Azarkon
-
Posts
486 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Azarkon
-
-
I think you guys are missing the forest for the trees. If it were a matter of the Bush administration orchestrating the entire attack, there would be a tremendous amount of people involved who would have to be silenced. However, if it were a simple matter of the Bush administration facilitating the attack knowing that it's coming, very few people would need to be silenced.
The entire attack could've been facilitated by a few top officials of the government plus a small cadre of military personnel.
I do not believe that Bush hired Osama to blow up the buildings. I do think that Al Qaeda is behind the attack and would've done it regardless. I don't think that it requires a leap of faith to realize that such an attack could serve both sides' interests. People say that the simplest explanation is often the correct one. I tend to agree, except the simplest explanation here, taking into account evidences from both sides, is for there to have been a mutually beneficial relationship. Otherwise you would have to disregard every single piece of evidence pointing to a possible conspiracy - and that's impossible, because frankly put, there's far more than the WTC argument.
What is unsettling about that video is not its physics arguments about whether the WTC collapsed on its own or through implanted bombs, but by the references to various attempts by the government to silence key witnesses, to prevent official personell from flying, from redirecting fighter jets during the day, and for remaining secretive regarding actual video-tapped evidence. There's a separate explanation for each one of these issues, but are you willing to trust that everything was a coincidence? If so, then you're making as big of a leap of faith as any conspiracy theorist.
It's doubtful that an otusider like the one who made Loose Change could've gotten all the facts right. However, after viewing the video I doubt I can say, with good judgment, that he's got nothing right. The truth may not be as sinister as he believes, but given the major beneficiaries of the events following 9/11 and given how convenient the attack was for the Bush administration, it's also not likely to be as simple as the other side wants you to think.
-
Let me take it from the top:
#1: I feel that the biggest problem with the influence system, from playing KOTOR 2, was that it felt artificial. Not that the alternative of asking your companion to chat and getting the same answer back every time isn't artificial, but I felt that a typical player of the game simply didn't *stress* over that. They waited for the periodic conversations to pop up and maybe asked their companions a question every once in a while. That worked fine because the game flow wasn't interrupted by the player having to go through routine "dialogue check-up" points in order to not have missed anything. *That* felt artificial.
Moreover, I also think that fly-by (NPC-initiated) dialogue has a certain advantage in that they *can't* be repetitive - you get them once, choose what you want to say, and they're gone. Woosh. Never to return. Not so with player-initiated dialogue in which the system is inherently limited to a set number of choices and *must* be forced to repeat certain lines again and again sooner or later. To stress this particular avenue of NPC interaction is to purposefully reveal the seams, so to speak, and that led to a focus on the artificial side of NPC interaction that I think detracted from the experience. This is particular true when combined with that earlier aspect of having to check, time from time, whether the NPC has anything more to say or whether you could progress to the "next step." I could only take Aton's "I don't think this is the right time for this talk" so many times before throwing my light sabers up in exasperation.
#2: Nice to hear that the "where's the text" crowd won't be left behind, and as always, quality trumps quantity. I do think that good voice acting adds to a game, so I don't think the move to less text due to audio & localization is a bad thing. Perhaps this can even be rectified one day with some sort of computer generated voice system, but that's a far ways off.
#3: It's accepted nowadays that the direction we're moving towards with regards to games is interactive cinema. But I can't help but wonder, from time to time, what we're losing in the process. Certainly, the first rule of writing is to "show, not tell." And translated to a graphical environment, that roughly becomes "display, not describe." But the jump from text to graphics is not necessarily so simple, I think. Text has a way of setting fire to your imagination that pictures don't, or can't. I remember the days when I played roguelike games and MUDs when a single scarlet 'D' or prismatic ASCII 'elder dragon lord' could hold my attention.
The battle in-game was simple enough: a contest of numbers where I matched my hps to the enemy's and stared intently at descriptions of "you slash an elder dragon lord with GODLY force" while fearing the equivalent counter-attack to appear on the next line. Yet in my head the battle was in full-swing, each fire ball streaking across the film of my mind to explode in variegated sparks on the dragon's shimmering scales. I'm not so good at make-belief to feel the heat of dragon fire upon my cheeks, but I was certainly excited enough that it made no difference.
