rec.autos.simulators

Simmers have got it good right now....

meettonysopra

Simmers have got it good right now....

by meettonysopra » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 14:56:49


>Consider this - If the USA became involved in a skirmish with Mexico,
>would the United States appreciate 3 Russian carriers with full escorts
>patrolling within strike distance "in case assistance is needed"?  This is
>exactly what your government is doing to other countries right now.

It's almost completely inconceivable that we will become involved in a
skirmish with Mexico.  That diplomatic fact probably is responsible,
as much as anything, for the US's ability to focus its attention
elsewhere in the world.  Maybe if the rest of the world quit
"skirmishing" with their neighbors they would be able to compete with
the US instead of complaining about it.
ikste

Simmers have got it good right now....

by ikste » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 15:38:30

Picking holes in a hypothetical scenario is hardly a compelling
argument.  I even thought up another one involving India building
a spaceborn laser system that could take out ICBMs but it's not
worth it.

Being the strongest and most able gives great responsibility.  But
being stronger than your peers does not make you intellectually or
morally superior.  Nor does it give you the right to pass judgement
when you have not been elected to do so.

iksteh



<snip>
> It's almost completely inconceivable that we will become involved in a
> skirmish with Mexico.  That diplomatic fact probably is responsible,
> as much as anything, for the US's ability to focus its attention
> elsewhere in the world.  Maybe if the rest of the world quit
> "skirmishing" with their neighbors they would be able to compete with
> the US instead of complaining about it.

STP

Simmers have got it good right now....

by STP » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 15:37:18


You completely missed the point. His only point was that just because
something sells well (is popular) doens't necessarily mean it is good.

STP

Simmers have got it good right now....

by STP » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 15:41:32


It's not an uncommon opinion of dumb arrogant Europeans. BTW, I'm Canadian.

Ryan

Simmers have got it good right now....

by Ryan » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 15:51:27

At least we're doing something besides complaining....

Seems to me there are plenty of countries in the world who are perfectly
happy to rip into America and call us ignorant and this and that, but when
something goes wrong, they're begging us to help because no one else will.
So we do, and we still get called names.  What does your media feed you
about us??????

Ryan

meettonysopra

Simmers have got it good right now....

by meettonysopra » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:00:21


>Picking holes in a hypothetical scenario is hardly a compelling
>argument.  

It isn't picking holes, it is fundamental to your entire argument.  US
strength is predicated on friendly relations with its nearest
neighbors.  If the US had to have a standing army of tanks on the
border with Mexico and Canada it wouldn't be able to project its force
overseas.

Since it is completely immaterial you are correct, it wasn't worth
even the time it took to type that and tell me about it.

As you're the one who's passing judgement (on Americans), from what
fount of wisdom do *you* derive that right?

Dave Henr

Simmers have got it good right now....

by Dave Henr » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:05:52



> >Picking holes in a hypothetical scenario is hardly a compelling
> >argument.

> It isn't picking holes, it is fundamental to your entire argument.  US
> strength is predicated on friendly relations with its nearest
> neighbors.  If the US had to have a standing army of tanks on the
> border with Mexico and Canada it wouldn't be able to project its force
> overseas.

  If we HAD to have tanks on the borders...they would only need to be there
for a couple of weeks...then we'd have a few more States to add to the flag.
:)
dave henrie
ikste

Simmers have got it good right now....

by ikste » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:37:48



> >Picking holes in a hypothetical scenario is hardly a compelling
> >argument.

> It isn't picking holes, it is fundamental to your entire argument.  US
> strength is predicated on friendly relations with its nearest
> neighbors.  If the US had to have a standing army of tanks on the
> border with Mexico and Canada it wouldn't be able to project its force
> overseas.

My point was that the argument was hypothetical.  Hypothetical
arguments do not have to have origins in fact.  They are similar to
simulations in that we can build a picture of a situation that may
not happen and use it to try and predict an outcome.  Predictions
often say a lot about our present.

In case you hadn't noticed, I am obnoxiously spouting my opinion
about Americans.  My personal opinion (and hence personal judgement)
has been formed through my admittedly limited knowledge of history
prior to my own birth, and through living in the age where the United
States is the only remaining superpower.  And I derive that right
through my freedom of speech.  It would be un-American to try and
suppress that surely?

