Who is the most nationalistic group on the Forums?

Which nationality in CFC is the most nationalistic?

  • Poland

    Votes: 157 34.6%
  • USA! USA!

    Votes: 166 36.6%
  • Australia, Summer bay as capital city

    Votes: 4 0.9%
  • Rule Brittania

    Votes: 21 4.6%
  • Lucky and Carming Irish

    Votes: 5 1.1%
  • Bella Italia

    Votes: 3 0.7%
  • That Vietnamese kid

    Votes: 15 3.3%
  • The Oranje mafia

    Votes: 14 3.1%
  • Hoo aboot Canada?

    Votes: 31 6.8%
  • A.N.Other

    Votes: 38 8.4%

  • Total voters
    454
Silly question, but I'll still give you an answer. My answer is that I would have acted in conformity with international legislation. Even the former United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, has declared explicitly that the US-led war on Iraq breached the UN charter and is therefore illegal. In view of this, George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be charged with crimes against humanity.

Do you believe that Bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Queda (sp?), or any of those groups should be charged with crimes against humanity? Do you feel we (as Americans) are justified in attacking back against those groups? I'm not attacking you or your argument, I'm just trying to understand your beliefs.
 
i read somewhere on the forums:

Hypothesis: Iraq is a threat to the US.

Given: The Invasion of Iraq. The invasion took less than a month to conduct.
Afghanistan, maybe. Iraq, probably not.
 
"We". Do yourself a favor: don't identify yourself with the Bush administration. You seem to be an intelligent guy, but your judgment on the war in Iraq is obfuscated by the Bush propaganda. Always try to think with your head.
That "we" is in reference to all Americans. All Americans were attacked, not Bush.
Silly question, but I'll still give you an answer. My answer is that I would have acted in conformity with international legislation. Even the former United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, has declared explicitly that the US-led war on Iraq breached the UN charter and is therefore illegal. In view of this, George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be charged with crimes against humanity.
Wait, it's a "silly question" to say "what should be done about terrorism?" Why is it silly? And Kofi Annan is a liar who deals under the table with tyrants who slaughter their own populace because they enjoy it; he's not exactly any kind of moral authority.
 
Do you believe that Bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Queda (sp?), or any of those groups should be charged with crimes against humanity? Do you feel we (as Americans) are justified in attacking back against those groups? I'm not attacking you or your argument, I'm just trying to understand your beliefs.

Those organizations are full of people that get manipulated into attacking civilian targets in the west, fighting a false Jihad. Uneducated people in arab countries are treated with propaganda that western world are the sole cause of all their sufferings (we sure contributed but not as much as they suggest).

Now, a popular opinion in europe is that the Neo-Conservatives in the U.S are equally manipulated into supporting Americas state-terrorism against sovereign nations, Iraq being the most controversial. I'm not sure what Fox and CNN reported prior to Iraq invasion but what we got here was that no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction was found, no significant army was found etc. The obvious cause for Iraq invasion is control over the oil-flow.

The invasion of Afghanistan seemed to be a obvious revenge against the 9/11 perpetrators, but even if the Talibans are amongs the most disguisting "regimes" ever, they are not Al Qaeda and are interested in little outside of Afghanistan, at least they were. Now, on top of this - America supported the Talibans (I think it was in the eighties) to have them fighting Soviet. So the glorious liberation of Afghanistan was simply a correction of a past sin and that was not even the motive. Again, oil is what drove that war, revenge being a tiny bit. But to be fair, with the assets CIA have today, arranging strikes on Al Qaeda bases rather than invading sovereign nations would be more than possible.

Afganistan, Kazakstan (sp?) and other oil rich countries have been kicked like the ball in a football game between the worlds major powers since the discovery of oil as a fuel. America are not the only ones who have violated international trade laws, installed puppet governements and other covert operations. This is just politics in reality. And this politics is what sowed the seed of that hate against west we can see in those countries today. America is the superpower and therefor the icon of the western world. Also note that countries whom did not support the US invasions have not been targets of their terrorism.