So I wonder, really, what is lost by departing from the abstraction provided by text. Certainly, the fact that novels are still popular even in this age of silver screens and cathode ray tubes should say something about the enduring power of language. And I worry - can those majestic lines really be replaced by photorealistic renderings of the same? CRPGs have, for now, the best of both worlds. But how long before the push of mass commercialization abolish paragraphs altogether and replace them with strictly the snappy lines of pop culture? Would it - could it - still have the same impact as a good novel did, or is the genre to forego its textual roots and enter full-fledgedly into the realm of interactive cinema?
#4: I must say that it heartens me greatly to hear that PS:T is your proudest achievement, MCA. I recently read an extensive explanation of the game from back in the day and it just struck me how different the game was from everything else that's come along in the CRPG genre. Certainly, there are games in the adventure genre that might be comparable, and perhaps PS:T was more like an adventure game in many respects, but it was still one of a kind. It did indeed break new grounds.
But enough praise and nostalgia. Any plans for a game like PS:T? *duck*
I had to ask.#5, 7: I think Eldar summarized my concerns over Mature & Teen and ratings in general pretty well.
#6: Thanks for the reply. I think something like this will really help wannabe modders like the rest of us do well in NWN 2
One specific comment:One last thing - any NPC who disparages your character or doesn't acknowledge that the main player is super cool on some level, even if it's grudgingly, is generally not as well liked as other companion characters.I think this is true, but that being "well liked" is not necessarily a unanimous NPC goal. Maybe having a competitor within the party can motivate the player just as well? I guess this wouldn't work very well if you had the choice of dropping the self-important bastard in an alley somewhere, preferrably where he'll get bitten to death by rabid dogs. But still, conflict is a source of inspiration, and absent the ever-present villain, a rival could work to carry the player through the more "routine" parts of the game.
Maybe this'll work better in a game where you don't have a small set of companion characters, but must work within a permanent, but larger "squad" where rivalries and friendships can both blossom within the context of a greater story.
#8: I'll go ahead and agree that games are already works of art. And not just art in the PS:T sense of literary value, but also art in the sense that they communicate something meaningful. Game mechanics *can* communicate a certain sensibility, I think, but maybe that's just because my times in a MMORPG have brought about a change in my person. Freaky, I know.
#9: Interesting insight into the changing game industry. I guess high-profile designers are an inevitability, since the game industry doesn't quite have the equivalent of actors (though voice actors definitely receive attention as well), and so gamers have nothing to worship aside from company brands and team leads. I certainly think a star-worship cult is forming around designers, and become reminded of this each time my friends mention Hideoki Kojima, Ralph Kostor, Lord British, or Chris Metzen.
Which gets me to the question, can I have your autograph?
#10: Hmm. Can't say I agree with the publisher trends. I think someone posted an article earlier that outlined the problems of where the publishers are pushing the industry - namely, towards things like better graphics, accurate physics, streamlined gameplay, and a cinematic experience. All of these things are great, arguably, but they're approaching the point where they're becoming victims of diminishing returns. It leads down the path of buying games for superficial improvements: things like higher res textures (HDR, which is apparently a big thing nowadays to put on your game boxes), improved ragdoll systems, metal that looks more metallic, soil erosion - and my response to it all is: who cares?
The jump from 2D to 3D was significant enough, but who cares if soil erodes in Oblivion? Who cares if the trees have a million triangles as opposed to 500,000? Does it really improve my gaming experience that much if you translated BG 2, with the same gameplay, into 3D? The answer, I think, is an increasingly vehement "NO." And I'm not just talking about gamers like myself and those who frequent the Codex. I'm talking about casual gamers who I discuss these things with - they, too, are getting tired of the focus on superficial qualities as opposed to the real, core game mechanics that make a game enjoyable.
