Mr. Snrub

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 01 2003,16:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You should study social anthropology <span id='postcolor'> I do sort of well, Political Science/History

France is already involved in this situation - through it's strong anti-war stance, and it's position within the UN. You don't necessarily need to be part of the invading Coalition to be part of the situation - you could just be on the other side of the fence. While it's not all together pointless (ie. it has some relevance), arguing about various countries economic interests in this war won't really lead anywhere. You could argue that France, Russia, China and perhaps Germany oppose the war because of the considerable business deals they have with Iraq and other middle-eastern nations, but you can also argue that every country in the Coalition has vested interests in seeing it go ahead - the US with oil and rebuilding contracts, other countries pressing to joining the EU or get US foreign aid, Australia pushing for a free-trade agreement etc. OxPecker is right - there is a huge schism between Western and Arab views on the war and terrorism. For instance, the Arab world links most things (like this war) back to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while we see them as stand-alone events of no relation. Until we can understand their point of view, and they can empathise with ours, the extremists will keep coming. What I'm really starting to get tired of though is the typical immature arguments the general public (on both sides) is basing their opinions on. Believing Iraq and al-Qaeda are the same entity, all this France-bashing etc. I just wish the public would realise that this situation is far more complex, with far more history than they realise. Any well thought-out, rational argument from anyside can't be summarised in one catch-phrase or banner slogan.

I seriously can't remember Quite some time though... I had the demo for a while before the game was released - so I must have bought OFP sometime around September 2001 or so...at best guess...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Mar. 29 2003,09:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">According to the Iraqi government, the farmer shot it down with a pistol <span id='postcolor'> I heard it was a World War 1-vintage bolt-action rifle Don't you just love the Iraqi propaganda machine? They don't even try to be realistic! You can see the next headlines... "Iraq destroys entire armoured column with willpower alone!"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 31 2003,22:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are some reported links between Al-Quaida and Iraq (the territory if not the government). Whether those reports are believable is a matter of opinion. However i agree that a lot of the linkage between AQ and Iraq in the US is totally free from factual foundation. Its like an ugly rumour that gets around-regardless of fact. As one woman in the US said in a TV interview- 'Oh theyre all in it together, them arab countries' (interviewer)- 'but there hasnt so far been any proof of Iraqs involvment (in spt.11 attacks) has there? 'Oh they did it alright.'- Id LIKE to think there is more behind the US media and governments thinking than this.<span id='postcolor'> Well said indeed! There have been links made between the Iraqi regime and Ansar al-Islam, a group reportedly with ties to al Qaeda - whether these links are justified remains unresolved. Perhaps there is some sort of anti-West/US alliance between Saddam and these terrorists, or maybe it was all just cooked up to help sell the war to the public...we need some solid information before we can say for sure... Public emotion can be so easily exploited by a government - Saddam is a pre-known bad guy, so turning public opinion against him and his regime was pretty easy. It was an incredible piece of political maneuvering on the part of the Bush administration to turn attention from the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to Saddam in Iraq, but it wouldn't have been too difficult. The government here in Australia tried to do the same thing here a while back by trying to link the Iraqi regime to the terrorist attack in Bali, with absolutely no success. They just repeated the same old meaningless rhetoric that has been peddled for months now...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 31 2003,23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyone who thought that GW1's "Kuwaiti incubator scam" couldn't happen again should read this article about the false basis of Washington's nuclear WMD claims. Last paragraph: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On March 14th, Senator Jay Rockefeller, of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, formally asked Robert Mueller, the F.B.I. director, to investigate the forged documents. Rockefeller had voted for the resolution authorizing force last fall. Now he wrote to Mueller, “There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq.†He urged the F.B.I. to ascertain the source of the documents, the skill-level of the forgery, the motives of those responsible, and “why the intelligence community did not recognize the documents were fabricated.†A Rockefeller aide told me that the F.B.I. had promised to look into it.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'> Wouldn't be the first time fabricated evidence was used as the basis for launching military action - Tonkin Gulf Incident anyone?

