Special Units

[stormbind]

The EU introduced other stupid laws though... To be a bannana, the fruit has to have a certain curvature. If it doesn't meet that standard then it is rejected and not a bannana.

What do we call the rejected ones?

I don't know which country was responsible for submitting that one but I would not be surprised if it was the French.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by stormbind


Did you even read that?!!!

The Celts were there before and after the Romans! The Saxons were from Germany... two entirely seperate groups of people.

The original inhabitants of the British Isles were Celts. This is the oldest civilisation.

"Anglo-Saxons" did dominate and could (perhaps?) be considered synonymous with "English". British and English is not technically the same thing.

I know. But while the Celts may have been the oldest civilization on the British Isles, they were superseded by the later invaders, namely those Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans and whatnot that came later, who became the dominant people. There is, consequently, no direct line from Celts to British. If there is any Celtic left on the British Isles, that would be in Wales and Ireland..

Anyway, the thread has moved so fast I'm by now replying to some tangential point made 4 pages ago

 

[taper]

Originally posted by stormbind


The USA has an "Entrenched Constitution". By defintion, it cannot be changed!

Not all Constitutions are this way.

The USA can add amendments but they cannot change their underlying Constitution.

Once again, you dazzle me with your lack of knowledge about American government. The US's first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, agreeded on by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and ratified March 1, 1781, was America's first constitution. Unfortuantly, it didn't cover several topics, such as central tax collection, and was replaced with the constitution we all know and love on March 4, 1789. The underlying constitution can be changed if we so desire, but in over 200 years there has been no need except in minor details.

 

[thestonesfan]

The Celts never physically penetrated into modern day England, but were dominant in Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. The Britons were the earliest inhabitants. England itself became kind of a melting pot.

 

[Illustrious]

@taper:

It's true: this debate is racing along. But to revisit some points you made a couple of pages back....

While you are right to be amazed at stormbind's lack of knowledge of the US constitution, you are equally at fault in your understanding of the British system:

...several countries, including USA had working democracies before England switched from a monarchy to a constitutional monarchy

And I never said we had the first democracy, only that the US gov't was a democracy before the UK, which was still ruled by a king. (A Parliment that simply advises the king or has control over regions of a country doesn't count as a democracy, as long as there is a central unelected ruler)

You appear to be under the belief that any British monarch since 1688 has been a "central unelected ruler". Not so. Not even the much-maligned George III had any actual power (influence, yes - power, no). King George reigned, he did not rule - the distinction is that all things were done in his name and under the umbrella of his authority, but every one of the decisions was made by the Prime Minister.

It's a mistake many people make - they assume that the British system actually works the way it says on the label! In fact, the essence of the British way of doing things is to change the mechanisms (progress) while keeping the same terminology and PR facade (tradition and continuity). While the polite fiction is that ministers advise the monarch, it is in reality the other way around!

The "glorious revolution" of 1688 whereby Prince William of Orange (a Dutchman) and his wife Princess Mary (daughter of the English king James II) were invited to come over and act as joint monarchs, was hedged around with some significant terms and conditions - the principal one being that Parliament would have the actual power. In an age when other European countries were ruled by absolute monarchs, the British didn't publicise these arrangements abroad too much.

The constitutional sleight-of-hand, whereby the country became a nominal monarchy but with all true power wielded by Parliament, was completed when in 1714 George, Elector of Hanover, was invited to become king on the death of Queen Anne. George never learned English and spent most of his time in Hanover, and the reins of the executive were firmly taken over by the "king's ministers", in particular Robert Walpole who became the first "prime minister". By the time of the rebellion of the 13 colonies, Britain had been a democracy (admittedly limited, as were all democracies until the 20th century, to a fairly select definition of demos) for comfortably over three generations.

The message is that having a monarch on the throne is not the same as having a "monarchical" form of government. You were seduced into your conclusions by a common misinterpretation of the historical facts. To refute your specific statement, America did not become a democracy before the mother country did.

Not that that matters a tuppeny damn. It's not as though "getting democracy first" (or "inventing jets first" or any of the other joys in this thread) is any magical sign of national superiority.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
The Celts never physically penetrated into modern day England, but were dominant in Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. The Britons were the earliest inhabitants. England itself became kind of a melting pot.

The Celts started in England, they were present right down to the south coast. The Picts occupied the very north but eventually dissapear from history.

Celts were slowly pushed/displaced northward by Saxon settlers (at least the Celtic Kings were) until they controlled only Wales and north-England.

The Normans (who captured Saxony in 1066) forced the Celts further into the domain of the Picts circa 1069.

The Celts/Britons are the earliest tribes and they are the ones that should be represented in Civ3 (because you start at the beginnings of civilisation) and conquering your neighbours should actually assimilate their knowledge (or some of it) and culture (or some of it).

