Aisha Greyjoy

Boo yay! Good luck guys! If it works and you hold a high bonus, it might become an effective recruiting tool.

Should have joined SK. I was passing out free money to my (Bob-related word) homies who apped there. Newb. Get some cream cheese why don't ya? Choke on a lox. Welcome to Orbis. And as I tell everyone whose welcome thread I grace with my presence, "May your stay here be blood-soaked!"

As long as my beloved Platypus Weaponry is not banned, I couldn't care less what they do with guns.

If by killing you mean "holding down health care costs", "providing insurance to the uninsured", and "improving quality of care" al while reducing the deficit, then your definition of killing must be different then mine.

The Soviet Union had the conventional military forces to push NATO into the sea. Nuclear war was America's only defense against a Soviet Attack. And that is why the Eisenhower doctrine called for overwhelming nuclear first strike in response to Russian aggression. The Soviets maintained that conventional domination until the 80's when their sluggish economic growth had trouble competing with America's explosive military spending. I feel confident NATO conventional forces today could trounce Russia. So, I give points to SU.

Indeed, it pressures a "wide" spread rather then a "deep" spread.

The question itself is ignorant, and as such, no answer can rise above the place of the start. Edit: Ok, I read some of the responses, and there is some good logic there. I take back what I said about "no answer can.."

All The Fools Sailed Away and became the Children of the Sea, I became a Holy Diver because I was Hungry for Heaven. On the sea floor, I Stand Up and Shout because the gates of Heaven and Hell were before me. With the Rainbow in the Dark highlighting the Sign of the Southern Cross, I was the Last in Line and it was my Time to Burn. --my contribution to Dio'ism.

Our political systems don't typically impact our freedom nearly as much as the economic realities we live in. Your "Freedom" may be someone else's slavery.

In several conversations, at the moment its clear, high end warfare is going to be solely missiles until someone runs out of missiles. But Missiles require a project, so its not fair to compare them to naval or air units. Someone spent a lot of money and resources to get missiles, and each missile is also very expensive to create, whereas planes are cheap. Maybe alliances should sign no first strike missile pledges or something.

You can either be A. Lowest or B. Not Lowest. A will sell quickest. I use some logic, if one guy is selling 150 food at 93, and the next price is 14000 food at 118, going in at 118(or 117) sounds smart. The 150 is a small quantity, and will be gone fast, no sense going in at 92. I also don't like undercutting by 1, so a lot of times I'll sell at the same price as my main competitors.

Let me revise my earlier remarks. The arab spring may have unseated Saddam in the way Muburuk was unseated or Qadaffi. The aftermath of that may have led to the an almost identical situation to what we now see, except our hands wouldn't be covered in blood. Another alternative is that Iraq and Syria might both be in the midst of a massive Islamic uprising. But I'd rather Arabs kill Arabs over the way they want to live them Americans kill Arabs (and the reverse) over the way we want them to live.

I don't want to see anymore family dynasties in the white house. I'll always vote against a clinton, kennedy or bush. Its part of my American tradition of being anti-aristocratic. I picked Elizabeth Warren in the poll. I don't think she can beat Hillary Clinton in the primary or a moderate Republican in the general(say, mittens or christie), but she could beat a stark-raving mad teabagger(perry, jindai, santorum, palin).

Right wing nonsense.

Well, I have decided to store 15 in peacetime. In wartime, I'll probably have 3 targets. If that's true, I'll use a lot of missiles in 5 days, and for my second round of wars, I'll need to do non-missile attacks since I can't buy enough missiles to last that long. Against opponents with no missiles but a missile wonder, I'll also want to do naval attacks to block their access to resources needed to buy missiles. Moral of story: Maybe store 20 missiles? Maybe its better to admit that I'm wrong and I have too many tanks? I had the most tanks in the last war. I still have the most tanks. I don't want to give up my shinies.

Sadly, with children, the terrorists always win. Welcome to P&W.

It was very weak and pathetic, which is pretty much how people see neutrals, so there is that.

It really does all go back to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The British and French are culpable, not America. Mostly the British.

Yes please

With your 1700 infra cities, missiles would be the sole weapon used by me in a war between us.

Wishy washy.

I endorse the idea of it being a dynamic threshold. And if the top 15 wage a huge war and all drop in score, it will have an impact on the threshold as well.

I like the color change thing. It would give some alliances the ability to have a 10% color score, only if they are willing to wage war to do it. And larger alliances don't necessarily get to win easilly, as they may not have many people in range of a smaller alliance.

I am pleased with the tank cost, and I will gladly shove my 2k+ tanks down anyone's throat and laugh while they say "Tanks suck, why do you use them?"