BaronVonRed

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> By Barton Gellman Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, December 12, 2002; Page A01 The Bush administration has received a credible report that Islamic extremists affiliated with al Qaeda took possession of a chemical weapon in Iraq last month or late in October, according to two officials with firsthand knowledge of the report and its source. They said government analysts suspect that the transaction involved the nerve agent VX and that a courier managed to smuggle it overland through Turkey. <span id='postcolor'> George isn't gonna stop till he bombs Saddam!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 12 2002,18:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is it that you are so quick to believe an "Iraqi official" who claims they are arming the populace of Iraq and yet you don't believe anything the US says? What? Because Iraq has never lied or sent out their own propoganda, right?<span id='postcolor'> Bullseye.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Dec. 12 2002,17:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 12 2002,14:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is getting stupid now. Bush didn't do anything, yet you're saying he won't stop. Get off his case, he's just trying to protect his country. <span id='postcolor'> Just curious, exactly when did Iraq attack the USA? Or is it jus "all those pesky Arabs" you want to strike back at?<span id='postcolor'> A good defense does not necessarily wait for an explicit attack. If a mugger is holding me at knife-point, has he attacked me? Saddam's potential for hurting those around him and others around the globe is a significant threat, and not just to the US. Okay, so what if the US has interests above and beyond (but including) this? Is it still not also doing those at risk from Saddam a favor as well?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mr. Duck @ Dec. 12 2002,15:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Getting a gun in house is a no no here. That's quite a bummer... They are quite strict about weapons, but not on other things... <span id='postcolor'> Do the Police there carry (exposed) firearms?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 12 2002,15:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How so? Finesse and George W. Bush don't go well together. <span id='postcolor'> Yeah, LOL, you kinda got me there.

While George's reasons for his constant attention to Iraq may very well be proper, he needs to show more political finesse as his current methods continue to put him in a less strategic position.

In it's INITIALIZATION field, put: this flyinheight 100 To fly it at 100. Check the spelling in the ref manual.

EDIT: Balschoiw: /EDIT Too bad you had to bring this up: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> is very flexible, isnt it Mr Double Account ? <span id='postcolor'> I have never had a double account. While some of the moderators here are fine upstanding participants, very knowledgable in OFP, political, and other topics, others of them know very little about IP routing. Any two people who post from behind a half way decent firewall or router will post with the same IP address. I posted a short lesson in a seperate thread that explained this, but it was quickly locked down with a sarcastic remark (reposted below). The other guy was MrCoffee.He actually sent me an email thinking *I* had done something, but I replied explaining the duplicate IP posting. I actually met him later on deck. He was very disappointed and had taken the game back. No one here is intimidated by you, in fact, I find your blatant and frequent attacks on the US amusing, but you have flamed me specifically on several occasions and THAT I am getting tired of. I even sent you a email several weeks ago entitled "White Flag" to which you didn't have the round ones to reply. If you are interested in how duplicate IP's might appear on this board, here is the message I had posted: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Anyone inside of a NAT router will share the same external IP address. Network Address Translation (NAT) provides a mechanism for a privately addressed network to access registered networks, such as the Internet, without requiring a registered subnet address. This eliminates the need for host renumbering and allows the same IP address range to be used in multiple intranets. This is where NAT(RFC 1631) comes in. Network Address Translation allows a single device, such as a router, to act as an agent between the Internet (or "public network") and a local (or "private") network. This means that only a single, unique IP address is required to represent an entire group of computers. With NAT, the privately addressed network (designated as ‘inside’) continues to use its existing private or obsolete addresses. These addresses are converted into legal addresses before packets are forwarded onto the registered network (designated as ‘outside’). The translation is fully compatible with standard routing functionality and features. NAT is required only on the router connecting the inside network to the outside domain. <span id='postcolor'> There are 200+ users behind my firewall. I hope no more of them ever try to post here. As far as this: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> our forces abroad, and friends and allies <span id='postcolor'> What are you talking about? I never said that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Spitfire @ Dec. 02 2001,21:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even a regular soldier is nearly invisible for the helos, or at least the the helo must be in an exactly right position to spot the soldier... Not to mention a black op. That just might be the problem here.<span id='postcolor'> That is the true source of your problem, IMO. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> chopper reveal Blackop; Chopper dotarget Blackop; Chopper dofire Blackop; in the OnActivation of a player started trigger should do the trick. <span id='postcolor'> I don't THINK that will work unless the chopper knows enough about the target to begin with. I learned this by flying as a copilot to the AI and tried it on a guy that BVR - he targeted it, then immediately said, "No target".

