-Snafu-

I was compelled to post this here after I found it. Read it if you fancy a laugh. Linky

If you want to read an attitude into it that wasn't there, fine... I won't follow you down that road, though. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The question is more oriented towards why it shows up in the action menu versus it showing up as an icon on screen, already selected. The winking smiley suggests he was saying that comment in jest or in a light hearted way. No need to take it seriously. Second of all if I remember correctly people complained about the action popping up in front of them so q11 switched it to the action menu (maybe I imagined it.). The answer is probably in this thread somewhere. Have a read through and see.

I downloaded the demo a few days ago and completed the level on all difficulties. I liked COD and CODUO for the singleplayer and multiplayer. Me and a couple mates would join a server and just have some fun. The multiplayer was excellent. However I'm not really warming to COD4. It just felt like a well made mod for COD/UO to me. It was almost the same with some differences ie the setting, reload anims etc. Even the demo level reminded me of a mission in COD where you run through that French village blowing up AA guns. I was expecting it to be different. I don't know what MP is like. Can anyone fill me in on MP?

That was brilliant! Cheered me right up!

I'm assuming it has something to do with the TV series?

Thanks Q1184. Looking forward to see it in action. @R71 According to History Channel's 'Shootout' that jam was caused by a casing not ejecting properly. All he would have needed to do was just hit the casing out with his hand and job done. Don't mock the rifle for the users lack of knowledge on how to operate it. Could be a different incident though. Remember 'a bad worker always blames his tools.'

Unfortunatly FileFront is the only mirror I got, Its that only upload service that i'm a part of, If you can provide other websites like filefront I'll join and upload there. If you send ofp.info an e-mail they might upload your mod to thier sight or just PM one of thier members here.

I'm no scripter but would it be possible to set the probability of a jam to the skill level of a unit? For example a unit with a very low skill level would be more likely to have his weapon jam because they may be inexperienced, lack of maintenance etc. while a high skilled unit would have less chance of a jam. I don't know if this would be the right way to go. Just putting my idea out there.

17 USD!!! Thats less than 8 Pound Sterling. I was robbed??? Mine cost 19.99 Sterling. Same with me. I thought it was too much so I took it back and decided to try HMV. Got it for 17.99, still a bit much I think. Nonetheless I'm outraged. (Funny thing is in Game ArmA also cost 19.99)

Everything that happens is rational. People didn't know the results beforehand. At that time, with the information available, it was the only rational option. Countries don't always profit from wars, but capitalists are. And capitalists were and are those who rule the UK. US companies profit from oil in Afghanistan and Iraq. They profit from security contracts and projects to name a few examples. In the end it's also beneficial for the economy of the US. In geopolitics everything can be reduced to economy. Because economy is power. Again, an appeal to authority. X has read 100 books. X claims P. Therefore X must be correct. So the argument is, he's read 100 books and therefore he's correct. Where's the argumentation?? Where are the facts and arguments? I too can claim I read 101 books. It will be a debate about an amount of books not the facts. Only they are interesting. Conclusions are based on facts, not on an amount of read books. "God created the world. Therefore his opinion must be correct. " "That's correct because I read the bible". Really? So if history can't be explained in scientific terms it must be magic of some sort? Isn't that what harry potter is about? I did at least three times. Wikipedia, angus-reid and that essay. You'll have to cite your lecturers if that's the case. You can't just claim something. And lecturers don't have to be correct just because they are lecturers. The only thing that is relevant is a persons arguments. You posted quotes with statements without arguments and facts. What if?-cases are fiction and can't be base for any science. What is what if? in marxism? In marxism there are theories just like the one of gravity. It's scientific analysis, objectivity, reproductionability, observations, hypotheses and conclusions based on facts. Whatever, believe what you want but it's saturday and I've got more important things to do than argue on a forum. Last points You claim to be deterministic. Consequenty if he has researched this area more then they will know more than you, they also have qualifications in it etc. If they were not of a ceratin standard then they would have not gotten a job at a university. Fits perfectly with your deterministic nature logic. If it was a media studies lecturer then fair do's but he isn't. You appeal to authority as well when you argue your points of view by citing Marx just because he has looked into society more than me. And yet again I have never claimed them to be 100% right just that they will ahve a better understanding. Prussia - Seems it was a misunderstanding, when you said it was at war with the UK in WW1 or something along that lines, I didn't understand this. As Prussia was not independent after unification. After unification it was Germany. I did not deny it's existance. But it was Germany that went to war not the Prussian state alone. Oh and Marxism is a sociological theory thus it is not fact. It is a theory on society as is functionalism, neo-marxism, liberal feminism, radical feminism etc. They use various research methods to try and prove themselves but they are always wrong in some areas or do not make sense in some areas. Sociology is about looking into how society works, everything is open to interpretation and nothing is taken for granted. Just like alternate history but unlike science. In addition gravity is not a theory, it is known.

