CommanderJohnson

quote: Really all I hear you guys talking about is keeping the same system in place. Violence to meet violence. We ended the cold war without ÔÇÿforceÔÇÖ of arms. We were ready but I never said vigilance is wrong. So you want another Cold War, where countries that have WMDs and totalitarian regimes can take over other nations with no threat of retaliation? Where those regimes can kill their own people for speaking out against the oppression. So you'd advocate waiting for Iraq's people to rise up against Saddam...great idea, too bad by that time he will have already sold some WMDs to terrorists, and New York will probably be empty and radiated... quote: There is a clear separation between those that use terrorism and those who suffer between two sides that are both equally guilty of failing to make any real progress. Ok, I think we all understand that people suffer in war. We all understand that it'd be nice if war wasn't needed. You seem to be saying that all life is valuable and we should try our best to preserve life, and I agree with that too. What we seem to be disagreeing on is what is going to save the most lives. Listening to the "global community" while they are full of many non-committal anti-war activists (until THEY get attacked), is going to cost many more lives. Following their lead, we would wait for Saddam to have WMDs, or use WMDs, or sell WMDs, then attack him with allied support. That SOUNDS good, but that increases the death toll. Saddam's military will be stronger, more people will be in it, and thus more Americans would die AND more Iraqis would die, and more likely than not, WMDs would have been proliferated, and US or European cities would be destroyed, or maybe Israel could fall apart. You seem to be saying "listen to the international community" *and* "all life is valuable". Well, which is it? You cant have both. More people are going to die and suffer under oppressive regimes for a longer length of time if we "follow the international community" than if we take out the totalitarian regimes by force. quote: To remove the will to fight, those people must want to live. While forces continue to deny basic human needs there will always be a recruiting ground. Now, you may maintain that these "forces" are the capitalistic countries like the United States. Well, your wrong. If you look at the countries that the vast majority of terrorists come from, you'll notice that in none of those countries is it a republic/democracy, and/or in none of those countries are the people truly FREE. They are all oppressive regimes. It's not the US that's causing the problems, it's the fact the regimes are oppressive and FEED THEM messages of hate. "Destroy America, they caused your plight! Destroy America, they caused your plight! (repeats over and over daily in the presses and on the radio)" When you don't have anything contradicting it, and your suffering, what else is there to do except believe it? quote: Military action is advocated to topple a leader that is holding a nation together. Very poorly but he is. If that binding force is removed and a "western friendly" democracy is installed regional resentment will grow. Especially in the face of a single nation that is being told by most other countries to back off for a while. If that new government is not stable and accepted then we will have to commit assists to that area for up to twenty years. If that new country falls apart I don't think it is going to be pretty. That "leader" threatened all of his neighbors and invaded Kuwait. His neighbors may not LIKE United States action now, but it sure isn't going to destablize the region. They are going to be glad to see a power-hungry and dangerous leader like Saddam go. Also, if the new nation was not accepted and was attacked by its neighbors, we would probably just go in and take out those regimes too. But I honestly believe that the leadership of other countries in the Middle East is NOT going to mess with the United States. They know that if they do, they are going to get invaded just like Iraq did. The less power concentrated in one person, the more rational the regime seems to be... quote: I don't believe the citizens of this country will allow the world to think of us as the bad guy. We know we can not be like by all...but to hated or resented by too many is unacceptable. Most of this country doesn't know what the rest of the world thinks about us, or doesn't care. Those that do care (I actually care, just not to your extent), realize that the nations that are going to get really UPSET about military action in Iraq pose absolutely no threat to us, and are going to harm us in no way at all. On a cost-benefit analysis, taking out Saddam is a good idea, and it's thinking ahead. If we don't do it now, more will die. For some reason people like to procrastinate "He's not a threat now, let's wait" on and on until finally he IS a threat, and it's too late to get it over with easily. quote: Look out for our interests but not at the expense of a global partnership aimed at advancing human development and building peace. Could you define this "global partnership..."? What countries are invovled now? What exactly do other countries do and the US should do that would help this global partnership, what kind of US laws would need to be passed, etc, and how would it advance human development and build peace? And how does attacking Iraq without other nations support ruin it? quote:But thatÔÇÖs just my opinion. It could be right. It could make things harder. But at least I know I donÔÇÖt know it allÔǪhow about you? Learning daily. quote: Dehumanizing any person or group is the first step in creating some authority base on which to build the justification of killing another human being. It is the home of the ignorantÔǪ.filled with the morally impoverished and insecure. But it is a large home and makes one feel safe. Races were dehumanized in order to win wars (Japanese during WW2 springs to mind). You can't order a soldier to kill someone who they think is like them, because then they could possibly think of it as murder, hesitate, and get killed themselves. So yes, your right, groups are dehumanized in order to make people feel better about killing others. That shows exactly where the analogy falls apart though. Hitler dehumanized the Jews. The Jews did nothing to deserve to die. Terrorists, however, dehumanized themselves through suicide bombings of civilians in Israel and ESPECIALLY after 9/11 they were dehumanized to the vast majority of the American public. It didn't even take a government propganda campaign! The terrorists, also, deserve to be dehumanized either way. Now, honestly, I don't think people *deserve* to die, but if the terrorists are a group that is singled out for elimination by society, I see nothing wrong with it. They CHOSE to be terrorists, they KILLED INNOCENT CIVILIANS, and *DIRECTLY* SUPPORT the killing of INNOCENT civilians. If they are going to be an evil force, and they are evil, they should be incapacitated, and it seems that the only way to do that is with a bullet.

