ericz

Compared to the pain and anxiety of the parents of the children involved not too mention the gruesome deaths and injuries that these children sustained he died far to quickly and so got off lightly.

Terrorist scum, I for one hope that Russian security forces capture some of these male and female dogs and put old KGB interrorgation techniques to good use. Sympathy for families of those affected, its a shame that the most innocent of us all usually pay for the policies and crimes of one side or the other in these conflicts.

Bernadotte: -War on Terror and  war on states or peoples who aid and abet terrorists  in any way shape or form will take years and years perhaps even past my lifetime. -economic forecasts have been up and down, kindly inform what Kerry will do differently, I have yet to hear any concrete details from him. -Americans by and large (except for some pansy liberals and isolationist conservatives) do not believe in appeasing, ignoring or  compromising with terrorist rabble.  -Swiftboat Veterans are AMERICAN VETERANS and therefore entitled to tell their version of the events and give voice to their political opinions much moreso than than the mostly NON-VETERAN groups such as moveon.org.

Schoeler, as an American and a veteran, I also believe that protesting is a fundamental right of Americans. Â The problem I have with Kerry is that he threw his medals (or someone elses, as his campaign reports) away in protest of what he considered an immoral war and yet fastforward to 2004, he now has them or replacements proudly displayed in his office. He is also using his Vietnam service as a selling point in his election bid. Â So which is it? Is he ashamed to have served in Vietnam and his committing of atrocities there or is he proud of his service in Vietnam and does he feel he is better for his experiences there? I was not very pleased when we got involved in Iraq, and even went sightseeing to a rally held in Los Angeles. Â Sorry, I was less pleased with the protesters. Â There were groups like California Socialists, communists, anarchists and assorted leftists subversives, not to mention the very loud but idiot college students who couldn't explain to me why they were against the war except to say bombing civilians is bad, . Â As many misgivings as I have about this war, I can't bring myself to join forces with those that would gladly wipe away our American way of life. TBA has made quite a few mistakes and so this coming election is going to be painful either way. Â I sure hope Mcain runs in 2008 regardless of the outcome. It would be great to see some stories about the outstanding public works that our troops are doing for the benefit of the Iraqi people on CBS, NBC and ABC to name a few. Unfortunately, all I see is gloom and doom.

@mr.walker No trouble for Haliburton... current share price is appprox. 30/share, Cheney should have held onto it and I should have bought some when it dropped.:p Concerning the decline and recovery pls see: <a href="http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/halliburton.html" target="_blank"> Haliburton's Foibles</a>

@toadeater I am not fond of large corporations in general, but your implication that Haliburton is filing for bankruptcy as a whole is disingenous. Â The article specifically mentions that a subsidiary is filing for chapter 11 (re-organization not out of business) bankruptcy and that it was long awaited to do so even. Â As large and diverse as Haliburton is, this is a blip on their financial radar, the war in Iraq is just more profitable business for them.

My statement does not claim a side, it simply acknowledges that both positions are immoral.  Yes, it is a question of degrees.  However, IF Bush is found (an official inquiry) to have lied for his own monetary gain  or that of  his associates ( in pursuing the Iraq war), then I would say that Bush and Saddam are not that very different. Okay.... Lets say that GWB started the war on Iraq for personal reasons (didn't like Saddam's threats, "God" told him to do it, personal enrichment, enriching his associates, etc.) as many anti-war people claim.  If these formed the basis for his launching the war on Iraq, which has claimed the deaths of over 500 of his countrymen and caused hardships to thousands of other Americans, then it could be said that he killed his own countrymen and caused the death of thousands of Iraqis.  This is immoral and I think most would agree it's most reprehensible. If France opposed the war on the basis of protecting French business interests and had succeeded in averting war but at the same time allowing Saddam's regime to continue its repression of its people and the killing of its political opponents, then that would also be reprehensible.  Hardly a high moral ground in any case. The "actual" reasons presented for and against the Iraq war by the U.S. and it's allies and France and its supporters is a matter of public record.  Speculating on the underlying motivations for each sides position is  much more interesting and is part of trying to arrive at an understanding that doesn't take either sides claims at face value.  Good thing too, although many countries including the U.S. frequently interpret it differently. It doesn't mean that its good for everyone else either. What system is that?  I think ours (USA) is based on guarantees of personal freedom and inalienable rights. Reasonable conjecture. LOL!

