Cassador_Chris
-
Posts
224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cassador_Chris
-
-
Oh yeah. The Taliban are real scumbags. I'm glad that parts of Afghanistan have been liberated from them, but by occupying Afghanistan, I just don't think we're helping the situation. The Afghans are resentful of occupation, just as Americans were resentful of British occupation, even when that occupation was meant to protect them from rival powers.
-
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/30/obam...olicy_of_deadly
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/27/headlines#7
Just a few more examples of continuity.
And here's a older video after Obama spoke at Aipac during his campaign.
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=...74&jumival=1638
The continuity seems clear to me: keeping military strikes on the table, ordering Iran to comply to U.S. or else, accusations of Iranian support of terrorism, Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons, etc, etc. Like Iraq, these accusations are largely untrue. The words Obama used at Aipac specifically are very revealing.
The Obama Admin is already (quietly) talking with Iran.Where did you read this?
Obama has also directed the Department of Defense and Pentagon to plan right now for an early withdrawal from Iraq.I assume you know that he plans to leave 30,000 troops there permanently, in addition to U.S. contractors?
we should follow those Taliban @#$%s to the ends of the Earth.Most people would agree, but at what price? Do we just keep killing until we're satisfied? Meanwhile, for each bomb we accidentally drop on some civilians, the Taliban gains more support. We're really feeding the fire. The reason the Taliban is our enemy is because they harbored Al-Qaeda. The reason Al-Qaeda is our enemy is because they are resentful of U.S. influence and attacked us. So, in my mind, the easy solution would be to give up our imperialist policies for good.
"souring" on the Obama admin after only 2 weeks? Come on dude. lolYeah, I guess you're right here Mythos. I should give the guy more time to start initiating his polices. Criticizing right away is unfair. Lets just say I'm impatient and pessimistic.
Although I realize, that removal of Taliban from government was needed, I don't believe in ultimate victory here.I don't think we needed to remove the Taliban government. I think we could have easily accomplished the "mission" of taking out Al-Qaeda with a police action rather than a military one. At least, if we took a police action we would have had a better chance at taking out Osama. (though, on second thought, there is a probability that he's already dead.)
Hmm. That was a long post.
-
Check out this video:
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=...30+08%3A03%3A14
Its looking bad for any real change in foreign policy towards Iran.
While my stance would be considered "radical" by most, I quite strongly support the idea of kicking America off of our high pedestal of "world leader" to become "one among nations". I am also strongly opposed to the expansion of United States imperialism, which is the reason behind our hostility with Iran and the reason why we're stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.
Naturally, I am soured by the new Obama administration already. I would, however, like to hear everyone's thoughts on the subject. What do you believe about the United State's role? What do you believe about the U.S. empire? Do you believe the United States is an empire? Do you have a proposition for U.S. foreign policy?
-
I mean companies have found ways to broadcast messages into the minds of people, I'm sure we can get a cool game and maybe even a virtual reality.
that sounds scary. broadcasting messages into people's minds? just think of how governments could control people that way... where did you learn of this..er..new technology?
-
Prussia/Germany should be really strong industrial-wise, with fast moving armies and an emphasis on submarine warfare. Their weakness of course is a long-drawn out battle, as opposed to a strength in sustained rushing.
Britain should have some sort of "power of empire" to bring in needed reinforcements at important junctures. They should have a small army and large, almost uncontested navy. Tanks are also important here.
France should be super-defensive, and have access to tanks, with relatively poor infantry, mediocre navy, slow mobilization, and weak industry to counterbalance this. Their land forces should be bigger than Britain's and on par with Germany's. French could also have some sort of "power of empire".
-
Some ideas for Russia:
1. Good lumberjacks.
2. Houses/farms/mills/livestock pens incredibly cheap, quick to build, perhaps get some resources back upon destruction.
3. Some territorial bonus (perhaps like RoN, with damage done to enemies) or maybe some bonus for obtaining multiple territories, or for holding on to territories even when buildings on it are destroyed?
Point for these three things is to emphasize Russia's method of defense, that is, burn and retreat. Defending by attrition. Any good ideas here?
-
lol, as for the juicy details, well it would be rude of me to anything more indepth then i already have about his story- though perhaps I can arrange for you to "meet" him on the interweb itself, though that will probably take a few days to organize- I'll shoot you a PM about it in a day or two
And as for the anthro route- perhaps its worth taking a look into! Its always been there, floating around the back of my head a 'possibility of a possibility' but never something I focused my attention on too much, given that much of the potential field work for some of the more remote tribes and populations that might be of interest to me... well, dosent entice me much. Would much rather dig around in the dirt of a nice Italian summer along the coast then trundle around a jungle for a few months/years.
But perhaps its worth looking into specifics, and not let those stereotypes take hold. God knows that i probably wouldn't end up with that Italian dream anyways
Anthropology isn't just working with remote tribes and populations. That is more specifically an Ethnographer, a sub branch of Ethnology, which in turn is a sub branch of Cultural Anthropology. Cultural Anthropology itself is a sub branch of the entire discipline of Anthropology. To easier explain, here's an outline.
