Albert Schweitzer

The funny thing is that in the end the entire election will not depend on who is the favoured candidate by the people but who is favoured by the election infrastructure. There is a grea amount of citizens that will once again be rejected by the local election-center because their registration is not accepted. Secondly there are to electronical voting machines .... which, if something goes wrong, will never be able to offer a chance for a second counting. Then there are those voting sheets from abroad. Some are being flown in (favourably military) others are deliberately delayed ... (US institutional workers abroad). It has been like this in the past and it will be like that once again. So I am quite amused about all this seriousness in the debates, if, in the end... organisational skills will decide how acccurate vote is. Keep arguing ... but make sure you know how to vote ...

No No No, that is insultive to Xpand. It definetly is no arcadish game ... I admit it has these options too but in the ordinary campaign mode it is a serious racing game. Difficulty wise it is easier indeed but NOT unrealistic... dont these look neat? this guy has trouble and the price is 35 vs 40 Euro. Okay, not a great difference ... but still

sorry, that is what I meant

Okay I tried both games in demo-mode. And Xpand is graphic-wise much better. Secondly, I know there is reason to disagree with me, but I think it even is harder than RBR. Maybe not in expert mode but definetly in all others. The tracks are far more detailed and the roads and the vehicule has better reflection, shadows and better sounds. Please bother to try both before judging. I prefer Xpand.

pretty awesome video. Just imagine you are one of the people enjoying some sunshine while swimming in the sea. and then this happens Here is the corresponding article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnew....430.stm (I hope you people can watch the movie without having to log in). Otherwise drop me a note.

okay, so artillery can actually be pretty precise! I just learned that ... "If collateral damage and the death of civilian non-combatants is not an issue, then Field Artillery should be employed to their maximum lethality prior to friendly forces entering the MOUT environment. Field Artillery can be very effective when used to deliver laser guided munitions against known enemy fortifications, delay or concrete piercing fuzes also can provide excellent penetration of reinforced structures, fuze time can be adjusted and used against personnel in the streets or on rooftops." THat I didnt know either! I thought only missiles have this capability.

come to the Point senior Denoir, how precise is such a thing? In what radius do you blow everything to dust? In what radius will houses collapse? And how many meters error margin? Â (do you realy believe they are shooting with laser guided shells there? )

Have you ever had experience with artillery pieces?  Do you think it's just point and shoot?  I myself have never had experience with one either, so I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I'm sure our military is better at that knowledge and can get a round probobaly 10-15 feet from the initial target. But sure, keep saying I live in a fantasy land , it hurts, it really hurts  Civilian casualties are going to be a factor in war, there is no way you're going to avoid them in an urban setting, especially when large explosives are used, this isn't a war that is going to be fought on large amounts of flat land, but door to door, but I should have to tell you people this, because you probably know this . Wilco, look at that angle of the artillery. A bullet doesnt fly straight up and comes straight down. it flies in a curve. So if you shoot artillery inside a village you cant precisely hit a target without knowing whether you hit the house in front of it, the target itself, or the house behind it. But I must admit I dont realy know much about artillery fire. However this thing doesnt realy look like a precision weapon does it? Maybe someone else can help. And civillian casualties are never ever acceptable. In a realistic scenario they happen but you should never ACCEPT a certain percentage, especially not if you claim to liberate the people. You have to proof to them that the world is better off without Saddam than without americans.

I want the Fennek as a civillian version, It would surely look great. And this thing has REAL armour

?? No, that is my inpolite temper Didnt you read that? I have no problems with those believing in Bush, however if they start offending europe my pulse rises. Cant help it No, I am realistic. Right now, you should have no problem to return to the UN and ask for support. After all you are a paying member. HOWEVER the UN is an independant body and wont accept to be abused by a nation, by that I mean to stand under somebody elses command. It might not get a lot better, but it might also do. Can it get worse than it is right now?

Nor is it in anyones interest to let the americans down. How many of your soldiers in Iraq have understood that the conflict is currently out of control? I bet a lot.

