ARMA2 put you off the Army ?

[Brainmagnet 10]

Few times inspectors went over there? Oy vey. Let me just say this, WMD pale compared to the knowledge that countries like France were still selling things to Iraq, weapons. Nothing like watching your friends blown to bits by weapons sold to your enemies by your allies AFTER sanctions were in place. But then, maybe they were just stolen :rolleyes: Saddam attack Israel? WHo the hell ever mentioned that?

You're kidding right? Who didn't mention that Saddam would attack Israel? Your comments are starting to give me the impression you live in a parallel universe. You think Saddam ever got a hold of ICBM's? They kept talking about how his rockets had the capability to reach Jerusalem.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1112989.ece

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/747112/posts

Don't you remember he launched around 40 scuds into Israel during the first gulf war? He already felt he had nothing to lose, and he didn't think they'd get involved anyway because we were already over there (plus in 1982 Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq). On a side note here's a link that has all of the FBI interviews with Saddam archived by NSA hosted by GWU.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/index.htm

Anyway, Anfiach, who was he going to use the WMD's on? I would love to know what you think. Because that was the main advertised reason for going to Iraq. Also you might say you think the media is full of shit, but you keep going back to them for seconds and dessert, don't you know all governments throughout history have directly relied on the media as an instrument to gain public support to wage war? I mean COME ON!

[Vandrel 10]

no this does not put me off the army, mostly because this game is about the marines...

I just got out of the Marines, 9 years of service, and I can say that this game as well as the predecessors (OPF, etc) are nothing even close to what the "real" military is like. Words can hardly describe the real thing to someone comparing it to a video game.

Maybe 40% at most of the Marine Corps sees "real deal" combat, and I mean balls to the wall pouring through the magazines and having to request resupply of ammo from higher. Most deployed if lucky will have a handful of situations where they are face with "contact" and have to engage in receive fire return fire combat. Saddly the vast majority of Marines with CAR (Combat Action Ribbons) were due to IED blasts or vage mortar fire, few actually had to expend more then 30 rounds outside of monthly reset training.

Given that, service is nothing even remotely close to what this game portrays, I'm sure there's plenty of other active duty, reserve and retired vets on here that could agree.

[GoOB 0]

....What war crimes has the United States committed in any of the conflicts you mentioned...

...Not to mention the massive amounts of foreign aid our country throws out to the nations of the world. And for what? Lots of these nations scoff at us, and still take our money...

...As for your insistence that terrorism has to do with American diplomacy and meddling, I think you are wrong. It just isn't an American problem, it is a world problem. Terrorism has existed since the dawn of man, it didn't just magically appear because of the American government...

Again, this thread has gone way, way off topic - But these three snippets of your post warrant a reply, or atleast so I felt. First off, I am not sure if it classifies as a war crime or not - But let me just mention the Abu-Ghraib tortures as an example, and also, as far as I am aware, the US categorically refuse to put any serviceman or woman accused of breaking the Geneva convention infront of the International Court Of Justice.

Secondly, your "massive ammounts of foreign aid" are massive only due to the fact that the American GDP is so massive - America is one of the cheapest nations when it comes to foreign aid, America shells out about 0.1% of their GDP (between 6-15 billion USD) whilst Denmark gives 1% of their GDP (though to be fair, Denmark and three other countries are the only ones that reach the UN goal of 0.7% of GDP to foreign aid). Furthermore American aid doesn't go to countries that need their aid as much as it goes to countries whom it benefits the US to donate money to - For instance your top receivers of aid is Israel, Egypt and Pakistan. Hardly countries that spit in your face on a daily basis.

The US also ties their foriegn aid, forcing the countries they donate money to to buy American goods or services, a practice that actually undermines developing countries (and the development of free trade) more than simply not giving them anything.

And the last part... I agree, terrorism has been present in this world since the dawn of time, be it stealing the cattle of the neighbouring tribe and torching their huts or suicide bombings on a bus, it's all basically the same. Another aspect that hasn't changed is the fact that groups of people do not randomly carry these acts of terrorism out - There is a reason for the (relatively) recent increase in terrorism, and that reason is indeed due to other nations trying to impose their will, their values and their way of life down the throat of other nations. And unfortunatley, years of thoughtless, reckless and frankly, somewhat unintelligent foreign policy has made America a target. I am not saying that America in any way deserves being a target, I am merely stating that there is a reason that America is a target. The same way there was a reason to the UK being a target for the IRA, the same way there was and is a reason that Spain is a target for the PNV.