I am not claiming anything and I do not think that article made any such comparison. On the issue of whether one position is better than the other or not, both are morally corrupt. Again, I am not claiming anything and I would hope that if 90% of the people are against the war, then Chirac should have and did oppose it. In fairness to Mr. Charles Pasqual (the former French Interior Minister) listed in the original report here is his replyBBC I wonder what other "former ministers" he is talking about. @Mr. Shrub True.

I am always a bit cynical of politicians and so I was skeptical of Bush's interest in pursuing the war in Iraq. Â Having said that, I was also highly skeptical of France's "official" opposition to the war on Iraq. Â The belief that countries in general develop their international agendas based on strictly altruistic terms is IMO naive. Â There are more "important" concerns, such as control of resources, security, economic opportunity, etc. Here's an interesting article: Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- Documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Washington Times

The adoption of Christianity by Roman civilization wasn't a significant factor in its decline, do some research before you make ridiculous statements. Â I never stated that religion is the SOLE cause of morality. I didn't find religion in the "centre of liberal ideals" as stated by Denoir. Â Personally, I do think that a liberal can be religious. Â If you READ through the previous posts, I stated that many of the values stated by Denoir are not mutually exclusive. Thanks for contributing part of the definition, but I'll continue where you left off; c.Of, relating to liberalism. d.Liberal. Of, being, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, esp. in Great Britain and Canada. Word of advice, if you are going to use a dictionary to support your position, its not a good idea to invalidate it in the same sentence by stating that its inaccurate. I just read it and No you didnt. I just asked you to post the definition of "liberal" as in the dictionary as it pertains to your argument. The discussion in a "previous post" was related to Denoirs list of liberal and conservative ideals and the values they represent and not the definition of liberal and conservative as per the dictionary. Â That was your contribution. As far the NT, slavery, condoning, not condoning etc. please read Actually, while I have read the bible on a few occasions, I am not able to cite verses off the top of my head, so I was genuinely interested at gaining an insight into your argument. Â It is unfortunate that you found that as an opportunity to ridicule me. Â But none the less, since you took the time to post the biblical verses, I will take some time out today and have a look. Â I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't just pull these from a search on the internet and that you understand the context in which these verses were written. I just thought it was ironic that you accused me of being ignorant and yet mispelled the word. Â BTW, conservatives don't wear panties only liberals and women do.

@B.Rumbo -"Certainly. Almost immediately after the widespread adoption of Xianity, the Roman Empire fell." I take it here you are implying that Christanity was the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire, now that's ignorant. I suggest you read a number of available texts on the subject, that is in case your interested in real reasons and not quick retorts. There were inumerable factors involved in the decline of Roman civlization. -"In any case, realise that if the entire population is religious, liberal means 'differentlt religious' or 'amenable to changing the religion slightly' or 'Not quite as intent on burning people alive because their book differs by one punctuation mark on page 502' Follow the facts next time." I know quite well what liberal means. I pointed you to Denoir's list of liberal and conservative ideals to you show you the basis of this discussion. If you are interested in repeating the definition of the word "liberal" and your interpretation of its application in this discussion like a parrot, at least present the definition in its entirety. -Despite the fact that the christian bible condones slavery in numerous places, even going so far as to lay out a system of relatives worths for different slaves and suggested methods of punishment.... your ignorace astounds me. The bible was one of the chief defences of the slave owners, claiming 'well the bible says it's ok' My "ignorace" may astound you but your ignorance may astound us all. I take it that you are making references to the Old Testament. There is another part of the bible referred to as the New Testament that changes (whew, that's progressive) many things including new ideas such as treat others as you would want to be treated, Love shall be the whole of the law,etc. The slave owners that used the bible as a defense for slavery often refered to slaves as being the descendants of Cain. Not a lot of credibility there. Please do, list your references.

