Bandus

In my humble, unbiased opinion, it seems like both sides of this argument are so passionate, and so dug in with their beliefs, that there are irrational arguments made on both sides. I think it's a bit unfair to label people Bush Haters, but it's just as unfair to imply Jaguar is an alarmist. That is the problem with America I think. People are so worried about who is right, individually, they don't worry about what they should be worrying about, the country as a whole. Should John Kerry be voted into the WHite House, surely he will be tied to industries and businesses as well. He will have some of the same traits as Bush. When that happens, the roles on this forum will be reversed. It's a vicious and never ending cycle.

In my humble, unbiased opinion, it seems like both sides of this argument are so passionate, and so dug in with their beliefs, that there are irrational arguments made on both sides. I think it's a bit unfair to label people Bush Haters, but it's just as unfair to imply Jaguar is an alarmist. That is the problem with America I think. People are so worried about who is right, individually, they don't worry about what they should be worrying about, the country as a whole. Should John Kerry be voted into the WHite House, surely he will be tied to industries and businesses as well. He will have some of the same traits as Bush. When that happens, the roles on this forum will be reversed. It's a vicious and never ending cycle.

Street, so your saying if we acknowledged their organizations existence, and gave them the choice to surrender it would help? Do you think they would even surrender if the opportunity were given? I call your attention to the whole "amnesty" thing that Saudi Arabi has done. I haven't really heard any results about that, which to me indicates that it didn't work out that well. It just seems to me that they wouldn't surrender even if they were given the opportunity. Also, from what I'm reading it seems that you think war should be proportional, i.e. they kill 3000 we kill 3000. But I must ask you, do you really think a war can be won in that way? Throughout history it seems to me that wars are won by a massive offensive in which devestating damage is done to the enemy. You also mentioned that you recognize what happens when people become opressed and hunted. Do you still have sympathy for them if they are the ones who caused themselves to become opressed and hunted? Also, lets say hypothetically speaking, we (the US) pulled completly out of the Middle East and the terrorist attacks on the US continued. What would you be proper course of action at that point? For that matter, what could we possibly do being that we'd have no military units (in this hypothetical situation) in the Middle East whatsoever to counter attack? I would like to make it clear, once again, that I'm not taking sides in this, I'm just probing for information to get a more well rounded view of this whole issue.

Street, so your saying if we acknowledged their organizations existence, and gave them the choice to surrender it would help? Do you think they would even surrender if the opportunity were given? I call your attention to the whole "amnesty" thing that Saudi Arabi has done. I haven't really heard any results about that, which to me indicates that it didn't work out that well. It just seems to me that they wouldn't surrender even if they were given the opportunity. Also, from what I'm reading it seems that you think war should be proportional, i.e. they kill 3000 we kill 3000. But I must ask you, do you really think a war can be won in that way? Throughout history it seems to me that wars are won by a massive offensive in which devestating damage is done to the enemy. You also mentioned that you recognize what happens when people become opressed and hunted. Do you still have sympathy for them if they are the ones who caused themselves to become opressed and hunted? Also, lets say hypothetically speaking, we (the US) pulled completly out of the Middle East and the terrorist attacks on the US continued. What would you be proper course of action at that point? For that matter, what could we possibly do being that we'd have no military units (in this hypothetical situation) in the Middle East whatsoever to counter attack? I would like to make it clear, once again, that I'm not taking sides in this, I'm just probing for information to get a more well rounded view of this whole issue.

I fear for the USA's future.

I fear for the USA's future.

I third the welcome. Glad to have you with us. On a side note, I don't think the "USS" in front of your ship name is gonna fly (no pun intended). You need to use GCV.

Good God. This game looks like it is going to kick some major butt. I'm chomping at the bit to get my hands on it.

I just use my soda or nachos to quiet them in the movies. Works like a charm.

It's still sad even after the most recent patch. The net code team needs to be hanged by the gonads.

They can come and get the money out of my cold, dead hands.

With the funding they have the MMOG is going to feature about one room in 2D textures with MIDI sound. In this room you shall get to play freeze tag and yell out macroed things like "ALL YOUR BASE BELONG TO US!"

I had a wireless mouse until it died during a very important BF1942 tournament match. Then I shattered it against a wall and got my old mouse back out. :pats his wired optical mouse: It never lets me down. (It's seen what happpens when I get let down)

quote: un-intellectual ROFLMAO. I missed that.

