Garcia

And that "nationalism" is so exaggerated that many americans' "nationalism" is an insult to the rest of the world. That "nationalism" makes americans (and also USA) look like self-centered douchebags...just like you look at Chavez... Prove that USA is a democracy...now if I refuse to accept that there might be other types of democracies than the type I consider to be the best one (and lets say the american democracy isn't the best), then you'd have a real problem proving it to me.

Yes, to some extend the lack of a story is neat, but after some time it becomes more like playing Counter Striker vs bots, the same thing over and over...though it has a lot of potential, and it seems to be a bit like OFP, very modable, which is good...I mean, for me, the game can survive long with just new units And of course, the simple fact that it's just a beta makes it rather impressing. Just have to wait for a mod to be made compatible with the newest version But lets look at the bright side, now it's a tad bit less tempting to waste my exam reading time by playing computer...maybe I'll get through the last 4 chapters in my mathsbook by monday after all then

Umm, can anyone tell me if there is a story in the game yet or not? I mean, I've done loads of missions for the counts and such, but I'm bored of doing the same old "Get me X sumptan horses" etc missions, so what now? Is there any neat place I can go to move on?

Well Codies better hurry up if they're gonna exploit ArmAs screwup Honestly, by the time Codies got OFP2 done, ArmA will have been out on the market for ages, and will have been improved quite a lot by patches...hell, even Game2 won't (hopefuly) be too far away by that time...that is, of course, unless Codies makes OFP2 a shitty game thrown together in a hurry, which again will lead to the game being a screwup of such dimensions that ArmAs release will look like a piece of art compared to OFP2 (Or Codies have already done lots of work on OFP2, but decided to keep it a secret...)

Where do I get food for these buggers? I got dried meat, ale and dried fish...but I keep getting a message when traveling that the party got nothing to eat... Aaah, just found a topic about it...I have to place the damn food in the food slot Maybe I'll eat my horse

You bastard...you're making me think about getting this game...like I don't got enough to spend my time and money on I should stop popping into this thread if I want to keep my money ... Yes yes, I got the serial next to me now, only costed me about 100 NOK, which is a horribly fair price for what seems like a good game...happy?

hmm, so Italy just recently became a country with freedom of speech? I mean, Berlusconi (yes, I probably spelled his name wrong) owned like most of the italian television channels and such...at least he owned the biggest ones... And is Norway not a democracy? After all, technically the king has to approve of the goverment (this is just more of a tradition, but technically the king could refuse a legally elected goverment to take charge). And 50% of the goverment in Norway have to be christian. Does this somehow prove Norway to not be a democracy? In that case it's worth noting that Norway is considered to be more democratic than both UK and USA (think Sweden was at the top).

...you're not exactly the right person to talk about that after the "Oh great USA which is blessed by God and God is on our side, bla bla bla"...personally I would consider that (thinking that USA is so much more special than anybody else so God himself will bless them) to be rather egosentrical... What's the difference in not recognizing someones contribution? Drop bombs made in Germany or UK, what's the difference? They all say "boom"... And just think about the progress USA brought to the war then...minimal contribution to a war with minimal progress... that makes it something like minimal^2 progress contributed by USA Uh, double standards? The British Empire couldn't use the neat "Walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck...must be a duck" rule to prove people being English, but you can to prove people being Canadian/American? Hmm, lets see...hmm...if the southern live oak was so good as you claim to build ships, actually so good that they made ships the best in the world, why wouldn't the british empire come all the way over there? Why would I try another example? The example I provided served its purposed perfectly, namely showing that the UK militarys strenght and skills can't be measured out of their past achivments against badly equiped opposition But lets use this neat logic a bit...a brit quite likely sometime killed an american...that must mean the brits are much better than the americans at fighting and such...of course, we ignore the fact that a american quite likely have killed a brit sometimes. Also, the americans descends from the brits, that means every american victory shows that the brits are damned good...and using that logic, but in a more recent time...according to what I've heard, during the 2 wars in Iraq, not a single Challanger tank was destroyed, while some Abrams tanks were...now this surely proves that the brits are both much better at producing good equipment, but also have much better tank-crew...and this again proves that the brits are much better than the americans at fighting wars... Of course, there's probably as many flaws in that logic than in Hitler logic to why the jews deserved to die, but I so neatly choose to igonore those flaws, as they, at this current time, doesn't help me "prove" that the brits are the best ones when it comes to fighting wars...

