Brainmagnet

Anfiach, regarding Katrina I didn't put words in your mouth just read what you wrote. I also read to the end of the link I posted, that's why I linked it at the end of my comment in a separate paragraph. Also, our *involvement* in Vietnam began in 1950 before the French pulled out in 1954, we were giving them material and monetary aid, so we involved in the conflict way before 1959. I still applaud you for giving me your first detailed response based in fact, but it ignores what I just stated above. Follow my logic on Iraq? It's your logic. You said Saddam smuggled his WMD into Syria before we invaded did you not? You also said that if I thought terrorists could not have gotten their hands on the WMD in Syria that I am naive, did you not? I said that if that's true then we should have invaded Syria first. You can dodge the topic by saying I'm an ill informed pacifist that never had to make a tough decision on issues like invading other countries because it's convenient for you to side step the issue when you are flat out wrong.

ok, does it matter when the WMD was moved to Syria ?(hypothetically speaking because it didn't exist at that point anyway) What would have set that in motion huh? What would have been Saddam's motivation for giving his WMD away to Syria? Please give it some critical thought and you'll realize that what you are saying is absurd, by your reasoning WMD fell into the hands of terrorists in Syria because we decided to invade Iraq, I wonder why we haven't seen any of the WMD being used against our troops in all this time? wait... that's right... because your story is more ridiculous than Santa Claus. Saddam did let Un Inspectors in a few times, but he stopped doing so after Desert Fox, I don't think he appreciated the sanctions and the bombing that continued all throughout the Clinton Presidency. Why don't we tell all dictators to behave? Why do we pick and choose? Why do we smile and shake the hands of some dictators and say they're doing a great job? Forgot to add: If our military tracked large convoys going into Syria, why did we go into Iraq at all? We should have invaded Syria first then. As far as your comment on Vietnam I don't know what the hell you are getting at, what about McNamara, and what did you expect from me? Saying that most victims of Katrina deserved what they got is just sick. You are judging everyone that was a victim in New Orleans like that? You again trust the Media too much, just because the media *focused* on a lot of the negative aspects like looting and such doesn't mean that most people were involved in it. I think you lack sympathy for others and are too quick to judge, I don't wish a Katrina on you, but you must be lacking in perspective to say something that idiotic. I would also blame FEMA before I blame the government of Lousiana. Cuba and Venezuela offered more than FEMA delivered. food for thought:http://www.snopes.com/katrina/photos/looters.asp

@Anfiach: You have yet to cite anything when saying that Saddam sent his WMD to Syria. Guess what? Syria is ruled by a Ba'ath party as well, a secular political party. What this means is that if indeed Saddam did such a thing he couldn't have picked a better place than that because the last thing the Syrian government would allow is for the WMD to fall into Islamic fundamentalist Terrorists hands because they would use it to overthrow the secular government first. Get your facts straight before you swallow the medias bullshit. Also, why else did we get involved in Vietnam? I'm just curious. Another thing I forgot to add, if what you say is true about Terrorists being more likely to get their hands on WMD because Saddam sent it to Syria, then wouldn't that mean that going into Iraq was a dumb ass idea and self defeating? @Dyne: Actually after Hurricane Katrina Venezuela and Cuba both offered to send Aid to the hurricane Victims but Bush didn't allow it.

Anfiach you are less than qualified to state what my intentions are. The media used to report the truth? Are you a fan of William Randolph Hearst by any chance? How the hell would WMD's have fallen into the hands of terrorists while Saddam was in power? Making a statement like that just tells us you are speaking straight out of your ass. I have in no way been dishonest, I already said that casualty numbers for civilians are never accurate they tend to go up and down drastically to which ever direction the political winds are blowing. When I mentioned the gulf of Tonkin affair I was totally honest in my intentions as I have researched it and I believe it did happen, I might have linked Wikipedia, but notice that Wikipedia provides links to its sources as well. If you have evidence it didn't happen at all or at least not the way stated I suggest again, join the discussion and edit the entry in Wikipedia.

