Oppositions to Arabs

[Cidifer]

The Isreali military recruits everyone when they turn 16 if I remember correctly and a more accurate number would be those active in the army which is somewhere in the 40-50 k range (my source comes from the World Almanac 2002 so it may be old semi out of date into)

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Cidifer
The Isreali military recruits everyone when they turn 16 if I remember correctly and a more accurate number would be those active in the army which is somewhere in the 40-50 k range (my source comes from the World Almanac 2002 so it may be old semi out of date into)

Here's a really good article I just found in the Seattle Times regarding Israel's military status. For all you military gurus, you'll find it interesting.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ilitary09.html

Here's some interesting quotes:

"There was a time when the United States was the unquestioned military superpower in the Middle East and drew obedient if grudging respect from all sides.

No more.

Now Israel is the region's superpower, and where it once looked to the United States not just for diplomatic support but also for military rescue, now Israel can thumb its nose at Washington and go its own way."

"Israel relies heavily on its reserve forces. There are almost 1 million Israelis under the age of 48 liable to be recalled to duty. All have done three years' active duty as well as reserve training. Reserve troops are organized into units already matched up with vehicles and weapons. "

So it appears my statistics in the above post included some military personnel over the age of 48. Still, read this article. Even I wasn't aware of the potency of their military.

[Explorer579]

What happened to the idea of splitting an empire and creating a new one out of it? This concept was in civ2. If implemented, then a superpower can split the new Arab civilization in PTW and create a jewish state. Then all will be happy and history will be emulated. Any plan by the civ3 designers to reintroduce this concept?

[Cidifer]

Yes the Isreali's also have some of the most experianced soldiers, especially in urban warfare something most americans fear as a possibility in a war with Iraq. Isreal does this every few days or weeks!

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Traelin
For all you military gurus, you'll find it interesting.
[urlhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134433612_israelmilitary09.html[/url]

Indeed. Thanx. (I'm a military guru, so... )

Originally posted by Explorer579
What happened to the idea of splitting an empire and creating a new one out of it? This concept was in civ2. If implemented, then a superpower can split the new Arab civilization in PTW and create a jewish state. Then all will be happy and history will be emulated. Any plan by the civ3 designers to reintroduce this concept?

No, lucky enough, because I won't be happy then. Israel should be in the game as a "normal" Civ!

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Traelin

"There was a time when the United States was the unquestioned military superpower in the Middle East and drew obedient if grudging respect from all sides.

Now Israel is the region's superpower, and where it once looked to the United States not just for diplomatic support but also for military rescue, now Israel can thumb its nose at Washington and go its own way."

Not to incite -- but rather in my endless quest to view Civ from its own point of view of what it can model -- but I'm vaguely amazed that no one reacted to the last point in my initial post:

"5. Ironically, I'm going out on a limb here -- for a modern (post-WW2) scenario, I would suggest that the best possible SIMULATION of "Israel" WITHIN THE SCOPE AND CONFINES OF CIV is as an American city -- think about it."

Consider -- The U.S. has, since Israeli independence:

1. Acted as Israeli's proxy in the U.N. Security Council.

2. Provided endless military aide, including dangerously depleting armaments stocks in Europe at one of the heights of the Cold War, to reinforce the IDF during the 1973 war.

3. Covered up the attack upon and near sinking of a US warship, conspicuously flying American colors, by the IDF immediately prior to the 1967 war.

4. Allowed dual citizenship and not minded American citizens serving in the IDF.

5. Passed on a lot of hi-tech military hardware and info.

6. Supplies $2 BILLION years in aid.

7. Is willing to appear to the world to be Israel's puppet -- the tail wagging the dog -- re: the Palestinians.

8. Etc.

Let me conclude that I am NOT anti-Israeli, although I agree whole-heartedly with Thomas Friedman's brilliant insight that the existential dilemma for the modern SOI is that it can only be any TWO out the THREE following:

1. A Jewish Israel
2. A greater Israel
3. A democratic Israel

Pick any two, but all three can't be accomplished without actions which much of the world would consider unpalatable. It is the rabid denial of this reality that adds such misery to everyone involved and thereby fuels any tone of bitterness to my words.

