CommanderJohnson

quote: BC games have several sensible fan requests...(other stuff)...Those who do, know that I consider fan suggestions/requests base on merit and feasibility. Where do we make "sensible fan requests"? quote: ....man, I can't wait to screw this up. Well, from your last response, I doubt your going to screw it up. Hell, if you just make it so that SKILL makes you more likely to beat someone than "time playing on server", i'll be having fun.

quote:You sound like an imperialist. Imperialists always fall. Usually hard. Wake up. People are people. Two towers fell and people died because they were AMERICANS. You make labels and you decide who is expendable. I piss on that whole way of thinking. Should I say urinate? What i'm saying is that it is in the United States, and it's citizens, best interests to attack Iraq and the Iraqis. Sure, it may not be the best thing in the world to label people as THEM vs US, but in the end, that's what it comes down to. We're talking about US interests here, and there is no BENEFIT for the United States to declare "every human life is valuable and should not be expendable". Operating under that mindset prevents any sort of military retaliation for 9/11, and any sort of REASONABLE pre-emptive strikes against hostile countries. That mindset would make us trust that Saddam isn't going to USE weapons of mass destruction, even if we KNOW he is builidng them and breaking arms treaties, notably the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). They are Iraqis, we are Americans. The United Stated Constitution causes the government to do the best it can to benefit AMERICANS, not Iraqis and not the human race. If the people of the United States disagree with that policy, they can vote for change, but it isn't happening in any significant degree. quote: Just like the peasants in Vietnam. Yes very different situations...but everyone wrote them off just like you want to do with Iraq. And since I'm in the Army I may have to go over and kill some poor fool because you think it's an easy win....and what do you really know? Join the Marines and make Major and we'll talk more. Last I checked, Vietnam had no clear "benefit" in the cost-benefit analysis except protecting democracy. Besides, my opinion on Vietnam is we should have been committed to the troops there and WON the war, as opposed to the political BS that went on at home, if your going to get involved in a fight, win it. Also, Vietnam was a radically new type of warfare for the troops there, and that's why US suffered casualties, in addition to degregation of the Armed Forces and lack of homeland support. We've already taken over Iraq once and just didnt take Baghdad, forces rebuilt or not, it should be easier if not just as easy to do it again, and thus time take Baghdad. Not to mention we've had practice in Afghanistan. Also, I may not be in the military, but I know former military officers, and in a few years i'm planning on joining the Air Force as a pilot, and I know that my opinion wouldn't change in that situation either. quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The world community would find us a dangerous enemy, just as much so as they have found a very beneficial partner. I'm saying we shouldn't turn our backs to our allies, merely restrict exactly what kind of aid we do give them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I bet....if things turned against us I bet the world would see a true "rogue nation" The US wouldn't be considered a rogue nation unless we become militant toward significant military powers AND we stopped supplying the other significant military powers with a large portion of their trade and continued economy, and even then, the worst that would happen to the US is sanctions, which wouldn't be too bad since we have most of the natural resorces we need. quote: The standard for judging a countries validity as a target you propose Dredd is that if they: 1.)Have nuclear weapons/Are working to aquire them 2.)Hate the USA 3.)Aren't a "Democracy" We should attack them before they attack us. How many countries fit that description, and is it really worth going to war over? If someone hates us (Many people in the world do, boo hoo) there is little we can do to change that if we continue on the same course of action that leads them to hate us in the first place (The Oil issue and our Mid East foreign policy) First, I would like to change #1 to a "effective pursuit of weapons of mass destruction", and with that, maybe two or three nations. Iraq, North Korea, maybe Iran. I'd also like to add a #4 that they are a threat to international instability (which is thus a threat to our economic and international political interests). Iraq obviously is due to their proximity to the oil, and Korea is due to their proximity with Japan. Even without that, they are a threat because of their ability to sell those weapons to other groups that will use them. We may be able to nuke Iraq to hell if they attack us, but we can't nuke a couple dead terrorists that have no distinct "harboring country". There