system. In years past it was the French or English that took the blame. While these foreign powers contributed to the situation.. they were neither the cause nor the solution
     
  6. Jperkinson

    Jperkinson Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    100
    I absolutely do not disagree... However it does illustrate that a relatively poorly regulated militia can still be effective against modern armies.
     
  7. agentsmith952

    agentsmith952 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    139
    Location:
    Da 'Burgh
    Well, that all depends on how the war is fought.
     
  8. Lurking Liu

    Lurking Liu Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    344
    Just want to say, first of all, thanks for not delving into flames. No one else has said it, so I will: You've done a good job of maintaining a civil discussion about a divisive issue. I think that the most important thing to remember is something Jefferson said in his first Inaugural Address--Paraphrasing from memory, mind you--Whether you're a Federalist or a Democrat, we're all still Americans. We may not agree on what's best for our nation, but we both want what's best for it.

    So, that being said... On with my point =P

    You're right that the intent of the Ammendment had nothing to do with the present state of a firearm's range, accuracy, rate of fire, and power. However, the Constitution isn't a monolithic structure that was written in stone in 1787 to be unchanged forever. It's an adaptive document that evolves with time. This is why some countries (France, for example) have written and scrapped literally dozens of Constitutions over the past 200+ years. Similarly, changes cannot be limited to simply Ammending the Constitution repeatedly, or else you wind up with a document that directly contradicts itself over time and therefore cheapen itself. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sure embarassed that we have an Ammendment banning alcohol, which is almost immediately followed by another Ammendment repealing the ban.

    There's no need to further Ammend the Constitution with regard to guns, as the right is still there. I'm not saying we shouldn't have the right to bear arms, far from it. What I am saying, however, is that guns should be regulated so we know who owns which weapons, and we know who is qualified to carry them. True, criminals will still have guns even if it's illegal for them to own one. But that's like saying people will still drink and drive even if it's illegal--The act is a crime in itself, leading to reincarceration. Problem --> Solution.
     
  9. Slobadog

    Slobadog King

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    711
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA








    I'm not joking. I got sources to back this up. And not wikipedia sources. I got books.
     
  10. Dominico

    Dominico Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    387

    Well said, i think the fact is sometimes Americans upset the rest of the world in that their cinema reflects only American involvement and many Americans claim they won the war.

    Everyones contribution helped even down to the freedom fighters in occupied countries and Indians, Australians, Africans and other nations brought in by the British empire (too many to mention).

    For my two cents i would say the greatest sacrifice was given up by Russia and Poland in lives. Both these countries lost a lot of people and fought hard!

    In overall loss i think Britain was hit hardest, going from pretty much the worlds premier power at wars outbreak to almost a pawn of America by the end having given up most of her power to America to save Europe but thats a whole different story!!

    One thing i would argue with is that America won in the pacific all on her own. The British and Commonwealth soldiers who fought over there are often known as the forgotten of World War II and now i know why. Remember India was part of the British Empire and Britain held Hong Kong at wars outbreak. I met a guy at work the other day who had dementia set in, and he told me how he had been a prisoner of the Japanese for 2 years in world war II. I can only guess the horrors he had to go through :( ...

    The Uk Destroyed the cream of Germanys airforce, the Russians wrecked the cream of their armoured columns and what was left faced off after D-day.
     
  11. Halt

    Halt Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    276
    Even if Jefferson as we all know failed to live by this principal, which is the biggest stain on his founding father status IMHO (all founding fathers have a stain).

    Ahh.. No. The intent of the founding fathers was the exact opposite.

    A law to regulate is by its very nature a law to restrict.

    It was all about making it difficult to change the rules of governing and make it actually difficult to govern.

    The Constitution is not a document to be interpreted it is a document to be amended. If the proponents of a change do not have the 2/3rds of the country behind a change it should not be changed. It is that simple.

    If you disagree with that philosophy that is ok… But the founding fathers were very specific on their intent.
     