... And I'd like to see Israel try to "go its own way" if (under admittedly unimagineable present circumstances) it was embargoed for all those nice American weapons platforms and C3I systems it relies on.

I'm also interested in the discounting of Turkey as a regional superpower. They're not as overtly into force projection as Israel seems to be these days, but they are part of NATO, and it's not too hard to posit -- 10 years from now? -- a serious US-European split over Israel/Palestine; some more botched attempts at American Play-Do nation building, and a democratic, secular Turkey perceiving a need to flex its not-inconsiderable muscle for regional stability in its own back yard.

-Oz

[Caliban]

Turkey has some power, true. But until now, they have never shown any interest in Israeli affairs... or am I wrong?

Btw, we already have a US-European split over Israel today. But the discussion about Hussein and Iraq is conceiling this.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Caliban
Turkey has some power, true. But until now, they have never shown any interest in Israeli affairs... or am I wrong?

Btw, we already have a US-European split over Israel today. But the discussion about Hussein and Iraq is conceiling this.

Turkey and Israel have been conducting joint military exercises for some time; to be cynical and quote the ancient proverb, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Neither, for instance, have any interest in the present Iraqi regime becoming a regional power. Where they split dramatically (at least as televised) is Turkey really doesn't want a fragmented Iraq whereas Israel doesn't have that concern.

The Euro-US split over Israel is extremely under-reported in the US. I make a habit of viewing both American broadcast news and the BBC and there are times when I swear they're covering different planets.

I am amused by the current US Administration having a hissy fit over Germany not backing them on Iraq. I suppose they thought that "unilateralist" meant that their's was the only way, and that no one else might consider exercising the same right.

Who knows -- maybe the Civ3 20 Turn Treaty between the US and Europe is nearly up.

And perhaps which we should all take a deep breath about a historical moment in which Germany can legitimately berate the US over pre-emptive military action ...

-Oz

[gsmoove23]

Traelin, I would agree with your article, it points out the considerable US involvement in the current MidEast balance of power. As Ozymandia pointed out, while sometimes it may divert from the Washington political line it definately is on a leash. Take Sharon's trip to DC for instance where he will be trying to feel out what is and isn't acceptable during the US drive to war with Iraq.

But lets talk about military might and take a look at how the new intifada and continued IDF action in the West Bank and Gaza has put the Israeli economy in dire straights, no doubt the continued US support of the Israeli economy as well will prove helpful. I don't know if I would agree with Israel as a US city but certainly as a heavily propped up US ally. While the other civs all stood on their own power and had a major impact on their regions and the world militarily, politically and culturally through their independant action I don't think the same could be said for Israel.

[Caliban]

Israel might not be a stable nation TODAY, but the Israeli (or better: Hebrew) civilization once was a prosperous one, before the Romans conquered them.

It's the same with the Persians and the Babylonians: Both were run over by the Muslims (Arabs) and still they are represented in CivIII. So why not also include Israel? If the Romans had never set foot into Jerusalem, who knows who would rule the MidEast today... ?

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Caliban
the Israeli (or better: Hebrew) civilization once was a prosperous one, before the Romans conquered them.
...
If the Romans had never set foot into Jerusalem, who knows who would rule the MidEast today... ?

Probably anybody but the Civ in question --

Jerusalem was first sacked by the Egyptians in 928 BCE, then later conquered by the Assyrians (7th century BCE), Babylonians (6th century BCE), Persians (5th century BCE), Alexander the Great (4th century BCE), Alexander's successor Ptolemy (ca. 300 BCE), another Alex-successor-state the Seleucids in the 2nd century BCE, briefly independent in the 1st century CE, then the Romans, then the Eastern Romans, then the briefly resurgent Persians (7th century CE), then the Arabs (likewise 7th century CE), the Crusaders' brief appearance in the 12th century, the Mamluke Sultanate in the 14th century, next the Ottomans through the end of WWI, then the British ...

Did I miss anybody?

-Oz

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Caliban
Btw, we already have a US-European split over Israel today. But the discussion about Hussein and Iraq is conceiling this.

Yeah, are you gonna attack, or what?

