The death of everquest 2

[Friend_Bear]

Me and the wife have been playing everquest 2 for a few days now, and I was wondering where all the players were! Last time I played, the servers had tons of people, now its all but dead, its almost like theres less than 100 people playing per server, the most I've seen online so far in Antonica was like 19 people, for a mmorpg its pitiful and since you need full sized groups to level, quest etc....its rapidly dying. I think thats why I they placed the double exp on it now, anyway, I checked on the official forums and after this new expansion is released, if the numbers don't 'pick' up, the plug will be pulled on eq2.

I think this is also why SoE are radically changing there ways with people selling coin, items and characters now, with there new station exchange thing.

[moya]

Why's that do you think? Guild Wars?

[Suicides-by-Steve]

I think so Moya. There's a number of games being impacted by Guild Wars... From NWN to SWAT4! However, the recent implementation in the "upgrades" have made me all but pull the plug on Guild Wars for the time being. I'll log on every now and again, but funny enough for my RPG fix, I'm still gravitating back towards NWN. Initially Guild Wars seems pleasing, but there are a few flaws in it that I can't stand. Nerfing farming for one was a bad idea for one, and adding NPC "guides" to mule newbs around sucks major ass, not so much for me, but it's an indication of the direction of the way the developers want this game to go.

I have posted more of this on my guilds' website, RPG Guild (http://ca.geocities.com/mandjlewis@rogers.com/), specifically the splashpage with the News post heading Letter to Gaile Gray. It's simply a letter I posted around the interent on various forums itemizing various complaints I have with the game. Either way, Guild Wars is good (whether it sucks or not) for the state of affairs concerning subbed-based gaming. GW could single-handedly collapse the system as we know it.

However, seeing as NCSoft has their hands in the same scheme (City of Hereos, Auto Assault etc), this only gets me a little nervous concerning GW's recent revisionist "plans" and "updates". I don't think the migration from so many games over to this one bodes well for the future of Guild Wars. We'll see though. If they can pull out the expansion soon enough, they may be able to salvage what they wrecked with the patches... yet, I have heard whispers that there will be NO expansion for another 9 months... that's a LONG time... especially when dealing with kids' attention spans...

PS- Sorry to hear of the bombing in your country. My Aunt and Uncle live close by to London... So there was a brief time when I had to pause and reflect just how close to home it hit me too. Initially when I saw 700, I was like "Oh no!" but then I saw Wounded. The bombs must have been fairly small and not well-made to only kill 50 or so people. Maybe Al-Quaeda should have spoken to the IRA first...

[Mochan]

Yeah, the bombing doesn't seem to be on the scale of what happened in Madrid. This seems to be more of a warning than actual intent to cause massive destruction. A bombing is still a bombing no matter what, though.

[moya]

A warning? Tell that to those who lost friends and family yesterday. Just because it's not "on the same scale" doesn't mean it's any less tragic. We'd end up only grieving for supertragedies like the Asian Tsunami at that rate...

[Aku]

Tragic, yes. But the intent was still a warning. A taste of things to come. Europe needs a cohesive anti-terror strategy - which it doesn't have. It also needs to do a better job of controlling Muslim immigration and assimilating those who do immigrate. The weaknesses of the EU - especially with Frrance not even participating - are apparent here.

[Mochan]

I didn't mean to say it was less tragic. As I said, a bombing is still a bombing. What I mean is that it's probably just a warning strike to dissuade the UK from participating in any further operations in Muslim/Arab/Middle Eastern countries.

Also in my opinion, the only anti-terror strategy anyone needs is to stop having government interests in other countries. The UK simply needs to pull out its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and stop any further incursions, and the terrorists won't do a thing to their people.

I didn't mean to say it was less tragic. As I said, a bombing is still a bombing. What I mean is that it's probably just a warning strike to dissuade the UK from participating in any further operations in Muslim/Arab/Middle Eastern countries.

Also in my opinion, the only anti-terror strategy anyone needs is to stop having government interests in other countries. The UK simply needs to pull out its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and stop any further incursions, and the terrorists won't do a thing to their people.

This by the way maybe it would be better to say that it's the act accompanying the ultimatum:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660391.stm

But the punishment was not that severe, I feel it's more to deter any further meddling by the country's governments in Arab soil than to actually inflict mass destruction.

[Aku]

Also in my opinion, the only anti-terror strategy anyone needs is to stop having government interests in other countries. The UK simply needs to pull out its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and stop any further incursions, and the terrorists won't do a thing to their people.

