Thread Tools
Old October 14, 2002, 12:48   #181
Zero
PtWDG Glory of WarInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamACDG The Human HiveC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamACDG3 SpartansPtWDG2 Monkey
King
 
Zero's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Halloween town
Posts: 2,969
Judaism is not represented because Only people who are predominantly Jews are Israelis. So if you exclude Isralis You dont have Judaism in game!

It's NOT being anti-sematic. However what you are doing is enforcing affirmative action against religion. AS A MINORITY, I believe Affirmative action is wrong. I have takent the both ends of affirmative action as an asian american because sometimes the card plays right for me and sometimes it doesnt (for example school that has 45% asians enrolled.) I hate the idea of having a native american student accepted just because we had same skills but the school had large population of asians. I also hate seeing a white person rejected because we had a same skill level but the school was perdominantly white and it did not favor him. If you have to add Isralis JUST FOR THE FACT of having Judaism. That is so wrong.

EDIT: Whats even sadder is that sometimes its doesnt even have to be the case that they have to be equally qualified.
__________________
:-p

Last edited by Zero; October 14, 2002 at 12:57.
Zero is offline  
Old October 14, 2002, 12:51   #182
Traelin
Prince
 
Traelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington, DC, US
Posts: 548
Quote:
Originally posted by Caliban
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!
Well I agree with your agreement. But I will beg to differ with your assessment of Israel as a superpower. Read that article that I included a link for in a previous post. Their military is staggering, to say the least. As I even said, I'm shocked by the potency of their military. The fact that they can run 2.5 times the number of sorties daily (I think it was daily) than we can is just a small example of their readiness. I don't what kind of military might exists in Europe, but I'd bet Israel could certainly match them. The only country near them that poses anywhere near a threat to them is Iraq, because Hussein also has a standing force of 1mil+. And Iraq ONLY poses a threat to them because Iraq is willing to use any type of weapon to win.

I'm not a big fan of "winning at all costs", or that "the end justifies the means".

Last edited by Traelin; October 14, 2002 at 12:57.
Traelin is offline  
Old October 14, 2002, 12:54   #183
Zero
PtWDG Glory of WarInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamACDG The Human HiveC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamACDG3 SpartansPtWDG2 Monkey
King
 
Zero's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Halloween town
Posts: 2,969
I'm sory there's so many posts flying over this thread at this time I don't think I can respond to all of them. So if I throw old stuff back it's prolly cause I didn't have time for it.
__________________
:-p
Zero is offline  
Old October 14, 2002, 12:55   #184
Traelin
Prince
 
Traelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington, DC, US
Posts: 548
Quote:
Originally posted by Calc II
Judaism is not represented because Only people who are predominantly Jews are Israelis. So if you exclude Isralis You dont have Judaism in game!

It's NOT being anti-sematic. However what you are doing is enforcing affirmative action against religion. AS A MINORITY, I believe Affirmative action is wrong. I have takent the both ends of affirmative action as an asian american because sometimes the card plays right for me and sometimes it doesnt (for example school that has 45% asians enrolled.) I hate the idea of having a native american student accepted just because we had same skills but the school had large population of asians. I also hate seeing a white person rejected because we had a same skill level but the school was perdominantly white and it did not favor him. If you have to add Isralis JUST FOR THE FACT of having Judaism. That is so wrong.
Your first paragraph is likely true.

I also agree with everything you said in your second paragraph 100%. But as you now know, I don't want to include Israel just because of Judaism.

EDIT: What I mean is, I want to include Israel as a Civ in Civ3, but NOT just because of Judaism. There are other reasons to include them.

Last edited by Traelin; October 14, 2002 at 16:20.
Traelin is offline  
Old October 14, 2002, 12:58   #185
Traelin
Prince
 
Traelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington, DC, US
Posts: 548
Double Post.

Last edited by Traelin; October 14, 2002 at 15:02.
Traelin is offline  
Old October 14, 2002, 12:58   #186
Zero
PtWDG Glory of WarInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamACDG The Human HiveC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamACDG3 SpartansPtWDG2 Monkey
King
 
Zero's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Halloween town
Posts: 2,969
Yes, I think we settled the idea, I said I denounce the idea of including hebrews just for religion alone and you remind thats what you are saying.

Let's drop the whole religion part right now before we argue about the small details
__________________
:-p
Zero is offline  
Old October 14, 2002, 14:07   #187
gsmoove23
Warlord
 
gsmoove23's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 189
Traelin,
Read your article again. I think the comparisons it made for the Israeli and American forces were qualified by the phrase in the MidEast, at the moment. It made the point that this would change with a considerable and costly movement of forces to the MidEast by the US. Israel is not a superpower. It IS a superpower in the MidEast which isn't saying much. I'm not certain but I doubt their military compares with GB, certainly not Russia, perhaps not even France and I'm quite sure Turkey could at least give it a run for its money. For that matter China, India and maybe even Pakistan surpass it.

You should also realize that Israel, because of its political situation, is almost at a constant state of mobilization and would certainly be surpassed by a good number of other countries if they also were put in the same place and definately if they lost the 2bil in military and 1bil in economic aid a year the US give them.

