Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
296 guest(s) and 0 member(s)
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
VideoGamesSuck.com :: View topic - History and Europe
We don't like the UN because we are their only force behind them to accomplish anything and it irritates us that they can't do anything without us
I do not think the US is indispensible for Unicef and the WHO, for example, at all.
But you may be focused on military aspects. The UN has no army and the US has about half of all military budget in the world. So if the UN needs military, who should it turn to? Or should the UN build a military force itself (if so who would fund it, since the UN raises no taxes)?
BTW why does the US need such huge military force in the first place and why are US taxpayers more willing to fund this than, say, a modern infrastructure / health care system / educational system?
Last edited by berzerker on Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:43 am, edited 2 times in total
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:20 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
Suislide wrote:
We don't like the UN because we are their only force behind them to accomplish anything and it irritates us that they can't do anything without us
I strongly disagree with that. Canada, for example, has long been in the lead for humanitarian missions.
Can you give one example when the US used the UN for good? The general practice has been that the US uses the UN whenever it is in line with US intentions (sanctions against Iraq), but then vetoes any resolution it dislikes in the security council, and boycotts the general assembly when it makes recomendations it dislikes.
The UN has no army ... Or should the UN build a military force itself (if so who would fund it, since the UN raises no taxes)?
In Naomi Klines book, The Shock Doctrine, she mentions how Blackwater's budget is bigger than the UN's humanitarian aid budget.
How is the UN supposed to peace-keep the world, when PMCs have more resource then they do?
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:52 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
berzerker wrote:
Yeah, there are so much more civilians than soldiers, so the numbers can rise quickly if you start slaughtering civilians too. Since then we have treaties against that, but now we have countries like Israel (and the US) who consider themselves not bound by treaties, there you go. Maybe they might get wiser after WWIII or IV or so.
Obama is willing to give up nukes if all others do so too. AFAIK no US president has gone so far before, except Reagan IIRC. There may be hope after all although nukes may already be too wide spread by now. It is hard to see the most dangerous countries (Pakistan and Israel) give up nukes like South Africa did.
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:10 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
Wow, that is pretty shocking. However, comparing it to Raegan rather undermines your argument. There was a massive weapons buildup under Raegan, and his administration went to great lengths to shut up Gorbachev when he talked about nuclear disarmament. In fact, the Raegan administration only embraced disarmament when Gorbachev started to unilaterally disarm the Soviet Union.
I'm not saying every president is a liar, just that talk is cheap.
just that talk is cheap
yeah cause i got my soul to keep,
i work hard for the profits i reap,
naturally they follow cause its the time i keep,
thats not wasted on sleep.
from here to there, my cell bleeps,
yeah yeah the greedy bitchy creeps,
na na fuck it, i say, kauz i gots my shitz to keep.
answer the phone, hoe on the tone,
now its that scene on the couch,
open her pouch, slide in it, OUCH!
driving the whore, getting the score,
babay bone4bone-bone4bone honeay bone4bone
so brothers, this time i gots my dicks in deep
ah so slick, kauze that where i keeps,
oooh a different kinds of profit i reap!!
...yo what r you waiting for??
there aint no more, so fuck of you PEEPS!
kauze you should know,
just that talk is cheap, talk is cheap
yeah talk is cheap mosdef
signing off
captn beef pattaey
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:05 pm
Dr_Shrink
Ubertard
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Posts: 113
Oh my, you had made such progress, it's all gone to waste now it seems.
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:39 pm
captnPugwash_halabalobale
Banned
Joined: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 670
Location: AfghanWarriorsClub (AWC)
you know they say aa "mere talk is cheap", now xkuze me i gots ma hoe to keep
So dr shrinKs
i dont give a shits
whats you
thinKs
chill out, have some
drinKs
then go on the net and click some random
linKs
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:15 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
dude I'm not reading all of that.
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:28 am
captnPugwash_halabalobale
Banned
Joined: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 670
Location: AfghanWarriorsClub (AWC)
and in that moment of solitude why not you should all ask yourselfs?
dont my ultra intellectual gymnastic rhymes stimulate your dense interconnected network of electrically charged neurons ready to excite themselves to the next higher energy level?
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:06 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
I still wonder if it could happen all over again in Europe.
Before WW1 most countries in Europe were monarchies with powerful kings for whom a few hunderd thousand deaths really did not mean too much. Going to war was a fairly normal way to settle disputes. The investments in armies as a percentage of domestic product probably even surpassed those of the US at this moment. That has changed for the better.
