Bernadotte

This is a demo, you won't get half of the features you will get in the game. I suspect the files are stripped to the minimum of what is needed. Seems to me ETW battles require more micromanagement than previous TW releases. Â I suspect that musketmen won't shoot at a flanking unit until reoriented to avoid killing the guy they are standing next to. I've been spending most of my time off the coast of Lagos, although the AI Â gets quite predictable after a short while. Â I'm hoping that weather conditions will vary enough to allow battles on rough seas, which should reduce some of the predictability.

More likely a cynical plan to sell more Israeli newspapers to a readership blinded by Iran-hysteria*. Just read a bit further down in the Israeli Insider article where they try to convince us that "a recent spike in [earthquake] activity in that specific area [of Iran] significantly deviates from historical trends". Â I wonder how many of their readers compared the Israeli Insider's USGS graphic with the source data and discovered that the quake they referred to didn't even exist. Israeli Insider version... USGS version... See that 1st quake on 10 September at the top of Israeli Insider's list? Â Never happened. Â Pure fiction. Â Hysteria mongering. * To be fair, 3 of the 20 comments following the Israeli Insider article questioned the nuke claim. Â One of them even linked to a very interesting article on distinguishing quake seismics from explosions.

Follow link for the full report http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128151 Followed it. Â This 3 month old report also warns "that two nuclear rockets are currently ready - and are intended for use against Israel in the coming months." Â So... Any day now, huh? Â As a geological engineer, I enjoyed the Israeli Insider version even more. Â When I looked up their suspicious 25 October tremor at the USGS I noticed that it had occurred at a depth of 35 km. Â Most nukes are tested at less than 1.5 km with the deepest ever being 4 km deep. Â Considering that the deepest well ever drilled was 14 km I'd say that the Iranians have pulled off a significant scientific achievement if this wasn't actually a quake. And where exactly did you see mention of a quake in this Times article? Â At the risk of being labelled a fake-quake-denier, I can think of at least one other reason why a tremor happened on a fault line.

I'm inclined to agree with the Israeli intelligence assessment because it makes sense. Â To win this April's elections Hamas is desperately trying to prove that it is capable of effectively representing the Palestinian people and controlling all militants. Â So, everytime a ceasefire that Hamas signs on behalf of the Palestinian people gets broken by whoever the people lose confidence in them. Â This desire of Hamas to control the rocketfire by all Palestinian factions was mentioned again 2 days ago: On the other hand, my assessment of how Hamas will behave after this April's elections is probably quite similar to your assessment, especially if they lose power.

That's what I meant - it's (just like Sputnik at it's time) a political statement... Exactly. Â Just substitute "quisling infidels" with "filthy capitalist pig-dogs" and "true disciples of Mahdi" with "red menace" to get the same fear-mongoring rhetoric used in Sputnik's days.

I understand that Iran got lots of help from N. Korea, of all places. Btw, I couldn' find any thread about N. Korea launching its first satellite a few years ago. Â I'd have though that it would have drawn more attention given they were the only member of Bush's "Axis of Evil" that already had nukes.

For the gazillionth time... <span style='font-size:19pt;line-height:100%'>It's not MY assessment!!</span> Â

Of course they weren't. Â The Israelis broke it too. You're half way there now mate.... The israeli's and who else? I've already posted it twice. Â Maybe a big-print version will help: Baff1, I'm just the messenger. Â If you continue to disagree with this assessment then please take it up with the source; not me. Perhaps you could try telling them about how "micro analysing each detail puts them in danger of losing their perspective." Â * lip service n. an expression of agreement unsupported by real conviction or action

Of course they weren't.  The Israelis broke it too. Not my portrayal, mate.  It was Israel's Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center that said attacks were "sporadic" and carried out by militants other than Hamas.  They even acknowledged Hamas' vested interested in upholding the ceasefire.  Unlike you, I'm inclined to believe the Israeli think tank.  No, I have no proof that the Israeli think tank that wrote those reports wasn't lying. That really makes no sense given that it is you who refuses to believe what the Israeli think tank reported. Kinda complicated, huh?  I'm not denying anything.  I've got plenty of reasons to hate Hamas without having to make stuff up. And yes I honestly believe that a government can be bombed out of existance.  We just did it to Saddam's government the other year. We did it to Germany's. Japan's.  This has been successfully achieved time and time again throughout history. Bombing a government into surrender is very different than "bombing Hamas out of existence."  The Palestinians surrendered long ago.  That's why it's called occupied territory? The leaders of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade are in the West Bank.  Israel's recent operation against their rockets was retricted to Gaza. Trust me, if blaming every bad thing on Hamas would help get rid of them I'd also be totally cool with the lies.  However, I just can't ignore that lying and corruption is what got Hamas elected in the first place.

