budgie
-
Content Count
1,094 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Calendar
Posts posted by budgie
-
-
No that was L.Ron Hubbard. that guy was definitely a couple of cans short of a sixpack.
-
There must be something in the snails.
-
I was very impressed by the graphics and draw distance in AA. If Unreal2 can bring that to GR then I would be very happy. As for the arcade feel, that surely depends on the coding and scripting,. the damage model and the quality of the enemy and friendly AI. If Ubi can take as much time, using the unreal engine to model, skin and create accurate set pieces as they did with GR, then the end result could be very successful. I also hear the physics qualities are top notch in Unreal 2 (I sure like weapon recoil in AA and the ability to jump over small obstacles). I don't like the blocky feel of the GR engine, the arbitrary barriers such as boarded up doors and windows, and the limited draw distance. The only thing I do like is the pretty sunsets. Perhaps they should consider using the engine Bethesda pulled out in Morrowind - now there's weather!
-
I went back and read your clip of Article 3 post again Warhawk and I still don't see how accepting Turkey's request for extra materiel now is the only way for other NATO members to "maintain and develop their individual and collective capactity to resist attack." France, Germany and Belgium may feel that the Patriot batteries the Americans have there are enough. They may feel that the defense networks and satellite umbrellas already in place - which they no doubt helped build - cover their obligations satisfactorily. The artcle doesn't seem to state that they have to rush to beef up Turkey's defenses even more, just because Turkey asked them to and may not need it in their eyes.
As for Saddam giving money to Palestinian suicide bombers - that could certainly be called dabbling in terrorism for he is condoning it and writing out checks to their martyrs. But these are attacks on Israel, not the US. He has not gone public to say he will finance al-Qaeda or pay for their martyrdom. As a tyrant he is just the kind of person Bin Laden despises, although we all know Osama despises the US more. Moreover it has not been satisfactorily proven that Saddam has provided real support to al-Qaeda and that with his support they or any other terrorist organization will attack the US.
Again Saddam is in the business of survival and he has always known that direct terrorist action against the United States will cause the sky to fall on his head. He hates the US, but not enough to sacrifice himself. Bush's key argument for going to war is that Iraq poses a clear and present danger to the US. Most other nations do not see that link, and have not been given sufficient proof. Nor have they been given proof that Saddam's weapons program is back on track - so far the inspectors have found next to nothing. I know the Iraqis haven't exactly been helpful but they haven't successfully hindred investigations either. Either Saddam has nothing to hide or they need more time to find it, but member nations think that it is too early to star letting the bombs fall yet.
-
Heinlein didn't have to be a boob back then - imaginations were bigger at the dawn of the space age and science fiction was so much more speculative. I don't think that the future of warfare bit was the point of the book. Heinlein spends much more time dwelling on wartime army life and on the philosophy of war. Some of the writing in that book on whether war solves anything, on whether countrues need military forces is universally pertinent. More so now that we stand on the brink of another war that to so many people needs more justification.
-
won't believe it till I see a video. Tapes can be ahard to confirm.
-
you're bchasing less tail by the day
-
Welcome to the two-niner club. I'll be signing out in July. May your kills be quick and many, Dog.
-
Oops, that wasn't me. I'll have to read again.
-
They still look damn good!
-
Bin Laden said he doesn't even support Saddam on that tape. Of course he has always opposed Americans fighting Muslim countires so he appealed to the Iraqi people to fight against America. Naturally for a fanatic, America is the bigger threat in his eyes. And it probably wasn't even him since he has been confirmed alive since December 2001 or Jan 2002.
If the 'smoking gun' intel on Iraq is so sensitive Bush can't relate it to the public, then he could at least relate it to the Germans and French. Or, let me guess, are they going to go and leak it to Saddam because they love him so much?
-
Sorry Warhawk, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, but I misinterpreted your point there. Thanks for clearing up the NATO rules for me. I still don't see how France Germany and Belgium could be shirking their duties however. They probably feel that their obligations to provide a mutual safetly umbrella are already met by numerous military and intelligence exchanges and well as participating in whatever defense infrastructure NATO has that includes Turkey. I other words they are not obliged to help Turkey make any further preparations for a war with Iraq. If however they have said they will not aid Turkey if it comes under attack , then a case could be made here that they are not living up to their obligations. In this sense NATO loks more endangered than the UN. This is a matter of international law, and my degree is in history and literature, so I'm not the best qualified here.
I personally don't think Tony Blair or the British are being led by the nose by Dubya, but a lot of Europeans, including a majority of British voters do see it that way. I was merely pointing out that the French and the Germans do not wish to share that image. IMO, Blair is a big boy and knows what he's getting himself into.
Again - I support removing Saddam from power because he is dangerous to his people, and to his neighbos and it should have been done earlier, not because he poses any threat to the US. Terrorism is not his game although he has dabbled lightly in the past for vindictive purposes. Any future Iraqi sponsored 9/11 would spell the end for his regime and Saddam is in the business of survival. He is not an idealist like Bin Hidin (who by the way doesn't support him, if he is even alive). I also still feel that an attack would be better with international support, but as France and Germany have a right to refuse involvement, they are not anti-American in doing so. They were there after 9/11 and will be there next time a NATO member gets attacked (hopefully). As much as I'd like to see them on board, they don't have to be there this time.
As for the old caveat "Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there," Thanks for the warning shadow, but I do not need George W. Bush, who's very legitimacy as president was questioned before 9/11, showing me the light so to speak. Like Blair, I'm a grown man and will make up my own mind based on the evidence at hand and I stand my my belief that Saddam is no threat to the US and probably never will be. There are better and more tangible reasons for deposing him and rather than playing on people's fear of terrorism, Bush should have been concentrating on these areas.
However, that is all moot now, because Saddam will be deposed one way or the other now. It's especially unlikely after this spring that he'll be a threat to anybody at all.
-
Looks great and I'm really looking forward to it. Will the missons use the Island Thunder maps or new ones? Will there be an M-16 frag kit? Will there be XM177s with 20 shot clips?
On teh models - the 20 shot clips need to be about half an inch shorter. And teh AK47 model, gorgeous as it is looks more like the kind of knockoff made by Pakistani or Afghan village gunsmiths. The Chinese type 56 would be a better example, in particular the magazine needs more stampings.
Either way I'm gonna play it. I was a bit of a 'nam buff myself once.
-
@ shadow2k1 If bush has some 'intel' other than teh circumstantial evidence that he has given the UN let him show the allies and convince them. I believe saddam needs to be taken out but not because he's gonna cause another 9/11. that is poop.
-
Its just a worst case scenario to warn on the perils of war. Even I don't think the outcome will be that serious. It was funny though.
-
Dolphins were used to attack. They could actually kill a frogman. The seals probably just apprehend them and then beg for fish. I heard Australia will send in the 13th light Parakeets regiment. A swarm of multicoloured birds only 8 inches high with rain a special white liquid on Iraqi airfields and grouind their fighter fleets.
-
@Shadow2k1
Don't tell us nobody cares when three thousand Americans die. Plenty of people shed tears for 9/11, I remember the global shock, so don't tell us nobody cares about America. A large number of countries are convinced that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Don't assume because they all have brown skin and pray to Allah that they're all conspiring against America with Osama bin Laden. And if Iraq is no threat to them or America in their eyes, they might not want to go to war.
Too many peopl eon this forum are assuming Dubya's "with us or against us" stance. The French, Germans and a number of other countries still have troops in Afghanistan, because they shared America's anger then and believe that al Qaeda needs to be stopped and that particular hotbed of terrorism needs to be rebuilt so that its young men have something else to do. They disagree on Iraq because they don't see it an active state sponsor of terrorism, the way Bush does. Don't just think they are "against" the US. They are under no obligation to follow the US into a war that it has cooked up itself. They did in Afghanistan because they saw it as just, but right now in Iraq, they think war is not the answer.
As for any conspiracy theory about them benefitting from the status quo - show us some proof. Everybody would benefit from a free and democratic Iraq (except the repressive Arab and Muslim regimes surrounding it) and that includes France and germany. Whatever 'illicit trade' they have now would be ten times more lucrative after the war and above board. By refusing to participate, they are actually hurting their chances of having a say in post-Saddam Iraq, so that's not going to help them with any future 'oil deals' or 'weapon sales', is it? Face it, they just don't want America telling them when to go to war, and their people don't and still neither do a majority of US citizens (Bush has 37% support for this one, lads but the votes aren't all counted yet and there's still time to stop the recount). The French and Germans don't want to be led by the nose the way it appears the British leader is, and as democratic countries themselves, they are listening to their people. I don't think the people of France have some secret oil deal with saddam. Do you?
@ Warhawk.
I'm not sure of all the NATO rules and regulations, but I think a member country calling for help when under attack should get the full support of the alliance, but not a member country attacking someone else. By hosting US troops attackling Iraq, Turkey is practially attacking Iraq itself. France and Germany are under no more obligation to do this than to help when Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 (yes, people carried off into the night, summary executions and mass rape).
But you may be better read on this subject so if you could clear that up, I'd be grateful. I haven't actually read the NATO manisfestos or anything.
-
In the old Seal Team you could set formations. Wedge, line, column and diamond. That was a good game.
-
Ubi would be foolsih to release GR2 this year simply because the engine is not too tired yet and they could easily milk it with another expansion pack. That said, the modders have done things that perhaps the developers didn't even know could be done. They might want to move ahead just to stay in front of the modding community. Compare Island Thunder to HX4, Jack57's mods, Free Libya or the upcoming Frostbite and its hard to justify charging money for an 8 mission expansion pack with a few extra MP weapons.
-
time zones, time zones. I've logged in twice and was sthe only one there.
-
I loved The Big Hit. But what has happened to its best asset? I'm not talking Mark or Lou here.
-
I have a lot of experience with Korean nationals. Don't worry too much - people in Korea just don't like whitey telling them what to do. the Japanese are much the same. But when push comes to shove, they value their freedom and they know who's got their backs. More people in Korea support the US than don't and only the loudmouths get aired.
-
If Turkey hosts American troops attacking Iraq it will be the same as Turkey attacking Iraq itself. NATO countries are under the obligation to defend a member nation under attack, not one that picked a fight. Since Iraq is extremely unlikely to attack Turkey and practically incapable of doing so, the French and German posturing is just that - they're just trying to show how much they disagree with US policy at the moment. They are well within their rights. Bush will no doubt shrug it off and move ahead.
Germany and France are doing what democratic countries should - listening to their people, the majority of which do not want them to go to war. By the way, only 37% of Americans support Bush's go-it-alone stance on Iraq according to the latest TIME (and that has always been a pro GOP, conservative publication). At least the French and German leaders are listening to their constituents.
Don't take their disagreement with the war on Iraq as anti-Americanism. They simply don't see the need to go to war and do not wish to endorse it. They are not coninced Saddam is a threat to them or the US. It's Dubya's baby and he has to rock it.
-
Don't get too excited - I'm not a card carrying pro-busher yet. I believe in the UN as a body and if there is a failure here it is not the failure to act against Saddam, but the failure to prevent a charter member - the US - from defying its judgement. I still think a concensus in the UN would be better and I am also confused as to the obstinacy of the French and Germans in particular.
Especially the French. I don't believe all this BS about French oil deals and certainly don't buy into arms sales. If France participates they'll be in a better position to buy oil and sell weapons with the post -Saddam regime. If they don't take part, they have no say in the new Iraq.
They were on board last time. I think they just don't like the idea that they would be 'starting' the war along with the US.
The Germans, as you guys pointed out, are too economically weak to march off to war and have never really had much to do with Iraq anyway. They also don't like America telling them when is the time to act. Fair enough if they want to forge ahead with their own policy and I have to agree with Fareed Zakaria (an American and pro-this-war Newsweek columnist) that for countries that distrust US foreign policy, the evidence against Iraq is not yet compelling enough for war. If they trusted Bush's motives enough, then the need to depose Saddam might be enough for them to act. Right now it isn't.
Yet I have resigned myself to the inevitability of war, and it will still get rid of Saddam and show to aspiring Asian tyrants that the West has some juice left in it. I just hope they make it quick and stick around to construct a free and democratic Iraq that benefits from its returned status as oil trader. I certainly don't want to see Bush bilking it for oil as soon as Saddam is gone - or delaying the transition to self-rule in order to exploit Iraqi resources. A lot of countries worry about this - especially given Powell's statement that the oilfields will remain in "protective custody" for a time. Then, the naysayers will have been proven right, America's image will be diminished and other countries, like China might start to see conquest as a valid means of enriching themselves too.
Again, it is time for Iraq to have a new leader. So it's time to stop talking and act, and make it quick. And for God's sake, let's give Iraq - all of it - back to its people when we're done and help them build it the way they want. In any case, war makes great TV.
Now, problems in NATO... Lovely
in "Off Topic" Posts
Posted · Edited by budgie
I think you've explained the problem with Turkey pretty well, but I still don't think that the Turks have a right to demand more assistance than they're already getting. You may be correct in statng that this is a stalling tactic on the part of those countries that don't wish to go to war, but if so, they're only delayin their own involvement, not the whole operation. I missed that news about the warheads. If he's been hiding these, fully agree it should be recognizes as a material breach. I'm not defending France and Germany's positions, only their right to have a different position from the US. Now that war seems inevitable its only right for me to throw my weight behind my country (Australia) and hope for the best.
I believe still that at the last minute France will join too. They must make it appear that they do not support Bush's position blindly but also that they can be convinced when there is enough evidence to support military action. Then it will look to their own people that they have made up their minds in accordance with the UN and are not just following Bush. The Belgians will probably be much the same - the Germans I don't know about.
In the Feb 17 edition of TIME, article titled "Countdown to War," states that if Chief inspector Blix returns from Baghdad with a full report damning Saddam, the French will "have ladder to climb down." In other words they will be able to say, "Okay, he's been bad, now let's go get him." Hopefully the Germans and Belgians will follow suit. Bush gets his war, the UN endorses it and both the US and UN retain credibility and legitemacy. Even the Chinese won't be able to argue with the rest of the world community endorsing force. I never wanted to see Saddam worm his way out of this one and so everyone will be happy. Except Saddam of course.