Anything that's that long isn't worth reading and is obviously wrong. I got to about page 15 before realizing i had about 70 more to go. [ 08-07-2002, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

....you could have set a waypoint near the shuttle to pick it up before you entered the atmosphere...probably would have been quicker.

quote:Originally posted by IceCold: Remember, Hitler drummed up support for the Nazis by promising to protect Germany from certain groups and degraded them to a sub human state. If the analogy was correct, i'd say "great, let's take over the world, that way we can have a one-world government". But the analogu is incorrect for one major reason: Hitler drummed up support by dehumanizing a RELIGION/RACE (depends if you call people Jewish as a religion or race) of people, a group of people that were not intrinsically harmful to society, and were guilty of DOING nothing. Dehumanizing TERRORISTS, however, is different since terrorists ARE intrinisically harmful to society. They are being singled out because of their *actions* not because of their race or religion. The Jews couldn't do anything to stop the persecution, the terrorists can (stop doing it!). Now, I don't think of the terrorists as animals (cause I think that they are engrained with this propoganda), but I can't say Jaguar is wrong or that he's looking at it the wrong way because i'm sure some of them actually believe the mission themselves, and they ARE acting like barbarians and animals. They massacre innocent civilians and think it's going to make people sympathize with their view. And for some ODD reason, people like Lotharr start to feel SORRY for groups that have suicide bombers that massacre innocent people. I would understand feeling sympathy for them if they organized mass rallies with each other in the middle of a field somewhere in Israel, and all set off bombs to kill themselves, not harming civilians. That would show the desprate plight of the people, and people would listen to what they say about the causes of it (America, Israeli oppression, etc, whatever they believe is the cause), since they are giving their lives JUST to send a message, not to kill innocent people. But as long as the Palestinians keep trying to get revenge, no one is going to listen, since it's insane to think that if someone is at war with you, that by being nice to them and throwing down your guns, they are suddenly going to stop shooting at you. Leftist intent is good, but it doesn't work in reality....