I love that On that picture Bals doesnt look like he wants to solve the worlds problems but is looking for trouble instead. "who can I shoot with that thing in my hand... wait dont run away... I cant properly aim at you like that..!"

I think he wasnt so wrong after all. First of all the UN WOULD send troops if it was given the appropriate mandate. The UN is not just a melting pot of first,second and third world countries, but it is a powerful tool if the US is able to put pressure on it (in a polite way). First of all there are nations like germany that wont send troops, not because the politicians but because of a population very sensitive to sending soldiers once again into war. But, what countries like germany CAN do and are ALREADY Â doing is sending the right equipment. Currently a number of advanced light tanks is on the way into the middle East. Those tanks will not be filled with german soldiers but probably with those of arab nations. Several other arab nations can be pushed into involving themselves if the UN pressures them. And believe me the UN has enough power to do that. And seriously you would be surprised of the amount of capabilities the french army has. But they will only move a finger if under UN command. They would never again accept to be given orders by american generals. There are dozens of nations whose capabilities are pretty limited but definetly better able to function in combat than iraqis. Besides, dont forget that an iraqi coalition soldier has a family, relatives and friends. Currently many of them fear for their life because their environment knows that they are fighting maybe on the wrong side. I am convinced that they would flip-flop sides depending on who pays more... they are still arabs and dont like to fight their brothers... But they do it for their living. A dangerous motivation. I know it sounds a bit simple-minded what I write here but I am seriously convinced the UN can potentially help a lot more than they are doing now. It is worth a chance. The only thing is that you have to throw away your pride and accept the UN to take over some "real" command. But this is NO PLAN. You cannot simply send more troops and consider this to be the solution to the problem. YOU wont survive in that country if you constantly reject to negotiate with the Mullahs. Iraq doesnt need american democracy, Iraq needs a system that reflects the iraqi culture. More soldiers cannot make up for an intelligent planning. And excuse me, but so far I havent seen a single diplomatic move that did reflect approaching the iraqis in a arab way and not the way of "here comes america".

Good point. I thought exactly the same. To withdraw some troops from europe was a good start. I think he should have talked about "restructuring" instead, but this of course, is already a running process. He shouldnt have gone into that topic so deep.

I must admit I fell asleep after one hour. It was interesting as hell to watch it but at around 04:00 my bloodpressure collapsed and I returned to Dreamland.

Did you notice, even Mr. Kerry refered to my thread in his speech yesterday. He clearly stated that hundreds of HMMWVs are being used in Iraq without proper armour. Dito, Dito Â

yes.. but the attack of today is pure precission strikes... Well this is picture of from today ....but still ignore it, I assume the artillery was just standing there for the visual aspect. Â I am not complaining... I guess the soldiers search the best solutions available ... I am not blaiming them

I seriously believe that you chose a too spectacular dress. Not even in a shop specialised on costume-rentals you will find such a thing.

"it is hard work, you know" "it is hard work, you know" "it is hard work, you know" "it is hard work, you know" "it is hard work, you know" sure, yes Mr. President. Why should we discuss more "objectively" about the debate? I pretty much must say that BUSH had nothing else to resort to than "the world is better off without Saddam Hussein" ... wow, pretty impressive argument for an preemptive strike. I mean if there would have been WMD, then I could have agreed with Bush somehow. If he would have been responsible for 911, sure I would be the first to support him. But dont you see this pittyful texan with his limited rethorical potential trying to compete with a former top student from Yale (I mean a "real" student). I dont even want to know how ridiculous this cowboy would have looked if this discussion would have been with Clinton. He would have made Bush stotter and repeat himself even more. And how embarassing for the Bush-loving-europe-hating voters: France,Germany and the UK dismantled Iran without a single bullet and how did Kerry dare to openly mention this? How degrading this must be for a Redneck that sissy europeans can actually act... and yes... without sending troops. Kerry was clearly ahead of Bush. Bush was stuck in his pragmatic baby-language-slogans. You want us to stay objective? Well forget about it. A president, a vice president and a whole administration OPENLY ridiculed europe and european nations in the election speeches many times, too many times. You decided to go the unilateral way! Well fine, here is my objective opinion. "Your president is a stupid pea-brain, who thinks that even if you took the wrong turn you should still proceed on that road for the sake of not showing a weakness" Did you ever try that in real life? "Damn I took the wrong street, it is leading me into the south instead of the north, but now I got to be consistent, I gotta stay on this road, I should never turn around, this would mean a weakness!" Maybe removing Saddam was a noble intention, but it was carried out incorrectly. My objectivity is limited to the objective opinion that I objectively prefer Kerry and I objectively hope he wins the vote so we get together again like objective adults to solve in the world what there is to solve.