Denoir -"This is the centre of conservative ideals: pro military, nationalism, religion and family." -" this is the centre of liberal ideals: pacifism, humanism, science and individualism." I list the above so that we can establish some continuity in the discussion. B.Rumbo -"Morality and values are part of civilisation, and not religion. Religions like to incorporate them, but they are independent of religion." Explain the tranformation of Roman civilization when Christianity was adopted. Religion many times is the force that gives a particular culture its values. In any case read the above quotes as these definitions of conservative and liberal ideals are being discussed. Follow the thread next time. @Denoir -"It ended in failure because the conservative forces were too strong. What happened in the 60's happend too fast for the conservative American public" Debatable. It ended in failure because many of the "progressive" changes espoused such as "free love" were morally corrupt and in fact not a serious effort for social change. The only thing of any value to come out of that time period were the social changes made by Civil Rights Movement not the hippie movement. -Denoir "It's coming now in small steps, hidden under expressions such as "compassionate conservativism" The term "compassionate conservative" implies that at some point conservatives weren't compassionate and that's incredibly simple minded thinking. It was and is largely believed thanks to the liberal media that conservatives do not care about the poor or dispossesed because they have for many years been advocates against the irresponsible management of programs such as Welfare. -"When there was a debate about slavery, conservatives appealed to "core values" such as the superiority of the white race etc etc. We view today on such position with contempt, the same way we will view many of today's "core values" that the conservatives are trying to defend. And conservatives in the future will be whining about protecting the "core values" that today's liberals are advocating. The belief in the superiority of the white race is not a value that fits into your above definition of conservative ideals. In fact it was due to this, that it is irreconcilable with the tenets of Christianity and slavery was discarded. They want to "live large" without effort. -If it's possible, then why not? Are you advocating that participating in crimes and scams to get what you want is acceptable? If that is the case your not liberal, your just a degenerate. -"When your production outgrows the market, you have to start thinking in other terms. It's nothing new. Its not new, because it HAS NOT happened yet in the USA. -A few hundred years ago poor people died of hunger. Today, in the western world, they don't. NEWSFLASH. They still do. BTW, define Western world. -"Why? Because of our huge agricultural system that has the production capacity of feeding the entire population. Well, sorry to burst your bubble bud, but our current agricultural system requires more resources than it produces. Which means at some point it will have a hard time keeping up with demand, maybe. As an aside, the most effective method of farming (sustainable and ecological) is the swidden model which is also one of the oldest methods. - "And when that happened, you had conservatives whining about how now the lazy bastards would not work at all and how it would be the end of the world." Sorry, I missed that meeting. I dont know of that which you speak.

Regardless of the political situation of the day, the moral values that conservatives today espouse such as morality, family standards, accountability, responsiblity, work ethic etc. are the same values espoused by moral conservatives in the past. Its important to note that many religions hold these same values. Most of these religions including Chrisitianity pre-date the American Revolution and the French Revolution. They are part and parcel to every major human civilization. The reason that these values born in religion continue are that they are essential to the sustainability of human civilization. Discarding moral values in exchange for a promise of a better tommorrow has been tried in 60's and ended in failure. -"That can be very much debated" Yes it can, but I believe you would have a hard time explaining that devout religionists were actually liberals in disguise and since they are the ones that founded the U.S..... If you are referring to my claim about the U.S. being the most advanced technologically, socially and materially, well all I can say is, Who's the world's only Superpower??? Come on you can say it..USA! USA! USA! -..by sweeping it under the rug. Almost 1% of the US population is in prison, thanks to your "punishment" rather than "rehabilitation" approach. Hell, if you could summarily execute people suspected of crime right on the spot, you'd have even less problems with crime. But is that a society that you would like to live in? Thanks to the liberals and their championed child psychologists, your claim of about 1% maybe true... Tell little johnny he can be whatever he wants to be without telling him about the sacrifice, hard work and discipline he'll need to make his dreams come true and you'll end up with a very expectant and pissed off little johnny. We are fearful of "traumatizing" little johnny by forcing him to confront his failures and take responsibility for them, so that he cruises through life expecting success to be given to him. If they don't get it, they become upset over the seeming unfair nature of their experience. Some resort to selling drugs, some resort to robbery, some resort to finding anyway they can to scam the system that they feel owes them a Lincoln Navigator, name-brand clothing etc. They want to "live large" without effort. No, I would NOT advocate execution without legal procedure and I WOULD like to see Johnny rehabilitated. But I would only give him a few chances to get his act straight. If he couldn't keep it together, I think I'd be content to live in a society which executed him instead of locking him up in prison for the rest of his life at my expense. This will be my last post for the while (no really) But I'll be back tommorrow, hope to discuss other issues as well. Thanks.