  12. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    Now you are deliberately fudging the line here. What has DoD(department of Defence i assume?) spending has got to do with this discussion ?
    I categorically stated that weapons industry is the biggest industry in the US in GDP/GNP terms. This means not just the budget of the Pentagon- it means the ENTIRE firearms weapons industry- which includes DoD spendings, Law enforcement spendings, your 'chitty-chitty-bang-bang' guntoting Americans' spendings, money spent by foreign powers/people to buy US guns, etc etc.
    And i don't care which economic magazine you read, try the economist of WSJ for a change- and you will see what is a commonly known fact about the US economy- its biggest industry is 'guns'. And as with any capitalist venture, industry relies a lot on 'marketing'. Hence you are fed(or you come up with-i dunno) circular logic and merely 'feel-goodism' psycholobabble to justify gun ownership. Your attempt to interpert my 'weapons industry =biggest sector of US economy' as being 'DoD spending' is ignorant at best, blatently dishonest at worst.

    Which is why you failed to underline a single flaw in my arguments, eh ?
    Its okay, i understand if you cannot readily bring yourself to admit error to a total nameless/faceless stranger.
     
  13. Jperkinson

    Jperkinson Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    100
    Thank you for noticing. It's way too easy to 'anonymously' flame people online. It's a whole different matter to have a rational discussion... I'll be the first to admit that I have often changed my ideals based on online exchanges between rational people.

    I think this was previously mentioned, but the intent was to make it very difficult to change the constitution, nor to make it a 'living document'... A counter-example to France would be Venezuela. The raw consolidation of power occurring there has half the globe on edge.

    I don't think you should be necessarily embarrassed about prohibition..... It's constitutional remnants are a good reminder of the consequences of bull-headed regulation. Nor is it a contradiction, since it is just an amendment (in the legalese sense).

    We already have that in the form of Federal Form 4473....

    Which I disagree with. Personally, the LAST people I want knowing what guns I have is the government. (ever seen Red Dawn?)

    There is a problem with your analogy:
    If guns are banned and the criminals are the only ones that have guns, the damage is increased because citizens can't adequately fight back.
    Whereas legal or illegal, drinking in driving usually has the same result.

    Maybe more eloquently....:
    Two drunk drivers hitting each other is the same as a drunk driver hitting a sober driver... Two armed men fighting is not the same as one armed man fighting an unarmed man.
     
  14. Lurking Liu

    Lurking Liu Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    344
    EDIT: This was to Halt, I'm replying to your post, JP, in a bit. At work right now.

    Now, are you talking about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Because I'll argue until the cows come home that the Constitution is to be read more or less literally, seeing as how it's basically the rules of how the government is to be structured. I see no interpretational issues in how many branches there are supposed to be, since it says, explicitly, three.

    If you're talking about the Bill of Rights, then I will say you're wrong. But I want to know what we're talking about before I say anything else.
     
  15. Jperkinson

    Jperkinson Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    100
    Put your money where your mouth is and cite some credible sources... Post links. Post facts. Otherwise, this conversation is over.
     
  16. Jperkinson

    Jperkinson Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    100
    For all intensive purposes they are the same document. The bill of rights 'amends' the constitution... (becoming part of it).

    or so I thought...:confused:
     
  17. Halt

    Halt Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    276
    Friend... If you think I am wrong so be it. I am not trying to change your mind.

    An Amendment to the constitution becomes part of the constitution. Now it is certainly a worthwhile endeavor to discuss what was meant by the founding fathers during their discussions and their “original intent”. Once we can agree on what they intended and how that relates to the world vision they had at the time, we can then have a reasonable discussion if that “intent” is still valid. If we determine that the intent is no longer valid or its meaning is sufficiently changed in context to our world vision to render it effectively invalid, we can then debate first if we have the right to reinterpret the intent of the constitution or an Amendment is required.

    It is my belief that the founding fathers intended for an Amendment to be required in order to gain the true, actual, and affirmative consent of the governed. This is regardless if you are pro or against any particular view.

    Once we have dispatched with the easy and expedient trap of tyrants of history which we all know was to reinterpret laws passed by welling meaning predecessors we can then debate the merits of one cause or another.

    We should not base the claim of the righteousness of our cause to an interpretation, rather it should be solely based upon on the informed consent of the governed.
     
