Prev: Re: The United States in Full Thrust Next: Re: The United States in Full Thrust

RE: The United States in Full Thrust

From: David Griffin <carbon_dragon@y...>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: The United States in Full Thrust

--- steve@pugh.net wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2001, at 6:34, David Griffin wrote:
> 
> > I have to admit my secondary motivation  to bring
> this up is that I
> > don't buy the fluff. I don't see the US
> collapsing, 
> 
> Why? Are the US politicians and economists somehow
> better than all 
> the others throughout history? 
> 

England's government has been around for
1000's of years. Ours has only had 200. 
Don't we get a little time to evolve?

> Why? Are the US generals too indecisive to try and
> rectify a bad 
> situation? Are they too proud to help for outside
> help?
> 

Having been in the military, having come from
a military family, son of a former marine and
an Air force officer for 30 years, and having met
a fair number of military officers and talked to
them a great deal, most military in the US are
unlikely to stage a government coup or stand
for one to be staged. Just my opinion, but it's
not completely uninformed.
...
> Becoming a founder member of a global super-power
> that makes the 
> current USA look lightweight, how terrible would
> that be?
> 

A collapse terrible enough to take the US down
would cause a world economic collapse that
would take GB with it (and Japan, and maybe
Europe). Also, the terrorist activity seemed 
contrived without sufficient reason. The 
whole history seems to me to be designed to
put the UK in control and the US in the background.
If I were British, I'd do the same thing for my
game. I don't blame GZG. 

> 
> I'm sure that a Roman would have said similar things
> if you'd 
> predicted a collapse of his empire. 
>  

Maybe but the "fall" of the Roman empire
took a LONG LONG LONG time in which the
Roman empire was still damn powerful.
...
> I see the NAC as a confederation of all three
> founder members, with a 
> single government (with the monarch as titular
head...

When reading the fluff, I see the US as a very
junior partner the UK was "nice enough" to
include. Not as an equal partner. Tuffley's
fluff had us too disadvantaged to be an equal
partner.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices


Prev: Re: The United States in Full Thrust Next: Re: The United States in Full Thrust