Your argument assumes that there is always a critical juncture where one's idealogy is put to the test so to speak. But it's not really. I cited your example of the American Revolution, because previously you made a statement that conservatives were regressive. By your definition of conservative, the American revolutionaries would have fit nicely in that category, yet they brought about progressive change while maintaining core values ( and I am not speaking of slavery). You also ignore the fact that the impetus for change in venue from Europe to America was brought on by religious conviction. So it can be argued that religion created the United States indirectly and even directly. That it was later the most progressive country in the world, technologically, socially and materially did not occur in spite of religion but because some of the values espoused by religion, honesty, work ethic, etc drove that change and tempered it as well. We have been referring to the tenets of Christianity but there are many other religions as well in the U.S. that hold similar values if not the same doctrines. One can support diplomatic institutions such as the U.N and allow for reasonable expectations of resolution. However, diplomacy that yields no results is essentially useless. You only need to note how hard it is to find a consensus on this board over any issue and then you can begin to appreciate how hard it would be arrive at a mutually acceptable solution by over a hundred countries on anything. Especially when economic interests are involved as in Iraq. Which country gets the oil contracts? Who gets to rebuild Iraq? Ex. Did French companies already have discussions with Iraqi oil counterparts to do business in the event of sanction lifting? (prior to OIF) If so, it would not be in France's interest to support a war led by the U.S. that would change that economic dynamic. In the end its entirely unclear that Clinton would not have precipated the War on Terrorism. We can debate this issue but its pointless as we will never really know, he wasnt Pres. at the time. Well, I am all for having more time to spend with my family and improving my quality of life, so less hours at work is appealing. Send us your economists so we can work on that. Although in some areas we may be close to market saturation, we have a burgeoning immigrant population settling here so we are guaranteed a base of demand for quite a while yet. I am glad you are optimistic about solving the enormous problems coming our way with overpopulation. I am less inclined to be so optimistic, I guess well just have to see. The problem with the bright picture you paint it that most of the wars and famines occur in the "3rd world". The exact same group that is going to face increasing pressures do to limited resources and overpopulation. The belief that we will somehow remain above it all, due to our technology our "social enlightenment" ignores history and current events. -"As for crime, greed etc.. well, we are very far from solving those (if ever), but I don't see why it should prevent us from trying.." Its unlikely that we solve these in the near future, but I take comfort in the fact that conservative values focus on these issues and moral conservatives have a better track record than liberals in addressing them.

Ah, there we come to it. The argument of Black and White. The truth of the matter is we dont really live in a world where we have to be for one or for the other idealogical point of view exclusively. You used the example of the American Revolution earlier as a shining example of liberal ideals. And it was, but you left out that the people that participated in it where devotely religious and subscribed to very strict familial standards concerned with decency, morality, etc.etc. You can support the theory of evolution and yet maintain belief in a supreme being, it just requires and adjustment of understanding. You can cherish peace and yet be prepared to kill those that would take it away from you. Thats the concept behind nuclear detterents. You can be concerned with the well being of humans all over the world but take more interest in those in your own country. It just an expansion of the idea of family. Most of us care more for our family than strangers. -"You don't have to work 12 hours per day in the field to have food on your table." I had to read this one again, lol. Thank your lucky stars that you or your countrymen don't, but in the U.S. this is not uncommon. And its no just those that work in the field. I know quite a few people in white collar and blue collar jobs that work 50-60 hour weeks. -We in the industrialized world are going to a point where people won't have to work at all to make a living. And with such a reality, you can't very well cling on to your antiquated values of "a honest day's work" etc etc Wow, talk a utopian fantasies . That ignores two facts, increasing populations and finite resources, you do the math. If its that good in Sweden, enjoy it while it lasts. For all that we have "evolved" through our social progress it seems humanity is plagued by the same maladies; wars, famines, crime, greed, sloth, murder, etc, etc, etc. are all still with us and somehow I dont believe our new crop of liberals are anywhere near solving these issues. So much for enlightenment!

