Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 751 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
martinck1 (4464 D(S))
06 Jun 11 UTC
New Player wanted
This should be a cast iron 4WD - we just need a new Germany - both Austria & Italy will be helpful

gameID=55622
16 replies
Open
zultar (4180 DMod(P))
07 Jun 11 UTC
Gunning for the Gunboat
We should cancel or draw this game because Russia went CD and NMR and then Italy. It's completely unbalance.
gameID=60903
5 replies
Open
JetJaguar (820 D)
06 Jun 11 UTC
Pakistan: GOP Paradise
Liberal Tripe or Poignant Obeservation from Nicholas Kristof: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=general ?

I tend to think the latter, but then I've been wrong before. This also got me thinking about what countries/political systems American conservatives actually admire throughout the world. Anyone care to share a place that the GOP would point to as a desirable place as a result of policies and positions similar to their own.
3 replies
Open
Triumvir (1193 D)
06 Jun 11 UTC
The stupidity of the private ownership of cars
6,420,000 accidents in the United States in 2005. Financial cost of more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.
37 replies
Open
Pete U (293 D)
06 Jun 11 UTC
Sprout Surprise
No - not my tea, but an invitation to come and play a leisurely game

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=60641
2 replies
Open
peterwiggin (15158 D)
16 Jan 11 UTC
SoW Winter 2011 Grad Discussion
gameID=46924
Please follow the class rules, which will be posted shortly.
294 replies
Open
pyeargin (100 D)
06 Jun 11 UTC
Chicago Diplomacy Tournament - 9-11 September, Weasel Moot V
The Windy City Weasels Chicago Diplomacy club is back with their biggest annual club event, Weasel Moot V. This year's tournament will take place September 9-11 in Chicago, IL, back at their old favorite location, the Days Inn in Lincoln Park, Chicago.
1 reply
Open
Tru Ninja (1016 D(S))
04 Jun 11 UTC
FtF game statistics
hey all, I want to compile a report that compares ftf games and online games and I need your help.
8 replies
Open
mr_brown (302 D(B))
04 Jun 11 UTC
So where's everyone from?
How come it's so hard to find live games at this time of night? Are there really not that many European Diplomacy Players?

Where's most everyone on this site from? Sound off!
66 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D(B))
04 Jun 11 UTC
Cato report on the effects of drug decriminalization in portugal
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf
see inside...
43 replies
Open
diplonerd (173 D)
06 Jun 11 UTC
Where do you advertise long-term games and how do I join a league
Substance in subject :-)
1 reply
Open
basvanopheusden (2176 D)
05 Jun 11 UTC
Apologies to all in gameID=60782
I had serious connection problems.
44 replies
Open
zultar (4180 DMod(P))
05 Jun 11 UTC
Finals are done. Anyone want to join me for some fun? 30 pts WTA.
5 replies
Open
Anyone want to Join?
Quick Classic Game
5min Phases
1 reply
Open
Red Squirrel (856 D)
30 May 11 UTC
New Game - Nameless Enemies
WTA. 50 D. Anon players. 24hr phases

Looking for quality players who have low resign rates. PM me for the password. gameID=60252
40 replies
Open
figlesquidge (2131 D)
05 Jun 11 UTC
FIFA vrs reality
There are strong rumours that FIFA are getting a high profile man to help make the organisation more transparent: Henry Kissinger.
Any organisation that is going to seem less manipulative with him than without...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13659901.stm
6 replies
Open
joey1 (198 D)
02 Jun 11 UTC
Boston Tourism stuff
I am going to the Boston Tournament and I have the Friday before to do touristy stuff in the area. Any suggestions? So far I have the USS Nautilus in new haven Connecticut, and Zoos in Providence and Boston. which of these are worth seeing?
5 replies
Open
fulhamish (4134 D)
05 Jun 11 UTC
Richard Dawkins has a new job
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/05/new-university-college-humanities-degrees

Should keep the wolf from the door! He and Grayling can also offer each other mutual flattery and support.
0 replies
Open
krellin (80 DX)
02 Jun 11 UTC
Question for Communists
Given that, despite the pure ideology and human equality of your concept, the true nature of human beings seems to always fuck up the implementation....why do you still believe in Communism? I mean...REALLY...Cuba is about it for communism. Even China is embracing Capitalism. Do you really want Cuba to be the model for the world????
Page 9 of 9
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Putin33 (111 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
A veritable treasure trove of anti-communist talking points we got here.