I demand an apology, that was uncalled for. (That is why my research isn't limited to just wikipedia, which is mostly hearsay btw) Hehe, good joke, linking to the white house. If there is one biased source to rule all other biased source on this issue it is the white house. My statement stand for the white house as well as for you: debating is easier if you ignore reality and make shit up. As for the reliability of wikipedia, testing has shown it to be roughly as reliable as Britannica. Not that such accuracy is needed to beat the white house press office - just making things up will put you on that level. Incidentally, that's what you are consistently doing. You need new role models. The only meaningful contributions to the US led coalition were made by the UK. Money and troops, that's all that counts and in the invasion only the US and the UK provided that in meaningful quantities. I remember I saw a interview with a US scientist studying the climate changes and such. The research he and his colleges did was every now and then presented to US officials and such so they could decide the US politics on these matters...only problem was that all the places were the scientists had pointed out that USA most likely is fucking up the climate with it's policy, the white house had changed those parts, or simply removed them from the report... White house truth...change or remove facts that you don't like

Indeed. The norwegian PM at the time (which, btw, somehow became PM even though his party had virtually no support...still wondering how that happened) was a sucker who had his head so far up Bush's ass. He sent, with extremly limited support in the norwegian people, troops to Iraq. Thankfully our new goverment elected last year pulled them out

Hey, hey. Don't drag "the world" into this. The USA went in there practically alone, with the brits just tagging along. The US can't just simply pull out of Iraq, it's like knocking up a girl and then leaving town in a hurry. Oh no you don't! You take care of the mess you've made mister... :/ So go out there! Buy your new wife (the iraqi government) some new fancy weapons, and educate the baby that is the iraqi populace until they can finally take care of themselves, then you can carry on with your life where you left it off in 2003, but until then Iraq is the responsiblity of the USA. Volunteers from my country have done a good job in Iraq, so I feel pretty free with saying the world thank you. And our neighbor nation sent troops with the initial Allied invasion. The problem is that some muslims see this as a chance for a holy Jihad, it's like those people haven't evolved mentally in 800 years, back when europe had Crusades. "The world" said no to the invasion when UN did not support any such war...Big parts of "the world" did, and still doesn't, support the war, neither military, economically or politically... And the big bad muslim, Keith Ellison, wants to swear his oath on the Koran instead of the bible...bad boy! I wouldn't be suprised if someone somehow sees this as another proof that he is a terrorist... And honestly, I agree with the guy. Him swearing an oath on the bible is worth as much as my fart...

Umm, just some snowy mountains... Another picture of my dog, just after we got her... A hut somewhere...

46664 consert in TromsÅ™ 2005...the only picture my dad took of the big little man himself was shitty and blurry My dad overlooking a valley Picture of the island my cousin got married on... Another picture of midnight sun...too bad the camera was too shitty to show how it really looked...which was quite much more neat than that picture...

View of the midnight sun from my house... My 3 dogs

I'm not really an expert on artillery, but I'd say it's a fair guess that artillery into the vietnamese jungle is far less effective than artillery into a flat, open area...The simple fact that the shells would quite likely hit trees and blow up before they hit the ground would cause artillery into thick jungle to be less effective... I'd say it is less effective, since by the time you have spotted the enemy in a jungle, they have already overrun your lines. An artillery fired at theat range will have equal effect upon your own troops. Well indeed. If you can spot the enemy while they are far enough from you for artillery to be effective, you're probably not in what could be called a vietnamese jungle...