Earlier in the thread you discounted this aid because we offer aid to many countries but, to the whole continent of Africa we only give 10 bil compared to 3bil to tiny little Israel. That of course is only what we give in overt donations.

As for cultural influence, yes they have it. A number of books were written a long time ago, Jesus was a rabbi. These factors snowballed into Christianity and Islam but after the death of Jesus and Mohammed's break with the Jewish community, where he taught his followers to pray to Mecca instead of Jerusalem the influence ends. It has had a huge affect on the world because of the enormous success of those religions, a success that cannot be ascribed to the Jews accept for giving it its initial spark.

However, this doesn't even matter because its a game of civilization not culture. Culture is a part of it but it does not stand alone in the game. If there were an option in the game where a civ could be absorbed by another and then appear later(which would be pretty cool) I might change my mind.

So how does Israel stand up to the other civs, Rome, Persia, Babylonians, Britain, Egypt, Russia. These are civs whose cultures expanded as their countries expanded, not tagged along to others as happened with the Old Testament which were incorporated into Islam and Christianity long after Israel had ceased to exist as a kingdom(a very small and relatively insignificant one). Perhaps the Koreans which I'm a little iffy about anyway(sorry Calc II, that is a Korean flag is it not?) but I must confess I don't know much about them.

PS. how do you do that nifty quoting?
gsmoove23 is offline  
Old October 14, 2002, 14:34   #188
Zero
PtWDG Glory of WarInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamACDG The Human HiveC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamACDG3 SpartansPtWDG2 Monkey
King
 
Zero's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Halloween town
Posts: 2,969
Quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23

So how does Israel stand up to the other civs, Rome, Persia, Babylonians, Britain, Egypt, Russia. These are civs whose cultures expanded as their countries expanded, not tagged along to others as happened with the Old Testament which were incorporated into Islam and Christianity long after Israel had ceased to exist as a kingdom(a very small and relatively insignificant one). Perhaps the Koreans which I'm a little iffy about anyway(sorry Calc II, that is a Korean flag is it not?) but I must confess I don't know much about them.
Yes that is a korean flag. But that doesn't guarantee I am Korean. Met some guy with a German Flag who was turkish on another forum. For your answer, well i was born in US and both my parents are at least born Korea, my father being 100% korean, so I'm not sure what that makes me. All I know is that "S" for south korea was lot closer down the list than "U" For United States. So in my typical American fashion I opted to do less work scrolling down the list

Korea wasn't always small, they had their expansionsitc era where they reached all the way to northern manchuria under Kokyuryo (pre korean dynasty). But whether they were always small or not, korea isn't as significant as big boys like Roman or Egyptian civ that really achived big.

Still, civs like Korea Israel and other civ "qualify" as a civ in civIII since they do have some kind of achievements they had. But the problem is, the game can't have infinite amount of civs that firaxis can add so there has to be a cut offpoint. I dont support nor frown upon the fact Korea is in since Korea has legitimate reason to be in. Same applies to Israel. It has the same qualification to be in as with many other civ that is not in the game. But there's no need to force them in creating extra justifications. I do know it was higly likely a marketting move to add korea since there's market for huge korean gamers. Personally, I'd take Incas over Korea or israel anyday.
__________________
:-p
Zero is offline  
Old October 14, 2002, 16:16   #189
Traelin
Prince
 
Traelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington, DC, US
Posts: 548
Quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
Traelin,
Read your article again. I think the comparisons it made for the Israeli and American forces were qualified by the phrase in the MidEast, at the moment. It made the point that this would change with a considerable and costly movement of forces to the MidEast by the US. Israel is not a superpower. It IS a superpower in the MidEast which isn't saying much. I'm not certain but I doubt their military compares with GB, certainly not Russia, perhaps not even France and I'm quite sure Turkey could at least give it a run for its money. For that matter China, India and maybe even Pakistan surpass it.
OK here's some countries' general military statistics. That is, I've only included the number of people actually in the military, but this info is enough to give a general idea on how Israel's military compares to its counterparts.

I will list the country in bold, and the source at the bottom. Also, ignore any politics in the links, I just performed a quick search based on 2002 numbers.

Russia: "There are well over 2 million people in active military service today, of which some 800,000 are conscripts; the rest are officers, contract soldiers and noncommissioned officers."

http://www.cdi.org/russia/198-3.cfm

France: "...President Jacques Chirac announced his decision to end conscription by 2002 and in the process cut the armed forces from half a million to 350,000"

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/french-reform.cfm

China: "...Chinese military is 2.5 million, of which 1.8 million are in service with the PLA (ground forces)"

http://www.idds.org/chinasmil.html

Note: This is 2000 data, which means it's a bit dated, but you all get the point.

Iraq: "...400,000-strong armed forces..."

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/19980319.htm

Wow, a little side note: We must have butchered them in '91, cuz that's only 1/2 of what it used to be.

Germany: Darn, couldn't find any info. Found an article that said it's really, really hurting ATM though (as in rusted equipment and stuff).

Israel: See previous thread. Over 1,000,000 below the age of 48.

Great Britain: Couldn't find any current info. I did find an article that said it has cut back so much on its military spending that it couldn't perform another Falkland operation right now.