That's why you have the fighters launched BEFORE you send the CC into hyperspace. 8 fighters vs 1 cruiser, the cruiser goes BOOM. [ 08-07-2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

First a note on Israel, then going straight down Lotharr's post... If the other Arab nations weren't hostile to begin with, Israel would be a lot smaller and would have a lot less problems. It's not our fault, or Israel's, that the rest of the Arab world CREATED their own problem, and are still carrying it on with the stupid suicide bombings. Gee, i'm really likely to negotiate when my friends are getting blown up...riiiiight. Next time your playing BCM as a Terran Commander, approach a Gammulan Stormcarrier, uncloaked with shields down, and keep hitting "c" to communicate and work something out. Keeping hitting "c" all the way down to the time that you get destroyed. That's EXACTLY what your saying Israel should do. Yes, the United States should have the final say in what is hurting our national security and violating our soverignity. Who else has a right to? Your saying that some global organization should have the final say on when a country is a threat to another. I don't know what dream world you live in, but that has so many problems. Other countries dont want to get involved, or they have trade agreements or alliances with the dangerous country, OR they are just TOTAL ANTI-WAR LEFTIST NUTS (no offense to any of them on here), so they say "lets impose sanctions" then the targetted country says "lets set off nukes in the US". The citizens serving in our armed forces are protecting AMERICA, AMERICANS, and the Constitution. The people who have a right to say where they go and who they fight and when they fight are AMERICANS. Not some international decision. If Americans dont want a war, they'll show it in the polls and at the ballot box. There is no excuse for taking away that choice from Americans due to a "greater good". Until EVERY nation in the world is tolerant of other religions and races, and all nations are committed to the good of all, and all nations ARE ON an equal footing, there can be no violation of United States soverignty without destroying the foundation of this nation and violating the rights of every American. Sure, if you want to stage a revolution to overthrow the government of the US, and all other governments of soverign nations, and start some world government, go right ahead. But the amount of support you would get is so small that it would be laughable, and the problems with it abound. How is taking out Iraq going to unleash a "global nightmare"? None of the other Arab nations have threatened hostility if we attack Iraq, so I really do fail to see the problem. Also, we don't NEED aid from the other free countries, so that point really is moot. No, I won't get over the American ego, because America is the greatest country, and violating the rights of the American people is not good no matter how you look at it. If the American people feel that the plight of other nations is ours, they GO TO CHARITIES. They support AID ORGANIZATIONS. What your advocating is that the people who feel the way you do are so right, that the government should FORCE EVERYONE ELSE to support your view. If your view is so great, there will be more aid! Since it's not, there won't, and it sure shouldnt be forced. You see, deep down, I believe the way Lotharr does on one level. Yes, we are all connected. We all should be able to live together free and happy and working for the better good of society. If you see Independence Day, you all can probably see what I mean. But the problem is the way the world is now. There is no way that all the problems of the world will be solved just by countries "working together". Unless all nation-states are abolished, and all people are educated and have a common goal, there is no way that your idea can work. It'd destroy national soverignity, violate