is no clear way out of the things that we are doing that other countries hate. If we change our policy, the group that likes us now will support us, and if we go isolationist they'll all accuse us of not doing anything to help! More importantly in regards to our foreign policy, changing it so other countries dont hate us is the same as giving up *US INTERESTS* due to fear. Our leaders dont just flip coins to determine their global alliances. We have alliances and agreements with various countries because they BENEFIT the UNITED STATES. If other countries dont like it, TOUGH FOR THEM. They need to back down because *THEY ARE WEAKER*. If we back down, it just makes *US WEAKER*, and that would *NEVER* be in the interests of the United States. If our government has to bully everyone into doing what we want so we can "have the cake and eat it to", so be it. That's what OUR GOVERNMENT IS THERE FOR. To help US, not to care about how bad it looks to other countries when they are helping us. quote:You don't think that everyone in the world who hates us, hates us because they "hate our freedom and democratic ways" do you?Nope, I dont think that at all. quote: A majority of those who do not like the United States, do not like us because of our meddling foreign policy that seeks to establish American hedgemony over the middle east. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, North Korea, those are all sovereign nations with the same rights in the international community that we have. Yeah, they have the same right as any other country to act stupid toward a more powerful nation and get bombed to hell. Think of it in real world terms. If someone 10 times your size has a gun, points it at you, and tells you to give him all of your money, you'd give him the money then ***** about it to the police. You wouldn't say "No", because then your likely to get beaten to a pulp. That's the exact same thing that Iraq is doing. They won't let in the weapons inspectors and stop trying to get WMDs, so they are going to get bombed. Also, what's wrong with establishing US hedge? If it's in the US's best interest, then it should be done, and they should have to deal with it. What, do you expect United States elected officials to say that we should let THEIR countries be happier at the expense of our own? C'mon, stop living in Menchise's socialist dream world, good for us=good and what our government should do. It's what our CONSTITUTION says the government should do, help OUR citizens, not everyone else's. quote: For instance, if New York, being the most populated and perhaps richest state in the United States, sought to have legal control over say, Texas - how do you think Texas would react? The analogy sort of makes sense, but the only problem is the federal government has control over both. Yes, federalism went out the window. http://www.msnbc.com/news/777869.asp Pay special attention to the points about congress OVERRIDING a state governor's veto. quote: The question should be, is it our right to step in and force democracy onto people who are unwilling, or unprepared to live in a democracy? We should be more mindful of where exactly we step in, and to what extent. Too much meddling is beyond our mandate, and we have no right to force a wedge with our name on it into international affairs. I don't think we should force DEMOCRACY on people who are unwilling, but I think that if countries defy the high power and might of the United States when they are a threat to our interests (Iraq is a threat, even under Menchise's article), that they are basically asking to get attacked, and when we are done we should set up a democracy for the simple fact that it offers the most long lasting freddom...if it works correctly. I don't think we should go after every non-democractic country (ex. I don't think we should go after Cuba, or Libya, China, etc), or every country that dislikes the US. I just think we should when they pose any threat. The US should mind it's own business unless it's interests are at stake. quote: "Evil", "The Bad Guys", "Enemies", are terms thrown around so lightly lately, and to attack someone's country because we disagree with their way of life, is no different than someone attacking our country because they disagree with ours. I'm not saying we should attack countries because of their way of life. I'm saying we should attack them because of the threat their governments pose to lives of American citizens. If Iraq and North Korea would let in weapons inspectors, or they would change to democracies, or they would enter into normal relations with the US, I would have no problem with them. If they stopped brainwashing their citizens and made public statements that they are committed to peace in the world and have no military ambition, I would have no problem with them. As it is though, the countries are a threat, they meet all of the criteria, and they either need to back down or face the consequences. We've been giving Iraq warnings for the past 10 years. 9/11 is just the catalyst that stopped people from being afraid of war.