Representing a later civilisation (i.e. Elizabeth's Great Britain, or Lincon's America) is not really very logical because it never existed at the start where the game begins.

The game allows you to rewrite history, which is why it is fun! You wouldn't like playing it if the end result was always the same.

England may never develop a navy! So why should they (be forced to) have Man-O-War? - And there are countless equally illogical scenarious for many other civilisations.

I have nothing against civs being unique and having character at their birth - this makes sense to me. But, having the characteristics of a civ that may never develop is silly.

---

I am now confused over the US Constitution, but fortunately I do have all the legal material available and will confirm/deny the statement when I can.

Until then, I ask for a cease fire!

Several relatives had to write dissertations covering the pros/cons of a written constitution (family of lawyers) so I'll pick their brains

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by jack merchant
Anyway, the thread has moved so fast I'm by now replying to some tangential point made 4 pages ago

That's so true!

We are back with Civ3 related discussion, do you think it's time the thread was transfered back the General Discussions?

 

[ellie]

Eeep this thread has grown

Few comments.

Im not anti american at all, ive only met a few americans irl they were f16 pilots who were at my uncles raf base. They were cocky but i think it comes with the job.

I cant support the suggestion that we are a major military power now. We dont have the cash quite simply. The quality is still there, for instance america advised us the falkland island conflict could not be won under any circumstances. Undervaluing the importance of training.

With regards to europe. Well i dont dislike europeans. The reason many english people dislike the french is because they look after themselves first and eu laws second (something we should do).

For examples, french police watching english lambs and beef burnt against eu law, illegally subsidising electrical industry, fiddling agricultural policy for their farmers. setting up another camp to facilitate immigration into england (after a contrary agreement). People here understand totally why its done, and imho are more annoyed at OUR goverment for playing within the rules against britains interests.

A good example of our over tolerance is a cleric in the uk atm He described sept 11th as wonderfull and the space disaster as justice. Is claiming over $2000 a month in benefits, entered illegally yet we make no move to expel him.

Gibralter, totally disgusting BRITISH citizens asking to stay BRITISH. They are economically self sufficient, why on earth capitulate to the spanish?.

Oh well enuff of me waffling

 

[troytheface]

wild thread , my imput?
UU's make the game fun and the graphics are cool.
Amercian civ is just as unique as any other, any american that returns from europe will notice how "modern" america seems.
Hoolywood, Internet, stealing parts and bits from others -the so called "american pragamtism-ie. sherman-practical, worked- all point to a unique aesthetic. Personally its like how Abstract Expressionism is an amercian art form in contrast to musclely nudes or "a picture of something". It is modern, and people who long to attach themselves to some idea or group will not appreciate that aspect and see such as "cultureless". I mean some posts are written as if the writer was the guy fly'n the spitfire or whatever. Personally, i believe one's original source was probably some single celled organism that divided.
One more thing...this "Germany could have won the war if"...mindset...Some have written it was a miracle that they lasted as long as they did. They had like something like 1 million vs 8 million on the eastern front alone. They never stood a chance. And lets face it, the greatest weapon of the war was the bomb and whoever had it wins. Chess champions are always fond of extolling the great powers of the opponent they wiped out . So do nations. Lee, Hannible, Rommel---all great....losers.

 

[stormbind]

Ellie, your post has brought out my views on government... with the arguments over America, I am just stiring and trying to make them squirm... but with arguments over current politics and more heated

I possitively dislike the Labour government. They were kept out of power for 18 years because they ruined Great Britain when they had the chance.

Tony Blair ignored government objections and denied a vote on deploying troops in the Gulf. He is a lot more like a dictator than a party leader.

Since they returned, the NHS has become one of the worst in the world - never before has Britain looked to the USA for ways of improving health care, but that's exactly what has now happened! It's disgraceful that people have been treated in the car park because hospitals are underfunded and cannot cope! Scenes of third-world hospitals make them look more inviting!

The first thing Labour did after getting power was give themselves a huge pay increase! Evil!

Tony Blair has been warned by the Hague (spelling?) that if any civilian dies unnecessarily as a result of Great Britain declaring war on Iraq, he risks being charged with international war crimes.

Great Britain will import weapons from the USA. The move away from self-dependence severely weakens national defences. What if anglo-american relations break down? We are %^&!!! It's OK to export, but not import defences.

The military is to be used for defence but is now being deployed offensively; &#@%!

In the recent Anglo-Franco summit, Great Britain surrendered some national security to France! There's no way would any other government ever entertain that, Blair should be charged with @#!& treason

Great Britain has just given the USA the freedom to use Britain as part of their national defences - making the island a target for attacks on the USA. That's safe - they never go to war ! %$#&!

