PFC Mongoose

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,21:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I personally believe in liberal democracies, but I don't think that it gives me the right to enforce it on others. I am for instance against the capital punishment because I believe it is barbaric and has no place in a democracy, but that doesn't mean that I think that we should bomb USA.<span id='postcolor'> I dunno, this one is a bit iffy. I honestly don't know if it's worse to execute a murderer deemed unable to be rehabilitated and reenter society, or condemn them to live out the rest of their natural life essentially in a cage. I honestly don't. While it's true that even if one's life is bad, at least they have an opportunity to live, and to experience before they die, I think there's a line that, when crossed, makes death almost preferrable. I'm very on the fence as far as capital punishment goes; I believe in most cases, it is too much. However, for mass- or multiple- murderers, or attempted genocidists, I think it is acceptable.

If that's so, then it would explain a lot. And it would also mean that, IMHO, th war is 'all but over'. There may be some resistance, and it may develop with time, but I doubt there will be any more large battles or sieges after this....

I think he means pics of the Overlord Tank from C&C Generals. But, I'm not really certain, since I've never played the game.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 09 2003,23:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ghost Recon - there wasn't much Russian there. Just a few shouts, like "we're under attack". The plot of the game stank to high heaven, too. American SpecOps coming to the rescue of Russia - give me a fucking break. The Red Square mission was kinda amusing though - I kept comparing the game modelling to the real thing... Â <span id='postcolor'> Sorry to step offtopic, but wasn't the story for Ghost Recon (the original, never played the expansions) American MArines helping to fend off Russian incursion from Georgia?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ April 10 2003,12:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 10 2003,11:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm the guy that usually ends up playing the Axis side in Day of Defeat or Battlefield. Â <span id='postcolor'> I always play the axis side in any game, if possible. Axis side is more interesting to play and of course, Finland was an ally of the axis, so it is the natural choice for me anyway.<span id='postcolor'> Well, in Battlefield, the Axis/Ally difference is purely cosmetic, and in Day of Defeat, it depends on the map. I do NOT want to play as an Axis on Anzio, and I don't usually want to play as an Ally on Overlord. I wish they'd hurry up and finish the WWII OFP mods. Battlefield was a GREAT idea, but waaaaaaay too arcadey. Anyway, my point I guess was this game appeals to me somewhat, because, unlike in real life, in video games I don't mind being the bad guy. (BTW, as a Canadian, I get a surreal feeling when playing OVerlord, when me and my suad get gunned down pratically as soon as we spawn, over and over. )

Crazy stuff, terrorism.

Do they have a demo of this game? I'd like to try it. I'm the guy that usually ends up playing the Axis side in Day of Defeat or Battlefield.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ April 10 2003,03:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">wow! I just saw something on MSNBC of a 21,000lbs bomb that arrived in Iraq today. Â They had a computer animation of how they intend to use it, it has to be dropped off from the back of a C130!<span id='postcolor'> Ah yes, the Mother Of All Bombs (heh, heard that phrase so much I've all but forgotten the actual name) The bomb that supposedly simulated a nuclear weapon, right down to the mushroom cloud. I heard they were going to use a couple as part of 'shock and awe', guess they didn't have to.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 10 2003,02:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I find all this talk of "wow, I can't believe we occupied Bagdad so easily" really interesting. How much of a fight did you expect from a military that is about 1/3 the size now it was during the gulf war, and that is using technology approx. 30 years behind what the US is using? Anyway, I truly hope it is all but over now, for everyone's sakes. [cynicism]Hooray, the good guys won! The "shining beacon of democracy" triumphs again. Another country you can sell Big Macs and re-runs of Friends to! A great victory for world democracy indeed. Forgive us if we aren't all in the streets waving the star spangled banner, some of us are still a little concerned about how readily the US steamrollered the UN and international law to enforce it's own agenda. [/cynicism]<span id='postcolor'> 1.) Most people expected the Iraqis to try and pull a Grozny in Baghdad. It doesn't look like they did. If they had, do you think the Coalition would have been able to star moving in 'in force' so quickly? 2.) Sorry.. I just can't let this go. [cynicism]Maybe, when the U.N. learns how to set a schedule, get objectives it names achieved without outside help, and enforce the resolutions it passes without almost total reliance on the U.S. military, then, then I will agree wholeheartedly. Untill then, my faith, as a Canadian, and as a formerly strong supporter of the U.N., has been rattled so much that I doubt it will be restored anytime soon.[/cynicism] Apologies in advance for the inflammatoriness of this post.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 10 2003,06:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I were a world war two vet I'd be pissed at that picture.<span id='postcolor'> Comedy is indescriminate.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Being a European, I would have thought you would be the first person to support such an action seeing as less than 60 years ago, another coalition did this very same thing for the Europeans.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are wrong you know! The coalition were called allies and they consisted of men and women from the occupied as well as the still independent nations. <span id='postcolor'> Isn't the U.S. using former Iraqi citizens and military officers to help with translations, and communication? And the Kurdish fighters in the north? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is no similarity between the allies and "the coalition of the willing" .<span id='postcolor'> You know, I've wondered from the start why Bush didn't call his alliance the 'Allies'. Too presumptuous, perhaps? But let's see Backed and funded heavily by America: Allies - check Coalition - check Involving men and women from the independent and 'occupied' nation: Allies - check Coalition - check Democracies fighting against a despotic regime: Alies - check Coalition - check. I admit the Allies and the Coalition have a world of differences between them, but they have a world of similarities, as well. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You claim to be a coalition of nations willing to invade Iraq when the allies goal was to throw out an invading aggressor. Or do you imply that US (and possibly Australia and New Zealand) where the only ones saving Europe because you where not occupied yet - as in YOU liberated the european continent? <span id='postcolor'> See above.

