KaRRiLLioN

ATM, resistance has a base and most of the amenities of the East and West, but just not as advanced. They have LGB KLR motorcycles for suicide rampages, and a nuclear bomb truck for parking in an enemy base and unleashing. It's a lot of fun.

Anyone tried Far Cry yet? http://www.farcry.ubi.com/screenshots.php

FYI, my website is up. Â http://ofp.info/karrillion It's not a work of art. Â Just an index with links really. Baphomet, atm I don't have time to mess with rts3, but it wouldn't take much probably to modify one of the ai scripts to change it to an infantry script. I'm not sure what you mean about the 3-way rts. Â When one team gets knocked out and goes freelance, then there are still 2 factions to deal with. Â Whoever is left standing last will win automatically. We played 3way 0.5 the other night and it worked pretty well.

I don't think it takes a logical genius to infer it from your post. I thought that AQ hated Saddam and had no collusion with him. Â Why would they want to exact revenge? I would think they'd send a thank-you card instead. Â Your logic is what doesn't add up. On the tragedy, this is definitely a wakeup call. Â Regardless of which terrorist group perpetrated this, you can bet that others will try to copy-cat it.

Looks to me that BN880 is hoping that it's AQ for political reasons.

Concede defeat on Sudan and Kosovo? What evidence have you provided to counter it except your own conjecture? Here's a deal, you read Bush's mind and tell me exactly whether he was lying or if he was using innacurrate intel. Then I'll use my super powers to read Clinton's mind to find out his full inentions in his operations after the Lewinsky ordeal. The point - you can't. Everyone is drawing conclusions on the actions of Bush, and those who hate him are drawing much stronger conclusions than those who don't. I voted for Clinton in '92, but began to have doubts about his actions, and especially questioned his actions after Lewinsky. The primary reason for this discourse is to illustrate that both parties have their fallacies, and to see anyone spooge forth nonsense about the purity of one party over the other requires their propoganda to be challenged. Also, to state that the lies of a President about sex do not have an effect on the lives of others in the international arena is foolish. Lies by someone in such a powerful position can mean deadly consequences regardless of the reason of the lies.

How can I ignore your point if you didn't really make one? Are you asking who I think carried out the embassy bombings? Â I'm not suggesting it was some plot carried out by Clinton if that's what you're implying. It's a typical low-intelligence tactic to try to attack an argument by saying I said something I didn't. Where did I state that I thought Clinton staged the embassy bombings? I never even said I disagreed with his response, except to say that it was timed in a manner to coincide with certain legal issues going on at the time to divert more attention from them when he could have responded much better than launching a couple of tomohawk missiles to no good effect. And don't get so defensive about Kosovo. Â I swear it seems that a person can't say anything about the US taking part in a military exercise without someone getting their panties in a wad about it. Â Yes, I am perfectly aware that other countries took part in Kosovo. Â Look at the timeline I posted earlier. Â Learn to analyse. Â Then think. Â Run a google search crossreferencing Clinton+Lewinsky+Sudan, and try other combinations. Â You'll find that there's a LOT of people who find the evidence quite compelling, both from the right and the left. I drew conclusions from it that seemed very evident given what was going on at the time. Â I'll not bother to spell it out again for anyone else since everyone, even I, has their own filters installed which gives different context and meaning to the events they see. Â Don't dismiss it as poppycock without using a critical eye to the evidence. I'm sure you will anyway though. Ta.

Even if you don't believe he attacked the Sudan when he did in part because Monica Lewinsky was set to testify, it obviously radically changed the timbre of his administration and set a tone that made everything he did suspect. Milosevic even took advantage of this and started purging Albanians because he didn't think Clinton would act in a timely manner. It's rather obvious I would think.

You can't figure that out? No, actually it depends upon where you live and you are in most instances allowed to forcibly subdue an unruly and dangerous animal...hmm, sounds like Saddam, eh? Your correction would only be valid in the interim. I suppose if I had taken longer to flesh out the analogy I could have come up with more points of comparison. Try this for a more accurate picture: To help repair the damage done to the house, you temporarily replaced the colour TV (which had only 1 channel working on it anyway) with a smaller colour TV that had multiple channels available. The AC repairman finally did come by and repair the AC, and the electricity was restored, except that other stray wild dogs kept spraying the power lines causing them to go out. Your older brother moved in with the neighbor to help keep the other stray dogs from moving onto his property to take the place of the one you had killed until you've bought him a new one that he and his family get to choose. Then you and your brother come under intense scrutiny from other nearby neighborhoods. The people there said, "that dog wasn't nearly as dangers as you prortrayed him to be! You had no right to kill it." Soon you are accused of lying about the behaviour of the dog and people begin to defend the other stray dogs.... Well I could go on, but I have things to do.