Originally posted by Ozymandias
Who knows -- maybe the Civ3 20 Turn Treaty between the US and Europe is nearly up. And perhaps which we should all take a deep breath about a historical moment in which Germany can legitimately berate the US over pre-emptive military action ...

Who knows? But don't take it up to seriously.

Originally posted by Caliban
Israel might not be a stable nation TODAY, but the Israeli (or better: Hebrew) civilization once was a prosperous one, before the Romans conquered them.

It's the same with the Persians and the Babylonians: Both were run over by the Muslims (Arabs) and still they are represented in CivIII. So why not also include Israel? If the Romans had never set foot into Jerusalem, who knows who would rule the MidEast today... ?

The Hebrews indeed had a large empire under the reigns of David and Salomo. But that was only because Assyria, Aegyptus and Babylonia were having weak periods. If the Romans had never set foot into Jerusalem (Hierosolyma, so you want), the city would be conquered by the Parthians.

[gsmoove23]

There are a thousand small kingdoms that were overun by greater powers you could make that argument for but the real argument on a thread titled 'opposition to the arabs' is if there is an arab civ there should be a Hebrew civ and this doesn't work. The only valid point put forward against having an arab civ seems to be the fact that it clutters the world map, while an Israeli civ simply doesn't fit comfortably into the definition of a civ put forward by the game. But then again I always play as the Phoenicians so there's room for everybody.

[LionQ]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
There are a thousand small kingdoms that were overun by greater powers you could make that argument for but the real argument on a thread titled 'opposition to the arabs' is if there is an arab civ there should be a Hebrew civ and this doesn't work. The only valid point put forward against having an arab civ seems to be the fact that it clutters the world map, while an Israeli civ simply doesn't fit comfortably into the definition of a civ put forward by the game. But then again I always play as the Phoenicians so there's room for everybody.

Phunicians?

[gsmoove23]

Phoenicians! C'mon, just north of the Jews. The REAL Carthaginians. I think I spelled it right, let me check.

[LionQ]

Yes, I know who they are. I'm a history freak, you know? But they aren't in the game, but you ment a mod with that, I understand?

[gsmoove23]

Sorry not really, I just name my cities Tyre, Sidon... Carthage. Never bothered with a mod.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Ozymandias
"5. Ironically, I'm going out on a limb here -- for a modern (post-WW2) scenario, I would suggest that the best possible SIMULATION of "Israel" WITHIN THE SCOPE AND CONFINES OF CIV is as an American city -- think about it."

Consider -- The U.S. has, since Israeli independence:

1. Acted as Israeli's proxy in the U.N. Security Council.

2. Provided endless military aide, including dangerously depleting armaments stocks in Europe at one of the heights of the Cold War, to reinforce the IDF during the 1973 war.

3. Covered up the attack upon and near sinking of a US warship, conspicuously flying American colors, by the IDF immediately prior to the 1967 war.

4. Allowed dual citizenship and not minded American citizens serving in the IDF.

5. Passed on a lot of hi-tech military hardware and info.

6. Supplies $2 BILLION years in aid.

7. Is willing to appear to the world to be Israel's puppet -- the tail wagging the dog -- re: the Palestinians.

8. Etc.
-Oz

OK I'm gonna make my points very brief, but hopefully they will explain precisely what I mean.

1. Well of course we have, for a couple reasons. First, this is precisely the type of action we would perform for a fledgling ally. Second, it was in our best interest to do so, since we not only helped found them, but even then we determined they would play a decisive role in the Mideast.

2. Dangerously depleting armaments stocks in Europe? This kind of leads to my point in number 6, so I'll save it for there.

3. We don't know what happened with that, so let's not speculate. I've always loved it when people like to speculate on top secret data. Believe me, none of us know half the crap we think we do. And even if we did, we wouldn't be bringing it up on a Civ forum.

4. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here? "Not minded" Americans?

5. So what. You think we haven't done that with every other strong ally? It's in our best interests to share technology with the likes of Britain, Israel, etc. I'm sure they feel the same way about us. After all, a ton of our Mideastern intel comes from Israel. Share and share alike with strong allies, I always say.