I disagree. That was Europe's strategy when it tried to appease Hitler. "just give him what he wants and he'll leave us alone". You could completely pull out of the Middle East, and there terrorists would still be out there, looking for new ways to stir up trouble. Remember, "jihad" doesn't stand for "leave us alone" - it stands for "we are going to destroy you".

[Friend_Bear]

[On-Topic] I logged in eq2 earlier after I remembered how to check the current server population on my current server....102 people on the entire butcherblock server, thats also including people selling items in there houses. At least they are offering free character transfers to different servers so I'm searching for another server which is vastly more 'operational' I dug up some dirt, apparently its not all guild wars fault either, many did switch to guild wars for the promise of free rpg game and pvp without the nasty grind, however the owners of eq2 also implemented a few killer patches as well which i've been reading, didn't take too well with the general players and many quit because of it, the patch is that pretty much 95% of all the items had to be attuned to your own character, once they are attuned, you can't trade them or transfer them to other characters and if you don't attune them, you can't use them at all, this 'upgrade' made people strongly hate eq2 since many people would use an item, then sell/trade or mule it to another character when it could use it later, now each character 'has' to jump through every hoop in the game.

[Off-Topic] I didn't post much about the bombing since I was in shock, I know all those places very well. I've been there quite a lot of times, even a few years ago when my then fiancee visited me in England and I took her to London a few times. Since i'm atheist I see religion as the worlds problem these days, it causes more problems than it solves. Of course, I tolerate and respect other peoples beliefs but when they hurt and cause grief then it must be stamped out otherwise the world will never be a safe place for our children to grow up in, whatever country you hail from.

[Aku]

[On-Topic]Since i'm atheist I see religion as the worlds problem these days, it causes more problems than it solves. Of course, I tolerate and respect other peoples beliefs but when they hurt and cause grief then it must be stamped out otherwise the world will never be a safe place for our children to grow up in, whatever country you hail from.

Atheists make this argument a lot, but it's flawed. Religion doesn't cause problems - fanaticism does. Fanaticism has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with surrendering reason in favor of an ideology, and sometimes trying to force that ideology on others. There are religious fanatics, liberal fanatics, conservative fanatics, race/culture fanatics, animal rights fanatics, abortion fanatics, environmental fanatics, all kinds of fanatics. When some nut does something terrible in the name of relgion, it makes headlines. So people look at that and bemoan all the trouble in the world caused by religion. But when millions of people go a church or a temple or a mosque every week, and worship peacefully, or do charity or community work, it doesn't make headlines. So, our perception tends to become a bit skewed.

[Suicides-by-Steve]

Yes. Considering that Islam requires a tithe from it's converts, proportional to income, which goes back into the community, it's a step above Christianity as I see it. Oh, and BTW, I'm a partial-Atheist as well. I believe a "being" exists, but it's not aware of us. Our planet/solar system/galaxy/universe is part of a microcosm reflecting a macrocosm, much the same as our bodies' cells reflect the same- atoms/electron/nucleus/cell. We're not aware of the microscopic bacteria and animals upon us, and kill them without thought, so does "God". However, my philosophy dictates that the ultimate end to all things (including the death of "god") is to dump all acquired knowledge into a depository of memory banks for what purpose I'm not certain of. I need some more time on this planet to figure it out yet. 8)

[Aku]

Oh, and BTW, I'm a partial-Atheist as well. I believe a "being" exists, but it's not aware of us. Our planet/solar system/galaxy/universe is part of a microcosm... 8)

That's an interesting hypothesis. I have my own ideas about the universe. Even though I'm Catholic, I have no trouble reconciling my suppositions about the nature of the universe (or should I say, universes) with Christian beliefs.

[moya]

Tragic, yes. But the intent was still a warning. A taste of things to come.

Well, given that many of these fanatics are intent upon nothing less than the destruction of Western civilisation, everything is a 'warning' until that goal is reached, right?

This was claimed by some previously unheard of 'Al Qaeda Europe' group, yes? Also, the UK intelligence networks have admitted it came 'out of the blue' for them (counter-terrorism in the UK has a rather long history, I might add; starting considerably prior to September 11th 2001). This may well have been this particular 'organisation's' best shot. They'll probably be rounded up and brought to justice, only for some other 'terror network' to rise up claiming the Al Qaeda brand...

[Suicides-by-Steve]

That's an interesting hypothesis. I have my own ideas about the universe. Even though I'm Catholic, I have no trouble reconciling my suppositions about the nature of the universe (or should I say, universes) with Christian beliefs.

Well, spit them out man! ;) I want to hear them!

