U.S. States without the i's.

[Violet]

Here you go Sae, I think you'll like this song too...

Loved it ^_^ Heard it before, but I do enjoy that song ^_^

No.

Yes, you are. Putting letters where there are none, putting soldiers where you need none.

You just had to make a lengthy reply didn't you?

Well... it's more many short-medium replies put together than anything

Someone has to lose. I'd rather lose, learn from my mistakes and move on than be on the winning side and constantly gloating about the victory. Anyway, you're not supposed to gloat, it don't look too good when you do. Especially if you are in need of help, people remember your gloating and may think twice about helping. No one likes a big mouth.

Someone doesn't have to lose, really. Sometimes two people can be fighting a war with each other, realize I'm a bigger threat, temporarily ally with each other to eliminate me, or make me less of a threat. Then they return to fighting each other soon after they are done trying to bring me down ^_^

Me, I'd rather be on the winning side. But when winning, one shouldn't stop the push. Use the situation of being stronger to your advantage. Weaken your enemies where you can, and set yourself up to be stronger. I agree with you about gloating... even the strongest can require allies. And when the strongest join with the second strongest... that's when things get messy for the little guys.

I have decided that Master of Orion needs an expansion in the largest galaxy size, and that all the races in the game should be able to be present if so desired. <--off topic, but thought I'd mention what I was thinking

Probably because the British had no fear and/or they had a reputation to maintain. No idea really.

Maybe... perhaps a topographical map from the area would better explain it. :S

No, the bad leaders you have can't be pinned on us. Nor can your problem with religion.

And why can't I pin that on you? The problem religions came from overseas, and at least some of our leaders have had brits in their genes. (Nah, I was just being silly with you in both those lines, I know full well we can't pin those on you )

BTW, I actually agree with the American rebellion. If I was around in that time period I would of done the same as you traitors. Who wants to pay really high taxes for a bastard of a king thousands of miles away? Though the high taxes was high so to pay for the empire. Empire's aren't cheap you know.

Form the empire as you form a business. Result? Money Who needs to tax the people when most of them work for your megacorporation to create products to sell to other empires? Only really greedy people, that's who.

The only thing I dislike about America most is it's big mouth and big headedness. What I dislike about this country most is it's fucking leaders and corruption. I guess every nation has it's ups and downs though.

+1

Having downs isn't so bad, depending on what they are. IE: A down in crime because the population will almost never commit one because they like the laws and agree with them? Not such a bad down. I dislike that we didn't annex Iraq... killing all of its people off or forcibly relocating them (which is still killing a number of them off) and taking over the land... that's something I could support. Ramifications with the UN could be annoying... but they bullcrapped a number of strong nations into helping them fight a war of (religious?) revenge in Iraq/Afghanistan, so they would probably have been fine with the move, if highly frowned upon. The question is whether the gain is worth annoying the other powers. It could easily gain some American support if dressed the right way, especially with the influx of cheaper goods they could enjoy.

America is a powerful entity... it's no wonder that some of its people should feel empowered. A lot of it is false... but we clearly had the capacity to invade and take over some countries (ie: Iraq). Playing the hero is stupid if you are not also playing for keeps.

[downbeatplumb]

The british were defeated by the might of the french army/navy with the help of the the american insurgeants who were basically a usefull tool to king louis who always liked to stick the boot into the british.

This was part of a much larger war that went on even after the french king was deposed.

[Violet]

The british were defeated by the might of the french army/navy with the help of the the american insurgeants who were basically a usefull tool to king louis who always liked to stick the boot into the british.

This was part of a much larger war that went on even after the french king was deposed.

Don't be silly, downbeat... the french never win

But then, they did have the badass who said this stuff ( http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/author...parte.html ) on their side at one time... so they can't be all bad.

[Ace Otana]

Someone doesn't have to lose, really. Sometimes two people can be fighting a war with each other, realize I'm a bigger threat, temporarily ally with each other to eliminate me, or make me less of a threat. Then they return to fighting each other soon after they are done trying to bring me down

Or both sides stop fighting because they realise just how stupid it is, then both sides work together to build a lovely peaceful world. Then again, name one instance that ever happened? See, no matter what the race or faction, people will always be stupid.
Any war, is a bad war. No matter who wins or loses. To me, even the winners have lost. If you look at all the bodies to bring back. The only winners in war are those who take no part in it.
Like when I play my battle for middle earth or Rise of Nations. If I was going to lose, I'd make sure that my enemies pay a hefty price for their victory.