6. HAHA this is one that I laugh about. If you only knew how much aid we provide to the WORLD. The numbers are staggering. And it's not just money, it's arms, technology, etc. See, to me it's NECESSARY to provide our allies with aid (e.g., Israel). The aid that drives me nuts goes to countries in South America, who have absolutely no intentions of using our aid to curb drug cartels, or for whatever intent we had given the aid for. It is a GOOD thing we give aid to countries like Russia, Israel, etc., because the money is buying us something. Useful intel, for instance. Promoting democracy, as another example.

The question you should be asking isn't "why did we deplete armaments stocks in Europe ...?", but instead should be "why are we providing significant armaments stocks to Europe in the first place?" Most of Europe should be able to defend itself. Britain certainly has no problem with this. I have no idea what the military budgets are for most of their countries, but if they need significant help from the US, then there's a problem. Hopefully they don't anymore, what with the foundation of the EU.

7. That's ridiculous. I'm not going to get into this one, if one looks at the FACTS of the situation (NOT the propaganda) it is clear that, yes, wrongs have been committed on both sides. But terrorism committed by Palestinians is still terrorism, and we will crush it in any way that we can.

Suggesting Israel should be implemented as an American city is an insult to all Israeli citizens. Why isn't America an American city within France, since they significantly supported us in the Revolution, and if it weren't for them we wouldn't exist? Or why doesn't the Vatican throw down its banners and declare itself part of Italy, since its culture is clearly inherited from said country? C'mon, you're blinded by your own biases. Look at the facts for instance, and you'll see the US gives aid to everyone.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Ozymandias
The Euro-US split over Israel is extremely under-reported in the US. I make a habit of viewing both American broadcast news and the BBC and there are times when I swear they're covering different planets.

That's where you're going wrong. Both the American media and the BBC have clearly slanted views (both toward the same side of the spectrum, I might add). If you want to formulate a valuable opinion, study both leftist and rightist commentary (since there's really no unbiased commentary to study).

Originally posted by Ozymandias
I am amused by the current US Administration having a hissy fit over Germany not backing them on Iraq. I suppose they thought that "unilateralist" meant that their's was the only way, and that no one else might consider exercising the same right.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that we really are having a hissy fit over them not supporting us.
Given that we are such strong allies, don't you think that maybe something else is involved? Perhaps the fact that Europe (namely, France and Germany) had previously invested so strongly in the infrastructure of Iraq that they know they won't get their money back with the overthrow of Hussein? Hehe do some research on that one, I think you'll find it interesting to see what some countries in Europe have been paying for. And guess what, the US has done the same thing in other countries. So stop thinking that the reason the US and Germany don't see eye to eye is for some noble cause. And the US is certainly not innocent, either. It's just my homeland, so I'm naturally more defensive of us.

Originally posted by Ozymandias
Who knows -- maybe the Civ3 20 Turn Treaty between the US and Europe is nearly up.

Poppycock. They're our ancestors. We just don't always see eye to eye. I don't always see eye to eye with my father, either.

Originally posted by Ozymandias
And perhaps which we should all take a deep breath about a historical moment in which Germany can legitimately berate the US over pre-emptive military action ...
-Oz

God forbid the US defend itself from the threat of weapons of mass destruction. We're trying not to pussyfoot around for once, regardless of what the international community thinks.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Traelin


So now we have all MAJOR (READ: MAJOR) religions represented in Civ3/Civ3:PTW, with the exception of Judaism. For instance, Hinduism is represented in the religious cultural achievements of the Indian Civ. Catholicism is represented by France's religious culture. Protestantism is represented by many countries, and Buddhism is represented by a couple Eastern Civs. We can go on and on with this list, but suffice it to say that Judaism is in no significant way represented in Civ3. That is perplexing to me, because of the Hebrews' incredible cultural achievements.

France in civ3 is no way tied into catholicism. It portrays more of france in its industrial age. Besides if they represent catholicism like you said, then we have requirement for judeo-christianity branch. like you said we have only one islam represented.

I do not see christianity as a part of judaism any more. How can they be the same when difference is so vast? And to give credit for Jews for cultural influence spread by christianity sounds giving alittle too much credit.