[Friend_Bear]

Back to the original topic, already cancelled my subs but i'm playing until it runs out, the future of eq2 is not good at all, the funny thing here is that the original EQ is still vastly more popular! Sony stepping into the 'come back to us and we'll allow you to sell our interlectual property on our auction site' to boost subs isn't working either, in fact the player base it currently has seems to hugely oppose it, basically I see EQ2 being dead by the end of the year, not unless they seriously revamp it like removing player death debt, removing a lot of the low player population servers and balance out the current servers so theres plenty of players for all levels to group with, balance the monsters properly between solo and group mobs and increase the coin rewards since getting money isn't easy since they nerfed tradeskills (one of the reasons I left in the first place) they also need to balance out some character classes as well. Oh, and PS - They need to offer FREE character transfers right now, listen to this BS to move one character from one server to another, they charge $50 per character!

[Mochan]

I don't believe that these terrorists are after the destruction of Western civilization, that's nonsense.

Bin Laden has repeatedly stated that the attacks are due to some foreign policies instituted by the US.

These include American policy against Palestinians, who have been on the land for ages and whom are being evicted and killed by Americans and Israelis alike. And worse, any acts of retaliation they make are dubbed as "terrorism" when in their view the terrorists are the Americans who have no business sticking their noses into the matter.

We can add to this further actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Muslims aren't like Christians who have the strong need to proselytize and convert people of other religions in an active fashion, and they don't go into Holy Wars "just because." And they certainly aren't Nazis. I don't believe any comparisons to Hitler are valid.

Still you may have a point, maybe this particular bombing was done by some other upstart organization and not necessarily the "real" Al Queda.

PS -- Steve, you sound a lot like an ancient Jewish kabbalist with your world beliefs. ;) Have you perchance read "The Tree of Life" or "A Garden of Pomengranates?"


Back on topic, I feel bad for Friend Bear because his topic has turned into a terrorist discussion. Friend Bear, you mean the original EQ is actually now more popular and still played more than EQ2?!

[Aku]

I don't believe that these terrorists are after the destruction of Western civilization, that's nonsense.

Bin Laden has repeatedly stated that the attacks are due to some foreign policies instituted by the US....


Well, the destruction of western civilization (as well as Israel) is per the comments of people and organizations who carry out these acts, so you might want to talk to them about their "nonsense".

You're right, Muslim extremists don't believe in proselytizing - they believe in exterminating. For example, when the Taliban blew up the Buddhist statues in Afghaniztan simply because they were Buddhist.

I don't believe Muslim extremists act in the best interests of their people in the slightest. What they care about is their extreme Muslim ideology. With his millions, Bin Laden could do a lot more constructive things - like build power plants and roads - as opposed to trying to kill people.

Is the U.S. a noble agent for good in the Middle East? No. Would life be better in the Middle East if the U.S. left them alone? No. Let's look at Afghanistan, where the U.S. had no influence up until a couple of years ago. Was life there good under the Taliban? No. Do most people like living in fundamentalist Iran? No. (I know an Iranian, who informs me that most want the return of relations with the U.S. and the ouster of the hardliners, but they can't say or do much). Many governments over there want U.S. relations, like UAE and Kuwait. They want to put their efforts into bringing the Middle East into the 21st century, not turning the clock back to the 11th century, like the extremists want to.

Mochan, you sound like an apoligist for terrorists. Muslim extremists don't retalliate, they look for excuses to act out their hatred and aggression. And if the U.S. did back off, it wouldn't do the Middle East any good. The success of the extremists and the spread of fundamentalism across the Middle East would be a disaster for the region and for the world.

[Mochan]

Is the U.S. a noble agent for good in the Middle East? No. Would life be better in the Middle East if the U.S. left them alone? No. Let's look at Afghanistan, where the U.S. had no influence up until a couple of years ago. Was life there good under the Taliban? No.

You forget that the US pretty much backed the Taliban until 1998. Heck they practically installed the Taliban. Taliban's had funding from the US through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The US's stooge, Hamid Karzai, gave military and financial backing to sustain the Taliban's power until 1998 when they stopped becoming pliable. The US later did away with them and in 2001 installed Karzai as prime minister.

Further, what of the Taliban? They're note the only issue. The US-installed Kharzai still kept problems in Afghan afterwards, like preventing married women from going to school. He didn't exactly improve the situation. You think the US was there to improve the situation for the Afghans? Sexual violence against women was on a rise during Karzai's rule, as showed by a study of Amnesty International. The US just went there to put an oil pipeline. And further, what of all the American landmines that are still killing Afghan children, mines which were left there during the war Soviet war.


