Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Oligo

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    954

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Oligo

  1. Posted

    1. The movie starts with a U.S. flag waving filling the whole screen smile.gif

    2. The germans defending the beach (also elsewhere) are pictured as faceless stormtroopers (as in Star Wars). When they show the machinegun firing on the assaulting yanks, they never show the gunner, who probably was clutching the weapon in horror, firing in semi-panic on the approaching hordes of people trying to kill him.

    3. The righteousness of their mission is underlined at all times by dear captain Miller, who in reality would probably have told his dear CO to fuck off.

    4. Only the suffering of americans is shown. The germans always die right up, only the americans cry for their mothers when they perish in agony.

    5. The movie clearly implicates that the machinegunner they capture and then let go should have been shot, because if you let any of those nazi scum alive they return to kill all your friends as the german machinegunner did in the end of the movie. Luckily smile.gif Upham got cured from his erroneous thinking and wasted the german in the end.

    6. The germans cannot fight. Do you think they would have taken whole europe with that kind of combat performance? Maybe they were badly trained germans.

    Those are the points I could come up right now.

  2. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Scooby @ Feb. 27 2002,11:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oligo, Was it old M62 or newer M91 camo?

    Or maybe he was using M83.   J/K  smile.gif<span id='postcolor'>

    It was the military version (the more expensive) of M91 camo. I think they made it way too bright.

  3. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 27 2002,11:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">People have commited suicide for stranger and less worthy causes. Like comets, bad grades and low self esteem.<span id='postcolor'>

    My thoughts exactly. You have to admit those warriors of allah had the guts to die for SOMETHING, however stupid. I think most people in west kill themselves, because there is NOTHING in their lives.

  4. Posted

    I just bought and watched Apocalypse Now - Redux DVD on my home theatre. Man I was totally glued to the sofa for the whole three plus hours. The whole movie is a totally enthrilling trip to insanity, from the beginning scene of cross-fades and Doors playing in the background to the fractured ending of feverish mirages. As far as war movies go, they can't get much better than this.

    As a contrast, I watched Saving Private Ryan right after Apocalypse Now - Redux. But I only managed to tackle the first hour, before I became sickened by the constant flag waving. So I stopped and was left in thought.

    Why did I think the first movie was so cool and the second one so sucky? I made the conclusion that I personally probably appreciate movies which picture war as pointless insanity as opposed to a patriotic glory ride. In Apocalypse Now the enemy is pictured as humans whereas in Saving Private Ryan the enemy is pictured as evil nazi zombies who should all be killed.

    Maybe the yanks need to lose a war in order to produce good war movies for a while? wink.gif

  5. Posted

    At least the finnish camo totally sucks. We were playing airsoft and one of my friends was wearing finnish camo and the other U.S. woodland camo. The one wearing the finnish one was like an exclamation mark in the forest, when the other friend nicely blended to his background with the woodland camo.

    So I'd never wear that finnish crap unless forced.

  6. Posted

    Actually this whole issue reminds me of a book by Iain M. Banks called "The use of weapons". Part of that book is about these two men, almost brothers, grew up together in the same family, who end up in a war leading the different sides. One of the brothers is an individual of high morals, so his use of weapons is self-restricted. The other brother is a survivor, however, and for him anything can be a weapon: His use of weapons is unrestricted. Guess which one wins in the end? The moral brother loses the war and is killed, but the immoral brother cannot live with the memories of what he has done (f. ex. killed his sister for strategic advantage) and so the rest of his existence is self-torture.

    We can look at Vietnam as an analogy. The U.S. forces ended up using "questionable" methods. The people who had to realize these methods, some of them ended up wrecks, unable to live with what they had done.

    The dilemma is simple: If somebody is about kill me, I would absolutely kill him in self defence, without hesitation. But when it gets more complex than that... what then?

  7. Posted

    Unfortunately Ralph, it's not that easy. See, the way the terrorists are fighting is sort of the natural way for humans. The high moral way of the western countries is actually very unnatural for humans and so it takes tremendous effort for us to stay in this state we have achieved with so much effort.