I would have to strongly disagree including the hebrews just because they are jews and have to force them in since because we don;t have a judeo-religion in the game. I don't like the idea of giving "affirmative action" on the civ. Even more, religion is not a civilization in my opinion. Religion is part of the civ. However on a civilization level, Hebrews did have a very prsoperous and flourishing empire before, so they are "worthy" of being in the game, but that shouldn't automatically be a arguement against firaxis for not including them since much more civs exist that qualify just as much or if not even more that should be in the game, it just that there's only so limited number that firaxis can work with.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
There are a thousand small kingdoms that were overun by greater powers you could make that argument for but the real argument on a thread titled 'opposition to the arabs' is if there is an arab civ there should be a Hebrew civ and this doesn't work. The only valid point put forward against having an arab civ seems to be the fact that it clutters the world map, while an Israeli civ simply doesn't fit comfortably into the definition of a civ put forward by the game. But then again I always play as the Phoenicians so there's room for everybody.

Actually the reason Israel came up (at least for me) was, admittedly, a bit OT, but was also in defense of the pro-Arab sentiment.

I already stated my problem with having an Arab Civ. Look at a previous post of mine.

Again, I am neither Jewish nor Muslim, let me make that clear. But I think it's silly to say that Israel shouldn't be a Civ, given all the facts I've presented. I mean sheesh, it kinda slaps you in the face if you look at it objectively.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Calc II
France in civ3 is no way tied into catholicism. It portrays more of france in its industrial age. Besides if they represent catholicism like you said, then we have requirement for judeo-christianity branch. like you said we have only one islam represented.

Read my posts. I don't care what period of time France is being represented in. The fact remains that its religious culture is overwhelmingly Catholic. France has the greatest percentage of Catholics in its population than any country I can think of.

Originally posted by Calc II
I do not see christianity as a part of judaism any more. How can they be the same when difference is so vast? And to give credit for Jews for cultural influence spread by christianity sounds giving alittle too much credit.

So I guess Messianic Jews aren't really Jewish? Tell them that. If you know about the Messianic Jews, you know how close Christianity still is to Judaism.

Originally posted by Calc II
I would have to strongly disagree including the hebrews just because they are jews and have to force them in since because we don;t have a judeo-religion in the game. I don't like the idea of giving "affirmative action" on the civ. Even more, religion is not a civilization in my opinion. Religion is part of the civ.

How many times have I said that religion is part of a Civ? I said Israel should be included for a ton of reasons OTHER than territory size.

[Zero]

you cut my post for the last one, if you kept reading it instead of just maybe snipping it and argueing against it.....

So you see everything in religion eh? France is catholicism, England is protestant and yadayadaya. Well that's not how it works. Just because I'm korean doesnt mean I should be labeled as a buddhist since thats was the religion that dominated the country hundreds of years ago! And I shouldnt be labeled catholic, which is predominant religion in korea in last few decade since Catholicism does not reflect on the decision making of the cvilization!

besides, large part of catholic population rests in latin america now, not europe, nor france.

Of course Jews and christians are different. You just said 'hey white and black isn't so different. There are some gray guys so we're not different.' Just because a medium exists doesnt change anything!

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Calc II
you cut my post for the last one, if you kept reading it instead of just maybe snipping it and argueing against it.....

So you see everything in religion eh? France is catholicism, England is protestant and yadayadaya. Well that's not how it works. Just because I'm korean doesnt mean I should be labeled as a buddhist since thats was the religion that dominated the country hundreds of years ago! And I shouldnt be labeled catholic, which is predominant religion in korea in last few decade since Catholicism does not reflect on the decision making of the cvilization!

besides, large part of catholic population rests in latin america now, not europe, nor france.

Actually I did read the whole thing, I just included certain parts to quote.

OK so France ONLY has 82.1% Catholic, my bad. Yes, I just looked it up to prove my point that they are still OVERWHELMINGLY Catholic. When I say OVERWHELMING, I mean just that. It doesn't mean EVERYONE in the country is Catholic. It just means that France's religious culture is BEST represented in a game by the Catholic religion. Yeah OK, so there's probably a 4-legged Animist Wolfman somewhere in France possibly. But do you think that one person should be considered the majority? I mean when you think of France in Civ3 and its religious improvements, what religion would you associate with them?