I did not know that command existed - might come in handy...my specs: PentiumIV 2.0Ghz 1.25G Rambus RD RAM (pc800) 10Krpm Ultra160 SCSI Seagate HD (18GB) Nvidia Gforce3 BM = 5525

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 11 2002,16:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The United States, which has built up forces in the region and held exercises in case of war against Iraq, issued a statement outlining its strategy against nuclear, chemical and biological weapons — the first update since 1993. WashPost: U.S. strategy includes ‘all options’ The document said deterring attacks with the threat of “overwhelming force†was an essential element in protecting the United States and its allies from weapons of mass destruction, also known as WMD. “The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force — including through resort to all our options — to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies,†the strategy report said. <span id='postcolor'> great </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> If the U.N. arms monitors working in Iraq ultimately report full Iraqi cooperation with the disarmament demands, U.N. resolutions call for the Security Council to consider lifting economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1990. If, on the other hand, Iraq is found in noncompliance, the council may consider military action against Iraq. President Bush has threatened military action in that case even without U.N. authority.<span id='postcolor'> ILLEGAL ! Who is he ? God ? source: http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?vts=121120020710&cp1=1<span id='postcolor'> Aside from continued US bashing, what exactly is the point here? We got 'em, and if you eff with us, we will use them. That is the general motivation behind any country possessing nukes. I have a gun in my house and I will use it to defend my house, what's the big deal? Should I put out a sign on my front door stating that I have a gun but that I promise I won't use it even if you break in and rape my wife? Should the US just throw away it's nukes, or promise to never use them? Uhhhhhh, sure.

Is this another US bashing thread? Geeze. Have any of you critics ever taken a life in the name of your country? I have 32 "confirmed kills". Do I lay awake thinking about it? Of course I do. It stays with you EVERYWHERE YOU GO; like a bad mood you can never shake. It's a difficult position to put a human being into, and the effects get worse as you age. For each kill, you get an overwhelming sense of being alive and the glee associated with the fact that it could have just as easily been YOU . Each soldier's reaction to this will be different, regardless of his national origin. But each kill was made in the name of liberty, or freedom, or peace, blah blah blah - they were people with loved ones and families, but like was mentioned before, if you start thinking that way, then YOU will be some else's "confirmed kill". You are defending what is right, but as you mature, you realize that it is only heritage; they are defending what they think is right is also. In the end, neither is right, war is a tradgedy, and war is our destiny. I did not get to see the movie, and yes, it sounds as if they crossed the line of professionalism, but is it necessary to judge an entire country on these reactions? Is it fair to assume that all Americans pilots react this way? Perhaps we should start judging YOUR country by sighting only one or two bad apples?

That so many are blocking for poor old Saddam shows how much of a US bashing thread this has become.

There is no single vision enhancing system that will satisfy all tactical requirements. In the best case scenario, you will know in advance which is required and will have access to them all, but this is seldom reality. I have no experience with thermal vision, but have used NV devices heavily. Unlike most video games/simulations, our SF team used NV only to get into position for an early morning wake-up call or to position a hot recon unit. Gunplay at night was avoided wherever possible as gunflashes not only gave your position away but also tended to create temporary blindness if not flash suppressed. NV's we used had two modes, active and passive. Passive mode simply takes what little light there is and enhances it, whereas active mode used IR. In passive mode, things were still pretty dark, but far better than with the naked eye, especially if there was any moonlight avail. Active mode was almost like using a flashlight (although still green), but the biggest drawback for BEL recon missions was that the IR transmitter was highly visible and if you encountered any real light while in this mode, you would be temporarily blinded. There was a switch on the unit itself that would toggle between off/passive/active. That's the low-down on NV's, at least it was "back in the day". While never used on an actual mission, I have used the thermal enhancement, but found it quite disorienting and more prone to being used from a vehicle or stationary position as moving around on foot with them on would be hazardous, and seemed to me they had a much longer range than the NV's we used.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Dec. 04 2002,02:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">another forum mud slinging. <span id='postcolor'>

I thought "No One Lives Forever II" was quite entertaining. "Age of Mythology" was very disappointing to me. "Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit II" is excellent, although it strays a bit from its clasic predecessors. "Real War: Rogue States" was interesting - rotten at first, but the more I played, the more I seemed to like it. "Soldier of Fortune II" was unrealistic, but really fun, especially the online play. IL-2 was entertaining for a while, with some GREAT graphics and up close dog fights, but I lost interest in it. I never played any of the Ghost Recon stuff in support of OFP. I say spend your money now, for tomorrow is a promise to no one!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> MrCoffee and BaronVonRed share the same IP address. That's what is meant by having two accounts. And it's a no no. <span id='postcolor'> Anyone inside of a NAT router will share the same external IP address. Network Address Translation (NAT) provides a mechanism for a privately addressed network to access registered networks, such as the Internet, without requiring a registered subnet address. This eliminates the need for host renumbering and allows the same IP address range to be used in multiple intranets. This is where NAT(RFC 1631) comes in. Network Address Translation allows a single device, such as a router, to act as an agent between the Internet (or "public network") and a local (or "private") network. This means that only a single, unique IP address is required to represent an entire group of computers. With NAT, the privately addressed network (designated as ‘inside’) continues to use its existing private or obsolete addresses. These addresses are converted into legal addresses before packets are forwarded onto the registered network (designated as ‘outside’). The translation is fully compatible with standard routing functionality and features. NAT is required only on the router connecting the inside network to the outside domain. I don't know who this Coffee guy is, but I resent the accusations. The router in question supports 200+ users and uses ip address masking as the site handles matters of extreme secrecy. Apparently this Coffee person uses a computer within the same network and we are undergoing measures to locate him.

