Posts made by CommissarYarric

I never did understand the whole “over-qualified” reason for not hiring someone. I know it happens, but you would think you would want someone who is too good for the job, he would be amazing at it.
Anyway, on the topic of unemployment, if you had nationalized industries the government could correct it much more efficiently by expanding those industries and creating new jobs. Im quite sure Britian did this after world war 2, when they nationalized the coal, railroad, and steel industry, and it worked quite well (although steel was recently re-privatized, the fools :x ). With a reduced unemployment rate, the costs of supporting the unemployed for longer amounts of time would be easily managable, so you would not need to cut them off at a specific time.

Actually the US could not even reach the sea zones around the Dutch East Indies for quite a while. Japan did not have much oil, though, because it lacked a large merchant marine fleet. It did not have the ships to carry the oil to Japan. Their income is too high (they were the weakest of all the major powers [Italy doesnt count]) but for game balance they needed a boost. It doesnt matter if its historically accurate if it is boring, so for the sake of game balance it is fine

Im somewhere in the middle, but thats becuase im either extreme right or extreme left. Im a socialist, since i dont think poeple should suffer and die from economic situations often outside their control, or even if they just screw up really bad. i dont think that the people who do make so mcuh money really deserve to hoard it (it doesnt benefit anyone including them, and their contributions to the company are not that much more than anybody else’s many times) the situation varies, but in the end i think that the benefits providing by a partially socilaized country outweigh any negative aspects.
When it comes to issues such as morality and security issues, im normally right wing bordering on Fascist. War is almost always justified (situational, of course), pro-life, anti-gay marriage, saftey over liberty, etc… The reasons vary, but in general i think we should uphold traditional values and dissaude people from the modern trends of individualism and greed.

If i hated Jewish people, i would be classified as a Nazi 8) (remember, he hated communists, not socialists, he was a socialist) Join the Yarric Youth Groups! :D

I think Mutha Russia phrased it wrong. Im not sure what it is myself, but im guessing Relativism is the idea that any action or idea can be considered good or bad, depending on the person veiwing it, and RIGHTLY considered so. Essentially it opposes the concept of absolute truths, where certain actions or properties are inherently bad.

Thats just a guess, though, correct me if im wrong.

In my personnal opinion, reletavism is just a bunch of crap invented by people to justify their amoral and hedonists tendencies. It is the refuge of the weak willed, who cannot control their impulses. I give in to tempation once in a while, but i realize it is bad and punish myself, i dont try to justify it by saying that the conditions made it ok. There are certain laws that universally apply, and if you break it you are doing wrong. It may have some validity, but its twisted way too much to justify evil, and should be discouraged.

If i ruled the world, I would not tolerate such foolishness! :D

i dont think it was the alliance system exactly, but the way all the countries handled their allainces. Before 1914 the countries used their allainces to pressure there allies into avoiding war, while in 1914 countries like Austria and Russia used thier allainces to pressure Germany and France INTO a war. Also, before around 1905 (Russo-Japanses war), the way war was conducted prevented such a long conflict from occuring. There were wars (Franco-Prussian, Six weeks war, Crimean war, etc.) but they were wars of movement and armies, not total wars of trenches and entire nations.

Im officialy a comrade now, pretty sweet. Fear my bolshevik hordes! 8)

(scampers over to defend Jeff from the evil Liberals :P )
Alright, ill do my best to refute everything that November said, becuase its fun, and im a homophobe who thinks all homosexuals should be banished to an island, becuase i dont want them contaminting my community.
Sarcasm aside, im not in support of gay marriages, and i liked jeff’s rant, so here goes.
Point number One: He is not saying that he habors hatred towards homosexuals, but homosexulaity. There is a big difference. He despises the concept of same sex relations, but, unlike what many people would do, he still treats people who possess those characteristics with decency and respect. Ill get into the same rights thing when you do.
Point number Two: Homosexualtiy and religion are not compatible in that context. Religion encompasses a wide variety of feilds, such as theology, morlaity, law, philiosophy, etc., and is far more complex than just wahat you say someone cant do. Homosexualtiy, on the other hand, is just one thing: Same sex relations. There is no other definition for homosexulas in relation to that characteristic besides that of what thye do, which is not true about religion. Also, ill get into this later, no one has ever said that gay should not have equal rights, and they dont have any rights that heterosexuals have, so the slavery reference does not apply (also, you could argue that homosexuality is a choice of sorts, while race is uncontrollable, but i wont get into that). Bear with me, ill explain in a sec. In reference to the china quote, he was talking about universal rights in the legal sense. he was saying that governments have not set up a law code that every coutnry is forced to obey right (UN tried, failed), and that the rights that governments gove it’s citizens can be changed in a legal sesne, so there are no universal “legal” rights.
Point three: you mentioned the fact that a legal construct is a right, but what Jeff was saying was that it is not a universal, constant right. Like the china refernec, the government could take away those rights, and they would be gone. poof.
Point Four: ok heres the whole equal rights thing, and here is my point: homosexuals AND heterosexuals are not allowed to marry people of the same sex, and homosexuals are allowed to marry poeple of the opposite sex. They all have the same rights, the homosexuals just want more rights for everyone. It isnt a debate of same rights, but more rights. And before you contridict yourslef by saying that those rights favor one gorup over the other, a law that bans marriages for people below 18 favours people above 18, and laws that ban crude language on public television favours those on private networks.
Point five: Same as above

Owning people is fun :D . Seriously, im sure my argument has some holes, look forward to filling them up with your help!