I don't think verisimilitude is the ultimate aphrodisiac of the gamer psyche. Some of the best and most classic games of this day and age are on handhelds, and improving their graphics really doesn't do anything more than invoke a gasp or two at the progress of portable technology. Would you really enjoy Pac-Man more if you could see the fear in the ghosts' eyes as you chomp your way towards them? Or Tetris if the blocks looked like actual cement from the Chrysler building? I, personally, don't think so. And I think that we're due for a time when shinier graphics and snazzier physics just won't do it anymore. The time will then be set, I hope, for another CRPG Renaissance. :cool:
Anywho, thanks to everyone for posting their insightful questions, Chris for answering them, and Fionavar for setting this up
I really like this sort of in-depth interaction with the devs and think that it's a great idea overall (thought it might help in he popularity if the NWN 2 board could've also participated). Good night all. -
Play a high int, wis, and cha character to get the most out of the game.
-
The graphics engine is very inefficient. The system requirements are immense, but it looks horrible. It has a graphics setting that only "future" cards could run at the time it was released. This was quite true, but the inability of contemporary cards to run it came not from fantastic-looking visuals but from an underoptimized graphics engine.
IMO the artwork was also terrible, but that's a subjective issue.
Because we all know the only thing that matters to people on this board are graphics, yes?
EQ 2 and WoW are comparable products. Having played both recently, I must say that EQ 2, frankly, is getting better as a MMO while WoW is getting worse. WoW nowadays is all about the raiding game, and coupled with the glacial pace at which the developers update the game, the player base is rapidly getting bored. EQ 2, on the other hand, has tons of content for the non-raiders, and are adding more on a frequent basis. Yes, EQ 2 tends to be more price gouging than WoW due to its reliance on $$$ adventure packs, but then the game doesn't have 6.5 million subscribers but still manages to out-produce Blizzard in terms of content and support. That it costs a bit more is unsurprising.
-
Charily optimistic.
-
Civilization predates recorded history, as the roots of civilization are usually assumed to be the discovery and spread of agriculture, about 11,000 years ago. We've enjoyed a rather steady rythm of progress ever since. I'd hardly call that "passing". And while nuclear warfare can most certainly set us back several hundred years (provided mankind is not outright annihilated) it is just not too likely. Fear of what the future may bring is no reason to halt or slow progress down, either.
Hardly steady. Modern society largely began with the Scientific Revolution right about 400 years ago. Before that, human society, at least in the West, had been stagnant for thousands of years, and might've actually regressed if we count the Greco-Roman period as a time of relative enlightenment.
Man should never fear the future, but it makes sense to actually sit down and look at the future before continuing with the status quo. In less than fifty years oil will disappear as a viable source of energy. Meanwhile, global warming is taking a toll on the climate. We ignore the signs of the future at our own risk.
Yeah, yeah. And gravity isn't the reason why stuff falls down. It's Earth's mass that causes that effect. The point is that warfare has always been the most demanding factor for human creativity. War creates the greatest necessities, as failure to put up with those necessities means death.Sure, but that only works if war actually threatened the lives of the population at large. Modern warfare, being often one-sided, is not of the sort. And with apocalyptic war, there's always a chance that humanity won't survive to tell the tale. What does not kill you might make you stronger, but only if it doesn't kill you.
The next greatest challenge for mankind is a dwindling energy source. Necessity hasn't quite hit yet, but it will soon enough.
-
Billions of people forget that they live in a passing moment of enlightenment within eons of ignorance. People born today cannot possibly comprehend just how miraculous civilization is: humans have been on this earth for dozens of times longer than the length of recorded history. Civilization is hardly inevitable, and progress, if not treated with care, can easily lead humanity back into the stone ages..
Necessity is the mother of invention, not war. When a people is threatened with extinction, they will innovate. But the next great threat will not come from an outside enemy. That's my guess.
-
I like the way this man thinks, and while I don't think he's entirely correct, he's right about the PS3.
And I do agree with a lot of his other articles. Particulary this one: http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/wowworld.html :D
-
Hmm, sounds about right. Course, trying to guess someone's mind while they're reading in can lead to hilarious effects.