    So if you start relaxing the moral standards, like giving them up in certain situations, you take a risk of the corruption spreading from that. See, even western leaders are power hungry, because they are human. If you give them a finger, they'll eat your whole arm and pretty soon we have slid all the way to option 1 (see above).

    It's almost impossible to walk a middle line between options 1 and 2. That's the way I see it.

  8. Posted

    "That's why the evil will always triumf, because the good is dumb." Spaceballs the movie

    Naah, seriously, I wonder why it is so hard for people to understand that having high morals and sticking to them is actually a handicap in a fight?

    "Get me in a fight I like the dirty tricks." Mark Knopfler

  9. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Feb. 27 2002,01:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oligo: If you are going to steal lines from 'FightClub' again, at least get it right. It was an AR-10 not a 15,....geez.

    This is the second time I recall you stealing lines from 'FightClub', please stop it or I will have you charged with plagarism.  tounge.gif

    It was a good movie, don't abuse it!  biggrin.gif<span id='postcolor'>

    Well, man, it was actually quoted from the book. And I'm sorry I didn't have the book here with me to copy it EXACTLY. Anyway, what's wrong with quoting? Do you want references to go with that or what?

  10. Posted

    First of all, we cannot be sure whether that tape is just a fabrication of our benevolent governments to incite us to rage. But let's not discuss that. Just pointed out that there is always a possibility of propaganda.

    So, assuming that it is true. It is imperative that we understand the reality that being a society of high morals is, before anything else, a huge liability. The price we pay for our freedom is the huge disadvantage we have against people to whom no means are repugnant. Therefore we have two options:

    1. We play their game with their rules. We torture and kill people. We would probably win, since we have the means to destroy all opposition if any means are acceptable (including the killing of civilians).

    2. We stick to our morals and such. We fight this fight respecting our moral rules, although the enemy is not respecting these rules. In this fight we are handicapped beyond any sense and the fighting may never end.

    So which option will we choose? I think we are already slipping towards the first option.

  11. Posted

    This incident reminds me of the training the spetsnaz underwent during Soviet Union times. They dressed the soldiers as convicts and dropped them off in the middle of the city with orders to return to barracks. Then they told the public and the police that dangerous convicts had escaped. If the cops shot the spetsnaz soldiers, well, they were not good enough for spetsnaz. And that was that.

  13. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (christophercles @ Feb. 26 2002,10:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah, i just dont take much notice of posts that dont have much meaning.<span id='postcolor'>

    Yeah, maybe you should go back to your beer, fornicating and fast food to get the meaning you so much seek.

  14. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (christophercles @ Feb. 26 2002,10:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">nah, dont make em fracture, that just makes em hurt more!!<span id='postcolor'>

    See? You SHOULD make the bullets fracture to make these people feel even a fraction of the pain you're feeling inside you when you have to put up with all this vermin, Wobble...

  15. Posted

    Read a little more carefully. What I said is that there are about 8 million people in slammer in the whole world. Of these, 2 million are in the slammer in the U.S. (=25%). Yet, U.S. people make only 5% of the world population. Comprende?

  16. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Feb. 26 2002,10:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hey wait a minute .............

    2 000 000 persons can't be 25% of the world population

    i don't have the time to calculate that , i'm too tired , maybe you wanted to speak about  25% of the US population<span id='postcolor'>

    Naah, there is a much more trivial explanation. I made a typo, which I now corrected.

  17. Posted

    Just reminds you people. Whoever, anytime might just SNAP and stalk from office to office with an AR-15 semi automatic assault rifle pumping rounds after rounds into colleagues and co-workers. This oxford tied psycho had probably spent hours at home, filing a little cross to the tip of each bullet with a rattail file. So when the bullets hit flesh, they fracture along the fault lines. You see your gut chakra opening. Do not make a mistake: This person could be anyone. It could be somebody you have known for a long time.

    So Wobble, tell us again what you are doing at home, when you cannot get any sleep? Does it involve a rattail file?

  18. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 26 2002,09:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">also the statistics are kinds misleading..  alot of the stats are from "one night wonders".. as in you get pulled over and have been drinking.. you spend the night in jail.. that statisitcally counts the same as a person who is in jail for years..  <span id='postcolor'>

    I agree with most of what you say, except with what you say about the statistics of how much people you have in the slammer. You see, the two million inmates is a population figure, not a figure of how much people are thrown into slammer each year. So at any one time during 2000, U.S. had about two million people in the slammer. This is 25% of the world inmate population.

    I'm wondering if the cause is the fact that your courts seem to deal out very long sentences as compared to for example Finland. I'm not saying giving short sentences is a good thing, just wondering whether this is the cause of the large inmate population in the U.S.

  19. Posted

    I was just watching OZ, the HBO TV-series about Oswald maximum security slammer. They presented some interesting statistics saying that there were 2 million inmates in the U.S. in the year 2000. U.S. citizens make up 5% of the world population, but 25% of the world population in slammers. If you compare this to the evil opressive regime China: Chinese make up about 20% of the world population, but cannot make up 20% of the population in slammer, since United States of Freedom has already claimed 25% so there is not enough left. Yet crime rates in the U.S. are high compared to the countries with less people in slammers.

    So are these statistics crap or are they real? I know the yanks are the most eager polluters on Earth but are they also the most eager to shut people in slammers? And why?

  20. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 25 2002,15:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No government is preventing frustrated individuals from going abroad to fight as mercenaries. But by doing that those individuals are not representing their fatherland, just their personal beliefs and motivations.

    It would be politically unwise to officially send young men to foreign countries to fight and gain combat experience.

    Today's wars are mostly civil wars raging in third world countries so the combat experience gained from such fighting may be hard to implement on much more organized modern defence forces.<span id='postcolor'>

    Merccing is actually more or less banned. They can even sue you to frigging international court.

    Anyway at least yanks and brits send their people to fight all the time.

  22. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (R. Gerschwarzenge @ Feb. 25 2002,12:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now that I come to think of it I have nothing against some nutcases to go shoot and be shot at if they want to.  biggrin.gif<span id='postcolor'>

    Exactly my point.

  23. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (R. Gerschwarzenge @ Feb. 25 2002,12:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 25 2002,11:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It really sucks that our government doesn't send troops to shooting wars, not even volunteer troops.<span id='postcolor'>

    wow.gif

    This is a joke, right?  confused.gif<span id='postcolor'>

    Not a joke, man. I'm pretty sure every country has a bunch of men who would like to go and fight in wars, whatever the cause.

    For a country, sending these people to wars has two benefits:

    a) The young men vent their energy on war rather than venting it against the social structure of their own country

    b) The armed services of the country get officers who have actually been under fire

  24. Posted

    Yeah, Murda Mon! All our foreigner base belong to you! For great justice!

    In sports, I'm pretty sure everybody is using doping. This is simply because the pharmaceutical giants keep on pouring new drugs to the market. These new drugs which are normally used to treat ailments, sometimes cause performance improvement if taken by healthy individuals. Before this is realized by WADA, the new drug is not forbidden. When the properties are discovered, it still takes (sometimes years) a long time to develop a reliable assay for screening. By this time, new drugs have appeared.

    This is why those with access to money and good doctors can cheat without (technically) doing anything that is forbidden.

    There was a gallup in which a wide batch of athletes were asked: "If there was an undetectable drug which enabled you to win olympic gold, but it was going to kill you in ten years time, would you take it?" Almost everybody answered yes. confused.gif

  25. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 25 2002,10:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ambitious assholes make wars.. soldiers fight them<span id='postcolor'>

    Yeah, thanks for pointing out my inadequacy in your native language.

    Soldiers go to the pointless wars and die. Sounds a lot better than working the job you hate (so you can buy shit you don't need) until they stuff you into a retirement home and feed you through tubes till you rot away.

    Man, people always whine that life is too short, but I'm whining that life is too long.

×