Perhaps to be clearer I should have said - judge, jury and executioner.
No matter what my opinion, I will get nicely flamed here, will have little
impact on the lives of anyone except take some of your time and give
you all an outlet for your aggression.  I won't be able to take my judgement
and drop fscking bombs on people's houses with it.

iksteh

ikste

Simmers have got it good right now....

by ikste » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:40:15

Yeah I know, but by the time I realised, it started getting
interesting.  Oh well.

iksteh


ikste

Simmers have got it good right now....

by ikste » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:45:50




> > I meant the average american, and it's not an uncommon opinion.
> It's not an uncommon opinion of dumb arrogant Europeans. BTW, I'm

Canadian.

oi - I'm not a dumb arrogant European.
I'm a drunken sex-crazed obnoxious Aussie yobbo

feel free to insert your own generalizations - arse end of
the world, kangaroo riding in the airport etc etc, pissy
Olympics or whatever.  We're not so thin skinned down
here...

iksteh

ikste

Simmers have got it good right now....

by ikste » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 17:05:28

We get your media.  We watch cable news and your network
news and get the same Reuters etc feeds that you do.  Our
media is mostly owned by the same interests.

Maybe I just see it differently.  I don't see it as some miracle
of technology when the bombs are shown hitting buildings - I
see it as killing more people.  I don't see it as an advancement
of civilisation, I see it as more death.

Ok - how about a different perspective on recent events.
I watched (live, as did many others) an unspeakable act committed
on thousands of innocent people.  I'm referring to the tragedy in
New York in September.

I saw the American people feel a huge range of emotions - all
perfectly valid and understandable.  The feelings were echoed
worldwide and that so many innocents had to die was shocking.

But then I saw the American war machine move into action.  Maybe
from the American perspective, this was retaliation or revenge for
that hurt that had wronged them.  From outside the USA?  It looked
like a whole lot more people, innocent and guilty were about to
die in a hunt for the perpetrators.  Tragic though the events of Sept
were - how can the US justify displacing hundreds of thousands of
similar innocents just before the harsh afghan winter sets in?  Surely
if this was to be a campaign of years (according to the Bush Admin)
then further planning and acting differently would prevent further loss
of life?

So yes, we get fed the same thing.  I guess we just feed it through
different value systems as well as having a different emotional charge
on the situation.

iksteh


meettonysopra

Simmers have got it good right now....

by meettonysopra » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 17:12:40


>Tragic though the events of Sept
>were - how can the US justify displacing hundreds of thousands of
>similar innocents just before the harsh afghan winter sets in?  

Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban friends have stated quite openly their
desire to obtain and use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
against the US.  I suppose we should sit around waiting for the harsh
afghan winter to dissipate before we try to prevent them carrying out
that threat?
Will DeRiver

Simmers have got it good right now....

by Will DeRiver » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 17:15:48


No, no...screw 'em. If they don't want the US involved, i say fine, pull our
men and hardware home and let 'em hash it out on their own...but not before
we finish turning Afghanistan into a parking lot and hopefully finish off
Iraq while we're over there. Last i checked, however, most of the US
deployments were actually through UN involvement. As far as i'm aware, we
built up our armed forces for defense anyways. So again, i say, bring our
men and hardware home. Let everyone else deal with their pety little issues
on their own, thank you very much.
--
- Will DeRivera
- http://www.numic.net
- http://www.luxt.com

Will DeRiver

Simmers have got it good right now....

by Will DeRiver » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 17:29:16


Strike one, the Taliban are hardly innocent here. Strike two, we're hardly
anywhere near hundreds of thousands of innocents. Strike three, i don't
care. They way i see it, we have nearly ten thousand lives to make up for.
You wanna strike US soil? Knock yourself out, but be prepared for the
backlash and kiss your ass goodbye. I suppose you'd prefer everyone to just
sit around with their thumbs up their collective ass and let a bunch of
jerkass terrorists take over the place, huh?
--
- Will DeRivera
- http://www.numic.net
- http://www.luxt.com

ikste

Simmers have got it good right now....

by ikste » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 17:29:12



<snip>
> Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban friends have stated quite openly their
> desire to obtain and use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
> against the US.  I suppose we should sit around waiting for the harsh
> afghan winter to dissipate before we try to prevent them carrying out
> that threat?

By the same logic, any enemies of the United States should be
doing their best to eradicate the existing US supplies of nuclear,
biological and chemical weapons before the Americans have time
to use them.  From what I saw on a Mike Moore doco a little
while ago, some chemical agents have been sitting in warehouses
(in shells) for decades, guarded by less than 5 on duty soldiers.
(gas in question was sarin gas, in artillery shells)

And before you say the US wouldn't use nukes - they are still the
only nation who has used nuclear weapons in anger and once again
that was against innocent civilians.  US/Nato military also allow
for use chemical and biological weapons, at least published and leaked
documents during the 80's show that - surely this constitutes a threat
to any enemy of the USA.

This is why you don't carry a knife in the street.  Other people
with knives can identify with you too easily :)

iksteh


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.