Yarric

While im not sure of the exact contents, they did find chemical weapons delivery systems, even if the chemical weapons themsleves were not present (destoryed, most likely, since it would be like a building a nuclear warhead without Urainium), which violate the treaty. Also, to me it does not matter what weapons he had or did not have, he was slaughtering his citizens. If Germnay had never gone past the gain of the munich conference, but convinced all it’s allies to deport jews to germnay and began slaughtering them (he would have about 2 million to kill), do you think a war with him would be justified? (the answer is yes, in case you have no, or very twisted, morals :P ) its the same thing with iraq, even if it was not on the same scale.

Now that ive said that, i would appreciate if you mentioned something on topic along with the iraq debate. While Austria’s actions with Serbia were pretty bad, using the knoweldeg that the austrian;s had they could be justified. When you look at the demands, thye did not actually harm the Serbain state physically, it just impinged on theri soveriegnty in regards to the conviction of members of Anti-Austrian terrorists. Serbia could ahve accepted them, it would not have been harmed physically, although it’s pride would have been shot, burned, ressurected, and shot again. A COnflict between Austria and the midget state of Serbai did not have to invlove the rest of the big 6 (Germany, Britian, Russia, France, and Italy), which is why i blame Russia. Thye were not ready for war, had little monetary value invested in Serbia, and could have let the conflict play out. Thye decided to go to war with Austria, and obviously Germany as well, depsite Germany’s attempts at diplomacy. Furthermore, they dragged France into the mix with their allaince. Austria may have lit the match, but Russia lit the fuse.

Also i would like to hear from the person who said that britian was to blame, that would be interesting :D. And no one has said france…you would think with all the french bashing these days they would score a few votes :lol: .

America isnt immune to imperialism and greed, just look at the mexican american war. We got alot of colonies form Spain, over a really stupid reason that we used to go to war, just like what Austria-Hungary was trying to with Serbia. The American people were behind the war, so the government was able to do it, thats about the only real difference (And America won :D )

Also, im quite certain that the Black Hand was not sponsored by the government of Serbia. THye may have received training and weapons there, but it was not state sponsered, so Austria blaming the state is unjustified.

F_alk,
Germnay did make several attempts at diplomacy. Wilhelm II did send a telegram to Nicolas II when he began mobilizing his armies, which reduced the full mobilization to a partial mobilization, and they sent chancellor Hollweg to negotiate with them. Nicolas II changed his mind, though, and expelled Hollweg and rnewed th mobilization, pratically declaring war on Germany. The blank check was diplomacy. They were saying that they agreed with Austria about Serbia and would back them, something they kinda had to do becuase of the dual alliance. Thier tactics were overly offesnive, but so was France’s. They employed plan number 175 (or some number around there), which was a mass charge into Alsac-Lorraine, then on into the heartland. They charged and got slaughtered. Countries tend to prepare for the next war by looking at the last (Maginot line in ww2), and the Franco-prussian war was won by speed and offense, so it made sense at the time to attack.

In reference to Irish terrorism, i wont deny that England was extremely harsh on the Irish when they controlled them, but that does not justify attacks on random citizens who were born years after Ireland gained it’s independence. If wales and Scotland really wanted independence, thye could get it, but they dont. Scotland has it’s own Parlement, and are satisfied with the current conditions. Last time i went to scotland (last year) i asked people what thye thought about independence and thye did not think it was necessary. I cant speak about Wales, but i think the situation is similar

It is possible for something to be everyones fault, just becuase it can be twisted to justify dictators does not mean it cant apply

Me and Smith got a big debate going on who cuased WW1 in the “Axis always win” forum, so i wanted to hear what everyone else thinks about the topic. Since ive already typed alot on this and im lazy, ill repeat my position from the other forum, and see what you guys think. I personally think It was a combination of Austria and Russia, not Germany

Austria would have gone to war with Serbia anyway, they were already beginning partial mobilization. This would have caused France and Russia to go to war with Austria due to their allaince with Serbia, and Gemrnay would have done the same .The “Blank Check” that Germany gave Austria was in reference to Serbia, stating that they would back Austria’s actions in Serbia. Neither of them thought that Russia was willing to go to war, believing Russia was not ready. (it wasn’t, as Tannenburg, the Brusilov offensive, and eventually the Bolshevik revolution showed) They had no reason to, but Nicolas had a point of pride to preserve as defender of the balkans, and did. When Russia began mobilizing, Chancellor Hollweg began negotiations with Russia on July 30th to prevent war, but Russia decline and began mobilizing again. Only when Russia cut off all negotiations with Germany and renewed it’s mobilization, did Germany declare war on Russia and begin it’s own mobilization. They never threatened France, but France, not wishing to lose face by dishonoring their allaince with Russia, (Which was why Germany gave Austria the “blank check”, because of their Dual Alliance) and wishing to restore the former glory of France and redeem itself from the Franco-Prussian war, declared war on Germany. If Germany had not mobilized and gone to war with Russia, they would have been overran by Russia, and their sovereignty was more important than any war, which most people thought would be over in a few months, even weeks. If Germany had forced Austria not to go to war with Serbia, than the war could have been avoided. However, if Austria had never givin such unbelievibly harsh demands to Serbia, if Russia had never foolishly began mobilizing to protect Serbia, and if France had not been so bent on preserving and redeeming it’s prestige, the war could also have been avoided. It’s foolish to think that only Germany was the cause of the war. Both Austria and Russia did just as much to cause such a war.

Anyway, thats my opinion. Try to tear me apart, state your own case, or defend me, wanna know what people in America (or Europe, Asia, etc…) think.