quote:Originally posted by Epsilon 5: quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: quote:Originally posted by Dredd: ....but aren't we just going to get a RANDOM, cloak for awhile, then just blow Earth up?Nope. Its not as easy as you might think. Unless of course you're playing a server with a bunch of hapless n00bs. Or working with the best fleet around *stands proudly* How can you be working with the best fleet around unless your a Gammulan? I don't see how that's possible, since everyone knows the Gammulans are the best. And don't worry, we aren't going to simply OTS Earth, we're going to totally terraform it, and then entire SOL system, with a RANDOM, and we're going to be taunting you while the missile is in flight all the way to impact. .......BOOM! (billions of screams heard on Earth)

I think the main problem is game developers seem to focus on the idea that "the more you play, the better you should get, even if you totally suck". That's how most MUDs and Massive Multiplayer games work. The more time you play, the better you get/are able to get. You aren't rewarded for being good at anything, just how well you can repeat actions and how long you can play. That's why BCO seems like it's going to be great. If you suck, you die. If your good, you live. Nice idea, huh?

50 people just points out how unsupported it is. The fact he's a weapons inspector, etc (it did cite he was a Republican too), doesn't mean it's not leftist ****. The high school debate junk that I refer to is similar BS, but to a different extent. "WE must disarm all nuclear weapons for world peace", "Saddam is a nice guy", etc. My source is an actual 60 minutes interview with the chief diplomat or negotiator from Iraq. The reason why I *KNOW* it's true is because he's the one talking....on screen....directly answering questions....and specifically saying what I am. As much as the media screws with stuff, you can't screw up direct answers to direct questions on film. Fine, thosands of IRAQI people die. Not Americans. It's still for our best interests. Iraq can take over countries or at least use them for economic advantage, especially against Israel, where a detonation would be devestating. Attacking Afghanistan is different from attacking Iraq. Iraq has been EMPIRICALLY PROVEN to be an easy win, Afghanistan isn't. We'd win quickly, minimal loss of US life, get the oil, etc. Look at the cost-benefit analysis, it's a good idea, at least for the US, which is what matters.

Nah, that doesn't say it all. First of all, the vigil was about 50 people. Secondly, i've seen similar "evidence" judging high school debate, it's accepted there but is recognized clearly as unwarranted. That entire article was leftist ****, even if one person cited was a Republican. If you watch LIVE INTERVIEWS in Iraq, you can note a number of the things that article points to are false. Much of Iraq, especially in Baghdad is already recovering. The population is educated (even though it is all propoganda dictated by Saddam), the quality of life has already improved to at least 2nd-world, and the military is recovering. Iraq's own officials state that they removed the weapons inspectors and don't want them there. Also, REGARDLESS of all of the stuff i've just said, the article still doesn't point out why we should not attack Iraq. It gives the United States power over oil in the region. THANK YOU! That's enough reason for me, at least when it's combined with the 5%-10% of WMDs that may be left AND the hostility Iraq holds toward the United States, AND the possibility it can hurt neighbors. As you said, your article "says it all". Well, yeah, it does. Not to mention as i've said, the constitution protects US civilians, not Iraq's. EDIT: And as for the comment about getting "bogged down in Iraq", we've almost taken Baghdad before. We can do it again and actually take it this time. If your article is true and they have more military power, it'll be even EASIER than last time. If i'm right, it'll almost be as hard as last time. Either way, we get Saddam out, get rid of all of the WMDs, get rid of future attacks by Saddam with or without WMDs, and get the oil. Cost-benefit analysis=invade. [ 07-12-2002, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

And when the explosive decompression causes all of their bodies to be turned into mush while being sucked into space, we'd see all of the different organs be torn out of their bodies along with the blood streaming into space. Right?

Take all of those stores, multiply the $200 by the number of people who know about computers and graphics cards, then multiply by the maximum number a person can buy for a business that makes/sells computers, and see if the publicity would help fix ALL OF THAT MONEY that they are going to lose if the deal stays as it is. I'm not saying they are right for trying to back out of the deal, but it's the only logical thing they can do. Best Buy just had an error, they don't suck, and are usually a good place to shop. They just got a lot of people pissed...