Despite what these militias may have done in the past, they seem pretty redundant these days. As far as I can tell, the tradition of militias in the US was established to combat hostile forces (ie. the British) if regular forces were unable to. The main threat to the mainland US these days comes from sources that these militias don't have the capability to defend against, such as terrorists. Maybe the image of militias in general has been tarnished by some border-line criminal/terrorist militia groups, but what sort of percentage of militia groups in the US would be considered to be dangerous extremists? If the main concerns of militia groups include community welfare, disaster relief, and search and rescue, they seem pretty reasonable. But as soon as you have a militia group whose primary interest lies in defending America from some perceived imminent threat, then things start to get worrying. The latter seems like an outlet for people with extreme conservative views...

Great work Bibmi! Love the militia's clothes - nice to have some decent irregulars in-game... I'll just echo the others by saying a more motley group of weapons should be thrown in - FN-FALs, G3s etc. As for the overall crapiness of milita accuracy, Hellfish6 and pzvg are spot on - no training + no maintenance of weapon = bad soldier. I remember seeing an African militiaman (I think it was in Rwanda) a few years ago try and fire his G3 single-handedly - threw him back a fair distance and looked like it broke his arm... No major problems, just those mentioned before - missing LODs at a far distance, militia soldier 3 has no ammunition etc. However, I get the error message "No entry '.modelSpecial" whenever I insert an RPG soldier. I know this isn't a problem with the pack itself, but it's been bugging me for some time now...any help? Excellent stuff in any case - I look forward to those South American guerillas you've got coming

Actually, I think they never got around to finishing texturing it. IIRC, they said on their old site that they had some sort of difficulties with texturing, and they were going to wait for something or other (more tools perhaps) to release it. I guess they either never got the things they needed, or they just never got around to doing it. Bit of a shame though, a desert Bradley is needed for some of the desert maps we have, and they would have done a bang-up job of it...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lt_Damage @ Mar. 25 2003,09:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You should be drooling just knowing BIS is making something new. Seriously you know Suma, Maruk etc, they are great guys and when great minds are working on a new game you can bet it will be something we will love After playing OFP I have a great amount of respect for BIS and trust them 100% that whatever they release will be something new and innovative, not just a clone.<span id='postcolor'> Hear Hear! OFP was BIS' first proper game as well - which is an amazing accomplishment in itself, to start off with such a top game -, so now they have some invaluable experience and, as Marek said in the interview, having learned some lessons here and there. I am under no doubt that BIS is going to come up with something absolutely fantastic

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lt_Damage @ Mar. 25 2003,09:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You should be drooling just knowing BIS is making something new. Seriously you know Suma, Maruk etc, they are great guys and when great minds are working on a new game you can bet it will be something we will love After playing OFP I have a great amount of respect for BIS and trust them 100% that whatever they release will be something new and innovative, not just a clone.<span id='postcolor'> Hear Hear! OFP was BIS' first proper game as well - which is an amazing accomplishment in itself, to start off with such a top game -, so now they have some invaluable experience and, as Marek said in the interview, having learned some lessons here and there. I am under no doubt that BIS is going to come up with something absolutely fantastic

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (haunted @ Mar. 24 2003,19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Therefore lotsd of unfounded rumors but when I first saw OFP SS's the emphasis was clearly based on Infantry, while with IL the first SS's I saw were of choppers and aircraft on Carriers eor in flight.<span id='postcolor'> I'd say the IL emphasis on aircraft/ships in their screenshots is to illustrate the main differences between it and OFP - perhaps the simulation of infantry in IL isn't that much different to regular OFP, while other areas (ships in particular) are leaps and bounds ahead. Makes sense to point out which parts of the engine have been improved the most... Seeing as IL is based on the East Timor conflict (or a future conflict in ET), I think it's highly likely that the infantry aspect will be the main part of the game, just like it was in real-life...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (uiox @ Mar. 23 2003,22:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Obvious yes obvious of the moment of: Propose new features, think and propose all what you think of OFP2..... Imagine OFP2, help etc ...<span id='postcolor'> But that's what this thread is for: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=14164