I know US troops are dying over there, that's why the saying "Freedom isn't Free" is a true statement. But judging on the record of US forces, we certainly can throw a punch! Take example: The Battle of Sacramento (Mexican-American War). US Strength: 924 Soldiers Mexican Strength: 1,500 infantry, 1,200 calvary and 119 artillery (2,819 total). Result: US Victory US Casualties: 9 (1 KIA, 8 WIA) Mexican Casualties: 600 (300 KIA, 300 WIA) There are more than one instances of "lopsided" results like this. and not just in the Mexican War either, it shows up through US history. All relative.... Most militaries have stories/deeds like this in their past. Dwelling on particular moments doesn't enhance a militaries current capabilities. (Look at Rorkes drift for example) If we were to do that, reference the Battle of Kasserine Pass. An example of when US forces got completely stuffed in one of their first combat actions involving the Germans. Should we therefore therefore decide that the US Army is not capable of conducting successful engagement? Seriously though, do you stuff bald eagles in the blender every morning for a patriotic beverage? You do make me laugh! In that case, the brits are damned good...there was this battle in Africa during the colonization where quite few brits killed quite many Zulu warriors...(I'm quite sure they were brits). Of course, we're ignoring the fact that the brits had rifles and such, while the Zulus mostly had...axes and spears... I'm not really an expert on artillery, but I'd say it's a fair guess that artillery into the vietnamese jungle is far less effective than artillery into a flat, open area...The simple fact that the shells would quite likely hit trees and blow up before they hit the ground would cause artillery into thick jungle to be less effective...

Since FADE is not the copy protection in ArmA it's impossible that it's doing that... FADE is in ArmA, it's a software protection implemented by BIS and should be in all versions in addition to the protection added by the publisher. It also seems to be causing a problem when people with the German version play on servers with the Czech version. Most likely because of the fact that one has Securom and the other has Starforce. Hmm, was quite sure I read that FADE wouldn't be used in ArmA... But I guess adding FADE isn't really a problem. The thing was, after all, said to be the best protection for a game that was out there

Since FADE is not the copy protection in ArmA it's impossible that it's doing that...

Have the thought that maybe it's you who are either stupid or full of Republican bullshit ever crossed your mind? I would guess not... Hmm, yeah, Iraq can't take the deaths from some terrorists killing some people and getting killed themself, but they can take the 100 000 who are fleeing the country each day? The point is wether or not USA is founded on christian values...if you somehow can tell me how a motto that was taken into use quite some time AFTER USA was founded somehow proves that USA was founded on christian values, then please, enlighten me...if not, how about coming up with something that was a fact around the time USA was founded... Christ, it's rather amusing, but at the same time a bit annoying seeing your "USA is teh best at everything" attitude...you actually belive USA is flawless? It certainly seems so...judging out from your statements one could almost belive that a single US soldier could take on the whole world and win...I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually aware of the fact that US soldiers are dying and that USA is quite far from being flawless... Hmm...let me see...Afghanistan...militamen managed to fight off the Soviet Union...Vietnam...militamen managed to fight off USA (although you somehow consider Vietnam to be a very nice success, even though you had to pull back because of militamen in pyjamas with low-tech equipment compared to the US equipment...)...

Countries where founded and had laws against killing and stealing before Christianity. Christianity is partly based on morale that was already in the society. Things like "you shall not kill" and "you shall not steal" was common morality before christianity. If I write a book that says "You neither kill nor steal", and a country is founded with laws against stealing and killing, does that mean that country is founded upon my words, my values? Would the same country not have laws against these things if neither my book nor any other book said that killing and stealing was wrong? I am quite sure the laws and morality in that country would be the same with or without my and other books. Christianity is based on morality from the countries it evolved from, countries are not founded on the morality in christianity... And except for some vague arguments like things having "OF OUR LORD" in them, I haven't seen much that point towards USA being founded on christian morality...would people consider Eminems lyrics as based on christian morality simply because he uses words that can only be connected to christianity (or possibly other religions), like God or hell or angels?