Iraq is a valid target for a number of reasons: 1. It's a dictatorship-the citizens have nothing to do with the government and are fed propoganda that is almost 100% believed, thus if Saddam wants to nuke someone or use the nukes as a bargaining chip, he can. Then his citizens die while he's on a plane out of the country. And he won't care. 2. The oil-if Saddam gets WMDs, he can use them as bargaining chips. Him using them as bargaining chips with an attempt to undermine US interests (aka raise oil prices, dont trade with the US, etc), would NOT directly cause a WMD retaliation by the US (since in our great democracy, we would NEVER advocate NUKING a country for MONEY/(oil)) when we aren't under attack. 3. The hostility-Iraq doesn't like the US. The US is painted to be 100% evil to it's citizens. If Saddam wanted to attack a country, any country, in any fashion, his people would support him. If he has WMDs, even better. Korea isn't a threat yet (but they ARE on the list, obviously below Iraq), and China has enough of a diverse population and government that they wouldn't want to get wiped out. They are content with using their weapons to stop anyone from bothering them. It doesn't matter if Iraq WILL use the weapons or not. The international community is telling them not to build the weapons, they aren't listening. What matters if that if Iraq is ABLE to use the weapons, we should stop them. If there's a medium, maybe even low chance, of them doing it, they need to be stopped. In order to protect UNITED STATES CIVILIANS, they should be stopped. The Constitution gives no protection to Iraqis from us if we decide to go on random bombing runs against various countries. Not attacking them is equivilent to a number of negative things, such as: 1. 9/11. "The terrorists aren't attack us yet, we'll leave them alone." 2. World War II. "Germany is ignoring international agreements in regards to troops/arms buildups and invasions, but we'll leave them alone." 3. I walk toward you saying "Yo, ****er, i'm going to beat your ****ing *** into the ****ing ground" In response, you don't move a muscle, and wait for me to hit you with the baseball bat i'm carrying. I think he poses a credible threat on the grounds that he can take over the Middle East, or at least most of it, under the protection of Weapons of Mass Destruction. He can hurt the economy, destroy our supply of oil, and attack our allies, without fear of a WMD retaliation. If he attacked the US, it still isn't guarnteed Saddam would be nuked, since we wouldn't want to piss off the entire Middle East from radiation. Saddam is a master at staying in power, and he will use them in ways that won't allow us to attack him. That's why we need to attack now, BEFORE Iraq becomes a superpower. All we need is a DICTATORSHIP that HATES the US with nukes.

First, in response to the parts of your last post that I sort of disagree with, all of the "enemies" we set up for ourselves were a choice at the time. If we didn't do what we did by allying with a certain group, a WORSE group would have had power due to our lack of action. It just depends on the time. quote:Originally posted by $iLk: What makes Iraq so different from Soviet Russia post WW2? I agree that Sadam with a nuclear weapon doesn't sound too hot, but I believe that simply because a country has nuclear weapons does not automatically make it a valid target. If someone sets off a nuke in the US, find out who it is and respond in kind. Don't attack first unless there is undeniable evidence they are planning an attack.[/QB]The difference between post Soviet Russia was that we couldn't have taken them out if we tried due to anti-war feelings, and the fact that we were under the perception that Russia would have kicked our asses in a war. I fail to see how "waiting for the nuke to go off" is a good idea, and I also fail to see how it doesn't make them a good target if they are trying to make nukes and will use them if they have the chance. Attacking them is in our best interests, "valid target" or not, and waiting for them to hit us since we dont have 95%+ proof that we are going to be attacked is a waste of citizens lives. If troops die, at least they knew what they were getting into. Waiting for a city to go POOF is hardly the right thing to do. The Constitution says to protect OUR lives, not lives of Iraqis.

Hey, and leave a fully armed Stormcarrier hidden SOMEWHERE on the planet. (so i can take it over and start massacring people) HA HA HA HA!!!

Going to be getting a Pentium 4 2.4 ghz, a Geforce 4 4600 TI, and a 120 gb HD next week, mainly in response to SCs system reqs for the next few BC games.....upgrades rock....

The article sort of proves how BCO is a surefire thing. It'll have all of us there. Well, unless something somehow caters to the sci-fi realm better, and happens to also not involve leveling up (unless I misunderstood BCO to this point...it's not based on a level-up system, is it?)