Germany was not known as Prussia, but Prussia was. The Kingdom of Prussia, a state in the german empire, existed from 1701 to 1918. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia It no mix of periods at all. You're mistaken. It was fully rational even if it led to a speed up of the decline, if it did. Rationality doesn't automatically imply the optimal results. The British Empire had to enter the war because of many reasons (geopolitics, trade etc) and it did. Winning the war could mean a different geopolitical situation. No arms race, new markets, less expenses. And the war had its capitalist profiteers. They didn't have to pay the price of war. Those who earned money on guns and other peoples' deaths. You didn't provide any arguments from your academic sources. Just statements (without proper backing). No reasoning. At least the wikipedia excerpt gives reasons and facts. Your "academic" "what-if" Tolkien/Bible/Harry Potter sentence quotes don't say anything. Because it's speculation based on some alleged facts. "What if" can never be scientific no matter the facts. The facts is what lead to the reality as we know it. Changing reality requires a change of prerequisites, that is, including facts. And when you change a fact you get fiction. "Science" based on fiction is no science. Everything that has happened has been inevitable. Everything that will happen is inevitable. Chemical processes are deterministic and leaves no room for souls or free will. Not always. The US has done well economically before thanks to wars and its military force. Same thing with britain before. WW2 had the WW1 effects repeated. Economic crises and problems are reasons for many wars. But economy is the reason for them all. People don't enter or start wars if they don't think they can benefit from them. If the wars go well, the crises are solved for a while. If not, it deepens and there's revolution for instance. About Gavrilo. Yes he wasn't the real cause for the war. That's why I pointed out that the arms race started before he fired his gun. That's precisely an appeal to authority. You present no arguments or facts. Just say that a phd/god/the leader knows best. You're avoiding the debate about the arguments and facts that way. The ruin came after the war. When there was no demand for military supplies or materials and no need for war time military production, unemployment grew. And did that until the end of the depression and finally the start of the ww2. "The United Kingdom is in the relatively unusual position that it is possible to measure nineteenth-century real GNP using all three variants of the national income procedure - the income approach, the expenditure approach, and the value added approach. Unfortunately, there are some marked inconsistencies between them, most notably in the period from the mid-nineties to the First World War. The income-based estimates record a striking slowdown in the progress of real incomes, and this is strongly supported by other indicators, for example the abnormally high level of industrial unrest and other signs of social and political discontent." "Measuring the growth of industrial production in the UK, 1851-1907" Feinstein. That should at least give a hint about a pre-war economy on decline. That's a crisis. Prussia - The wikipedia article you pointed out to me proves you wrong. Emphasis on German Empire. How could it be rational when the economy was exhausted by war? A major war is incredibly expenisve to pay for and when it is over a number of years it is going to do some serious damage to the economy, bankrupt the nation and put it in debt to other nations. How that is rational for the economy makes absolute no sense. It also exhausted the industry. All countries in the war except the USA had shit economies. What you were saying earlier on in the thread was that the economy was the basis of every decision so the capitalists/upper classes/whatever can make more money. So one would assume Britain would only take action which benefited the economy as a whole and did not exhaust it. Evidence of an economic crises in the UK before WW1 please. Britain didn't benefit from WW1 and it certainly didn't go very well for them. The armies on the Western Front barley moved during most of the war. Albiet at the beginning and the end. Eh no. They spend 100's of hours reading books, going over sources, writing essays etc. on the subject. Thus they are bound to have better knowledge than you. All you do is a 5 min search on shitipedia. You never present any reliable evidence for you arguments. and I'm not avoiding, I've countered nigh on all your points. For the 50th time I already said Great Britain was in relative decline before the war. How much times do I need to repeat myself? Relative decline + WW1 = Speed in decline and exhausted economy = USA world economic leader in 1918. Put in a scientific way there since that's what you think history is - science. Â How that shows the economy was the basis for Britains decision to got to war does not make sense at all. While the USA stayed out of most of the war and had an economic boom during it. History is not science. History isn't comprised of formulae. I'm not arguing that history is scientific. What a load of crap. And wikipedia is reliable? Â And you have never citied any sources to back up your arguments. My arguments were the arguments of my lecturers and that What If? book that provided solid fact as well as possible scenarios. I lraedy explained the one about the lecturers. Stop ignoring points that don't fit in with your 'vision'. My sources were written by an academic. It's his job. Wikipedia isn't relaible or a trusted academic sources as it can be edited by anyone. Moreover some of those outcomes would have been pretty likely. For example Germany just taking some land from France and making them pay for reparations etc. As that is what basically happened at the end of the Franco-Prussian war. Afterall WW1 was still the age of imperialism that the Franco-Prussian war was in. Moreover Marxism is also a What if? It isn't solid evidence of anything. It's just simply his thoughts. So is also load of fairytale/harry potter bullshit. Which it is. Some of the statements I put up were not what if. I'll repeat them again. (You Marxists just love ignoring things that don't fit in with your arguments.) This hows that an involvement in a major European war would damage Britains economy. Something the 'capitalists' in that contry would not want as they would make more money if Britain was not in a war. Moreover arms makers were already producing weapons for an arms race so there was no need for a war for that particular group to make dosh. Basically what is said here is that World War 1 bankrupted Britain. No overall economic benefit at all. Don't see how this one needs explaining...but you asked for it. I'm done arguing with you, You ignore arguments that disprove you, try to change the argument, constantly cite 'facts' from Wikipedia, repeat arguments over again thus I have to repeat myself again, inherently biased with your marxist 'vision', think history is science and that events are inevitable. (load of crap). Oh and refuse to accept the fact that you do not know everything. But if you feel the need to reply PM me and lets stop using this thread for our own personal debate.