Since the Bush-regime, US military expenses have nearly doubled. It might seem that these wars are stagnating Americas economy but that is only short-term. The industry driving the war gives millions of jobs, the oil speaks for itself - extremely valuable. The Bush regime is just a modern imperialistic regime feeding Americas people reasons to support their wars. I mean come on...Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War (Gulf Syndrome), it's time to learn from history - war comes with a price and is a last resort when no other solutions are possible

I understand Americas pride, it is a young country that have had a stormy youth and it's people are productive and creative. However, don't let that pride become arrogance or overconfidence. People of America feel that they have the right to enjoy what they have built up on the continent. Just do not forget that past and atrocities commited or you will only make enemies. Enjoy what you have built without sucking poor countries dry. America is THE western superpower today, make an example instead. Go help struggling democracies instead of kicking those that allready lie down, go repay your debts to South America for instance. It's a global world today, imperialism is so 1900s. I have faith in America because I have met many Americans with a good attitude and respect to the rest of the world.

Now all you people out there go ahead and flame me :lol:
And don't get started on the EU, I voted no to Sweden's membership.

On topic: Poland, since we talk about who is the most nationalist on these forums.
 
Do you believe that Bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Queda (sp?), or any of those groups should be charged with crimes against humanity? Do you feel we (as Americans) are justified in attacking back against those groups? I'm not attacking you or your argument, I'm just trying to understand your beliefs.


BTW anyway you can move this to another forum??
HMM?? Well bush says they are not a gov't since he(+his friends) are illegal combats. (WHich means they don't have a backing of a state) And they can do anything with those people.

I (as an unidentified group that i don't really want to be affiliated with) We deserve something worse then 9/11 because of our policies in the past. If american's as you claim are innocent then why did we install mass-murders to head of state?? (Iran in 1953) Or why did we give al qaeda guns, and anti-aircraft missles(in 1988) or even call them freedom fighter??(Reagen did)

BTW why did we attack IRAQ anyways??? (Hint: less oil = more $$ for the rest of them). Why are we trading with China(if they are communists) but not Cuba??

Heres a warning for those that ignore history: You are doomed to repeat it!
 
Why is it silly? And Kofi Annan is a liar who deals under the table with tyrants who slaughter their own populace because they enjoy it; he's not exactly any kind of moral authority.

It should be possible to say that al Qaeda et consortes should be brought to justice without defaming Kofi Annan, who definitely is less than a liar, or a war criminal, than the person who currently inhabits the White House. Annan hasn't lied about anything or sanctioned illegal invasions, torture and kidnapping - or "rendition" to gangster countries such as Egypt and Pakistan. Neither has he spied on the American people (and others) without due recourse to law. Or established secret courts where neither the accused nor their lawyers are permitted to see the "evidence" against them. The corrupt and incompetent gangster who is President of the United States merely because he has money and is the son of George W. Bush *Senior*, and is supported by religious lunatics, has done and is doing all those things.

"Does deals under the table with slaughtering tyrants?" The Americans constantly do that. You even used to be chummy with Saddam. And Pinochet. And Trujillo. And Franco. And Diem. And Stroessner. And Banzer. And Batista. And the Shah of Iran with his torturing Savak. And Voerster. And Papadopoulos. And all those Saudi Kings. And Musharraf. And Suharto. And Manuel Noriega, old Pinapple Face in Panama, before you fell out with him. The list goes on and on.
 
If american's as you claim are innocent

Where do I state that I believe American's are innocent? You're putting words in my mouth and creating statements that I never said. Don't argue something that was never said, please. Argue my statements.

My reasoning for my questions of him is so I could better understand where he is coming from prior to my replying to his post. I can read his post in multiple ways, but rather than guess, I'd prefer to know so I can answer it appropiately.
 
Those organizations are full of people that get manipulated into attacking civilian targets in the west, fighting a false Jihad.

That doesn't change the fact they are still killing people. I don't care what the reasoning, when you kill innocent people, even under a false pretense, you should still be dealt with appropiately. And yes, I believe that goes both ways.

I once took a class that showed the history of how the current Middle East crisis started. As I recall, it started a bit in the early 20th century, but really started building momentum after WWII. And yes, the USA did ally with the Taliban for a while, including putting them in power. It's very interesting, if not confusing too. It's been a few years, so its a little foggy.
 