And look now. What has the US done to Afhganistan? Pretty much left it to rot again after they realized there wasn't much oil to be had here after all. They quickly set their sites to Iraq; reparation costs for Afghanistan are only $1 billion whereas the ones for Iraq are up to $20 billion. The US has little need for Afghan now that the initially estimated oil reserves are a lot lower, and instead it has set its sites on Iraq which allegedly has a lot more oil.

US relations is one thing. The US putting its fingers in your government is another. The US likes to put people in power who are pliable to their needs (like better trade options, lowered tarriffs, oil, etc). Ferdinand Marcos was a US-installed president for example. So is Fidel Castro, the aforementioned Afghan, Saddam Husdein, and I'm sure there are quite a few others. It doesn't matter if they are corrupt as long as the US government gets what it needs from them and they stay obedient. But of course the US doesn't tell its citizens these things.

I'm not a terrorist apologist but you have to remember I'm not pro-US either. I look at both the sides from an outside perspective. You seem to think the US is pure and clean but it's not, and if anything you may sound like a US apolgist yourself.

[Friend_Bear]

Back on topic, I feel bad for Friend Bear because his topic has turned into a terrorist discussion. Friend Bear, you mean the original EQ is actually now more popular and still played more than EQ2?!

Yep, since the fees for the original eq are around $5 now, and it has all the expansions and the games been tweaked constantly since launch, its very balanced and still has a large player fan base unlike EQ2 which is still less than 7 months old and is really struggling with player population which is a problem for mmorpgs since they require large amount of people of various levels so you can group with them. This is one of the reasons why Guild Wars offfered the henchmen choice so at least you can attempt certain missions//quests etc...

Biggest problem for Everquest 2 is the fact that most quests steadfastly require a full group to have a chance of completing it, without the group you're stuck basically which leads to frustration which leads to the cancelling of accounts. SoE and another mmorpg developers should really listen to the veteran mmorpg player fans and listen to what should be included, a good mmorpg should provide equally for both solo, small groups and raids, this is of course really hard to do without causing people to moan in one way or another, basically when creating mmorpgs they should make the game for the greater good of the casual players not the long term fanatic player base since you really need to keep all the players happy which of course = income for the developers which = wages

[Aku]

I'm not a terrorist apologist but you have to remember I'm not pro-US either. I look at both the sides from an outside perspective. You seem to think the US is pure and clean but it's not, and if anything you may sound like a US apolgist yourself.

You presume too much. I suggest you read my quote again which you re-posted with regards to the U.S. being "pure and clean". As far as Muslim abuses against women, it's a real reach to place blame on the U.S. for this when this is the product of Middle Eastern culture and exists throughout that region of the world. Even in "moderate" countries like Egypt, girls are forced to have clitorectomies, which is a barbaric procedure. Solving the problem of female subjugation goes far deeper than picking which guy to put in charge.

As for the U.S. involvement in these countries goes, you can only blame the U.S. so much for what goes on over there. At some point these nations have to take responsibility for themselves. This wasn't some paradise that the U.S. went into and wrecked in the last hundred years. The Middle East was the armpit of the world before we ever got there. For the record, I don't like that the U.S. invaded Iraq, and I'm quite aware of the bunglings and hypocrisy of U.S. Middle Eastern policy. But at some point countries like Iran and Iraq need to get over the "U.S. is the Great Satan" crap and follow the example set by UEA and Quatar and others. All those multitudes of young men in the streets should take a break from American flag burning and use their energy to build school or some other useful thing.

[Mochan]

I'm not blaming the US for bringing women abuse or any other bad things to these countries. My point is that the US needn't act all righteous when they also had a hand placing some of these tyrants in power. My point is that the US isn't going to these countries "to liberate them" or to "spread democracy (which by itself is rather proselytizing) it's going there for its self interests, and camouflaging it with righteous crusading.

That, and that the bungling hypocrisy you mentioned is the real cause for the increase in fanatacism that has lead to the terrorist bombings. If we had none of that hypocrisy and self-serving meddling I really do not believe any of these bombings would have occured.

[Suicides-by-Steve]

"PS -- Steve, you sound a lot like an ancient Jewish kabbalist with your world beliefs. Have you perchance read "The Tree of Life" or "A Garden of Pomengranates?""

Nope, I thought this up all on my own :).

"And look now. What has the US done to Afhganistan? Pretty much left it to rot again after they realized there wasn't much oil to be had here after all."

Oh, don't forget all the depleted uranium bombs and shells they've dropped all over the place. Rare cancers are springing up in the Afghan population since the attacks there too. So, it's not only landmines the people need to worry about, it's also the used radioactive material the US insists on scattering around the planet... in various Flashpoints. Why bother with Yucca Mountain when the US can just dump all it's radioactive waste around other third-world nations?

