81 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

wolfsite wrote...

They could have just picked London for the trailer since that city has the most wordly recognizable landmarks than any other city in on the planet.  Plus Big Ben would make a much better sniping spot then the Washington monument on Lady Liberty.

The Eiffel Tower would have worked

[GnusmasTHX]

Wulfram wrote...

wolfsite wrote...

They could have just picked London for the trailer since that city has the most wordly recognizable landmarks than any other city in on the planet.  Plus Big Ben would make a much better sniping spot then the Washington monument on Lady Liberty.

The Eiffel Tower would have worked

But then there'd be no resistance by the humans...

[CaptainZaysh]

robtheguru wrote...
There is always the chance that Europe becomes truely unified under one banner which would immediately propel it to the forefront of military might within the world.  

Pfft.  Speaking as a Brit (and a former squaddie) - b*llocks.  The US spends more on its defence than the next 17 countries combined* (of which only 6 are in Europe).  They would take us to bits.  The USAF would own the skies, and nobody does logistics like the Yanks.  I'd only slightly prefer fighting them to fighting the Reapers, to be honest.

*and they manage to do this without even being in the top 10 of military spenders in terms of GDP percentage.  You guys saying that the contemporary US is not a first world country are lunatics.  For it to become a third world slum by the time ME occurs would require a lot of change.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 21 janvier 2011 - 11:44 .

[Drowsy0106]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

robtheguru wrote...
There is always the chance that Europe becomes truely unified under one banner which would immediately propel it to the forefront of military might within the world.  

Pfft.  Speaking as a Brit (and a former squaddie) - b*llocks.  The US spends more on its defence than the next 17 countries combined* (of which only 6 are in Europe).  They would take us to bits.  The USAF would own the skies, and nobody does logistics like the Yanks.  I'd only slightly prefer fighting them to fighting the Reapers, to be honest.

*and they manage to do this without even being in the top 10 of military spenders in terms of GDP percentage.  You guys saying that the contemporary US is not a first world country are lunatics.  For it to become a third world slum by the time ME occurs would require a lot of change.

Expect it to be a 2nd/3rd world country within 50 years. Only if they manage to goto war, actually win and gain something from it they might prolong the inevitable (all empires eventually fall). They simply can't afford another Iraq where u spend close to 2 triljon and gaining absolutely nothing except bad rep and get away it economicly.

Modifié par Drowsy0106, 21 janvier 2011 - 12:02 .

[robtheguru]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

robtheguru wrote...
There is always the chance that Europe becomes truely unified under one banner which would immediately propel it to the forefront of military might within the world.  

Pfft.  Speaking as a Brit (and a former squaddie) - b*llocks.  The US spends more on its defence than the next 17 countries combined* (of which only 6 are in Europe).  They would take us to bits.  The USAF would own the skies, and nobody does logistics like the Yanks.  I'd only slightly prefer fighting them to fighting the Reapers, to be honest.

The combined military forces of the EU including reserves is double the US when it includes their reserves as of 2008. The Americans do spend more money on defence than the rest of the world (1/3 more than the EU as far as I know). But just because it spends more doesn't automatically mean that it produces the best technology. There is always waste with development projects and we'll never truely know how much of the money is effectively used. The UK is developing the first unmanned Stealth Fighter which is a huge step forward. I mean you'll never be able to replace a human in air to air combat but for attacking ground targets it is pretty huge. Add in the fact the EU is only going to keep expanding and everything just starts to pile into the favour of them. I mean for all we know, in the Mass Effect universe Russia could have joined the EU

[robtheguru]

GnusmasTHX wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

wolfsite wrote...

They could have just picked London for the trailer since that city has the most wordly recognizable landmarks than any other city in on the planet.  Plus Big Ben would make a much better sniping spot then the Washington monument on Lady Liberty.

The Eiffel Tower would have worked

But then there'd be no resistance by the humans...

Oh my god that comment is pure 100% win! Can't stop laughing!