At least Blair has the sense to try to keep some power in the House of Lords - an elected body would most certainly weaken national leadership. I may not like "elite" individuals who traditionally get seats, but their "nationalist pride" adds security and compliments the "people's voice" that comes from the House of Commons. The rest of the labour party want to see the House turned into a 2nd House of Commons, which would not inject an alternative view to issues and just be a thorn in the side of government. &^$%!

Who wants to join Stormbind's revolution and bring Britain back into contention? I'm a supporter of socialism, capitalism, national defence and justice... and no ^&%# way would Spain get their paws on Gibraltar!

---

Regarding the US Constitution. Would my earlier statement make more sense if it were replaced with "Bill of Rights"?

Bills have been dismissed because they are considered "unconstitutional" - I'm fairly sure this backs up my statement.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by troytheface
wild thread , my imput?
UU's make the game fun and the graphics are cool.

I mean some posts are written as if the writer was the guy fly'n the spitfire or whatever. Personally, i believe one's original source was probably some single celled organism that divided.

Having lived in the States, England and many other countries I do feel that I have valuable insight. Visiting and living are not the same - looking around tourist attractions will give a warped sense of how modern Europe is - and you have to consider than many European cities have buildings that date to before the USA was born which will also create the illusion that they are less modern.

I have found the technology available to consumers in the USA costs less than half what it costs in the UK, so the standard of living is considerably higher... but the technology available is the same. This means, if an American rents a furnished house in the UK, they will be dissapointed by the low-tech cooker and freezer and other basic things like that. But, the high-tech is still available if you can afford it - this is all due to taxes, we pay many times more than Americans

Many world-leading companies in technology are European. Intel and BAE Systems come to mind. The latter is ofcourse responsible for all the electronics and counter-measures in the newest USAF fighters, so if Europe is backward... well, God better be smiling on your pilots!

 

[Illustrious]

Originally posted by stormbind
Regarding the US Constitution. Would my earlier statement make more sense if it were replaced with "Bill of Rights"?

Bills have been dismissed because they are considered "unconstitutional" - I'm fairly sure this backs up my statement.

It's been so many pages that I can't remember what your original comment was! However, I doubt if substituting the phrase "Bill of Rights" would change anything. IIRC, the term "Bill of Rights" simply refers to Amendments 1 through 10 to the US constitution, which were all brought in together.

Yes the US Supreme Court has as one of its functions rejecting any legislation that conflicts with the Constitution (a process known as judicial review). However, this in itself does not make the Constitution "entrenched". If the people of the USA want to change what the Constitution says, they simply need to get a 66% vote in both House and Senate, and ratification by 75% of states, to amend the Constitution accordingly. Unless and until they do, the Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land".

The fact that amendments are tacked on at the end, as it were, doesn't make them ineffective (your comment was "the USA can add amendments but they cannot change their underlying Constitution"). As far as I am aware, an amendment that stated "Articles I to IV of the Constitution shall no longer be effective" would be more than enough to "change the underlying Constitution", and would be perfectly valid in accordance with Article V of the Constitution. Perhaps someone from the USA with the requisite legal knowledge could confirm or deny...?

 

[stormbind]

Ok, I was wrong... but my view was not totally unwarranted...

If an Amendment contradicts the Constitution, then the Constitution is superceeded by the Amendment and effectively changed.

But, there have been only 27 amendments demonstrating how hard and slow the process of change can be - This slow rate of change is what caused me to wrongly assume the Constitution was set in stone. My appologies!

The thing I dislike is still the US Constitution but for another reason: The current contents of the constitution makes it difficult to ratify amendments and to change the performance requires an amendment... leaving the US government in a catch 22 situation!

Regardless of whether or not you agree... many other democratic nations can and do adapt to unforseen problems (i.e. abortion rights) more quickly.

I'm not claiming superiority; the UK does not have a written constitution and does not suffer the same difficulty in passing new laws.

 

[troytheface]

never said europe was backwards but ur point 'bout the difference between visiting and living makes sense.
However, i am simply stating that there is an aesthetic stance that is unique unto america.

 

[Illustrious]

Actually, stormbind, to a large extent I agree with you. Not that the US Constitution is too rigid, but that the Americans have never really exercised their right to change it - as you say, 27 amendments in 200+ years is quite slow. I have elsewhere debated with some American acquaintances who feel it would be wrong, almost immoral, to make substantial changes to the Constitution because "the founding fathers knew best"...

What is interesting is what Thomas Jefferson said about it: he felt that there ought to be a new constitutional convention every generation or so because times change, and the constitution should change with them.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose that what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it... I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times...

And lastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.