[jakerod 254]

Maybe 40% at most of the Marine Corps sees "real deal" combat, and I mean balls to the wall pouring through the magazines and having to request resupply of ammo from higher. Most deployed if lucky will have a handful of situations where they are face with "contact" and have to engage in receive fire return fire combat. Saddly the vast majority of Marines with CAR (Combat Action Ribbons) were due to IED blasts or vage mortar fire, few actually had to expend more then 30 rounds outside of monthly reset training.

You find it sad that more people didn't have to get shot at?

And since I forgot about mentioning it earlier; I don't think that I ever would have joined the military and I don't think it was because of ofp but ofp might have helped put me off of that a bit.

[Vandrel 10]

You find it sad that more people didn't have to get shot at?

And since I forgot about mentioning it earlier; I don't think that I ever would have joined the military and I don't think it was because of ofp but ofp might have helped put me off of that a bit.

Not you didn't understand my point at all

I find it sad that the military has stuped to awarding service members a COMBAT Action Ribbon for not actually being in COMBAT. Combat is defined as received fire returned fire. Further more the current awarding system allows for individuals to be awarding a CAR just by being in the vacinity of a IED blast, hence a individual can be in a 10 vic convoy, the number 4 vic is hit with a IED and vic's 1-5 receive CAR's or all 10 vic's receive CAR's. Does that make sense? THAT is what is sad, it's not combat and is entirely different.

Someone who has deployed could relate to that and understand the point

[An Fiach 10]

You're kidding right? Who didn't mention that Saddam would attack Israel? Your comments are starting to give me the impression you live in a parallel universe. You think Saddam ever got a hold of ICBM's? They kept talking about how his rockets had the capability to reach Jerusalem.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1112989.ece

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/747112/posts

Don't you remember he launched around 40 scuds into Israel during the first gulf war? He already felt he had nothing to lose, and he didn't think they'd get involved anyway because we were already over there (plus in 1982 Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq). On a side note here's a link that has all of the FBI interviews with Saddam archived by NSA hosted by GWU.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/index.htm

Anyway, Anfiach, who was he going to use the WMD's on? I would love to know what you think. Because that was the main advertised reason for going to Iraq. Also you might say you think the media is full of shit, but you keep going back to them for seconds and dessert, don't you know all governments throughout history have directly relied on the media as an instrument to gain public support to wage war? I mean COME ON!

Actually no, the US government does not dictate what the media reports, the shame of it is, they used to report the truth. You are being intentionally obtuse regarding the WMDs, and Saddam and the greater concern for them falling into the hands of terrorists. Mentioning that he had missiles that could reach Israel is not the same as thinking he would attack them. He showed in the past his willingness to use WMDs in his own country, at the time he was working to develop missiles with even greater range, the UN was screaming for them to be destroyed. Who was he going to use them on? Who can guess? Did you want to find out? Why do you guy keep posting links to things that are largely irrelevant to the conversation? What does this have to do with you calling yourself a pacifist? How is it I keep going back to the media when I haven't posted anything from them? This started when you began posting numbers of civilians killed as a result of the Iraq war, a number that was quite misleading and even a little dishonest and you continued that dishonesty when bringing up Vietnam.

[jakerod 254]

Not you didn't understand my point at all

I find it sad that the military has stuped to awarding service members a COMBAT Action Ribbon for not actually being in COMBAT. Combat is defined as received fire returned fire. Further more the current awarding system allows for individuals to be awarding a CAR just by being in the vacinity of a IED blast, hence a individual can be in a 10 vic convoy, the number 4 vic is hit with a IED and vic's 1-5 receive CAR's or all 10 vic's receive CAR's. Does that make sense? THAT is what is sad, it's not combat and is entirely different.

Someone who has deployed could relate to that and understand the point

Oh okay. I'm glad you didn't mean what I thought you mean't. I'm not sure where I stand on that point though.

