Posts made by 221B Baker Street

Looks like the situation is finally improving, although certainly not yet good:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/ap_on_re_eu/france_rioting_fr1;_ylt=AlI0CoP19CmVirRpoe4tVUMDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Hopefully this will finally die down now as seems to be happening.Â

But what can be done in France to prevent this from happening again?  What lessons can be learned that we can apply here in the US (or in Canada, UK , etc. as well) so that this doesn’t happen elsewhere?Â

The answers to these questions really hinge on the main point of WHY this happened.  Is it because the immigrants are mistreated or discriminated against (see the high unemployment)?  Is it because they don’t like the French (considering themselves something different, perhaps Algerian or even Muslem  :-o  )?  Is it some bad combination of these factors and perhaps other factors?

@cystic:

Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an
event called the “World Series” for a game which is not played outside of
America.

This must come as a shock to the Toronto Blue Jays.  All along they thought they were playing in Canada :wink:

Why is “too conservative” a problem for being a supreme court justice? No one complained about Ginsberg being “too liberal.” If the candidate is qualified, then what is the issue. After all the justices don’t make the law… or do they? :wink:

Falk,

We have a saying here that fits a bit: “to cast out Satan with the help of Beelzebub”

I’d change your saying. This was the charge the Pharisees had against Jesus for casting out demons. Jesus’ response was “A house divided against itself cannot stand” clearly implying that he was God, not Satan. The implication I draw from your application of this saying is that the West is divided as to how to deal with Saddam and the terrorism threat and therefore will fail. I don’t think you mean that … or perhaps I am misunderstanding your application of this saying.

W. Africa is just as close to Egypt as S. Africa. I’d rather buy two transports as UK and take Africa back from there than buy a S. Africa factory. The transports are more useful.

I know firsthand about the helmet issue. WEAR THEM! I’ve got one that is flat on one side from a bad bike accident… and I only had to get three stitches :)

So it was all just an honest mistake?

The Iraq war was justified by more than just the (now seemingly wrong) WMD issue. But even with them aside, the mature response from the Democrats should be that yes we all had bad intel, but now that we are there we need to fix Iraq before we leave. Its Colin Powells Pottery Barn rule.

Its ok, even admirable, to look into why the intel was wrong (if it was). But it appears to me that the Democrats are only trying to find a political tool out of this rather than really trying to fix anything. If I am correct then the Democrats won’t be getting my vote because this action does not help me. I’d rather they try to fix what (if anything) went wrong.

Of course, for the Axis to win, generally Russia must die. So all efforts should be directed towards that end. Falks idea of tricking the US to engage in the Pacific reduces the reinforcements the US provides to Russia.

You might also want to consider if the Axis can “lurch” to an economic victory by taking territories that cannot be kept for more than one round. But if at the end of a round they hold enough territory, the game is over. I’d only do this if I thought it possible in the course of a game due to how it played out. I wouldn’t intentionally try for this because its unlikely the Allies will allow the Axis to get close to this.

One thing I have seen is that Japan lands its fighters in Germany to help defend it from the Allies. You should consider this even at the risk of losing your fighters because if Germany falls, Japan is not going to win.

I’d also seriously consider rolling for tech as Japan once you reached a point where you can do so and still send 10+ inf into Asia a turn. I’d hope to get Industrial Technology (turning 10+ inf into 15+) and/or Heavy Bombers. These two technologies can really help if you get them.

The problem is that

1. The US/UK can also afford to tech, matching or exceeding your efforts
2. This reduces (for a while) the force in Asia which might have otherwise won the game.

But with good Allied play, the Axis is going to need something to overcome the economic advantage of the Allies.

Thanks for the input BlackWatch. Of course purchases are dependant on many factors, but that is what I wanted to discuss.

I like the idea of subs in the Pacific (if Japan has IT) to try to knock out the transports. I have thought this might be a weak point for the axis, but have never tried this in a real game. The closest I have tried is retreating the sub in HI towards Japan, then attacking transports with this sub and the fighter in China (got lucky with it surviving). Have you ever tried (and been successful) this approach?

I’ve never tried the BB constant bombardment of W. Europe. Assuming this produces a net gain of 6 to 9 ipc a turn, the extra BB would be responsible for 2-3 ipcs (divided by 3) and would pay for itself in about 10 turns. It does divert infantry from the Eastern front, but I dunno if the money couldn’t have been better spent elsewhere… Has anyone tried this before?