the rights of the "minority", and subject the world to mob rule. What you're advocating seems to be close to global socialism. "Take from the rich (America) and give to the poor". Gee whiz, that'd be a great idea if it would DO ANYTHING. Money doesn't solve all problems. Umm, if Africa has no resources to develop, there really isn't anything to do with the area to "develop" except move them out of the area. They all need EDUCATION to do jobs that dont require natural resources, and if there are no natural resources they don't really have anything good they can do for society. No education infrastructure there, and there's no way it's just going to pop-up. Not to mention the "rulers" of the different countries aren't going to give up power by having the people educated. You see, for your idea to work, you'd need to have ALL people give up their selfish ambitions. If ONE world leader didn't agree, or a significant portion of the world population didn't agree, your idea either WOULDNT work, or it would be carried in on a ocean of blood. Ahh, get into Israel here. It related to America's role, and it's really impossible to justify ditching the Israelis and condemning them for fighting back while their people get attacked all the time, and they WONT give peace a chance. If the Palestinians CARED about peace, they'd at least STOP THE BOMBINGS during NEGOTIATIONS. Instead, they keep attacking. Obviously, those bombers are saying "any peace negotiated will not be good enough, and these bombings will continue no matter the outcome". Well, that sort of takes away any Israeli insentive to give in. What your saying is if your house is being robbed, the robber asks you "where's the safe?" and then you ask "will you kill me if i show you where the safe is?" and the robber says "yes", you'd immediately show him to the safe. Gee, talk about a good idea. Give up things just to proceed being attacked. CONTELPRO...from what you've said I can understand how it was justified for the times, although unneeded (due to lack of support). A leftist movement had no place during the Cold War, and the USSR saw it as a US weakness when they heard about them. Movements that were a threat to the US though, and could have caused a civil war, had a right to be *observed*, and ended if they preached treason. There's no way we could have known Bin Laden would repay us with the WTC towers. If I was in charge then, and I had all the information, I probably would have made the same decision as the leaders at the time did, and I bet most Americans would too. And dont think your leftist "world community" view would have worked during the Cold War. I would have gotten us nuked by the Soviet Union. Saddam, same thing. We couldn't have seen it coming. Uh, the United States has that right since we're being threatened. We shouldn't have to wait until something happens to move in, and we shouldn't have to wait till other countries agree. Also, the United States wants world peace, but that peace can only be achieved by war, especially when there is a dictatorship. Have you ever tried to change a REALLY stubborn person's mind? I know from personal experience that SOMETIMES it just DOESNT WORK. In a dictatorship, that's what it comes down to, and when you have ABSOLUTE power of a country, they are even LESS likely to change their mind. You aren't going to pull it off, so you need to remove the person. Jaguar answered your 7 steps well, but just to cap it off, Palestine would just keep attacking Israel cause they didn't like the settlement, Israel would have to retaliate because of the attacks (since the people would eventually get fed up, and if the government stayed soft-line, the people WOULD overthrow a passivist government), the UN wouldn't agree to go in, and the entire region would be hell. Actually, Israel would probably just invade and take over Palestine for the attacks, and we'd be right back where we started.