[BaneNWN]

Man why is the U.S. at fault for everything??I have a buddy who was over in iraq and he tells me the people of iraq give soldiers gifts to thank them for all we have done.The only ones who are not happy with us are the extremists that were followers of Hussein.Hussein was a dictator and put his own people through hitler like punishment sometimes worse.Hes a mad man that didnt have the mental capacity to run a country.Let me ask you SBS and Mochan if you had someone such as hussein running your country where you lived in poverty and had to worry everyday about your familys life would you not want another country to help you??

Would you want someone running your country who put innocent people and kill them by throwing them in a fctory meat grinder??If you lived like that you would be begging for our help .Theres certain things about my government i honestly hate but,atleast we have the balls to stand up to terrorists when most other countries just ignore it.See the thing is everyone reads or watches the news and they believe everything they hear.Ive had a few people tell me it is way different over there then the news would indicate.The majority of iraqi people want us there for there own sense of feeling safer.Like my friend said the people there that hes run into are very greatful for our presence.

By the way for all those who think we should just back off well remember this we all live on the same rock and what Affects one country eventually will come back and affect us all.Im glad were retaliating and trying to find binladen because when we do find him i hope they let him go in the middle of central park in NY city and watch him run like a coward just like hussein did

[Suicides-by-Steve]

Would I want radioactive waste thrown all around my country? No. Would I want insurgants blowing themselves up willy-nilly all around my country? No. Did I as a Canadian want Bush to invade Iraq? No. Did I as a Canadian believe Bush's rhetoric about WMD? Hell no. Hussien was a US backed leader Bane (during the Iraq/Iran war), and they turned a blind eye when he gassed all those Kurds. I suggest you read a little history before saying that the US is free from blood on their hands in that part of the world, and that they are free from fault. Britian, France, and the US have had their hands in the political machinations in Iraq for more than half a century. Nearly a century if you include Britians' conquest over the territory.

The whole region has been used strictly as a pawn in a game played by the West, and if I lived there, I'd be pretty pissed too. I've never been a fan of US foreign policy ever since I was old enough to understand the concepts, and especially the relationship that the US has with Isreal. The whole deal there was and is rotten to the core. All I see there is the West colonizing under the banner of freedom and democracy, all the while trampling their democratic values with hypocrisy and lies. The same thing is happening in Iraq, and has happened before in the 40's. They're an oppressed people, and are sick of external "help" interfering constantly.

Bin Laden isn't even in Iraq... Never was. LOL I seriously can't believe you think that. Personally I think Bin Laden has been dead for quite a while. Probably blown to smithereens in a Predator attack. However, having him alive serves peoples' agendas much more than him being dead. If the States really wanted to punish someone, it should have been Saudi Arabia, however, Bush and the Royalty there are too much in cahoots together...

I don't see what you're "retaliating" against in Iraq, except maybe past stupidity your country allowed to happen in the past, and maybe a bit of hurt pride that Bush Jr wants rectified since daddy couldn't do the job right the first time. Your president is a fool, and he's created a mess in Iraq that will last for YEARS to come. Afghanistan was justified, Iraq never, EVER was. Your countrymen will get their Just Desserts there, mark my words. I can't wait to see how you guys pull out of there, running away yourselves come to think of it if what Bush would like to do comes to pass.

Oh, he's a picture I thought I'd share with you... maybe food for thought:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/shakinghands_high.wmv

The full document can be found here (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/). As well, some very informative info on the history of the US's hands on approach in the region can be found there, along with all the hypocrisy I have mentioned above. It's total crap.

[Mochan]

Man why is the U.S. at fault for everything??I have a buddy who was over in iraq and he tells me the people of iraq give soldiers gifts to thank them for all we have done.

This is pretty mcuh "damage control" and "PR." Like I mentioned, there needs to be a righteous cause put in as a smokescreen to cover up for the real purpose. The added benefit is that it works really well since the ancient history tends to stay ancient history and is remembered only by the real critics. Not too many people remember that Saddam was originall a US-backed and installed strongman.

Instead what will be remembered (and the US Government's PR agents will make sure of it) is how much reparation assistance they gave to Iraq etc. etc.

For example, I'm sure not many Americans know that there was a Philippine American war, because to my knowledge this isn't taught in American history books. But America did come to odds with my country in the early 1900s and in fact they decimated one town into "a howling wilderness" (the exact words of the commander who ordered Samar destroyed were to turn it into a howling wilderness -- which they did).