"China invaded Tibet. But I can already guess where you stand on that..."

Invaded Tibet? Sure, just like they "invaded" Manchuria and just like India "invaded" Goa. Tibet has been a protectorate of China since the years of Mongolian rule.

The defense of Angola was Cuban "neocolonialism"? Really? That's what you're going with? The Americans (as well as the South Africans and Mobutu) were backing the brutal UNITA thugs with millions, were led by Jonas Savimbi. Savimbi was an ally of the Portugeuse colonizers of Angola during the 1970s, and worked with them in fighting the anti-colonial MPLA. The Cubans helped the MPLA fend off an invasion by apartheid South Africa in 1975. The Cubans continued helping the Angolans fight off the South Africans and their UNITA allies.

It's ironic of your "bad cases" for socialism you pick one of the worst cases of CIA/US interventionism. This war provoked by South Africa and the Americans cost Angola 500,000 lives. You have the nerve to call the Cubans neocolonialists, when didn't get anything out of this war.
dexter morgan (225 D(S))
04 Jun 11 UTC
...still awaiting input from Putin regarding Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the pact with the Nazis and the invasion of Poland in 1939... Mind you, I believe that Communist countries were on the right side of several conflicts (Cuban support of the Sandinistas, for example) - and I have no problem with the Soviets arming Cuba - it's the same thing as the U.S. arming Turkey... indeed both Kennedy and Khrushchev seemed to agree on that point, more or less.

Oh... and here's a good one: China's support of Pol Pot. Nice one. Yes, those Communists are perfect. (I could come up with a laundry list of regimes and rebellions the U.S. shouldn't have supported - but that is not what we disagree about...)
Here's a comprimise I thought up of so the communists and capitalists can agree on something:

How about a society which is hardcore capitilism where everything is privitised with the exception of education (which must be of top quality) and residence for people below the age of 21, which is entirely provided for by the government, and any private enterprise in those sectors are banned. Inheritance is banned. Gifts are banned. All children are taken from birth and are raised by the government until a certain age (currently 21) at which point they get thrown into the deep end of society so to speak. (there might be a 1 year period for them to find a job and accommodation before the government gets rid of them) There will be tax, but only for the "security of the future". Roads and other public facilities (such as healthcare) become private.

This way everyone is given an equal opportunity however, they only reap what they sow. The taken from birth bit sounds a bit horrible, but of course, this can't happen overnight can it?
airborne (154 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
Hey, now can't we be reasonable about this? I mean heck I'm on the right and ain't one to get too angry and yelling about communism principles. I would hope one day that communism principles of peace (USSR BAD example), community, and respect of all people will be true for the world. Unforunately, I'm more likily to die off then see that happen. I'm be interested in reading the Communist Manifesto, the book not the well written wikipedia page which I'm guessing is pretty close. (Can you buy Communist literture from BN?)

Oh, Trosky and Snowball over Stalin and Napoleon
Putin33 (111 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
Addressing the ex-Trotskyite (seems like all Trotskyites turn ex-Trotskyite),

"You sneer at Democratic Socialist like we're just "splitters""

Yes you are. I deal with Trotskyites all the time in my work. There's a zillion factions of them and they all hate each other. A lot of them spend more time attacking the left than they do doing anything productive. Many, not all but many, make the false equivalence arguments that you seem to be fond of making. A lot of them, like you, celebrated counterrevolution and the victory of capitalism in Europe in 1989-1991. A lot of them, like you, supported openly reactionary movements like Solidarnosc, forgetting or overlooking the fact that they were clerico-fascists and anti-Semites. Some of them are principled, and while they criticize the socialist countries they recognize that it was a noble experiment and that they should be defended against the imperialist countries. Unfortunately you're not among those.