pah... I would say that so far german teams are kicking ass pretty badly.. Nice you are all so optimistic, but we germans call that "unrealistic". We got the best teams

wow supah.. I seriously believe this has been well translated Â

I apologise for this "german" version.. I would translate it but I have to leave for 30 minutes... maybe later <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">In vielen Bundesstaaten beklagen sich Studenten, dass sie Schwierigkeiten haben, zu den kommenden Präsidentschaftswahlen zugelassen zu werden. Und da es offensichtlich ist, dass Kerry der Favorit bei den Jungwählern ist, liegt die Vermutung der Wahlmanipulation natürlich nahe. Die US-Wahlen 2000 in Florida haben gezeigt: Nur wenige tausend Stimmen könnten über den nächsten Präsidenten entscheiden. Und nun weigern sich einige Wahllokale, Studenten zuzulassen. Die Begründung: Studierende, die in einem Studentenwohnheim leben, haben keine dauerhafte Adresse. Genau diese wird aber benötigt, um sich registrieren zu lassen. Die Alternative für die Geschädigten: Einfach in die, zum Teil einige Flugstunden entfernte, Heimatstadt fliegen und dort wählen. Eine Briefwahl für Erstwähler ist nämlich nicht in allen Bundesstaaten möglich. Auch umständliche Fragebögen oder die Schließung von Wahllokalen rufen die Kritiker auf den Plan. Genau wie Wahlunterlagen, in denen Studenten ihre finanzielle Situation offenlegen müssen, die dann dementsprechend selten ausgefüllt werden. Der Grund für derartige Einschränkungen erscheint aber zumindest teilweise logisch: Gerade in kleinen Städten mit einem hohem Anteil an Studenten grassiert ein wenig die Angst, dass das Jungvolk die Lokalpolitik zu stark beeinflussen könnte. Und da die Registrierung für die Präsidentschaftswahlen zugleich auch für die Lokalwahlen gilt, erscheint es etwas nachvollziehbarer, warum diese den Studenten derart erschwert wird. Außerdem stellte Jennifer Weiser, Rechtsberaterin an der New York University, fest: "solche Probleme sind vereinzelt wohl schon bei früheren Wahlen aufgetreten, aber es gab noch nie so eine Häufung von Fällen wie in diesem Jahr. Das hängt vermutlich damit zusammen, dass sich mehr Studenten als sonst registrieren." Und: Nicht zuletzt durch diese Vorfälle interessieren sich immer mehr junge Menschen für Politik. Einer Erhebung zufolge wollen immerhin 83 Prozent zur Wahl gehen.

Batdog, I may assume the russians wont be too happy about that. I think you just cut several oil pipelines, You redirected naval streams, you confused some whales, split some villages and century old trade routes. This must have been one hell of an earth quake

is it realy getting ... better? http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,394373,00.gif I think this map is worth a look

if you realy talk about continents then Saudi Arabia is in EURASIA. I dont get how you see Asia as a continent. On my map they havent split up yet you people see continent???!! Â the Suez is the rip-zone between africa and eurasia. But since there is no cut (only an artifical channel) it would actually more precise to talk about Africa-eurasia. However to divide europe and asia was once only done due to cultural differences, fact is eurasia is geographically the only logical definition