World Diplomacy Simulation for College students.

By gum, that CIA poison takes it’s time.

Considering I plan to live forever (or die trying!) I will see the sun go supernova!

Gargantuism is the master religion of all religions, didn’t you know?

@frimmel:

@Jermofoot:

With all the talk about BCS, I wonder why there is need for one.

Also, the game last night was great.  8-)

There wasn’t a need for it. In Div 1 college football the champ has always been ‘mythical.’ The result of a vote. No. 1 rarely played No. 2 in the Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl although No. 1 might be playing in the Rose Bowl and No. 2 in the Orange Bowl.

I don’t have much preference either way, but I find it a ridiculous topic to spend so much time on.  People will complain about the system no matter what.  Look at the NFL this year and complaints about a team with a better record not making it to the playoffs compared to another team with a crappy record in a really weak division.

@ABWorsham:

I know, they knocked my 13-3 Cowboys out of the playoffs!  :oops:
And thats all I will speak of the Dallas Cowboys, I’m still in shock about this year.

Coming from another long time (casual) Cowboy fan, I’m not in shock that Romo choked once again when it counted.  And yes, I put the majority of the blame on him.  Had the offense been good, the minor problems the defense had would not have been so painful.

@frimmel:

So for you guys Champion is ‘playing best at the end of the season’?

I think that would make sense.  A team playing well throughout the season will get honors and benefits (home field advantage, first round bye, etc.) that should assist them/reward in the post season.  I know it’s more pronounced in the NFL, but it does exist to a degree in college.

But really, the season has to end at some point, and you couldn’t crown a champ midway or even before the last game.

@M36:

Speaking of Korea though, it is true that South Korea is an immensely prosperous nation, while North Korea languishes in poverty. South Korea became “Americanized” and now places that where once rice patties and dusty mountain roads are prosperous metropolises. ( I know this because my sister is serving in Korea with the Army engineers) Without our intervention, South Korea would have been conquered, and would be no better off than North Korea is under the heel of communism. The Korean conflict was one of our more noble military ventures.

Sure, military means money.  S. Vietnam had a huge jump in economy when we were there that mostly collapsed after we left.  It would happen no matter where we go.

However, the state of Korea today has less to do with them being dirty communists, and more with the disintegration of the USSR and a horrible famine during the 90’s.  They simply could not support themselves because their primary trading partner disappeared and was unable to supply what they needed, only to be subjected to a series of disastrous floods and drought.  Of course, it’s not helped by their military-oriented economic policy, but we do similar and still sustain ourselves (but we’ve got the goods).

But we took a number of casualties in Korea, was it worth that sacrifice of American lives? As a Marine I believe we are all expendable to accomplish our mission, but the call is yours. How many of us will you sacrifice to accomplish the objective? You should be willing to sacrifice all of us. That kind of resolve no longer exists in America.

Tough to say.  As an elite group of fighters, I wouldn’t send Marines in frivolously.  When it comes to Korea, we are exactly where we were after WW2 (except no skirmishes and such).  So did it do any good?  I guess so, primarily economically.  Are your lives worth promoting the economy of another country?  Are anyone’s?  Especially when that country actually competes with our own?

But here’s the thing: we installed an unpopular dictator in S. Korea that resigned.  A military coup followed that was just was tyrannical and ruthless.  It really goes unnoticed because the economy surged and we “saved” them from communism.  But I don’t think we accomplished all that much.

I’m not sure when or where you guys should be deployed.  Hopefully never, but that’s a pipe dream.

@whoman69:

I wouldn’t at all say stomped.  In fact he was not defeated, merely not able to further advance due to the logistics.

Logistically, beginning the overland journey from Boston to Quebec City in September was a dumb idea to begin with, but Arnold then lost the part of his army that hadn’t died from disease or exposure in his attack on the city itself. The city was held with the loss of only 5 of its defenders. Arnold should get credit, however, for having his men going into the attack on Dec 31st knowing that their enlistment was up the following day…

Uhm, this is normal.

During the olympic hostages Pres. Carter hummed and hawed and wondered what to do.  Russia found the brother of the terrorist leader and mailed him a testicle with a little note saying “more to follow.”

They got their athletes back next day WITH a televised apology.  America got theirs back after a major financial transaction and many weeks without an apology….

Guess who has problems with terrorists today and who doesnt?

@TG:

Yeah, those “hard” deadlines for one. cough cough

OK, I was saying a “US-style” “hard” deadline, rather than the “UN-style” “you’ve got 15 days…ok 60 days…ok 1 year…ok 12 years” “hard” deadline. Ya got me :roll: …

Re: “survival of the fittest” I meant DasEwokSS’s suggestion that its ok for powerful nations to swallow weaker ones because that’s somehow the natural order of things. May work for Ewoks, not for humans. I assume he was being tongue-in-cheek…

Ozone27