Aileron

Well you've been taken...hook, line and sinker....by one of the gayest sound-bites to come out of the war on terror.... It had nothing to do with the size of the hole and everything to do with an attempt to use language to de-humanise and villainise Saddam Hussein in the eyes of the media-watching public. Given the attrocities that this guy has commited, I see it as an insult to my intelligence that they they think they need to stoop that low to make me think he is a bad guy. The fact is its propaganda. Plain and simple. Those were just two examples...this war has been filled with propaganda from both sides. I would like to think that I live in a culture that tries to rise above that kind of thing. Monte. I think you are overreacting to two stupid words. The way media manipulation works is by the choice of what stories are covered, what extent they are, and little side comments they tag with the stories at the end. The wording plays a role, but it is insignificant. Why try to tone something down with words when you can not mention it completely? An example of media manipulation in Iraq is the Jessica Lynch story. Huge weeks of coverage and a movie for something that really shouldn't be mentioned at all. "Spider hole" is not. Hussein's capture is newsworthy, and the term was coined mostly because there is little other way to describe it. Yes, a desire to dehumanize Hussein may of played a role, but one can't really put that much of a message in two words. Besides, as I mentioned in the last post in the part where you dotted out, the term "spider hole" was coined by a US General, not the media. As for the criticisms of my long post, yes it is a little choppy and incomplete. However, in order to fix those problems, I would have had to make it even longer. I put enough in there so that you could fill in the blanks if you really want to. Making the post stronger is simply not worth the time.

*notices somebody took my wallet* *is glad I didn't have the money on me in the first place, proving once again that it is best to seal the deal before having money available.* (out of character comment- I had $100 on me; most of the money is going to be paid on delivery. Who carries $5,000,000 with them anyway?!?) Suddenly, Ail's hidden super hearing device hears Apple Pie brag about stealing my money. Still sitting in my chair, a wire creeps out from under my right sleeve. It slithers down to the floor, crawls acrossed the room, and slides up to Apple Wallet thanks to a brainwave controlled head. It grabs his wallet and silently drags it back to my hand. I count the money inside, a little more than what I lost, and a printer in my jacket prints off a counterfeit of every bill in the wallet. I take the real money out, put the fake money in, and slide the wallet back in Apple's pocket, with him none the wiser. The whole thing is done just before Apple speeds off in his Pineapple. (OOC-Yeah technically I role-played Apple a little, but I think he already implied that his next move was to speed off. If he says otherwise, ignore that last statement.)

Actually, I downloaded the shipset editor. However, it only did the 2x2 ship. I just gave up.

*mutters to himself "Sheesh, I'm offering a total of $5 million for a job in a room of insane pilots, and the idiots haven't jumped on it yet!"* Turns to Ricebowl and says, "Are you sure you don't want this job? It pays $5,000,000 total, but it has to be secret."

Akai, you should have learned by now that you are the forum wide fallguy and everything is you fault by default. Which reminds me, its your fault I haven't finished my christmas shopping yet.

I warned you about the length. Overall, the point is that I thought through it and didn't use that freedom crap that even I don't believe. Thus, I would greatly appreciate it if you people stop making those !@#$%^&*umptions about the way supporters think.