Anthropology
1. Cultural Anthropology
a. Anthropological Linguistics
i. Historical Linguistics
ii. Descriptive or Structural Linguistics
*. Sociolinguistics
b. Archaeology
i. Historical Archaeology
c. Ethnology (also called cultural anthropology)
i. Ethnography
ii. Ethnohistory
iii. Cross-Cutural Research
2. Biological Anthropology
a. Human Paleontology (also called Paleoanthropology)
i. Primatology
b. Human Variation
Then, of course, there is Applied Anthropology, where you use the research done in the above areas and from other disciplines to solve current problems. This could mean you're working for a business as a economic or psychological anthropologist, a government as a political or educational anthropologist, or something else.
Simply said, there is a lot of anthropology that does not mean you're living with exotic cultures. In fact, a lot of it is working with businesses or governments or other organizations by applying anthropological knowledge to solve problems like "why can't this multi-national business team get along?" or "why is this one manufacturing plant in Ohio out producing the one in Michigan?" or even "why are kids on this side of town succeeding in their local school, and the kids on the other side of town aren't?" Etc, etc.
-
-
Okay Mythos, got an account and voted again!
-
-
Woohoo! Voted again!
-
Oh, I didn't mean that we would have a more Carthaginian culture. I simply was referring to the probable absence of Roman culture. Its easy to see all the influences Rome has had on the west's political, economic, and cultural development. (i.e. Christianity, organization [carried on after Rome by the Church], political ideology and science [protected and revived by the Byzantines, Muslims, and Monasteries], as well as a lack of any Latin roots to European languages.)
Lacking all of that, I believe our current culture would have been quite different. How different, I couldn't say.
-
Wow. Nice find.
Carthaginians are really under-appreciated. That's probably because of their proximity of Rome, and that they were, ultimately, the losers.
I always think, though, Carthage is one of the great "ifs" in history. They could have quite substantially changed some of the fundamental values of our current culture...that is, if they had survived.
-
I got to this thread kinda late. Happy belated birthday Mythos!
-
but the situation he's in now money and career wise -let alone relationship wise- is really scary stuff.
Aye, my parents advised me against archaeology because they believed that keeping a good stable job would be a problem. Personally I didn't really like the advice, but my rational self told me it was sound. Archaeology isn't exactly a job in high demand.
So that's why I settled on education: Not only is there always demand for my skills somewhere-but I could still do archaeology work during the summer if I wanted.
-
Excellent Hiram
-
I've got some good ideas for Russia now.
-
As opposed to unrecorded historical record
Uhh.
Yeah. 
-
Hey there- I suppose there isnt a @#$% load to know, or at least that'd I'd go over out of the blue, but I'm a history major/pondering switching over to archeology major who'll be entering my real core fields of study soon.
Hey, me too!
Well, I'm actually doing history + secondary education (specializing in integrated social sciences) double major, but I've been considering on becoming an archaeology major as well. But the thing is though, it would throw me off, so I think I've decided to wait until I get my two above majors before I do anything rash.
Anyway, question: Why are you considering archaeology? I'm considering mainly because
1) Many of the areas I am thinking of specializing in have very little recorded historical record.
2) Archaeology seems to becoming a greater part of history, meaning you can't do an accurate history without archaeology.
3) Many history books in the library done by historians, rather than archaeologists, seem to be reevaluations of historical events with just the author's opinions, rather than a reevaluation based on new evidence.
4) Archaeology just seems so much more appealing! Looking at historic documents is cool, but as an archaeologist, you can actually go to these places and discover new things--which include new documents--while historians just use what's available. There just seems to be a sense of being on some sort of 'frontier'.
So, why are you considering archaeology?
-
From what I can tell, they're much more ahead in art and behind in programming. The game is a lot less complete than we all imagine by looking at the wonderful screens Mythos has provided us.
-
Terms accepted!
King raises sword.
Now, come down and pluck this arrow from my chest! And I shall'nt give it up easily to you!
-
Came across this article via a link from archaeology.org.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81215074650.htm
I thought about posting this in the Hall of Intellectuals, but since it was more concerned with 0AD, I posted it here.
Actually, I guess I only posted it because there seems to be very few new discoveries in the Carthaginian and Iberian realms. If I did this for Roman and Greek discoveries, you would practically get a new one every week.
-
Shore does bring back teh memories, aye?
-
Well, names shouldn't be too hard, as long as people can get their names on some Osprey books and some ancient language texts.
I'll definately enjoy planning and arguing over different ideas. In fact, I worked on a project back in HeavenGames Age of Empires III forums where a bunch of people laid out an idea for a game called "Age of Antiquity". It eventually lost interest, but there is a ton of information there. Here's the link: http://aoe3.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums...t&f=9,30443,,10
A continuation of the same foreign policy?
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
Thanks for the sources, Silver. I'm a little surprised that Obama's experts have been holding talks with Iran even before he was in office. It seems reasonable enough, though.
And everyone's right about Afghanistan being an unwinnable war, I think. More troops, like Obama proposes, might not be the right answer though. Lots of people wrote off the troop surge as working in Iraq, but people are still being killed every day there. And troop-surging sure as hell didn't help in Vietnam.