Vile Requiem

You may or may not notice I made a slight tweak to the levi based on the previous site poll (yes, they actually do get used ) that only 1 person voted for the Levi as their favorite ship on. Levi has major speed upgrade but bombs are now slower then before. Feel free to post comments that don't consern my status upon this earth

Fixed/Reset

Didn't think of it + Not enough poll options, sorry (I know quite a few people are from england after all)

I'd be ashamed to post 666 times on the AML board unless I was the admin

Bush stonewalled the 9/11 comission from heing held in the first place. It was only via the lobbying efforts of the 9/11 families that anything got done (cause, you can't exactly have 9/11 families on TV saying Bush is preventing the investigation, can you? But that's exactly what happened ). After it got started, he tried to impose an unfair time restriction to make a conclusion. Fortunately Kean was smart enough to stop that. Then came the Clarke bombs-*BAD WORD*-. Now, even Bush Administration officals will tell you themselves that they shut Clarke out of the loop after he had virtually permission to come into the oval office at any time under Clinton, and much more intelligence gathering power. Rice and Rumsfeld basically said '-*BAD WORD*- you' to him. But don't take my word for it, it's all in this week's Newsweek mag There's also the issue of ~10,000 pages of do-*BAD WORD*-entation about terrorism that the Clinton administration passed on to the Bush Admin that they refuse to give to said commission. Why such stonewalling? Not even going into the refusal of people to testify. It's beginning to seem Watergateish or worse. Clinton DID go on the offense over terror after his own 9/11, the WTC bombing. He had terror intel meetings on a daily basis, and Clarke was a big part of them. As we're about to see, the bombing wasn't enough evidence to go attack someone (it's common knowledge he thought Bin Laden a threat). It's ironic how the republican congress was up in arms when Clinton did so much as throw missles at Afganistan, calling it a Wag the Dog scenario to distract from his sucky problems. Back in the days before 9/11, you're absolutely right, anyone who tried to pull covert ops such as, say, !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inating Bin-Laden would be signing their own impeachment. Which is kinda why Clinton didn't "directly" say that, even though it was "!@#$%^&*umed" by the top staffers. If anyone's a bunch of hypocrites... (btw, the commish of said 9/11 committee was the former republican gov. of my state, and the president of Drew University in Madison, NJ. He's a good guy). (PK2: There's no way Robo-Gore could pimp, no matter how much expertise Clinton gave him ) (Finally, the comission is 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats, with Kean being a Republican. Hard to see where a partisan ruling is going to come into play).

I love to be entertained

Why do some people lack the mental function NOT to assign blame? It's friggin subconsious... First off, let's tick off these liberation wars. Panama was to keep control of the Canal. Canal = $$$ Bosnia was mostly an air operation, with no military deaths (Clark was a great commander) Somalia turned out to be an ambush of Hollywood proportions (Black Hawk Down). Have not studied the Sudan war. Kuwait was about saving a US puppet state that had plenty of oil. If Saddam had gotten it he would have had the cash to do serious damage. Bush I was right to go in there and kick some -*BAD WORD*-. However, even in such a modern war the troops weren't safe, as many of them are developing Gulf War syndrome. The legality of us getting into Vietnam in the first place (Gulf of Tonkin) is still being disputed. We did it to stop the spread of communism, not to "liberate" anyone. And we failed at that too, or did you miss the evacuation of the US emb!@#$%^&*y in Saigon (now Ho Chi Mihn City) Hint...Ho Chi was the BAD GUY. He WON. However, didn't stop us from WMDing the -*BAD WORD*- out of them with Agent Orange and -*BAD WORD*-ing up american vets with neurological problems. Not to mention serious lying and covering up of what was actually happening at home. The war that an entire generation of cadets studied as an example of what NOT to do. We have hit another quagmire of Vietnam proportions. We went in to stop WMD because Saddam was about to use them on us, and to avenge 9/11. When someone pointed out that the hijackers were saudi, that bit got dropped. Likewise with the severe lack of WMD found. Thusly, Bush spun the argument to the only point that you really can't dispute: Saddam was a bad man. But how did he get to be so bad? Ok, he g!@#$%^&*ed his own people. He g!@#$%^&*ed Iranians. Horrible war crime circa the day Mus-*BAD WORD*- Gas was first used in WWI. However, gas doesn't magically appear. WE GAVE IT TO HIM. Let's not forget: Saddam was originally our best friend. Iran had the evil fundamentalist regime that was threatening it's neighbors. So we gave Saddam a -*BAD WORD*-load of armored stuff and biological weapons AND THE PROGRAMS. Yes, those exact programs which Bush Jr said Saddam had. After the war, he had fun g!@#$%^&*ing his own people. We knew he was who he was when we did it. Rumsfield knew it. -*BAD WORD*-, Rumsfield told Saddam the US wouldn't interfere if Iraq invaded Kuwait. Big Lie then, big lie now. The US does a lot of sneaky -*BAD WORD*-. Most of it's caught up to them in one way or another. We've started god knows how many coups where the new guy turned out to be worse the the old one (Noriega, Pinochet, Taylor, etc). This war is for US interests, and US interests alone. Oh and btw, one of our zone's sysops is in Iraq. Seeing as I don't want him or any one of those brave people to wind up dead, I'd say I support the troops...Not to mention my dad served in the army also. It saddens me when people use terror for their own personal agenda. When you hear the radio and fox news ASSS floating the idea of suspending the election if another 9/11 were to occur, remember this and remember this well: Lincoln was reelected DURING THE CIVIL WAR. If that's not a hazardous situation to go to the polls in then what is?