I'm not saying the US is at fault for everything, or that the only thing it does is evil things, but we have to see that it does both good and bad. It's important to remember both rather than just be ignore either side of the equation (you may end up either a blissfully ignorant sheep or a hateful extermist -- both have dangers the former in potentially letting history repeat itself and the latter in, well, causing terrorist acts).

[Mochan]

Let me ask you SBS and Mochan if you had someone such as hussein running your country where you lived in poverty and had to worry everyday about your familys life would you not want another country to help you??

Well that's a bit of a complicated question. You see, the problem is that the "other country to help you" in question also happened to be the country that put the despot in power in the first place.

The other thing is that the US *did* install a strongman in my country and he did drive us into poverty. A little after World War II the Peso Dollar exchange rate was something like 2:1. When the US installed Marcos as president, we suffered many heinous cruelties and mismanagement such that we ended up booting the bastard out of office with the famous People Power Revolution. We had no US assistance.

Unfortunately the damage had been done; in just 20 years the exchange rate ballooned to something like 25:1, the country had a massive billion dollar debt (where none was before), numerous cases of human rights violations and people simply "gone missing," and perhaps worst of all a culture of cronyism and political money-mongering was developed and ingrained and which still persists to this very day.

It would be nice for another country to step in and help but you have to be dubious if it's the same country that caused problems in the first place. You don't feed from the hand that bites you, after all.

[Aku]

I'm not blaming the US for bringing women abuse or any other bad things to these countries. My point is that the US needn't act all righteous when they also had a hand placing some of these tyrants in power. My point is that the US isn't going to these countries "to liberate them" or to "spread democracy (which by itself is rather proselytizing) it's going there for its self interests, and camouflaging it with righteous crusading.

That, and that the bungling hypocrisy you mentioned is the real cause for the increase in fanatacism that has lead to the terrorist bombings. If we had none of that hypocrisy and self-serving meddling I really do not believe any of these bombings would have occured.

First, I should outline my position on the Middle East. I think U.S. policy stinks for the most part. I am also pro-Israel for the most part and have few sympathies for the Palestinians because of their continued alliance with terrorist groups. I think we needed to invade Asghanistan, and shouldn't have invaded Iraq. I think that many in the Middlke East want relations with the U.S., but they are forced into silence by ruling theocracies like the one in Iran.

The fact is, you can blame the U.S. for putting tyrants in power, but it's naive to say that there is a better alternative in many cases. What options were there to the Taliban at the time? The fact is, many of these countries are basically medieval, have been horrible places to live for a long time - since long before the Americans showed up - and will continue to be bad places to live unless they get their act together. The U.S. does act in its own self-interest, but that's not the reason why some of these countries are a mess. Even if the U.S., was over there for purely alturistic reasons and not the oil, a country like Afghanistan could never become like Qatar unless it did it by itself.

Survival of the fittest applies to countries as well as people and animals. Some thrive, and others fail. I submit that countries like Afghanistan and maybe Iraq will always fail. But because of that one crucial resource, countries like the U.S. can't let them fail entirely. The stakes are too high. Of course, this underscores how essential it is that we lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, if not remove it completely. And yes, you can blame the U.S. government and its ties with the oil companies for not doing more to reduce this dependence. A lot of problems would be solved if we did.

[Mochan]

Survival of the fittest applies to countries as well as people and animals. Some thrive, and others fail. I submit that countries like Afghanistan and maybe Iraq will always fail.


That's fine, but somewhere along the line we lost the point that we were originally arguing about, that the terrorist attacks were due to the US/UK's meddlesome foreign policy.

I'll admit that these countries were messes to begin with, but some people like to make their own mess rather than have someone else create it for them. These people are living in a bad country but don't think that just because they do live a crappy life, they feel the need to attack a better nation to "gain equity" or "destroy their way of life since we have a crab mentality" or anything like that.

I live in a hellhole country myself but I wouldn't even consider going to war with the US because it's simply not worth it. I would rather focus my energies on living as well as I can rather than create a war or do terrorism. It's not just me, the average citizen feels that way. We just live out our lives unless provoked. Even an extremist would not do more unless provoked (which is what this foreign policy is doing).

The issue isn't altruism (or lack of it), or of these countries being a mess and trying to fix them, but rather that the meddlesome policies are giving these people a reason to lash out at the meddlesome Americans/Brits.