Öjevind Lång;5897268 said:
"Does deals under the table with slaughtering tyrants?" The Americans constantly do that. You even used to be chummy with Saddam. And Pinochet. And Trujillo. And Franco. And Diem. And Stroessner. And Banzer. And Batista. And the Shah of Iran with his torturing Savak. And Voerster. And Papadopoulos. And all those Saudi Kings. And Musharraf. And Suharto. And Manuel Noriega, old Pinapple Face in Panama, before you fell out with him. The list goes on and on.

Amen. And I would be surprised if the American people would consent if they would all be aware of it. Besides, this is not only America behaving this way, citizens of the world - open your eyes
 
That doesn't change the fact they are still killing people. I don't care what the reasoning, when you kill innocent people, even under a false pretense, you should still be dealt with appropiately. And yes, I believe that goes both ways.

I certainly goes both ways, however both sides rather "kill the perpetrators innocent brother instead of the perpetrator", if you get my drift. It seems more important to launch missiles and fire bullets than what you hit, it's like children in a sand-box.
 
Amen. And I would be surprised if the American people would consent if they would all be aware of it. Besides, this is not only America behaving this way, citizens of the world - open your eyes

I am aware that the EU is just as hypocritical as the US in this regard. We support the vilest dictators when it suits us. Just look at Algeria and how friendly both the US and the EU are to that murdering bunch of criminals.
 
Öjevind Lång;5897268 said:
"Does deals under the table with slaughtering tyrants?" The Americans constantly do that. You even used to be chummy with Saddam. And Pinochet. And Trujillo. And Franco. And Diem. And Stroessner. And Banzer. And Batista. And the Shah of Iran with his torturing Savak. And Voerster. And Papadopoulos. And all those Saudi Kings. And Musharraf. And Suharto. And Manuel Noriega, old Pinapple Face in Panama, before you fell out with him. The list goes on and on.
I never claimed we didn't, I just pointed out that the "moral authority" that the poster fell back on was just as, if not more guilty.
 
That doesn't change the fact they are still killing people. I don't care what the reasoning, when you kill innocent people, even under a false pretense, you should still be dealt with appropiately. And yes, I believe that goes both ways.

I once took a class that showed the history of how the current Middle East crisis started. As I recall, it started a bit in the early 20th century, but really started building momentum after WWII. And yes, the USA did ally with the Taliban for a while, including putting them in power. It's very interesting, if not confusing too. It's been a few years, so its a little foggy.

That's one thing both the British and American governments are very guilty of.... supplanting lawful governments with puppets, supplying them with the power, international moral authority and weaponry to maintain control, then 20 years later having to depose them thanks to their extremist views, abuses against humanity, attacks on other allies and general idealogical opposition.

If anything, we need to stop messing - not liking people is not a justification to remove them.

Watch it all happen in Iraq again - we'll be chewing this cud again in years to come.

The main task of Americans today, in my opinion, is to stop the current administration from committing America to further escalation against Iran - if we do not enter into diplomatic engagement with them quickly, we are backing both sides into a corner from which only war can come.
 
That's one thing both the British and Americans are very guilty of.... supplanting lawful governments with puppets, supplying them with the power, international moral authority and weaponry to maintain control, then 20 years later having to depose them thanks to their extremist views, abuses against humanity, attacks on other allies and general idealogical opposition.
Britain has a worse track record than the U.S. here. After all, the United States did a great job with Japan and the Philippines and a decent job with central America. Really, the only bad moves we made in this regard were not helping Batista deal with Castro and helping Saddam and the Taliban, and now we're fixing two of those mistakes.
The main task of Americans today, in my opinion, is to stop the current administration from committing America to further escalation against Iran - if we do not enter into diplomatic engagement with them quickly, we are backing both sides into a corner from which only war can come.
We tried diplomacy. Didn't work. Now we need a plan of attack; not having one would be irresponsible, since Israel is going to hit them before they get nukes no matter what and we should be prepared to assist them.
 