The hall of fame would be a collection of people who have either kicked -*BAD WORD*- at playing, been great staff, or been noteworthy in general. It would be an honor to be in such a thing, and isn't ?go awards, it would be a page on the site.

Let's not forget 8000-10000 civilian deaths. Iraq Body Count

Since when was Saddam responsible for 9/11? Oh ya, the OTHER bearded guy did that, the one who hates saddam's guts. 19 of the 20 hijackers were SAUDI, not IRAQI. No questioning as to the validity of the war? Then why the Freedom Fries? And the prevention of UN action thanks to Russia's Security Council veto? Or perhaps you think Micronesia's fighter planes, Azerbaijan's panzer units, Rwanda's AIDS wmd, Japan's complete and total lack of ability to enter a conflict thanks to their cons!@#$%^&*ution (written by the US no less after WWII) and Mongolia's Genghis hoardes are helpful to this "coalition"? Danish troops haven't seen any fighting period. Polish troops are there so that Poland can buddy up with the US after that whole Warsaw Pact thing (total: 200 troops.) We saw what just happened in Spain, and their troops are going back home (they are thusly out of said Coalition as of yesterday). Britian's run by Tony Blair, who just happens to be a moron who does what Bush says (Note: Britian HATES Tony Blair for supporting bush) NO arab country members except Kuwait, which is a US puppet. The czechs sent a chemical/biological warfare unit (VERY USEFUL). South Koreans have turned against us. Estonia's using Priit to hack into Saddam's secret computer files. Quite a few eastern-european countries are looking for the US to give them money through NATO for their "support", estonia being one of them. Only El Salvador, Nicaragua and Colombia, where the US is funding a huge anti-drugs war are members from the West. Only Britian and Austrailia have provided significant troops towards the effort. So this mainly comes down to George Bush and Tony Blair's jolly little venture into Iraq. Now, it's pretty obvious that the alleged stockpiles the US claimed Iraq had are not exactly Terrorists themselves. Terrorists have the uncanny habit of being small and easy to transport, allowing themselves to slip right into other countries. WMD do not. WMD need to be contained in cool, dry enviroments, of which Iraq has little of. Even if we're expected to believe that Saddam gave the weapons to others, why in -*BAD WORD*- would he do such a thing? Even a 5 year old could recgonize that he has LESS army then got whipped in Desert Storm, and none of the cool stuff like scuds either. Thus, odds are he's going to be captured and lose power. Why would such a man give up a huge american-killing-oppurtunity as a massive stockpile of WMD, which is the ONLY WAY he could have won this war? It's very simple. Saddam knew he had jack -*BAD WORD*- up his sleeve, but didn't want to get invaded and lose power. Therefore, he bluffed like any sane person would do. Bluffing has 2 advantages...1) You might not get caught, and you keep the people afraid of you (which prevents INTERNAL rebellion), and 2) You get to go down a martyr. 2 is key here. As we're seeing from the internal fighting against the US now, Saddam had quite a few loyalists who wouldn't have been inspired if he just turned himself in. He also could probably see that because of said fighting, the country was going to go down the -*BAD WORD*-ter. What better way to get back at George Herbert Walker Bush (a man he tried to have killed) then to make his son look like a fool? Now, as for the aquiring of WMD...it is certainly possible to buy things on the black market. However, Iraq had no economy to purchase these weapons with. Otherwise, why would we need to rebuild the country with clean water and electricity? Bagdad was pretty much the only city even close to US standards. For more about why saddam had token missles, let's look at the Republic of Japan. Japan as we all know lost World War II to the Americans. When their cons!@#$%^&*ution was drawn up, McArthur added in a clause stating that the only military Japan could possess would be for defense of their nation only. Iraq is a nation that was formed out of 3 seperate factions that hate each other. And as we can see now, there's a LOT of rpg's and machine guns in the country that odds are Saddam had NO IDEA ABOUT. Therefore, what he had was the only line of defense between Iraq being stable, and Iraq desending completely into chaos. Therefore, Russia didn't see enough of a threat in Saddam having a few token missles to go in and put a end to him or to commit UN troops to do such. And even if you ignore all that, shouldn't the massive anti-war protests all around the globe perhaps raise a bit of a red flag that perhaps Bush is lying to get revenge against the man who tried to kill his poppy, with Oil as a side bonus? Nah, the Project for a New American Century wouldn't want you to know that. What's the PNAC? They are a fun little neo-conservative lobbyist group that seeks to project American Dominance upon the world in the absense of the Soviets. Basically, make sure America remains the sole superpower in the world by securing the resources and world favor/fear to accomplish this. Members? Nobody much, except: -*BAD WORD*- Cheney - Vice President Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense Richard Pearle - Thinktank Dude Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jeb Bush - Florida Govenor and bro of Pres. Bush Dan Quayle - GHWB's Vice President Steve Forbes - Far less important then the others, just a recgonizable name And many more people that I don't have time to research PNAC to Clinton Letter - Note that Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, and Perle all co-signed. Note where those men are today. Note that they wanted to invade Iraq in 1998, not to mention securing interests (oil, "friendships", security) around the world. Fun Quote: Let's recall that we thought that the oil fields would pay for the country's reconstruction. Let's also recall who is in the PNAC. Furthermore: Bush Letter, 2001 Bush Letter II Both of these letters lobby Bush to do the exact same thing they wanted Clinton to do...go in and take Saddam out of power. Pardon me if i'm not just a tad scared that a group of radical neo-conservatives have taken the power in Washington and that's why Saddam is gone today. Bush is an unfortunate puppet in all of this.