So, if Israel has a much more accurate overview than either you or I then which accurate Israeli overview did you get the following numbers from? Daily basis? Â And which accurate Israeli source did you get this info from? Â As I've tried to show you with the CBC report, just because you read about Hamas attacks in the news doesn't mean they were carried out by Hamas. No kidding, but anyone who honestly believes that Hamas can be bombed out of existence hasn't learned anything from the past. Â Hamas needs to lose power the same way they won it; in a national election. I hope you realise that Israel's recent invasion did far more than bomb the rocket sites. I hope you realise that Israel's recent invasion did not target the leaders of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the faction that actually broke the ceasefire.

True. Â Here's an excerpt from an Israeli intel overview about who was to blame last year: <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Question:</span> Â If Israel knows it wasn't Hamas then why did they retaliate against Hamas? Â If Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed responsibility for the latest rocketfire then why did the Israeli PM and news organisations like CBC News blame Hamas? <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Answer:</span> Â The Israelis want to get rid of Hamas and would blame the Alaskan earthquake on them if they could get away with it.

Oh really? Â What the hell did your response have to do with the part you quoted? Â How did my brief summary about a recent rocket attack lead you to think that I might "be perfectly fine with those responsible getting away with it?" Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and other militants from the West Bank have claimed responsibility for these attacks out of Gaza. So far they've been getting away with it, and no, I'm not fine with that at all. Â Are you?

Wow... Way to miss the entire point of what I'd posted. Â I'll try to simplify the matter: If some guys in neighbourhood A shot rockets at you from neighbourhood B who would you retaliate against, the guys in A or the guys in B?

And again, Israel just got hit by a few rockets from Gaza that harmed nobody and caused no damage. Â The greater harm probably comes from 3 different news agencies for being able to report 3 different versions of events: Given that Israeli intelligence has already blamed West Bank militants for Gaza rocketfire, I'm inclined to believe the Reuters version. Â But even Reuters avoids asking the bigger question: Â How does an enemy of Hamas like the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade manage to get out of the West Bank, across Israeli territory, and into beseiged Gaza armed with rockets that ultimately do no harm except to give Israel an excuse to attack Hamas? And why wouldn't West Bank militants simply aim their rockets at targets right within the West Bank such as Israeli settlements? Hmm... Â

Obama started his first day doing exactly what I'd have done. Â His first phonecall as president was made to Palestinian President Abbas. Â He then spoke with the leaders of Israel, Jordan and Egypt. * Odd that the Times still refers to Obama as mister. If Obama has seriously tried to envision the end of this conflict as a grand peace treaty signing ceremony then he knows there's no room in that picture for a Hamas Prime Minister. Â So his first objective is to get rid of Hamas in this April's elections by providing the Palestinians with a viable alternative. At the moment, the most effective way to empower Abbas' opposition Fatah party is to give them reconstruction aid for Gaza. Â If the people of Gaza finally get the help from Abbas that they never got from Arafat then this will eliminate one of their main reasons for supporting Hamas. Â Conversely, if Hamas refuses to accept aid unless it is given directly to them then Gazans will start holding Hamas responsible for prolonging the suffering. Another interesting factor in all this is the fate of one Israeli and one Palestinian. Â The Israeli is kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit and the Palestinian is politician/ex-militant leader Marwan Barghouti, now serving 5 life sentences in Israel. Â From his jail cell, Barghouti would have defeated Abbas for the presidency during the last general election if he'd not been convinced to withdraw. Â Hamas has offered to release Shilat in exchange for Barghouti's freedom, perhaps because this would probably get rid of Abbas this April. Â Israel has said no because they refuse to deal with Hamas, but more likely because they don't want Barghouti to replace Abbas as President. Â Marwan Barghouti... Â Possible post-Hamas Palestinian Prime Minister? I've always liked Barghouti. Â He knows English and is also fluent in Hebrew (self-taught while serving time after First Intafada). Â As a militant, he's always opposed acts of resistance outside of the West Bank and Gaza. If he can be convinced to return to Fatah and run for Prime Minister this April then Hamas will be finished and Obama will be well on the way to winning his Nobel. And this just in: Â Late today, Obama appointed George Mitchell to be his administration's Middle East envoy. Â This is very good news. Â Mitchell's famous report on the causes of the Second Intafada openly placed blame on Israel's construction of Jewish settlements across Palestinian territory as well as Palestinian terrorism. Â Btw, when Mitchell served as special envoy to Northern Ireland he successfully instigated a peace process there that has held to this day.