Now of course we all know stats can be misleading. As my stats teacher used to say, "The average American has one boob and one ball" (I censored it, of course). But the point I'm trying to make is that Israel's military does indeed compare to everyone, given their total population of 7 million. They are noone's lapdogs. If anything, America is more their lapdogs than anything, due to AIPAC.

So Israel is indeed a superpower if you base it entirely on these numbers. But let's not do that. Why don't we base it on technology and strength of allies? Doing this, Israel is assuredly in the crem de la crem. The US's military has the best equipment there is, therefore so does Israel, because we sell them the kick-butt stuff.

By the way, Israel is not completely in a state of mobilization. If it were, then it's military population would increase to around 2.4 million, the total number of citizens that are militarily ready.

Again OT, but I'm shocked at how much Europe has been cutting back its military spending. A bunch of articles on the web are stating that the longstanding economic downturn is partially to blame.

I'm not sure what ya mean by nifty quoting? I just click reply with quote and cut and paste as needed?
Traelin is offline  
Old October 14, 2002, 16:57   #190
Zero
PtWDG Glory of WarInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamACDG The Human HiveC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamACDG3 SpartansPtWDG2 Monkey
King
 
Zero's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Halloween town
Posts: 2,969
no not really. US sells military equipment to South Korea but that doesn't make them the kick asser. Don't know if this is true but another thread indicated South Korea ranks fifth in largest military. Yet N. Korea can absolutely wipe their enemy of the face of the planet and N.Korea doesn't get military equipment from US (obviously)
__________________
:-p
Zero is offline  
Old October 14, 2002, 20:07   #191
bartdanr
CTP2 Source Code Project
Chieftain
 
bartdanr's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally posted by Calc II
(I visualize like an Incan civ, flourishing for hundreds of years kinda thing)
Actually, the Incan Empire was just about a century old when destroyed by the Spanish.

...and I would LOVE to see the Inca as well...my wife is from Ecuador, and I think South America needs to be in the game!!!!
__________________
"Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. And those who do know history repeat it just for fun."
bartdanr is offline  
Old October 14, 2002, 21:16   #192
bartdanr
CTP2 Source Code Project
Chieftain
 
bartdanr's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally posted by sabrewolf


"panzer" is actually the german word for "tank" but also means "armour". in the 1st world war german tanks where a lot stronger, more effective and had superior armour. i think the UU is meant to be from that time.
also, in civ3 tanks/panzers come with motorized transport which in real life started towards the end of the 19th century...
I'm sure this was just a typo, since the WW I German tanks were insignificant (such as the LK II which I don't believe saw combat)--the Allies were the ones who really used the tank. I'm sure you meant WW II--right?

Even in WW II, German tanks weren't really that superior, especially early in the war. They just used them more effectively. The French army, in fact, had some good tanks (though small turrets and the lack of radio limited their usefulness), but used them with the same tactics that the tank was used in WW I. And until the Panther and the Tiger I tanks, the Soviet T-34 was the most outstanding tank in the world. (The Panther was built largely in response to it.) And don't forget the JS-2 Soviet heavy tank.

Blizkreig was effective because of tactics, not because of equipment. Some German equipment of WW II was exceptional--but a lot of it was dated and obsolete. (For example, the German Army still relied heavily on horse-drawn transport throughout the war.)

I have to view the German UU as being the tactics used by the Germans (such as written about before the war by Heinz Guderian and the British tank writers who influenced him.) I can't equate it with any specific piece of hardware.

Actually, I'd like the idea of a UU for every era...though this presents several challenges, for example what kind of ancient UU would the United States have, or what kind of modern unit would the Phonecians have?
__________________
"Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. And those who do know history repeat it just for fun."
bartdanr is offline  
Old October 15, 2002, 00:24   #193
Traelin
Prince
 
Traelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington, DC, US
Posts: 548
Quote:
Originally posted by Calc II
no not really. US sells military equipment to South Korea but that doesn't make them the kick asser. Don't know if this is true but another thread indicated South Korea ranks fifth in largest military. Yet N. Korea can absolutely wipe their enemy of the face of the planet and N.Korea doesn't get military equipment from US (obviously)
I don't know too much about the Korean War and the present military states of North and South Korea. However, alot of the guys I work with have been enlisted military. From what they said, it's almost a freaking requirement to serve 9 months over there. Some of them served in Seoul, but some served near the DMZ and said it's crazy when you can see enemy snipers a couple hundred yards away.

Anyways, they told me that there's no way in heck North Korea could come close to taking out South Korea, due to our substantial presence there. Which leads back to my other point that we are a very strong ally of Israel, and yeah we do help them (and others) out a lot, but you still can't take their accomplishments away from them. I guess when the U.S. spends 278 billion annually on military expenses, we have a good deal left over for aid.
Traelin is offline  
Old October 15, 2002, 00:27   #194
Traelin
Prince
 
Traelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington, DC, US
Posts: 548
Remaining 8 civs
Well since the Arabs are definitely in Civ3, it's really a moot point to wish they won't be. BUT -- we still have 8 spots left, right? So what would you all think about Israel being in a future XP?
Traelin is offline  
Old October 15, 2002, 09:35   #195
gsmoove23
Warlord
 
gsmoove23's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 189
Ok I'm experimenting here,

Quote:
Originally posted by Traelin
Germany: Darn, couldn't find any info. Found an article that said it's really, really hurting ATM though (as in rusted equipment and stuff).
For obvious reasons, people would be a little upset if they began mobilizing again, same for Japan.