Bush is hardly a saint. All one needs do is check out the Niger "do-*BAD WORD*-ent" history for proof of that: A little over a month later, the International Atomic Energy Agency exposed this allegation as a fraud, based on a crudely forged do-*BAD WORD*-ent which had been sold to the Italian intelligence service and then was passed on to the British and the US. The Bush administration nonetheless stood by the charge for another three months. On Sunday, July 6, former amb!@#$%^&*ador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that he had traveled to Niger in February 2002, at the request of the CIA, to investigate the claim, and had found it had no credibility. Among other things, he discovered that Niger’s uranium reserves were controlled by a four-power consortium. Germany, France and Japan, among others, would have been notified of any Iraqi attempted purchase. Sure, that indicates the intel was bad. However...In the preparation of an October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati, in which Bush first elaborated to the American public his policy of a war to “disarm Iraq,” Tenet personally intervened with the White House to remove a reference to seeking uranium in Niger from the text. So dubious was the claim that when Secretary of State Powell laid out the US case in his February 5, 2003 speech to the UN Security Council, only a week after the State of the Union speech, he refused to include the Niger allegation, even though he agreed to include several equally specious charges, such as the claims about Iraq’s purchase of aluminum tubes and the suggestion that Iraq had close links to Al Qaeda. Now, let's do some simple math. Jan 28 - Oct 7 = 3 months, 3 weeks since a speech in which the CIA DIRECTOR (ya know, the intel guy) told Bush not to reference the Niger claim. That's enough time for a kindergardener to learn shapes and colors, much less someone who graduated from Yale to figure out that a "badly forged do-*BAD WORD*-ent" with the signature of a guy who hadn't held said position for 10 years before the signed date probably isn't a good idea to use as it would be lying to the american public. There's no need to even venture into the rest of that SOTU speech, of which most of the claims about Iraq were proven to be, class? FALSE. But sure, blame Clinton's Penis for the 540 dead soldiers. He did it.

Once kerry gets in office nurpy can find a icbm, I don't care, just not before then All the evidence is showing no wmd in iraq, but the danes brought snow shovels anyway, presumbaly to dig up mines.