-
I kinda want this game to succeed, mainly because the RTS genre has been rather dry as of late. However, for it to succeed TA's legacy, it needs alot more than just pretty battles.
-
Err, seems like asking whether CRPGs are a waste of time was the wrong way to start this thread, Gin.
I think the problem you're really getting at is that CRPGs seem a mish-mosh of other genres, where each of its component parts are better done by some other form of entertainment. Now, I'd buy that argument, except I think that you're wrong.
Think about what gets lumped together as a CRPG. Is it because of the action? No, because shooters and action games do them better. The story? Adventure games can also have good stories. The characters? Not really, as the presence of such games as Might and Magic & IWD shows. Freedom of world exploration? But many RPGs are linear. The roleplaying? Perhaps, but what's roleplaying? It's certainly not just dialogue choices (Diablo, M&M), and it sure isn't the freedom to play a role (JRPGs), nor the ability to make an impact on the world (when's the last time this was implemented well?).
How do you explain a genre with games like Diablo on one hand and PS:T on the other?
The unique aspect of RPG gameplay, I think, comes down to *player character development* followed by the utility of this development in the RPG world. All games claiming to be RPGs possess this characteristic, even if they approach it differently. Predominantly, the methodology of PC development has been increasing martial prowess. Unsurprising, as this genre began not as a storytelling medium but as a sort of combat adventure simulator with levels. Whether it be Western or Japanese, action or story-driven, the gameplay of a RPG is defined by its leveling system. Now, you might argue that other games offer a semblance of character development in the form of new weapons, power-ups, or whatnot, but it's clear that they are vastly inferior to RPGs in every aspect of this particular domain. Hence, PC development is what I'd term the essence of RPGs, if such an essence indeed exists, and it's the eccentric offering of this genre that no other genre can match.
The obvious next question, then, is why PC development is attractive. One hypothesis is that it taps into the psychological affinity for growth and advancement inherent to human beings. Whether that's guesswork or theory is meat for another thread, but the certainty of the RPG's allure cannot be denied, I think.
When you pose the question: are RPGs a waste of time, the first retort that comes to mind is to contradict the utilitarian stance (aren't all forms of entertainment a waste of time?) But the second point, which I think is far more significant, is *why* RPGs seem a waste of time compared to other mediums, and here I think you're missing a significant idiosyncrasy of the genre that has attracted players again and again into the fold. Why are modern RPGs fun? There maybe many reasons, from graphics to music to story to roleplaying. But that's no different than any other genre in the throes of mass commercialization, wherein the gameplay is often overshadowed by the leaps of technological virtuosity that's lured many "casual" players.
Yet if you look at it from the perspective of gaming history, you'll quickly see that RPGs were there at the beginning, and that the line of RPGs has never diminished, only taken different forms at different epochs of history. From the olden days of Wizardry and Ultima, to the new Renaissance of the Fallouts and the Infinity Engine games, to the unfaultering stream of JRPGs, and the mass commercialized action RPG and MMORPG, the genre is as diverse as it is enduring. It's easy to point at the multivalency of RPGs as a sign of its mongrel nature, but that's only because we've forgotten, after all these years, what CRPGs have never lost. For despite the great changes that's come to the genre, despite its players being dazzled by all the cinematic techniques that's come to dominate the genre, the RPG has kept its soul. And this soul, dating back to the very first RPG and which will endure till the last, is a stream that's never run dry.
-
Pluralist vs. Universalist, I reckon.
Seems to me that the problem with religious fanaticism has more to do with its intolerance of another point of view and the zealotry to act upon that insistence, than with the specificities of the religion itself. Of course, that at times manifests itself in the teachings of the religion, but given Christianity's changes over the course of history, I reckon that religious doctrine is perfectly capable of adaptation - if the will is there.
On the other hand, if you're against religion because you believe that religion is inherently harmful, then you're pretty much intolerant of it.
As such, I am highly cynical of antitheism, which in my view can easily lead to anti-religion prosecution.
