whisperFFW06

Awesome match by Lyon yesterday \o/

That something I've hard time to understand as being labelled "moral". Saddam did wrong things, very wrong. This is certainly not a moral justification for killing Iraqi civilians. When one ask you "is it moral to kill 100.000+ civilians?", you answer by showing how bad Saddam was and that he did equal if not worst, so we shouldn't complain. Using one's bad behaviour to justify your own is not moral. On the environment issue, you gave great example of how you are ecologist.... in your own land... Kyoto treaty? Oil in Alaska? This is of no concern?

Utopians with some shareholders in key companies... It's a rewarding utopy. I don't believe in utopist leaders... There is none, they seem to all run for their own money, nothing else.

Any death is significant, I haven't seen any figures that would suggest "100,000+" Â Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of Americans. Prove it. Â More death at the hands of the insurgents, yes. Â The insurgents don't seem to share your sympathies with the Iraqi people. A specific scientific group made a study pre and post start of the war, and accounted US/allied operations for 100.000 additional civilian casualties in Iraq. Results were shown last week if I remember well. edited to clearly show casualties counted were civilians and not insurgents/terrorists...

That's not what you initially said. And what you initially said is... scary  I take it's the same for war in Iraq. To serve your sense of American pride... * jaws dropping * You know there have been 100.000 lives lost to serve your sense of American pride? Read : we don't bother for Vietnameses (sp?), it was hard enough for us. Hint : world don't care about your bravery, no need to show us. Iraqis may have ideals too, but who gives a f*** anyway... EDIT : sry for OT

You may want to discuss serious politics at this time, but we are too busy celebrating and feeling joy to get into the details of it. But Schweizer, The reason Bush is so popular despite all those details you mentioned regarding international affairs is because Americans look at everything from one main perspective, that's America and American values and the American way of life. Â Everything we do is intended to serve our country and serve our sense of American pride. I'm not saying we don't care about the dead iraki civilians or vietnam. Â But in our viewpoint vietnam was tough time for America. Â We fought with courage, and lost many lives. Â We lost many soldiers in Irak, but these are only testaments to our courage and bravery as well as our willingness to selfsacrifice for our country. Â That is what it is all about. Â We are fighting in Irak for our ideals. I can't believe I just read that...

Are you sure   , man if thats true i have my fingers crossed.My figures were from BBC. Can't be, numbers are heavily dependant on who throw them, and I'm in France, so... ;)

Yeah they are saying its a difference of 130,000 votes in favour of Bush and the provisional ballots not accounted for yet are somewhere around 150,000 so if Kerry is to win they'd better go his way all of them   , this maybe untrue though i heard it on BBC the numbers are debateable. Btw why havent they accounted for New mexico and Iowa on the BBC site? Heard not counted were around 300.000, for a Bush advance of 130.000

This is done so that vote is not decided by NYC and California alone. It's a (slight?) re-weighting of states, IMHO not so bad.

At least this celebration reminded me Trafalgar was a French loss Well, I don't see why one should get upset. As Igor said, it's something to remember.

To add on Keg's examples, since Razorworks released EECH source-code, 2 ou 3 new builts have been created, enhancing netcode, cockpits rendering, and many other things. Another Flight Simulator has seen its source code released, Battle of Britain, by Rowan Software, and the benefits have been huge, really huge. The new BoB is nothing comparable to the last version pre-release of source code. When you have a tight community behind the game, you can be almost sure that releasing the source code will be beneficial. Problem is : large communities are usually not in agreement over what to do for the game to be better, leading to a bit of a mess on the changes done (see Falcon4 unofficial code release, and the version mess it is today). BoB comunity was not big, and the goals were clear : make a better graphic engine (IL2 and Forgotten Battles had put new standards in Flight Simulations graphics by this time), and enhance the multiplayer experience. Second issue is BIS reusing good chunks of OFP original code. Permitting other pples to do some work in parallel to yours is a bit of shooting in your own foot ;)

US Army vehicles to top quality. Step by step it gets done. Nice job, COMBAT!