I suppose it won't be long before the Game Banning Brigade jump on this latest incident?

Well, the war surely cost a lot for the tax payers, but without a war a crisis would've erupted later on. High and rising unemployment, low demand, low production, no investments. The demand for war materials was profitable for some and boosted much of the economy (just like in any wars where industrial losses are few). It got people employed, and busy with the war. Thus the crisis was avoided (but at a high stake). If the balance of power is disrupted there's war. It is an appeal to authority ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority ) because you're not presenting their arguments. There are many phd's who are of an opposite opinion. It doesn't say anything. What ifs are irrelevant as well. If you have a determinist view of nature and thus history there can be no "what ifs". If "scientists" talk about what ifs they are very unscientific. What if 2+2 was 5? Yes it is a mix of periods again. It was not known as Prussia, since the states were united it was called Germany i.e. The German Empire. You corrected me when I called Marxism an 'ideology'. Just doing the same thing to you. What is this truth of exploitation got to do with it? Stop by passing the argument at hand. (Doubt you know the truth anyway) I bet Northern Ireland was glad to be part of Britain when Eire was suffering economic depression. I already said numerous times before that the US was economic leader of the world before WW1 but Britain was still the superpower. Do you not pay attention? I already said Britain was in relative decline before the war for feck sake. And that the US was starting to take over. You said that it was a rational economic decision for Britain to enter World War 1. Which makes no sense as the war speeded up it's decline. And don't trust wikipedia, at least my arguments are from proper academic sources and not a site which anyone can edit. There was nothing inevitable about WW1. For example if Germany had won an early victory it would have not turned into a global war but a European one. Yes the arms race did start way before, but there were many causes ie outcome of Franco-Prussian War, web of treaties, socio-economic factors within Germany etc. Oh and saying that Gavrilo Princip caused the war by killing Archduke Ferdinand is wrong, the powder keg was already there, he simply lit it. He was not the definitive factor in causing the war. What I meant is that the economy would have had a boost staying out of the war. Most countries that stay out of wars tend to do well economically. Britain could have sold arms, industrial goods etc. to the nations which were at war. How do you even know the employmewnt situation was before WW1? How do you know there was low demand? How do you know there was low production? How do you know there was low investments? My point is that you don't. You do not even provide sources for these...these..."facts". Anyway it sounds more like the 1930's your describing and even if it was it's a woeful one at best. What crisis are you on about? What crisis was avoided? (rhetorical questions by the way) If the balance of power is disrupted there is not always a war. I didn't see Britain go to war with America when they lost their golbal superpower status. We were not bombing American cities, or engaging the US Navy after we were forced out of Suez by the US. For the last time it's not an appeal to authority. It was to show that you that you are not always *gasp* right and that someone who spends their life studying this area may know more than *gasp* you. I'll repeat myself to make sure the message is hammered home. The reason I said that my knowledge comes from experts in 20th Century Europe was to a) show my knowledge is reliable and accurate. b) Show that as they are experts in thier field it is their life to study and research this area and thus they will know more on 20th Cent. Europe than you could ever possibly hope to know Not presenting their arguments? Where do you think I have been getting my arguments from? Thus it does say something and I will repeat it again. The reason I said that my knowledge comes from experts in 20th Century Europe was to a) show my knowledge is reliable and accurate. b) Show that as they are experts in thier field it is their life to study and research this area and thus they will know more on 20th Cent. Europe than you could ever possibly hope to know. In case you don't understand they know 20th Century history more than you do. Regardless of people of the other opinion. Even historians on the other opinion will agree that Britain's economy was ruined after WW1, it is not open to interpretation. Britain's economy was ruined by the war. End of. Why are you going on about What If's for? I believe you have forgotten what we have been arguing about. Lets take a little look again. You said that all decisions are based upon economy and are thus rational or something along that lines. I have then showed (numerous times) using Great Britains entry into the war as an example that this is simply not the case. Using arguments and points from History lecturers and a historical expert on WW1 that Britain's economy was ruined because of the war. And I don't have a determinist view of nature. Science and Politics, History etc. are very different things. They are nowhere near as uniform as science. Thus this point makes no sense. History could have gone very differently for the sake of a few things. Annie Oakley could have easily shot the Kaiser. The driver of Archduke Ferdinand's car simply took a wrong turn and landed up on the street that Princip was in. He was just simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. We are going round in circles. I have repated my arguments god knows how many times. Basically people can either go with me who has presented arguments by historians specialising in the field of 20th Cent. Europe and WW1 or Spokesperson.