Bottom line, both parties are in the special interests pockets wading in -*BAD WORD*- deep. (and this post is definitally not pro-kerry) However, that's not the problem here. The political process as it stands today has one major issue: Manipulation of the Media Fox/FNC is owned by Rupert Murdoch (billionaire/FCC republican hoar) NBC is owned by GE (billionaire) MSNBC is co-owned by NBC and Microsoft (billionaires) CNN is owned by Time-Warner (billionaire) CBS is owned by Viacom (billionaire) ABC is owned by Disney (heavily republican billionaires) Papers vary, but some biggies like the Washington Post are Republican. Radio has jack!@#$%^&*es like Limbaugh on it, not to mention ClearChannel owning a -*BAD WORD*-load of stations now. Now, unless these billionaire buisnesses are ignorant, they know where their bread is buttered, and it's certainly not on the side of anyone other then GWB, who has eased up logical FCC regulations against merging and ownership of % of sources (something murdoch in paticular was against but all of these companies love). Therefore, where's their coverage going to slant? That's right, mostly pro-GWB, and I don't hear anyone calling him a bleeding heart liberal. They can't ignore the democrats now that there's only ONE candidate vs bush (excluding nader), therefore Kerry and what he says gets airtime. They destroyed Dean to -*BAD WORD*-, the "scream" was a mic that drowned out the crowd noise he was SHOUTING over (they later apologized, but it was much too late to stop Kerry). And why did they? He advocated breaking up these very same monopolies they'd love to convince you don't exist. Fox News Channel has done more to perpetuate this 'liberal' myth then anything else. Hannity and O'Reilly are the main perpetuators of this, they badger anyone who beats them in an argument (including more then a few notable mike-cut-offs), no matter who they are, usually followed up by a 'final word' that 99% of the time includes something to the effect of 'bigotted liberal'. Now, the enemy here isn't republicans. Most republicans are perfectly decent people. It's the 'anti-liberal', the neo-conservative. Neo-Cons are for the following: Pro War (War = Money for their companies [eg: Cheney and Haliburton]) Pro Big Buisness/Getting Rich (the tax cuts plus bush's attempt to allow aliens to work legally). Now, Bush & Cheney have millions of dollars. The tax cuts allow them to keep a -*BAD WORD*-load of that cash. Meanwhile, Joe Shmoe gets 300 bucks on average. Don't let the ads fool you, the average is NOT 1,100 dollars per person. That takes into account all the rich people's tax cuts, and odds are you're not rich. Pro Bin-Laden. This is more bush then the neo-cons in paticular. The Bin-Laden family is uber-rich, and highly influencial in Saudi Arabia, where we get OIL from. Now, 99% of the Bin Ladens are perfectly legitimate buisnessmen, so this is fine. However, what they don't want you to know is their wonderful brother Osama has a stake in the family fortune totalling somewhere around 200 million dollars. Ever wonder how he finances his Al-Queda camps? Now you know. And do we cut off ties with the family and say "Remove this evil man from his money?" No, because we're indebbeted to them up the -*BAD WORD*- due to the connections and the oil. OBL would NOT be a threat without cash to finance himself. Bush comes into this due to his family connections with the Saudi Royal Family and the Bin Ladens. He even was so kind as to fly EACH AND EVERY ONE of them out of the country in the hours after 9/11, instead of questioning them about their brother's whereabouts (someone's gotta know something, no?) And they're anti: Jobs - Sure, the amount of jobs in america has grown, but barely (Whereas under Clinton the economy was booming and jobs were everywhere, unemployment was down to record lows). Clinton's one mistake in this department was NAFTA, but not because of anything he invisioned. Buisness is taking the oppurtunity to outsource jobs for peanuts helping prolong this crappy economy. But still, if Bush cared he'd revoke NAFTA/WTO like he did the Kyoto Treaty, the ABM, and the UN's authority. New Deal/Education - Notice in the past few days how Greenspan said there's no cash for Social Security? Add that into the growing defecit and you can see how many government programs will be slashed. Bush isn't even funding NCLB enough to do what it said it would do, making the public education system a mockery of itself and raising your LOCAL taxes. Poor/Middle Class - Sure, you got your 300 dollar refund not once, but twice. However, if you're in college (like me) you notice one thing...the tuition is going up because states are going further and further into debt. So in essence your taxes/overall payments will be HIGHER then before Demonstration - Americans/Most of the rest of the world have a right to peacefully !@#$%^&*emble. However, not around Bush, cause it might hurt his feelings. Most notable is the anti-war protests (which were millions more then the pro-war people, yet the pro-war people were the ones who got on CNN). Another example is when Bush went to celebrate MLK day not too long ago in Atlanta, and the police parked BUSES in front of the protestors. In Britian they lined up a parade route and didn't allow protestors on it. Protestors were lined up in front of Parliment but couldn't get in. In the Phillipenes they threw out anyone who had an anti-bush sign. Bish himself admits he doesn't read the paper, he gets his news from his advisors. Frankly, they hide the guy from the truth as much as he hides himself from it. The government has to collect money in order to fund programs. Bottom line: The neocon media gave Kerry the nomination and is setting up Bush to kick his -*BAD WORD*-. The only reason bush is being blasted atm (I live in NYC area) is that he's using 9/11 images in his ads. Add this to the sheep who watch Fox News Channel 24/7 and you have a growing majority of americans who believe even normal everyday americans are 'liberal pro-terrarists who will take away my guns'. It's a wealth distribution curve. Despite your pleas to the contrary, you do NOT make 100k a year, and therefore are not even remotely rich. A tax cut will give more money to the rich (quite logically) and thus they become more rich. Meanwhile, your 300 bucks is gone with one or two nifty purchases. They'd love to make you believe that the rich will magically sprinkle this wealth upon us. -*BAD WORD*- no, rich people love getting richer and do NOT care about you. Tax levels under clinton produced a booming economy and why? Because the government had more money to spend, even SURPLUSES. You can freely give away a surplus to people, it's like a holiday bonus check. However, when you try and do the same thing with a tax CUT, you cause recessions due to the lower intake of cash. The government is one of the biggest spenders in the world, if they have money to spend everyone benefits, the education level goes up, and fees for government programs go DOWN. The bad economy started in Bush's Term. Bad economies begin with rumors of things, paticularly things the government is going to do (such as a insanely large tax cut promised by -*BAD WORD*-lad when he entered office). 9/11 didn't exactly HELP the situation either. To blame it on Clinton is ignorance. Gore lost 2000 because of the supreme court stopping the recount (which Gore would have won as shown much later), media painting (inventing the internet, love canal), and in general, because he didn't do well in the debates. He STILL got more votes then Bush, even after all that. The election was mostly based on the tax cut, which is a disturbingly stupid reason to elect anyone. Wow, nice ramble I did there Hopefully it's coherent