[An Fiach 10]

Not you didn't understand my point at all

I find it sad that the military has stuped to awarding service members a COMBAT Action Ribbon for not actually being in COMBAT. Combat is defined as received fire returned fire. Further more the current awarding system allows for individuals to be awarding a CAR just by being in the vacinity of a IED blast, hence a individual can be in a 10 vic convoy, the number 4 vic is hit with a IED and vic's 1-5 receive CAR's or all 10 vic's receive CAR's. Does that make sense? THAT is what is sad, it's not combat and is entirely different.

Someone who has deployed could relate to that and understand the point

Hell I've seen people receive combat awards that weren't within miles of combat. It's an insult.

[maturin 12]

Everything went to Syria.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/iraq/main643989.shtml

Seems like here's a story that both sides can easily believe or disbelieve according to their ideological convenience. Why can they do that? Because there's not much evidence either way.

Anyways, I don't even know why anyone would want to bring this up. If Saddam had WMD, then spending two years of obvious chest-pounding and invasion-posturing was a great way to scatter them around the world, wasn't it? Why couldn't Bush have just been a cynical bastard like the Cold Warriors? 'He may be a monster, but he has to meet payroll tomorrow.'

Yea wiki is great, I was looking for some data on the .50 BMG a few months ago and there was a nice article there about 1337 pwnzers getting headshots with the .50 killing all the noobs. Gotta love the internet.

Things like that will be fixed a lot sooner than the decade-old errors in a set of encyclopedias. Wikipedia has its uses (limited ones). Go read its own reporting of criticism against the site. It's more level-headed that what you usually hear.

[granQ 293]

i could reply on the questions on american warcrimes and so on (and just being a bastard in general) and also why i believe america is much better off with Obama that already spoke with the muslim part of the world.. but which american listen to an European that "knows nothing"..

so I will just qoute my american relatives (born and lived all their life in US).. regarding the 9'/11..

Dad in family: "i just think they should make a parking space out of the whole fucking middle east"

Mom in family: "you know what, i hope 9/11 actually will be good for america, maybe finaly people start to wake up, wondering why they attacked us and pick up a book or something"..

funny thing.. the dad in the family, super american, was actually born in Sweden, not the mom..

[An Fiach 10]

i could reply on the questions on american warcrimes and so on (and just being a bastard in general) and also why i believe america is much better off with Obama that already spoke with the muslim part of the world.. but which american listen to an European that "knows nothing"..

so I will just qoute my american relatives (born and lived all their life in US).. regarding the 9'/11..

Dad in family: "i just think they should make a parking space out of the whole fucking middle east"

Mom in family: "you know what, i hope 9/11 actually will be good for america, maybe finaly people start to wake up, wondering why they attacked us and pick up a book or something"..

funny thing.. the dad in the family, super american, was actually born in Sweden, not the mom..

So they are both wrong

[Brainmagnet 10]

Actually no, the US government does not dictate what the media reports, the shame of it is, they used to report the truth. You are being intentionally obtuse regarding the WMDs, and Saddam and the greater concern for them falling into the hands of terrorists. Mentioning that he had missiles that could reach Israel is not the same as thinking he would attack them. He showed in the past his willingness to use WMDs in his own country, at the time he was working to develop missiles with even greater range, the UN was screaming for them to be destroyed. Who was he going to use them on? Who can guess? Did you want to find out? Why do you guy keep posting links to things that are largely irrelevant to the conversation? What does this have to do with you calling yourself a pacifist? How is it I keep going back to the media when I haven't posted anything from them? This started when you began posting numbers of civilians killed as a result of the Iraq war, a number that was quite misleading and even a little dishonest and you continued that dishonesty when bringing up Vietnam.

Anfiach you are less than qualified to state what my intentions are. The media used to report the truth? Are you a fan of William Randolph Hearst by any chance? How the hell would WMD's have fallen into the hands of terrorists while Saddam was in power? Making a statement like that just tells us you are speaking straight out of your ass. I have in no way been dishonest, I already said that casualty numbers for civilians are never accurate they tend to go up and down drastically to which ever direction the political winds are blowing. When I mentioned the gulf of Tonkin affair I was totally honest in my intentions as I have researched it and I believe it did happen, I might have linked Wikipedia, but notice that Wikipedia provides links to its sources as well. If you have evidence it didn't happen at all or at least not the way stated I suggest again, join the discussion and edit the entry in Wikipedia.