Quote:
Originally posted by Traelin
Israel: See previous thread. Over 1,000,000 below the age of 48.
I'm a little confused by this, I don't know where your previous link is but I've found this one which reports a much smaller number, while stating this is only an educated guess because the size of the Isreali army is classified.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...9/military.htm

Quote:
Originally posted by Traelin
Again OT, but I'm shocked at how much Europe has been cutting back its military spending. A bunch of articles on the web are stating that the longstanding economic downturn is partially to blame.
Of course they're cutting back and its not entirely because of an economic downturn but a lack of need. They simply don't see the possibility of a large scale war and why should they with the EU slowly erasing borders. I can assure you, if Israel were in such a calm part of the world they wouldn't see the point either. This is what I mean, I didn't say Israel was fully mobilized but they are constantly at a high state of readiness because they are not in a calm part of the world, they are surrounded by possible enemies and they are currently occupying a heavily populated unhappy West Bank and Gaza, not to mention the Golan Heights. If France or England were in the same position you could be sure they have stronger richer nations with far more economic depth and they would be able to mobilize a much greater force.

Plus I don't see rating a civ on the strength of its allies.

Quote:
Originally posted by Traelin
I'm not sure what ya mean by nifty quoting? I just click reply with quote and cut and paste as needed?
Thank you I had completely overlooked that, I hope this experiment worked.

All that being said I also think Israel is more then worthy of civ-hood in an XP or mod. My problem is, with a limited number of civs to choose from, Israel would seem like more of a political choice when there are more worthy options out there.

My list of other worthies definately Incan and Mayan and hearing more about the Koreans I think they're a good choice. Byzantines, no they're not the same as Romans. Goths. Can't think of more right now but I'll be back. Are there really 8 more slots?

PS. I have yet to here a really good argument against the Arabs on this thread.
gsmoove23 is offline  
Old October 15, 2002, 09:59   #196
gsmoove23
Warlord
 
gsmoove23's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 189
Sorry, but I just reread your article and had to put this in.

"It's one of the most efficient military forces around," said Anthony Cordesman, a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "Can they thumb their nose at us? Well, for a while. But they don't have the technical or production base to sustain these capabilities without some resupply by us."

But Cordesman estimated it would take about two years of fighting before Israel needed help.

It was a much closer thing in 1973, when Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on Yom Kippur, one of the Jewish high holy days. As Egyptian tanks swept across the Sinai Peninsula and plunged through Israeli defenses, a panicked Israeli government pleaded with the United States for help.

Then-President Nixon quickly stationed two aircraft carriers off the Israeli coast and put U.S. combat forces on alert. Eight days later, U.S. cargo planes began delivering what would be more than 22,000 tons of supplies to Israel, including tanks and jet fighters.

The deliveries tipped the military balance. Israel counter-attacked with its tank forces, under the leadership of then-Gen. Sharon, chasing Egyptian troops back across the Suez Canal and reclaiming the Sinai.

From that experience came the U.S. pledge that Israel would never lose its "qualitative edge" in military power to any Arab neighbors, and U.S. military aid to Israel that backed up that pledge. U.S. military support to Egypt, which began after Egypt and Israel signed their 1979 peace treaty, is about two-thirds what Israel gets.

From - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ilitary09.html
gsmoove23 is offline  
Old October 15, 2002, 11:10   #197
Cidifer
Civilization III Democracy Game
Warlord
 
Cidifer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally posted by Calc II
no not really. US sells military equipment to South Korea but that doesn't make them the kick asser. Don't know if this is true but another thread indicated South Korea ranks fifth in largest military. Yet N. Korea can absolutely wipe their enemy of the face of the planet and N.Korea doesn't get military equipment from US (obviously)
That's false, North Korea really couldn't hope to beat South Korea in a war, I can only assume either you heard that somehwere else and are quoting it here, in which case they probably meant North Koreas nuclear capabilities, or 2 you that's what you meant. In which case I'm sure you know the U.S. has much more suffisticated nukes then do the North Koreans and if such a case occured then there likely wouldn't be a North Korean Government by the following day. Also you may or may not know this but North Korea got weapons and money from Russia and China for years.

Another note, (as of July 2001) North Korea was exporting 49% of all exports to South Korea and Japan, and getting over 20% of it's imports from them as well, if they ever tried to engage in a conventional war how long do you think they could continue to feed and arm their military, especially if they were on the offensive? I'm sure both countries would stop all trade pretty quickly.


