 [RL] Chaos in the streets, Rio, December 28, 2006 |
  |
 Dec 28 2006, 07:28 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 104 Joined: 12-July 05 From: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Member No.: 7,496  |
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....-C5-worldNews-2
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/12/...reut/index.html That´s where i live. I heard some of the gunshots in the morning, but i thought it was only the usual stuff. Now i heard in the radio that we shouldn´t go out in the streets. One of the attacks happened a couple blocks from where i live and right close to one of the places where i work. Lucky me that i´m not working there today (school holidays). As a matter of fact, i know some of the policemen in charge of patrolling that area and i´m wondering if they were the ones who got shot at. :-( The main difference between this and shadowrun is that criminals fear the Star in 2070. |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 28 2006, 07:36 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
That's not what my Shadowrun books say. See: Halloweeners, who operate out of downtown while targeting the Star.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 28 2006, 07:59 PM
Post
#3
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 104 Joined: 12-July 05 From: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Member No.: 7,496 |
It has to be the lack of cyber, sorcery, dragons, matrix, metas and bugs then !! |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 28 2006, 08:09 PM
Post
#4
|
|||
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
Quiet, you. Stop insisting on logic and consistency. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 30 2006, 01:05 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Man In The Machine Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,264 Joined: 26-February 02 From: I-495 S Member No.: 1,105 |
.sig-ed.
Sounds quite SR-ish to me. Gang Wars on the streets and all. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 30 2006, 01:11 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
...wait till they execute Saddam Hussein in less than two hours...
Keep in mind it's daytime over in Baghdad right now. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 30 2006, 01:14 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Man In The Machine Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,264 Joined: 26-February 02 From: I-495 S Member No.: 1,105 |
Yeah, talk about all hell breaking loose.
Now dont mind me, Im going to pack my car and head for the middle of New York state... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 30 2006, 06:16 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 223 Joined: 6-December 06 Member No.: 10,259 |
The Iraqi don't care about Saddam. They haven't for a long while. Even conservative, right-wing experts say this. I just heard a couple of them say so on TV.
The Sunni in Iraq are -- IMO, anyway -- attempting to stall the democratic process because the majority of the population is Shi'ite, and has taken power from them through "the tyranny of the masses" (not my quote) which is democracy. You yankees will be safe enough in the states, because the Sunni insurgents aren't tied to the Al Quaeda or any other global terrorist network. Unless I'm messing up my facts... Back on topic: Tension's been building up in Brazil for quite some time now, hasn't it? Ever since those drug cartel crackdowns and the shootings in Sao Paulo. I heard a story about cops selling guns to the criminals too... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 30 2006, 06:31 AM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 732 Joined: 1-December 06 Member No.: 10,116 |
Ah lets face it, the whole world is going to hell in a handbasket.
Soon enough lots of areas in the world will become 'unstable'. Corps will wind up being able to enforce their own laws and have their own military forces (more so than they can now. There ARE corporations that have paramilitary force) across the world to help keep the economy alfoat dispite increases in terrorisim and anarcy. Then will come the awakening, natrual destasters, the native americans will finally rise up in revolt once more and use spirits and magic to WTFPWN! the mundane military and force their settlement deals uppon us for a change. And then dragons shall rise up once more WTFPWN! a bunch of people to re-establish their dominance of an area and the 6th world as we know it shall be uppon us. And then, then we must worry about the great drop bear conspiracy to enslave us all! It is only a matter of time! THE WORLD IS COMMING TO AN END! THE NEW WORLD SHALL SOON BE UPPON US! REPENT! REPENT!* *This notice brought to you by Repent hairline products for men! |
|
|
|
|
Dec 30 2006, 09:24 AM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
That's why I've never been able to understand: Why bother with the mountains of bullshit necessary to build and maintain a military like the US (e.g., overly reliant on tech, but on the whole more well-trained than most militaries), when it's so much easier to just rent them out from a country that pays for the military with taxes the corps don't pay, ever? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 30 2006, 09:47 AM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 6-December 06 Member No.: 10,248 |
Sense of national identity in armed forces, controllability of forces involved and deployment, accountability, bad PR for usage of 'mercenaries' etc. etc.
Besides the primitive simplicity of our minds render us a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for we ourselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one. It's overall a good thing for governments that we don't think too much. Man, I'm awesome. I made a vague but topical answer AND managed to Godwin this in one post. I'm efficient as hell. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 30 2006, 10:00 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
Or, to answer my own question, because the megacorps in SR act nothing like real corps do or would with as much power as the AAAs possess.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 30 2006, 10:37 AM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 732 Joined: 1-December 06 Member No.: 10,116 |
I dont know about that. There's been some interesting accusations flung in recent years towards some Canadian mining corporations about the way their handling mining operations in third world countries.
And they dont even deny the fact that they have their own (small) army present to help keep the peace. And there's been some debate over the accusations that they'd been paying off local rebel groups to leave them alone, as well as engaging in questionable practicies in concern to the native population. They most certainly are not alone either. SR sort of plays with the same concept. It's all about the bottom line. Aztlan is a huge example of this. Their accused of all sorts of evil doings! OMG! Blood magic! Oooooo.. 10 new products to improve my living. Bloodmagic what now? Oh yeah I remember reading something about that a few months ago. Say did you try that new flavour of Buzz Blitz Cola? |
|
|
|
|
Dec 30 2006, 01:36 PM
Post
#14
|
|||||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
That's my impression, too. There are people who want to see him die very much, but really his trial is irrelevant to the course of events now. I guess some Ba'athist remnants will chant his name when carrying out attacks, but the attacks would come anyway. The trial of Saddam is a show for the US electorate. Even a number of groups that would like to see him executed don't want it to happen like this, because it hasn't been a fair trial at all. In years to come, people will look back and see it as a show trial and that will always taint US efforts in the Middle East. But I think the US media efforts backfire as far as the rest of the world goes. Believe me, I am not defending Saddam Hussein, but when the papers were crowing about his "humiliation" and "cowardice" when he was pulled out of that hole, a lot of people wondered how long Bush would survive on the run from the US army and how long he'd endure living in an underground box. The US media seems blind to how much it looks like they have double standards to the rest of the world. There was an interesting account of the US interrogation process of Saddam after his capture here.
Well, the division between Sunni and Shia is now very large in Iraq. It's a very sad thing. Before the US invasion, the two peoples lived together a lot more. I don't want to paint a picture of beautiful harmony. It wasn't that, there were Sunni areas and Shia areas and there was prejudice and Saddam's government was predominantly Sunni. But there was intermarriage, mixed communities, business crossed all the boundaries. People forget that Iraq was actually a secular country and quite liberal in a lot of ways. Now mixed couples are having to separate, people are moving to Shia or Sunni areas and the country is segregating itself. When you dismiss the complaint of "tyranny of the masses" by saying 'well, that's democracy,' I think you're not really recognising the division that exists. If you have a look at this map then you'll see the division in the country. It's actually the results of the last elections, but it also shows exactly the different populations in Iraq. Which is the point. That southern, dark green portion is Shia and they got 41% of the popular vote or a 128 seats in the new government vs. the Sunni 44. The voting is not on policy lines. It is on Shia / Sunni / Kurd lines. The point is that in practice, this is not a case of a large portion of the population having more say than a small portion. It is a large country "Shia" having total governmental power over a small country "Sunni." However, one of the interesting things about "stalling democracy" in so far as the Sunni are doing so, is that they have help in the form of the US government and military. The suggestion in your post is that the democratic process should just reach its natural conclusion and achieve Shia domination. I'm not arguing against democracy here, but I'm observing that your point of view is in contradiction to US policy. No matter how much the US government has trumpeted the cause of democracy in Iraq, the fact remains that they are very reluctant to give it free reign for the simple reason that the Shia majority may prove very friendly to the Shia population of Iran. They may prove to be natural allies and the very last thing that the US government wants is that. True Iraq Democracy = Unhappy US Government. A shia dominated government is also more likely to move towards "shari'a" law. That would be a bad thing for Iraqi women.
I just think of the grim spoof interview I saw on a TV show here in the UK: Interviewer: So minister, were there actually any terrorists in Iraq? Minister: Well, ah, no. But there are now! :( |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Dec 30 2006, 03:43 PM
Post
#15
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 104 Joined: 12-July 05 From: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Member No.: 7,496 |
The police is almost 100% corrupt here so you are probably referring to one incident we´ve had when some small ranked officers of the military sold guns to the criminals. Well, tecnically they stole it from a depot inside the regional headquarters, but their entrance was obviously made easy by some of the guards and they just happened to know exactly all the when´s and where´s of the place. Anyway, things are quiet now. I think they (militia, police, government, warlords, whatever) actually came to some sort of agreement. Oh, and happy New year everyone ! (I knew I should´ ve asked Santa for a kevlar vest) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 30 2006, 04:03 PM
Post
#16
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
In case anyone is still operating under any reasonable doubt that Iraq was connected to Al Quaeda or terrorism at all...it wasn't. Bush had been planning on invading Iraq before he ever got into office. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 30 2006, 07:16 PM
Post
#17
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 223 Joined: 6-December 06 Member No.: 10,259 |
Because nations are fickle things, now and then suffering from people who don't think solely of bottom line. Also, relying on external military would mean allowing foreign troops onto your territory, effectively nullifying part of your sovereignty. Finally, a nation's armed forces can be manipulated and controlled by a number of factions and factors that are not under your control. No such problems if the army is financed by you, run by your men, and employed by your corporate citizens. Assuming you were wondering why corporations bothered with armies, not why the US doesn't simply employ mercenaries...
The Iranians and many other Shia factions will actually celebrate his death. Taking out Saddam was one of the most ineffective things the US could have done in order to stall the Iranians. Iraq and Iran were bitter enemies. Now, Iraq look like it might become yet another Shia-dominated country (maybe even annexed by Iran by 2070?) possibly under Sharia law. So much for westernization and “democracy”.
:lol: This is a joke, right? If not, Saddam owns.
Really? I thought those were Sunni planting IEDs along the roadside.
Unless the US wants to come out as the world's biggest hypocrites (again), that's what they have to do. Democracy is the ability of the majority of the populace to chose their own government and laws. In Iraq, that will probably now be a Shia government and Sharia law.
QFT. Politics aren't as easy as they seem when Bush talk about freedom and democracy...
Note however, that voting is done on western standards, so the women could anonymously change this. Perhaps they just don't realize it. However, such a move by the female population in Iraq could, maybe, perhaps, save some US face, maybe even win them part of the war or give them a good reason to stay on. I don't think it will happen, though.
Yeah, that's probably it.
Of course he was. I was just saying that the new terrorists/insurgents – who aren't actually Ba'athist or loyal to Saddam in any way – aren't connected to Al Quaeda either. They are from different religious sects. As far as I've understood, anyway. EDIT: Why ain't my quote tags working! Hilfe! |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Dec 30 2006, 09:01 PM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Might be becaause some of them are spelled as 'qutoe'. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 30 2006, 09:57 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 223 Joined: 6-December 06 Member No.: 10,259 |
Bah! Humbug!
Well, that was silly... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 30 2006, 10:14 PM
Post
#20
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
No it isn't. If it were then I'd be able to buy Negroes on Amazon.com. Democracy is a system of government in which sovereignty is held by "the people". This is what distinguishes democracies from oligarchies, aristocracies, monarchies, dictatorships, and the like, in which specific groups or individuals are sovereign. Democracies come in two types, representative and direct. The representative democracy is usually the most efficient and most effective over long distances, although direct can work better in very small communities. The representative democracy is one in which specific individuals or groups act as agents of the people, making decisions in their stead and acting on their behalf. These representatives may or may not be elected. When they are elected the government is called a republic. But if they are not elected that does not mean that the government is not a democracy. The difference is if they exercise the people's sovereignty as their agent or if they abuse that sovereignty as if it were their own. The direct democracy has the people voting on each particular issue. It can be difficult to implement well because many individuals are unwilling or unable to research every issue. This sometimes results in the banning of dihydrogen monoxide and other such fiascoes. However, this does not mean 1 vote per person. It is quite possible for a direct democracy to function such that individuals have multiple votes, that some have more votes than others, or that some votes are given more wieght than others. This is in no way undemocratic. The rule of the majority is not democracy; it is populism. And populism inevitably leads to genocide. The law of the majority is now and will always be a law in which members of the majority in group can steal from, torture, kidnap, rape, and murder members of that day's reviled minority our group with complete impunity and the protection of the law. It is a system of horrific inequity. Majoritarian democracy is not democracy in any real sense. In such a system the majority group simply seizes sovereignty from the people and uses it to further their own ends. No, the best and most perfect democracy is pluralistic rather than majoritarian. It is one in which each group has equal or similar weight regardless of that group's population. In such a system compromise is possible and all interests are served to some degree. It is a system in which the both greatest good will be done and the least harm will be done. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 31 2006, 03:05 AM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
I'm going to read the devs (the original devs) minds for a second and say that in many ways they are based on what corporations were able to get away with during the Robber Baron era, when company towns were far more common and when corporations acted like governments in everything but name there - including issueing their own currency, scrip, only usable at corp stores (Sounds familiar). Of course, there is also quite a bit injected in there based on Japanese corporations pre- and post-WW2. So it's not entirely out of the blue, but the fact is that in many cases where the American corps were concerned, they'd hire out the skullcrushers (e.g., Pinkertons) or, frankly, rely on the bought and sold government thugs (cops, militia, whatever). Taken today, the situation in Colombia is more akin to how the AAAs should be dealing with full-blown military situations rather than them fielding their own (albeit rather small) militaries, especially when you also factor in the sheer number of mercenaries that would be on the market. I can accept the vanity units (most are battalion to regiment sized), but even Desert Wars would require either they be entirely mobilized, they use mercenaries, or they somehow became big enough since Corp Shaodwfiles where having a vanity unit is a legitimate drain on their resources. Thank god none of them need to ever raise capital, since the megas have such small fractions of their stock even available to be traded. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 31 2006, 04:46 AM
Post
#22
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 223 Joined: 6-December 06 Member No.: 10,259 |
OK, OK, I yield to your superior academic powers. Now go tell that stuff to the Sunni Iraqi. :P
England, Norway, Sweden, Spain and a couple of others are all monarchies, and democratic. Just felt like picking a nit, so don't be too offended.
I'm trying to remember the name a town in some Eastern European country I saw a documentary on. It produced jet engines and some other aircraft stuff, and the corp who ran the business basically ran the whole town. Even had its own security force, if memory serves me right. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Dec 31 2006, 05:23 AM
Post
#23
|
|||||||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
They are democratic but they are not democracies. The monarch is sovereign, at least in name. Most modern democratic monarchies aren't actually monarchies, however, since the representatives have almost fully usurped the monarch's sovereignty.
I'm waiting for Saddam to rise from the grave in three days so that we can appoint him the Sovereign of the United Nations World Government, Savior and Prophet of the Single World Church Which Everyone Must Belong To Or Else, and have his phone number tattooed on our right hands. He is the Antichrist, don'tchano If that doesn't happen I'd think that just giving Iraq to Israel and having them annex it would be the best solution. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Dec 31 2006, 05:34 AM
Post
#24
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 223 Joined: 6-December 06 Member No.: 10,259 |
Ok, cool.
:P Let's start a cult!
Why would the Israeli want that. They have enough troubles already. No way do they have the manpower to control Iraq. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Dec 31 2006, 06:31 AM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Never underestimate Israel. They can kick major ass when they want to. Just look at the Six-Day War. Israel still holds the territory they captured then to this day.
Israel's ability to kick a surprising amount of ass for such a small country and their general hardcoreness is one of the leading reasons it still exists, along with US support. More importantly, they know how to maintain stability under constant asymmetrical warfare from militant Arab separatists and fanatics and have been sucessfully doing so for 58 years now. The US is pretty new at it, really. Israel's current policy of retaliatory bombing is quite effective, all things being equal, but it is not something that US officials are willing to do and, quite frankly, it isn't something we could get away with or do well at this point. Ever since Vietnam the US has had the reputation of the ineffectual divorced dad with weekend visitation who always threatens to spank but never does. Sure, we were a major player in the first gulf war and some major peacekeeping. We were able to hold the Soviet Union at bay because the Soviets knew that we would treat them as equals and us treating them as equals in a war leads to a full scale nuclear holocaust. But we aren't going to perpetuate nuclear powered genocide against anyone tiny baby country in the Middle East any time soon and everyone knows it. This means that they can do whatever they want with realitive impunity and any sanctions, well they can just wait those out. Israel, however, they kick ass. If you blow yourself up they level your entire neighborhood and possibly murder your entire family, depending on how they're feeling that day. Some people are willing to attack them but the vast majority know better and sustained guerrilla warfare against them is pretty much impossible due to the fact that they are willing to cut down huge numbers of civilians to get to you if that is necessary. If we give them a few dozen nuclear bombs a tell them to take care of Iraw then they just might use them and that threat is enough to provide a great deal of stability in the region. It won't be Sunni against Shi'ites. It will be everybody against the Israeli's who don't have a single soldier on the ground but might actually start dropping American nuclear weapons if they get out of line. What we need to do is turn this Occupation into an episode of Malcolm in the Middle in which the Sunni's are Malcolm, the Shi'ite are Reese, and the Kurds are Dewy. Unfortunately, we are already Hal so we need to bring in a crazy and already reviled asskicker to be Lois. Israel fits that bill quite nicely. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd May 2026 - 09:16 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.