You're kidding right? Who didn't mention that Saddam would attack Israel? Your comments are starting to give me the impression you live in a parallel universe. You think Saddam ever got a hold of ICBM's? They kept talking about how his rockets had the capability to reach Jerusalem. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1112989.ece http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/747112/posts Don't you remember he launched around 40 scuds into Israel during the first gulf war? He already felt he had nothing to lose, and he didn't think they'd get involved anyway because we were already over there (plus in 1982 Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq). On a side note here's a link that has all of the FBI interviews with Saddam archived by NSA hosted by GWU. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/index.htm Anyway, Anfiach, who was he going to use the WMD's on? I would love to know what you think. Because that was the main advertised reason for going to Iraq. Also you might say you think the media is full of shit, but you keep going back to them for seconds and dessert, don't you know all governments throughout history have directly relied on the media as an instrument to gain public support to wage war? I mean COME ON!

Even if Saddam had WMD....SO WHAT?!?!?! If that is the case, he was sitting on WMD ever since he gassed the Kurds (He can thank us for the WMD btw) and we decide to invade him after 9/11, because before that it wouldn't have been possible to invade because there would have been no excuse (although we continued to bomb Iraq all through the Clinton Administration). I mean seriously, you say I swallow the media's lies? All those years Saddam was supposedly sitting on WMD and the media barely talked about it, except for the few times UN inspectors went over there and Operation Desert Fox, then after 9/11 they won't shut up about how we have to go into Afghanistan and then into Iraq which we managed to invade in early 2003. Do you seriously think Saddam would have attacked Israel? Israel has around 600 nukes at its disposal not to mention 100's of f-16's, Bradley's and what not. Saddam was never suicidal, I think he thought we'd look the other way when he invaded Kuwait. Also Saddam hated Terrorists as much as anyone else, if he'd given WMD to Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists they would have turned around and used the WMD on him because the Baathist government was a secular government that even had a woman as a member. Anfiach don't you also remember how OSAMA bin Laden told Bush Sr. to let him fight the gulf war with his own personal army of 30,000 Mujahedeen?

"mumbo dumbo" LOL! I love that, definitely going to use it from now on.

There is no point in having a discussion with me if you aren't going to back up any of your assertions. Politically motivated blindfold, please explain? When did I call myself enlightened? If I made that claim anywhere I apologize for being pompous. Once again you fail to cite anything when saying I'm misinformed. I think I SEEK to enlighten myself and that is why I am having this discussion with you and asking for you to bring your facts to the table but you have not done so and instead resorted to insulting me and my character. gassing of kurds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack U.S. involvement in Vietnam being started on false pretenses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident if you disagree with these wikipedia articles I suggest you join the discussion's for them and see if you can edit them

Saddam gassed the Kurds anfiach, in the North of Iraq, how does that explain deformities in children born in other parts of the country? Vietnam has a lot to do with Iraq, two wars started on false pretenses. Friendly Fire incidents I guess don't always have to do with Civilian deaths, because civilians are more likely to be killed intentionally (like Saddam gassing the Kurds). My comments about Powell show how I have a bias based on media representation? How is that? That's a very serious accusation and you are going to have to be more detailed if you are going to accuse me of that because you are being downright insulting and I don't think I've leveled any personal attacks your way.

TAW_RiEvEr thanks for the info I appreciate it, good post. Only thing is you are kind of ignoring what I said at the bottom of all those quotes which is was what really mattered in that post.

New International Version (©1984) "You shall not murder. New American Standard Bible (©1995) 'You shall not murder. GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) "Never murder. King James Bible Thou shalt not kill. American King James Version You shall not kill. American Standard Version Thou shalt not kill. Bible in Basic English Do not put anyone to death without cause. Douay-Rheims Bible Thou shalt not kill. Darby Bible Translation Thou shalt not kill. English Revised Version Thou shalt do no murder. Webster's Bible Translation Thou shalt not kill. World English Bible "You shall not murder. Young's Literal Translation 'Thou dost not murder. I'm not a theologist though. The Koran is the least distorted holy book over time according to many ( the wahabist version is completely distorted though). Either way, I'd say that the majority of what happens in war is murder because non-combatant deaths always outnumber those of soldiers.

Anfiach I know that no number is completely accurate especially as pertaining to civilian deaths in Iraq (most likely higher than what is reported). Do you know how many civilians were killed in Vietnam? Did you know that 25% of U.S. troop deaths in the gulf war were due to friendly fire from air-strikes? Air-strikes kill more innocents than you or I can imagine. Cluster bombs don't always fully detonate when they are deployed and children are the most likely to pay the consequences. What about Depleted Uranium? You think that discriminates? Lot's of babies born in Iraq are born with deformities and they're attributing that to DU. I completely agree with Mr. Goff, he puts it far more eloquently than I can, thank you Tango Romeo for that video. Anfiach still waiting for that super abridged version (i.e.: Give me some facts). Can anyone tell me why we are in Iraq? Why did we go there in the first place? Because Colin Powell was coerced into lying to us, that's why.