We hold the capital, the Iraqis are turning against extremism, the US is exposing what Iran really is the the SCO, and Syria is looking like its cautious about its steps now. And? The war is still not over, and you still mean you've got the right to label it as a victory, while Denoir should not be allowed to label it as a failure? There's an exception, the 20th chapter of Deuteronomy (explains what to do before war). Yeah, you just got to love how you can choose which parts to follow and which not to follow, right? Like Denoir have already pointed out, the bible (and most other religious texts) are full of contradictions and inconsistencies, which probably are what's making religion as harmful as it sometimes can be. let me review: "OF OUR LORD." and to clarify which one I'll even throw in the nations motto: "IN GOD WE TRUST" Yeah, and a certain Mr. Adolf Hitler was quite sure he could drive back the Soviets and get in to the war when in fact the Soviets were rather close to his bunker...does that mean that Hitler could just label WWII as a victory? Of course, I expect (and sincerly hope) that the americans soldiers in Iraq got a bit more grip on reality than Hitler, but that still doesn't mean that USA is winning in Iraq because they feel they are... Don't you think the japanese felt they were kicking some serious US ass after Pearl Harbor? Don't you think the Germans felt they were winning against the Soviets up to the battle in Stalingrad? The fact that they probably felt so doesn't make it a universal truth... Yeah, and lets just ignore that Iraqis say that if a Shia muslim lives in a Sunni muslim area, he is threatened to move, and if he doesn't he can expect to be killed. Lets just ignore that Iraqis say that a Sunni muslim may kill a Shia muslim because the latter one had a "Shia-name"...This doesn't prove that it's a civil war, but it proves that there's not (only) foreign terrorists that's doing the bad things, it's Iraqis...

I envy your somewhat (in my opinion) naive optimism... And yet you took the freedom (that you now rob Denoir for) to label Iraq as a victory... "Thou shalt not kill" (Somewhere in the bible...) Good luck shaking that off your fur. How does that prove that USA was founded on christian values?

Ermm...the releasedate is Q1 2007...do you really think BIS would come up with a console version of the game by that time? AFAIK there's been no work on a console version of ArmA, and I doubt BIS would manage to make ArmA for any console in 3-4 months... Just because a publisher have only published console games before doesn't mean you guys have to go crazy thinking they will release a console version...there's nothing at all that can possibly lead to beliving 505 will release a console version of ArmA...

I don't know if this was meant to be obscure, but as best I can tell it is either infering that Denoir is soon to be killed by a besmirched Priest or will be suffering a fate of Hell and damnation. As the former is a somewhat unlikely occurence and Hell and damnation isn't much of a threat to someone that doesn't believe in Hell and damnation, perhaps you could elucidate. A man will kill you because you ticked him off. If a person feels the need to kill someone, and actually does it, because someone criticized his god, he can't be strong in his belief, and therefor he shouldn't feel the need to kill anyone, because he shouldn't be that pissed of by someone criticizing something he doesn't belive that much in anyway...but somehow religious people keep giving a shit about the "Thou shalt not kill" and such... What BS have you been listening to? Everyone with half an eye and a little bit of information can see that USA is not winning in Iraq. If you consider sending a country on its way to a civil war, increasing the death rate horribly and making the country somewhat lawless a victory... No wonder you look so bright on Iraq and the rest of US' military record, if you actually consider Vietnam to be a victory at all... Bad thing It's a wild guess since I don't know him personally, but I would say it's highly likely that he is more tolerant than most religious people. The only reason you don't find him tolerant is because he is discussing religion, and he is voicing his opinions. In a discussion that is what people do. It wouldn't be much of a discussion if he had to choose his words so gently...

Indeed, therefor I guess this will be my last words on this matter. Besides, there's not much point in discussing religion anyway, not very often people with different religious belifs will come to an agreement... Of course there's other reasons too...but, you don't can't ignore deaths by cancer simply because you got AIDS and other bad things killing too... To be honest, I do share Denoir view that religion do more harm to the society than it does good. For a single person religion may bring mostly good things, as they find might find the thought of no meaning to life and no afterlife etc quite depressing. And I guess people find comfort in their religion when they have a hard time. But for the society I don't feel religion brings too much good. But as long as nobody tries to force their religious crap on me and respect my choice to not belive, I respect them and accept their belifs...the problem with religon arise when people, because of religion don't accept or respect other people (i.e like muslims wanting to kill others because their infidels, christians stigmatizing people for being gay etc)...