[klossen4]

Was there not a third world war and an american civil war before we found prothen ruins at mars these events could change nations think about if a new civil war happend in america think about how much would change?

[Val Seleznyov]

James2912 wrote...

That is only because of all the sneaky snide remarks about the US. Anyways I will get on topic.

I really think they aren't just attacking London I think they are attacking all the major cities. I really want to see the battle for Arcturus Station I hope Sheps involved in that one!

Untethered jingoism is extremely trite and tiresome. Informing you that the US is far from the paradise you seem to believe it to be isn't a sneaky or snide remark.

Your comment about my home country, Russia, was much ruder, and frankly extraordinarily ignorant.
 
I would have argued it, but it's not really up to me culture you. I will say this: there is a big wide world out there. You should try to learn something about it.

Modifié par Val Seleznyov, 21 janvier 2011 - 02:45 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Hey Val, your country was home to the most murderous regime in human history until about twenty years ago.

[CaptainZaysh]

Drowsy0106 wrote...

 (all empires eventually fall)

I just want to say that this is a spectacularly banal observation.

[Spartas Husky]

Burdokva wrote...

Saren100 wrote...

Germany is the only strong european nation at the moment but they keep having to pay to keep other smaller nations Greece afloat which is an issue.

Fixed that for you.

France, and Spain are also in the german gravy train.

[Zavox]

Val Seleznyov wrote...

It's a shame that your knowledge on my country doesn't extend much further than its geographic location.

The list of countries that we recognise in Europe isn't in line with that of most of the Western World. Kosovo isn't recognised, for instance. So it's simpler for me to use the numbers from the Council of Europe, as they're not really up for dispute.

The types of things that the EU passes are virtually all trade related. To suggest that it governs its member states in a more meaningful way than their respective governments do is giving the EU too much credit.

Why do you have to be so degrading, while you're the one who keeps being wrong?

Kosovo for example isn't part of the number 50 I've named. The 50 I've named are all internationally (UN) recognized as sovereign states that are part of the continent Europe. It's not simpler for you to use the numbers of the Council of Europe as for example Belarus isn't a part of it yet, while definately part of the continent Europe. It's just plain idiocy to use that number.

Haha, sorry, but... seriously. The various organizations that led up to the EU were the organizations that legislated most trade related laws, the EU itself is much more variable than just trade. There's countless of laws that EU countries has to abide by, which are most definately not trade related.

By the way, I've never said that the EU governs in a more meaningful way than their respective governments. I've just been saying they are the highest governing body in EU countries. I don't care whether it's meaningful or not, as that has nothing to do with the discussion we're having.

P.S: What the heck gave you the idea I don't know anything about Russia except for it's geographical location? I know alot more than that, and judging by your supposed (laughable) superior knowledge on Europe, I'm quite sure I can rival your knowledge on Russia.

Modifié par Zavox, 21 janvier 2011 - 03:35 .

[Encarmine]

Spartas Husky wrote...

Burdokva wrote...

Saren100 wrote...

Germany is the only strong european nation at the moment but they keep having to pay to keep other smaller nations Greece afloat which is an issue.

Fixed that for you.

France, and Spain are also in the german gravy train.

Well if the Germans are so determined to have a centrally Governed Europe, and they failed to force one twice in the last century, I guess paying for it is a good alternative.

All this talk of what country could beat who what and where. Like a previous poster said, ive seen seen their operation, their kit, the whole structure of the U.S. military machine is fu*king mental. Those boys could start a war with the world, and if they didnt win it, the world wouldnt be in a state to be lived on anyway.

They train and plan for all out war. This is why they suffer in police actions like Vietnam and Iraq, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. They are built to fight the Soviet Union in a super power vs super power situation. Peace Keeping is somthing they are playing serious catch up with, hearts and minds etc.

Russia couldnt hope to win any significant war these days, more than 60% of their military equiptment dates from the mid 70's, they can only sabre rattle about their nuclear stockpile.

China, despite all you read in the press, cannot mobilise its entire army, its not as politically stable as they like to present to the world, one of the main reasons the Communist party are pretending to be capitalist is to satisfy a large movement for true democratic goverment. Also although they do have 'show' regiments with equal/better equiptment than the U.S., they form only a tiny amount of an otherwise outdated military.

Europe, has nothing near a single european army, and likely never will in our lifetimes due to entrenched political views. Many central european militarys are capable of defending Europe as part of defencive treaties to stop the Soviet Union taking over. Foreign deployment, like Iraq, Afghanistan is done on a country by country basis, Europe could not HOPE to have (theorycraft) invaded Iraq like the U.S. and her allies.

Other middle Powers, like Britain and her former Dominions like Australia, Canada are almost entirely dependant on the U.S. for large scale defence. They follow orders almost without question from the U.S. One could argue the U.S. simply took over Britains role of being incharge of the Anglo Empire we live in today.

India, spends most of its budget defending its borders in the North from an old percieved threat from China, andmost of its time getting ready for some form of inevitable war with Pakistan, the two nations have never stopped eye balling one another since they split from one another when the British Raj came to an end.

So in conclusion to this mass of txt, in todays World, America rules. Even if the Americans had a large civil war, swallowed up Canada and Mexico in some form of North American Union, I still think they would be a very serious and big player on the world stage in the future, as long as they could continue spending rediculous sums of money on their military machine.

/sleep now

[Val Seleznyov]

Zavox wrote...

Val Seleznyov wrote...

It's a shame that your knowledge on my country doesn't extend much further than its geographic location.

The list of countries that we recognise in Europe isn't in line with that of most of the Western World. Kosovo isn't recognised, for instance. So it's simpler for me to use the numbers from the Council of Europe, as they're not really up for dispute.

The types of things that the EU passes are virtually all trade related. To suggest that it governs its member states in a more meaningful way than their respective governments do is giving the EU too much credit.

Why do you have to be so degrading, while you're the one who keeps being wrong?

Kosovo for example isn't part of the number 50 I've named. The 50 I've named are all internationally (UN) recognized as sovereign states that are part of the continent Europe. It's not simpler for you to use the numbers of the Council of Europe as for example Belarus isn't a part of it yet, while definately part of the continent Europe. It's just plain idiocy to use that number.

Haha, sorry, but... seriously. The various organizations that led up to the EU were the organizations that legislated most trade related laws, the EU itself is much more variable than just trade. There's countless of laws that EU countries has to abide by, which are most definately not trade related.

By the way, I've never said that the EU governs in a more meaningful way than their respective governments. I've just been saying they are the highest governing body in EU countries. I don't care whether it's meaningful or not, as that has nothing to do with the discussion we're having.

P.S: What the heck gave you the idea I don't know anything about Russia except for it's geographical location? I know alot more than that, and judging by your supposed (laughable) superior knowledge on Europe, I'm quite sure I can rival your knowledge on Russia.

I'll try to make this simple for you.

Russia formally recognises more than the 50 states which are internationally recognised and comprise the list you're referring to, such as South Ossetia and Abhkazia. From my point of view it simply isn't accurate to state that there are 50 soveriegn entities in Europe. I used the Council of Europe number to avoid a conversation like this, as it is a fixed figure.

Not that the exact number really matters. The point is that there are more countries in Europe than there are in the European Union, so no matter how much misplaced importance you place on the EU, Europe is not united under one government.

Modifié par Val Seleznyov, 21 janvier 2011 - 03:51 .

[Spartas Husky]

can't we all aree the world of today wont be the same as the world in a century and some odd decades.??? yes no?

[Zavox]

Val Seleznyov wrote...

I'll try to make this simple for you.

Russia formally recognises more than the 50 states which are internationally recognised and comprise the list you're referring to, such as South Ossetia and Abhkazia. From my point of view it simply isn't accurate to state that there are 50 soveriegn entities in Europe. I used the Council of Europe number to avoid a conversation like this, as it is a fixed figure.

Not that the exact number really matters. The point is that there are more countries in Europe than there are in the European Union, so no matter how much misplaced importance you place on the EU, Europe is not united under one government.

The Council of Europe is anything but a fixed figure, it excludes Belarus at the moment, which apperantly you think is fine to exclude from the continent Europe. But, Belarus is at the moment a candidate to join, which would make the number 48... not really a fixed number is it? Again, it's idiocy to use the number of the Council of Europe for the countries in the continent Europe.

Also, I don't give a **** about what Russia recognises, it's all about what the UN recognises, as that is an established norm. The UN gives 50, so it's 50.

Anyway, I've never suggested Europe was united under one government. You had that discussion with someone else. I've just said that EU is united under one government, which you so eloquently denied.

Modifié par Zavox, 21 janvier 2011 - 04:09 .

[Dean_the_Young]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

robtheguru wrote...
There is always the chance that Europe becomes truely unified under one banner which would immediately propel it to the forefront of military might within the world.  

Pfft.  Speaking as a Brit (and a former squaddie) - b*llocks.  The US spends more on its defence than the next 17 countries combined* (of which only 6 are in Europe).  They would take us to bits.  The USAF would own the skies, and nobody does logistics like the Yanks.  I'd only slightly prefer fighting them to fighting the Reapers, to be honest.

*and they manage to do this without even being in the top 10 of military spenders in terms of GDP percentage.  You guys saying that the contemporary US is not a first world country are lunatics.  For it to become a third world slum by the time ME occurs would require a lot of change.

More to the point, the situation of there being slums in North America in the ME universe isn't unique: it's the status quo for much of the planet. Great economic developments concentrated in shining mega-cities, with hidden mega-slums beneath them. Shepard isn't from any specific part of Earth: Shepard can be from any continent or country on Earth, with the voice-acting just a matter of necessity.

The North American Civil War was awhile ago by Mass Effect standards, and there's been nothing to suggest any group of countries on the planet as dominant or as a 'shining beacon' of whatever.





Now, can we all put aside nationalist chest-beating and economic ball measuring? K, thanx.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 21 janvier 2011 - 04:20 .

[Val Seleznyov]

Zavox wrote...

Val Seleznyov wrote...

I'll try to make this simple for you.

Russia formally recognises more than the 50 states which are internationally recognised and comprise the list you're referring to, such as South Ossetia and Abhkazia. From my point of view it simply isn't accurate to state that there are 50 soveriegn entities in Europe. I used the Council of Europe number to avoid a conversation like this, as it is a fixed figure.

Not that the exact number really matters. The point is that there are more countries in Europe than there are in the European Union, so no matter how much misplaced importance you place on the EU, Europe is not united under one government.

The Council of Europe is anything but a fixed figure, it excludes Belarus at the moment, which apperantly you think is fine to exclude from the continent Europe. But, Belarus is at the moment a candidate to join, which would make the number 48... not really a fixed number is it? Again, it's idiocy to use the number of the Council of Europe for the countries in the continent Europe.

Also, I don't give a **** about what Russia recognises, it's all about what the UN recognises, as that is an established norm. The UN gives 50, so it's 50.

Anyway, I've never suggested Europe was united under one government. You had that discussion with someone else. I've just said that EU is united under one government, which you so eloquently denied.

Right now it's fixed at 47. It is not debatable that there are 47 nations in the Council of Europe. It very much is debatable that there are 50 nations in Europe.

I wouldn't exclude Belarus from the continent. The Vatican... maybe. You may not care about what my government recognises, but i very much do. I didn't particularly want to have to explain why i consider there to be more than 50 nations, especially considering i'm sure that most consider Russia the aggressor in 2008's war.

I find it interesting that you'd make a snide remark about eloquence moments after stating "i don't give a **** about what Russia recognises",  though. To consider the EU  a unified government is severely misrepresenting it. Especially considering the context in which the notion was originally brought up.

Modifié par Val Seleznyov, 21 janvier 2011 - 04:22 .

[Dean_the_Young]

robtheguru wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

robtheguru wrote...
There is always the chance that Europe becomes truely unified under one banner which would immediately propel it to the forefront of military might within the world.  

Pfft.  Speaking as a Brit (and a former squaddie) - b*llocks.  The US spends more on its defence than the next 17 countries combined* (of which only 6 are in Europe).  They would take us to bits.  The USAF would own the skies, and nobody does logistics like the Yanks.  I'd only slightly prefer fighting them to fighting the Reapers, to be honest.

The combined military forces of the EU including reserves is double the US when it includes their reserves as of 2008. The Americans do spend more money on defence than the rest of the world (1/3 more than the EU as far as I know). But just because it spends more doesn't automatically mean that it produces the best technology. There is always waste with development projects and we'll never truely know how much of the money is effectively used. The UK is developing the first unmanned Stealth Fighter which is a huge step forward. I mean you'll never be able to replace a human in air to air combat but for attacking ground targets it is pretty huge. Add in the fact the EU is only going to keep expanding and everything just starts to pile into the favour of them. I mean for all we know, in the Mass Effect universe Russia could have joined the EU

The current problems facing the EU military is legion, ranging from linguistic barriers, massive duplications of beuracracy, a widely-considered pitiful multi-country procurement system, anemic military spending for maintanence and upgrading (most nations well below NATO recommended minimums), and a logistical deployment ability so weak that it couldn't even deploy to the Balkans in the Clinton years, and three years ago couldn't even deploy into Chad on humanitarian mission for lack of airlift. Even the most expeditionary-oriented military in Europe, Britain, couldn't sustain deployments to both Iraq AND Afghanistan at the same time.

While there is certainly plenty of time for reforms to take place for it to be irrelevant in the ME context, currently Europe is not, and nowhere close to being, a first-tier military power. For deployments abroad it requires much use and assistance from the American global logistical network, and this isn't going to change in the foreseeable future. This is great in the sense that Europe may well be becoming a giant Switzerland (peaceful, prosperous, removed from most the rest of the world politically), but a consequence of it is a lack of hard power.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 21 janvier 2011 - 04:31 .

[RethenX]

Saren100 wrote...

RethenX wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

If you all would STFU with argueing about the current political situation on Earth, I would like to point out that ME is set about 170 years in the future. There is a LOT that can happen in that amount of time regarding the economic and political arrangement of the world. in the last 170 years, the US went from a nation barely holding itself together to being the sole superpower, and China is already getting ready to replace us, We've gone from horse and carriage and sail-power to nuclear reactors, jet airplains, and near-instantaneous transfer of information around the world. Firearms have gone from firing 3 shots per minute that might hit the broad side of a barn to rapid fire rifles that can take out a target at 100 yards. How many governments have been born and died in the last 170 years?
My point is that it doesn't matter where BioWare wants to make the functional capital of Earth because it is to far enough ahead of the modern day that several major shifts could have happened in the time in between.

Well said. The alliance's capital is on Arcturus Station, so I suppose that would be the capital for Earth as a whole I suppose. Which is good so we can avoid all these "My country is better cuz we gotz the capital" threads.

There is no capital of earth

The alliance is funded by the most powerful 16 nations on earth.

The alliance is not the governing body of earth there is no president of earth, earth is not a united nation with all the countries as states under the alliance.

The alliance is the un security council on crack and tripled in size plus 1.

Also we are talking about the econamy etc of today because it effects the future earth tommorow.

Only James2192 did a my country is better post.

Also RethenX I really dont understand why you are making sarcastic remarks calling us experts sarcastically. We are talking about the REAL economic situations of today not some made up garbage.

Alls you need to do is go to a good freakin news website to see that.