@Anfiach ok I can tell you the last source I believe is the media. I have no idea where you got the idea that I got my information from the media. I trust historians as much as I can and my own critical thinking. I compare and contrast as many sources as I can come across on any particular given subject that I'm interested in, and I check sources with and without bias across the spectrum. I don't think any source is 100% accurate and I try to scrutinize all information I take in as much as I can. Even if you don't want to write me a novel I will settle for the super abridged version gladly. I highly doubt the statement: "that only in war will you ever witness the most selfless acts" not to say that there aren't a shortage of people that wouldn't jump on a live grenade to save their squad (You have to be some kind of brave to be a soldier), just saying there are plenty of selfless people all over the world (many of them pacifists mind you) that perform selfless acts. "greatest sacrifice and the greatest love for your fellow man that is possible to express" I disagree. I also did not get ahead of myself, perfectly aware that you mentioned most terrible as well.

Any belief system (religious or not) that is intolerant is dangerous. This goes for people that are racist as well as people that use political correctness to put shackles around our wrists (I'm looking at you ADL). I think Christians can be as intolerant as atheists. Personally I think the best thing I can do is keep an open mind and not take away the rights of the others to think and say whatever they please. I really love the game Arma2 and I think it represents war better than any other game I can think of for several reasons. Friendly fire for one, and they actually have a bunch of civilians around (not enough of course but civilians aren't the focus of a military *GAME*) the sounds of incoming bullets cracking overhead is also amazing and very immersive. I have respect for people in uniform and I've considered joining myself (obviously in a non-combat role, most likely a psychologist that would listen and help soldiers sort their emotions), but I will most likely complete my computer Science degree and hopefully get into A.I. programming. Damn it! excuse my ranting again. :jump_clap:

Thanks scrub, was going to mention Mao, Lenin, Stalin etc. Also Anfiach since you say I shouldn't speak on what I know nothing about then please enlighten me about what is Wonderful about war. Also please give me specifics as to how I'm misinformed because I don't want to be misinformed and if you are able to correct that I would like you to do so instead of say I'm misinformed without telling me the details.

I think saying war is one of the most wonderful things you can experience is being an idealistic idiot. Pacifism doesn't mean surrendering to those that would do violence upon you, it's about not lowering your moral standards and participating in the cycle of violence. I think it is better to die than to compromise myself morally. To me proposing that I kill someone so that I don't die is like asking me to rape some chick so that I don't die (could put it a better way but I'm really sleepy). These are my own beliefs that I only hold myself to (and who knows if I'd stick to them if somebody came at me with a knife) I am not qualified to judge anyone else on this planet but since I'm human I can't help it. I just think War is total B.S. because honestly, what has anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan ever done to our country? 1.5 million Iraqi civilian's dead? Did they sign up for the war? We gave Saddam his weapons, we gave the Taliban their weapons. Today's allies are tomorrows enemies. I shouldn't say I'm against all violence because life has too many variables therefore it's too complicated for my limited brain to comprehend, but I think I can safely say that I'm against all war. Saddam invaded Kuwait because they were stealing his oil so he thought it was okay to invade Kuwait because he owed them $40 billion dollars for the funding of the Iran-Iraq war and he'd tried to raise oil prices through Opec but Kuwait blocked the move ( Iraq also claimed that their oil was being stolen by Kuwait via slant drilling but that's complicated and probably mostly untrue if not completely). Anyway I'm going to shut up now because I'm ranting. You all know how I feel about War, it's a terrible thing that causes a lot of death and mostly to civilians. The way to avoid war is to not give in to fear or terrorism and education helps combat these things.