Originally posted by Calc II
Of course Jews and christians are different. You just said 'hey white and black isn't so different. There are some gray guys so we're not different.' Just because a medium exists doesnt change anything!

I recognize that Jews and Christians are different, especially since I'm Catholic. But we're not that different in many respects. Some Jews are Messianic and maintain that Christ is the Messiah. Some believe Elijah will come again, and set a separate spot at the dinner table for him. Some believe it will be someone else. But there is a reason they refer to America's ethics as "Judeo-Christian". Not Judeo, not Christian, but JUDEO-CHRISTIAN. We're not THAT different.

EDIT: forgot to include a word, it sounded dumb.

[Zero]

In your own arguement, if you honestly believe judaism and christianity should be treated alike, then you have the judeo-chrisitanity civ fulfilled by protestant and catholic representing civs. Like you said, shiites and Sunnis are conveniently generalized as arabs in civ. Well then if judaism and christianity are so alike, why not generalize them too into one religion?

If you're possibly asking for all subsect of religion to be represented in game. You would be asking TOO much from firaxis. Just like people who are demanding this civ and that. There is only finite number they can work with.

However If you treat Judaism as seperate major religion as I am, well like I said the religion has not affected anyone else except the hebrews (I HAVE said Judaism affected Christianity since it is DERIVED from it but other than that). So in that aspect, religion alone is not a proper reason to consider them as a world influencing civ.

And as I have said Without their religious influence, Hebrews did have a wonderful civilization before and I quote myself (which you cut out),

I would have to strongly disagree including the hebrews just because they are jews and have to force them in since because we don;t have a judeo-religion in the game. I don't like the idea of giving "affirmative action" on the civ. Even more, religion is not a civilization in my opinion. Religion is part of the civ. However on a civilization level, Hebrews did have a very prsoperous and flourishing empire before, so they are "worthy" of being in the game, but that shouldn't automatically be a arguement against firaxis for not including them since much more civs exist that qualify just as much or if not even more that should be in the game, it just that there's only so limited number that firaxis can work with.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Traelin


Actually I did read the whole thing, I just included certain parts to quote.

OK so France ONLY has 82.1% Catholic, my bad. Yes, I just looked it up to prove my point that they are still OVERWHELMINGLY Catholic. When I say OVERWHELMING, I mean just that. It doesn't mean EVERYONE in the country is Catholic. It just means that France's religious culture is BEST represented in a game by the Catholic religion. Yeah OK, so there's probably a 4-legged Animist Wolfman somewhere in France possibly. But do you think that one person should be considered the majority? I mean when you think of France in Civ3 and its religious improvements, what religion would you associate with them?

I'm sorry the french government does not make decision based on catholic principle. I would be lying if the 82.1% of catholic doesnt have ANY influence on nation's decision making but just how much do you think france makes its decision based on the catholic doctrine these days???

I recognize that Jews and Christians are different, especially since I'm Catholic. But we're not that different in many respects. Some Jews are Messianic and maintain that Christ is the Messiah. Some believe Elijah will come again, and set a separate spot at the dinner table for him. Some believe it will be someone else. But there is a reason they refer to America's ethics as "Judeo-Christian". Not Judeo, not Christian, but JUDEO-CHRISTIAN. We're not THAT different.

EDIT: forgot to include a word, it sounded dumb.

Beleiving in christ and not makes it a big difference if your especially a catholic! I was told your Jewish brothers will ultimately not be saved on the day of judgement. That makes a big difference for me!

Yes we are more alike than comparison of buddhism per say. Or even Muslim. But fact is there is enough space to make us different. I'm not enforcing some kind of distancing between the two religion and keeping their relationship apart, but merely acknowledging the facts and respecting the difference.

what word was it?

EDIT: American ethic? What ethic? Hmm.. must be North vs. South thing. Stereo-typically they hold more of religious principle. I dunno about down there but certainly up here the code of ethic does not seem reflected at all in judeo-christianity. Sure, thou shalt not kill is an american law, but its not distinctively judeo-christian. Just about everyother country that is not judeo christian dominant and is democratic has about the same law.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Calc II
In your own arguement, if you honestly believe judaism and christianity should be treated alike, then you have the judeo-chrisitanity civ fulfilled by protestant and catholic representing civs. Like you said, shiites and Sunnis are conveniently generalized as arabs in civ. Well then if judaism and christianity are so alike, why not generalize them too into one religion?