-Denoir You answer your own statement "It is really beyond my comperhension that anybody would willingly declare themselves as "conservatives". I personally use it to insult other people" when you say "This is the centre of conservative ideals: pro military, nationalism, religion and family" Although the values I cherish are not in that order, more like Family, nationalism, religion, pro military. I might ask you to use your liberal "openess" to consider that subscribing to those value does not preclude pursuing science, humanism, or individualism. In fact, it is an issue of BALANCE. The problem with many liberals is that they have lost sight of some very core values and in their rush to pursue more enlightened goals have left us with a society full of people lacking responsilbity, integrity, decency and good work ethics all building blocks of a stable society and community. The idea the change is always for the better is fallacious as you point out. Which is the reason I argue for accountability and responsiblity. Another bright example of liberal thought in action is the program we had in California of Social Promotion. The program made allowances for children who failed a grade in school to continue to the next grade with his classmates at the parents discretion. This was done to prevent him from being "traumatized" by his failure. Very progressive! So now we have illiterate kids in our school system courtesy of our enlightened liberals. Thank God, they are doing away with this program as we speak.

I know this is getting off topic so I'll leave it alone after this. -Albert Schweizer "The funny thing is that your military is already powerful to nuke the planet 10 times. What are you people so afraid about?" You are quite right in that we have a large nuclear capability, but what I am referring to is a keeping a lead in CONVENTIONAL capabilities. This edge is not a static thing. It must be continually improved upon and augmented in order to keep the edge sharp. While you are right when you imply that the terrorist threat continues, I believe its a result of our soft approach to this issue. If you look back at the occupation of Nazi Germany, you will find that the resistance to U.S. troops lasted quite a while ( I think about 3 years, if my memory serves) but it was ultimately crushed by many techniques which included summary executions, mass punishment etc. Since this is no longer possible in this more sensitive world, you must invest in technologies that will accomplish the mission without the loss of life. MUCH more expensive! Plus there's always North Korea.

In my limited experience with Liberals, I have often run into an attitude of leniency and accomodation to those among us who make bad decisions continually. Conservatives that I've known on the other hand, are more punishment oriented. -would you rather spend billions for Haliburton contracts then? Actually, NO. -would you rather spend billions for Bush's personal wars of lies and deceit? I dont agree with your characterization so we probably wont see eye to eye, however I'll bite. Which wars are you referring to? If its the war on Afghanistan...YES!, If its the war in Iraq...maybe. But I would much rather spend my money on bullets and bombs that keep our military the most powerful military in the world, than paying for some lazy, irresponsible, slug's brats. BTW, lets see, if I sit here an think about it, I just might remeber what it was like to be 14 or 15, whew that's a long time ago! Oh, yes here we are. Did I have unprotected sex..NO. Did I do drugs...NO. Funny, I don't remember having sex education class. I do remember, my parents telling me about these things and threatening dire consequences such as kicking me out of the house or calling the police after a thorough spanking with a belt if I transgressed. I guess that was enough for me to be careful.

What a load of steaming cow manure! Here we go again, life according to liberals. We already have "sex education" classes in the U.S. We already have countless ads advising safe sex. We already hand contraceptives out to any who will have them. We already have spent millions of dollars on "sex education". But Noooooo! Liberals want to spend more money, more, more, more. Afterall, its not little Billy Jackass's fault that he got little Mary Rottencroth pregnant! Nooooo, it's the governments fault for not zipping up his pants for him. When are people going to get a through their pointy heads that ACCOUNTABILITY is the solution to this problem. Parents should be held to blame for the poor job of instilling morals and self-control in their brood. The morons who got the girls pregnant as well as the girls should be held accountable for their decisisons and not bailed out by society. You all are all clamoring for more education, enlighten me on exactly what kind of information isnt available now that I should spend more of my tax dollars on. BTW, Any "man", married, divorced or not, who won't support his own children financially should be put into forced labor.