Oh, I agree completely. My post was more about the reasons for the rise of extremism during previous decades. Btw, I give much credit to the growth of the internet for the decline over recent years.

I think what were seeing now with militant Islam and what we've seen in the past with puritan Christianity is religion being used as a vehicle by evil men for dubious goals. As much as we agree about how much the world has suffered under organised/institutionalised religion, I think we also realise that we won't be able to get rid of it any time soon. Â The best we can do is give extremists more incentive to become moderates and moderates fewer excuses to become extremists. Â Unfortunately, the past few decades have mostly seen the opposite trend. Around 30 years ago when the people of Iran overthrew the Shah it sent a wake up call throughout the region that Muslim fundamentalists forced to extremism could topple monarchies. Â The Saudi monarchy got so scared that they began to pacify the fundamentalists by paying them off and even giving them governmental positions within the ministry of education. Â Decades later it's no coincidence that the majority of 911 hijackers were Saudi. Meanwhile something quite similar has happened in the US. Â During the past 40 years the Republican party has become increasingly dependent on the support of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians which represent 20 - 30% of Americans. Â One of their strongest beliefs is that the second coming of Jesus Christ will not occur until the "Israelites" have repopulated the holy land. Â For them, the Palestinian people are not just terrorists, they are an obstacle to the Christian salvation of the entire human race. Â Take for example George Bush's support for the evangelical Reverend Hagee during Israel's 2006 bombing of Lebanon: I don't expect the US will be able to weaken the influence of Muslim extremists as long as their own Middle East policies continue to be so strongly influenced by Christian Bible prophecy.

Well, all I can do is offer a big-print version of your original words if they weren't clear enough for you: big·ot  n.  One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. No, you absolutely do not have to be tolerant of other people's cultures and religions.  You have every right to be a bigot. In fact, I would defend your right to be a bigot and very gladly let everyone else know that you are one. I may be tolerant of bigots, but I'm not very tolerant of bigots who are unable to admit they are bigots.

big·ot  n.  One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. No, you absolutely do not have to be tolerant of other people's cultures and religions.  You have every right to be a bigot. In fact, I would defend your right to be a bigot and very gladly let everyone else know that you are one.

I almost agree with you... I usually don't look farther than 150 years ago because 1858 is when internationally recognised Ottoman land and property laws really came into force. Â Nearly all the land owned by Jews and Arabs when Israel was founded had been held under extensions of those laws and registered in those same archives. The next important event started in 1881 with the First Aliyah. Â It was really that first large immigration wave of ~30,000 Jews that began to turn a 2000 year old dream into actions. Â Israeli historian Benny Morris provides excerpts from 3 letters written by those first arrivals in 1882 that clearly convey those aspirations: In other words, the problem really started when the introduction of formal property ownership in Palestine (1858) combined with the quiet but powerful ambition of a large foreign community to acquire property in Palestine (1881). Â They eventually acquired nearly 5% of Palestine by the time the UN came along and awarded them with 56%, which grew to 78% within a year. Â I just wish they'd make it 100% asap and finally end this long nightmare.