***Some more info on North and South Korea for anyone interested (info from July 2001)***

Popilation approx:
North Korea
22 million

South Korea
48 million

Per capita income:
North Korea
$1,000 (edit: this is not a typo)
South Korea
$16,100

Government:
North Korea
Authoritarian socialist; one man dictatorship (even though they call them selves the Democratic Peoples Republic)

South Korea
Republic

Larget Cities
North Korea (note hard city info for north korea is about 10 years old all figures are estimates)
Pyongyana: 2.25-3 million
Hamhung: 700-800 thousand

South Korea
Seoul 10.8 million
Pusan: 3.8 million
Taegu 2.25 million
Inchon 1.8 million
Kwangju 1.15 million

*All info comes from "The New York Times Almanac 2002" most info is from 2000 or 2001 and many are estimates.
Cidifer is offline  
Old October 15, 2002, 12:05   #198
Traelin
Prince
 
Traelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington, DC, US
Posts: 548
Quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
I'm a little confused by this, I don't know where your previous link is but I've found this one which reports a much smaller number, while stating this is only an educated guess because the size of the Isreali army is classified.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...9/military.htm
It seems there's a bunch of numbers floating around. So what I decided to do was go with the CIA's recent numbers. Check this site out, it's pretty cool and has economic, military, and other stats on every country in the world.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/is.html

I think it's still crystal clear that Israel's military kicks butt.

EDIT: Oh yeah, if you wanna see stats from other countries, go to the list box at the top of the page and change it, it's that easy.

Quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
Of course they're cutting back and its not entirely because of an economic downturn but a lack of need. They simply don't see the possibility of a large scale war and why should they with the EU slowly erasing borders.
Well they're sadly mistaken. I think what part of it boils down to is America is expected to bail nearly everyone out. Why were we even involved in Bosnia? My father was stationed over there for 9 months. He's a Colonel, yet he told me the conditions were absolutely miserable for everyone involved. That's Europe's responsibility, not ours. Yet America continues to be forced into a position as World's Policeman.

Europe and the U.S. cut down military spending during the times of the Depression, with the exception of Germany, who re-militarized and pulled itself out quicker than any other country. We almost made the same mistake under Clinton again. I don't understand why Santayana's quote always seems to revisit us. Why must we not realize that people's inherit nature doesn't change? There will ALWAYS be some whackjob out there ready to attempt a Pinky and the Brain.

Quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
I can assure you, if Israel were in such a calm part of the world they wouldn't see the point either.
I couldn't disagree more. I think Europe as a whole is MUCH, MUCH more pacifistic than the rest of the world. Although countries like Britain have always been fairly aware that there is a constant danger to disarmament. As Jefferson said, "The price of liberty is to be ever-vigilent." If we ever get another Roosevelt in office that guts our military, we're utterly screwed and likely doomed to deal with another Pearl Harbor.

Quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
My list of other worthies definately Incan and Mayan and hearing more about the Koreans I think they're a good choice. Byzantines, no they're not the same as Romans. Goths. Can't think of more right now but I'll be back. Are there really 8 more slots?
Apparently there are 8 more slots. Umm my first few choices would be (in order):

1. Netherlands
2. Incas
3. Israel

I haven't given too much thought past this.
Traelin is offline  
Old October 15, 2002, 12:14   #199
Traelin
Prince
 
Traelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington, DC, US
Posts: 548
Military Expenditures
I know I know, this is also OT. But I know you guys will find it interesting. Here the top 15 countries with respect to military expenditures. The link is:

http://www.govspot.com/know/militaryspending.htm

Top 15 Countries with Highest Military Expenditures
Rank County Millions of Dollars
1. United States 277,800
2. Russia 76,000
3. China–Mainland 63,510
4. Japan 50,240
5. France 47,770
6. Germany 41,160
7. United Kingdom 33,400
8. Italy 19,380
9. Saudi Arabia 17,210
10. Korea, South 14,410
11. China–Taiwan 13,140
12 Brazil 10,900
13 Canada 9,077
14 Israel 8,734
15 Spain 8,652
Traelin is offline  
Old October 15, 2002, 12:18   #200
sabrewolf
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV CreatorsC3CDG Desolation RowCivilization IV PBEMCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Emperor
 
sabrewolf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: turicum, helvetistan
Posts: 9,852
there are more than 8 slots... the editor can handle more (64 iirc), but you can only play with 31 at a time (barbarians count as a civ too, so 32 minus them ). but the firaxis guys said that 31 civs in one game isn't everybody's choice.

in my list, polynesians would get in too. the jews not as israel ... but as the hebrews
__________________
- Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity
- Atheism is a nonprophet organization.
sabrewolf is offline  
Old October 15, 2002, 13:42   #201
Cidifer
Civilization III Democracy Game
Warlord
 
Cidifer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 192
Quote:
It seems there's a bunch of numbers floating around. So what I decided to do was go with the CIA's recent numbers. Check this site out, it's pretty cool and has economic, military, and other stats on every country in the world.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...ok/geos/is.html

I think it's still crystal clear that Israel's military kicks butt.
Actually from that site there really isn't any good indication of their actual military power.

It basically says that 3 million people are available for military service (this is including females) and also that about 2.5 million are fit for service, however the most accurate numbers I've gotten of actual active full time troops (possibly army only) is in the 40-50 thousand range which I have heard from atleast 3 sources I can remember. One was an all news network, another was an almanac (this one was over a year old however) and yet another from an online newspaper article.