Whoa, I think you're mistaking my argument as one that, in summary, would include Israel as a Civ because Judaism isn't represented in Civ3. If I didn't make myself clear, let me do so now. I will admit that it does seem a bit biased against Jews to not have Israel in the game. Not because I think people are anti-Semitic, but that people take the affects of Jewish culture for granted.

To summarize, I think Israel should be included for these main reasons:

1. It's a superpower today.
2. Its influence on world culture, stemming from ancient times, is incredible, even unparalled.
3. Its history is long, detailed, and valuable to Civ.

That's all I can think of as main reasons for now. But in a previous post of mine, you'll notice that for the sake of argument I steered away from the religious overtones of the thread. I based my argument on its value as a country today, which is undeniable. I still say it should be included as a Civ for many other reasons, but that's up to everyone else to decide.

Originally posted by Calc II
However If you treat Judaism as seperate major religion as I am, well like I said the religion has not affected anyone else except the hebrews (I HAVE said Judaism affected Christianity since it is DERIVED from it but other than that). So in that aspect, religion alone is not a proper reason to consider them as a world influencing civ.

And as I have said Without their religious influence, Hebrews did have a wonderful civilization before and I quote myself (which you cut out),

I always have treated Judaism as a separate religion. But it is undeniable that it had a profound influence on Christianity. I wasn't suggesting that Israel should be included merely because of its religion, but I was suggesting that I found it "interesting" that the only major religion not represented by any Civ in Civ3 was Judaism.

[Caliban]

Originally posted by Traelin
To summarize, I think Israel should be included for these main reasons:

1. It's a superpower today.
2. Its influence on world culture, stemming from ancient times, is incredible, even unparalled.
3. Its history is long, detailed, and valuable to Civ.

I always have treated Judaism as a separate religion. But it is undeniable that it had a profound influence on Christianity.

Israel is a superpower? Really? Well, just because they have some nukes ( ), this does not mean they are a superpower... and fighting armed civilians is not a challenge for any country in the world, you don't have to be a superpower for that purpose.

But I agree on your other points. The cultural influence the Jews had and their detailed history give them the "right" to be in the game (maybe even more than Germany or France... or the US!)

Oh, and Judaism not only had profound influence on christianity, christianity DEVELOPPED out of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Caliban

But I agree on your other points. The cultural influence the Jews had and their detailed history give them the "right" to be in the game (maybe even more than Germany or France... or the US!)

Oh, and Judaism not only had profound influence on christianity, christianity DEVELOPPED out of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew!

One should not deny that the first christian and the christ himself was a jew, and Judaism was a foundation on which christianity was derived on. But to just simply crush them together with a steamroller as if what judaism has done in the world is what christianity has done and vice versa is inappropraite.

Shintoism was derived from the buddhist teaching of Buddha, but buddha did not enforce code of the bushido which was affected largely by shintoistic teachings.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Calc II
I'm sorry the french government does not make decision based on catholic principle. I would be lying if the 82.1% of catholic doesnt have ANY influence on nation's decision making but just how much do you think france makes its decision based on the catholic doctrine these days???

No no, that's not what I was suggesting at all. I guess I look at Civ3 in a different light than everyone else. When I look at a Civ, I like to associate certain things with them. For instance, let's take France. When I think of France, I think of the colorful history the Civ has had IRL. So when I look at it in Civ3, I look at it as an abstraction of the real France. When Joanie builds all those damn temples and cathedrals and ruins my frontier, those temples can be associated with the Catholic religion. That's all I was implying when I said France's religious culture is incluenced overwhelmingly by Catholicism. And this whole point arose from a ton of previous posts, and really is digressing from the main issue.

Originally posted by Calc II
Beleiving in christ and not makes it a big difference if your especially a catholic! I was told your Jewish brothers will ultimately not be saved on the day of judgement. That makes a big difference for me!

When I said we're not THAT different, I assumed everyone knew I was talking about our code of laws, our heritage, etc. I am not talking about the nuances of the religions.