No not cnn or fox but RT or BBC

Cause I think its funny? I'm just poking fun, so no harm done. Well its out of my system now so I will leave you back to your deliberations, you master debaters

[Zavox]

Val Seleznyov wrote...

Right now it's fixed at 47. It is not debatable that there are 47 nations in the Council of Europe. It very much is debatable that there are 50 nations in Europe.

I wouldn't exclude Belarus from the continent. The Vatican... maybe. You may not care about what my government recognises, but i very much do. I didn't particularly want to have to explain why i consider there to be more than 50 nations, especially considering i'm sure that most consider Russia the aggressor in 2008's war.

I find it interesting that you'd make a snide remark about eloquence moments after stating "i don't give a **** about what Russia recognises",  though. To consider the EU  a unified government is severely misrepresenting it. Especially considering the context in which the notion was originally brought up.

No, it's indeed not debatable that there are atleast 47 countries in Europe. Though, nor is it debatable that there are 27 countries in the EU. So, in your line of reasoning it would be ok to say there are 27 countries in Europe now, and I can deny anything else as being debatable. You're using a number for something else entirely as a number for the countries in Europe. Again, idiocy.

If you do not exclude Belarus, that makes your number of 47 wrong. It would be 48, thus hereby we can see that your line of reasoning for using the number of the Council of Europe is plain wrong.

You can care all you want, but Russia's opinion on this subject isn't the world's opinion. Thereby it's not a reliable number to quote. UN's number is reliable as it's an established number by the majority of the countries in the world.

If you want to see it as a snide remark, be my guest, but you've missed the point of why I did so. You're overly nationalist and proud of Russia and think you can use their opinions as reasoning for denying the '50 number'. You think Russia's opinion can rival the UN's opinion on this subject. That's why I made an arguably rude comment about it. Russia's opinion doesn't matter on this subject, it's the world's established opinion that matters.

About the EU argument, can you tell me how it's not an unified governing body?

[RAF1940]

170 years IS a lot of time. Anything could happen.





Can we please not argue? No country is really "better" than any other.

[RAF1940]

robtheguru wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

robtheguru wrote...
There is always the chance that Europe becomes truely unified under one banner which would immediately propel it to the forefront of military might within the world.  

Pfft.  Speaking as a Brit (and a former squaddie) - b*llocks.  The US spends more on its defence than the next 17 countries combined* (of which only 6 are in Europe).  They would take us to bits.  The USAF would own the skies, and nobody does logistics like the Yanks.  I'd only slightly prefer fighting them to fighting the Reapers, to be honest.

The combined military forces of the EU including reserves is double the US when it includes their reserves as of 2008. The Americans do spend more money on defence than the rest of the world (1/3 more than the EU as far as I know). But just because it spends more doesn't automatically mean that it produces the best technology. There is always waste with development projects and we'll never truely know how much of the money is effectively used. The UK is developing the first unmanned Stealth Fighter which is a huge step forward. I mean you'll never be able to replace a human in air to air combat but for attacking ground targets it is pretty huge. Add in the fact the EU is only going to keep expanding and everything just starts to pile into the favour of them. I mean for all we know, in the Mass Effect universe Russia could have joined the EU

Lol @ Russia in EU!


Oh, on a serious note, no country could compete with the US. The United States Air Force is by far the largest in the world, and could pound any country to dust before an invasion.

[Drowsy0106]

Dean_the_Young wrote... 

Even the most expeditionary-oriented military in Europe, Britain, couldn't sustain deployments to both Iraq AND Afghanistan at the same time.

No offense but neither could the USA at that time. Iraq was nothing short of a disaster which of course had nothing to do with military capacity in this case and everything about who was pulling the strings, but it shows the flaws and vulnerabilities perfectly. 

[CaptainZaysh]

RAF1940 wrote...

Can we please not argue? No country is really "better" than any other.

You don't think Sweden is better than Haiti?