In the 60's and 70's as well as the 80' and probably any other decade in history, young men have been trying to bang young women. The problem with the kids in the U.S. today, on some level, is that the ramification for out of wedlock pregnancy is no longer moral but financial and legal. Besides the "hippies", having a child out of wedlock in the 60's and 70's was not a good thing, and carried financial and legal issues as well as a stigma that negatively impacted all involved including the parents. +Rant+ Now, it seems its okay to have kids out of wedlock as long as you can financially support them. This is just the continuing tumble of our moral values as a nation and it all started with the touchy feely, liberal morons like Dr. Spock (the child psychologist, not Star Trek) back in the 70's. +Rant over+ How much education do you need to understand that you dont stick your wick in twat without a jimmy unless you want a kid! As far as abstinence, while it is the RIGHT thing to do, let's face it, not too many us WANT to do the right thing in this case. So that leads me to the suggestion of punishment. Since society no longer attaches a stigma to the morons that get each other pregnant, there should be some price to pay besides my tax dollars going to feed and clothe their bastards. How about public caning? Oh I know it wont solve anything, but it will sure give me pleasure to watch them suffer for their bad decisions, afterall their own offspring and our society will suffer because of them, it only seems fair. Better yet, if it happens more than once, how about castrating the male offenders and tying the tubes of the floozies? I am tired of seeing goverment funds (which are my tax dollars) go to help fuckups who cant keep it in their pants. Bush and the Dems want to spend more money on sex education and welfare for unwed teenage mothers while no one addresses the issue of the jackass fathers who won't get a job to pay for their brood. If any money should be spent, it should be spent on prosecuting these jerks, denying them social benefits and garnishing ANY income they do get until they manage to pay for their kids. Oh, and if they don't want to work voluntarily, restart a chain gang program just for them where they work for the state to pay their child support. Just some suggestions

Great addons! I also would have liked to see them on the West side but we can't always have everything we want. Thats alright, I enjoy these just the same. The only thing I am not too fond of is the sound for the heavy machine gun on the vehicles. @Milesteg I am a conservative Republican and I do NOT hate the FRench. In fact I appreciate their martial tradition very much. BTW, you are quite naive if you think allied countries such as the members of Nato dont compete with each other for economic or intelligence advantages. That has been going even before NATO and it is not a new phenomenon. Suggest you do some historical research. Also if you would like to trade places I would be more than willing. I live in Caliweird and am tired of the majority of crybaby liberals here! I'll trade you, Caliweird for Texas!!!

Thanks Wadmann.. That did the trick, I got the debug console going, woohoo! Now to play around with it.....

Ok I am a complete n00b, so someone help me out! I am trying to get to the debug console but it doesn't come up... no spectator button comes up in the mission editor screen. I checked the FAQ on the ECP page and it says to "preview" mission first. Okay, I've tried that...I hit the preview button..didnt see anything, aborted came back to editor screen, didnt see anything, previewed again..still nothing. WTF am I doing wrong? Do I need to enable something in the settings? I've been looking at the readme and I cant seem to find anything about it other than the entry in the FAQ.

I am not a "tanker" but I just put a platoon of these tanks against 4 BIS M2A2 and they got their a**es handed to them. 2 M2A2s survived the encounter and all T12s got killed. They were about 300 meters apart on Desert Island. I tried this 4 different times and the results were all similar. The speed at which the TOWs fire overwhelm the T12s. Not very scientific test but it sure was fun

Good line up of weapons but I can't seem to find the CASES. I keep getting a message that says I dont have resistance installed and therefore some objects are not going to be installed. I am running 1.94 so I know that;s not the problem, I even tried it in 1.91 and still same problem. The installer is only installing one pbo file (weapons file) I am not to computer literate so I dont know how else to extract the other pbo. please let me know.