Ok, i'm thinking of taking out a shuttle full of marines and some nutripacks and going off to explore the universe. But before I waste my time doing that, just a few questions: 1. What have all of you found that is "special"? 2. (mainly for SC) Is there other stuff out there that hasn't been found? 3. And finally, do you think taking out a shuttle (with quick jump times, etc) is a good idea, or should I bring more firepower? (aka Stormcarrier!!!)

That detainee crossed the line then. I probably woulda taken my gun and shot the kid's hand off, or shot him through the head (hey, if I shot at his hand, i might miss)

I don't think E&B has a NDA, but i'm not sure. The stuff I read said I couldn't use the beta for profit, blah blah blah. Don't think it said I couldn't talk about it....anyone else in the beta that knows for sure? I wanna rant and rave about E&B here and revive the topic!!!! (without getting kicked out of it) [ 07-11-2002, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

As long as the LAN party is in the metro Atlanta area.....

What are we allowed to say about E&B on here?

I would say "USA all the way, forget the internation people!" But of course, they are cool, and SC has people all over the world working for him...so it'd be sorta bad if I got them pissed and they programmed in "If name=Dredd, then destroy player ship"

I think that the cop should be fired and thrown in jail because of the obvious issue of breaking the law and attacking someone in custody. On another note though, I question the motives behind the idea that criminals should be protected so much by the law. Sure, I believe that cops shouldn't be able to murder people in handcuffs, etc but I don't know if I agree with the idea that if cops get sorta pissed that a suspect shot at them, or made them run a mile or two to catch them, or the suspect shot a cop, that the cop is going to get in trouble for punching the guy in the face, or pushing him into the hood of a car. I mean, it's almost natural that if you were just in a fight with someone, and your in pain and you finally win, that you might take another shot or two. The criminal *might* actually *deserve* an extra couple of hits (as long as it's not killing him, putting him through an excessive amount of pain, etc). If you think about yourself in the exact same situation, on both ends of it, you should be thinking: As a cop: "I'm so pissed at this piece of scum for resisting arrest so much. As the kid: "I shouldn't have tried running/resisting arrest, etc. I was a moron." Hell, if the kid was running from another kid at his school, the kid probably woulda chased him down and beat him a lot worse than any cop ever would.

quote:Originally posted by $iLk: If it can be proven that we are NEEDED in order for the world to function as *we* need it to, it is in America's interests and I cannot argue with it. If we simply involve ourselves because we think it is our "moral obligation" I think it is the height of arrogance. I don't propose selling out our allies, but I do propose cutting back our involvement on their behalf.[/QB]I agree with that. Especially the point about "moral obligation". The US is not the world's policeman. We shouldn't be worrying about other countries problems, etc, while we have our own. Deal with the unemployment, economy, starvation, and homelessness here in the US before worrying about other countries. The only thing I disagree with is attacking Iraq or any other country devloping weapons of mass destruction. It is clearly in the United States best interest to preemptively attack countries that are developing nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons if they are hostile toward the United States. Those types of weapons would immediately make them a regional superpower, and that threatens all US interests in the region. Especially in regards to Iraq, with all the nearby oil wells. Then, even if we aren't in danger from Iraq's military (as I think we are due to the weapons they are most likely developing), it'd still be in the US interests to attack Iraq since if we attack them, it'll make oil easier for us to get. (not sure how, but i've heard it multiple times, probably because other arab nations aren't exactly happy with Iraq sitting there with WMDs)

....but aren't we just going to get a RANDOM, cloak for awhile, then just blow Earth up?

quote:I can see it... "Yeah, umm, Earth's moon just came out of the jumpgate..." "We're in Midae for god's sake, lieutenant!" "it's coming right at us! AHHH!!" [/QB]Just a small addition: "Launch RANDOM to destroy the moon."

lol. Yeah, I know SC would never make a M rated game, I remember that post, and I love BC just the same without it, just be pretty fun to shoot off Resnig's body parts.