Seems like something big is goin' down.... Pretty exciting stuff whatever it is

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (killagee @ Mar. 19 2003,17:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Complex studies were carried out during the selection processes for the SAAF, RAAF, the Chiliean Air force and for Poland. All seperate studies concluded that the Jas-39C (export version) was the best value for money of any multi-role fighter around. Unfortunately only the SAAF bought it. The aussies selected the Joint Strike Fighter, even though the Gripen scored higher in every catergory when price is considered. The Gripen even offered 40% better local industry offset deals. They said they the JAS_39 was omitted cause the RAAF needed twin engine fighters for over-sea operation. Anyone ever seen a twin engine F-35? didnt think so... Yeah, low vis textures would be better.<span id='postcolor'> The RAAF selected the JSF for it's V/STOL ability as well, to complement projected amphibious assault ship purchases - and because of greater stealth characteristics. We are also being rather pro-American in an effort to secure a free-trade agreement with the U.S. Anyhoo, the model looks ripper - not too 'clean' as some addons tend to be....you'd expect military equipment to have a certain 'used' look...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Skul @ Mar. 18 2003,01:31)</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">- more weapon animations (ie. removing magazines, bullet casings from mounted MGs, cocking handles) <span id='postcolor'> Yeah, I'd like that, too, instead of seeing their hand floating around the magazine for a few seconds then returning back to aiming. Looks like kinda weird, but it's one of those OFP things we have learned to let slip, but still...<span id='postcolor'> There seems to be an inversely-proportional relationship in games engines like OFP & DF between the degree of terrain openness and weapon interactivity - the more vast and realistic the terrain, the less impressive the hand-held weapons are. Hopefully OFP2 will have overcome these sorta problems - if it does, it would be without a doubt miles ahead of anything we've ever seen (except for OFP i suppose ) Good grief, i've gone and got myself all flustered!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Skul @ Mar. 18 2003,01:31)</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">- more weapon animations (ie. removing magazines, bullet casings from mounted MGs, cocking handles) <span id='postcolor'> Yeah, I'd like that, too, instead of seeing their hand floating around the magazine for a few seconds then returning back to aiming. Looks like kinda weird, but it's one of those OFP things we have learned to let slip, but still...<span id='postcolor'> There seems to be an inversely-proportional relationship in games engines like OFP & DF between the degree of terrain openness and weapon interactivity - the more vast and realistic the terrain, the less impressive the hand-held weapons are. Hopefully OFP2 will have overcome these sorta problems - if it does, it would be without a doubt miles ahead of anything we've ever seen (except for OFP i suppose ) Good grief, i've gone and got myself all flustered!

I'd really like to see the option where no indivdual unit/addon is assigned to any particular side (other than to Objects for static objects, I suppose) so that the mission-maker can assign any unit/group to any side - whether it be West, East or Resistance. Another option would allow the user to select alliances between any of the sides. This would allow players to have all sorts of interesting scenarios - Russian troops & US/Euro forces cooperating against guerillas etc. etc. Other things I'd like to see include: - more soldier animations (ie. walking on patrol, hand signals, peeking around corners) - more weapon animations (ie. removing magazines, bullet casings from mounted MGs, cocking handles) Not sure if these have been mentioned before, and I don't particularly feel like wading through 26 pages of suggestions Besides, if someone's brought this up before, it shows that more than one person has arrived at this fantabulous idea on their own...

I'd really like to see the option where no indivdual unit/addon is assigned to any particular side (other than to Objects for static objects, I suppose) so that the mission-maker can assign any unit/group to any side - whether it be West, East or Resistance. Another option would allow the user to select alliances between any of the sides. This would allow players to have all sorts of interesting scenarios - Russian troops & US/Euro forces cooperating against guerillas etc. etc. Other things I'd like to see include: - more soldier animations (ie. walking on patrol, hand signals, peeking around corners) - more weapon animations (ie. removing magazines, bullet casings from mounted MGs, cocking handles) Not sure if these have been mentioned before, and I don't particularly feel like wading through 26 pages of suggestions Besides, if someone's brought this up before, it shows that more than one person has arrived at this fantabulous idea on their own...

