Spring RTS Engine

TheRegisteredOne wrote:Being democracy doesn't mean you have a peaceful foreign policy. America was a democracy from its inception. How many times larger is it now compared to the original colonies? Your logic is unsound.

I was actually referencing America there... The only reason America went crazy 7 years ago was because of the terrorist attack. Were it not for that, they wouldn't be going around stomping on third world countries right now.

Ugh, convoluted logic... I'll try that once more...

First you said, crazy people can't get in power (oversimplified, but that was the gist). My reply was meant to point attention to the cowboy down south. Earlier I had said that China could become dangerous if they got a crazy politician. In my opinion this is true because while America had to get their clock cleaned by a bunch of guys with box cutters before they would freak out in popular support for a war against a country with no air, naval, or land force to speak of, a country like China could do just about anything they want if the government said so.

If, for instance, 9/11 had never happened and the next day Prez said, "yo, let's go half-way around the world and attack a country with no strategic value - besides the copious oil fields, but we're not going for that, we just want to make sure they don't get any ideas - the response from even the most ignorant inbred hick would be, "Uh... let's not and say we did. Also get the hell out of the white house." Even WITH the alleged justification, he's about one more mistake from getting thrown out of office as it is.

On the other hand, if that happened in China, the average person would say, "Ok, just don't hurt me," and with good reason. They've got no voice. The entire northern half of the country could get transformed into turkeys, and the only knowledge the southern half would get of that would be lower meat prices.

~~~~

To go off on a tangent, anyone else think a big reason the president was so eager to go to war was to get rid of all their outdated weapons? Tomahawk cruise missiles, for instance, wouldn't get within a kilometer of a modern navy, they'd be shot down easily. Now they need to re-arm and can justify spending it on weapons that are more effective.

I wasn't talking about 9/11. I was refering to the Indian War, annexation of Texas, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Colonial actions in Asia etc. All taken under democratic government.

aside: the war in Iraq was taken to secure American influence in the region. It was a tangent from the broader strategic goal of the Bush administration of containing China (which I think is more urgent). It sounded like a good idea at the time, and it was convenient with 9/11 and the war on terror going on. Although they probably underestimated the resistence they will be facing in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

They didn't, the American people did. Because the media led them to believe they were going to fight a couple old men with sticks, and they would be greeted as liberators.

Again on a tangent, I'm really surprised to see how the American public has so quickly decided that the war is "unwinnable". It's not a short-term thing like they were led to believe, but it's not like they're actually fighting a serious conflict. A handful of people die every month. Woo. It's tragic but the deaths are blown completely out of proportion when you compare with *real* conflicts like WWII or even Vietnam. And they're bleeding their hearts out over the half dozen American soldiers that die a couple times a week, but don't give a damn about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who've died, most of them civilian noncombatants.

Now here's a thought people with a brain might be able to comprehend. It took less than 3,000 deaths in a single terrorist attack to completely drive an entire continent apeshit insane with rage and bloodlust, and they think that the Iraqis are going to just roll over and say, "ahh wha-ya-gonna-do, it happens" when we kill OVER A MILLION of them without even counting injuries!

As long as the mission was, "Piss off a shitload of people who think suicide bombing will get them a reward in the afterlife", MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Next they turn around and say, now that there is no health care, education, police, military, or leadership to speak of, and over a million civilians are dead, WE'VE GOTTA BRING THEM TROOPS HOME THIS AIN'T OUR WAR WE DON'T BELONG THERE!!! ASS CLOWNS. You elected that rock-brained chimpanzee twice, it's your own goddamn problem, finish what you start. Absolutely ANYONE who says the troops have got to come home should be shot to clean up the genetic cesspool before it gets any worse.

Tibet was not the only region forever taken over by the China. Very very very long time ago China invaded largest kingdom of the Korea for pure jealousy. The war last about 1100 years of fighting and ceasefire and doing that over and over again. Initially, about 892 years after the war was declared, China collapsed for it can't sustain the war although they outnumbered their enemy. There were many faction formed to take over China and one became victorious and led China to victory over Korean Kingdom and took most of their land after 900 years. Then new Korean Kingdom arose and that lasted 200 years. After that finally a peace. The jealousy was the reason for the war and I say it's quite evil to declare the war just because of jealousy and that evilness of the China can be clearly seen for those who knows the history behind it.

Well, look into European history. For the last 1500 years (excluding the last half-century to some degree) there were repeated wars, annextations and occupations, some of which were driven by the very same jealousity. So, Europeans must be evil then?
The Chinese just had states formed way before Europeans (excluding Greeks and Romans), so they had much more time for the same kind of activity.