America is a powerful entity... it's no wonder that some of its people should feel empowered. A lot of it is false... but we clearly had the capacity to invade and take over some countries

Remember young one, power never lasts. America has power for now, but it will lose it. Power comes and goes.
Anyway, America can invade and take over countries, but...how many fallen troops do you end up bringing back home? Even small nations are quite troublesome, even for you lot. Being the top worlds power doesn't make you invincible. Just makes you a bigger target.
Anyway, China is also a world power. With over 300 million battle ready troops. More than the entire U.S population. Try taking on them

[Violet]

Or both sides stop fighting because they realise just how stupid it is, then both sides work together to build a lovely peaceful world. Then again, name one instance that ever happened? See, no matter what the race or faction, people will always be stupid.

Oh, that happened once. Then someone else came in and slaughtered them both, and took their land.

Any war, is a bad war. No matter who wins or loses. To me, even the winners have lost. If you look at all the bodies to bring back. The only winners in war are those who take no part in it.
Like when I play my battle for middle earth or Rise of Nations. If I was going to lose, I'd make sure that my enemies pay a hefty price for their victory.

There are few things in this world scarier than someone with nothing to lose who hates you. People who take part in war can win, though they might weaken themselves in said war to the point that another can come in and take them out with relative ease.

Remember young one, power never lasts. America has power for now, but it will lose it. Power comes and goes.

This is true... and America's days as a notable power could soon be over.

Anyway, America can invade and take over countries, but...how many fallen troops do you end up bringing back home? Even small nations are quite troublesome, even for you lot. Being the top worlds power doesn't make you invincible. Just makes you a bigger target.

This is true. The approach is what I primarily criticize about all of america's recent wars... we went in to play the hero... and gained next to nothing from it. Had we gone in and killed just about everyone or relocated [/i]just about everyone[/i], we would have gained a good bit of oil rich land, which could have helped fuel a much larger war effort. Instead of annexing the territory... we "freed" the people from its government. The stupidity in this move really hurts America's possibility of being great.

You are right about making one a bigger target... so many games of settlers of Catan will have one person tear away from all the lesser people, only to have them all team up against that person until one of the lower pointed people wins. Obtain far too much territory, and you will be the talk of the world. Keep your true capabilities quite hidden, and you can make use of them in a single and unexpected crushing sweep. There are sometimes benefits to being a world power... the weaker people all want you on their side.

Anyway, China is also a world power. With over 300 million battle ready troops. More than the entire U.S population. Try taking on them

This is the truth. I could scarcely understand why they haven't invaded weaker neighbors yet... but they would have the combined might of the UN on their backs in this case, I think. America goes down... and the only other countries that can stand on the same pedestal as China are Russia and India. Other contenders exist of course... but they fall short of the power controlled by these giants.

It would be a bad conflict in the eyes of both China and the US to compete militarily... it would weaken them pointlessly.

[Ace Otana]

Oh, that happened once. Then someone else came in and slaughtered them both, and took their land.

I'm sure you've heard of "Divide and conquer"? Me and my dad had a little chat over where it came from. He thinks it came from the Romans and I agree, but the British have also used it. It pretty much means having two of your enemies fight each other, and you being the cause of it. Once both have weakened each other, you step in and wipe them both out. Easily too, since they spent most of their resources taking on each other. Romans used this tac and so did the Brits. The problem with going to war, is that it makes you weaker.

There are few things in this world scarier than someone with nothing to lose who hates you

Like terrorists? They fear nothing, they (from their point of view) have nothing to lose, and all to gain. They scare me more than any other. I would fear an enemy more who fears nothing and has nothing to lose than an enemy who bares fear and has much to lose. One is capable of anything, the other has limits.

This is true... and America's days as a notable power could soon be over.

It's only a matter of time. Which is why it's important to have many friends. Because one day you won't have power and you'll be needing your friends more than ever when that day comes.

This is true. The approach is what I primarily criticize about all of america's recent wars... we went in to play the hero... and gained next to nothing from it.

I think you lost more than you gained. Wars are expensive, and having bodies of the fallen come back tells me that it was a bad idea. Need to focus on home security, not over seas wars.

The stupidity in this move really hurts America's possibility of being great.

I think the U.S lost it's greatness a while ago. I can say the same for Britain too. Our glorious Empire is gone, and soon your place in world power will disappear too. Shame, but it's reality.

This is the truth. I could scarcely understand why they haven't invaded weaker neighbors yet... but they would have the combined might of the UN on their backs in this case, I think. America goes down... and the only other countries that can stand on the same pedestal as China are Russia and India. Other contenders exist of course... but they fall short of the power controlled by these giants.

