Paratrooper

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 11 2002,02:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The OICW is both ugly, and cubersome. It weighs in at something like 9kg, which is around 3 times the wieght of the M4 and M16 it will replace. Its only saving grace is its fire power and advanced systems, but how well will all those computer chips and stuff fair in combat conditions?<span id='postcolor'> Quite, I think it's size alone will be very limiting.

Why?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 11 2002,01:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 11 2002,01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well that is how all business works, the weapons industry has to be pragmatic to survive, and you acnowledge that its survival is neccessary.<span id='postcolor'> Yes of course. I just don't want to be part of it.<span id='postcolor'> Right, would you like the arms industry to be state controlled?

What help do you want? I suggest you contact BIS or codemasters.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 11 2002,01:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 11 2002,01:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That a weapons industry is neccessary yes.<span id='postcolor'> That weapons sadly are needed in the world is a fact. That doesnt however mean that you should prostitute yourself into selling weapons to anybody with money. That is what the weapons industry does, and I don't want to have anything to do with them. I'll use their weapons, because I have to, but nothing more.<span id='postcolor'> Well that is how all business works, the weapons industry has to be pragmatic to survive, and you acnowledge that its survival is neccessary.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Sep. 11 2002,00:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 10 2002,23:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, I understand what you mean, but the weapons industry wouldn't exist if it didn't sell to other countries. Besides  western governments usually have ethical sales policies.<span id='postcolor'> *cough**cough* Are you sure you want to stand by that comment? <span id='postcolor'> That a weapons industry is neccessary yes.

There is so much middle east news it is better to have it in one thread.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Sep. 11 2002,00:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 11 2002,00:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 10 2002,21:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Sep. 10 2002,19:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> no comment .....<span id='postcolor'> I bet the wine is some cheap Califorina red <span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Sep. 10 2002,21:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah , we would never sacrifiate a good ol' french red wine bottle to the dirty old hands of a yankee general <span id='postcolor'> SHUT UP! CALIFORNIA WINES ARE CATCHING UP! <span id='postcolor'> don't worry ralphy french wine is 25% anti freeze anyway. <span style='font-size:27pt;line-height:100%'>ha!</span> and yer right your catching up, CA is just 104 steps below Ohio wine. <span id='postcolor'> You can get some exellent Californian red, they are actually older vines, as they survived the European blights. You Californians know how hard it is to fly in with seeds or fruit by plane.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Sep. 11 2002,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Afganistan was brutalised by the Taliban, the people as a whole are glad they are gone. Under your logic we shouldn't have opposed Hitler in case a civillian died." Yes, they are glad the Taliban are gone. But I dont think they are to fond of the way it was done. I doubt most of them agree with "the end justifies the means". However, it is easy for you to say that it does. You are not the one who lost a spouse, children and loads of family and friends.<span id='postcolor'> Well thats war, It is never pretty, but it is frequently neccessary.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Sep. 11 2002,00:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Sep. 11 2002,006)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Sep. 11 2002,00<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Sep. 10 2002,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even if civilians were killed, its the Taliban's fault for using them as human shields.<span id='postcolor'> I want you to have the guts to go up to the victims families and tell that in their face. I would put your life expectancy at about 10s after saying that.<span id='postcolor'> It's the Taliban's fault, not ours. Â How can you blame the American military for bombing huge clusters of Taliban troops?<span id='postcolor'> The Taliban didn't throw the bombs, the US did. This is what the relatives of the victims know, their loved ones were killed by a US bomb, dropped from a US warplane.<span id='postcolor'> Afganistan was brutalised by the Taliban, the people as a whole are glad they are gone. Under your logic we shouldn't have opposed Hitler in case a civillian died.