[trickster1982 10]

Hell I've seen people receive combat awards that weren't within miles of combat. It's an insult.

Sounds like prince Harrys poncing about in Afghan, they wouldnt have let him anywhere near any danger, it was all just a big publicity stunt & I bet he wont be out there at the moment while things have gone rapidly downhill, just as they didnt with his uncle andrew in the falklands war

[Dyne 0]

First off, I am not sure if it classifies as a war crime or not - But let me just mention the Abu-Ghraib tortures as an example, and also, as far as I am aware, the US categorically refuse to put any serviceman or woman accused of breaking the Geneva convention infront of the International Court Of Justice.

The difference here is that it was a select group of US personnel that committed this atrocity. It wasn't condoned or ordered by the US government, so it doesn't reflect on the United States military or government as a whole. And so what if the United States refuses to allow its servicemen and women to be tried in front of an International Court of Justice, do you think that would be fair? I sure as hell don't, seeing that everyone else in the world thinks the United States is always wrong, and they (rest of the world) are saintly and beyond reproach. The US military has its own system of justice, the USMCJ.

Secondly, your "massive ammounts of foreign aid" are massive only due to the fact that the American GDP is so massive - America is one of the cheapest nations when it comes to foreign aid, America shells out about 0.1% of their GDP (between 6-15 billion USD) whilst Denmark gives 1% of their GDP (though to be fair, Denmark and three other countries are the only ones that reach the UN goal of 0.7% of GDP to foreign aid). Furthermore American aid doesn't go to countries that need their aid as much as it goes to countries whom it benefits the US to donate money to - For instance your top receivers of aid is Israel, Egypt and Pakistan. Hardly countries that spit in your face on a daily basis.

I guess we all seem to forget the amount of money the United States sends to African nations to battle HIV, and the countless times the United States government has sent military aid to countries in the Pacific and elsewhere who faced natural catastrophes. Did any nation help the United States when Katrina struck, like we would have helped them? No. Not to mention our countless peacekeeping forces all throughout the world that protect peoples lives.

The US also ties their foriegn aid, forcing the countries they donate money to to buy American goods or services, a practice that actually undermines developing countries (and the development of free trade) more than simply not giving them anything.

Gonna have to see some statistics on this, cause I don't buy it. And does everyone forget what the European superpowers did during their heyday, to countries in Africa and throughout the world?

And the last part... I agree, terrorism has been present in this world since the dawn of time, be it stealing the cattle of the neighbouring tribe and torching their huts or suicide bombings on a bus, it's all basically the same. Another aspect that hasn't changed is the fact that groups of people do not randomly carry these acts of terrorism out - There is a reason for the (relatively) recent increase in terrorism, and that reason is indeed due to other nations trying to impose their will, their values and their way of life down the throat of other nations. And unfortunatley, years of thoughtless, reckless and frankly, somewhat unintelligent foreign policy has made America a target. I am not saying that America in any way deserves being a target, I am merely stating that there is a reason that America is a target. The same way there was a reason to the UK being a target for the IRA, the same way there was and is a reason that Spain is a target for the PNV.

Thoughtless foreign policy. Well, I guess you could say that about every nation in general. Sometimes, stuff just doesn't make sense. It's just not the United States who is guilty of "thoughtless foreign policy". Again, it's time other nations get off their high horse of sainthood, and stop putting all the blame on the United States. There are numerous reasons for terrorism, and it cannot be pinpointed on one specific cause. America isn't the only target, most of the world is. Israel, Pakistan, India, Spain, Indonesia, Russia, China and Great Britain are just a few of the many countries in the world that have terrorist problems.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Dyne

[An Fiach 10]

Anfiach you are less than qualified to state what my intentions are. The media used to report the truth? Are you a fan of William Randolph Hearst by any chance? How the hell would WMD's have fallen into the hands of terrorists while Saddam was in power?

When you are stashing things all over the place most especially Syria, in order to avoid arms inspectors, things tend to get lost, if you think terrorists could not have gotten their hands on some of those things I call you naive. IRT Tonkin, you are missing the point I wan't arguing whether or not that even occurred it was the fact that you presented it as if it were the sole reason that we were involved in that conflict, as if it were the only event leading up to our full involvement. I also am perfectly qualified to state what your intentions are, this is the internet!