Edit: Mongoose SMRT. Moved post to proper thread.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> Who is the UK's natural ally? Expires:22 Apr 2003 USA 57.79% Europe 19.99% Both 11.92% Neither 10.28% <span id='postcolor'> The neither has me confused... who if not them? australia, perhaps? Am I neglecting the strong Sino-British ties, perhaps?

The Day of Defeat mod for Half-Life uses spoken German. I can actually say most of the phrases, pronouncing them more or less as in the game, but I can't write them out..

I believe that's right... it makes sense because you can adjust how much processor time AIs in BF1942 use (I can't really play with it, much, the game runs like crap if I raise it above 15%, and the default is 20% I think)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 09 2003,14:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 09 2003,156)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Information Minister proclaiming how loyal Iraqi troops are even now storming the White House?<span id='postcolor'> I think he's on his way there now. Watch the video, while you're on that page.<span id='postcolor'> Interesting report, but I can't watch the video. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.<span id='postcolor'> is the message it gives me, but I can't find any settings (in Internet Explorer) that might be preventing it... yet I often have problems recieving video from the net, unless I stream it, or download it. (and I was unable to download this clip.)

No, that would be </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The war will be over if Iraq belongs to Iraq´s people AND to commercial interests of the coalition forces.<span id='postcolor'> Anywho, back on track, any new developments from Baghdad? Information Minister proclaiming how loyal Iraqi troops are even now storming the White House? Any more shot down airfraft? Any more friendly fire incedents?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ April 09 2003,13:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Of course it's premature to say that war is over, but I just felt this need for a joyful outburst <span id='postcolor'> You could say the war has reached its 'climax'. The battle for Baghdad was supposed to be the Iraqi Government's 'last stand', so unless large numbers of the Republican Guard have fallen back to Tikrit, or some other place, I daresay once Baghdad falls, the rest of the war might break down to 'mopping up' efforts.

I played the MP Beta months ago (where do you think 'Mongoose' came from? heh.) And I thought it was ok. Fun for a while, but didn't really hold my interest long.

Can't you select the ammocrates, go to 'Waypoints' and set support Waypoints right on top of the crates? Or will that make the soldiers expect the crates to come to them?

What do you mean, Denoir? The way that article was constructed, you mean?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 09 2003,06:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For anyone that thinks people aren't stupid and gullible....check this out: Rush Limbaugh Click the link for the "irate caller". Yes its Rush...but its not politics.<span id='postcolor'> Hmmm.. can't play the audio file. Says it's a bad link. Can't d/l it, either. Strange.

I'm pretty sure it was a Flak '36 in that Bunker pack, since I've been using it as a watered down Shilka in a desert mission I made (the Shilka was waaaaaaaaaay too powerful, and kept gunning down the choppers before the paratroops even had a chance.)

I'm up for it, but my mic is kinda crappy, so the quality probably won't be too great. It works well for simulating radio-static, though.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,20:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The inspectors were never ejected from Iraq, they left on their own after they concluded that Iraq was making it impossible to complete their work.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, you're absolutely right; my mistake. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point is that this round thanks to the imminent threat of war, the inspections were working. Not perfectly, but enough to make the inspectors confident that they could complete their task. They were destroying weapons and documenting the weapon programs when Bush decided to pull the plug. The inspections were working so there was no reason whatsoever to go to war at this time. None of us can predict the future but the inpections had a good chance of succeeding. If Iraq had begun messing with the inspectors again, the choice of going to war always remained. And then you would also have the support of the world. There was a chance that war could have been avoided and all those people now being killed in Iraq could have been alive. Those lives are on Bush's conscience. Second, the fact is that it never had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction. If you remember how this started: terrorism. When no ties could be found accusations of a nuclear weapons program was introduced. When there was no evidence at all to support that accusation, chemical and biological weapons became an issue. <span id='postcolor'> Personally, and strange as this may sound; I don't care whether it was about terrorists, or WMDs, or the price of oil, or whatever. I'm 'supporting' this war on the priciple of the fact that the U.S. is standing in for the U.N. on the issue of disarming Iraq of illegal weapons that it supposedly has. And you know, you're right. The inspections probably would have worked. But, they might not have. What would bere stopping Saddam from building more missiles at an underground facility? Though, I do agree, the inspections mgiht have worked, and it is quite suspicious that the U.S. condemned it without waiting to see the results. As far as war still being an option; it still almost certainly wouldn't have made it through the security council. The only way the Security Council would have approved it, is if the Resolution the U.S., U.K. and Spain tried to pass went though; and I'm not sure it would have. I'm not even sure if they delayed the deadline and consulted with the inspectors it would have gone through. But, it's too late now. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Read this article, you may find it interesting: Blair 'delayed US strike on Iraq' (BBC) <span id='postcolor'>