I assume this is not intended as the weapon for every soldier and more as a support weapon, Am I right?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Sep. 11 2002,00:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Sep. 10 2002,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even if civilians were killed, its the Taliban's fault for using them as human shields.<span id='postcolor'> I want you to have the guts to go up to the victims families and tell that in their face. I would put your life expectancy at about 10s after saying that.<span id='postcolor'> Those people don't have any love for the Taliban, They would be the first to say Afganistan has been done a favor.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Sep. 10 2002,23:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(not much time at all...) I don't understand something. you guys clear something up for me. in 2000 bill clinton and ehud barak agreed to hand 98% of the territory over to arafat for autonomous administration by the pa, including strategic places like the jordan valley, etc, if I remember correctly. they promised him his palestinian state. why did he not take the offer? Â <span id='postcolor'> I don't know, there were problems like the return of refugees and control of Jerusalem, but it was a good first step. The Palestinian fear that after this deal was given there would be no more debate of issues that bother them, as I expect they would have been told they have had their lot.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Sep. 10 2002,23:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"If you admit the need to have weapons, and your willingness to use them then surely you can't have an ethical problem with their production. Or else who would make the weapons you use?" Well, when you dont know who will get the weapons and what means they will use them for I fully understand if you dont want to do it.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, I understand what you mean, but the weapons industry wouldn't exist if it didn't sell to other countries. Besides western governments usually have ethical sales policies.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Sep. 10 2002,20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can see where Denoir is coming from. Â If there was ever a situation where I had to fight for my nation, I would... without question. On the other hand, I dont think I could do work that might be sold to the highest bidder, if that work was on a device intended to kill people. Â If Denoir worked on a missile guidance system, there is nothing that can guarantee that those missiles at some point wouldnt be used against his nation. To the original topic, didnt Gal knock off a European design when he made the Uzi?<span id='postcolor'> If you admit the need to have weapons, and your willingness to use them then surely you can't have an ethical problem with their production. Or else who would make the weapons you use?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 10 2002,17:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have a problem with the pack, many of the weapons shoot over the reticule, mostly while on full auto. Has anyone else encountered this?<span id='postcolor'> Ergh hm, what about the over shoot? Does this only affect me?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ Sep. 10 2002,17:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Sep. 10 2002,10:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Killing Sadam will only make stuff worse, you'll make him a hero and countless people will want to die for him...<span id='postcolor'> If you win the hearts and minds of the people after you kill Sadam, then there wont be the rebellion. So after he's ousted, the US builds McDonnalds, Taco Bells, Starbucks, Gap, Megaplexes, build a Disney Land, you, keep the people happy. After they see how much fun all these things are, they won't give a shit what happened to their last leader. A happy and entertained population is a peaceful population -=Die Alive=-<span id='postcolor'> You aren't really going to appeal to devout muslims with 'infidel pleasure' now are you? They need democracy and one the people aprove of. Not a puppet government. At the very least Iraq should be comprehensively disarmed.