That'd work...if the 8 fast fighters the Stormcarrier launched, and the missiles, and the turrets didnt blow you up while you were inbound. Oh yeah, and the EMD would make your missiles miss. Sorry, almost forgot that one.

And that also begs the question... Who could be so stupid to fly a shuttle without an engine after knowing a marine ripped it out?

Send em to a new waypoint somewhere, let them get close to the ground, then tell em to RTB. It should work. I've had the same problem on another planet, you just gotta get em to move, get low, then shoot away.

Ok, please explain how he can have a 5 star rating when his entire topic is about Gammulans that hate him, while I don't have a 5 star rating, and i'm a Gammulan! This isn't fair! I want a re-count!

Ok, I dont have enough time to screw around with quoting, so i'll go down Lotharr's post and then say something about Democracy vs Republic. Iraq was talking about letting inspectors back in under different terms than the original agreement. If accepted, that gives the impression that Iraq has some sort of bargaining power. Luckily, it won't be accepted, since the UN (not just the US), doesn't like the idea. You say we paint a target on ourselve,s but for who? No free country is going to attack us because of our actions, and no MORE countries are going to become hostile towards us because of an attack on Iraq. We are FREEING the Iraqi people, and that's not going to suddenly make France start sending suicide bombers to the US. Also, how can we work with others? They are saying "dont attack" and "Iraq isn't a threat", and "civilians will die". What exact PLAN is a good idea? There can't be compromise with two totally different ideas. Also, why should the US have to listen to others in THIS SCENARIO. Iraq is a threat to the US, if no one else believes it, that's their problem. We go in, for our own national security and interests, take out Saddam, free the people, create a republic/democracy. Then the people have POLITICAL FREEDOM (which you referenced later). Yes, the American people should be more compassionate to the plight of other nations. The United States government should NOT, however, MAKE the country give "special consideration" to developing nations. That's taking away individual rights of Americans and thus goes against the idea of this country. Honestly, I have no idea what causes the plights in under developed countries like Africa. It'd be nice if we all worked together to stop it, but it should NOT be government mandated, and it's possible that the reason why they dont develop is because there is nothing to develop in those countries. (resources) 3 billion to Israel isn't "keeping oppression up and running". The Israelis keep getting attacked, and have been for the past 50 years. The *UN* created Israel, then they kept getting invaded by every Arab nation nearby. We help them out. Then they start getting attacked by suicide bombers, and the fact they FIGHT BACK makes them oppressive? You go live in Jewish controlled areas of Israel, and see how long you advocate "Israel is being oppressive by fighting back". When you start seeing your friends and family afraid to go out in the street and then get blown up by some idiotic palestinian, you'd want the retaliation too. Also, if we didn't support Israel, it'd make us look bad by stepping out of a commitment to an ALLY (they almost always back us up), and it'd destablize the reason since it's highly possible Israel has nuclear weapons. (but we dont care...since they are our ALLY and they grant FREEDOM to their citizens) Vietnam we should have made up our mind and either didn't go in or gone in full force and won. That was a disaster, but only because we didn't go for a win 100%. CONTELPRO....not sure what that is. Bombing Cambodia...I've heard about it, but forgot the story behind it. Creating bin Laden was a good idea at the time in order to fight off the Russians (who were bad). Just because he then became a threat to us doesn't mean we shouldn't have done it. Again, creating Saddam was a good idea at the time. Now we just ahve to take him out. Ok, I need to go soon, but your one line that strikes me is that "lack of political freedom coupled with...". Yes, lack of political freedom causes problems. And, wow, all the terrorism supporting nations DONT HAVE POLITICAL FREEDOM, and it doesnt look like they are going to GET ANY unless we change their government, which is what we are going to do. I don't see any country with political freedom threatening or attacking the United States. Ok, i'm not going to get to democracy vs republic, but could you tell me what actual ACTIONS you advocate the US doing? I know you say "work together" but what exactly should the President/Congress do, and how will it help? How can we "be a leader"? Ok, really quick, the democracy vs republic argument doesn't really matter at this point. We have qualities of both (according to the definition), but in the end, it really doesn't matter. What matters is the United States was founded on the Constitution, and no action by the government should ever fall outside of the constitution, without an amendment, because otherwise it destroys the whole foundation the country was built on.

Oh yeah, Jaguar's right. The whole basis of my post was based on the premise that due to individual rights of citizens of America, they should never be forced to give up anything or lose anything for the "good of society".

