« on: Yesterday at 18:23 »
Presumably because the whole game isn't going to be 8-bit.
You can view here all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas to which you currently have access.
what are the chances you (or we) will solve them in the Middle East or North Africa?
Well the roadmap is pretty clear:
1) Stop relying on oil, (that, you do at home, by investing in renewable energies)
2)Stop maintaining chaos there only to please some financial partners (either to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, or to not upset Israel when it comes to Palestine).
All of that sounds fairly easy, provided there's the will. It's not even about willpower, it's purely about stop believing in fairytales like "it helps more to divide local populations to maintain control than it would help to let them live". It's all about post-colonization management and outdated, colonial beliefs.
PS: Maoism died out in China only because the country gained sufficient financial stability and political independance at some stage. Before Mao arrived, it was a rotting feudal empire, dealing with a stagnating economy and invasive neighbours (Japan, Russia...). Now China is more about middle class and consumerism than whatever revolutionary movement.
Also, about the fanaticals coming from France and Belgium: you'd be surprised by the poverty in some areas. [...] In France, if you live in a project housing, are unemployed, and on top of everything if you have the Arabian type, then you're virtually at the very bottom of society. But they're the same. And it's all caused by poverty, lack of education, and rejection. They're the "left behind".
I agree with Snarky on this one. Fanatics are rarely satisfied with anything. Give them what they want and they will be emboldened and want even more. People who believe they can get whatever they want through violence will not be persuaded otherwise until they are met with force and utterely defeated. It's as true now as it has been throughout history.
I explained exactly how. Fell free not to listen. Fanaticals are stopped by stability and economic heatlh.
The exact opposite of military interventions. They're incompatible. They don't mix. At all. Ever.
I am a little surprised at the zeal you have for your opinion too, Snarky.
Although I'd rather stay neutral on the matter There's a few commonly known facts at play here.
1) War is good for the US economy
2) War gets the citizen buy in to increase the national debt via such spending
[3) Going to war historically = a second presidential term
4) The US would prefer to control global natural resources than deplete their own.
It's quite another thing to argue that they deliberately conspire to sow and prolong wars, and make sure that their governments don't do the things that would actually help resolve the conflicts. That is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.And again, I never argued that. At best I argued that your earlier argument was (or could easily be interpreted as) in favor of this explanation. By definition what I argued was not a conspiracy theory; as a matter of fact I clearly stated: I also don't believe in some shadow government that controls the world ... . But then again, I don't think you need some 'higher power' to create chaos and conflict. And that has been the basic starting-point for all my arguments. So again, you're arguing something I didn't say, and put a label on it (paranoia, conspiracy theory) that is not valid.
ending the war quickly and early might not be in the best interest of those selling the weapons (some of whom are western governments as OUXX pointed out). That does NOT argue an evil scheme, a pupetmaster, or even that 'lack of military intervention' is in any way proof of either.
Are you claiming no one in the west (including government officials who make the decision to go to war) has made any profit of it?
US general Smidley D. Butler argued in his book 'war is a racket' (1935) that the profitability of war (not to all, but to some) causes it to be both fraudulent and continuous. So it can be argued that the only way to stop war it not make sure it's not profitable to anyone. Now, much has changed since he published that book, but I honestly don't believe that things have change that much.
I'm just barely beginning to understand what it means, and I'm starting to feel that this is currently to complicated for me as I'm just a beginner, so I have been thinking of coming up with an easier solution altogether and perhaps save these functions for a later project when I have more experience.
Is there a command for changing the script of a hotspot like this?
I suggest changing the angle of perspective for a better view. Well Busra is the perfect location to begin with and than to follow the bread crumbs into the modern world.
I think it takes an unreasonable amount of paranoia to think that arms manufacturers dictated that Europe and the US not intervene more decisively in the early stages of the Syrian civil war, on the calculation that this would mean a longer, more brutal and therefore more profitable war for them in the end. That's "evil mastermind" stuff.First of all, I think the correct word is cynicism not paranoia (it's not 'believing they are after you', but 'they are in it for themselves').
As pointed out by OUXX, the countries who play the biggest role in deciding how to move forward are also the biggest arms dealers (that is not: the biggest arms dealers come from these countries, the countries themselves are (said to be) these arms dealers). That means that - whether we like it or not - war is part of their business model and thus (potentially) in their national interest (as long as the war is not brought to their own soil).
Oh please, give me a break!
And for the record, a pretty good example on how the world works in today. Don't worry, it's English.
Youtube: sneak peek
I would say that this would be the easiest thing, not an almost impossible one. Just sell everyone weapons, and watch the unrest and chaos spread. If your only goal is instability you don't have to worry about policies, supporting single sides, or who is going to win.
Isn't that an argument in favor of a 'weapons industry driven conflict'? - I mean...if chaos and misery would have been prevented by ending the war quickly and early...then the only people not profiting are the weapons industries. So if we do a simple TV cop show analysis ('follow the money') of how western countries handle conflicts, then the most likely suspect is the ones making the most money from these (lasting) armed conflicts: the people selling weapons.