-
:D
-
Indecision or indifference, then?
-
We come to the paradox, then, that the lack of doctrine is itself a doctrine.
"Atheists," to use your definition, might not abide by any single set of doctrines, but to claim that you live by no doctrines is, I think, impossible. For example: how do you structure your life? How do you live day by day? If you abide by the laws set by your country, why? If you don't, why not? We all operate on principles, and those principles are founded upon ideologies. If I act onto my fellow man as I would they act onto me, that itself is an ideology as ancient as man.
The point you're getting at, I think, is that atheism is not the same as theism. I don't disagree, but I think that the state of non-belief is ultimately an irony, as those who claim to possess it still, nevertheless, live by other principles. As such, I don't think that the distinction here should be drawn across theism vs. atheism, but how *much* beliefs and dotrines mean to you. The "natural state" that you speak of, to me, is then not chaos - but indifference.
-
Do you truly believe that for a human to consider himself an atheist he has to be either a rationalist or an antitheist?
Depends on the definition you use for atheism, I guess. I think that's more pertinent here than how I define ideology.
Personally, someone who believes in neither the existence nor non-existence of divine entities is not atheist, but agnostic. If, on the other hand, you believe that divine forces do not exist, period, and is fanatically so in your belief, then you are an atheist, and uphold one of the atheist ideologies (there are others apart from rationalist/antitheist). If you don't really care, then you're simply a non-believer, which you may define either as agnostic, non-theist, or atheist. The terminology really doesn't matter.
My point was simply that *any* sort of belief can be taken to the fanatical extreme, in which case it becomes an ideology. As such, I don't think that religion is to blame here. If not Christianity or Islam, then certainly some other brand of ideology would take its place - nationalism, for example, is an alternative adopted by nations that do not have strong religious backgrounds.
-
Either one from dictionary.com will do:
1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
But I have a feeling that what's worth arguing is ideology in the sense of a system of control based on a common universalizing belief, as is in the case of Iran.
-
For it to be an ideology, a human would have to build his entire set of beliefs around it, political, cultural, social, you name it. And I very much doubt that a man could achieve such a deed. It just doesn't seem feasible.
Paradoxically, it is very much possible to build a system of beliefs on the absence of belief itself.
However, you're right in that I misused the term in my haste to post earlier. Atheism is what can be considered an overarching typology, much as theism refers to a myriad of different beliefs. For the discussion of atheism to make sense, one must suggest what branch of atheism we're talking about. I contend that there are two major ones of interest:
Scientific Empiricism: the belief that everything in the world can be explained through science, which easily becomes an ideology by way of glorifying rationalism.
Antitheism: the belief that religion is evil, a system of control, etc. This is really what I was referring to when I threw out the term atheism, since it made sense in the context of the religion-bashing, and is an ideology in and of itself.
-
Oh? And which mindset are you stuck in? The enlightened vision that gave birth to the laughable imposture known as the United Nations?
No.
The one that led to capitalism running rampant?That would be the US.
The one that's leading to globalization?Again, the US.
Or maybe you're more of a Marxist type of guy? Yeah, Marxism was awesome. Damn shame it's failed everytime anyone has tried to implement it. Marx failed to take into consideration a little but fundamental factor when elaborating sociopolitical and economic theories. He forgot about human nature.You have no idea what you're talking about. For starters, Marxism is not the same as Communism, and "Marxist" theory can range from the realization that the accumulation of capital is the driving force of modern history to the literary critique of use and exchange value. A Marxist, in this sense, is simply one who subscribes to the economic principles and methodologies posed by Marx in Das Kapital or any of his other works. Communism, by contrast, is a political and economic ideology exploited by dictators for the sake of power. Other than the utopian vision of post-capitalist society purportedly shared by the two movements, they have little in common in practice, and it would be foolish to assume that Marx, if he lived that long, would have supported any of the Communist dictators.
To state that Marx "forgot" about human nature completely misses the point of Das Kapital and his comprehensive analyses of historical capitalism.