Most people on both sides of the conflict agree that there are 5 primary issues (in no particular order): Borders  The Palestinians seek the pre-1967 war ceasefire line prescribed by the UN Resolution 242.  The Israelis want something nearer to the path of where the new separation barrier has been built. Jerusalem  The Palestinians want at least Arab Old Jerusalem to be their capital.  The Israelis want all of Jerusalem plus all adjoining suburban neighbourhoods that it has extended into West Bank territory. Settlements  The Palestinians, UN and the international community including the US, have always regarded settlements as an illegal obstacle to peace.  Many Israelis agree, but are in no hurry to dismantle them until there's progress on the other main issues.  Most Israelis support leaving in place the largest settlements adjoining Israel and giving other land of equal size/quality to the Palestinians in exchange. Right of Return  Even though it might now only effect a very small portion of Palestinians who lost their properties 60 years ago, the Palestinians regard this as an important symbol of reconciliation and an essential pillar of any longterm agreement.  The Israelis remain steadfastly opposed to any refugee returning to Israel, perhaps because it could be regarded as an acknowledgement of guilt. Sovereignty  The Palestinians want independence and autonomy.  The Israelis want longterm control over Palestinian borders with Egypt and Jordan, along with longterm military access to much of the territories. Last month Israeli PM Olmert did some remarkable soul-searching during an interview. The 2 concessions I've highlighted would probably resolve 2 of the 5 primary issues above if an Israeli leader ever actually repeated them during official negotiations. This is the reason this conflict won't be resolved through peaceful means, and certainly not in the near future, because people keep living in the past, and keep using that past to obstruct any kind of progress for the region. Huh?  Look again JdB!  I didn't bring up the past.  It was Billybob2002 who brought it up.  I was only responding just as I responded to you when you yourself posted an entire wall of text about the past, yesterday. A one state solution or assimilation already has worked, as anyone who is not afraid to understand the past can tell you.  You'd be surprised how insignificant cultural and religious differences become when economic prosperity is at stake.

Fair? What was fair about creating of a new country out of other people's land without their consent?

Oh man, that's the funniest thing I've read all week. Â Thank you. Â The most effective path to peace that never gets enough attention: Single State Solution Israel fully annexes the West Bank and Gaza making all residents Israeli citizens. Â Arabic is already an official language in Israel. Â Occupation ends. Â Jerusalem becomes everyone's unified capital. Â Old Palestinian property claims would be settled as they were for Holocaust survivors who fled Europe. Â Unrest would become a purely internal matter like in Iraq, but at least those who cooperate would eventually have an opportunity to work and escape the squalor of refugee camps. Conquered people mostly just want to get on with their lives. Â What do you think happend to all those Arabs who did not flee the 22% of Palestine that Israel annexed in 1949? Â They nearly all became content Israeli citizens. Â How many terrorists have been recruited from those million or so Arabs who already have Israeli citizenship? Â Nearly none. Â There are even Arab members of the Israeli parliament. The single state solution has probably been implemented more often throughout history than any other because it works. Â Annexation would work for Israel now just as it worked for Israel in 1949. Â The whole world would breathe a sigh of relief and Palestine could finally be consigned to the history books.

Following WWI, Palestine became and Class A League of Nations Mandate. Â That means Palestine was at a stage of development where its existence as an independent nation could be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by Britain until such time as Palestine was able to stand alone. Â Certainly nothing about any external organisation ever having the right to partition it. Â Palestine had its own internationally recognised borders, currency, stamps, passports. Â Even recent Israeli PM Ariel Sharon had Palestinian citizenship during the first 20 years of his life. Um... Check your footnote... Â Israel did not even exist in 1947. You've conveniently ignored the fact that fighters arrived to support the Israeli side from many times more countries across the globe. Soldiers, civilians... I guess them Arabs are all the same to you, huh? What dark Anti-Semitic corner of the world do you live in? Â This has nothing specifically to do with Judaism. Â The Israelis could be Hindus, Buddhists or Mormons and still receive at least as much criticism for their actions and inactions. Â In fact, a major driver of this conflict are American Fundamentalist Christians who link the rebirth of Israel with the return of Christ. Â America's outgoing president is one of them.

Yes, the UN came along and took the aquifers away from the Arabs and gave them to... um... the Arabs. Â Duh. What's your problem with that, besides the fact that it was not the UN's to give away in the first place? So was a lot of the Arab settlement. Â So what? Â Again, what's your problem with that, besides the fact that it was not the UN's to give away in the first place?