Which is a better purchase for $24 (ok, AC and trans costs a bit more but still almost the same price)? When and why?

No question Iran is a dangerous nation. Are they correct that the Palestinians can/will destroy Israel - I doubt it! Will they nuke Israel once they develop this capability? Will Israel take preemptive action, as they did to Iraq in the 80’s?

CC, I’m not sure their elections having taken place is a valid reason to not invade. But there are lots of more pragmatic reasons why we are not going to invade:

1. We don’t have the military capability to do so (sorry Marine, but we clearly do not). Iran is 4X the size of Iraq, and to invade we would need to ramp up our forces on a scale not seen since at least Vietnam, if not WWII. Is anyone going to re-instate the military draft? :lol: Additionally, we are still stuck in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And finally, there does remain the possibility of WMD’s being used by Iran in its defense.

2. Its not clear that this would really solve anything. The hatred of Israel (and also the West in general) in the Middle East is shared by other nations. Has our actions in Iraq helped or hurt? This is debateable, I refer everyone to previous threads, but uncertain. Not even Bush has the guts to take this kind of chance.

3. This would greatly disrupt the world’s economy since Iran is a major oil producer. With supplies very tight and getting tighter, and not much currently coming out of Iraq we could find ourselves in an economic depression and without enough oil to operate in Iran.

4. The effects on other nations would be unclear. Would there be a theocratic revolt in Saudi Arabia? What would nuclear and probably ICBM capable Pakistan do? Certainly the rest of the world would be appalled.

For these reasons, the problems with Iran will continue to be dealt with by a diplomatic fashion for the forseeable future, IMO. Iraq was invaded and occupied by the US, not because they were the greatest threat, but because it was (just) possible for us to do so, the intellegence on Saddam was wrong and because Saddam was uncooperative with the UN weapons inspectors (again IMO).

What I think will be interesting is how the shift in the power in Iraq from the Saddam based Sunnis to the Shite majority will affect Shite Iran in the long term. I think a sucessful moderate government, led by Shites in Iraq is the biggest threat to the current hardliners ruling in Iran, as the Iranians will ask why not us? After all, there is/was a strong movement in Iran to become more moderate. I don’t think the recent elections of the hardliners really show the true picture either, as elections can be “fixed” and changes do take time.

Time will certainly tell…

Mary,

Thanks for sharing your views. I don’t agree with them but I appreciate gaining a better understanding of where you are coming from.

Quote:
Secondly, I really think the point about normal procedures vs. rare exceptions does apply. It is rare (I hope and the few statistics available tend to show this) for atrocities as you describe in the US. And how do you know this doesn’t happen in France? And at what rate in France? As these things are usually hidden, we probably will never know for certain, but it seems the normal cell is better in the US than in France in all ways Chengora described. But again, the comparisons of the % of population favors France. Also, the death penalty is a rare occurance, even in Texas, and usually takes several decades of appeals. When people can die of old age before their penalty, I’m not sure why this is an issue.

I don’t know where you’re going with the first part.

Basically I’m responding to the part about forcing confession by torture. I should have been more clear, but I was trying to not write too much.

But our practice of holding people for years without even CHARGING them is shameful.

Strongly agree with this.

One other point:

I would also point out I would rather be wrongfully convicted of murder in France, than in Texas.

Since one murder conviction is very, very, very unlikely to result a death sentence even in Texas (you really have to have multiple convictions for really bad things and have very poor legal representation to receive the death penalty), give me Texas before France for this as well.

CC: I don’t have much first hand experience with death row, or with prison for that matter. However, the physical accomodations are better than in France. Whether or not capital punishment should be given is a different question altogether than the fact that our prisoners have their physical needs met and are treated with dignity and respect in as much as is realistic given the constraints of imprisonment. At Gitmo, on the other hand… :(

This has become interesting to me in many respects.

First, I find myself totally in contradiction with Mary - I’m for the death penalty (in rare circumstances only) and against abortion. Mary, unless I am mistaken about your views (correct me if I am wrong) you take the opposite view. I’d really like to understand how you conclude that abortion of an innocent baby is OK, but capital punishment for the worst mass murdering crack-addicted pedophile imaginable would not be acceptable. I’m not making light of your viewpoint, I just would like to know how you reconcile this.