I hear what you say about the evils of imperialism and how there's no reason for empires to exist anymore. In your world of chocolate and gingerbread, that is.Empires have not always existed in this world, especially not empires of the sort we're talking about. The modern imperial power was made possible by the immense industrial and technological advantage accrued through the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions in Europe. Without the benefits of either, Europe would simply be another set of nation-states amidst a world of nation-states. To not see this, and to generalize modernity across the breadth of history, is ridiculous.
You obviously haven't given much thought to why empires exist, or otherwise, you would realize how sadly unrealistic your discourse is. The reason why there are, have been, and there will be empires is simple. There just isn't enough of anything for everyone. Quite simply, we're just too many, and resources are too few. Which basically means that to enjoy the very comfortable first-world life you lead, people have to suffer and die. When I see you giving up your lifestyle and going to live under a rock, I'll take you seriously. Until then, you're just another armchair humanitarian. Another goddamn hypocrite.I find it funny that you hold these opinions as if they were gospel, and then turn back and criticize the guy who formally theorized much of it as an idiotic idealist. Not only that, but you misunderstand the very essence of the argument that history is a struggle for natural resources. Namely, you mistake greed for necessity: there are certainly enough resources for the survival, and even contentment, of the human race. There is not enough resources for those who always want more.
Empires serve those who always want more.
Btw, being a hypocrite would involve me actively working against that which I believe in, and a first world life style is damaging only insofar as it is done in ignorance. Since you know neither what I do nor how I got to the US, I recommend restraint before you make a complete fool out of yourself. Just in case you insist on arguing this point: giving up my "first world" life style changes nothing. What must happen for suffering to end is systematic change, and systematic change is best effected at the level of those who are in power. Therefore, being in the first world allows me the ability to effect changes where they will make the most difference. Crawling under a rock in the third world, on the other hand, will do little more than distribute what influence I hold onto the likes of you. I'm sure you see the logical fallacy of your argument.
I also find it funny that you depend so much on assumptions of my person, and yet the first time I make the observation that you've never truly fought for the democracy you take for granted, you throw a fit on how I shouldn't make assumptions about who you are. Who is the real hypocrite here?
This is where you are wrong. The US will fall eventually, but other will take its place (provided there's no nuclear war). This is backed by housands of years of human History. On the other hand you rely on... your daydreams of a world of happy faces, peace, and streets paved with candy, to make those predictions.Thousands of years of human history under a single global hegemony, or even a local empire of the sort extended by the Europeans? Please refrain from your own breed of daydreaming, for your understanding of history is rather embarassing.
That's just nonsense. A "multi-polar" world, as you describe it, only drives to widespread warfare until a hegemony is stablished once again, as it's happened time after time before. And everytime the "old elites" are given a run for their money, it's only so a new elite can replace it. So, yeah.Widespread warfare is made possible by the imbalance of power, not the contraposition of it. Global hegemony has not reduced the number of wars the US engages in, and did not do so for any empire that ever existed. Warfare is a constant *either way*, while exploitation is far worse in an unipolar world. Your misunderstanding of history is at the center of your assumptions. No offense, but you've said nothing here that hasn't been posed before by others, and all of the points you've raised have been the heavily criticized opinions of US hawks - the laughing stock, in some cases, of those who see it for what it really is: imperialistic propaganda.
I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism for a discussion of it.
Finally, whether I am detached from reality is not for you to decide. I fail to see the point of continuous ad hominem attacks except to cause a mod to close this thread, so let that be a warning to you if you are serious about the discussion, which I don't think you really are anyhow. Still, I'll entertain this thread a little while longer.
-
if a person with mpd threatens to commit suicide is it considered a hostage situation?
Depends on which personality's doing the judging
-
Religion is not inherently mind-control. Those who depend on it for the legitimacy of their authority, however, inevitably make it so. But how's that different than any other ideology? Before you vilify religion, remember that the Nazis relied on no established religion, but their own dogma based upon nationalism, scientific racism, and cultural supremacy. And of course, who could forget the atrocities committed by Stalin in the name of Communism?