Well, it really goes back to the War on Terror. It is obvious that this war will not be won when we defeat the terrorists, but when we remove the root causes of terrorism. In my opinion, the root causes of terrorism were the Crusades as well as a struggle over Islamic philosophy at around AD 1300. The former causes their religious zeal as well as their "us vs. them" mentality, the later their fear of modern ideas. It could have been retaliation for the things the US did to Middle Eastern Countries. However, those actions were mostly economic, and the US did worse things to other countries that are not terroristic for the most part. Overall, while there were things the US could have done to prevent terrorism to be done to the US, the root causes of terrorism are mostly in the Middle Eastern political system and their poverty, both have been in place for centuries. Overall, I would say it is 90% the Middle East politics and 10% United States' actions. It is also important to note that for all practical proportions, terrorists fill in their ranks from Middle Eastern Muslims. Yes, there are other groups, but for the most part all terrorists fit this description. However, the specific country of origion varies. Most seem to be Saudi, but to eliminate terrorism overall, one has to widen the scope to the Middle East in general. Now going back to my first paragraph, there should be an obvious question - If the majority of the root causes of terrorism are centuries old, why is it only a modern problem? Well, there are three things that changed recently. The first is that WWII changed the defignition of warfare to include attack of civilians, partially justifying the action and more importantly providing a tactical reason to do so. Secondly, modern weaponry, particularly Soviet surplus, are making terrrorism felt where it wouldn't be noticed before. In this category, I will also include other modern technology such as 747s. However, the third reason is the most important. The thing is that of the causes of terrorism, the %10 determines the target. Previously, the other 90 still existed, but the 10 has alway been either foreign occupants or other Middle Eastern countries and nationalities. Thus, it was wise for the rest of the world to just simply try to stay out of this crud. The United States by all means could try to do this. However, there are two problems with this. The first is that as soon as terrorists stop hating the US, they will start hating somebody else. This is by all means tolerable. However, here is the kicker-if terrorism is felt when they get ahold of some 50 year old Soviet pea-shooters, what will happen when they get WMDs? Face it, there are enough WMDs in the world to destroy it a few hundred times over, and the only thing preventing doomsday is the sanity of those with them. Terrorists are probably the only group crazy enough to actually use nukes, or atleast it is dangerous to assume otherwise. The number of WMD holding countries will only increase, so one must assume that eventually all countries will have them. It is also important to note that it is not necessarily a WMD, but some technology necessary to be painfull. Thus, the 90% percent cannot be ignored. If we p!@#$%^&* the target baton to another country and they get nuked, we still lose. Yes, the time between now and the time terrorists or somebody with a similar mindset get a nuke is a long way off, probably several decades. However, in order to change the 90%, we need to change the entire social and political structure of the entire Middle East. It is a race between the West's ability to change the political atmosphere of the Middle East, and the terrorist's ability to do damage. What the attack on Al Queda in Afghanistan did was buy time. We effectively dismantled their major operations for a while. However, they will grow back, and even if we destroyed them most likely another group will replace them. We need to change the political atmosphere. There are three ways to do this - diplomatic, economic, and militarily. The former will not work, because to ask a king or dictator to voluntarily give up their position is to ask too much. Even if they were willing to give up power, odds are based on history that the first thing a democratically elected leader in the Middle East would do is execute the previous leader, the second would be to declare a new dictatorship. Thus diplomacy will not work. We should always try it, but in this case shouldn't be suprised when it doesn't work. Economic wouldn't work either. In order to do it, we would need to send in a bunch of soft civilian targets that would be all to convenient for a terrorist to attack. Military also works, but as always should only be reserved as a last resort. However decision on this should hold off until we chose the first country to change. Bush had the decision of every country east of the Red Sea and west of India, and all of them must be eventually changed for the War of Terrorism to be won and disaster averted. It could have been any. However, he chose to modernize Iraq first because Hussein is an easy political target. There are many advantages to going into Iraq. They had a history of WMDs, and likely still had them. Thus, attacking Iraq will buy us even more time. They also have a modern population that can read and write, are past the second agricultural and industrial revolutions. And, ofcourse, they have the oil, which when looked at from the Iraqi perspecitve will help money flow into their country. That is because regardless, the US will buy the oil from them. Selling the most valueble resource to the richest country in the world can really make somebody rich, and the Iraqis have that potential. All that money to their new capitalist economy will make builidng a self sufficient economy and political system all the more easier. The disadvantages to going into Iraq were few. The first, and the one hurting the Bush administration now, is that there was no absolute proof Iraq had WMDs. However, the scale of what we are trying to do don't allow us time to find it and all indications gave that they still had them. This arguement was given by France and Germany in the UN summits. The second was that Hussein did not directly support terrorism. This is what was given by Russia. As a matter of fact, Hussein would do what he could to eliminate terrorists in his country. He had a secular regime rather than a religious one. This arguement that Putin gave is one of the best I have seen, and if more arguements like this were given in April, the war would have been fought in a much better fashion. However, when one weighs the good and bad consequences of going into each country, one can understand why Bush decided to go into Iraq first. It also explains his justifications. First, it explains why they are so bad, because we can scare surrounding regimes to modernize more effectively if we supposedly take somebody out without a good reason. It also explain the "imminent threat" arguement. We weren't trying to prevent a scud attack tommorow; we were trying to prevent a terrorist style attack a few decades from now, and the only reason it was imminent is because the threat is coming from several countries that will take time to subdue. Overall, the reason we are going into Iraq really doesn't have to do with Iraq itself. It really has to do with the entire social and political system which Iraq is part of. It really didn't have to be Iraq, but it had to be atleast one and most likely all Middle Eastern countries. The capture of Hussein marks the near end of conflict in Iraq. However, the true conflict is far from over. The goal of this conflict is the pacification and modernization of the entire middle east. The battlefield spans from the desert of Saudi Arabia to the mountains of Pakistan. It is a conflict that cannot be stopped and cannot be avoided. Don't want to fight every tiny insignificant regime? Too bad. The reward for action will be a modernized and gratefull people. The consequences of inaction will make Sept. 11 look insignificant.