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: I watched the as a panel of experts rated the immediate threat of Iraq as low. At the same time it seems they believe that action now will be less costly then action later. HOWEVER, they agree that we HAVE the capacity to inspect for WMD with a high degree of success. We have a lot of options before we send in... well....me.Only problem with inspecting is he won't let us inspect. That path has already gone nowhere. What other options is it that we have? Sanctions dont work, talking doesn't work, and we're running out of time. quote: War is not a game. For you it is...now....maybe one day you'll wise up. Neither is a US city being wiped because people decided to try other options while Saddam was building WMDs. Your operating under the same anti-war thinking that led to 9/11 in the first place, at least now it's not as prevalent. Prior to 9/11, deploying troops was close to political suicide. Now, people are much more receptive to the idea. Yes, it's better to do other options, but in some situations it's best to send in the military. Iraq has proven over the past 12 years that there's no way we're going to get rid of the threat without military action. quote: This planet has limits. We exceed our share while people starve. If you can't see that fine....you have a whole crew of people who will back you up. On the other hand I have mine. We can see the lack of balance. We feel the need to care. We would rather see some overpaid loser take a pay cut then watch a part of the world go to hell.Yes, I agree that the United States has a huge share of resources while other people starve. I also see the lack of balance. I also feel sorry for all the starving people, etc. That is NOT justification for taking away resources from America and giving it to other countries. Charities and aid organizations are around for that, NOT the US government. At no point should the United States, and thus it's citizens, be forced into giving up their quality of life for other countries. Also, you need to realize that advancement takes resources. The United States has the infrastructure scientific advancement, and scientific advancements trickle down. By undermining America by making it accountable to the "world community" and redistributing resources, your focusing on the short term goal of stopping starvation in some third world country where the people will probably be killing each other next week, as opposed to finding a long term solution of ways to make enough food that no one will ever starve... quote: America is losing the moral right to lead. With every covert op or overt op that takes away from people and tries to maintain the status quo. I do not want to see one privileged nation under God able to succeed at the cost of others.Could you give an example or two of what your referring to? Any action in Iraq would be changing the status quo to get rid of a dictator that is a threat to all non-islamic states around the world (due to sales to Islamic terrorist groups). quote: If you cannot see the interconnect ness of life then you are missing what others have...and I'm sorry for you.I see it, it's just that it is much more valuable at the CURRENT TIME to keep the nation-state system. At some point in the future, when the world's philosophies, interests, and cultures are more similar, it would be beneficial for everyone to share the world and it's resources and for everyone to be accountable to some degree to everyone else. As it stands though, the United States is not like most other countries in the world. We have a constitution and government that is not oppressive, and the citizens of this country enjoy a large degree of freedom, and for the most part, luxury, because of it and its economic system. Any sort of "connectivity" with a "world community" notably takes away from that autonomy, and will hurt the United States due to diverging interests and philosophies. We are threatened by terrorism, we need to fight back. Other countries see the starving people and the innocents getting killed due to our attempts to eliminate terror and say we need to use other means. Those philosophies do not work together. quote:Then your very short sighted and can see no farther then your own needs. A condition that affects a lot here. It is too bad...one day you may realize how we all have the same needs and we can meet them for all. I see that this country is based on the idea of freedom and human rights for its citizens, and when we act around the world we do our best to bring those ideas to those countries. This seems like it's going to become a new socialism debate. Could you please explain what ACTIONS you are ADVOCATING? We've been talking sort of broadly here, and it'd be nice to have something tangible. quote: Amazing that you feel that we are the most advanced. While the founding principals of this nation were highly advanced for the time...time has moved forward. Yes we have gadgets by the score...if you can afford them. And we can wreck a county in unprecedented amount of time. This does not make a society advanced. This is dangerous in a place that is not. I'm talking in most ways. Militarily, scientifically, economically. The United States has the greatest potential out of any country in the world, it's just that we are too busy worrying about everyone else to actually HELP the world through that power.

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: In a time where global participation in increasing, building fortress America is wrong answer. We have to take the front and be leaders. But we also have to be held to the same standard as others. Exactly what do you mean by "being leaders" and we need to be "held to the same standard as others"? We already are leaders, it's just that no one wants to follow, and we can't change what's in our best interests because "everyone else doesn't like it". So what? If other countries want to try and stop us, go right ahead, but using the current world as an example, Iraq is a threat. America thinks it is, most Americans think it is, but we should NOT attack Iraq because other nations say it's wrong? America will be much safer and advance much quicker if it worries less about international opinion and more about protecting it's citizens and helping economy and scientific development. quote: I think if we isolate ourselves the world will move on without us and all of those negative effects you talked about will be felt because of inaction and circling the wagons. Exactly what part of the "rest of the world" will move on without us? The US is the most advanced and most powerful nation in the world in just about every way possible. I'd see us moving ahead and leaving the world behind.

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Your CONFIG settings don't affect saved games. Well, they have before with me. I've tried loading games and it froze at the end of the loading screen or as soon as I got in the cockpit, but upon lowering all my config graphics settings, I didn't have that problem (and then when i raised them again the game continued to run).

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: My biography is still in works and has been since 1998 actually.Will that be included with BCTC Collector's Edition? And in regards to Halo, they are coming out with it for PC, or so i've heard. That's why I decided to stick with the PC for my gaming needs. [ 08-05-2002, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

Yeah, I guess I assumed he'd change things around.... Stormcarriers rock, with all those turrets and guns in combination with all the marines and support craft.... You don't need to be fast when you have 12 fighters to do that for you.

