Rumsfeld - another chilling throwaway comment

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Unfortunatly for the Brits, while India is strikable it realy isn't sustainable it they want to hold africa (unless they are lucky) an Australia is usually contested by the Japanese/Americans and outside of a two turn striking distance (if Australia is not occupied by the second turn by the Japs or Americans they both made serious errors). If the Brits are able neuter or reduce German presence in Africa quickly, India becomes a very tasty target.

Oh, I see you play all-out 5-on-5 war. That's fun, but requires you to dole out a few extra armies to all players to fairly defend the states which border their "allies."

Me, I was referring to the game "Axis & Allies" in its literal translation, where the USA would not attack Australia, but could land on it as a base, and if Australia were taken by an Axis and then re-taken by the USA, it would revert to "English" rather than a USA territory.

[Night Stalker]

Opps .... accidentaly deleted post .... see TL's quote.

No, we are talking the same thing. Britain just doesn't have the troops available to contest Australia at the start (unless lucky).

Slightly chilling thought since some leaders seem to be making throw away chilling statements .... anyone wonder if Bush and Co spend power weekends at Camp David - 52 hrs of Mountain Dew and Dorritos over a game board .... "... take that Mr President! I just took Afghanistan! 1 more IPC for me! ...."

Originally posted by Grojlach: Sorry MagiK, but if you're going to resort to childish personal attacks* in the form of a completely uncalled for and insinuating sophism like the one above, don't expect me to respond. * Indirectly insinuating that I prefer genocide just for asking a simple critical question about Afghanistan counts as a personal attack in my book, yes.

POST DELETED DUE TO Cloudy's Descision

[ 04-29-2003, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Magik, your comment above is inflammatory- you certainly don't really believe Groj or anyone here want's a 'slaughter' of any group of people. Let's remember that the other people posting deserve respect, no matter which side of our arguments they are on. I don't want to see any more petty shots by anyone. We've managed this far without it and it would be a shame to start 'yellow carding' people as Memnoch would put it.

I will disagree that it amounted to an attack...it may or may have been inflamatory I suppose, but Grojlachs statement, to me, made some "implied" suggestions of their own. I just replied back to see what his real thoughts were. I have deleted my response to him and will refrain from questioning his "implications" in the future.

Edit: for some punctuation that I got wrong any way.

[ 04-29-2003, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Back on topic... what's the best first move for Russia?

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Opps .... accidentaly deleted post .... see TL's quote. No, we are talking the same thing. Britain just doesn't have the troops available to contest Australia at the start (unless lucky). Slightly chilling thought since some leaders seem to be making throw away chilling statements .... anyone wonder if Bush and Co spend power weekends at Camp David - 52 hrs of Mountain Dew and Dorritos over a game board .... "... take that Mr President! I just took Afghanistan! 1 more IPC for me! ...."

Your discussion is way more fun than mine [img]smile.gif[/img]