"I do understand the difference. Do you? "

Considering your views about imperialism and 'human nature', I see no practical difference. Please explain what you claim to mean by 'democratic socialist'. Does that mean you support a planned economy? Obviously not if you hail the establishment of market economies in eastern Europe as a step forward for progress. So please inform me as to how you're different than the typical anti-communist social democrat.

"I wasn't kidding - I joined a Trotskyist group, helped distribute a paper, and got involved in supporting both a Palestinian community group and the PATCO strikers... no doubt there is a file on me somewhere"

And what happened to you? Like what happens to all Trotskyites, they quickly turn on their former comrades and become full blown anti-communists, declaring to the world that communism is unworkable and against human nature. They give up support any and all progressive causes. Many of them ended up supporting the Iraq war.

"still awaiting input from Putin regarding Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the pact with the Nazis and the invasion of Poland in 1939."

So hold on, you think Belarus currently controls territory illegally? They should give back western Belarus? Ditto Ukraine? They should give up western Ukraine? That's what you're in fact saying when you mindlessly spout this line that the USSR "invaded" Poland. Belarus and Ukraine regard to "invasion" as a national holiday, a day when finally, finally, eastern and western Ukrainians were united. Poland had seized this territory in their war of aggression in 1920-1921. Polish rule of this area was universally reviled by the native Ukrainian and Belarussian populations. Oh damn, context to history. We can't have that. Anti-communist propaganda is so much easier. No thinking necessary.

The Poles refused to allow the Soviets on Polish soil to help in defending Hitler (oh but they're the 'little guy', just like Hungary), then they whine about how the Soviets "betrayed" them. They were happy to help carve up Czechoslovakia with their pals the Nazis in 1938. And Polish-German relations were very good under Hitler until March 1939.

What you anti-communists fail to realize is that while the western democracies were busy carving up Czechoslovakia with Hitler, the Hungarians and Poles - the Soviet Union had on numerous occasions, proposed an anti-fascist alliance. They were turned down. The west wanted the Nazis to fight the Soviets, while they sat back and took advantage of the war. So, instead of fighting a war singled handedly with the NSDAP and their western democracy friends, not to mention a hostile Japan openly aligned with Germany on the other side (another forgotten point), the Soviets decided to buy some time. Both sides knew this would only be temporary, which is why the Soviets quickly began militarizing their border and investing in defense. The time they gained was used to great effect, as was the extension of the western border to include the Ukrainian and Belarussian territories. You might be sad that the Soviets won the war, but I believe this temporary truce, which you denounce, was key to winning it.

Putin33 (111 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
*defending against Hitler.
Putin33 (111 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
I recommend David Irving's book about the Hungarian revolt. Irving, as people know, spends much of his time talking about how much he loves Hitler and how the Holocaust is a hoax. Irving interviewed a great number of people involved in the Hungarian revolt, and came to the conclusion that the revolt was first and foremost anti-Jewish. It was an anti-Jewish pogrom. Jews associated with the Hungarian Party were lynched. But people in the west fetishize any rebellion against Communist Party rule. So it doesn't matter how reactionary something is so long as they're fighting the 'enemy'.

As for the usual Pol Pot canard, you'll have to forgive me for pointing a few things out.

1 - The US intensively carpet bombed Cambodia beginning in 1969, paving the way for Pol Pot to come to power after a coup overthrew the Soviet backed Sihanouk government.
2 - The US backed the Khmer Rouge both militarily and financially, because they were anti-Vietnamese and anti-Soviet. Former US Secretary of State and general boil on the ass of humanity Zbigniew Brzezinski admits this. He himself persuaded both the Chinese and the Thais to support Pol Pot.
3- Vietnamese Communists ended up getting rid of the Khmer Rouge regime after they preemptively invaded Cambodia. That's right, communists put an end to the Khmer Rouge, while the US backed them.
4 - China ended up supporting numerous anti-communist movements because they were anti-Soviet, and China regarded the Soviets as the primary threat during the 1970s and 1980s. For example, they were friendly with Pinochet's Chile, and supported the aforementioned UNITA rebels in Angola. They even went so far as to align with the United States itself. I don't defend any of these actions.

