OxPecker

I'm not generally one to criticise addon makers work, but this alien looks rather - well - bad. The textures are bizarre and dont look right.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 04 2003,04:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Obviously the Brits and others on the ground in Iraq have judged the intelligence to be valid, and moreso to be a threat.<span id='postcolor'> Either that or British and other allied leaders are more concerned with ingratiating themselves with the mighty USA than acting on the evidence at hand.

Jerky?

Yeah, quit holding out on us Othin, if you have evidence that the rest of the world doesn't, share!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 04 2003,03:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what happens if the War ends, Saddam is killed, and no stocks of chemical or biological weapons are found? President Bush: Ooops. My bad. So far every prediction the US has made about Chemical weapons in this war has been wrong, right?<span id='postcolor'> If no chemical or other WMD are found and Saddam is killed, the war will still be justified becase "we liberated the Iraqi people". The fact that the whole reason that they went in for was invalid will be quickly swept under the carpet.

Meals Rejected by Ethiopians

Pic link seems to be broken.

-----never mind, already been answered a few pages back-----

It's the future that worries me. If the US can steamroller the UN's democatic process, where does it stop? Unfortunately, when there is only one superpower on the block, you can hardly rely on them being "the good guys" without anyone capable of standing up to them when they go too far.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 03 2003,06:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And without the influence of a certain Great Satan, the Soviet Union might well still be around to crush the occasional popular revolt in the Eastern Bloc. Remember that the next time you wax poetic about idealism's virtue.<span id='postcolor'> One could argue that no more Soviet Union is a bad thing, as with no counter superpower to balance it, America can pretty much do whatever the hell it pleases (as witnessed in recent events).

How about Operation AI: American Imperialism. Sorry, couldn't resist. I banish myself from this thread.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Karppa @ April 02 2003,08:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is it possible to change the box's color? It's annoying when you nick an enemy vehicle and instantly all the enemy troops know that you are an enemy? I mean that the box would be green if the vehicle is from your side though the driver isn't? And if you go near enough the box would turn red? Is it possible to do a script that does so that enemy vehicles are identified as enemy vehicles, civilian as civilian and friendly as friendly? I mean in a situation where you have hijacked an enemy or civilian vehicle. And when you get, lets say 100m or closer to the enemy or friendly unit, they identify you correctly and attack you or stop attacking, depending on who's the one you are dealing with.<span id='postcolor'> That would be a very nice touch. Good idea.

Pardon my technical ignorance, but which of the following have the biggest/least drain on CPU/RAM - View Distance Terrain Detail Resolution Visual Quality Frames Per Second

I think we can all agree this was a tragic accident. I have no doubt in my mind that the soldiers involved didn't open fire knowing that the van contained children and was no threat. I just hope both sides can learn from the experience to avoid it happening again, and that there is an investigation to prove that the soldiers acted within the rules of engagement.

6 a year is hardcore? I must be in the fanatical maniac bracket then. In the last year I would have bought around 20-30 games (admittedly many of these were older games at bargain prices, and bundled packs of games), not to mention the ones I rent from the video store.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,07:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A car "barrelling" (WP article's word) towards a checkpoint? The main purpose is to get as close to as many soldiers as possible to maximize deaths on detonation.<span id='postcolor'> But in this case not, just a panicked civilian with her family in the van. If standard procedure was followed in this case, and the result is a dead family, maybe standard procedure needs to be looked into and updated. Saying "we we're following procedure" or "it's Saddam's fault for using suicide bombers" won't bring back these dead children, will it. Very sad indeed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 02 2003,07:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Personally? You want my real opinion? OK, but you won't like it.......<span id='postcolor'> Whether I like your opinion of not doesn't matter. Â For what it's worth, I am capable of respecting an opinion different than my own. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would confirm that the van was a threat before I fired. I would rather take the risk of being killed and my squad being killed than potentially kill innocent civilians. Admittedly, thats from a standpoint of not actually being in that situation myslef, but that's what my gut and morals would tell me to do. Maybe I wouldn't make good US soldier material. Â <span id='postcolor'> This is not intended as an insult, so don't take it as one: Â I agree that you might not make a good soldier. Â That's okay, I'd personally prefer that people not have to take actions that they don't like (it's why I'm against any sort of mandatory service). Â Unfortunately, coalition forces in Iraq don't have that luxury. Â Sometimes people have no choice but to go with the lesser of two evils. Â There is no way that given the situation faced by soldiers and Marines in Iraq that they should not be allowed to defend themselves against credible threats. Â From a military standpoint, a van with an unknown driver and unknown cargo, that has not stopped after verbal warnings and warning shots, represents such a threat. It's a crappy situation. Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'> I agree with nearly all of what you say. My original point wasn't that the guys at this checkpoint are war criminals or intended to murder civilians. My concern was that someone screwed up and that resulted in accidental civvy deaths. If they followed procedure exactly, then no one can really blame them for what happened.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 02 2003,06:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would confirm that the van was a threat before I fired. I would rather take the risk of being killed and my squad being killed than potentially kill innocent civilians.<span id='postcolor'> I think that would be easier said than done, and even a bit unrealistic. And the fact you are willing to get your squadmates killed (yourself is one thing), would undoubtedly be frowned upon by your COs ,and more importantly, your squad mates. How would you confirm whether they are "innocent civilians" or not? You are in a war zone, and soldiers dressed as civilians, and even civilians themselves potentially, have been attacking allied forces. Now you are on checkpoint duty and there is a van that refuses to stop heading right for you. You don't know what its carrying. It could be loaded with TNT or baby formula or a pregnant woman. Lets look at it from two different prespectives: 1- You As The Officer- Your job, as officer is to not only fulfill your mission (in this case security for allied forces) but also to keep your men alive. Now a van, unidentified, is screaming toward you refusing to stop. That van could speed past and blow up another column of troops, or it could blow you and your squad up. We'll say for the sake of argument that you decide to "better identify" the civilians and/or occupants. Presumably from the story, the van would have just kept on going, and word would undoubtedly have leaked out about it. Do you report that you LET a van just fly past, possibly jeopardizing the security and well being of other allied forces? If you do, say goodbye to your rank. If not, say hello to Levanworth. And what if the van HAD exploded next to a column of soldiers? How would that make you feel knowing you could have prevented it? 2- You As The Grunt- Little less harder to think about. Your officer orders you to open fire to eliminate this security risk. You refuse citing your desire to make sure it doesn't have civilians. Goodbye career and possibly freedom. This scenerios don't even include the obvious anxiety from having others try to kill you, nor your own uncertainty and unease about not knowing whether or not that van will explode right next to you or not. Now I'm not trying browbeat you or flame your or whatever. I'm just trying to point out the fact that, while your answer is noble, I think in that situation, any of us would open fire.<span id='postcolor'> I see your points, and they all make sense, but I stick by what I said. No offense to anyone, but none of you know me, or what my morals and values are, or how far I would carry my convictions. Like I said in my post -</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe I wouldn't make good US soldier material. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,06:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,07:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Deal with it. Or better yet, don't. Go have a cry about it. Either way, I don't really care.<span id='postcolor'> That's a big response for someone who really doesn't care. But........................ who cares?!<span id='postcolor'> No, I care that you make a saracastic jibe at me on the forums and question my integrity. What I don't care about is how you deal with my views and opinions. Anyway, this is a pointless squabble. I withdraw temporarily.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,06:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,07:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would rather take the risk of being killed and my squad being killed than potentially kill innocent civilians. Admittedly, thats from a standpoint of not actually being in that situation myslef, but that's what my gut and morals would tell me to do.<span id='postcolor'> My! My! Talk is cheap.<span id='postcolor'> He asked what I would do differently. I answered honestly. Deal with it. Or better yet, don't. Go have a cry about it. Either way, I don't really care. You don't know me, so please keep your sarcastic digs to yourself, it makes you look foolish.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 02 2003,05:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not saying it was malicious intent. I'm saying it was imcompetence. And when incomptence ends up with people dying, someone needs to be held accountable. Anyway, I will wait to hear the outcome of this one, I don't think we have enough facts at hand to confirm or deny negligence.<span id='postcolor'> Explain to me how it was incompetence. Â Soldiers reacted reasonably to a perceived and credible threat. Better yet, explain what you would have done differently. Â Please don't give some variant along the lines of "I'd have waited with my fingers crossed and hoped that the van wasn't packed to the gills with C4." Â Surely you can do better than that. Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'> Personally? You want my real opinion? OK, but you won't like it....... I would confirm that the van was a threat before I fired. I would rather take the risk of being killed and my squad being killed than potentially kill innocent civilians. Admittedly, thats from a standpoint of not actually being in that situation myslef, but that's what my gut and morals would tell me to do. Maybe I wouldn't make good US soldier material. Anyway, as you'll notice by the section of my post that I've bolded, we need more facts before we can tell either way.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 02 2003,04:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Question - if all rules and regulations were followed in this instance, why is America giving a payout to the victims families? Are they really that generous and warm hearted, or is it hush money?<span id='postcolor'> You know, this is why people don't take responsibility for stuff any more, as it opens you up to this kind of bullshit 'damned if you do, fucked if you don't' mentality. If we didn't attempt to compensate the families, what would you say? You'd say we were heartless motherfuckers, who invaded 3rd world countries for 5th column agendas, and who don't even have the common decency to apologize to civilians who got caught in the crossfire. Besides, it's standard policy for the American government- we screw up in a military operation and innocents die, we do our best to kiss and make up: the Forrestal incident, Chinese Embassy, that Japanese trawler that got cut in half, you name it, and we payed for it. Since when is an apology an admission of malicious intent?<span id='postcolor'> I'm not saying it was malicious intent. I'm saying it was imcompetence. And when incomptence ends up with people dying, someone needs to be held accountable. Anyway, I will wait to hear the outcome of this one, I don't think we have enough facts at hand to confirm or deny negligence.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 02 2003,04:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2907701.stm British Cemetary in France defaced.<span id='postcolor'> Just goes to prove their is no international boundary to being an idiot and an asshole. Hope they catch the dimbulbs who did this, fine them thousands of dollars, and make them all apologise personally to each surviving member of the families of the veterans in the graves. But then again if they are stupid enough to do this in the first place, the probably wouldn't have enough sense of guilt or decency to be ashamed. I take it all back - 30 lashes in the public square.

Question - if all rules and regulations were followed in this instance, why is America giving a payout to the victims families? Are they really that generous and warm hearted, or is it hush money?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 02 2003,04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">E6 hotel - so because the Iraqis leaders and extremists are bad guys (and no one is disputing they are), does that mean all tactical blunders and friendly fire etc etc committed by coalition forces are their fault? I don't think so.<span id='postcolor'> No, and I've never claimed otherwise. Â What I am saying is that a tactical blunder is not the same thing as following ROE's. Â Especially when the opposition is trying to take advantage of your ROE's by intentionally placing the civilians they're supposed to protect at risk. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The cold hard fact is that if US followed international law, those 7 people would be alive today.<span id='postcolor'> If Saddam gave a damn about laws 1,500,000 Iraqis (give or take) might be alive today. Â If the U.N. gave a damn about enforcing its resolutions 500,000 Iraqis might still be alive today. Â The difference is that after we take him down (if he's not already a worm feast) there's a chance to put an end to this garbage. Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'> Well, I guess all that makes it OK to murder Iraqi civilians, as long as ROEs we're followed of course. Heck, I guess those people and their families should be thankful they were killed, at least it means they don't have to live under Saddam any more.