BTW for the US it says that about 71 million are available and this is no where near how many we could actually get into the military even in a war. Someone correct me if I'm wrong (as I have only pre sept 11th or slightly later then sept 11 info) but the US has well below 2 million people in the military if I remember correctly. However keep in mind that Isreal recruits everyone and they must serve atleast 3 years I think(that's what I've heard from numerous people who say they are from Isreal anyway) but don't take that last part as hard facts.
Cidifer is offline  
Old October 15, 2002, 14:26   #202
gsmoove23
Warlord
 
gsmoove23's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 189
If there are 64 or 32 civs available in the new release(is this really true?!) then I have no prob with an Israeli civ, but I have to respond to a couple of your arguments anyway
Quote:
Originally posted by Traelin
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/is.html
I think it's still crystal clear that Israel's military kicks butt.
Where do you see this. The CIA factbook only lists Israeli citizens available for armed service. Even if you count that every Israeli has to serve when they reach 19 it doesn't mean much because they only have 8bil dollars worth of military hardware to equip them with. China's number in this area are 300mil. Its doubtful that all these could possibly serve at one time. Plus, you should take into account that israeli arabs and orthodox jews are exempt from military service. Israeli arabs are about 20% of the population.
Quote:
Originally posted by Traelin
Well they're sadly mistaken. I think what part of it boils down to is America is expected to bail nearly everyone out. Why were we even involved in Bosnia? My father was stationed over there for 9 months. He's a Colonel, yet he told me the conditions were absolutely miserable for everyone involved. That's Europe's responsibility, not ours. Yet America continues to be forced into a position as World's Policeman.
I sort of agree with you here, where it comes to Israel. If you'll read the quote I extracted from your article in 1973 we assured Israel's success in that war and promised to maintain their military supremacy in the MidEast, which we have ever since. Bosnia was not a large scale conflict or a threat to the security of the more stable european countries and America was upholding its roll as world policeman whether people wanted it to or not something it has been doing for quite a long time, but european countries had a large stake in that action anyway.
Quote:
Originally posted by Traelin
Europe and the U.S. cut down military spending during the times of the Depression, with the exception of Germany, who re-militarized and pulled itself out quicker than any other country. We almost made the same mistake under Clinton again. I don't understand why Santayana's quote always seems to revisit us. Why must we not realize that people's inherit nature doesn't change? There will ALWAYS be some whackjob out there ready to attempt a Pinky and the Brain.
Maintaining forces that can counter existing threats is necessary. Maintaining overburdensome forces to counter imaginary threats is stupidity. For instance, some amount of demobilization is to be expected after the end of the cold war. We simply don't need that level of expenditure on forces that will not be used in the forseeable future. However we still have to maintain a significant military as a deterrent for the likes of China and petty dictators like Saddam but choosing to maintain unnecessary forces is a drain on economy which is an extremely significant weapon which if used properly can forego the need for war.
Quote:
Originally posted by Traelin
I couldn't disagree more. I think Europe as a whole is MUCH, MUCH more pacifistic than the rest of the world. Although countries like Britain have always been fairly aware that there is a constant danger to disarmament. As Jefferson said, "The price of liberty is to be ever-vigilent." If we ever get another Roosevelt in office that guts our military, we're utterly screwed and likely doomed to deal with another Pearl Harbor.
I think you need to look at the list of military expenditure you posted and if you consider that Europe is now in the process of dissolving its borders consider what that might mean in the coming decades. I am frankly suprised by the amounts I see there. They seem to put Israel to shame as well.
As for your WW2 analogy, it is true that mistakes were made but these were because of a general exhaustion and fear of war following WW1 and these were huge mistakes because Hitler's mobilization should have been obvious to everyone. Where are the obvious threats today?! Iraq, please. If any madman takes control of a country and begins a significant rearmament economically strong countries like France and Britain will be better placed to react in the future if they don't maintain a huge, useless and expensive army today.

As for Israel, if you don't think its current state of mobilization has anything to do with its political situation I don't know what else I can say. Except its occupying land, oppressing 3 or 4 mil palestinians, fighting a guerilla war!

Anyway, thanks for the interesting list, but I've got to ask, does it support your arguement or refute it?
gsmoove23 is offline  
Old October 15, 2002, 16:32   #203
Cidifer
Civilization III Democracy Game
Warlord
 
Cidifer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 192
Quote:
As for Israel, if you don't think its current state of mobilization has anything to do with its political situation I don't know what else I can say. Except its occupying land, oppressing 3 or 4 mil palestinians, fighting a guerilla war!
It's just like the US did with the Native Americans, the indians would attack again and again and colonists would fight back and sometimes militias would head out to their camps and burn them etc.
Cidifer is offline  
Old October 15, 2002, 23:43   #204
Traelin
Prince
 
Traelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington, DC, US
Posts: 548
Quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
Where do you see this. The CIA factbook only lists Israeli citizens available for armed service. Even if you count that every Israeli has to serve when they reach 19 it doesn't mean much because they only have 8bil dollars worth of military hardware to equip them with. China's number in this area are 300mil. Its doubtful that all these could possibly serve at one time. Plus, you should take into account that israeli arabs and orthodox jews are exempt from military service. Israeli arabs are about 20% of the population.
I actually only included the CIA factbook for reference. When I looked at the numbers, I was listing it more as evidence of the lack of preparedness in the rest of the world than I was as evidence in support of Israel. Although, you have to agree that their state of readiness is impressive, given their population. Of course Israel couldn't go to war unilaterally with China, and this is more or less due to the populations of both countries. But c'mon, to simply write off Israel military prowess because of their state of mobilization is unfair.

Quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
I sort of agree with you here, where it comes to Israel. If you'll read the quote I extracted from your article in 1973 we assured Israel's success in that war and promised to maintain their military supremacy in the MidEast, which we have ever since.
But you'll note that the point of the article is that we are much less responsible for their capabilities now than we were back then. That's the point of the article. Look at the first couple paragraphs again.

Quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
Bosnia was not a large scale conflict or a threat to the security of the more stable european countries and America was upholding its roll as world policeman whether people wanted it to or not something it has been doing for quite a long time, but european countries had a large stake in that action anyway.
Unless one of our strong allies pleaded with us to help (which they didn't), we should have had NO stake whatsoever in there. I like to follow the Monroe Doctrine, unless our economic, political, or military interests are threatened. It was about as big a mind-boggler as our humanitarian mission in Somalia.

Quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
Maintaining forces that can counter existing threats is necessary. Maintaining overburdensome forces to counter imaginary threats is stupidity. For instance, some amount of demobilization is to be expected after the end of the cold war. We simply don't need that level of expenditure on forces that will not be used in the forseeable future.
Agreed, but unfortunately it almost became a gutting of the military. My father used to manage the standard missile program for the DoN. At one time he was also responsible for acquisitions management of Tomahawks and the like. He told me that the last couple years of the Clinton administration saw an over 50% cut of that program.

Another example was the Seawolf program in Grotten, Conn. Did you know that, during Clinton's first election bid, he promised to include the Seawolf as a top military priority in his admin.? Then he immediately turns around and eliminates probably the most important submarine program in our nation's history. The Seawolf would have absolutely raped anyone and everyone, but oh well.

Quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
However we still have to maintain a significant military as a deterrent for the likes of China and petty dictators like Saddam but choosing to maintain unnecessary forces is a drain on economy which is an extremely significant weapon which if used properly can forego the need for war.
Actually this couldn't be further from the truth. People always, always mistake increasing military expenditures with a drain on the economy. It's actually very untrue. I live outside D.C., and we are considered the only "recession-proof" area in the country. That is, when commercial jobs are slashed, the govt. ends up picking up the slack. It really boils down to jobs. The military creates a ton of jobs, as is witnessed in the massive increase in counter-cyberterrorism positions in my area. Plus, look at the actual economic figures of the Reagan admin. Some attest that our economy grew 300% in his 8-year tenure, although I don't know how true that is.

The only thing that can even remotely be linked to an increase in military expenditures is deficit. My philosophy is to stop funding ridiculous regimes in S. and Central America, stop paying farmers NOT to grow certain crops, and stop the silly, ramped-up troop mobilization in Europe.

Quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
I think you need to look at the list of military expenditure you posted and if you consider that Europe is now in the process of dissolving its borders consider what that might mean in the coming decades. I am frankly suprised by the amounts I see there. They seem to put Israel to shame as well.
Again, look at the populations of the European countries. If you were to look how much one of those countries spends per citizen, you would find it to be much less than that of Israel and the U.S. I'm telling you, history is cyclic. Nothing good can come of SIGNIFICANT downsizing of one's military. They really are in a state of downsizing. I'm just too tired to post all the links I found on the topic.

Quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
As for your WW2 analogy, it is true that mistakes were made but these were because of a general exhaustion and fear of war following WW1 and these were huge mistakes because Hitler's mobilization should have been obvious to everyone. Where are the obvious threats today?! Iraq, please.
We weren't a significant (read: significant) factor in WW1. (Yes, I know about our supplies running to Liverpool, yada yada). We were more exhausted from the Great Depression than anything else. We wanted an economic savior, so the general populace forgot about everything else.

The scary thing is that we don't really know where all the significant threats are. It was nicer to have the Soviet Union on the receiving end. On the whole, they acted civilized toward us in terms of warfare. Yeah, we had the Cuban Missile Crisis. But at least we knew that the USSR wouldn't automatically have an itchy trigger finger. They were predictable.

Iraq is not. And God knows who else is not. That's what worries me the most.

Quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
As for Israel, if you don't think its current state of mobilization has anything to do with its political situation I don't know what else I can say. Except its occupying land, oppressing 3 or 4 mil palestinians, fighting a guerilla war!
Well of course their current preparedness has something to do with the situation at hand. I was arguing that they are a crack force anyways. We have sent our elites to train with them, so that should say something. Throughout history, Israel has proven to be a strong people who hold steadfast to their beliefs. This is more a part of their military mindset than anything else.