Kingdroid (219 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
Isn't it a bit absurd that you claim you would rather "vote for the majority so you at least get some of what you want, rather than voting for your own conscience" but at the same time you won't accept any deviations to full-blown authoritarian communism?
orathaic (1009 D(B))
04 Jun 11 UTC
"Invaded Tibet? Sure, just like they "invaded" Manchuria and just like India "invaded" Goa. Tibet has been a protectorate of China since the years of Mongolian rule. "

Fuck that.

Tibet was an independant kingdom for hundreds of years, the British and Russian Empires may have recognized it as a 'protectorate' of China in a treaty of 1906, but two years earlier the British had recognized the 13th Dalai Lama as leader of Tibet and negotiated a treaty with him.

This real-diplomacy of the time is not what we based our current international standard upon.

The 'invasion' was after 36 years of the independent rule. This 'annexation' is comparable to the Germany annexation of Austria in 1938 or the Seizure of Czechslovakia in 1939.

Now those places are only independent because Germany lost the war. And Tibet is only a province of China because China hasn't lost a war.

However the other comparison i would make is with the Kingdom of Ireland.

Being in existence for the same number of millenia as the Kingdom of Tibet. Ireland was ruled over by a foreign king for ~800 years. Varying over that time between home rule (a parliament in Dublin) and the actual amount of authority which this foreign power was able to wield. (independent Brehon courts in Ireland running until the ~17th C, for example)

Any movement of troops from Britian into Ireland would be considered rightfully an invasion.

How and Ever. Our international law suggests that self-determination is the only criteria which is appropriate for deciding such a dispute.
Putin33 (111 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
No country ever denied China's sovereignty over Tibet for hundreds of years. Prior to official incorporation into China during the Yuan Dynasty, there had been extensive intermarrying between the royals of Tibet and China, thereby uniting Tibet with China in much the same way that principalities in Europe were unified. The term "Dalai Lama" itself is an invention of the Chinese Emperor during the Yuan Dynasty. Chinese troops have defended Tibet from external invasion, like the Nepali invasion of the 1790s. In 1912, when the Republic of China was proclaimed, Tibet was included as being a province of China. The 14th Dalai Lama was put into power by the *Republican* government of China.

The idea that Tibet has any claim to independence is a hoax first perpetuated by the British imperialists who wanted to extend their rule past India and create a British client state in Tibet. To compare this to the German invasions is just ridiculous. Both were recognized as states by the international community at large, which is the criteria used for deciding such disputes.
Putin33 (111 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
"Isn't it a bit absurd that you claim you would rather "vote for the majority so you at least get some of what you want, rather than voting for your own conscience" but at the same time you won't accept any deviations to full-blown authoritarian communism?"

I reject the premise of your question. I'm not dogmatic about the application of socialism. I accept, for example, China's hypothesis about primary stage socialism as the reason for implementing market reforms. Unlike many 'anti-revisionists', I don't claim that the USSR became "capitalist" under Khruschov and China became "capitalist" under Deng.

But what I won't accept, is so-called "deviations" which are nothing but a cover for restoring full on capitalism. That's what Gorbachov represented. That's what Prague Spring represented. I fail to see why being a socialist means having to accept the restoration of capitalism anymore than being a proponent of capitalism means having to accept socialist revolution. Compromise doesn't mean surrender.
Kingdroid (219 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
But... you reject democracy, yet you participate in one.

i really don't understand how your thinking works, Putin.
Kingdroid (219 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
Oh, and I don't want you to think that I'm necessarily against you. You're just an interesting person. I, personally, believe socialism is a good thing. i just don't aunt a dictatorship >_>

I'm just really intrigued by how you can be super hardline sometimes and compromise the next.
Putin33 (111 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
"i really don't understand how your thinking works, Putin."

Lenin's Social Democrats participated in the Tsarist Duma in the early 1900s. Marx supported the Chartists in their election campaigns.