The Germans labelled Resistance fighter, SOE and OSS agents as terrorists and were considered as such by the German authority, same for the partisans and their political officers on the eastern front. And the simple answer is who the hell cares what the Nazis thought! Then who the hell cares about what you and the bush fanatics think ? Thank you for indicating you sympathy to the Nazi position in WWII. Avon.... He was just saying the exact opposite ;) Labelling all nmes "terrorist" is a pretty fast way to merge the oppositions into one bucket. Non-terrorists (in other pple eyes) opinion/position can be dissmissed easily by doing so.

I cna't number it but the situation here has greatly improved over the last year or so. And I think that Iraqis are having it much worse than we ever had it. edit: Also, DOR's remarks about what America is going through are quite reasonable when referring to US soldiers in Iraq. And it's not so absurd if you're counting bodies as an indicator, if you just consider the Twin Tower attacks alone. But he sounds like he's referring to attacks on troops in Iraq, where both the quantity of attacks and of casualties are high. I'm pretty sure he is referring to the terrorism menace over US of A. He was just talking about 9/11 when he wrote this. And no, I won't count the bodies as indicator. The number of attempts is IMHO more significative, moreover when it lasts for decades.

IRA? Iparetarak? ETA? Wake up! US is the LATEST state to have known about terrorism, don't come crying no one understands you! These mornings in the subway were you watch people, thinking "he could be the one who planted the bomb yesterday", do you think only Us citizens know them? Europe has been the second target of terrorist groups in the 70's, 80's and early 90's, after Israel. I recon Israel situation is 10x, 100x worst than anywhere else, but saying they are the only one able to understand the "danger Americans face", this is BS. They face way way way stronger danger you can even imagine. And European countries have faced terrorism LIKE YOU NOW for decades. Read what Badgerboys wrote, very good insight of what terrorists are, and why they are so hard to fight. They won't fear being beheaded, in fact they will have won in these cases, in their mind. They'd probably have more fear of perpetual emprisonment.

Tension is rising. I begin to feel a knot inside belly. 3 hours to go....

Ok, I allready had bad feelings about France loosing next match. Now I see Denoir is predicting France winning! With his 50% policy, this can be a serious danger for us!

That's the whole point Albert is trying to make. And exactly what Wenger was saying when commenting. You feel cheated because English Championship is alot tougher than others, and allow this kind of contact on goalkeepers. Unfortunately for you, these are not the rules used during Euro. What I can't understand is english pple blaming Beckham. Guys, you've here one of the top passer in the world, if not the best. Ok, he loves his image, too much, but he stood up for his team during the whole tournament, has been seen pushing his team forward in tough moments, and knew when he played badly and took responsability. I know only a few players who would have done it. Ok, he sucks at penalties Why do you make him kick, then? His talent in the other areas more than make up for the penalties. He defended, passed, covered superb yesterday.

Just nickpicking there, IMHO, that's not really true. The Iraq war sabotaged the war on terror as alienated the Arabs even more, creating more support for terrorists against USA and helping create new terrorists against USA. Iraq under Saddam regime was a strong supporter of palestinian terrorists. War on terror is just redirecting terrorists wrath against USA and supporters.

Wait, wait, wait! I thought US was about freeing people from oppression. How WMD or large scale attacks come into this equation? Part of a good planning would have been, if Iraq rebuilding was the real target, to foresee these insurgencies. Obviously this have been completely missed. In fact, the whole "after the war" conduct of operation seems to be completely lacking.How, about this : Shareholders didn't pay any price. Employees did. I bet that it is considered logical that to be rich, some blood must flow. Just be sure it is not yours.

ROFL!! Sneaky bastard!

IMHO, I saw England play a 8-3 scheme completely defensive, and scoring on the few occasions they had. I personally don't like this style of play, so.... France trying to pound through the double wall of England defense, without imagination or real vision of the game. So they were unsuccessfull. Draw was deserved, France got lucky on the backward pass (poor Gerrard ).

