A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Start a new discussion in the public forum
Post a new thread
If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID#
of the game.
If you are posting a feature request please check that it isn't mentioned in the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.
Before anyone bites my head off, I am not naming names nor a particular game -- just wanted to tell the members of the site about an alarming trend, and how two incidents have been handled in divergent ways.
Which one deserves to get the second spot in the nat'l championship? Both are 1-1, oklahoma state has a conference title and more wins against ranked opponents, but alabama plays in a tougher division and had only lost to the no. 1 team, LSU. What do you guys think?
A gunboat variant where you could see who had joined but did not know who played each country. That would allow you to screen who you played with and could avoid obvious cheating red flags. Just a thought.
I thought of a good idea, arrange a face to face game via Skype or gmail chat. It would be fun and ann another dimension to the game and make it close to a real face to face except yo arn't next to one another. Post about ideas thoughts or interest.
I'm playing in a few anon games (well, more than a few), and I've noticed that the game has changed over the years. It got better for a long time, then towards the end if this year, something has happened that has taken some fun away.
The current diplomatic (crisis?) between Iran, the United States, and the EU is beginning to parallel the build-up to the Iraq War: sanctions, calls for stricter sanctions, saber-rattling, panic regarding a supposed nuclear weapon, and increasingly incendiary rhetoric about "pre-emptive strikes." And with a potential neocon president and perhaps congress in 2012, the likelihood for formal military action seems considerable.
I tend to agree with that sentiment, but it is still a terrifying prospect, and we are essentially conducting a covert war already. However, I think that the likelihood for war between either Israel and Iran or Saudi Arabia and Iran (or both) is much more substantial than American invasion threats.
Ahmadinejad is marginalized within his government, and can actually be considered substantially moderate compared to the Supreme Leader. From what I've read, apparently the hardline mullahs and the Ayatollah were supportive of the ransacking of Britain's embassy, while Ahmadinejad was opposed. Despite his hyperbolic assertions and the stereotypes of the West, Ahmadinejad seems to be a fairly rational leader, and I doubt even the most hardline leaders would actually advocate blowing Israel off the face of the earth is they did obtain a nuclear weapon.
How would a Conflict between Israel and Iran even work? the two don't even have a common border. Besides an air raid, which would have to be covert because no arab country would dare sign off on it, how would the two even fight one another. I don't see anything happening.
Iran get's a nuclear bomb and drops it on Israel to wipe it off the face of the Earth; since that is clearly Iran's end goal - and there's reason to believe they may be frighteningly close - I don't see the possibility of nothing happening. It's like somebody has a gun, tells you they're going to shoot you but needs to find ammo first - are you going to go find your gun to get him first, or sit back and enjoy your final moments?
Any conflict would likely be protracted and fought primarily by proxies, with perhaps some direct bombing raids by Israel. By this definition, though, Israeli-Iranian relations might already be seen as having entered a hostile phase. The real worry I have (other than an American invasion) would be an outbreak of hostilities between the Saudis and Iranians, likely turning the Persian Gulf into a warzone.
that is not clearly Iran's end goal, unless Iran's end goal is to see its country and everything in it transform into a lake of fire, and a reactionary theocracy hopes to wipe out one of it's religion's holiest places.
^agreed. The Iranian hardliners are guilty of bombastic threats, but I have extreme doubt that a bomb would ever actually be used if Iran came to possess one. Anyway, Iran's government is divided and also must worry about potential homegrown revolt.
ahmedinajad said it clear that israel must be eliminated completly and he included europe and us in his speach israel is like a pittbul just waiting for green ligth but wont do it alone for the simple reason that israel cant finish the job i mean israel will never use "the bomb" unlesss there is no other option,the isreali air force is one of the best but an air strike on iran may not be enougth cause in order to be sure you cleaned the territory you must do a foot job and israel have not enougth man power. what is going on in the midleeast by now is an exchange of political powers all over in order to make it posible without going to a war world 3 libia,egipt,sirya are examples of west influence against east influence,they(both sides) are moving pieces of chess waiting for the moment to make the final movement
I agree that Israel does not have the man power to finish the job. Is a bombing raid possible? Of course, and it is likely imho. However, don't expect a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Too many people in Saudi Arabia support Iran's tough talk against Israel and the US, and Iran is a stronger nation than Saudi Arabia imo. The fact is that Iran and Israel are the two super powers in that region, and neither would be able to wipe the other one out short of nuclear war. The only country that could tip the balance is the US, but the Iraq War made that an unlikely possibility.
The only way the US gets involved beyond slapping more sanctions on is if Iran begins exerting a strong influence over both Iraq and Afghanistan. Better to go to war with Iran than allow Iran to dismantle two governments that wars were used to build.
Idk, Iran could have just got lucky re the stealth bomber.
Jim Dunnigan states in How to Make War a war game was conducted in which Iran invaded Saudi Arabia. NATO suffered 40,000 casualties taking Riyadh. However, the book was printed in 2004. One could say that the Iranian army would put up a stronger defence in Iran itself, and the US is quite stretched at the moment, but recent political instability could compromise the ability if the Iranian army to fight. As earlier, Idk.
The army doesn't want it, the public doesn't want it, the marines are already planning to use the next 10 years to move away from ground operations. There is no chance of a ground war in Iran in the near future. The most that would happen is a concerted are bombardment and I think even that is a stretch.