-Snafu-

So what? We ain't supposed to discuss or criticise?

Your too easy to rile up. Â ORLY? Studied at every educational establishment in the West have we? Also the words exact and propaganda war don't need " around them. Intentionally? Nobody is that stupid. Georgians fired into the Russian border?

You can't read. It says 67%. Not that it changes the main point. Also it does not say why they want it back which would have made it more useful. No you didn't say but my point still stands. Pray tell. That's a general overview of the events which is not even what I questioned. Â Â Nobody really knows exactly what happened or what's happening. Like how those Peacekeepers got hit or if Georgia actually committed ethnic cleansing. Anyway this is what I originally questioned: My bold. The whole situation is a cluster fuck. I think it's pretty hard to tell who is right and wrong in this especially given the fact that both countries scrambled very quickly to the world media to shed good light on themselves and bad light on the other. Check this out. Thanks for admitting your full of shit. Didn't answer the original question. Yet another troll post. Oh and most people here don't seem to care what you think. EDIT: From linked article above: Your basing that off one person? LOL I knew about it and many others such as my friends and people I have seen post on other forums.

This report pretty much sums up the current blame game that's going on. Linky From above article:

Where do you get 70% from in that poll? Also questions like this do not belong in polls as you have to select from x amount of answers which in turn means that it's not really a respondents own opinion. Questions like that need to answered properly. 40% is not a majority. Why can't you understand that's it is too early to tell what exactly happened? Unless of course you managed to obtain leave from the Russian/Georgian/Ossetian forces and find a working internet connection to post all that. I bet that all these facts that you have will change in due time as the world finds out what and when everything actually went down. Right now it's just Georgia and Russia accusing each other of doing this and that. I'm not backing Georgia here. I think their assault was a stupid decision. Lol, you are so full of shit. Walk in here like you know everything and you look down your nose at us. Pathetic. Agenda? What the hell are you smoking? I am not a member of the Secret Service. Agenda! LMAO. God you are so paranoid. Do you wear a tin foil hat? What the fuck has Her Majesty got to do with all this?

If you are going to present figure site a credible source otherwise your entire argument becomes a load of bullshit and chips. Source? I don't see how it's clear to you especially when there's a lot of conflicting reports on the situation and nobody really knows what exactly is going. Oh wait your Spokesperson, you of course know everything and is never wrong! /sarcasm

Well that's one way London could top it.

Find one then. Quite a strange excuse there. If you are not going to back your claim up then why bother arguing it? Rather pointless. I have read more than one opinion. It's widely regarded that there was a balance of power and I have never read anything that actively counters that. Treaties, arms race to keep up with each other. The saying is that Europe was divided into 'two armed camps'. Not 'two armed camps with one slightly more powerful than the other.' I have read more than one 'opinion'. The notion that there was a balance of power is widely accepted. Google WW1 causes balance of power, you will find plenty of information. Immediately before WW1 there was a balance of power on the continent where no one power dominated. This situation had the potential for change when war broke out, if Germany overran the continent it would dominate it and thus the balance of power would change and not in Britain's favour. We were not talking about buffer zones or alliances before but your idea that a balance of power will always equal peace.

The presentation was great and I'm looking forward to OFP2's release. However I noticed the same thing as SaBrE_UK did. Particularly this bit: He didn't actually answer the question. So they might not have scripts or he wasn't really sure what the guy was on about (which I doubt if they have done research into this community).

It's great to see British forces being created/in a game but to have an addon with a local connection is brilliant. My Grandfather trained with the Gordons for 6 weeks when he did his National Service, then he got punted into the artillery. He never got any of his original choices. I'll reinforce what da12thMonkey said. Your attention to detail is excellent.

Yes I do believe that. After all the author is a Military Historian who taught at RMA Sandhurst and now works freelance with some universities as well as the Norwegian Air force Academy at Trondheim. Of course why listen to a man who studies these things for a living? Might as well believe what you want when you have not even looked that in depth into the subject. Easier to do that than admit to being wrong. Those alliances were made to create that balance of power and in the words of Edmund Blackadder, "It was ballocks." @ scubaman3D It's about the notion that Baff1 holds about a balance of power leading to peace. I am simply pointing that this is not always the case. Attempting to create a balance of power and actually achieving a balance of power are not to be confused. There are many many historians out there. They be no means all agree. Yes there are many historians out there. But can you find one who disagrees? What evidence have you got that you can say "this was not the way it happened"? The alliances were made to create a balance of power. That is fact. Germany's rising power led to France creating a treaty with Russia in order to balance the power. A-H created a treaty with Germany to create a balance between it and Russia and so on and so forth. In WW1 they believed that peace would be kept by a BALANCE OF POWER between the two alliance blocks. Clearly a balance of power may not equal peace. It's too simplistic. A balance of power can cause tension which can lead to war. In other cases it can create peace. It all depends on the prevailing circumstances of the situation.

Yes I do believe that. After all the author is a Military Historian who taught at RMA Sandhurst and now works freelance with some universities as well as the Norwegian Air force Academy at Trondheim. Of course why listen to a man who studies these things for a living? Might as well believe what you want when you have not even looked that in depth into the subject. Easier to do that than admit to being wrong. Those alliances were made to create that balance of power and in the words of Edmund Blackadder, "It was ballocks." @ scubaman3D It's about the notion that Baff1 holds about a balance of power leading to peace. I am simply pointing that this is not always the case.

"The most significant of these was in the relationship between the Great Powers, where a balance of power had been created that had resulted in instability. Perhaps surprisingly, a balance of power need not produce stability, any more than an imbalance of power need produce war." Source: World War I by H.P. Willmott

A balance of power does not necessarily mean that there will be peace. Unbalanced power does not mean that there will be war. In the late 1800's and early 1900's there was a balance of power and we all know what happened next. Men of all ages and social class were slogging it out in muddy trenches, desert, jungle and sea.

Why? Just curious.

Thank you for the clarification. That's all I wanted.

Source? Or is this going to be like your last post?

@ Kolt If you are not going to take the post seriously then don't bother posting. PS For fuck sake it's the UK not England.

Things seem to be moving quickly: Two Aircraft Downed Russia moves into South Ossetia Reports that Russian peacekeepers have been wounded.

Do you fly with those graphic settings or is that just for screenshots?

I got a PS3 when GTAIV came out (I wasn't tricked) I just prefer the GTA series on a console. I tried a friends GTA San Andreas on a PC and just didn't like it. It runs fine on the PS3 40GB system with an HD TV, albeit a small one, it only stutters with a load of explosions going one at one point. I wonder when there will be a law against stupidity. Better ban films and music involving robberies as well... Â *cough* *ahem*

That vid was friggin' awesome! I must get FSX! Any other recommended addons apart from FS Global?

Good to hear. Spearhead is a refreshing change from all the Yank stuff. Generic or a specific regiment?

I was thinking of getting FSX ,how good is it exactly, strong points weak points etc? What is the modding community like? I already have IL2 but I want a flight sim that focuses on a more modern era. Anybody got any other recommendations? I'm looking for something that's not too realistic (in that you don't have to read a gigantic manual before you can even play the game). Very nice shots Ingram!

Slandering was a bit harsh, sorry about that. You have a good point. I like realism as much as the next guy, for me, it depends on how this revive thing is implemented. - Relatively realistic - Optional