So American General Shanchez, the guy who coined the phrase spider hole, isn't allowed to be biased in favor of the United States? Don't get me wrong, but I think when somebody rises to the rank of General in the armed forces of any country, I think a little biased at!@#$%^&*ude in favor of the country which he works for is a requirement as a matter of fact. Besides the purpose of the term "spider hole" is to point out how small the hole was, not make Hussein seem more cowardly. Oh, I love this arguement. All my opponents are idiots, therefore I am right. How old are you, five? That is the exact same arguement playgroung children use, except that they usually are smart enough not to believe it seriously. I dunno though, all Americans must be stupid; I thought those words are spelled "propaganda" and "themselves". Your "superior" intelligence really shows. Please just stop posting. The only thing you are proving is that you are a moron not worth anyone's time. Why am I posting here? I have not seen any logical arguement come forth since my last post except that chart. Besides, as I pointed out my last post, even if it was for oil, the arguement still doesn't work. Suppose you had to walk home through Harlem NY. There were two allys that you could go down. One ally would ensure that a murderer comes out and kills you, and then takes all the money in your wallet; in the other, a thief comes out and picks your pockets. Which ally would you choose? Logically, the second, because you lose less by any standard. The first ally is Iraq under Hussein, the second is the US, !@#$%^&*uming the Oil War arguement holds true. Also, suppose there was a third alley, representing the UN going into Iraq. Since you consider the UN to be a completely holy organization, lets assume that in this alley you find a $20 bill on the ground. Wouldn't this third ally be even better? Face it, the oil war arguement is pathetic. Even if you prove its impossible to prove premises (The chart doesn't prove it. The premise is that the INTENT was to go for oil, the chart can only prove results.), it still does not logically follow. That is probably why we went to war without good announced justification. That arguement is so emotional and insulting that just about anything will beat it. However, just because there wasn't good announced justification doesn't mean good justification doesn't exist. I already figured out Bush's intent and how this action will eventually win the war on terrorism, as well as poverty in the Middle East. I'd give it to you, but for the sake of length and the fact that you wouldn't read it anyway, I'll hold off unless you ask. I will just say this: the reason for this conflict is not only the effects on Iraq itself, but the effects this action will have on surrounding nations. You people really don't know how big this really is.

me again

Nah, all we need is to create a new messenging service that enables us to send e-dropkicks to each other. That way the terror of being kick out of their seat will keep squad chats from becoming public.