The UK would not have lost it's superpower status way before. Please stop rattling off whatever comes into your head. Yes the UK didn't fight the war because it was fun. Looks like your getting somewhere Spokesperson. Prussia? Looks like your getting different periods of history mixed up again. And it was Austria-Hungary by the way. Britains power would not have been reduced as it's economy would have stayed strong. The economy would have recieved a boost from the war. Britain's Empire would remain in tact and not be threatened, thus remaining the global superpower most likely past 1945 as there would have been no WW2. The balance of power may have been disrupted in Europe, so what? Britain would have stiil remained the worlds superpower. Your arguments certainly don't come from God. From you 'knowledge' of WW1 and history it is very clear that your arguments are made up by you on the spot. Saying my knowledge comes from people with PHD's is not an 'appeal to auhtority' (whatever that means) or an attempt to bypass argumentation as a whole. Which makes no sense as I have argued my points repeatedly in a clear manner. The reason I said that my knowledge comes from experts in 20th Century Europe was to a) show my knowledge is reliable and accurate. b) Show that as they are experts in thier field it is their life to study and research this area and thus they will know more on 20th Cent. Europe than you could ever possibly hope to know. Sources? Okay. The Collected What If? Eminent Historians Imagine Might What Have Been The What Ifs Of 1914 by Robert Cowley. Robert Cowley, the founding editor of MHQ: The Quarterly Journal Of Military History and the editor of this book, is an expert on World War 1. Here are some extracts from the first essay. England Stays Out Another essay from Cowley. The Brigadier and the Private Another extract froma different essay. Postscript: Falkenhayn's Despair Germany Wins the Marne...If There Is a Marne Doesn't look to me that WW1 was a rational socio-economic decision for Britain. Here we have a world expert on WW1 pointing out time and time again that Britain would have been far better off economically had it stayed out of the war or if it had joined but gotten out early.