***

Going out on a limb again, you also have to look at it in another way: these countries are a "mess" but what do you think of the US? If anything, perhaps it is the US that is a "mess?" These messed up countries never tried invading the US or meddling with it anything like that. The US on the other hand has grown to a point where it needs so much oil from these countries that it's in "a mess." High stakes, as you mentioned. That's why the US is trying to get its hands in these countries, so that it can sustain its lifestyle. How is that not a "mess" itself? Worse, it's a mess that leeches on other countries in order to sustain itself.

That's how imperialists and all these super power nations get into power after all... by stepping on other nations. The US is just the latest in a long line of nations "preying" on other nations (survival of the fittest as you put it) although instead of the old method of invading, subjugating, pillaging and colonizing instead we have a more "civilized" way of doing it through diplomacy, tariffs, one-sided trade agreements, and other "legal" means to acquire wealth. Sometimes if the deal won't fall through we apply a little "war on terrorism" or other righteous drivel just to keep our noses clean. Brilliant. Excellent. Civilized.

[Aku]

That's fine, but somewhere along the line we lost the point that we were originally arguing about, that the terrorist attacks were due to the US/UK's meddlesome foreign policy.

Right, the original question. Terrorism was not invented as a reaction to U.S. intrustions. U.S. intrustions may exacerbate the problem, but if the U.S. were to pull out of the Middle East tomorrow, the terrorists wouldn't just suddenly disappear. Terrorists have other targets besides the U.S. And when terrorists come into power - like the Taliban - they prey on their own. And while terrorists may be devoted to a "noble" cause in their own twisted minds, they are usually backed by criminal organizations that have their own agendas which - like the American agenda - is about their own interests and not those of their people.

I have always tended to look at history from an amoral persepective. It is a game, and it is survival of the fittest. And to the winner go the spoils and all that. It's how civilization has evolved, and is evolving. We tend to forget that civiliztion is still barely out of its infancy. Look at what the world was like a thousand years ago - not a long time, when you consider that's just ten centenarians placed end-to-end. And compare that to where it is today. Civilization has come a long way. We're still in the capitalist expansion phase of history. The whole "global order" period isn't even off the ground yet. I think we need to give it a few centuries and then check back in to see how the world has advanced, and put the 18th - 21st centuries into their proper perspective.

[Suicides-by-Steve]

"I submit that countries like Afghanistan and maybe Iraq will always fail. But because of that one crucial resource, countries like the U.S. can't let them fail entirely."

Faulty logic (assuming I'm reading what you're talking about correctly). Iraq has been around a hell of a lot longer than the US, there's no grounds that without the US's help, their country would "fail". It was the cradle of civilization for christ's sakes. Without their influence, we may never have come to live as we do. Quite possibly, we'd be living in lean-tos still.

I also have to question the impotance of oil. We got this far without need of the black gold, up until a century ago. We can, and should be doing it again, and saving the resources for plastics and other petrochemicals. The oil is leading ourselves into even worse turmoil and trouble than the US can possibly hope to accomplish. Cancer rates are sky-high, spills get into the waters, polluting every facet of our ecosystem. Surely by now there's better resourses and technologies available to use, but we're being brainwashed to think we couldn't live without it.

Accurately speaking, we couldn't live the SAME way without it, and of course things, such as the way we live, would have to change, undoubtably.

[Aku]

Well, some of these countries are about as advanced as they were when they were still the cradle of civilization, so by today's standards I would give them an "F".

We don't have to eliminate the need for oil entirely. The U.S. is capable of reducing it's oil consumption to the point where it wouldn't need to import from the Middle East anymore in about twenty-five years. If the government really wanted to....

[Mochan]

It's true that terrorism was not invented as a reaction to the US, but not all terrorism stems from the same roots.

Not all terrorism is the same.... the terrorism for a 9/11 attack, London Bombings or the Madrid wreck would all have different reasons from, say the terrorism of the car bombings done in the Philippines. The bombings here were done as a result of Muslim Mindanao showing distaste for the national government oppressing them. When that government (and the loon Erap Estrada) went out of power the terrorist attacks stopped.

They're done for different reasons. While we don't exactly know the reason for the London bombing, my view is that it's still a reaction towards US and British foreign policy, and will likely stop when that policy is corrected.


I'm unclear on what you mean by terrorists "preying on their own." I know there are terrorists who come from the same country and bomb their own countrymen (like those Japan nerve gas attacks) but I think you are referring to terrorist "thugs" like the Taliban who oppress their own people because they are in power. (State-ruled terrorism?)

I agree with you though, civilization is still young and we have a long way to go before we achieve utopian paradise.

[Mochan]

I'm with Steve here, it's time to let go of the oil dependency. It's ridiculous.