All forms of ideology can be equally dangerous when misapplied, and that includes atheism.
-
It's not the same. In that case, there wasn't much choice but to cooperate, as the country had already been crushed militarily. It wasn't a civil war in which one of the factions was backed by the US.
And let me ask, who exactly would supply the weapons to this so-called rebellion against Fox's government? China and Russia propped the Vietnamese. Who would prop Mexico against the US?
Not only you need to read more history, you also need to watch the news more often. It's happening in Iraq right now, buddy.What, exactly, is happening in Iraq? Bush has toppled the Saddam government. He's plunged a country into ethnic strife and civil war. Sure, he hasn't exactly succeeded in owning the place, but he's damn well set them back twenty years in terms of develoment. Like I said earlier: Mexico can go the same way and become a terrorist state. But how would that help their living conditions? It clearly hasn't helped the Iraqis.
That sounds pretty goddamn apologetic to me.There's nothing in that statement that suggests apologetism. No, Castro *cannot* run a happy country when there's an area wide embargo and sanction against him. That doesn't mean his country was happy to begin with, or that if US sanctions/embargo lifted Cuba would become a Communist paradise. It simply says that you can't run a happy country while being sanctioned and embargo'd. What the hell do you think economic warfare is supposed to do, if not wreck a country's chance at development?
<snipped rest of your post since it's basically come down to "no, you're wrong">
The US act just like the Roman, British, French, and Spanish empires did, only with today's means. You love to throw mud at your country (or the strategic ally of your country) while you dream of worlds in pink. But if it wasn't for the very policy you hate, you probably wouldn't even have the luxury of considering those thoughts.I'm not sure about the Romans, but last I checked the British, French, and Spanish empires were systematically dismantled and vilified. Last I checked, "Imperialism" became a dirty word right around the time of decolonization. The US is about the only true empire left in the world, and there's no reason why it - or any other empire - should exist. Wasn't that the whole purpose of decolonization, self-determination, the formation of the UN, etc. or are you still stuck in the mindset of the 18th century?
It's no world of pink to desire an end to neo-colonialism, and there's nothing inevitable about US dominance. In fact, in the coming years, I expect to see it dismantled piece by piece. That, consequently, is what makes my argument sensible - because I don't think that world politics is a zero-sum game, where if the US relinquishes hegemonic status someone else will take its place. A multi-polar world, for all the dangers associated with it, seems far more preferrable in the long run, and I wouldn't mind seeing the old elites given a run for their money.
I can only hope that whatever governments in power (across the globe) would be sensible enough to understand the passing of an unipolar world rather than lash out against humanity one last - and apocalyptic - time.
-
Try reading "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq," Kinzer.
Or http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project...entions_project
Of course, that's only one side of the story. I'm sure those supportive of US interventionism abroad have their takes, too. However, facts cannot be disputed, and I've never seen anyone dispute the fact that the US has overthrown a hell of alot of governments - many of them classified as democracies. It's only a matter of whether the US considers its actions justified... And whether the governments in question, so to speak, were legitimate in the US's eyes. Of course, illegitimacy in this case can range anywhere from a supposedly botched election to religion (ie Iran's current government). Yet truth reveals itself, I think, when you compare the governments that the US overthrows to the governments that we support/establish afterwards. Saddam Hussein? The Taliban? The Shah of Iran? The list goes on and on.
And the trouble is, given Bush's actions or at least intentions in Iraq, Haiti, and Venezuela, I don't see how greatly we've changed since the days of the Cold War. Of course, in this day and age when the shadow of the USSR no longer looms over the globe, people are wont to be alot less tolerant of the US's actions.
-
If there weren't factions in those countries willing to sell their own people for money (as those governments are invariably corrupt), that kind of foreign policy would be unfeasible for the US. They couldn't do that in (western) Europe, for instance.
Again, they are just not ready to have democracy. And it shows.
There are *always* people within nations willing to sell their own people for money. None in Western Europe? You mean aside from the quislings that cooperated with Hitler's every whim after he invaded their countries, including turning over their own citizens for death camps? I didn't see a massive rebellion in France, Poland, Czevkoslavkia, etc. Did you?