Letter to Samuel Kercheval", Monticello, July 12, 1816

Regrettably, perhaps, in retrospect, the 187 years since that letter was written have seen the USA treat their constitution as "too sacred to be touched".

Your point about the British (unwritten) constitution matches my own views. The flexibility and instant adjustment made possible by the lack of an "ark of the covenant" has served us well.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by troytheface
... i am simply stating that there is an aesthetic stance that is unique unto america.

I'm not entirely sure I follow, but I might...

If you are comparing to tourist-appealing areas of Orlando and London, for example... then they obviously have very different "feel" but I'm not convinced this is a sign that the culture is any different.

The people of both cities are confronted with the same jobs, same hobbies, same benefits and same struggles. The resources available to the citizens are, for the most part, the same. Their views on life are also shared.

With the obvious exception of the sun, there is nothing in Orlando that cannot be found in London. If Londoners like something about Orlando, then they will quickly import whatever that is into their surroundings through free trade.

As an extreme example, "London Bridge" was exported to the USA. They thought they were buying a different bridge, but that's not the point.

Remember, I never said America has no culture. I said it has no unique culture. Or, said another way - many countries share the same western culture.

In England, we do take pride from historical events or great leaders but I don't think these things add anything to our current culture - it's just the Western Culture like everyone elses ... It consists of Burger King, Movies, Fast cars, James Bond and the Simpsons

Perhaps we do not share the view of what culture is?

Originally posted by troytheface
... any american that returns from europe will notice how "modern" america seems.

I interpreted this as to mean "Europe is backward".

 

[Archbob]

Originally posted by stormbind


In the interest of completeness, Great Britain beat the **** out of Napoleon because British rifles were more accurate than French muskets. How about that for a Special Unit?!

[/B]

No, see the battle at waterloo was split pretty even until Prussians came along, the British with the Prussians simply outnumbered the French.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
No, see the battle at waterloo was split pretty even until Prussians came along, the British with the Prussians simply outnumbered the French.

That is irrelevant. Britain had already destroyed the French armies in America, liberated Spain and had invaded France.

Infact, they were already negotiating the treaty of France. France had fallen two years before the battle at Waterloo (although I do not know the details or what happened between). Napoleon was doomed.

Waterloo may have marked the end of Napoleon, but the end was nearing anyway. If he wasn't utterly destroyed at Waterloo, he would have been crushed at Paris or at some other hypothetical battle.

When Napoleon marched into Belgium against Wellington's combined army (68,000 men), he first encountered the Prussians... and defeated them. They must have fled and rallied because they play a role later...

Wellington was attacked by Napoleon's army (72,000 men). Blucher arrived late (45,000 men) and did reinforce the Wellington's army ... but just because they arrived doesn't suggest Napoleon's fate wasn't already sealed.

In the end, Napoleon lost 31,000 men... Wellington lost 15,000 and the later arrivals lost 8,000 men.

Napoleon surrendered to the British.

 

[jack merchant]

Actually, the British had already effectively destroyed the French power in North America during the Seven Year's war of 1756-1763. Moreover, the invasion of France following the French defeat at the 1813 battle of Leipzig was also carried out by the Russians, the Austrians, the Prussians and, IIRC, the Swedes.

Napoleaon's goal during the Waterloo campaign was to beat separately the British and Prussian forces in Belgium. If he had succeeded, it would not have meant a renewed French conquest of Europe; however, getting together another large enough Allied force to expel Napoleon once more would have taken a lot of time and great expense. This would have given Napoleon time to make France strong enough to necessitate a peace treaty.
As such, when the French did not manage to beat Wellington at Waterloo right away , they were indeed already beaten when the Prussians showed up.

 

[Rowain deWolf]

Originally posted by barron of ideas
Rowain, I am pretty sure the Swiss have a Federal republic, with Cantons taking the place of States in the US.
I seem to recall there was a big deal ab'out some of the cantons giving women the right to vote. I doubt there are big meetings of all the citizens to vote on issues.
Like most modern governments they have a representative system, where voters select people to represent them in making laws.

Here you are more or less wrong.
The Cantons for example have a lot more independence then the States . The issue with the right to vote for woman was just in one Canton and that was in the midst 80's. All other Cantons have granted them the right before. And indeed there are big meetings of citizen to vote on issues. Although there is a parliament with represantives nearly any Law or great project must be voted for by the people. As an Example: The Parliament and Swiss Goverment wanted to join the EU but the Swiss People demanded that the Swiss shall stay out of it. And it was just last year that the Swiss-people agreed to join the UN

But I'm not a Swiss so I'll provide you with a link where you can learn more about the political system of Switzerland
Political Rights in the Swiss

HTH

Rowain