Why denior, just because facts don't back up your side of the "story" doesn't mean you have to stoop to calling names and go away mad! You are obviously letting your hate for Bush blind you it appears. I happen to watch 6 different news sources on TV, including Canadian news, plus I read daily from several other online sources.  You must be getting your news from IhateBush.com. Anyway, just to quote the story which nobody bothered on clicking the link to earlier... link: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/22/air.strikes.follow/ Another interesting link regarding Kosovo, although it doesn't go enough into some details: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/etc/cron.html The UN had been trying to get open access to find WMD in Iraq for a decade with little to show for it.  Bush's threats finally made Saddam open up the doors a bit wider, but still not wide enough because Blix still wasn't able to get the entire picture. Rather than use a "shoot the neighbor's for no reason" story, how about this: Your neighbor's dog has killed off your neighbor's cats, and any other dogs that have come near it.  Your neighbor lets the dog walk around without a leash outside.  Then the dog goes next door and kills the cat there.  Every time you go near this dog, it growls.  Even though it's a few houses down from you, you're not comfortable with it in the neighborhood.  Then one day you see the dog making threatening advances at your little daughter, so you tell your neighbor to put the dog on a leash.  The neighbor doesn't.  You go to the neighborhood committee and ask them to help you in this, but some of the people on the committee have business dealings with this neighbor and don't want to insult him so nothing happens.  Finally after having seen this dog threaten and kill  for many years , you finally decide to take matters into your own hands.  You get a shotgun and shoot the dog.  Then you tell the neighbor, you'll buy him a new dog and help you choose a better one that will be friendlier to kids. I can't fit WMD into a dog, unless it sprays all over your new silk suit, but analogies are always limited. =)

fresh elephant meat on rice.

Plain and simple, denoir, Clinton didn't want a legacy that only consisted of his sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. Â As they say, it only takes one "Oh shit!" to wipe out 10 "Good Job!"'s, and Clinton wanted something bigger. Â So, the day before Monica Lewinsky was to testify, he launched missile attacks at an asprin factory in Sudan. Â Later, he went against the UN and instead used NATO to launch a poorly conceived air campaign against Kosovo. I understand that you can't take the truth about it, but that's the way it was. Â And it perfectly relates to today's current situation IF you think GWB was intentionally lying about Iraq's WMD. Â Most of the world believed Iraq had WMD, they just didn't have the guts to do anything about it. Â Well, that plus the main coalition against the war (France, Germany, Russia) had some very cozy relations with Saddam. Â So I guess there isn't that much of a parallel since I don't think GWB intentionally lied about it. Clinton may have been merely lying about some Lewinskies that he got, but as the President, he used his power to try to divert attention away from it. Â And remember, it wasn't the sexual affair that landed him in trouble, it was the fact that he lied to a grand jury about it, and guess what? Â That's breaking the law. Â The end result was that his diversions got hundreds of thousands of Muslims buthered because of a rushed, sloppily planned invasion that he pushed for more quickly in order to preserve his legacy. So, what's worse... 1. Lying about an affair and attempting to divert the public's attention away from it by killing innocent people in Sudan and then escalating a conflict with a badly planned air strike campaign that allows Muslims to be methodically exterminated. 2. Be accused of lying after intelligence was wrong (so far) about WMD, even though the military plan carried out worked so well that instead of losing thousands of troops on the ground, far less were actually killed, a dictator was overthrown and captured, and the country is now free to sign a new constitution.

What I'm getting at is both sides are guilty of many of the same things. There's no "purity" in politics, except demagoguery and rhetoric for the most part. Each side tries to lay blame on the other for things they probably would have done similarly had they been in the same situation. If Clinton hadn't gotten a Lewinsky, I don't think he would have attacked Sudan, or sent in airstrikes against Kosovo. I think he was using that as a diversion from his problems. So in his case a lie, I beleive, led to larger issues. If Kerry wins, then I'm more than willing to see if he can do what it takes, but personally, I wish to see a cut in social spending and I'd like the tax cuts to remain. I just think that a Kerry administration would raise taxes and increase social spending. As I've stated before I'm against many of the social spending increases that Bush and the Republicans have implemented. They were successful in the 90's because they cut spending and reformed wasteful social programs. If Bush would have listened to his fiscally conservative base and the Republicans had shown some backbone, they could have easily cut the deficit, or at least not increased it as much as they have been. I'm waiting for the first few debates to hear solid (one can always hope) plans for the budget. It is still my belief that the combination of Clinton vs. Republicans + booming economy is what helped eliminate the deficit in the 90's. Had Gore come into office instead of Bush, he probably would have had the same issues, although it's too hypotheical to even warrant a true guess. Bottom line for me is that I have severe reservations about a Dem in the President's office.

In your opinion. If Bush is such a moron, then the Dem's must be even moreso. After all, Bush increased the number of Rep's in the Congress and defeated the Dem's handily in the 2002 elections. Not only that, but he's gotten his way with almost every policy he's pushed. But, if it helps you to feel better thinking that he's a moron, please continue to delude yourself. :P

I'm sure many Dem's wish that were true! Doesn't matter if Clinton is running or not. I'm just pointing out to Walker that the Dem's are not as clean as the wind-driven snow. Both Gore and Clinton had some pretty severe ethical lapses. To state what happened to John Ashcroft in 1998 and yet ignore what Gore was doing at around the same time is somewhat hypocritical. I submit to you that a politician is a politician, Dem or Rep. To think that John Kerry is any better is wishful thinking.