Rhetorical question - what is better Al-Qaeda base or opium plantation?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060103/ai_n15975753

From business standpoint, opium makes more money. From mankind standpoint, however, number of victims of opium is larger than even a number of 11 Sep victims. And question is - how comes that "new democratic" Afgan is now world best narcoindustry supplier?

So from mankind point of view, I don't think that USA presence in Afghanistan did any improvements. Terrorism was replaced by narcoindustry, that's it. Returning to Civ4 I would like to add a "opium" trade resource there. It should bring money but will reduce population health. Also you should be able to sell this resource even if the leader does not want to take it. Black-market.
 
Britain has a worse track record than the U.S. here. After all, the United States did a great job with Japan and the Philippines and a decent job with central America. Really, the only bad moves we made in this regard were not helping Batista deal with Castro and helping Saddam and the Taliban, and now we're fixing two of those mistakes.

And repeating them, unfortunately.

There are also plenty of "banana republics" that would disagree with you.


We tried diplomacy. Didn't work. Now we need a plan of attack; not having one would be irresponsible, since Israel is going to hit them before they get nukes no matter what and we should be prepared to assist them.

I disagree - the USA can't possibly claim to have tried diplomacy with Iran, it hasn't even had a mission there since.... 1979? While I don't want to bring in a debate about the justification for that - even if justified, the choice to not re-enter into full diplomatic relations means that no such claim about "having tried" can be made.

If Israel attacks Iran, then it would be illegal. If the USA follows suit without international support, it too would be illegal.

I refuse to buy any "pre-emptive non-aggression", it's simply a declaration of war. If the USA is prepared to act this way, then they should be prepared to accept retaliatory strikes and not be surprised when it is aimed at their citizenry. When the world's largest and most advanced army is set free from international obligations and responsibilities, how is an enemy supposed to fight back other than unconventionally? I am sorry, but this kind of statement breeds hatred and war - I personally would condemn any such pre-emptive strike.
 
Öjevind Lång;5897268 said:
"Does deals under the table with slaughtering tyrants?" The Americans constantly do that. You even used to be chummy with Saddam. And Pinochet. And Trujillo. And Franco. And Diem. And Stroessner. And Banzer. And Batista. And the Shah of Iran with his torturing Savak. And Voerster. And Papadopoulos. And all those Saudi Kings. And Musharraf. And Suharto. And Manuel Noriega, old Pinapple Face in Panama, before you fell out with him. The list goes on and on.
:goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob: nail on the head
 
Britain has a worse track record than the U.S. here. After all, the United States did a great job with Japan and the Philippines and a decent job with central America. Really, the only bad moves we made in this regard were not helping Batista deal with Castro and helping Saddam and the Taliban, and now we're fixing two of those mistakes.
We tried diplomacy. Didn't work. Now we need a plan of attack; not having one would be irresponsible, since Israel is going to hit them before they get nukes no matter what and we should be prepared to assist them.


I think some of the nuns who were gang-raped by Reagans contras might disagree with you
 
Do you believe that Bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Queda (sp?), or any of those groups should be charged with crimes against humanity? Do you feel we (as Americans) are justified in attacking back against those groups? I'm not attacking you or your argument, I'm just trying to understand your beliefs.

Sure, the Talibans, Al Qaeda and Bin laden are thugs. And so is George Bush. In fact, George Bush is far worse than Bin Laden. Bin Laden was not educated at Harvard. Bin Laden was not the head of the most powerful military power on the planet. George Bush is a war criminal who has committed crimes against humanity. If you want the evidence, have a look at this: http://www.bushcommission.org/Findings/Final Verdict.pdf

"They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire,
and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace." - Tacitus
 
two words:

native americans.

owned.

The very Sitting Bull's native Americans are in the game as a politically correct exception.

The Atzec, the Inca, the Maya were all famous for conquering weaker civilizations and sacrificing their population on altars.

Nearly all of the civilizations in the game were/are good in subjugating lesser ones.

On the other hand, how many out of the thousands of civilizations that were not good in subjugating others are in the game? One? Three?

Military prowess counts a lot for Civ inclusion. Whining that Poland lost many lives in WWII is a reason not to include it in CIV. It's the winged Hussars and Vienna that score for Poland.
 
Back
Top Bottom