kerosene

I loaded the game up and all the rifles have vanished onscreen, I can still fire them, but the player and the AI stand with their arms at their side and bullets just sort of come out of the player. The graphic for the primary weapons in the gear screen has also disappeared but you can drag the gun from the left hand into the box on the right, the box is empty but the gun is there. Pistols and rocket launchers are still visible, does anyone know how to fix this. Has anyone else had this? I dont really feel like reinstalling? which file would relate to this?

You missed the point again, like you always do. The point was that the kid was doomed from the start. The old loon snapped and was going to assault to kill him. He did not kill the kid because he had a gun, he killed the kid because he was crazy. Taking the gun out of the story would only of changed the impliment with which the kid was killed. Your property confiscation scheme would not have changed the end out come at all. It only would have changed the tool used to achieve the out come. Coult not of said it better my self. Discussion closed. Yeah, it but it was much easier for him to kill lots of people with guns than another implement is the point.

When exactly did this happen? even in South Africa, equal rights were granted when the government changed, not by illegal/terrorist actions. So what? What exactly do you propose as an alternative? An "enlightened minority" that will lead the ignorant masses? "Killing animals" wanst banned by "urbanites". Hunting with dogs was regulated. It still happens. In any case other forms of hunting are stilll legal. I'd be curious to know about all this government intervention in your daily life? The idea that we're micro-manged by the EU is somewhat ridiculous, given the 40 hour working week exemption, etc. Whether or not you want to be interdependant with other nations is irrelevent, its a fact of world we live in. National economies are inextricably linked to each other. British influence in the EU is underestimated by Little Englanders, I'd rather we had a strong voice in a regional body, than no voice at all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2027963,00.html I can see why their bothered by NATO expansion, Georgia is supposed to be joining in 2009, and strangley, so is Albania? I'm not sure what contribution they'll make exactly.. The Ukraine is also a potential candidate, this would leave Russia more or less completley encircled by NATO states except on its Chinese border.

You cant slag off emo if you're then going to go and listen a screamo band...Its basically the same thing.

I think he means Civil War? For me the answer would be no, since I live in the UK. It's not perfect but we dont have that to worry about at least.

The USSR invaded Hungary and restored the government their people didnt want and was poised to invade Poland when it looked like they might get out of line.

Yes economics. WW2 broke the bank. Just like WW1 broke the bank before it. Just like the Napoleonic Wars broke the bank before that. The people of Britain were still being rationed in 1954 to pay for the war. We lost half our pacific empire to the U.S. Specifically we exchanged it under the territory for food schemes. The U.S. does have a huge resources and population base compared to Britains, but not in comparison to the Commonwealths or the British Empires pre-war. We didn't just have our internal resources to call upon. It grew as ours collapsed. A fair bit of what we lost they picked up. What the Little Europeans don't like to hear is that Russia stood with us twice against the Federalisation of Europe under the Germans. And that together (amongst others) we stopped it. Little Europeans can't see outside of the EU. The world is a bigger place. Britain has intrests both in the EU and beyond. Or they think just because we haven't had a Europe wide war for 60 years that there is no longer any conflict of intrests between it's nations capable of provoking one. Whether your favourite newspaper agrees with it or not, many people in many countries are uncomfortable about the EU and it's increasing power. Lots of British newspapers supported Hitler pre WW2 also, there will always be, and has always been, divided opinion on what is the right direction for each nation to take. It is sensible to take precautions and plan for eventualities. No one says they have to happen. These are changing times. Alliances shift and change weekly. It wouldn't be the first time we've had to intervene in mainland Europe. You might remember how helpful the Russians were in Yugoslavia. Who else was capable of intervening in Serbia with the trust of it's population? There are plenty of circumstances where an alliance outside of either NATO or the EU can be very useful to us. Little Europeans and Little Trans Atlanticists? it's not in our best intrests to restrict ourselves to either. A strategic missile defense system on Russia's borders is a direct threat to Russian security. If the U.S. has an effective missile shield, Russia is wide open and defenceless against pre-emtpive strike. As I said before, it's not political justification that makes threat, it's capability. It makes no difference that American foreign policy has recently been centred on pre-emption. It makes no difference that every American is raised to believe his military can crush the Russians, and that Russian leaders are evil and their peoples starving and oppressed. If Russia believes another country has the ability or is gaining the ability to pre-emptively strike it without fear of reprisal, it must act. I'm not sure where I stand on Britain hosting any U.S. missile defense system yet. There are pro's and cons. Either way Russia must obviously build more nukes or make a system of it's own and host sites in Cuba and Venezuala as soon as it can. The russians weren't espically helpful in kosovo, they didnt do anything, it was a about them throwing their weight around a bit. What exactly did we lose in "terroitory for food" schemes, I'm thinking of most of the British Empires territories and I cant really think of anything so presumably you're talking about tiny little islands in the pacific? The U.S already said the missile shield wont cover us, so theres no pro and 1 really obvious con. And not sure what benefit you think being out of NATO and the EU might bring us in exchangefor some kind of alliance with Russia. Our situation has changed since the last time we had to fight a war with mainland europe and Western Europe is more or less completley dependent on resources outside of its borders. It just seems like theres a lot of resentment about britain being a faded superpower in your post and thats about it.

SAFOR's okay, I voted for ISSF. But how about S-FOR - it would much cooler on the side of vehicles than SAFOR. (To me, at any rate.)

SAFOR's okay, I voted for ISSF. But how but S-FOR - it would much cooler on the side of vehicles than SAFOR. (To me, at any rate.)