Ah, so the proven lies of Clinton which drastically affected more than his sex life are not comparable to the alleged lies of Bush? I see an act of war (the Sudan) that resulted from the lies of Clinton, not to mention the conflict in Kosovo was poorly planned and conceived primarily so Clinton could have a legacy that was not completely overshadowed by his outright bald-faced to the camera lying about his affair. Â Kosovo's poor planning cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Muslims who were brutally butchered. A lie is a lie, is it not?

OK, so you don't think that Clinton's bombing of an asprin factory in the Sudan, killing several people with the collateral damage, the day before Monica Lewinsky was to testify was senseless? It's not "thousands" of people, of course, but you believe it's justified, or doesn't compare at all? Especially since his own lies cast doubt about all of his intentions: http://slate.msn.com/id/23297/ Look past your own propaganda, my friend.

Yep, good thing that Democrats have never lied to us. http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/50000/video/_50772_clinton_vi.ram And that no-one has ever had to die for those lies. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/22/air.strikes.follow/ And that Democrats have never had anything to do with crooked campaign contribution schemes. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/hsia.indict/ Edit: I believe that the Iraq intelligence pointed to a danger, and while the administration may have hyped it up a bit (name a politician that doesn't), I don't think it was outright lying. Â Look at Iran and North Korea. Â These are countries that developed capacity for nuclear weapons right under our noses with nary a peep from intelligence about it. Â Why? Â Because these are tightly closed countries, as Iraq was, and extremely hard to get good human intelligence from.

Ubermensch is working on new RTS3 buildings. He got permission from the maker of the Barracken building addons to use them. The radar tower now spins, etc. so it's looking cool. This will also give everything a bit more of a military look. The West will have green, the East brown, and the Resistance a different colour, that I can't remember right now.

Walker, many countries buy up US currency when it's weak. It's just good policy, because they know it's value will eventually go up again. There are also a lot of service positions that have gone to India, like the technical calls for many companies are answered in India, for example. This has been going on for years.

Even if John Kerry is protectionist, I don't think he could get away with it, not if he wants to be a true multi-nationalist, i.e. "get along" with our European allies. The WTO has ruled against protectionist policies, and tariffs would be too costly to a recovering economy to let them be imposed. Many US citizens who are in the manufacturing sector think they need "protection" from low-cost labor in China, etc. I just don't think it's possible anymore, however. Not unless you want to isolate the economy and let it stagnate and suffer when Europe, et.al retaliate with tariffs. So to sum up, regardless of how protectionist he'd like to be, I don't think it's a sustainable policy in the current world environment.

Interesting article on jobs creation: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4457535/ Maybe a bright spot for Bush: Bush will still have to carry Ohio and Florida, IMO, to have a chance. Ohio has had a large job loss, mainly in manufacturing. Most of those workers are in unions who vote Democratic already, but there are some who vote Republican. Florida is a wildcard. Whichever side is the most energized has the best chance. I'm guessing the Dem's will be, but it's really hard to say this far out from the election. Still too far away to even guess about who can win, especially with polling data from Nader's entry into the race just starting to seep in. I'm guessing Nader will take about 2-3% of the popular vote. How that will translate into the electoral college, I'm not sure. Bush only lost Oregon by .5% in 2000, and I think that was because Nader took 6% of the vote in Oregon. This year "Green" voters might be more careful, but you never know. Some voters stick to principle rather than voting for who can beat whom.

While it looks sort of useless for the military right now, I'm sure it'll be refined and upgraded. I think this will someday replace the wheelchair. Instead, you get your own exoskeleton to prop up your weak legs. I can see something like this being used at supply bases, etc., for rearming vehicles maybe. The guys can carry heavier loads with it, although this is just a sort of leg/back support version. It'll be more practical if it helps the arms as well. Hydraulics probably won't be the way to go, though. Those synthetic "muscle-suits" which actually have super-strong carbon fibers (made of nano-tubes) which will contract and release with small doses of electrical stimulus will be the wave of the future. Then it'd be more like wearing a skin-tight outfit, instead of being like Robo-cop.

That worked, thanks. I think I forgot to run the update.exe file the last time I reinstalled it.

Hate to bother you again, but I'm having a problem advancing past the mission "Conquer HQ" where you must take Bitov and then defend it against the enemy tanks. After I beat the mission, I clicked "continue" to go to next mission but the game crashed with the error: Config: "" encountered instead of ',' I tried restarting, but still got the same error as it crashed. Is there a problem with whatever the next mission is? Maybe in the description.ext? I'm using the patch 2.01 and running 1.96 OFP. Thanks, I'm really enjoying it thus far!