Secondly, I really think the point about normal procedures vs. rare exceptions does apply. It is rare (I hope and the few statistics available tend to show this) for atrocities as you describe in the US. And how do you know this doesn’t happen in France? And at what rate in France? As these things are usually hidden, we probably will never know for certain, but it seems the normal cell is better in the US than in France in all ways Chengora described. But again, the comparisons of the % of population favors France. Also, the death penalty is a rare occurance, even in Texas, and usually takes several decades of appeals. When people can die of old age before their penalty, I’m not sure why this is an issue.

How can Americans even think to judge other countries’ penal systems when we still have something as barbaric as the death penalty in place?

I’m also not sure why the absence of the death penalty somehow makes the prison system more humane. Why is it barbaric? Some prisoners want to die because of guilt for their crimes - a life sentence could be viewed as worse. If we take the approach that prison should be a deterent to crime, perhaps this is better?! :o For that matter, how can France think to judge us (both in the States and Gitmo) if this is the best they can do for their prisoners? It does cut both ways here, although to be fair I am not sure how much of the Gitmo criticism is from France and how much from other places.

Finally, Chengora is right,

it’ll take a more nuanced approach

to answer all the questions brought up.

… why again should i refrain from pouring sh*t over US’ans ?

Because you are smart enough to know that IL does not represent all (or even most) Americans. That and you also are smart enough to realize he is trying to get a response out of you. :wink:

Usually what I do is just destroy the US Navy off HI. I generally don’t invade it until later in the game, all land forces and most of the aircraft are needed for the push towards Moscow. The reason to destroy the US Navy to to establish dominance for Japan in the Pacific (and somewhat reduce the US ability in the Atlantic later in the game). If the US wants to play games in the Pacific after this, thats fine with me - less Germany has to worry about and Japan will have the upper hand in this battle unless the US puts everything it has into the Pacific theater (probably a win for Germany :D ).

Generally, as the US I will try to retreat my remaining W. coast Navy to the Atlantic, or if the battle went my way I might counter-attack HI (there are other rare options I won’t discuss here), but do no more in the Pacific. I want to get to Europe ASAP to keep Germany (and Japan) from overwhelming Russia as this is usually the game make/break play.

Actually, to better define my position, I define a colony as a place where the culture of the first country, as well as a significant portion of the receiving areas population is transplanted from the mother country (as happened with Australia/NZ/US/Canada). This was not always the case with some colonies (French West Africa for example) and I would use another term (like subject nations rather than colonies).

Marine: So, what was the difference between the nation of Poland and the Cherokee nation? Or the nations/tribes in Africa before the colonial period?

I agree completely with CC.

Myself, I am against this concept except in the possible case of completely barren territory (like Mars). If the global warming predictions are true, it may be possible to colonate Antartica someday - although I believe most nations have signed a treaty to leave it uncolonized.

Yet one must also take into account when urgent needs of people must be met (I am thinking of refuges such as from the Irish potato famine). Immigration is a better solution to overpopulation problems - but it is understandable that other people would not necessarily want to absorb large numbers of culturally different people. And sometimes the land is then taken by force. So does anyone today criticize the Huns for taking what is now Hungary because they were chased out of Asia? These are not easy questions to answer IMO, but clearly the European colonists did not need the vast stretches of land they claimed.

True, but it cuts both ways

I agree.

Any way you slice it, I think the West (and to a lesser extent India, Russia, Indonesia/Bali, Phillipines, and much of the rest of the world) will be forced to deal with Islamic fanatics willing and eager to kill innocent civilians for a long time to come. This terrorism problem with AQ and similar organizations is going to take a long, long time to resolve regardless of how it is addressed by the West. The trick will be to find the best manner to do so. I’m not convinced GWB’s approach is the best, but neither (IMO) was the minimalist approach taken by Clinton. I really have no idea what the best approach might be.

According to the CIA, Iraq is turning into a training ground for terrorists. They come over, join the insurgency, and learn all the in’s and out’s.

True, but you cannot say Iraq is now a better training ground for AQ than Afghanistan was under the taliban. The Afghan training was unimpeded, while in Iraq the AQ terrorists are under direct counter attack whenever their presence is identified. And AQ, like the US, UK, cannot trust that the Iraqi people are always on their side. Many AQ terrorists have been identified and destroyed because local Iraqis provided the information necessary to do thies to the US, UK, Iraqi forces.