Countries, no matter how big cannot go into a major war anymore. M.A.D (Mutually Assured Destruction) is what prevents any large nation (or nations allied to a nuclear nation) to go into a major war, or risk sending the entire human race back to the stone age...or worse, oblivion. This is why I'm in favour of nukes, not because I like war but because it prevents them. Think how many wars there would of been if there were no nukes to worry about?

It would be a bad conflict in the eyes of both China and the US to compete militarily... it would weaken them pointlessly.

Not weaken. Both sides would be sent into oblivion, along with the rest of the world. China isn't dumb enough to try anything. Unlike extremists, they have some common sense (thankfully).

[Minimalist]

I would think the defeat by Japanese in the Malayan/Indian Ocean campaign to be easily the worst military diseaster ever suffered by Britain.

Yeah, Chuck. I guess I wasn't clear enough. While they may have gotten their butts kicked it was the Japanese who did the planning and the attacking while the Brits played defense...more or less.

Isandlwana and Market Garden were British plans which resulted in fiasco. Of course, if you want examples of less than stellar military planning and execution there is always Passchendaele, Somme and Gallipoli.

[Violet]

I'm sure you've heard of "Divide and conquer"? Me and my dad had a little chat over where it came from. He thinks it came from the Romans and I agree, but the British have also used it. It pretty much means having two of your enemies fight each other, and you being the cause of it. Once both have weakened each other, you step in and wipe them both out. Easily too, since they spent most of their resources taking on each other. Romans used this tac and so did the Brits. The problem with going to war, is that it makes you weaker.

It has a high probability of making one weaker, though the gains one can make in territory can more than make up for it.

Like terrorists? They fear nothing, they (from their point of view) have nothing to lose, and all to gain. They scare me more than any other. I would fear an enemy more who fears nothing and has nothing to lose than an enemy who bares fear and has much to lose. One is capable of anything, the other has limits.

Yes, just like terrorists. Now imagine an entire country worth of them. That would be a very bad situation. 0.o

It's only a matter of time. Which is why it's important to have many friends. Because one day you won't have power and you'll be needing your friends more than ever when that day comes.

I prefer eliminating all the competition. Who needs friends if they are the only one around?

But I agree with allying (if temporarily) with other powers. I wrote an interesting paper on the subject of unity and how it affects strength some time ago, I'll add it sometime (when I synchronize my laptop and desktop).

I think you lost more than you gained. Wars are expensive, and having bodies of the fallen come back tells me that it was a bad idea. Need to focus on home security, not over seas wars.

We did indeed, and again this was in our approach. Had we a "take no prisoners or refugees" mentality, it would have been much cheaper. Not so much wasted in our initial invasion... but in our continued occupation there has been a fair amount of expense. By a country 'in debt'.

In most situations it is much easier to defend than to attack.

I think the U.S lost it's greatness a while ago. I can say the same for Britain too. Our glorious Empire is gone, and soon your place in world power will disappear too. Shame, but it's reality.

We still have that military strength, so we can still roll with the big ones. Without that and all of our little buddies in the UN... right now we are next to nothing. It's the only reason Russia is a power as well. Without military strength, we couldn't hope to defend so much territory, and many countries would take advantage of this.

Countries, no matter how big cannot go into a major war anymore. M.A.D (Mutually Assured Destruction) is what prevents any large nation (or nations allied to a nuclear nation) to go into a major war, or risk sending the entire human race back to the stone age...or worse, oblivion. This is why I'm in favour of nukes, not because I like war but because it prevents them. Think how many wars there would of been if there were no nukes to worry about?

+1. And +1 three more times for this sentiment.

Not weaken. Both sides would be sent into oblivion, along with the rest of the world. China isn't dumb enough to try anything. Unlike extremists, they have some common sense (thankfully).

One side or both would stop the war before it went that far (hopefully). I think China is attempting to slowly take over the world's economy while maintaining its military force

[Minimalist]

Actually, Sae, we declared war on them. Not one of our brighter moves.


Right up there with Iraq.

Really? Talk about the war I barely heard about in school :S

Maybe there's a reason for that? ^_^

Courtesy Google ( PBUH)

On June 1, 1812, President James Madison gave a speech to the U.S. Congress, recounting American grievances against Great Britain, though not specifically calling for a declaration of war. After Madison's speech, the House of Representatives quickly voted (79 to 49) to declare war, and the Senate by 19 to 13. The conflict formally began on June 18, 1812 when Madison signed the measure into law.

As some wag noted at the time "people's ardor for war increased with their distance from the coast."

---

I just saw this commercial which ( should ) annoy the piss out of you Brits.










Of course, the cars are gas-guzzling pieces of shit and the 'freedom' has been whittled down to the point of near invisibility but that doesn't stop us from making bullshit commercials.


And people wonder how religion got started!