But there are so many Terrans on Earth, so many targets, it'd take YEARS to capture all those bases....

Ok, time for a *VERY* incoherent train of thought rant. The United States was founded on the idea of freedom, and with that came the idea of democracy. The people elect the best educated and responsible people to be part of the government. The government makes decisions to help the country's best interests while always maintaining the foundation of the Constitution. Today, people are elected based on the amount of money they have and how much publicity they can get. If your rich and have connection, you have a shot at it, much more so than any person that actually KNOWS the best interests of the country and cares about it. Sure, some people with money have the country's best interests at heart, but most of them just want to increase their wealth and power through the office. Now, I personally don't know much about Jesse Venutra when he was elected to public office or what policies he advocates, but from what I do know, he was a professional wrestler who was elected to office because the people were sick and tired of the idiot politicians that were already in office. What needs to happen is for it to happen more around the country. People should be elected based on personal merit, not on the sheepish attitude of political parties. They make people into sheep. Your a republican so you vote republican every election, even if the republicans are moving to the left, or advocating things you dont believe in. On that basis, the country is going to hell. Less people vote, people who win elections are elected by (mostly) sheep, and those that are elected only have their own interests at heart. Then you get into the whole problem with international affairs. Now, the first concept is that we should all get along and live together in harmony under some sort of global cooperation. Sorry to break it to you, but there are a certain amount of finite resources in the world. If there was some "greater cooperation", it is simple. The huge number of resources that the US uses up would be redistributed to other countries (think of it as a graph). As the number of resources is redistributed, the quality of life in the United States goes down across the board, and the costs of goods go up (less supply). In the end, that is *NOT* in *AMERICAS* best interests. As it stands, as developments happen, the quality of life goes up across the board, quicker for America and other first-world countries, slower for the rest (but it does go up). Now, that leads back to the idea of "well, why not make it all equal for everyone". The problem with that is people are selfish. There is no way America would agree to that, and not even the *FAR LEFTISTS* in America would advocate that once *THEIR* quality of life is starting to decrease. Also, under the "equal playing field", it becomes a rule of the majority. If all countries have the same supply of resources, then if a number of other countries decided to go against America, and no one decided to support us, we'd be destroyed or taken over, etc. Under an "equal playing field" war is possible and war is bloody, since there is no SUPERPOWER to end it, or to mediate it. Even without wars, the problem would still exist that with less American resources, and thus power, America would have to give up it's autonomy. The people of America would have to be controlled by whims of those in other countries, and their rights slowly eroded due to the rest of the world's view, even when they aren't even living IN AMERICA. So what's the solution? Now, I don't know for sure, but in my opinion, we need to work for our best interests, and we need to do it 100%. Caring about all the poor starving people in other countries is nice, and worrying about what other countries think seems like a good idea, but it's the equivilent to a mugger telling a cop that it's not fair that the cop has a gun, and a car, and a nice house, and a family, and until he (the cop) loses all that stuff, or he (the mugger) gets it he (the cop) doesn't have a right to arrest him (the mugger). America is being threatened by terrorism. WHO THE HE11 CARES ABOUT "WHY" the terroism is happening? It seems agreed that it's "because of America's actions", but that's like justifying killing someone your robbing "because they didn't give me the money". We need to pour money into security for the country, we need alliances and trade agreements with countries that share our values, and if we suspect that a country is harboring or supporting terrorists, we need to send in our VERY POWERFUL MILITARY, bomb the country to the stone age, kill the terrorists, remove the leaders supporting them, and set up some sort of democratic government that values the freedom of its people. I can't think of *ONE* *TRULY* democratic, FREE, and educated country that is currently directly supporting terrorists. There should be no "feel sorry for what we are doing to the world". What we need to do is pour money in scientific research, space research, energy and food tech, security, medicine, the military, and pretty much anything else that will help AMERICA and AMERICANS. We shouldn't worry about helping the rest of the world (unless it's for our resources or our best interests) Once we get the scientific advancements, it'll trickle down (who cares how fast), to the rest of the world. And once we show the rest of the world that if they mess with the United States, they will be destroyed, we will no longer have as much of a need to worry about terrorism. We're surrounded by allies and water, there's no excuse for many more domestic terror attacks unless it's because the government and the people of this country aren't doing their duty. Anyway, that's my rant. We care about America first, we be sure not to be controlled by internation influence, we protect our people, and it'll work. All leftist "we all work together in harmony" views fall apart at the point you realize that your asking Americans to give up RESOURCES to other countries, which thus means COSTS go up and QUALITY OF LIFE goes down for AMERICANS in AMERICA. That is one thing the vast MAJORITY of AMERICANS would not stand for, and it is DIRECTLY against the entire FOUNDATION (the Constitution) that the country was BUILT ON. And ADDITIONALLY, with the LEFTIST view, if you give up RESOURCES to begin with, the QUALITY OF LIFE for the POOR/LOWER-CLASS Americans drops ALSO. It hurts AMERICA AS A WHOLE. That's something no American, Leftist or Rightist, Democrat or Republican, can stand for.