ANyones whos really instrested in this should read "resource wars" by MIcheal Klare, its a really good book. http://www.amazon.com/Resourc....&sr=8-1 I'm not plugging it, I just really liked it.

Looks really good, it'll be even better when the modding tools are out. Nice job.

Dito. And if some country for instance wants to install the anti-rocket defensive shield, then that's not of any russian concern, end of debate. So called influential spheres and zones are voluntarily created (by the common interests and thru the cooperation), they cannot be imposed (thru the preassure and/or by force), so what Russia is doing here is just kicking in the mist; sooner or later they would had to recognize and to accept the fact that they're (currently) not (so) desirable 'bride'... Well actually, If the IMF and the Worldbank hadnt insisted that free market reforms and privatisation be implemented as fast as possible and before monopoly laws were created amongst many, many other mistakes pushed on them by the west Russia would be in much better shape.

This is an interesting post because it combines valid points with a load of old cobblers. Its very typical to say Stalin wasnt "as bad" as Hitler because he killed anyone who opposed him indescrimitley rather than along racial lines, which to me as well as most western people, just seems "worse" in someway, even though logically its the same. Some people were eorked or starved to death in Gulags, Stalin deported most of the population of Chechnya to Siberia. He wasnt a nice or good man, he was a psychotic paranoid monster, but without him and the sacrifice of millions of russians we would have lost WW2. Your points on the the Ukraine are good though, given the way america reacts to Hugo Chavez its funny how people on here can act like Russia should just be OK with a NATO that rolls right up to its border but excludes it from membership. The whole purpose of WW2 was a failure? Wrong. The purpose was to preserve soverignty and democracy of European states and in the long run even the former Warsaw pact states have gotten it. We didnt lose our superpower status because of WW2, we lost it because of economics, the U.S has a huge population base and natuarl resources that dwarf britains, we couldnt hold onto our empire because colonalism was crumbling all over the world. This is typically whiny Daliy Mail talk. - We'll need Russias help if the "EU federalists go to mad?" stuff like that is why the anti EU lobby arent taken seriously, there is a serious debate worth having, but in the UK its buried under nationalistic nonsense.

I find your claim to be British suspect. You mis-spelt Britain and I've never heard of a "cotney accent"

Yeah, nobody called it realistic, try reading the message you're replying to.

Whats all this anti-american talk? I'm upto the defend the airbase misson and I havent noticed anything that could be considered anti-anything.

It was one of the Vilas files for me, i removed all of them and they came back, I havent got round to installing the Mapfact misc yet.

Nice one.

I think they asked and got told no. WHich is a reason for them to be unhappy about an orgainisation that encircles them.

If you bothered to read the thread youd see its a fairly balanced discussion, with a few exceptions.

Ukraine Ukraine Defence Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko declared that Ukraine would have an Action Plan on NATO membership by the end of March 2006, to begin implementation by September 2006. A final decision concerning Ukraine's membership in NATO is expected to be made in 2008, with full membership possible by 2010.[44] The idea of Ukrainian membership in NATO has gained support from a number of NATO leaders, including President Traian Băsescu of Romania[45] and president Ivan GaÅ¡paroviÄ of Slovakia.[46] The Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Alexander Grushko, announced however that NATO membership for Ukraine was not in Russia's best interests and wouldn't help the relations of the two countries.[47] Currently a majority of Ukrainian citizens oppose NATO membership, independently of their respective political views and beliefs[citation needed]. Protests have taken place by opposition blocs against the idea, and petitions signed urging the end of relations with NATO. Former Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov has indicated Ukraine will not enter NATO as long as the public continues opposing the move.[48] Plans for membership were shelved on 14 September 2006 due to the overwhelming disapproval of NATO membership.[49] Currently the Ukrainian Government started a information campaign, aimed at informing the Ukrainian people about the consequences of membership. The likelihood of a referendum regarding membership is growing.[citation needed] Intensified Dialogue Intensified Dialogue with NATO is viewed as a stage before being invited to enter the alliance Membership Action Plan (MAP), while the latter should eventually lead to NATO membership. Countries currently engaged in an Intensified Dialogue with NATO: * Ukraine (21 April 2005) * Georgia (country) Georgia (21 September 2006) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO I'm ENglish, so I do the difference between the EU and NATO, thanks. I dont NATO membership is contingent on EU membership anyway, the UK joined the EU relativley late so they were probably NATO members first.

I hope this is a joke.. Yeah, CHINA's the one using too much of the worlds natural resources, this is a BS scenario on multiple levels. -------- And I really doubt there will be a globabl war over Kazakstan and its gas. If China goes to war it will be over the resources in the South China Sea, which every nation in the region ahs a claim to. THere are enough areas of disputed resources that your a lot more likley to see a number of smaller localised conflicts than a globabl war over one region.

China need to keep Russia happy, they have virtually no gas or oil, just a lot of coal. @Spokesperson. You had some good points but you sort of went off of the rails at the end there, Their was most definitely was famine under Stalin, and torture, and mass deportation of populations. The reason some former Soviet states have a large Russian population is because they were resetteld there in communist times as a counterbalance to the more anti-communist populations in the Baltics.

I thought they fixed the grass issue with the new patch? My main complaint would probably be plot and characters, I dont feel attached to or involved in whats going on in the same way I did with OFP. I remember OFP missons having a lot more tension too. Still, if the old campaigns are being converted, we should get the best of both worlds sooner or later.