[quote]The proof, as doc mentioned, that we leave when asked is is well documented (Philippines, Panama, Lebanon, etc.). [/quote] Having a governement independant ennough to be able to ask you to leave in the first place is proof that you are willing to leave on the short/mid run. You simply manoeuver yourselves into a position where countries you don't want to leave are in no position to ask anything else.
[quote]Its time for another Revolution[/quote] It worked so well the last times, after all. Ya know, just because your country had ONE successful revolution doesn't mean it should become the modus operandi. You are overreacting.
[quote]once violently, but did not all the commonwealth nations vote for independence from the UK? You have a symbolic head of state being the Queen, but from what I see, you do tell the UK where to put it when they get your dander up.[/quote] Aye, eventually. But that was done progressively and in the respect of all parties (except French-Canadians). Exactly the way a good Overseer should eventually withdraw.
[quote]But we have the Mississippi and the gulf coast. Let the SCOTUS be the arbiter! [/quote] But we have the West Coast and access to the Pacific, which represent more than half of the oversea trade done by the U.S... Awwww... can't we realise we rely on each other?
[quote]Hell, Democrats want the rich to pay for the poor and you complain about fairness? Now that's comedy right there, look out Apollo Theater.[/quote] This is all about determining what is fair and what isn't. Your definition of "fair" is different than other people's. You don't have the monopoly of deciding what is right and what is wrong. So get the politics out of this thread and start arguing with actual arguments!
[quote]So if you go down that road, you have to go all the way, to SimVille, or simply abstract some stuff in the name of FUN![/quote] I don't know. Dwarf Fortress was pretty non-deterministic without having to resort to Random Events. Can't we find a way to make all games unique?
[quote]no, no, no....we split up the shoreline. It's gotta be 50/50! [/quote] WHOT? How is that fair? You already get all of the farmlands, and you want half the shoreland?
[quote who="Lavitage" reply="16" id="2559813"] Forcing the battles to be multi-staged a-la Mount & Blade would be retarded because it would allow the defender to park a relatively tiny force in the city and have it so the city holds out for 3 turns or whatever anyway. Makes no logical sense and adds arbitrary brakes to the game for no real gain. You never had to worry about that in M&B because fort/city garrisons were all fucking huge anyway, but it would be a serious problem in
[quote]just like in any divorce proceedings negotiations must take place. [/quote] Yhea, but in a Divorce, if no agreement is made, you need to go in front of a judge.. Hmm.. European Union? Otherwise, I'd say we go with the mere "capacity of sustainance". Since we get the coastal region, it make sense we also get the oversee holdings. We got the freaking shoreline to throw boats!
[quote]Liberals do seem to gravitate to the coasts[/quote] You got it wrong. Coasts seem to gravitate toward Liberals. Probably because the Conservatives are so dry they scare water away... KFC: I kinda like your proposition. But as in any divorce, there is a critical thing to remember: Who controls the oversea holdings of the USA, and who gets its custody every other week-end?
[quote]But even then, once the colonials became the natives, they wanted out as well[/quote] It happened once. I wouldn't call that a trend.