Ideally I would fight the urge to use violence. In its stead I could use reason and try to convince you not to take my land. If that failed or you just outright attacked me without trying to even negotiate I could evacuate my land taking my valuables and sabotage ( not very creative or good but a counter nonetheless) the land you wished to take. If I had superior technology I could restrict your movements without killing you. I could also convince you to share your land with me in exchange for me sharing my land with you. I think Humans have primitive roots but we have the option to not use violence even if it is threatened upon us. Surrendering to the use of violence is defeat in my mind. There is just lack of education, and indoctrination into the use of violence on this planet. There are many more counters to your argument that I have failed to mention here because I'm not very smart. The way our society works is selfish psychopaths are at the top of the food chain because they do not value anything other than power and since they don't have a moral compass they excel in a material driven society because they are willing to lie cheat and steal when they know they can get away with it. These people coerce others into violence because why would they risk there own hides when they can manipulate others to do so? They control the flow of money and dangle it over our heads like a carrot on a stick. I think the way our society is not going to work this way much longer because it is not a model that can be sustained forever, it is a failed model. That is why the meek shall inherit the Earth. Either way, excellent question Cartier90.

I would prefer it if no one had the desire to kill, and I think if everyone reasoned that there is no reason to do so we all would be much better off since we wouldn't waste so many resources on developing and using weapons on each other (resources being materials, human lives, time, effort). I think there is more than enough resources to go around in the world. defense contractors make a lot of money developing weapons and selling them to various countries. How does any government justify spending $2 billion dollars on a b-2 bomber? And who benefits from the development and sale of said bomber? The U.S. government spends at least a fifth of its budget on defense spending. If the whole world spent 1% of what it spends on weapons in a year it could send every child on the planet to school (I know this last statistic is a little sketchy I might come back with a detailed figure for this). We would probably have colonized mars by now and have a cure for aids if we put as much effort into those things as we do defense. We should spend more money and effort on diplomacy and leading by setting a shining peaceful example. Defense may still be necessary in this cruel world, but I think it's at the very least over done and there are a few opportunists (psychopaths like Henry Kissinger) that ruin it for the rest of us.

I'm a pacifist so this game doesn't influence my feelings towards war. I am not Christian but I believe that the 10 commandments are important ( i.e. thou shall not kill ) and should be followed literally. If heaven exists then you should let yourself and your loved ones perish in the face of violence because then you will inherit a place in heaven, and you won't be contributing to the cycle of violence. I personally believe all wars are B.S. and are just political machinations that only benefit bankers and politicians and defense contractors. War is romanticized by the media b/c bankers politicians and defense contractors are at the top of the pyramid and they need the media to convince people to go against their human nature. The army doesn't only teach you how to kill, it teaches you how to develop a killer instinct. I think life is much more complicated than the comments I make here and my opinion on things is always changing.

:cool: Thanks for the info Walker, I will definitely use left alt from now on for free look until I get TrackIR, I will probably use it more often now that you've given me a more convenient and effective alternative.

Ok Beerhunter, it's true that you never called anyone stupid you only implied that some people may not be that bright by posing a question. I'm sorry for reading too much into it. I'd also like to say brilliant post Walker, had a similar experience with a BMP on a domination map only problem was it was backed up by a T-90 I failed to spot. I also hope that Bohemia Interactive starts supporting Free Track IR. Either way I'm looking into getting TrackIR working for this game b/c the numpad doesn't cut it.

I never said I don't call other people stupid. I should have added a disclaimer. I don't profess to have any moral high ground and I'm sorry if the tone of my post was pretentious. I was only venting my own frustration and trying to get people to look at the issue in another light. I don't consider myself morally superior to anyone. Once again I'm sorry for causing offense.

Is it just me or has it become fashionable to declare that people are stupid for any reason? People have different socio-economic backgrounds, not everyone has a father/mother that was an electrical engineer. Not eveyone has the same level of experience ( i.e. some people are new to certain things). Aren't there more constructive ways of going about this, or do we have to insult others? I'm wondering if the aim of the parent post was to insult or to educate, or perhaps both, or just to vent frustration? The purpose of my post is to vent my frustration with posts like the aforementioned. I personally like Walker's approach, write a tutorial about it. Best type of tutorial is the one that teaches people how to fish instead of fishing for them (borrowing from a famous pronoun), but some people will always want to do things the easy way and we can't always be pissed at them for doing so because they might have a good excuse or a good reason for doing so. Overall I think it's better to learn why before calling people stupid (kind of like finding cover and using your binoculars before opening fire). If someone is helplessly stupid isn't there even less of a reason to call them stupid? Because in that case they already know they are stupid, or they are too stupid to realize. In conclusion I think it's better to avoid calling someone stupid in any circumstance.

Steam was updated today, and it said they now have an in-game overlay for Arma2, haven't noticed it though, and I did restart steam right after the update before launching Arma2.:don 14: btw this is my first post:yay: