aramike

My question is, would this thing allow you to continue using alternative graphics cards (PCI)? Edit: Nevermind. Doesn't look like I'd still be able to use the old Voodoo card. Looked good otherwise, but I need a 3D accelerator. It says it has an "integrated 3D accelerated VGA" onboard, but who the hell knows what that is EXACTLY? [ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: You actually quoted my entire postHeh, I suppose I did.

Glad you pointed this out. I CONSTANTLY boot people for that.

My point being (thinking it was obvious, considering that I quoted what I was responding to) that the fact that there are troops there indicates NOTHING.

Due to time constraints, I'm only going to comment on this at this time: quote: Aramike, right now, Iraq is another Cuba, you can embargo the heck out of the country, but it ain't gonna change the leader.I agree with that, and this is why more drastic measures need to me taken. As for the other things, I just want to reassert that the west should not and will not acceed to any terrorist demands. Imagine the fallout.

Here's another morsel. Imagine: You and one other troop are ordered to halt an enemy tank advance into town. You are to mine the road then take out any stragglers with your LAWs. So you place you mines then get into the bushes, waiting. You hear the sound of tanks getting closer and closer. You hear them pass you and you look up the road as the first tank approaches the mines. BOOM! First mine goes off. The crewmen struggle out only to be slaughtered as the damaged tank slides into a second mine. A following tank hits to the side of the road to go around his damaged comrade. Whoops. Another mine goes off. My leader orders me to remain still and keep holding my fire. Another tank goes to the other side of the road. Yet another surprise awaits him. By now there are tank crews looking shocked and for anyone around that is responsible. They don't know what the hell is going on. There is one tank that slipped through. My leader tells me to load up and take that beast out. I place my LAW on my shoulder, aim, fire. Hit 'em. All tanks gone. But a LOT of pissed-off tank crews with AKs are standing, and now they know our location. We call for extraction, but we have to hold out against these reds first. I rifle fight ensues, in which my leader bites it. I personally hose 4 of Ivan's best, then make out towards the APC that slid slid in about 500 meters from me. It's machine guns are hammering away at straggling reds providing me cover for my dash. I get near it, hit some dirt, take out a couple more commies from the distance, and the mission ends. Now, ladies and gents, GET THIS GAME!

I personally couldn't believe that they were awarded the Olympics. A nation shouldn't be allowed any world event until there are *NO* political prisoners in their jails and they haven't KILLED anyone with faltering beliefs.

quote: Been reading with great interest, good arguments from both sides (though personally I think menchise has the slight upper hand at the moment).Hmmm, could you be saying that because you agree with him and not based upon what was actually said? I don't see how someone could have the "upper hand" when his facts are wrong. quote: Just for arguments sake, what would happen if there was an Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia à la Iran in 1979? (Let's face it, who saw that coming?) What would be the West's stance? Would they go all out to protect the Saudi royal family and fear condemnation for interfering in another country's internal affairs, or let them get on with it and deal with the consequences ie oil prices through the roof, breakdown in stability in the Middle East etc? Let's not forget, as Menchise said, Saudi is a Monarchy (VERY un-American), so any intervention can't be seen as an excuse to protect democracy or freedom (just the oil supply). Could it be a possibilty? Probably not, because of the 1000s of Western troops stationed there. How convenient. We have thousands of western troops in Europe and Japan alone. How convienient. [ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

Early in the campaign, you get left behind during the retreat and have to essentially hit out alone. Talk about atmosphere! I was literally immersed in staying alive! Finally, you get picked up by some rebels and hit an exploit or two with them. Saving the civilians in the village was a remarkable mission, but nothing like the following one... For those who haven't picked up this game, just picture this: Your goal is to get to a rebel stronghold deep inside Russian held territory. So, you start by driving a truck through. You're dressed in civilian clothing, as well as the guy beside you. The rest of the group (5 or so guys) are in the back of the truck. So you're heading down the road and encounter the first Russian checkpoint. The guy beside you handles it with a few well-spoken words to the alcoholic soldiers there. About a klick up the road, you hit another checkpoint. Officers there, this time. Too smart to sneak past. So, the leader tells everyone to get out of the truck and combat ensues. A brief firefight takes down several Russians that were right on hand but more are enroute with a BMP and a Hind. What ensues is LITERALLY an uphill battle against the Russians. WAY up hill, through the woods. Rifle shots all around as you move a few feet, get down, look around, shoot if you see someone, and move a little more. Your team leader is desperately trying to keep control (you wouldn't believe how kick-ass the AI is in this game), and he's doing an OK job of it. Finally, after literally a 15-20 minute climb, under fire, you're at the top and things clear up. And you look down. HOLY SH*T! You have got to SEE it to believe it. In all that fighting, once you get to the top you stare down at the bodies of men lost in battle. The ones at the bottom are like ants. The whole fight felt like a movie. It reminded me of the confusing ending battle in Platoon. This game is amazing. You really fall into the struggle and it all seems so friggin' real. Just wait until you are on a mission to ambush some tanks heading into town. Now THAT was hard...

quote: The infamous "Oil for Food" programs were a farce. What sane leader would deliberately make his nation completely dependant on a hostile nation for economic survival? In the words of Aramike, that would mean "sacrificing the nation's freedom".What freedom? Also, the US was NOT hostile to the nation before the nation fell hostile to the rest of the world. They made their own bed, they then should lay in it. If the leader cared one iota about the people, he'd deal with the CONSEQUENCES of his mistakes. That's right, certain actions have consequences. quote: There are several contradictions in that argument. First, it was Saddam and the Iraqi military who took over Kuwait, not the people of Iraq.The people of Iraq make up the military and the leadership. People are responsible for government. If they did not want anything to do with this, they should be defiant of Saddam, not compliant. There are no contradictions in that argument. quote: You indicated this when you said that the sanctions were a direct result of actions by the Iraqi government.And I've said repeatedly that governments are the responsibility of the people. If the people are defiant, the government has NO control. It wouldn't be able to just kill all of its people... quote: Finally, the UN sanctions punish the whole of Iraq, instead of Saddam.And, Nick, please tell me how Saddam Hussein came to power. quote: He is rebuilding his military because, just like Israel, Iraq has many enemies, including Kuwait, Iran, and Israel. Secondly, there are CLUES that Saddam may be involved in the terrorism. There is no confirmation yet.None of these enemies are attacking Iraq, and if they did they'd come under UN scrutiny. I personally can't believe you're JUSTIFYING Saddam Hussein rebuilding the military rather than feeding his people. In actuality, you're blaming US for his people starving while JUSTIFYING their own GOVERNMENT for doing what MAKES them starve. As for the CLUES remark, we have PROOF that Saddam Hussein is involved in terrorism, just not absolute confirmation of this INCIDENT. Again, only one side of the story. quote: Actually, Iraq was provoked by Kuwait.Not really. quote: The relations between Iraq and Kuwait have been strained ever since the British withdrew from the region. There was a long-running territorial dispute over the claim that Kuwait was part of the Iraqi nation before the British arrived. Negotiations were attempted for years without much agreement from either side. Then, in 1988, while Iraq was busy fighting Iran, Kuwait invaded Iraqi territory and annexed the Rumaila Oil Fields.Check the territorial maps again. quote: This led to more heated negotiations over the return of Rumaila, but no progress was made. Saddam was making threats of invasion as early as May of 1990, but the Emir of Kuwait made no concessions. This led to a complete breakdown of diplomacy and the decision by Saddam to annex Kuwait.So, yet again, you suggest that everyone conceeds to militants. No dice. If you want peace, that won't get it, EVER. quote: The Kuwaiti government is not peaceful.Actually, they are QUITE peaceful. In fact, they are a lot like a government you'd support. They offer FREE medical care to ANYONE, regardless of what country they are from. Low poverty and great government programs keep everyone living rather well. Also, unlike most strict Arabic countries, women are not faced with major impediments. Yes, they are not allowed to vote, but they can take in free education and hold senior economic positions. And here is what REALLY happened between Iraq and Kuwait. The British GRANTED them independance. Iraq then argued that it had been separated ILLEGITIMATELY. Then, when the war occurred, Kuwait HELPED the Iraqis. I'll cut and paste from the Encarta article located here: http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=...=2&ti=761563200 ... In 1980, when war broke out between Iran and Iraq, Kuwait helped the Arab Iraqis even though it exposed them to Iranian attacks. In 1990, however, relations with Iraq worsened. Iraq accused Kuwait of exceeding OPEC production quotas for oil and “stealing” more than $2 billion in oil from a contested reserve that lay beneath both countries. Iraq also demanded Kuwait cancel the debt Iraq owed from the Iran-Iraq War. When Saddam Hussein mobilized Iraqi troops on the border in late July, Kuwait had neither the military might nor the external protection to prevent an invasion. On August 2 Iraq invaded Kuwait and quickly overwhelmed Kuwaiti forces. An international force assembled in neighboring Saudi Arabia and evicted Iraq from Kuwait after six weeks of fighting in early 1991 (seePersian Gulf War). Did you READ that? Iraq DEMANDED that a debt be cancelled! Iraq CLAIMED that Kuwait had exceed OPEC production! *THAT* is why they attacked! Is that sufficient reason to you for attacking ANYONE? quote: The people of those nations are not living in your world. If you told them that "the government is the responsibility of the people" and expect them to suddenly stand up and fight, they would probably raise their eyebrows at you and then ask you how the hell they're supposed to overthrow a government that has the full support of its military, especially when the military IS the government, then they'll ask how they're supposed to get the food, raw materials, and weapons to sustain a rebellion....and where does that military come from?

quote: Originally posted by ShoHashi: Ok, Parias, I see that on the box, but I'm not following you.....can you elaborate? I've had it for the past week or two. I really like..plus, its a little nostalgic to me. I served in the Marines back in the 80s so its a bit of deja vu(sp?). I haven't had the chance to play a multiplayer game yet. Parias was quoted on that flap about the map editor. Yeah, Sho, pretty good job of getting to the nuts and bolts of infantry combat, heh? And the campaign is really nicely tied together.

OK, just got it. Damn fine game, harder than hell, but still one of the best I've played yet. If realism is the goal, they damned near achieved it. It even FEELS real.

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: uhm, I'm quite sure thats not what Aramike meant (I sure as hell 'ope not). If there is an insulting and disrespectful thread or post, it needs to be pointed out so that the admin or mod can take the necessary action. We're NOT tolering insulting or disrespectful posts here. And issuing an opinions can be done without being insulting and disrespectful. Heh, you know as well as I do that that isn't what I meant. quote: I must say Aramike, I am HAPPY that you are handling it this way. So far as I've seen, you are doing a good job on these boards. Keep it up!Thanks Gomez!

quote: Yeah, okay...In my rage I asked that. I take it back. I didn't mean it. I was very overwhelmed and I've been dealing with this I guess badly. I didn't know anyone who worked in the WTC building or the Pentagon but Dammit I felt what they were going through. I couldn't imagine anything worse!It's OK, Akuma, really. Don't worry about it. Also, I'd like to show this whole conversation as an example of how conflicting ideologies can cause conflict. Just look at the way some were amused and others were quite fierce in their dissent. That is part of the reason we face this very situation.

quote: This isn't a battle, it's a debate (I think). Debates consist of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals.By the way, I'm gonna stop posting replies in this thread (preferably). If anyone here wants to read about my opinion (can't imagine why ) it's in the other thread. Agreed.

You know what's interesting? How you're only presenting one side of the story. Why did Isreal aquire more land? Because they were ATTACKED. But you're not blaming the aggressors. Why does Isreal require better weaponry? Because they are under attack. But you're not blaming the aggressors. If Isreal REALLY wanted to destroy Arabs, they would have done so by now. And if they did not because of international pressure, WHERE did that pressure come from primarily? The United States of America. Is Isreal waging a SINGLE offensive war in the middle east? No, they are NOT. They're only fighting the Palestinians who resort to TERRORIST attacks. Who MOB and BEAT and KILL Jews. And that's Isreal's fault? ALL of this is the result of Isreal being attacked, and you're blaming it on Isreal? That, my friend, goes to show that your arguments are not based upon actual facts; rather, they are based upon hatred of power.

quote: Originally posted by Cmdr Jeffery Eu: Alright, since there has been a call for the change in the names of the ranks to a more civilian one, I came up with thisAdmiral -----> Zeus Vice Admiral -----> Ares Commodore -----> Boreas Senior Commander ----> Zephir Commander -----> Notus Junior Commander -----> Eurus There should be no more complains from now on [ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Cmdr Jeffery Eu ] LOL! Good enough.

At any rate, if I'm wrong, you'll get to brag about it when its all over. If I'm right, YOU will live in a better, safer world when it is all over. If YOU'RE right, nothing changes. Sometimes sacrifices must be made for what is RIGHT. You see, I'd rather live in a world of struggle and bloodshed than in a world that rewards murder and fascism. And you know what? Both worlds are EXACTLY the same except that, in YOUR world, the murderers and fascists are in control. [ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: Originally posted by Menchise: Heh. Now I've seen it all: Two theatres of war on the same front (three if you include the rumours of 'unfinished business' in Iraq).Anyway, going off topic for a bit (sort of), I don't expect America to solve the problems of other nations, but I do expect America to stop causing and/or contributing to problems that affect other nations. By the way, I wasn't specifically referring to the Taliban issue. What are we doing to cause problems? Last I checked, we were only helping friends. If that doesn't fit the agenda of other political states, so be it. America is NOT isolationist. Oh, and Isreal wouldn't need such weaponry if they weren't the target of genocide. So maybe the "other" nations should step up and do what is RIGHT for once. We've tried. They've failed to respond in kind. Thousands of innocent people are dead. That's the world we live in. How come you ALWAYS blame America for the actions of the rest of the world?