Before WWII Europe had ruthless dictators in some major countries (Germany and USSR). This too has changed, and even the dictators in less important countries like Spain, Portugal and Greece have long vanished. Sometimes there are radical nationalists who obtain power by democratic means, but so far this was not the case in major countries (only relatively insignificant countries like Serbia and maybe Austria spring to mind).
I suppose if we got radicals nationalists in power in Germany or Russia, Europe could get into serious trouble again. E.g. if the integration of the Turks in Germany turns for the worse and the Germans lose their post-WWII political correctness and elect a radical politician who pledges to remove all Turks from Germany, we would have serious shit again. Russia is maybe even a greater risk.
In the end, however, this time the major risks seem to be far outside of Europe (China is very nationalistic and I predict this to be the major problem for world peace this century).
I wonder what the captn would have to say about this.
You may wonder why I bother to post all this, but maybe someone would turn this into a game, so this would seem the appropriate website.
Last edited by berzerker on Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:41 pm, edited 2 times in total
Re: History and Europe
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:38 pm
FUCK_YOU_ALL
A Winner is me!
Joined: Feb 02, 2009
Posts: 630
Location: Why so serious? Seriously, why? It doesn't make sense.
berzerker wrote:
I wondered if it had not been Europe but the US that had been completely devastated twice in half a century at the cost of millions and millions of lives, would the US still have been so eager to invade Iraq, defend the regime in South Vietnam or to go to any war in the first place? Maybe then it would have been the European countries taking the aggressive stance in such situations (like they had done during many centuries prior to WWII)?
Current policies are determined to a great extent by experience and the US has never experienced such incredibly devastating wars as WWI an WWII on their own soil.
Very interesting thought.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:58 am
captnPugwash_halabalobale
Banned
Joined: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 670
Location: AfghanWarriorsClub (AWC)
berzerker wrote:
You may wonder why I bother to post all this, but maybe someone would turn this into a game, so this would seem the appropriate website.
yeah another Tom Clancy series
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:06 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
captnPugwash_halabalobale wrote:
berzerker wrote:
You may wonder why I bother to post all this, but maybe someone would turn this into a game, so this would seem the appropriate website.
yeah another Tom Clancy series
Fuck I hate that guy. He makes the worst games ever. I played GRAW (Gay Recon Advanced Warfighter), the 360 version, and it was the most boring piece of shit ever.
Hey Suislide, I think when reviewing Tom Clancy games, you should automatically deduct one point for being a Tom Clancy game.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:53 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
puk wrote:
I played GRAW (Gay Recon Advanced Warfighter), the 360 version, and it was the most boring piece of shit ever.
Are there actually any decent games on this 360 that you cannot also play on the PC? What made you buy a 360 in the first place (assuming you bought it of course, you could as well have borrowed or stolen it)?
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:29 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
berzerker wrote:
Are there actually any decent games on this 360 that you cannot also play on the PC? What made you buy a 360 in the first place
It must've been at my friend's place. Never owned one myself.
But believe u me, that game SUCKS
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:08 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
The only game that springs to mind that may be worthy of porting to the PC would seem The Darkness.
It's odd it has not been ported since the developer knows how to port properly (as evidenced by Riddick).
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:06 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
berzerker wrote:
The only game that springs to mind that may be worthy of porting to the PC would seem The Darkness.
Ya I played the demo and it was pretty good.
I've noticed, even the titles that used to be good on consoles (racing games, sports games, MGS) are being dragged through the mud. Racing games seldom have split screen anymore, and sports games are turning in simulation games. Also, MGS1/2 used to be so fast paced, and the controls were so tight, but in MGS4 you literally crawl around the map. Who thought of that idea? In Far Cry you can go prone, but if you had to finish the game prone you'd lose your mind
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:29 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
puk wrote:
Also, MGS1/2 used to be so fast paced, and the controls were so tight, but in MGS4 you literally crawl around the map. Who thought of that idea?
I played MGS1 on the PC but it failed to recognize my controller so I had to use the keyboard, which was not such a big deal as I exepected. I thought the game was really silly (especially the bosses). If I understood correctly the other MGS games were actually movies (extremely lenghty cut-scenes with some game bits thrown in) so I never bothered to watch these.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 2 of 5Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5Next
neurons ready to excite themselves to the next higher energy level?