Let's not go into the whole "if it were Americans we'd fight to the last man" theory, cause the last time Americans did that was well over 300 years ago, and even then not all the colonies supported the independence. The reality is that the average citizen cares only about self-preservation and would not lift a gun for any ideology. It takes a rare leader (such as Ho Chi Minh) to unite a people under a common cause. Citing the lack of one as an inherent weakness in a country's people is more or less absurd.
Also, I'd like you to present evidence (actual evidence, not another of your pamphlets) to back your claims regarding those alleged schemes to overthrow or kill Chavez.Like what? What would you consider evidence? We've got former CIA agent Felix Rodriguez affirming that Bush was planning the downfall of the Chavez government, and that should be sufficient for the purpose of my argument.
Not really. But how is the US going to stop a civil war? Like in Iraq?Right.
Same way we stopped Castro when his government won against the American-backed Batista government. Let me remind you: the US has claimed absolute hegemony over the foreign politics of Mexico as per the Monroe Doctrine. While Bush's attempts to isolate Iran have failed due to China and Russia, this will not happen with Mexico, and any attempts to aid a potentially rival government in Mexico will undoubtedly result in full scale retaliation. There is no way that the US will allow a potentially independent (as in the sense of being able to forge its own national destiny apart from US goals) government to arise in Mexico. The US has made that quite clear over the years declaring Mexico as its own backyard.
Who's arguing who is right and who is wrong? As I said before, it's a matter of interests. The US do the only thing anyone in their right mind would do, protect their interests. On the other hand, it's you who's apologetic of a dictatorship.I never apologized for Castro's government. That's you putting words into my mouth. I merely used him as an example for US interventionism and the price one must pay for trying to go up against the US, which you pleasantly ignore in declaring that if Mexicans really wanted a better life they should just go up against Fox's government instead of immigrating to the US. Sorry, but the latter is a hell of alot more realistic than the former even with US troops on the border.
]That sounds like lame excuses.Only to someone who turns a blind eye to the practical reality of military logistics. Weren't you criticizing me for having an idealistic view of the world earlier? In Vietnam the US was literally fighting blind. In Mexico we would have the full support of the elite plus existing military bases in the area, not to mention any country capable of significant military and economic support would be an ocean away and unlikely to care. Any sane Mexican should rather take his chances with the border patrol.
Are you talking about the military dictatorships of the 70's? Again, those people had the support of many within their own country.And Fox's government is supported by the rich elite of his country, but that's exactly the problem isn't it? The rich lording it over the poor - who are powerless to change their own circumstances due to the stratified caste system. You might want to read this article:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05199/539779.stm
Neat. Next time you make an argument that's difficult to refute, I'm going to use that line as well. Not that that's going to happen anytime soon, though.Get a list of the last dozen or so Mexican presidents and their cabinets. Count the number of dark-skinned people, compare that to the % of dark-skinned population at large, and then argue that I'm wrong. But really, do we even need to know that the elite is white to know that it's an oppressive regime that perpetuates the division between rich and poor while promoting immigration to the US so as to get rid of its impoverished? Are you really arguing that the Bush administration should be building a wall when it could be taking a stand against the source of the problem: the corruption of Fox's government?
The US seems perfectly willing to overthrow democratic governments hostile to its goals in the name of freedom and humanitarian value. Getting rid of Fox should be no problem, right?
I had to ask.
One specific comment:
I really like this sort of in-depth interaction with the devs and think that it's a great idea overall (thought it might help in he popularity if the NWN 2 board could've also participated). Good night all.
9/11, Loose Change
in Way Off-Topic
Posted · Edited by Azarkon
Why? Because simplicity is equivalent to ignorance? Taking into account every single fact before you come up with a "simple" explanation is not called complicating the issue. It's called being responsible.
In other words, the statement that the simplest explanation is often the right one presumes that you've got all the evidence. Otherwise, you're just being ignorant.