Progress is dialectical. Everything is interconnected. Socialism couldn't be achieved without first going through the stage of capitalism. The processes and development unleashed by capitalism makes socialism possible. Small, gradual, quantitative changes eventually lead to drastic, abrupt, qualitative changes. So, for example, in history we've seen how small reforms in bourgeois, capitalist governments have unleashed a whirlwind of political forces that eventually toppled the government completely.

I don't think you should close yourself off from any weapon at your disposal just because it is operated by the system you oppose. So, I frequently go to Kinkos to print off flyers for meetings or demos, etc. Kinkos is obviously a capitalist run business. But I'm using its products to promote causes that Kinkos wouldn't support. Similarly, friends of mine sell socialist t-shirts to raise money for political events.

It's a matter of using the master's tools to bring down the master's house. No strategies or tactics should be removed from consideration. The process is much less important than the outcome. Voting and elections is an important arena of struggle. Ignoring it only makes it harder to accomplish our long and medium term goals.

I hope that makes sense.


Kingdroid (219 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
Makes sense. I can dig it.
dexter morgan (225 D(S))
05 Jun 11 UTC
@Putin, you said:
"I deal with Trotskyites all the time in my work. There's a zillion factions of them and they all hate each other. A lot of them spend more time attacking the left than they do doing anything productive. "

Yes - I noticed that too... and that was a big part of me getting disillusioned about it. My answer is to work with people on the big goals (such as education, redistribution of wealth, health care, etc.) and not letting the disagreements fracture our cohesion against the bigger enemies - the real enemies - the capitalists and the right wing. You note the wasted time in hating each other and attacking each other - yet here we are, attacking each other.

"A lot of them, like you, celebrated counterrevolution and the victory of capitalism in Europe in 1989-1991. A lot of them, like you, supported openly reactionary movements like Solidarnosc, forgetting or overlooking the fact that they were clerico-fascists and anti-Semites. Some of them are principled, and while they criticize the socialist countries they recognize that it was a noble experiment and that they should be defended against the imperialist countries. "

Huh? The revolutions in Russia in 1905 and 1917 were about giving land, food, and power to the people (or so I thought). Being that the new government, was all about crushing ruthlessly anyone who criticized the leadership in any way, shape or form, I don't believe that power ended up in the people's hands. The fact that it was not a temporary oppression to break the back of bourgeois resistance, but was rather a permanent feature of the regime, tells me something - it tells me one of the following: 1) the Communist leadership was corrupted by the power, 2) the sincere ones were slaughtered by Stalin and his putsch, or 3) they were insincere to begin with and it was always about power (this probably would have been true about some individuals - such as Stalin).

By the time (well before) the Prague Spring happened, it was clear that the Soviet leadership was completely corrupt. You appear to see the popularity of an uprising as irrelevant... to government apologists like you, "the people" is more about some Marxist ideal than actual flesh and blood people. Once enshrined, apparently, the government *becomes* the people and any disagreement with government policy is somehow against the people. This sort of blind loyalty is akin to fascism, to my mind... all faith in the supreme leader, all opposition to be brutally crushed. What good is a Communist revolution if all power and all freedom remains in the government and none of it with the general population? The fact that they dress in red and often say the right things is pretty darn irrelevant when their actions define them as corrupt autocrats.

As to 1989... No, I did not celebrate the return of capitalism to the Eastern Bloc. I celebrated the return of freedom and self-determination. It was an improvement over the oppressive violent system in place before 1989. I favor capitalism being reined in or eliminated to give society a more human face... I see socialism as being about humanism... about valuing every person and the worth of every profession and the evil of profiting off the work of others. But... such concerns are not my only ones. I believe there is more to life than property and work. I believe that self-expression and self-determination are also key human qualities and that a system that does violence to these things - in a constant, calculated and ongoing way - does not deserve to exist and, for the sake of the people, *should* be reformed/overthrown. Besides, such evils give socialism a bad name...