Look, the minute the EU takes over, which btw it will never do, you people will be griping about the "atrocities" that they commit. That is ofcourse unless you are European, and then what the EU will be doing is gospel. What is sad is that of all the debates over whether or not we should go into Iraq, no arguement was a good one. The justifications offered by the Bush administration were not good. The links between Iraq and Al-Queda are loose at best. The WMDs were not proven and a far cry from an immenent threat. However, I do NOT criticise these justifications because ultimately they were enough to go to war. They were not good, but they were better than the compe!@#$%^&*ion, which mostly consisted of the "Oil war" arguement. Honestly, THAT is why we went to war, because the biggest arguement against doing so is not only based on premises that are unlikely to be true and impossible to prove, but also didn't follow logically. Okay, suppose for a second that there was a ski resort in -*BAD WORD*- and that you could prove that Bush was going for oil. I'll give you that premise that a politician would risk his career so that a few oil businessmen that he knows, not necessarily likes, might make a profit. If true that would make Bush essentially a thief, but Hussein would still be a murderer. Suppose you had a choice what crime would be done to you. Wouldn't it be less horrible for you to be robbed then killed? On top of that, this arguement doesn't indicate at all why the o-so-holy UN shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Overall, this arguement is an illogical pile of emotion that appeals to nobody except those who are already blindly against the war in the first place.

that was me

*raises arm* *suddenly, a grenade shoots out from under my sleeve* *the grenade goes back through the chaos gate, and blows it up from the other side* "Problem solved" *goes back to drinking*

plz, the debates over whether to war should have been started in the first place are over. Well, I'll put it this way. We have agreed that we aren't going to change each other's opinions and arguing about it is a waist of time. I guess the thing we CAN agree on is that we should have done this in 1992. Every other debate is not worth it.

A mysterious figure in the back of the bar raises his head. He silently stands up, and walks steadily acrossed the floor. In a cold silent voice, he says to Ricebowl. "I see you have some money problems. If you are interested, I am looking for pilots such as yourself for employment. I need somebody to deliver a 'christmas present' to one of my 'old friends'. As a token of my good will, take this $20 for your duel. If you are still interested in my offer, meet me at my table." With that, he hands Ricebowl a $20. He then turned his head to the people with the guns. It only takes two lightning quick strokes of his hand, and both weapons are dis!@#$%^&*embled. "Seriously, you people need to take that stuff outside." He then walks back over to his table and sits down to finish his beer.

Yep. Thats your opinion alright. You know how successfull people say "lifes not fair". THAT is what they are talking about. Rising in wealth and power is always an uphill struggle. The thing about the US and capitalism in general is that people have a shot of rising in power. By all means it isn't a fair shot. However, the point is that there is a door open, and that the legal system isn't openly set up to force people down. Back on topic, the US is pretty much the ultimate in what a capitalist country can be. When you look at the options of what country could replace the US, there are no viable possibilities at this time. Japan pound for pound would have a shot. However, Japan is ultimately a group of islands. Thus, their economy is limited to the resources and land area they got. The same thing for the UK. The US has WAY more room to expand. A centralised Europe as discussed in another topic may have a shot, but most mainland European Countries are declining. China, Russia, and Canada have a lot of resources, but don't have much in terms of a current economy. Thus, as long as capitalism is in place, the US will be the dominant power. As for capitalism itself, it has a long way to go. It will not be reomved until a new age comes and it becomes outdated. It took a second agricultural and an industrial revolution to remove fuedalism. It will take something along those lines to remove capitalism. Sorry, but the US is going to be on top for a looooooong time.

1) The centralization of the EU will continue to grow as long as member nations wish to sacrifice sovreingty for economic gain. 2) England and Russia do not wish to sacfrifice as much sovreignty as the rest of Europe. They also have greater ties with the rest of the world, and thus do not get as much benefit. There are several other differences, but I'll just sum it up by saying that UK, Russia, and mainland Europe are in completely different economic boats. I just am guessing about the number years it will take for these differences to arise. The reason why the EU will collapse after this time is because all member nations but two will want something more extreme, but the two strongest will not. After this, probably mainland Europe will create their own little organization, which will probably just amount to a merging of countries. Sideburn is 99% correct in his judgement of the situation. There are some details he missed, such as France's desire to recover their lost glory. Overall, it stems from the general European desire for one powerfull nation. What he is wrong about is his criticism of Blair. Blair, while not looking out for popular interests, is looking out for UK interests. Face it, until the formentioned rift occurs, joining the EU will make a lot of money for the UK. Basically, he is deciding for the UK to get what they can out of this situation while the going is good. Odds are that even Blair would quit the EU before giving Germany access to English nukes. However, until situations like that come up, the best thing the UK can do is get what they can out of it.

