SteveThaiBinh

Could you guide us to some of these forums where such information leaks?

Reveilled's move next, isn't it?

Most of the world hates us as well, you know. :D The New York bid probably lost because its plans for a new stadium collapsed recently - they had to reconfigure their bid a lot. Also, the Summer Olympics were in the US in 1996 and 1984 - I hope it will be a long time before the games return to the US, not for anti-American reasons, but because the games should be shared throughout the world. I'd like to see them go to South America next - maybe Rio?

What's a 'moderated thread'?

No-one knows, probably not even the restoration team members themselves. It's unlikely to be for a few months yet. We'll just have to wait and see.

Not a fan of the Koreans in Civ3. I could never persuade the special unit to trigger a golden age. I never noticed the general combat to be weaker, though. Maybe you're having a run of bad luck. Here, try this:

Well, those I've spoken to (not many, I'll grant you) opposed it. If you know some who supported it, then I guess we can't be sure where the majority is. I did say I thought it was most. You also have to remember that whereas veterans who opposed the war may have spoken out before the invasion began, this group more than any other is going to keep silent once British troops are in the line of fire.

Really? The threat to close them last time was due more to the forums being a source of abusive emails to Obsidian and LucasArts staff, and generally damaging Obsidian's reputation. However would the Project New Jersey team survive without all our helpful suggestions? I'd thought the moderators' absence was more likely due to the national holidays in Canada and the US.

6.4 I don't spam. Well, maybe occasionally.

Not really. "Which presentation is best?", perhaps. Who knows what the IOC members took into consideration when they voted. It was very close: 54-50. They were talking on the radio this morning about how 14 members of the IOC have received honours from the French government, against 10 who went to university in the UK. Does it matter?

K1: - K2: T3

Caoimhe Butterly was an Irish peace protestor who was shielding a group of Palestinian children when she was shot by Israeli troops. As she has long, bright red hair, it's unlikely the soldiers mistook her for a Hamas bomber. Were they intentionally shooting at her or at the children? I don't think they were ever brought to trial, so I guess we'll never know.

No, the vote and announcement took place in Singapore, that's all. Neutral territory. The BBC news website has been down for a good fifteen minutes now.

I just got a desperate text from a friend on the bus, dying to know who had won. I was tempted to reply 'Paris', but thought better off it. He's bigger than me.

Famous last words.

The US has its fair share of anti-semites and neo-nazis. I saw American History X. When you say you see a lot of antisemitism in Europe, is that through contact with European friends, travelling through Europe, or do you get your information from the US media? How reliable is your source? There is anti-semitism in Europe, but very often US observers lump together anti-semites with those of us who are merely opposed to Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. It is not anti-semitic to criticise Israel for its policies. That said, there has been a real increase in anti-semitics attacks and vandalism of Jewish cemetaries in recent years. It's a problem that we have to do more to deal with. I hope the US is doing as much to deal with its own anti-Islamic prejudices.

Try Amazon.co.uk - I got my Arcanum there some months ago and they had lots of used copies for sale.

Not the entire world. As EnderWiggin points out, there are many people across the world who try to go to the US to live and work. There are many people who see the US both as the beacon of freedom and the imperialist oppressor - they recognise the complex reality that is the modern USA. People in the developing world care more about democracy than you think. It's true that few envy the US its big-money party politics, but democracy takes many forms. The Turks don't see democracy as alien to Islam, and neither do the Iraqis who braved bomb threats and gunfire to vote in their recent elections. You'd be surprised at how much bullying is done by European nations - how much aid is tied to the purchase of useless European products or even arms. If we have a better record than the US, well, that's not saying much. The Scandinavians have the best record across the world for honest and productive aid, but the British and French in particular have a long way to go to clear up our acts.

Surely Obsidian can't be so foolish as yet again to promise 'next week' when they in fact have no control over this? It must be true. Either that or this is the worst idea for a running joke ever conceived.

Whether we like it or not, much of the non-democratic world sees the US as the standard-bearer for liberal democracy. Such a defeat might be a welcome humiliation for US imperialism but would also inevitably be seen as a defeat for liberal democracy, and a disaster for much of the world. I would rather the US recovered from the shock of September 11 and rediscovered the best version of itself, instead of being tempted down the path of aggression.

A critic might argue that although the US as a whole hasn't profited from the war, the arms and oil industries certainly have. Their profits don't come directly from the sale of Iraqi oil, but from contracts with the US government, paid for by US taxpayers. Have the leaders of the US merely taken the opportunity of the war to enrich themselves and their friends? Or was this self-enrichment the main motivation for the war? I don't think Bush invaded Iraq for the sake of oil, but I think many in the US are determined to profit from the war. Is it any wonder that so many people are suspicious of US motives?

I'll accept that you can question the motives of countries whose leaders were owed money by, or did illegal trade with, Saddam's Iraq. Can you accept why I might question the motives of a country which launches a military attack on oil-rich Iraq and whose leaders have strong ties to the oil and arms industries?

I find the poster with a big Hayden Christensen and the words 'Attack of the Clones' utterly hilarious. I wouldn't watch the film again, though.

Has the UN claimed that? I know that Kofi Annan has said that the war was illegal, but I don't think he made any statement about the motives for it. Some opponents of the war have claimed that, but that's not the same thing. The UN Security Council is supposed to be something of a court of last resort. Problems are supposed to be settled by friendly nations or regional organisations first, if that's possible, and only go to the Security Council if it's not. Liberia has historical links with the US, and that's why the US was an appropriate partner for solving that problem. As far as I know, the UN has legitimised the current presence of US troops in Iraq because that is the wish of the Iraqi government. It hasn't declared the war legal in retrospect - that would be impossible anyway, wouldn't it? I resent that. I resent the fact that anyone who isn't wholly and enthusiastically supportive of aggressive US foreign policy is dismissed as a Bush-basher or 'anti-American'. I am not looking for an excuse to bash the US - I opposed the war based on my own reasoned judgement of its legality, morality and likely effectiveness. So far, nothing has happened to convince me that I was wrong. A handful of countries who are heavily dependent on US goodwill for their economic prosperity supported this war, and the majority of countries opposed it. I hope that soon US supporters of the war will at least admit that many of its opponents do so with good reason, and are neither cowards nor beneficiaries of Saddam's bribes.

It's not at all surprising to find a former soldier who is cautious about the use of military force. In the UK, I think most WW2 veterans were opposed to our involvement in the Iraq war. The main problem with the UN Security Council is that the US isn't prepared to accept decisions if the vote goes against it. There was no chance that the US/UK would win a second vote on Iraq, so one was never held. What I want is to hear the US admit that the UN was right, and the US was wrong, over Iraq. It has been a disaster, getting steadily worse. The UN worked, it was the 'coalition' that failed, but there are too many vested interests in the US (and UK) who are not prepared to admit it. The UN is the sum of its members, and an imperfect organisation, for sure. I think the reforms currently proposed by Kofi Annan will improve matters a lot, by making the Security Council more representative of the world, including two new African permanent members. However, the reforms will fail unless countries like the UK and US are willing to accept the UN's authority.