No, if you can build new flats you could build new houses at that location instead. But it's less profitable. Haven't you got the SNP in charge? In european terms that party is pretty much left. By paying I mean, is all your education free? Student flats might be big bucks but usually there are things that generate more bucks. My point is that money rules, not people. Money doesn't represent the needs per capita (but sometimes it does reflect the needs of a majority). Student flats was just one thing I could come up because I read about it last week. It's a hot subject as the price of all kinds of houses are at record heights world wide at the moment. There was very much so. Britain had huge unemployment and an economic crisis more or less. The war created a demand for military equipment. Money was invested in the military industry. Loads of jobs were created. The economic crisis ended. Wars are profitable for some. There's a great Bob Dylan song about those "some" guy btw. Well, Marx hinted that capitalism would collapse eventually. Observations prove him right so far. There's a tendency of the rate of profit to fall for instance. The fall of capitalism will likely not depend on class consiousness but the creation of socialism will. Higher standards and education doesn't mean class divisions have been reduced. Class is not primarily about your standard of living. It's about power. About who's doing what in society. Taken as a whole, it is very rational. There are trends and tendencies that depend on a lot of decision makers finding rational ways of doing things. Money is usually a measure of _economic_ rationality and it guides the way. Your reasoning about that we should've had socialism by now if history was rational, is irrational. Development takes time and is linear. One thing leads to another. There's a time and place for everything. So you can't just jump from slavery to capitalism. Or from feodalism to socialism. Capitalism and the bourgeoisie ended the era of feodalism. There's also a time for when socialism and the proletariat ends the era of capitalism. And one day the majority will be free and rule (that's the communist stage). If you look at history conflict is the only thing that has changed the very structure of society. One class replaces another. There are always situations when those who got power don't want to give it to others. When interests conflict. That leads to violence and it's why there's so much violence. Flats: Right so we just flatten an entire city block, move lots of people and businesses to another area and build some houses. lol. If you have not got enough room to build around you then build up. The SNP is only one seat ahead of Labour, it is a minority but Salmond is First Minister though. I don't really understand your 'European terms' comment. They are only socialist in some aspects, I have a list of their policies in one of my Politics folders that proves this. Most parties are more or less the same, being of the left wing I thought you would have agreed with me on this one. Yes my education is free for primary, secondary and university. Student flats are profitable. A block of student flats, with 4-6 students to one flat, 70-100 pounds for each student and say about 200 students in one block and say about 15 blocks for one university (this is just an example do not take these figures for fact). WW1: You seem to be talking about WW2 here when you mention 'huge unemployment' and 'economic crisis'. WW1 borught no economic benefit at all, Britain was in relative decline before the war and the war accelerated this. It would have made clear economic sense not to get involved in the war because a) They would keep their global superpower status and thus control of important parts of the world b) Countries that do not get involved in wars tend to do very well economically c) They would have kept all of their workers rather than have some of them dying in warfare. Moreover at the end of WW1 the economy of Britain was exhausted as was all the other countries that were involved bar the USA which did extremely well out of the war (and they did not want to get involved in the first place). Consequently it would have made economic sense for the entire country, businesses etc not to support the war. Therefore you are completely and utterly wrong in your argument here. History and politics are not rational at all. Are all decisons rational? No. Was the reasons for WW1 rational? No, there are numerous reasons and they run very deep into the history of those countries and their socio-economic factors. The majority of things are not rational or logical or simple. It was not my reasoning that socialism should be next, thats yours. Oh and slavery and capitlaism are not comparable, they are two different things by the way. Moreover you cannot not possibly know if socialism will be 'next' some other system, ideology whatever may be developed. In addition your claim that the majority will eventually be free and rule does not make sense to me. I thought that earlier on you were talking about how the rule of the majority was bad.

Oh those evil people! How dare they make money!

It's true. And they are not mysterious, they look and talk just like you and me. There are many reasons why one would like a flat more. Say you get a flat in the middle of a big city. (where there are no houses, because flats generate more income per m^2). Yet another rational economic decision. Companies employ mathematicians just for these purposes. But there are places where you have to pay? Besides the scottish government is more socialist than the London government. Well, naturally it does. But the reasons behind nationalism and (organized) religion are of a purely economic basis. History has taught us that economy is the base of everything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism as opposed to idealism. But the reasons flats are built is that there is not enough room in a city to build houses. That is why houses are situated on the outskirts. What do you mean by places where you have to pay? In Scotland there is an government organisation called SAAS that judges if you are eligible for other things to get paid for ie student flats. And believe me, student flats are big bucks. Â Moreover the Scottish gov. is only a bit more socialist in some aspects, most parties remain largely similar. But it is stupid place a huge amount of emphasis on economic factors. The view that this economic infrastructure determines the superstructure is oversimplifying and mis-understanding the influence of other aspects of society such as gender, ethnicity and nationalism. History has not taught us that the economy is the basis of everything. Â For example WW1. There was no economic benefit to Britain at all for taking part in WW1. Britain was in a state of relative decline before the war and the war was simply a catlyst for this decline. Thus at the end of the war Britain had lost it's place of world economic power to the USA. It wasn't until the end of WW2 that Britain had largely lost it's place as the global superpower. In fact had Britain not participated in WW1 it may have kept it's world power status past 1945 which would have been no significant year. Moreover the survival of capitalism suggests that many members of the proletariat, far from being ignorant of the system within which they exist, are fully aware, and have a well developed class consciousness; which had led them to recognise that the existing capitalist system may be to their benefit. Therefore in areas such as the education system, Marxism is criticised for ignoring the progress that has been made in overcoming social class divisions. For example the number of people gaining access to further education in Britain has risen from 8% in the '80's to well over 40% in the first decade of the 21st century. Edit: And how is it rational that Socialism is next? History and politics are not always rational. This isn't maths where 2+2 will always equal 4. If history really were rational/logical then most countries should be socilaist at this point in time. Moreover this idea that socitey will always change through conflict is another weakness of Marxism. Such a view underestimates the ability and freedom of people to take decisions which shape their own destiny.