My opinion, the EU will last about 20-30 years. After that, it would be replaced a a stronger more central organization that demands more control. The UK and Russia will have reservations about joining the new organization, thus weakening it. However, this organization will survive for a time period close to 100 years, depending on how friendly it is to countries outside their organization.

I had no problems that I remember.

first off, I finally found an object that I can collide with. I is an asteroid which looks like a mine with a missile sticking out of it. However, first off I collided with it while I was a short distance away from it. It seems the graphics are nt the same size as the object. Secondly, I had saw no NRG bar, and after playing with the asteroid a little my ship blew up. I know this is because collisions do damage, but my point is I didn't SEE the damage being done as it was being done.

Judgeing by the readme file, the tab key is supposed to fire a missile. However, when I press the button, I fire a missile, a bullet, and a moving mine. Also, if I press the shift key immeadiately afterwards, I would fire a stationary missile. Is this the "shootpoint problem" you mentioned?

Actually, madhaha, I read INTO it. If God said do not eats s-*BAD WORD*-s, hooves, fins, etc. , the profit would respond "well duh". Since the history of the bible was passed down through a few generations before it was written. Thus, if a father said do not eat s-*BAD WORD*-s, hooves, fins, etc. , the son might have tried to translate it into something he considered meaningfull. Since nobody eats those things, the commandment would be almost irrelevent. To make it relevent somebody probably changed it to what we see today. Yes, by all accounts the bible shouldn't be taken literally. The message has been shifted so many times that to do so would be foolish. What Christians, with exception to a few idiot denominations, do is follow the bible as a whole. However, that does not disprove my point that the bible doesn't contradict itself, at least as a whole. Those cases that seem to are merely seperate cases that appear similar. It really requires a greater understanding of the balance of things to see that it doesn't contradict itself. Actually, the cases that do are more often than not to pushes towards the central virtue of an issue. Besides, you could say the same thing for secular morality. Both appear to contradict themselves in many cases. However, the point is that the contradiction is never absolute, and if one tries, you can find a point in which you are breaking neither concept.

My point is that the reason why people spam is to make money, profits specifically. This cannot be done if the spammer is spending his money paying for a lawyer and other court costs. Whether it is a company, individual, or ring this does not change. If this law is enacted, the only two ways it would not work is if it isn't enforced or spammers keep their iden!@#$%^&*ies secret. The second cannot be done, because all profitable spam takes you to a website, the website to the company, the company to their records, their records to the spammer. The iden!@#$%^&*y of the spammer can be found if it is worth the time and money to do so. That brings us then to your last point. Yes, it is easier for the individuals to delete spam than it is to prosecute. However, if you run the possibility of ISPs or especially a group of ISPs hiring an attorney to prosecute a high level spammer, you might save enough space to make it worth it. This obviously won't cover all cases, but it is better than nothing. However, come to think of it that is beside the point. As it currently stands, many types of anti-spam software is illegal. This law would not only illegalize spam, but make it legal to fight spam. Without this law, any efforts made by individuals to try to stop spam would be illegal. Its step 1 of 10. It won't finish the process, but it will start it. It won't solve the problem by itself, but without it the problem will not be solved.

Dang, it took until the end of the page before you guys were clear enough so that I can understand you. Judging by this, there is only two solutions to the problem: change the web browser or change the .lvl file format. We can't do the first. As for the second, it would require that we change the way Continuum itself is programmed, which isn't worth it if it is possible. Obviously, the only thing we can do is create a completely different type of file that would be formatted for online transfer, and a type of program or function that would convert from one to another. Basically, we have a file which is an .lvl file with the bitmap componant at the end instead of the beginning, lets call it a .vll file. Then, you would need a program that would cut and paste the componants before and after each other for conversion.

As I said earlier, actually it would be better to put the pilot's banner on their radar with a blue or yellow background. That way, supposing I wanted to hunt down and kill madhaha, all I have to do is look at his banner, and find it on my radar. It also can function as a kind of "lamer alarm" if you use it properly.