I love the concept and look of Soldner. It's just running into invisible trees is so damn frustrating. What's even more frustrating is that if you rotate the camera you can see trees that you can't see when your looking straight forward. I'm sure it'll get fixed with time, but for now I'm playing it frustrated. :-)

Let me tell you about my afternoon. At about 5:30PM I decided I wanted to go buy this game. I've heard a lot about it, played the demo and it was pretty fun. So I go out and buy it. Before I leave I start downloading the patch so that it will be ready by the time I get back. So, I buy the game and come home, install it, patch it. I start it up and thats when all hell breaks loose. This game feels like it's still in mid-beta. There are strange issues where if you equip certain weapons, and look a certain direction the game will lag. You can look in all other directions, except when you come to a certain point in a specific direction and then it lags to unplayability. The single player is worse than in BF1942. Good lord it's stupid. Multiplayer would be a lot of fun if it wasn't for the aforementioned lag issue. Also, 9 times out of 10 trees aren't rendered properly. You'll see SOME trees, but not all of the trees. This usually results in you flying into a tree doing about 250 km/h in a helicopter or something. You wouldn't believe how pissed of your team gets when you crash a Commanche into the trees. Lets say for a minute, hypothetically speaking, you manage to get around the trees, aiming in a helicopter or plane for that matter is a joke. The shots do not land in the crosshairs. In fact, they USUALLY land about an inch and a half above the crosshairs, it's ridiculous. Piloting and gunning is damn near impossible though having two people, a pilot and a gunner, isn't much better. I hope to God they continue to patch this game because it needs polish. A lot of it. If your planning on buying this game, I strongly advise you to hold off a bit until they get it fixed up a bit.

This is going to seem like a short reply to your larger post, Street. Doesn't mean I didn't read it though. :-) My next question would be: What concessions do you think are acceptable to make to terrorist organizations? Just to clarify, are you saying that it would be acceptable to open some kind of negotiations with Al Qaeda?

This is going to seem like a short reply to your larger post, Street. Doesn't mean I didn't read it though. :-) My next question would be: What concessions do you think are acceptable to make to terrorist organizations? Just to clarify, are you saying that it would be acceptable to open some kind of negotiations with Al Qaeda?

This is going to seem like a short reply to your larger post, Street. Doesn't mean I didn't read it though. :-) My next question would be: What concessions do you think are acceptable to make to terrorist organizations? Just to clarify, are you saying that it would be acceptable to open some kind of negotiations with Al Qaeda?

Street, not to sound provacative....but, who exactly is the REAL terrorist you speak of? And another question for you, say for a moment, we work on building up a "good defense" and say we still get hit by another devestating attack. What do we do then in your opinion? Do we continue to be diplomatic and continue to build defensive measures? When is offensive action considered "OK" in your mind? Not trying to debate, just trying to gain understanding. :-)

Street, not to sound provacative....but, who exactly is the REAL terrorist you speak of? And another question for you, say for a moment, we work on building up a "good defense" and say we still get hit by another devestating attack. What do we do then in your opinion? Do we continue to be diplomatic and continue to build defensive measures? When is offensive action considered "OK" in your mind? Not trying to debate, just trying to gain understanding. :-)

Street, not to sound provacative....but, who exactly is the REAL terrorist you speak of? And another question for you, say for a moment, we work on building up a "good defense" and say we still get hit by another devestating attack. What do we do then in your opinion? Do we continue to be diplomatic and continue to build defensive measures? When is offensive action considered "OK" in your mind? Not trying to debate, just trying to gain understanding. :-)

I will not claim to be an expert on any of this. I will also admit to not being as passionate as a few of you other people. But I have a comment and a follow-up question to my comment to all the people who are anti-Bush. Comment: I hear the lot of you stating that Bush lied, that Bush is doing a terrible job, exc. I do NOT ever hear any of you making any suggestions on what any other person could do better. Question: What exactly do you suggest we do? What is the answer to the problem of terrorism? I'm just a bit curious is all.

I will not claim to be an expert on any of this. I will also admit to not being as passionate as a few of you other people. But I have a comment and a follow-up question to my comment to all the people who are anti-Bush. Comment: I hear the lot of you stating that Bush lied, that Bush is doing a terrible job, exc. I do NOT ever hear any of you making any suggestions on what any other person could do better. Question: What exactly do you suggest we do? What is the answer to the problem of terrorism? I'm just a bit curious is all.

I will not claim to be an expert on any of this. I will also admit to not being as passionate as a few of you other people. But I have a comment and a follow-up question to my comment to all the people who are anti-Bush. Comment: I hear the lot of you stating that Bush lied, that Bush is doing a terrible job, exc. I do NOT ever hear any of you making any suggestions on what any other person could do better. Question: What exactly do you suggest we do? What is the answer to the problem of terrorism? I'm just a bit curious is all.