I dont think wars start for the sole reason of "jealousy"

Aeon_Illuminate wrote:Tibet was not the only region forever taken over by the China. Very very very long time ago China invaded largest kingdom of the Korea for pure jealousy. The war last about 1100 years of fighting and ceasefire and doing that over and over again. Initially, about 892 years after the war was declared, China collapsed for it can't sustain the war although they outnumbered their enemy. There were many faction formed to take over China and one became victorious and led China to victory over Korean Kingdom and took most of their land after 900 years. Then new Korean Kingdom arose and that lasted 200 years. After that finally a peace. The jealousy was the reason for the war and I say it's quite evil to declare the war just because of jealousy and that evilness of the China can be clearly seen for those who knows the history behind it.

lol /sarcasm?

Funny random news, the Koreans now want pieces of Chinese territory on the border that never belonged to them. [Never belonged as in never occupied culturally or politically in the 'ancient' past]

But anyways, the media seems to neglect the fact that pre-PRC occupation, the majority of the Tibetan people were dominated by the ruling religious elite of the temples, who were themselves highly cruel and unusual in their practices [for example, brutal punishments were enforced such as skinning and ripping out tendons from people in the lower castes]. The totality of the ruling class's power would probably be considered highly oppressive and inhumane by today's standards, so this is why the PRC can claim to have 'liberated' the Tibetan people from that system.

Just some random info: once France, England and the Netherlands fought over a piece of land inhabited by a civilisation, and that piece of land didn't belong to anyone of them. Although in the end England won, this piece of land still doesn't belong to it today, while the native civilisation was wiped out in the process. Today it's occupied by English people who don't call themselves English, as well as descendants of African slaves they brought in. They formed a new country instead, and during it's 200-or-so years of presence, invaded and tried to annex countless countries including the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. It's also the only country to ever use nuclear weapon in a real war. Though it stopped the WW2, it kind of makes people think that the Imperial Japan had just aroused a far greater devil.

Every country, every civilisation has its own bloody history. What's important is for everyone to become mature and to learn from history that violence is not an answer. Europe is doing very well, I especially admire the Germans who actually built a museum to remind themselves what Hitler did. China is trying to improve (I believe), but is encountering lots of resistance from both inside and outside.(or more precisely, from the other side). As for Japan and that nuclear country I mentioned before, they haven't even started yet.

lol /sarcasm?

Funny random news, the Koreans now want pieces of Chinese territory on the border that never belonged to them. [Never belonged as in never occupied culturally or politically in the 'ancient' past]

You speak with very very little knowledge. Perhaps you should learn history of both side before saying anything. I heard Chinese don't allow Koreans to visit monuments and King's castle previously built in lost territory although it's very very very long time since that war. This particular war is not well known to western people because of time that the war happened was so long ago.

Come on, really now, who wouldn't want a bit of prime Chinese real-estate?

bwansy wrote:invaded and tried to annex countless countries including the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. It's also the only country to ever use nuclear weapon in a real war.

When one wishes to make a political statement, one would do well to learn two things: fact-checking and context.

Forget about context, why do Americans go on an overseas rampage every 15-20 years, just to be humiliated by a vastly inferior foe, and then do so again, and again, and again, when every previous attempt has failed so miserably and completely?

It's really nice to talk about helping the poor and spreading democracy, but when the result is consistently the opposite and you never succeed, when does it become time to say, "Let's just worry about our own problems, like an impending depression, astronomical crime rate, massive numbers of people unemployed or living beneath the poverty line, no health care, one of the worst education systems, and the general worldwide consensus that we're warmongering idiots"?

There's absolutely no context in which assured failure sounds like a good strategy. You cannot go to a hostile third-world country and, in a span of less than a decade, rework it into some sort of functioning democratic state.

And since you can have a 110% certainty that some powergrabbing moron is going to make "BRING OUR BOYS HOME!!!" their election platform and the longest you might possibly remain in power is 8 years (more likely 4, but lulz happen) isn't it a little irresponsible to start something you know you can't finish? When millions of lives are on the line?

Caydr wrote:It's really nice to talk about helping the poor and spreading democracy, but when the result is consistently the opposite and you never succeed, when does it become time to say, "Let's just worry about our own problems, like an impending depression, astronomical crime rate, massive numbers of people unemployed or living beneath the poverty line, no health care, one of the worst education systems, and the general worldwide consensus that we're warmongering idiots"?

There's absolutely no context in which assured failure sounds like a good strategy. You cannot go to a hostile third-world country and, in a span of less than a decade, rework it into some sort of functioning democratic state.

+0.99