[Reyn 10]

Wars should now be fought on the computer within ArmA...

We better go supply the Taliban with some gaming rigs

[Brainmagnet 10]

When you are stashing things all over the place most especially Syria, in order to avoid arms inspectors, things tend to get lost, if you think terrorists could not have gotten their hands on some of those things I call you naive. IRT Tonkin, you are missing the point I wan't arguing whether or not that even occurred it was the fact that you presented it as if it were the sole reason that we were involved in that conflict, as if it were the only event leading up to our full involvement. I also am perfectly qualified to state what your intentions are, this is the internet!

@Anfiach: You have yet to cite anything when saying that Saddam sent his WMD to Syria. Guess what? Syria is ruled by a Ba'ath party as well, a secular political party. What this means is that if indeed Saddam did such a thing he couldn't have picked a better place than that because the last thing the Syrian government would allow is for the WMD to fall into Islamic fundamentalist Terrorists hands because they would use it to overthrow the secular government first. Get your facts straight before you swallow the medias bullshit. Also, why else did we get involved in Vietnam? I'm just curious. Another thing I forgot to add, if what you say is true about Terrorists being more likely to get their hands on WMD because Saddam sent it to Syria, then wouldn't that mean that going into Iraq was a dumb ass idea and self defeating?

@Dyne: Actually after Hurricane Katrina Venezuela and Cuba both offered to send Aid to the hurricane Victims but Bush didn't allow it.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Brainmagnet
forgot to mention something

[jakerod 254]

I guess we all seem to forget the amount of money the United States sends to African nations to battle HIV, and the countless times the United States government has sent military aid to countries in the Pacific and elsewhere who faced natural catastrophes. Did any nation help the United States when Katrina struck, like we would have helped them? No. Not to mention our countless peacekeeping forces all throughout the world that protect peoples lives.

A lot did. This is wikipedia so I guess take what you want from it:

International Responses to Hurricane Katrina

[Dyne 0]

A lot did. This is wikipedia so I guess take what you want from it:

International Responses to Hurricane Katrina

Then I stand corrected. I don't remember hearing or reading a lot of news articles on it though. Thanks for the information.

[granQ 293]

number 2.. posting same stuff.

Edited July 22, 2009 by granQ

[jakerod 254]

Then I stand corrected. I don't remember hearing or reading a lot of news articles on it though. Thanks for the information.

I only heard about the Russian one really and it was more because we initially declined it. I assumed there would be a couple more but I was quite suprised when I looked at that page.

[maturin 12]

Gonna have to see some statistics on this, cause I don't buy it. And does everyone forget what the European superpowers did during their heyday, to countries in Africa and throughout the world?

U.S. policies in exporting grain to Haiti helped beggar the country, and plenty of aid is earmarked in advance for U.S. products. You don't buy it? No one involved would bother denying it. They'd use some euphemism about building symbiotic economic partnerships.

[An Fiach 10]

@Anfiach: You have yet to cite anything when saying that Saddam sent his WMD to Syria. Guess what? Syria is ruled by a Ba'ath party as well, a secular political party. What this means is that if indeed Saddam did such a thing he couldn't have picked a better place than that because the last thing the Syrian government would allow is for the WMD to fall into Islamic fundamentalist Terrorists hands because they would use it to overthrow the secular government first. Get your facts straight before you swallow the medias bullshit. Also, why else did we get involved in Vietnam? I'm just curious. Another thing I forgot to add, if what you say is true about Terrorists being more likely to get their hands on WMD because Saddam sent it to Syria, then wouldn't that mean that going into Iraq was a dumb ass idea and self defeating?

@Dyne: Actually after Hurricane Katrina Venezuela and Cuba both offered to send Aid to the hurricane Victims but Bush didn't allow it.