[quote]Other than over a decimated people, I do not think any country is a "good" overseer. The best overseer is the one that is not there.[/quote] Well, in Germany, Italy and Japan, you have done quite a good job in making sure they would be able to stand on their feet and not resent you too much. I mean, if you have to conquer a country for your own defense, at least make a good job into rebuilding it so that the people in it aren't too resentful and in retrospect, are grateful that
[quote]Carter was an extension of the depression (mood, not economic) of the Vietnam war, and as such, Reagan thankfully lead us out of it. But that was it. Since then, we did have the 90s when we had randy clinton, but a republican congress to check him (so foreign policy suffered, but the economy thrived). Since then, we have been told we are all bad again, and there has been no strong leader to stand up to the cancer of liberalism. I have not lost hope there will be another, an
[quote]There was guerrilla warfare in Germany for years after the war. I'd suggest you look up "Werewolf's" (not the fantasy monsters). Had Germany been treated to the cuddly, feel-good, approach to war that seems to be in vogue today by the increasingly socialist members of the world community, there probably would have been greater resistance. [/quote] Aye, but that movement eventually died out because of a good ruling from the Allies. The USA allowed the WGerman people to get their
I had an idea once, that was all about mixing the best of TBS and the best of RTS: Partial Real-time. It would be kinda similar to Europa Universalis or Star Wars : Rebellion (or even Mount & Blade's strategic map). You have micro-turns that pass at every 10 seconds, and these allow mini-movements on the map by your units or by the research. You can set the game to speed up until the next "event" strikes, which could very well be at time point 3.12446. What would be this e
[quote]Guns are the single greatest force for equality in human history. The ending of slavery, the emancipation of women, the right to life liberty and freedom. All your rights stem from the gun; because a gun allows even the most frail child or elderly kill a master combatant trained from youth; nobles raised to be "knights" and trained to fight from the day they are born hold no sway today, insane despots cannot suppress free people who are armed (there is a reason why all the famous despo
I kinda like the approach of a non-deterministic game put in Europa Universalis III : IN. You had random events (off course) that would influence your whole kingdom/empire, but also "National Quests" that could shape the game differently as your went on. You were sure of never having twice the same game, you'd always somewhat struggle to make sure your own empire wouldn't collapse due to overextensive wars or fi
Sword of the Stars had a random tech tree, making each game different from another. I was very entertaining to adapt to a major breakthrough or a block tech path.
double post. Darn forum.
[quote]What if it is caused by your "soul" or by exposure to certain chemicals prenatally or by exposure to magic prenatally (example, from a spellcasting parent), or by contracts with extradimensional creatures who have a thing for "bloodlines". etc etc. it is after all, magic.[/quote] I see what you mean. But in that case, it isn't inherited. It's attributed by your raising/bearing experience as a pheotus/child.
[quote]That was the problem in Iraq in 91[/quote] Wait. There was an actual good reason to no topple SH in 91. don't tell me you forgot it? We talked about it in this very thread! War are not always fought "to the end". They are fought until no more convenient to do so. It wasn't convenient to topple Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War. Nor wasn't convenient back in the 50s to keep fighting China and NKorea until we ran out of men.
[quote]Their creed that calls for the total destruction of israel.[/quote] That some of them who have that creed, not all of them. But the ones that don't call for the destruction of Israel don't have much political credential among their own people when Israel humiliates them by reacting aggressively to their political ennemie's actions. [quote]Unfortunately it is not. In war, it is a matter of making sure you have destroyed your enemy to the point they no longer have the cap
[quote]It's so easy to twist to bible to say what you find convenient. That's true so quit it! [/quote] I'll do it at the same time than you will. The quote mentionned up-there was not an actual bible quote, my apologies. they were a summary of the 21-22nd chapters. I still don't see where mention of a 1-world order comes from. Nor where it is said that everybody is watched by a uber-government. I still think you are pulling nonsense out of your bible.
[quote] The malfeasance of the feds down here is apparently unparalleled in the western world. (that does not mean I buy the previous statement, but just accepting that other governments are more altruistic). And it all has to do with power. They got it, they use (abuse) it.[/quote] Which is why I am dismayed by some of the contradictorian nature of your average conservatives in the U.S.. By your account, there isn't a larger hive of scum and villany than the Federal Government's admi
[quote]Two armaggedons? [/quote] From Chapter 21-22 A new world order with peace on earth, after the Battle of Armageddon, in the New Jerusalem. A thousand years of peace and prosperity on earth, after Armageddon, followed by another Armageddon. A city called the New Jerusalem descends from heaven. The New Jerusalem has twelve gates, and the walls have precious stones. There. Pretty much
JoeUser Forums
Elemental Forums