---

After some reflection on this... (hours after writing most of the above) it occurs to me that perhaps we see freedom and rights in a very different way. Libertarians say that all rights are property rights... Perhaps, strangely enough, this is also how you view things (though from the left rather than the right)... i.e. you seem to see the distribution/public control of property as the key - and that any other right (such as freedom of speech) as secondary... you recognize the Soviets redistributed property and collectivized property and production - and that satisfies you. I see it as maybe half of the puzzle. I see things like freedom of speech and expression as equally important. In your wonderful Soviet society, such conversations such as we have here could land any of us in an interrogation/torture room and possibly in a Gulag for "anti-social" beliefs or treason or some such crap simply for what we say and think... and, often, as was the case with Stalin's victims, for simply threatening Stalin's hold on power by expressing different ideas about the best way to further Communism. ...no different than pissing off leaders of the U.S. or leaders of the Mafia... That sort of crap is not something that frees the people - it imprisons them.
---

"Please explain what you claim to mean by 'democratic socialist'. Does that mean you support a planned economy?"

I support socialist ideals to be enshrined as rights rather than simply handed out like charity one year and yanked back the next. Right to health care, right to education, right to a safety net - welfare/unemployment, right to organize, right to safe working conditions, right to know (as they call it here in California) - i.e. the right to know about hazards presented by chemicals and such in the work place and in public places, right to a transparent and accountable government (e.g. freedom of information act)... at least those off the top of my head. As to whether it is "centrally planned" or not seems less important to me. Certainly there are advantages to that in some cases - for example Medicare getting volume discounts on drugs - but I see some value in local control simply because it is often (but not always) easier to run a responsive and efficient small organization than a large one. As to property and capital... I believe that far more things should be publicly owned and operated and that no one should be personally making money off of the labor of others. I'm a big fan of non-profit organizations and see them as viable alternatives to government control. ...both eliminate the profit motive and thus are not parasites off of the larger society due to profiting off of the labor of others. So... that's roughly what I believe.

"And what happened to you? Like what happens to all Trotskyites, they quickly turn on their former comrades and become full blown anti-communists, declaring to the world that communism is unworkable and against human nature. They give up support any and all progressive causes. Many of them ended up supporting the Iraq war. "

Hold on there a minute, cowboy. I do feel that no government system is foolproof - and that enlightened self-interest is what it is all about... meaning that ultimately socialism is in our individual self-interests as well as our society's self-interest, but to get to that we need enlightenment (education as well as cultural supports such as secular and civic values... we are not there... we do not have very many well-functioning democracies, much less socialist states). I'm not saying it can't be done... or that it's against some theoretical unmoving "human nature"... but it does seem self-evident that it isn't something most cultures are ready for at this moment in time... all we can do is continue to educate and push and campaign. As to the ex-leftists who become neo-liberals and neo-conservatives... I shake my head in amazement and figure they must have simply been in love with the idea of power - of forcing change from the top down... and the nature of that forcing is the only thing that changed. The form of their love of power is fungible. I never supported the Iraq war.

"Poland had seized this territory in their war of aggression in 1920-1921."

I was unaware of that war... and that issue. I stand corrected. Indeed - I stand as an example of my own criticism about enlightenment or the lack thereof. Until I am informed of the history and background I cannot be expected to have a reasonable viewpoint or make any reasonable contribution to a debate on an issue... and that is where we are at as a society in many, many regards. We are not ready for socialism because you might as well be talking about Klingon blood rituals for all the average person knows about it... and you would get a similar gut-level repulsion at the initial words - much less an appreciation for the theory once explained and understood. I immediately recognized my mistake about Poland - and am happy to say so... so many others will go to their grave believing things that are completely irrational or even straight out delusional (e.g. truthers, birthers, astrologers... the list is long)

"A lot of them, like you, supported openly reactionary movements like Solidarnosc, forgetting or overlooking the fact that they were clerico-fascists and anti-Semites."

I always have been tickled by the communist tendency to take the word fascist and attach any number of prefixes to it. Everyone is a fascist who isn't in exact agreement with the current communist orthodoxy. That said, I was unaware of fascist or anti-Semite elements in Solidarnosc (and cannot find reference to it). ...though I am passingly aware of more recent concerns about such movements in the country.