Hasn't Jane's Combat Sims gone under? Their website seems to have been taken down quite some time ago, and I've heard around the place that they've packed it in...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do not wish these things upon ANYONE, but in wartime, somethings NEED to be done inorder to SAVE your countrymens lives in the future, and to save your own.<span id='postcolor'> Huh? Bit a contradiction you've got yourself there... Anway, yes, I agree that things must be done in order to protect the lives of innocent citizens (from my country or any other) - things other than torture. Legitimate intelligence collection, beefing up domestic security and multi-lateral cooperation against terrorism spring to mind.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I Made it clear that I was referring to war time against "enemies" or enemy combattants.<span id='postcolor'> Makes not a bit of difference - if you torture POWs or use cruel/inhumane weapons against enemy soldiers, you are still committing what amounts to a war-cime. Radovan Karadzic and Pol Pot (among others) used the same tactics to achieve their political/military goals - what would differentiate the U.S. from these guys? Good intentions?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 10 2003,09:23)</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">We have a right to torture enemy soldiers just as they have the right to torture our soldiers. <span id='postcolor'> No. " .... torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed, or intimidating him or other persons." (Article 1, UN Declaration Against Torture, 1975) "No State may permit or tolerate torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. " (Article 3, UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1975) But again this doesn´t mean much, does it ?<span id='postcolor'> Correct 110% IceFire, I can understand that you think the U.S. has some fundamental right, as a sovereign nation, to (pre-emptively) defend itself, and that this right transcends moral and ethical limits (ie. includes the use of torture - which I don't agree with at all), but you have to understand that nations automatically relinquish some of their sovereignty when they agree to obey international law (the Geneva Convention for example). The U.S. has agreed to such rules and regulations, and therefore gives up its 'right' to torture prisoners, POWs etc. This is how the international community works, and should work. The United States cannot pick and choose which rules it chooses to follow, contrary to international law - while denouncing other countries that do that same. If you want to live in the neighbourhood, you have to play by the rules, no matter how powerful you are. The basis of the U.S. argument to go to war (well one of them, it seems to change from week to week) is to rid Iraq of Saddam's oppressive regime - one that systematically tortures, murders and rapes its citizens (and POWs, as seen in the Gulf War). To laud torture as an acceptable means of gaining information is as hypocritical as you can get. By torturing captured prisoners, the difference between the Iraqi dictatorship and the U.S. government becomes ever smaller. Please don't say that I would change my tune if my country were attacked as the US was on 9/11 (as horrendous as it was). I would much rather my country apprehend terrorists using the values that make my country the free, democratic country it is. Physical and mental torture should not be differentiated either - most of us cannot comprehend what mental torture must be like, so its fairly naive to assume its that much 'better' than physical torture. Torture is the lowest, most repulsive act a human can perform. Please have a read of this article, and pay close attention to the last sentance... http://www.thestar.com/NASApp....0116467

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 06 2003,01:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mr. Snrub @ Mar. 04 2003,09:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But if NK wants to shoot down an unarmed, passive US aircraft, then trying to avoid tension is kinda pointless...<span id='postcolor'> Spying on a country is not being passive. For fucks sake the Americans think they can just do whatever they want and they will always be the good guys. What would America do if China decided to start flying recon planes around America just doing a bit of 'passive' recon. It's frickin Cuba all over again!<span id='postcolor'> By passive I meant non-aggressive - ie. not posing any direct threat. I'm not saying the Americans aren't being a tad provocative (they certainly are), but they aren't breaking any rules either.

3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 04 2003,173)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I bet the next US spy plane up there won't be travelling alone.<span id='postcolor'> I hope the US doesn't decide to give the recon flights any fighter escorts - I wouldn't put it past the N.Korean govt., being the paranoid militants they are, to see these escorts as an 'offensive campaign against NK'. Having armed escorts might just serve to allow the N.Koreans to ratchet up the tension - they are so easy to provoke. But if NK wants to shoot down an unarmed, passive US aircraft, then trying to avoid tension is kinda pointless... The N.Koreans don't seem to have a particularly good understanding (or respect) of international boundaries - in 1968, a US surveillance ship (the USS Pueblo) was monitoring signals off NK, in international waters - the N.Koreans had a good idea of what it was doing, and just boarded it and towed it into harbour (after shooting it up a bit first).