My data neither refutes nor proves my argument, it's more interesting than anything else. If you don't believe Israel has an awesome military after this thread, I'll never be able to convince you.
Traelin is offline  
Old October 15, 2002, 23:51   #205
Traelin
Prince
 
Traelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington, DC, US
Posts: 548
Quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
Except its occupying land, oppressing 3 or 4 mil palestinians, fighting a guerilla war!
I forgot to comment on this. It's also completely unfair to accuse Israel of being oppressive. Since when did they ask for the tet offensive against them that allowed them to gain the lands they now occupy? I understand the overall Palestinian population is innocent, but dude Israel succeeded in acquiring land through war in much the same way any other Civ has.

And if the terrorism would stop against their civilians, I guarantee the peace process would move forward. Any moves they make toward giving that land back while in the midst of terrorism means only one thing: the terrorists win.
Traelin is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 00:52   #206
Zero
PtWDG Glory of WarInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamACDG The Human HiveC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamACDG3 SpartansPtWDG2 Monkey
King
 
Zero's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Halloween town
Posts: 2,969
Quote:
Originally posted by Traelin


I don't know too much about the Korean War and the present military states of North and South Korea. However, alot of the guys I work with have been enlisted military. From what they said, it's almost a freaking requirement to serve 9 months over there. Some of them served in Seoul, but some served near the DMZ and said it's crazy when you can see enemy snipers a couple hundred yards away.

Anyways, they told me that there's no way in heck North Korea could come close to taking out South Korea, due to our substantial presence there. Which leads back to my other point that we are a very strong ally of Israel, and yeah we do help them (and others) out a lot, but you still can't take their accomplishments away from them. I guess when the U.S. spends 278 billion annually on military expenses, we have a good deal left over for aid.
It's no brainy secret that even South korean toddlers know, that within 24 hours N.K tanks will roll down Pusan if they were to attack.

That substantial presence you refer to according to South korean view is not being funded enough. and the support has been shrinking slowly. Whether this is true or not, they should still be independently be able to take care of themselves IMO.

DMZ still sees firefights. You just dont hear about it since they are both violating the laws by being in DMZ! (My dad went in there for reconaissance. Its the heaviest mined piece of land in the world!) While serving as a Ranger for 3 year mandatory draft he worked near DMZ for 6 months. He knows of dozen people that died. As well as the famous incident when N.K infiltrated beyond DMZ and killed off whole barrack full of dudes. (or was that like korean dad's version of boogieman stories? lol)
__________________
:-p
Zero is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 01:03   #207
Zero
PtWDG Glory of WarInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamACDG The Human HiveC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamACDG3 SpartansPtWDG2 Monkey
King
 
Zero's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Halloween town
Posts: 2,969
Argueing about superiority of one's military force is kinda pointless. Since there is no clear cut #1 in these things. There's no balance beam to weigh training, equipment and etc. factor for these things. Most of what we know is probably propaganda anyway. And besides even if someone is known to be superior, the Mets have their day where they cream th Yanks in the subway series. Or even worse, when baltimore does it. (sorry Oriole fans) I imagine battles to be no different.

EDIT: IDF is a very good Military force. I think everyone can say that for sure.
__________________
:-p
Zero is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 13:39   #208
LionQ
Warlord
 
LionQ's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Capelle aan den IJssel [near Rotterdam], The Netherlands
Posts: 127
Quote:
Originally posted by Traelin
And if the terrorism would stop against their civilians, I guarantee the peace process would move forward.
Indeed, that's true. But the Palestines are just going to continue with blowing up car bombs, etc. So the thing Israel has to do, is wipe out al the terroristic Palestines and if they continue then, wipe out al the Palestines. I think I'm getting much on my point of view, but that's the way it is. I don't want it, though. And the won't do it, because they can't make it in world politics.
__________________
Yours,

LionQ.
LionQ is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 15:07   #209
Traelin
Prince
 
Traelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington, DC, US
Posts: 548
Quote:
Originally posted by CivilopediaCity
Indeed, that's true. But the Palestines are just going to continue with blowing up car bombs, etc. So the thing Israel has to do, is wipe out al the terroristic Palestines and if they continue then, wipe out al the Palestines. I think I'm getting much on my point of view, but that's the way it is. I don't want it, though. And the won't do it, because they can't make it in world politics.
Ouch, I hope it doesn't come to that. We can only hope they'll stop bombing civilians. Although when I see pics of 8 and 9 year-olds holding up signs praising Usama Bin Laden, you gotta wonder where their mindset is.
Traelin is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 15:09   #210
Traelin
Prince
 
Traelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:33
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington, DC, US
Posts: 548
Quote:
Originally posted by Calc II
Argueing about superiority of one's military force is kinda pointless. Since there is no clear cut #1 in these things. There's no balance beam to weigh training, equipment and etc. factor for these things. Most of what we know is probably propaganda anyway. And besides even if someone is known to be superior, the Mets have their day where they cream th Yanks in the subway series. Or even worse, when baltimore does it. (sorry Oriole fans) I imagine battles to be no different.

EDIT: IDF is a very good Military force. I think everyone can say that for sure.
Agreed. Don't bring the Spankees into this though, I hate them with a passion! You brought up the O's cuz you know I'm from this area!
Traelin is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:33.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team