I doubt it's only flats that are being built for the 'elite'. Anyway if these mysterious people are so powerful why would they want a flat? You would think these people you are describing live in castles, stopping production of bread and enabling production of diamonds. Actually no I do not pay for my education. The Scottish Government does. Primary, Secondary and University. McWrong, nationalism does matter as does religion etc. Saying that it doesn't is utter nonsense. Again, economy is not the only thing that matters. History has taught us these things. Edit: Oh yeah Cuba is such a welcoming and friendly nation. How nice of them to kick people out of their country, put them on un-seaworthy boats in rough ocean and send them 90 miles to Florida.

Sweet, did you use any scripts for that? Anyhoo I was also testing out a mission of mine where a small US squad ambushes a SLA convoy. Using Cameron McDonald's excellent ACU guys and the updated BTR-80 by Mecha Stalin. As an AT solider I whipped out my M136 and fired at a BTR-80 but the shot missed. I hit the deck and switched to 3rd person view to watch the bullets fly over my head. Each one missed except the last which I saw clip off the back of the M136. Very cool.

Huh? In Britain student flats are everywhere as well as students. At Aberdeen University there are 14000 registered students (my town only has a pop. of about 10000) with a big chunk in student flats. Companies and the University make plenty of money that way. Don't know where this houses for the elite is coming from, this isn't early 1900's Tsarist Russia. Also a lot of bread here as well. Lots more than diamonds. Oh and when you said that your an "internationalist". Rubbish, nationalism always plays a part. A big weakness of Marxist theory is that it largely ignores everything bar the economy and that is a prime example.

Go on to ofp.info and type in OPGWC into the search box. Download it and then download the update. Run the mod and check for the challenger 1.

And you are supposed a good representative of the people? Since you got the internet and play this game you can't possibly be. What is your ideology? Marxism? Socialism? or some other 'ism? If you remember Marxism he saw the bourgeois as the people who owned the means of production. Not someone who had luxury items.

It's uncanny. Nice work Boss.

Does this mean that you used his method where he replaced the default heads with Llauma's so it would be script free?

Rome wasn't built in a day and BAE is a highly profitable company. Export orders for the Hawk, the Tornado and the Typhoon have paid for all the RAF's procurements of these aircrafts four times over. BAE is privately funded and a highly successful international company. Ther government doesn't give BAE money. BAE makes money. It gives the government money in the form of taxation. BAE is one of Britains most profitable companies. Not to mention a world leader in technical excellence. British naval procurements for the Iraq war have been in my eyes extremely weak. Shameful even. The Persian Gulf is the most heavily mined area of sea in the world, and we have just mmothballed all our minesweepers and are attempting to sell them off. We also suffer from a shortage of shallow keeled vessels which was part of the problem which resulted in the capture of British Marines by Iran forces. The larger vessel was not capable of keeping close to the boarding party due to the depth of the water. With reagrds to the RAF and close air support, there is a definite hole in their equipment for this role. Primarily we have allowed the U.S. to provide this for us for too long. The apache is going a long way to rectify this shortfall. In my opinion cheap and cheerful aircraft such as the Pucara used by the Argentines would be a useful and cost effective assets. Using interceptors for this role is cetainly better than nothing, and an improvement on what we have, but it it less than ideal and not necessarily the most cost effective or battle efficient solution. They fly too fast. Some sort of converted C-130 wouldn't go amisss either. See European Thread.