But why do you think it helps? Quite obviously, a great number of people live without needing it's help. Â So, I ask you AGAIN, as you cannot answer the question, why do you think religion is 'needed' to help these people? 1) Because these peoples told me so. Like 2 people did in this thread? 2) Because it's focusing on answering questions nothing else answers, even science, because they are out of scope of science. Doesn't seem like it if you don't know what the dark ages were or the effect religion had on society at the time. In fact, my history teacher always talked about "middle age", I've never heard about "dark ages", apart from Tolkien's books. I agree awefull things were done at this period, like in many other periods (20th century included). But its NOT TRUE. I'll post this again in case you missed it: False hope is worse than the truth Why is it not true? You keep claiming we are the one to prove something (answer given below), but meanwhile give us unsupported assertions like this one. Why is it not true? There is nothing saying that "God doesn't exists" or "there is no life after death". These concepts may seem weird to your "science only" point of view, but saying "they are not true" won't make them dissappear. Sorry to repeat, they are not disproven (far from it, there is not a single scientific fact which would be a beginning of refutal), so it is still possible to believe in them."believe" that's the key word... Which brings the newt point : Food for though... 'Scientifically not disproven' ffs. Â How many times do you need this explained to you? Â THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE BELIEVERS. You are here asking to prove a belief. to prove a belief. Don't you see a huge irony in this sentence? You're waiting for a scientifical proof? But religion is beyond the scope of science. Religion is about the existence of God (a creator) and his effects over human death (mainly), and his effects on human behaviour (by the means of "commands" known by "clerics", these are the debatable points, IMHO, not religion itself). Existence of God and life after death are two things to which science cannot apply, they are beyond any observation, by nature (God being the Creator of the scientific object : the universe). The existence of God is all a matter of belief. You don't believe in it. Others don't either. I don't believe in it. Big deal. Some believe in it. Who am I to tell them that I'm right and they are wrong, when it's all a matter of belief? And why do it? For the hundreds of reasons already stated in this thread? Â Can't you read? As (following my reasoning, sorry to do so) we have no reason to deny religion to people for what IS religion, because it's beyond proof scope and only a matter of belief, we could only deny religion for its consequences. "Dark ages", obscurantism (english word?), etc... First, you're speaking of an age were science was not advanced enough to show anything to people. You're blaming on religion what science was lacking. Strange. Second, if you want to bring up the list of bad things religion brought, we'll end up comparing with the list of bad things science brought. Like the number of deaths caused by eachothers. Pointless, it's just new ways to kill people and new ways to justify the murders. One is not better than the other. Third, just to point out good points on religion's effects, I'll point to arts. Arts mainly developped because of religion.

As I explained, YES IT DID. And further, as I already said: why do you think it is necessary (FOR THEM)? No. A little question: You didn't do history in school? Wait, wait , wait ... This was an explanation? Original sentence : "It is obvious to me that religions help draw the line between good and evil, that one of their primary objectives is to try to make us live together." Our explanation : "Which in no way means that you can't draw this line without religion. Religion helps. And you feel insulted? Sorry, I don't see how..." "As I explained, the sentence never suggested that people need religion to know the difference, but that religion might help them to know the difference. Religion is not a requirement." Your explanation : "Your sentence suggests that people in some way need religion to know the difference between good and evil[...]" See above... "[..]insinuating that people without religion would not know the difference" Where is it "insinuated"? It is not. Why do I/us think it is necessary for them? But we do not think it is NECESSARY! We think it can helps. You see the difference? To your 2nd question : No, I avoided every history courses. I only got to science courses.... ... Of course I did history! Now, you either missed or avoided the end of my post, so I'll repost it, making sure you didn't miss that : Food for though...

Baron, did you bother reading my answer? As I explained, the sentence never suggested that people need religion to know the difference, but that religion might help them to know the difference. Religion is not a requirement. A little "cliché" question : you're from USA?