  18. bovinespy

    bovinespy Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    310
    Oh, come on:rolleyes: . I've seen a lot of reasons for hating the US - many of them quite valid - but this might just be the lamest.

    So - let me get this straight. An American is supposed to petition Hollywood for more films about Operation Bagration or the Battle of Panipat whilst being simultaneously ashamed of that bastard Spielberg, who dared to not show a portrayal of GI's cowering in their landing craft under the withering fire of those valiant, stalwart captured Russians or infirm Germans guarding Festung Europa against the decadent West?

    Yeah - I guess that makes sense. I mean, come to think of it, some of the best war movies about the American military that I've ever seen have been produced in Burkina Faso or Paraguay. And who could forget Jurgen Prochnow's winning turn as the rifleman in ARD's award-winning adaptation of Stephen Crane's Red Badge of Courage. :rolleyes:

    I have heard of some disaffected theater students who still subscribe to the outmoded theory that the film industry of each nation should be the primary conduit for the production of movies that glorify the country's armed forces. Idiots.
     
  19. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    Here.
    Knock yourself out.

    As you will find quoted there ( and we are dealing with nearly 15 year old stats, thanks to how de-regulated your weapons industry is) that in 93-94 year, approximately 13.7 million gun transactions occured in the US, with each transaction worth $392 at the time of transfer.
    This means your domestic firearms industry alone is worth around 5.5 billion dollars in 1993-94. With the average inflation of 3 % per year in the last 15 year period, it would yeild a value of around 8.5-9 billion dollars today.

    And this is just the $ from guns sold at home to Americans who wanna go 'chitty chitty bang bang' and not the ammo sales. Ammunition sales in 93-94 were in the order of 50-60 billion dollars, which would yeild a compound inflation value of 80-95 billion dollars today ( rough figures- i am doing this as rough math in my head).
    Add on top of that the declared US defence spendings of around 550-600 billion dollars. Then add about 20-25 billion dollars annually for overseas defence contract.
    Now factor in incredible American subsidization of the weapons industry in the rate of 40-60% annually, meaning another extra 40-60% of the sum is tied into the gun industry in 'invisible' subsidies. Bear in mind that this still does NOT include law enforcement spendings on weaponry, which is in the order of 10-15 billion dollars in itself.

    I will leave the rest of the calculations up to you and you will find that i meet your demand for a 'recognized' source, given that it is a .gov website.

    Heh, this conversation was over when you dismissed my logical (and socially accurate observation) analysis of your whole flawed 'guns protect us from despotism' propaganda without a shred of reasoning or highlighting the flaws- just empty judgement in typical closeminded way.

    But then again, it is laughable enough as it is that some Americans actually know so little about guns & warfare to think that their 25 million civillian militia with literally zero tactical & war training would stand up against 2 million Taleban, let alone 2 million US soldiers with WMDs at disposal. Your entire 'civillian army with guns' will get owned many times over by the Taleban/LTTE, nevermind a full working national military with access to airforce and navy along with army.

    It is obvious as daylight, when US military strength is noted, that guns will do diddly squat in the hands of US citizenry in protecting them from a potential American dictator that controls the army and is ruthless.

    And as i noted earlier- if you wish to play the 'American troops shooting American citizens = demoralizing factor for troops' card, then it is not really your GUNS that are protecting you but your troop's ethical standards and even you'd make a FAR bigger point by showing up in large numbers unarmed, prepared to die, than show up as a motley crew of arrogant cowboys prepared to kill.
    Afterall, this method is tried, tested & true- though it requires genuine ball$ to do it.

    But just in case you do go out toting your gun to take on the American despot (when it happens), make sure your children know the meaning of the term ' cannon-fodder' because that is just what their father/mother is about to become.
     
  20. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    I think what he means is that showing a little facts (such as WWII was 90% fought on the eastern front, USSR did far more damage to Nazi germany than UK-US combined) and making a film or two out of the eastern theatre's war effort, instead of totally ignoring it,would be a little more preferrable than 'every WWII hollywood flick begins at D-day or PH' mentality.
     

Share This Page