I recently had to replace my main drive, which of course meant a complete re-install of OFP. In both Cold War and Resistance, I had to re-enter the CD keys but was unable to locate the manual for Cold War, which is where the CD key is located. To make a long story short, I basically ripped the house apart and was finally able to locate the manual. That it is so small of a manual did not help. It would be a nice thing if future releases put the "CD" key on or inside the "CD" case instead of in the easily lost tiny manual. Just a suggestion....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Dec. 04 2002,18:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrCoffee @ Dec. 04 2002,16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am new here, so I know I don't really have a say,<span id='postcolor'> really BaronvonRed? double account is a no-no here.<span id='postcolor'> What is a double account?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 04 2002,18:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You might have some kind of Jackyl & Hyde syndrom if you need to sign in a second account on this forum to assist yourself. That is really poor stuff.<span id='postcolor'> What are you talking about?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 04 2002,16:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Posted: Dec. 04 2002,14:35 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote all his children should be terminated before they breed again. <span id='postcolor'> You might have missed that part of his post Mr Coffee. This is certainly not a forum for such statements.<span id='postcolor'> But having your signature as a picture of a guy who has murdered Santa Clause and all the reindeer is okay. Okay, it was a bit harsh, but I sometimes feel that if I do not overexaggerate my opinions then they will not be heard. The "G-rated" version of what I said is: If you ever remove Saddam from office be careful about who replaces him.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Dec. 04 2002,14:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He is not a moderator, but I am and if you can't engage in a discussion in a civilised manner, then either stay away or risk a holiday from the forums. Remarks like this are out of order. Again, discuss it in a civilised manner or don't discuss at all. Furthermore, personal attacks against other members are not tolerated. I suggest you drop your attitude. Neanderthals have been extinct for at least 20,000 years, if not more. Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals are two entirely different species.<span id='postcolor'> I didn't start with the name-calling or verbal insults, but I doubt that matters. I was just stating my opinion on what other people were saying. And, uh, BTW, "Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals are two entirely different species," is not a substantiated FACT: Although early modern humans expanded throughout Eurasia some time between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago, not enough evidence yet exists to prove where they originated or how extensive their expansion may have been. Perhaps Neanderthals in some areas were replaced by modern humans, while those in other regions evolved into modern humans on their own. And if Neanderthals in certain regions were replaced, perhaps some, or maybe even all, of the modern human groups that replaced them had evolved not in Africa, but somewhere in Eurasia, from a Neanderthal stock. But I diverse. I think Saddam should be removed from power and yes, a new order established. The whole problem with Iraq is education. The average Iraqi has the equivelant education of a 3rd-grader. Saddam doesn't allow them to be educated. If they KNEW more, if they KNEW what they COULD have, and what they deserve as human beings, then THEY would throw Saddam out. I don't think bombing the entire country is the best answer, but how else can we stop the military there? A lot of their military resources are intentionally located in or near civilian areas. Shut down the military, remove him from office, eduacte the people.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Dec. 04 2002,13:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I tried taking the test but most of that stuff, i do not understand so it was rather hard to agree or disagree <span id='postcolor'> roflmfao

"Baron no word of your posts is related to the topic issue." Perhaps you only see what you want to see. From what you, the all great moderator, are saying, these are not related to what I posted: "He is one of those hawks who want to remake the whole Middle East in America's image. They have been labelled democratic imperialists. " That was taken from the initial post in this thread. "Let the Iraqui people decide. You claim to free them so let them decide. Freedom is defined that way. It would be no freedom for Iraki´s if they are dictated into another government. BTW Iraki people don´t seem to share the the US opinions on freeing them. They are more afraid of getting killed during liberation. Strange eh ?" That was quoted from one of your own replies. I responded to this directly by saying I felt Saddam was abusing his own and should be punished for it. "I think you are right, however I cannot help myself from speculating: What IF there never was any sanctions and oil-embargo? Could that have meant most Iraqi's would be sympathetic to being "freed" by US and their allies? After all, Saddams regime is nothing else than a brutal dictatorship?" That was from brgnorway. My post was basically saying to screw all the debates and criticisims and bomb the jerk. Blah, blah, blah. Why don't you stop playing forum cop and start reading with both eyes open? "Neanderthals had nuts also, but I guess that didnt help them surviving. Brains are prefered for nowadays life." Newflash, brainiac: Neanderthals evolved into what is now modern man. My initial opinion remains: Saddam is an idiot and should be removed from authority by whatever means necessary. Um, golly, Bals, was that okay?

How old are you? 10? >>> I got yer 10 right here. Sheesh, half of what you say is totally unrealistic and all the rest is not true. >>> Huh? Which half is unrealistic? "All the rest"? Would that be lower half, or the upper half? The way you act is pretty childish, >>> Oh, that's a great defense. perhaps you don't really understand what so many ppl have been discussing on this forum. >>> Seeing as how three of the last four posts were yours, perhaps you like talking to yourself. I'm sorry you can't be an American, but don't take your frustrations out on me.