Hmm I'm not searching for it. There were statements from one of the Inspectors about it (matter of fact I think the report is even posted on your precious Wiki), the military tracked large convoys moving into Syria as well as statements from a citizen that supposedly was a driver of one of those trucks and testimony form a former Iraqi General. Do the research yourself. This occurred shortly before the invasion e.g. it was already in motion. You think Syria is to be trusted wit WMDs? Aside from that what was it going to take? For 8 years we told Saddam, allow the UN to go in and destroy this stuff or else. Well, or else became resolution after resolution after resolution, that was reason enough to go in and it just proved also that the UN is a useless and impotent organization that constantly makes threats and promises that they never intend to back up. I'm sorry if the US doesn't work that way. Saying behave or else we will tell you to behave again doesn't work with a child, just how effective do you think it is with a depraved dictator?

Back to Vietnam? Again I expected more form you, because you know, you've read so many books, I suppose you think McNamara wasn't a buffoon too.

Regarding Katrina, it's a shame that some of those people didn't get the help they needed, most deserved what they got, most particularly the trash that was looting and shooting at rescue workers. Don't weep for the plight of people that have no desire to do anything for themselves though, those that deserve the help and sympathy have already moved on, rebuilding their lives to the best of their ability. The rest of the blame lies on the Government of Louisiana. What do Cuba and Venezuela have to offer that we need? We have everything they could have offered in greater abundance than they do.

[Brainmagnet 10]

Hmm I'm not searching for it. There were statements from one of the Inspectors about it (matter of fact I think the report is even posted on your precious Wiki), the military tracked large convoys moving into Syria as well as statements from a citizen that supposedly was a driver of one of those trucks and testimony form a former Iraqi General. Do the research yourself. This occurred shortly before the invasion e.g. it was already in motion. You think Syria is to be trusted wit WMDs? Aside from that what was it going to take? For 8 years we told Saddam, allow the UN to go in and destroy this stuff or else. Well, or else became resolution after resolution after resolution, that was reason enough to go in and it just proved also that the UN is a useless and impotent organization that constantly makes threats and promises that they never intend to back up. I'm sorry if the US doesn't work that way. Saying behave or else we will tell you to behave again doesn't work with a child, just how effective do you think it is with a depraved dictator?

Back to Vietnam? Again I expected more form you, because you know, you've read so many books, I suppose you think McNamara wasn't a buffoon too.

Regarding Katrina, it's a shame that some of those people didn't get the help they needed, most deserved what they got, most particularly the trash that was looting and shooting at rescue workers. Don't weep for the plight of people that have no desire to do anything for themselves though, those that deserve the help and sympathy have already moved on, rebuilding their lives to the best of their ability. The rest of the blame lies on the Government of Louisiana. What do Cuba and Venezuela have to offer that we need? We have everything they could have offered in greater abundance than they do.

ok, does it matter when the WMD was moved to Syria ?(hypothetically speaking because it didn't exist at that point anyway) What would have set that in motion huh? What would have been Saddam's motivation for giving his WMD away to Syria? Please give it some critical thought and you'll realize that what you are saying is absurd, by your reasoning WMD fell into the hands of terrorists in Syria because we decided to invade Iraq, I wonder why we haven't seen any of the WMD being used against our troops in all this time? wait... that's right... because your story is more ridiculous than Santa Claus. Saddam did let Un Inspectors in a few times, but he stopped doing so after Desert Fox, I don't think he appreciated the sanctions and the bombing that continued all throughout the Clinton Presidency. Why don't we tell all dictators to behave? Why do we pick and choose? Why do we smile and shake the hands of some dictators and say they're doing a great job? Forgot to add: If our military tracked large convoys going into Syria, why did we go into Iraq at all? We should have invaded Syria first then.

As far as your comment on Vietnam I don't know what the hell you are getting at, what about McNamara, and what did you expect from me?

Saying that most victims of Katrina deserved what they got is just sick. You are judging everyone that was a victim in New Orleans like that? You again trust the Media too much, just because the media *focused* on a lot of the negative aspects like looting and such doesn't mean that most people were involved in it. I think you lack sympathy for others and are too quick to judge, I don't wish a Katrina on you, but you must be lacking in perspective to say something that idiotic. I would also blame FEMA before I blame the government of Lousiana. Cuba and Venezuela offered more than FEMA delivered.

food for thought:http://www.snopes.com/katrina/photos/looters.asp

Edited July 23, 2009 by Brainmagnet
forgot to mention something, second edit link

[Rhodite 3]

This is drifting a good deal off of the topic.

The thread will be locked if this continues.