I'm talking about a new fun thing: [Misc] Nametag=0/1 0 = Arena doesn't care if you have them on or off 1 = All Nametags Off, can't turn them on (only in the specific arena). Putting it in would allow for the elimination of teaming in events like elim, plus allow for some other types of events where knowing who people are would make it not work . The only other way to take them out involves taking out the blue font, which naturally causes severe (pubchat) problems <_<

First off, in the server.ini, set ArenaMode=5, which will make all subarenas use spawn.cfg by default, unless there's a arenaname.cfg to go with arenaname. As you probably know, spawn.cfg isn't server.cfg, so you won't mess the zone up except if you touch a few known buggy sets www.shanky.com/server/ (in particular SSOS) for all your settings needs. Can you make ships permacloaked - No (though you could set CloakStatus=2 and CloakEnergy=0 on all ships to pull off a semblance of what you're talking about) I wish you could make nametags off, I really do, as i'd use it as well. Can't be that hard to program

Doing anything to pie except eating it in the fastest way possible is immoral and wrong. If you have a pie, and it's sitting on the counter, and nobody's eating it, why?

In a paticular region... And he just so happens to be 186 x 10^-2 inches

I hope all of cokey's kitty avatars are just photoshopped.... Otherwise PETA should get involved

Flamebait. For all ban concerns: banned@17thparallel.com Not here.

Terrier + Terrier - Attach Penalty = Old Terrier 12 Mines 6 Repels Anti Nastier Guns Double Bouncy Bombs Old Terrier would own these settings rather badly. Viley sees through your evil scheme

The smart caveman can't correctly guess my browser

I remember when I infiltrated 43rd Parallel staff =) Best bit of acting ever, you were gonna promote me to smod

On this map lanc would never get 7 bounces again even if it went back to the old shrap sets, talk about overpowered

This is a wound that never needed to be opened. I sure as -*BAD WORD*- am not modding this thread in any way. Flame/-*BAD WORD*- On. My reply will come tomorrow morning. And to clarify, this was all mike. 100%

How is this not useless spam again?