Is the game still in development?

[Frosty]

Wow, Fireskull, did you just completely disintegrate? I think you did.

Bandit: Your post was so completely off, and offensive,that I am not going to write a full reply simply to avoid a pointless discussion...

Aww, crycry, somebody disagreed with me on the Internet, I quit this game!

...where I would end up attacking you in a personal manner.

I think you're already there, buddy.

Anyway, I have to point out you managed to twist everything I said in a manner I never thought could be possible and I was totally suprised by your reply.

I didn't see any twisting at all. Maybe you could clarify for us all, but I know you won't. Instead, you'll tritely regurgitate well-worn eClichés and toss a few ad hominems around, smugly pat yourself on the back, and walk off delusionally satisfied that you've somehow convinced all of us to take you seriously.

My first paragraph actually, I have just read again what I wrote, where I basically say you are a blind patriot, only came out in that tone because of your own manner in replying to mine.

Yes, how dare he challenge your unassailable fortress of malformed opinion?

If you want the phone number of the teachers I spoke with I can give you to them, so you can find out where they finished their studies.

As a matter of fact, I do. Fire away.

I thought that placing the biography of the books I have studied wanst necessary either, since this is a informal discussion.

I believe you mean bibliography.

Informal discussion or not, this is a profound topic and deserves to be treated properly. I don't know how they typically play ball in your neck of the woods, but in this quadrant of the Internet, we like our inflammatory statements to come with some academic backup.

I will stop posting yes.. but only because you are a complete idiot.

Textbook ad hominem attack - good one, guy. Is that what they teach students in the fancy school you learned at? Let me guess: you picked that little number up from one of those history teachers you like so much.

Either participate in this discussion like a grown-up, or fuck off. If you can't handle people telling you you're wrong on the Internet, you won't last long here, and you certainly won't last long in the real world, either. Of course, I know you won't do either, but instead will continue to harass LOAF until he nukes you, because you're so utterly bereft of common sense it's all you know how to do.

 

[Nomad Terror]

And this, my friends, is why we have "sacred" debate topics that are not to be touched, such as politics, religion and WC movie canon.

It's not because your views are being oppressed; it's because neither side, assuming they are completely convinced of their correctness, could ever possibly sway the other side, and the debate turns into a giant argument and eventually a personal verbal brawl if it is not stopped.

Please try not to lose respect for any other members on account of this thread or any others like it.

 

[ChrisReid]

I will stop posting yes..

There.

Only a few more tries and you might get that "stop posting" thing down.

 

[klauss]

LOAF: Don't use the term banana republic if you don't mean it. I know you're kind of acid at times... but that's too acid. It's a very personal attack on us third world countries... it's like calling us "sudacas". That's probably why FS got so pissed.

That's pretty far afield from World War II.

Heck, your analogy doesn't even make sense in the popular sense -- the United States did an *amazing* job of running Japan after the war. The American occupation of Japan is the golden pillar that all future military occupations will strive to achieve -- it was non violent, well recieved and ended up turning the country into a global powerhouse.

Look at the japanese today... they're a mirror of American society... somehow (not completely, I grant). That's because they imposed their values. Well... I actually don't think it was such a bad thing in this particular case (although... according to my principles... it always is - I'm making a mistake here, but it's how I feel, their society was unfit for modern times, it was doomed to end up the way it did).

If that's true (if I didn't make a mistake in my appreciation of Japanese culture), then it only confirms my point: the US imposed their morality/way of life.

Wooky: don't worry... it was just a reference. I doubt it'll start yet another argument.
And I agree with what you said. Even if I myself am not all that well informed... we have all the means to get informed. My limited knowledge, for instance, comes from a very objective military chronicle of the war. Of course... for real appreciation I should read some other material, from a non-military POV. But my point is, I wasn't instructed to think the way I do... I arrived to my conclusions by myself.
I also agree Americans are really, really patriotic. Blindly patriotic. I've been to the US, and I can tell first hand: they will say all the normal things about the government, oppose them and all... among themselves. But they support their government 100% when it comes to international affairs. No matter which mistakes the governent is making in their own minds. (Any Americans: I don't know you... there must be exceptions... but everyone I met was like this, and it was quite some people). I'm not saying it was the reason for anything... but it's probably why Americans still support the decision.

Brad: I'm not saying anything against the facts about Japan's culture... only that Americans didn't understand it. Well... I think. And that probably contributed to miscalculating the readiness to surrender of the Japanese people.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

LOAF: Don't use the term banana republic if you don't mean it. I know you're kind of acid at times... but that's too acid. It's a very personal attack on us third world countries... it's like calling us "sudacas". That's probably why FS got so pissed.

That was exactly my point, though. He got pissed when I insulted his country... after foaming at the mouth that I wasn't objective because I was a "patriot". He fell right into a pretty blatant trap.

(... and you're doing it too, in this very post you've complained about how patriotic Americans are and also begged me not to insult your country. Everyone loves *their own* country.)

I also agree Americans are really, really patriotic. Blindly patriotic. I've been to the US, and I can tell first hand: they will say all the normal things about the government, oppose them and all... among themselves. But they support their government 100% when it comes to international affairs. No matter which mistakes the governent is making in their own minds. (Any Americans: I don't know you... there must be exceptions... but everyone I met was like this, and it was quite some people). I'm not saying it was the reason for anything... but it's probably why Americans still support the decision.

This is, of course, one of those stupid internet discussions for teenagers who are trying to impress girls and not a serious topic... but you can't seriously apply whatever you decided to half heartedly assume from a stupid internet discussion for teenagers who are trying to impress girls to a discussion of history. As I said several posts ago, no one in the universe can defend their countries actions in *history*. Being a 'patriot' - and who isn't, as you yourself proved - isn't the same thing as being unable to discuss history.

It's *certainly* not something you can throw around to avoid needing facts.

Brad: I'm not saying anything against the facts about Japan's culture... only that Americans didn't understand it. Well... I think. And that probably contributed to miscalculating the readiness to surrender of the Japanese people.

But we know that *isn't* true. We know Japanese people were prepared to die rather than surrender - we saw it in action over and over and over and over again... and we now know in retrospect that the military government *did* try to use force to prevent the surrender. There's no miscalculation here -- the United States got it right.

The United States didn't understand Japanese culture at the *start* of the war - they went into World War II thinking, just like you are now, that 'death before dishonor' was a romantic put on. In four years of fighting in the Pacific, the Japanese proved that it was not.

*You're* the one doing a disservice to the Japanese who fought that war by claiming that they'd secretly, unprovably be just like westerners when it comes to surrendering their country.

 

[klauss]

(... and you're doing it too, in this very post you've complained about how patriotic Americans are and also begged me not to insult your country. Everyone loves *their own* country.)

Hey... I'm patriotic. I like my country, as in the people inside. I despise my government, though. I was pointing out a difference, only, and for only that purpose: Americans may or may not despise their county's government, but they will support it always, until the next election. For them, their place is following the government until it's time for them to judge it, during elections. Call that right, wrong, or just a way - for me, it's just a way.

This is, of course, one of those stupid internet discussions for teenagers who are trying to impress girls and not a serious topic... but you can't seriously apply whatever you decided to half heartedly assume from a stupid internet discussion for teenagers who are trying to impress girls to a discussion of history. As I said several posts ago, no one in the universe can defend their countries actions in *history*. Being a 'patriot' - and who isn't, as you yourself proved - isn't the same thing as being unable to discuss history.

It's *certainly* not something you can throw around to avoid needing facts.

Certainly not. And I wasn't doing that. I was just saying that, internationally (I'm not sure domestically), America doesn't show the amount of controversy about the issue there should be, and I'm risking a nice rant from you about "should", I know. I conjectured that the reason for that is their blind patriotism.

But we know that *isn't* true.
...
*You're* the one doing a disservice to the Japanese who fought that war by claiming that they'd secretly, unprovably be just like westerners when it comes to surrendering their country.

Hm... perhaps.

 

[Nomad Terror]

I don't think you get it.

You need to stop relying on the weak "America is ignorant" rant and present some quotes from your sources so that an intelligent debate may take place.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Hey... I'm patriotic. I like my country, as in the people inside. I despise my government, though. I was pointing out a difference, only, and for only that purpose: Americans may or may not despise their county's government, but they will support it always, until the next election. For them, their place is following the government until it's time for them to judge it, during elections. Call that right, wrong, or just a way - for me, it's just a way.

Certainly not. And I wasn't doing that. I was just saying that, internationally (I'm not sure domestically), America doesn't show the amount of controversy about the issue there should be, and I'm risking a nice rant from you about "should", I know. I conjectured that the reason for that is their blind patriotism.

That's... not really true at all. It's a popular 'fake' image of the American political process that a lot of people very wrongly believe because it makes their countries seem 'better' (patriotism, anyone?)

The vast majority of criticism you see about the United States government (and by this you mean the executive branch of the United States government) comes out of American political think-tanks and reaches the world through American media outlets.

On a local level, I can walk two blocks and find Americans protesting the war in Iraq outside the state capitol. I can turn on the local news and see that the executive's approval ratings are something like 45%... that's not "support[ing] it always".

No, we don't have bloody revolutions every time we don't like what the executive is doing (well, except for the time we did - and try defending *that*)...but we do have a political process that is centered around reacting to the actions of the executive. We re-elect all our House representatives every two years... and it is very common for the American public to show displeasure with how the president is "running" the country by sending a different Congress to oppose him.

Heck, the Republican government you and all the other internetziens are complaining about exists *because* there's such a formal, civlized manner in which to oppose the president -- the "Revolution of 1994" gave Republicans control of the legislature when people reacted poorly to the early years of the Clinton administration.

 

[klauss]

I don't think you get it.

You need to stop relying on the weak "America is ignorant" rant and present some quotes from your sources so that an intelligent debate may take place.

I'm not saying that.
Please, don't take everything I say like that.

Saying that they'll blindly follow their leaders is calling them ignorants as much as saying Japanese people following their emperors implied that as well. Don't try so hard to read between lines... I type my mind.

And LOAF:

What you say does not address the issue I presented at all.
I said, paraphrasing myself: locally, they show their discontent about their government openly. Internationally, however, they support it almost unconditionally.

And this view is not only fed with media... I've been to the US, have friends there, and they oppose their government in almost every respect (very much like what's it like in my own University, if you ask - it seems universal that university people don't ever agree with governments).
Yet... when talking through the internet, in forums like this and stuff... they defend their government's position. Why? They didn't say... but I got the impression it's because they think it's not their place to say bad things about their government to the outside world... their issues are theirs.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I'm not sure what you mean - how is openly opposing things your government does any different from not supporting it?

The only thing I can think of is that you're saying I shouldn't pay my taxes because I don't agree with the president I elected -- which isn't really a very realistic thing to think.

In times when the government *does* ask for some other kind of support, people *have* opposed it -- look at the various draft riots throughout history (or the protests in the nineteen sixties).

I can't imagine what I could do to show displeasure with the government right now other than participating in the political process and electing members of the opposition and making my opinions and reasons known through civil protest.

There are two reasons your friends are defending their government on the internet. One is that "attacking" the United States on the internet has become a very chic form of trolling that comes off as being *purely* sour grapes. This thread is a good example - we're all tired of people from other countries who *don't* understand how the political process saying nasty things about the country.

The second is that college students are educated people who understand the process of debate. Debate is not a method of expressing opinion - it's a very formalized exercise in rhetoric. I may have agreed completely with Fireskull -- but we were in a *debate*, so it was my duty to break his argument (and, apparently, his brain).

 

[klauss]

First of all... I'm not saying nasty things. Well, I hope.
What's so nasty about following leaders? Even blindly? That's basically what leaders are for. I don't think it's always a bad thing... but sometimes...

For instance, I think that's why the US is so powerful: it has his people literally united against the world (and by against I don't mean they're opposed, but rather "as viewed from").

Personally, I'd like that kind of unity to show in our people, but we're simply not like that. We will gladly discuss how our government is crap in front of everyone, focusing on defects rather than goodnesses, and trying to see other countries as exmamples as "what shoud be". Why? Because defects bother us... and we feel we need to discuss them. Good things go unnoticed, until they're missing.

So, to wrap up, I'm not trying to dump shit on Americans. I'm just pointing out personality treats that may or may not be true, for I may have based my judgement on a non-representative sample or, even worse, have misjudged completely. But it's what I think it is, and you're free to correct me. I'll take your correction of it not being so for what it is: your view - important, since you're talking from the inside, but not more or less important than my friends'.

If you want me to say "you're right", I won't. I don't have the elements to outweight my own at the time.

But I feel Americans are getting pissed by this discussion, and this was never my intention. Feel free to point out whatever I said that was pissing, and I'll try to clarify my meaning.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I'm not talking about you specifically, I'm talking about a general sentiment online -- you're certainly not personally responsible for how people respond in general to things. You may, in fact, have the best of intentions... but because of how such discussions normally go, you're not going to be treated that way.

It's a matter of respect, not a matter of supporting the government. The average American on the internet doesn't go to Argentinian message boards to complain about your history and your politics. Imagine if every time you tried to make an unrelated point in a discussion someone decided to connect your opinions to the Falklands War or your government defaulting on international debt. Americans are very tired of being the target of a million internet trolls when we have the respect to leave others well enough alone.

Your country is like your family. You can argue with your wife all you want... but if a random person stops by your house and picks on her, you're going to defend her, regardless of whether or not you agree with him. That's why threads go the way you've experienced them to -- not because everyone has a blind love of their country, but because they're tired of other people picking on it. *Every* country does lots of things wrong - in present and in history... and we're all smart enough to recognize those things.

For instance, I think that's why the US is so powerful: it has his people literally united against the world (and by against I don't mean they're opposed, but rather "as viewed from").

Well, I think that's a gross exaggeration.

The United States is 'so powerful' for a lot of reasons, many of which come down to pure luck -- things like climate and location. The climate made for an interesting mix of self sufficient industry and subsistence, and the location kept the country out of the bloody aspects of many 'foreign' wars. It's not a case of being unitied behind a cause -- if you're percieving that such a thing exists, then it speaks more to a control over international media than it does to how the country actually thinks.

The US is specifically a superpower *today* because of how it came out of World War II -- the war crippled the other powerful countries in the world, even those that were victorious: the British Empire was gone, France had suffered occupation and the damage done to Russia was on a scale unimaginable at the time.

The United States, on the other hand, never fought the war on its soil, never suffered any damage to its infrastructure... American soldiers died, American civilians did not. In the process, the war gave them the nuclear weapons debated earlier in this thread as well as a whole host of other technologies that only their post-war industry was in a position to make use of at the time -- things like jet engines.

It's not a matter of lack of division -- England realized what was going to happen at the start of the 19th century, and they tried a whole host of things to prevent American expansion... things like trying to buy California and Texas from Mexico before the US could. This was *before* the Civil War -- the country was incredibly, incredibly divided at this point in history... but it was still the clear future power in the world because of the amount of resources and area it was prepared to expand into.

 

[klauss]

That makes a lot of sense.
Both parts.

So... I apologize for bringing those issues. I reckon it was disrespectful to do so in this manner (I'm not sure which manner would). As I stated at the beginning, my intention was not specifically to start a debate - just make a little comment to make people think. However, I knew it could turn out this way, but never thought of it as disrespectful - but you're right.

 

[Master Wooky]

In the end you can't discuss stuff like this with people from diffrent social or cultural backgrounds.
This is why:

There are four groups of people:

The people in the first group are not aware of the diffference between reality and point of view.

The people which are part of the second group are aware of this difference, but yet they keep insiting that their point of view is always the wright one.

The members of the third group know abou the differnce between reality and point of view and they are aware of the thing, that there is not one wright point of view - no black and white. Yet they tend to use their very own cultural and social background to interpret the different point of views. The result i that they also tend to say taht their point of view is the wright one and that they are very objective.

The last one knows all the stuff the other groups knowbut they are also aware that there is no general way to interpret the different points of view. And this is why the stop discussing, they are aware that it makes no sence. Some of them use a trick. They use the spirit of the time to evaluate historical events. But also this way bears a problem. The results they get can't be transfered into the present because the lack of a measure and thus are useless...

 

[Bandit LOAF]

The last one knows all the stuff the other groups knowbut they are also aware that there is no general way to interpret the different points of view. And this is why the stop discussing, they are aware that it makes no sence. Some of them use a trick. They use the spirit of the time to evaluate historical events. But also this way bears a problem. The results they get can't be transfered into the present because the lack of a measure and thus are useless...

You are incorrect in believing that there is "no sense" in studying history.

History is very important because learning to *understand* the past helps us determine why the present is the way it is. It's the study of how the past reflects on the future. The terrible folly is *judging* the past by modern standards. There's no reason to do this, and it is completely irresponsible. Not to put too fine a point on it, but doing that is *exactly* what Klaus was complaining about, vis a vis a need to understand the enemy during a war. Putting yourself in the proper frame of mind to think about something is a necessary first step, not a vestigial oddity that renders debate pointless.

It's an egotistical thing rather than an intelligent thing -- "if *I'd* been there, having another hundred years of history under my belt and a completely different set of morals, then I'd have done this better!" What is the point to such a claim? But the study of history -- that's important. The example of the atomic bomb is a good one -- we must discuss how it shaped our current morals, not decide how we can use our modern way of thinking to condemn it.

It truly did change the world, and so it's worth discussing -- but not in a context of nationalism or condemnation or even approval. The atomic bomb changed how people think about warfare, and it really hearalded the end of Total War. If we're "evaluating" the past, then that's how we should be doing it - talking about how it effected us, not how we whose lives exist entirely in a post-atomic context would have dealt with the situation. That's very litterally putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Master Wooky]

Ditto! This is what I meant. Studying history is important to understand the presence, no doubt in that. All I wanted to say is that putting yourself in a proper frame of mind, as you call it, doesn't help you to judge about historical events. The only thing you can say is: "This is understandable and to be justified at this point of history" but this doesn't allow you to say "Because "This is understandable and to be justified at this point of history" we must consider the issue as to be o.k. today."

 

[Nomad Terror]

"Because "This is understandable and to be justified at this point of history" we must consider the issue as to be o.k. today."

Unless you are speaking hypothetically, I don't think anyone here has said that.

 

[charlieg]

Sometimes I feel like there is an "Anti-America" class is the public school curriculum of most other countries.

The arguments tend to be laughable and ludicrous, but some people will fight for them as if they've been told it since birth.

Yes. It's a global class called, "American Foreign Policy" and is currently taught by GWB.

Whilst it's understandable people are pissed at the way the US conducts itself, the irony is no other country would be much different if given a similarly powerful position. However, it's amazing that the majority of yanks are clueless as to why the rest of the world seems so antagonised.

 

[Frosty]

Oh, we're not clueless, we just think you're stupid.

 

[Master Wooky]

Unless you are speaking hypothetically, I don't think anyone here has said that.

I just kept drawing up my thoughts. I didn't refer to something in the thread. My only point was, that there is no objective or intercultural tool which would allow any kind of judgment about historical events.