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Unlike BCM, BCG doesn't allow you to pick the best available craft from the word go. You can only pick whats available at the station at the time (usually a bunch of scrap metal) etc etc So....does that mean that there's no way (except cheating) that i'll be able to start in a Stormcarrier? quote: With the ability to construct your own planetary cities, bases, space stations etc, well, BCG will cater a lot more to those non-hostile castes than ever before. We can construct stuff in **BCG**? Where is that on the features list? (I thought contruction was limited to BCO)

Join the Gammulans. Much better career/allegience choice, and you won't have to worry about your planet getting RANDOMed. (remember, GALCOM court-martials commanders who use RANDOMS...Gammula doesn't..i don't think)

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: For the last time, Australia is NOT a socialist country!!! Just ask any Australian leftist. Better yet, ask the Australian government and watch them laugh their asses off.Yeah, he's right. Menchise is just a fluke. I read somewhere that Australia is already planning on sending in their elite special forces with the US into Iraq when we get around to invading.

Don't kill him! I think he's either: 1. Doing it as a joke (no one would SERIOUSLY think of asking you to add an electrogmagnetic gun into the game for marines) or 2. Doesn't know any better!

I'd add England to your list of countries, but other than that, your right. Most of our current "allies" don't really do anything for us except criticize, while living happily under our military might. Just like the leftists at home. They complain about all the "social injustices", while being nice and safe under the supreme power of the US. If we reevaluated our international alliances, we'd be much better off and gain a lot more on a cost-benefit ratio. As it stands, if a new Hitler rose up and decided to attack Western Europe, I doubt any of the countries would use nuclear weapons or field a military. They'd just scream to the US for help. That isn't the way an ALLIANCE should operate. It's a join venture, not a baby-sitting contract.

quote:Originally posted by $iLk: John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, and dare I say George W Bush are turning this country into 10 times worse than what Clinton and Reno attempted to do. Kind of makes me wonder, I thought I voted for and supported these guys to create smaller, less oppressive government. They do these things in the name of "security" but in the end the most secure place in the world is inside of a locked jail cell. How much freedom are you willing to trade?I see your point, but I think this is just a brief phase and isn't a threat to our long term freedoms. During all major wars/threats to the country, the government (especially the executive branch) gets a lot of power, then it all disappears once the threat is gone and congress realizes "How the HELL did they get so much power?". Part of my thinking is I don't see Bush as a threat. Was it just me, or when he was elected, did he seem sort of harmless? Like he was just some guy who happened to have a Presidential father, and be rich, and won? His speeches immediately following the 9/11 attacks seemed like he took them personally, and I may be wrong, but any sort of "infringements on freedoms" aren't because the government wants to directly increase it's power, but because Bush wants to kill some terrorists.