"What you anti-communists fail to realize is that while the western democracies were busy carving up Czechoslovakia with Hitler, the Hungarians and Poles - the Soviet Union had on numerous occasions, proposed an anti-fascist alliance. They were turned down. The west wanted the Nazis to fight the Soviets, while they sat back and took advantage of the war."

Is being sympathetic to Cuba and supportive of them getting full trade status restored make me anti-communist? Is being supportive of the Sandinistas make me anti-communist? How about the fact that I'm against capitalism as a system - as a system that is a shade of slavery? Just wondering.

As to the lead-up to WWII, I agree - the game we played of dragging our feet was disgraceful... and, I'm sure that in some quarters it was Machiavellian... I don't think that should reflect on the entire democratic system - because it should be obvious that we made the right decisions eventually - including such things as convoys to Mermansk - and opening a second and third front (Italy and France). Democracy, being based on group decisions, sometimes is slow to react and commit. Stalin didn't really have that problem. As to the truce - I always heard it presented much worse - as a sell-out for short-term gain... but, you make a decent point about preparedness and buying time (as well as getting back Soviet territory).

...wow, that was a long post. Hope you made it through - thanks for all the long posts of yours - I've found this conversation to be rather interesting - and it has forced me to think hard about some things - some of which I hadn't thought about in quite a while - and some I hadn't seen in the same light before.
dexter morgan (225 D(S))
05 Jun 11 UTC
@Putin33, in regards to China... and in regards to Pol Pot... at least you are not a true believer when it comes to China. As to Vietnam taking down the Khmer Rouge - yes, I applauded that and was not at all surprised (other than the fact that Vietnam, being rather poor, took it on... good for them!)


257 replies
ulytau (541 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
North Korea is best Korea!
It seems the folks who constantly recommend Putin to relocate to North Korea are gravely misunderstood in their intentions. They are not out of their arguments, they are simply following the Golden Rule.

http://shanghaiist.com/2011/05/31/north_korea_releases_global_happine.php
17 replies
Open
dD_ShockTrooper (1199 D)
05 Jun 11 UTC
Once again, North Korea is the best Korea!
Even look at this reliable statistical evidence:
http://shanghaiist.com/2011/05/31/north_korea_releases_global_happine.php
4 replies
Open
Lando Calrissian (100 D(S))
04 Jun 11 UTC
3 more needed
gameID=59977 and gameID=60408

both seem fun!
2 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
05 Jun 11 UTC
Names, Faces, and Places
When I say I'm from an American from Los Angeles County, those that have never been there--what do you picture? When you think of an American, what comes to mind, Englishmen? And what comes to mind when players identify themselves as being from parts of the UK? From Europe? South America? Just curious how close we all are (or how hilariously-off our conceptions might be...) ;)
24 replies
Open
☺ (1304 D)
05 Jun 11 UTC
wta gunboat live! EOG
Inside.

I don't really know where to start. This should have been drawn forever ago. Or Austria should have been eliminated.
16 replies
Open
jonathanchou711 (95 D)
05 Jun 11 UTC
Pause a game
I can't find the report a game address in which you're supposed to send to moderators so I guess I'll post here. Can a moderator please pause this game: http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=59426

3 replies
Open
Onar (131 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
Frustration
So, I just drew a game, but I really think it was a bad decision. Germany and England pretty much said that they would attack me all-out unless I voted draw. Is this metagaming?
29 replies
Open
☺ (1304 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
Firefox Forum Bug
This is the second time I've noticed this. Has anyone else gotten it?

When there is just one post on the newest page in a thread, my FF4 will not recognize that that page exists until that page has a second post.
6 replies
Open
diplonerd (173 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
Longest active game on Diplomacy
Looks like France is closing in on a win possibly this turn:

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=56915
4 replies
Open
Macchiavelli (2856 D)
04 Jun 11 UTC
Competetive World Dip
Why are there no competetive world dip games on this site?
1 reply
Open
Mujus (1495 D(B))
04 Jun 11 UTC
Live Anon 166 (5 minute turns) Needs one more person in the next five minutes
Live Anon 166 (5 minute turns) Needs one more person in the next five minutes
1 reply
Open
Page 751 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top