It's just that transferring over to a different power source may be "too much of a hassle" and certainly the costs incurred to do so would be astronomical (you'd have to refit a large majority of energy producing machinery) not to mention scrap almost all the cars out on the roads. We'd have huge upheavals in a lot of industries as a result and naturally the people sitting at the top of these industries don't want that.

One problem may be that these same people on the top of these industries may be backers of the politicians who are making the decisions regarding these issues in the first place.


Well I don't care if we live on grass energy or wind energy or whatever as long as I get enough power to keep my PC on 24 hours a day lol.

[DBS]

I believe the technology is already there and proven but the only thing stopping it is..greed. We could get away from oil and work on other fuels but the fact is..there is huge money still in oil and as long as that is the cold hard truth...nothing else matters.



As for politics I can comment alittle but to be honest I take care of my small circle, protect my family and friends and hardly believe anything I hear or read anyways. I do think in this day and age it is a world economy and we as nations are all in this together. This is no easy task and rubs many the wrong way. It is the truth though and the only way to deal with it is to all work together as best we can to create the lives we want to live.



Is the US and other nations wrong for stepping in and doing something? Dunno but it is our nature and we will always be hated for doing so. Right wrong...sometimes we are right sometimes we are wrong but I feel worse when we turn away or pretend not to see the horrors that go on in the world. And yes...we do that too only that is the worse situation and doesn't sit well with my personality. Utlimately, I would go to fight for someone eles if I felt it meant something and very easily later looking back I might also see it was the wrong cause. If you fear making a choice and do nothing it is far worse than going down a path you feel is the correct path. I know..babble babble but you get where I come from.



As for my spirtual beliefs- I believe there are many things we will never understand or comprehend in our lifetimes. It is plesant to think there is something after but no one will know till they are gone. I do not believe one group is above the next or one group is the true gifted group of people. Everyone thinks they know the secrets or are on the right path. I guess it is rediculous to think any of us know anything about this topic- it is just a hope for more.

And you see why I game...in the big picture I have few answers. The older I get the more questions I have and the less I pretend to know..

[Mochan]

If you fear making a choice and do nothing it is far worse than going down a path you feel is the correct path.

I agree with this actually. Hesitation and failure to act is worse in my opinion than even doing the wrong thing. There are complications to this (like if a serial killer wants to kill, should I condone him killing rather than hesitating?) but it reminds me of Conversations with God Book 3 (or was it Book 1) where God says that Hitler went to heaven.

Doing is the act of sublimity, doing nothing and hesitating all your life from fear is the real shame.


And yes, Gaming is the a great way to spend time rather than acting knowledgeable about issues we know nothing about. ;)

[Legolas]

I have to add a couple of points. I personally believe the US is a GREAT country, a craddle for many libertarian ideas and men and women that have done a lot of good to the world. And I have MANY US citizen friends. I treasure their friendship, would never see it compromised.

That said, I cannot condone US foreign policies, and neither should anyone who studies a bit of history. And it's not only the middle east, think of Latin America as well. For example:

1. Guatemala, 1954. DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED president Jacobo Arbenz Guzman (won by a large margin too) is deposed by a CIA staged coup. Decades of civil war follow, and the US trained and armed Guatemalan army is considered guilty of the killing, torturing, and disapearig of millions.

2. Chile, 1972. The very "First september eleven". Democratically elected president Salvador Allende (Another one elected by a great majority) is deposed by a CIA staged coup. Thousands of chileans die in the following years. To this day, General Augusto Pinochet is considered a criminal against humanity in the whole world BUT the US, as he was their man.

3. NIcaragua, 1979. Anastasio Somoza, NIcaragua's strong man, was a widely know human rights violator. President Jimmy Carter even said of him "He is a son of a *****, but he is OUR son of a *****". That pretty much should tell you something about the pracmatic aproach to foreign policies.

Is it any surprise that, in each and every one of these countries, there is a marked anti-US feeling? no its not. And mind you, this countries weren't more of a mess than say, Spain was at the time (dictator Francisco Franco was ALSO backed by the US in there, by the way), but had democratically elected presidents and where trying to do things their way. In the proccess, they came against the interests of multinational companies such as ATT, the "Banano" companies in Central America and others. It was in defense of these companies interests, NOT in defense of AMERICAN CITIZENS interests, that the US acted against those countries.

If a country believes that it can do ANYTHING to ANYONE for his own interests, how is that country different from terrorists?

To finish, let me make myself very clear. I do not, have not ever accepted terrorism as a viable or just political or military action. But that extends to STATES who act that way, not only crazy or fanatical individuals.

I hope I make myself clear, as I do not intend this to be an "Anti-US" post. Merely, a stating of historical fact.