Mobius 1 wrote:
As much as I like the concept of the eighties as a decade of fall and redemption for multiplete facets of the Comix verse, I find the expansion of the Reaganism troubling - America does a good enough job of acting cartoonish at times in its GLOBAL POLICE JOB capacity that stepping something up that was already at eleven seems somewhat ridiculous.
I agree that it is a fine balance. While going "Megafortress! USAF space assets! VALLEY FORGE!" and shit is cool, IMO, I do recognize that there is a fine balance between this and overdoing the anti-Americanism. Which is why I'm pitching it here.
Be that as it may, America DID support Saddam Hussein in the past. And supporting these dictatorial regime is something that America has been doing for, like, the last half-century. Is it ridiculously "stepping something up that's already at eleven" or just, like, bringing into attention something ugly that most people would like to ignore/forget?
I know there's a fine line that should be toed, since we don't want things to get too "real" and exploiting hot button topics might not be entirely cool.
Quote:
The ideas behind uniting the Middle East under Nadir Hassan and bringing peace to a normal tumultuous region is tempting, but it seems somewhat misplaced. What is the status of the crock-up in Israel/Palestine in COMIX? And what of Iran?
It's more of an alliance of convenience, rather than an actual EU/NATO type of unison. But yes, the whole affair is pretty damn complex which is why I'm pitching it here for assessment and/or assistance. FROD seemed to have an agenda for the Mid East with his Nadir and UAE/Dubai/Saudi stuff, so I figured maybe that was something that could be applied to this situation.
Quote:
What I do like from this idea is the implied craziness of all the PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES running around (a la MGS4) - it takes a common feature of twenty minutes into the future stories and places the trope twenty minutes into the past. It's ripe for new characters, as you implied.
Exactly. I want mercenaries and all sorts of glourious ambiguous messes in the region since in the 90s, the de-Reaganization and the Clintons and the Lightnings will basically put an end to American interventionism so today America WON'T be dickish but will NOT have experienced anything like the early-2000s Shrub Years, and instead America will be pretty laid back. There won't BE any Operation XYZ-Freedom led by America, not after the 90s. There might not even be a Desert Storm.
And we needed a place for Saintly Concerns and other private freak mercenary teams to kick ass in.
Quote:
I'm just not disposed to making America of the eighties even more ridiculously malevolent than it already is.
In real-life they did support Saddam Hussein and did veto a UN resolution meant to condemn the use of Iraqi nerve gas on Iranians. My supposition doesn't really "improve" or "worsen" this.
And after the 80s, I do intend to give the place a new golden era of peace and prosperity. The night is darkest just before the dawn, after all.

EDIT:
Heck. My argument doesn't involve any more American interventionism in the Middle East. Aside from their real-life support of Saddam Hussein, America actually would have little to do in this scenario. In fact, my only change is that America does
nothing. America doesn't go into Kuwait, because Iraq doesn't invade, and there's no Gulf War. Instead, Iraq breaks by itself. America doesn't do anything because it's too busy with de-Reaganization and George H.W. Bush is too busy with the shitfest he inherited from Von Reagan (by this point, the American populace would NOT want another war).
I do wonder how Iraq collapses when it had, like, a huge military and some such back in the day. Perhaps the Iran-Iraq war went worser, and the Ayatollah of Rock and Rollah's proved more difficult to fight than in real-life. Iraq might've had a harder time against Iran?