I have a problem with the pack, many of the weapons shoot over the reticule, mostly while on full auto. Has anyone else encountered this?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bogo @ Sep. 10 2002,16:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 10 2002,17:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bogo @ Sep. 10 2002,16:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well i don't see that ever happen with Sharon in power. And if they ellect Netanyahu next time. Well i am 100% shure that we woulden't see peace. I think if YITZHAK RABIN had been not assinated then their would be peace today.<span id='postcolor'> Maybe but peace has to be real not hypothetical, the UN has to start to be firm with America over this issue.<span id='postcolor'> Well UN can't do sow much becuase US has veto power. Sow if the americans don't like something they ges't vetoed. It's that easy for them.<span id='postcolor'> I know, perhaps we need to persuade the US and Israel that this is the way forward towards peace rather than impose the idea.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bogo @ Sep. 10 2002,16:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well i don't see that ever happen with Sharon in power. And if they ellect Netanyahu next time. Well i am 100% shure that we woulden't see peace. I think if YITZHAK RABIN had been not assinated then their would be peace today.<span id='postcolor'> Maybe but peace has to be real not hypothetical, the UN has to start to be firm with America over this issue.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bogo @ Sep. 10 2002,15:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well this kind of peace propossal has ben suggested many times at UN and the palestinians have also suggested this. But the americans have veto this evrytime.<span id='postcolor'> Obviously having UN troops 'protecting' Israel is something of a slight, but I suggest having them only in Palestine. Israel can use it's troops to seal themselves off.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 10 2002,14:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 10 2002,22:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 10 2002,14:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets be innovative, lets throw out all this invasion crap. If all the Iraqi people hate him and yearn for his downful like you all seem to believe, then it is easy. We send in the British SAS, drop right on top of his palice and kill him. As soon as we have killed him, every single Iraqi will throw down their arms and imbrace all western countires and will sell oil to American companies at very low prices Whoops! I wouldnt be this easy, we damn....... You see, they love him enough that they will shoot you if you try and kill him. Maybe once he was dead they would stop loving him, but you have to kill him first. Once you start bombing, he just has to go and hide in a bunker. I want him dead, but I DO NOT want a typical American 'lets blow up everything that moves' strategy. This is not Anti-Americanism, I do not respect any country who suses this tactic. I do not think that we should have to see a low list of dead on both side, wither they be soldier or civilian. Im sure the Pentagon will be happy to redesign their strategy and send off the Kurds to do their bidding as with the Northen Alliance in Afghanistan.<span id='postcolor'> That is reasonable, but do you deny he is dangerous? Do you think he should be left unchecked?<span id='postcolor'> As I said, I have nothing agaisnt him been eliminated, but America should maybe look in their own backyard too. Hussien is a petty Dictator who thribes on the terror of his people and should be eliminated with haste, but not with an invasion preceeded with weeks of heavy bombing. Thats why I said be innovative, come up with a diffrent method. *attacking with WMD is not an option* There are plenty of bad leaders though, and they are not all just Middle East dictators, they infect the world over under all kinds of goverments. Mugabe......... .......Democratic*cough*Rebublic of Zimbabwe*cough*<span id='postcolor'> Mugabe isn't threatening the peace of the world. Saddam hussein is going to get more dangerous with the passage of time. No hope of his deposition from within Iraq either, he has an entire army dedicated to his protection.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 10 2002,14:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 10 2002,22:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 10 2002,14:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Sep. 10 2002,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do not believe peace will come to the area, but the U.N. should not get involved, it is not their place.<span id='postcolor'> Thens whos place is it? Oh thats right, Israels..... Israel and only Israel have the right to be there becuase they are the chosen ones. Everyone else, please shove out, DOR thinks that you shouldnt be here.<span id='postcolor'> True, that attitude is just bare faced racism. The UN must have a role, a real role. A third party is needed or there will never be peace. A real peace keeping force like in the former Yugoslavia is needed. One that can seperate the sides and fight the Palestinian terrorist elements.<span id='postcolor'> I whole heartly agree. As long as it is left up to people who have picked sides in the fight, t shall not be solved. Negotiations are out of the picture, there are people on both sides that dont want them to go forward. A UN force needs to be deployed, a UN force that actualy has the power to resist. For example, if a truck full of Palastinian terrorist drive into one of their checkpoints, they can do something about it. If they came under fire, they could return fire without having to phone every single world leader.<span id='postcolor'> With Palestine under UN protection Israel will actually be safer, I think. I they can have their natural (old) borders giving them a more normal standing as a nation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 10 2002,14:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Sep. 10 2002,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do not believe peace will come to the area, but the U.N. should not get involved, it is not their place.<span id='postcolor'> Thens whos place is it? Oh thats right, Israels..... Israel and only Israel have the right to be there becuase they are the chosen ones. Everyone else, please shove out, DOR thinks that you shouldnt be here.<span id='postcolor'> True, that attitude is just bare faced racism. The UN must have a role, a real role. A third party is needed or there will never be peace. A real peace keeping force like in the former Yugoslavia is needed. One that can seperate the sides and fight the Palestinian terrorist elements.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Sep. 10 2002,14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 10 2002,14:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 10 2002,14:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Sep. 10 2002,15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have a look here: http://www.salon.com/politics/comics/2002/08/08/corrections/index.html He's actually done quite a few satirical takes on world politics, but this particular one seems relevant to the current conversation. Â <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'> Cute. Now let's be realistic. Saddam is a horribly cruel and sadistic dictator who has shown that he's willing to attack other countries unprovoked with long range missiles and with poison (Kurds and Iranians).<span id='postcolor'> Also that he has no qualms supporting terrorist groups like Hamas. Terrorism is how the nuclear weapons will be used when they are developed. Why jepodise the safety of the world?<span id='postcolor'> True, especially since he lacks a strategic delivery platform (missiles or bomber). It would have to be terrorist. Mb hidden in a cargoship. I saw a report on tv about the Miami Port Authority .... they are checking ships these days for radiation levels. But should foreign entities involve themselves in the political workings of another country? Just because WE desire a diffirent iraqi regime doesnt make it right to make it so. I have yet to see compelling evidence on saddams capability of delivering his WMD's over long ranges. And lacking strong evidence of him handing them over to terrorists ..... again, very iffy. Attacking him without proof would be like jailing people "just in case...". Besides i doubt he would hand al quada WMD's, knowing how "faithfull and upright" those people are, one false move in their eyes and the mushroom cloud could be over baghdad instead of new york ..... i think saddam knows this too. How many times hasnt training insurgents, secret services and guerilla's by the CIA turned on the US? Saddam maybe evil but to stay in power for this long, even after a crushing defeat at the hands of his sworn enemies, he isnt stupid, believe me .......<span id='postcolor'> No he isn't stupid, but neither was Hitler. Should we appease him in the same way?