11XHooah

So what happens if the guy starts rifle butting the "zombies" with the paintball gun?That would hurt. :D

That was a cool song. So I'm guessing they used Star Wars Galaxies to make it? Is that game worth buying?

Do you think there will be a KOTOR 4 though? I think that "The KOTOR Trilogy" has a better ring to it IMO. And I don't see how they could keep the story going. It seems that KOTOR 3 will be the one that will answer all our questions and end the series.

I don't really care too much about KOTOR 3. After playing TSL, I'm sort of turned off from the game. But that's just me.

Same here

Actually I do support the US. I am just saddened at the dumbing down of the foreign policy. I don't know why complex issues have to be filtered through a monosylabic parser, and it seems the problem and solution have to be presented as if to a class of ADHD children. It was the West's (not just the US's) pursuit of quick fixes that helped blow the Middle Esat into the catastrophe that it is today. That may have been just a war-weariness back in the 1930s and 40s, but it doesn't matter too much now. (Why the British and the French decided that the Arab people were not permitted to rule themselves, after their support in WW1, in their own land of Palestine, and threw out the recognised King Hashemite, is a decision we can only guess at the contributing causes.) So it is not like the US is particlularly poor at foreign affairs, just probably a little newer to it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But then again, the Middle East has always been FUBAR. There has always been violence and unrest over there, mainly due to disagreement over religion, which I think is the most retarded cause you could ever have. A disagreement over religion does not justify mass slaughter. And then you have fighting over who owns this piece of land. I can hardly believe that it is still called the Holy Land. It's a battleground if anything.

Dude, these are pretty good. The welcome to the jungle parody is great At least your spending your spare time creatively.

No, it doesn't bother me. I don't really care what other countries or the UN thinks about America. I'm blessed to be part of such a great nation, and I'm proud to have the honor and opportunity to fight for it. I just felt like stating the obvious :D

I think the graphics were pretty good. I hope that they don't use a really advanced game engine for the third one. My video card sucks ass. But everything else is top of the line.

It would seem that I'm the only one who supports America around here.

In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini died. The US hoped this would lead to a new revolution against the fundamentalist regime. The Islamic Assembly of Experts appointed Ayatollah Khameini as the new spiritual leader. A new constitution created a functional, rather than ceremonial presidency and President Rafsanjani assumed elected office. Rafsanjani pursued a more liberal policy, repairing relations with Iraq and resuming diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and Britain, and opening opportunities for foreign trade and investment. The Islamic revolutionary Guard was absorbed into the military, thus weakening Islamist pressure. The break up of the Soviet Union opened new opportunities for Iranian trade and regional influence. Iran opened relations with the newly independent republics of the former Soviet Union. Of particular interest and concern to Iran is the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan since one-fourth of the Iranian population are Azeris, Iran has lent support to Azerbaijan in its fight against US backed Armenia. During the Gulf War between Iraq and the US coalition, Iran remained neutral in an effort to avoid any further adverse economic consequences, as it attempts to rebuild its economy. However, this has not deterred the Iranians from opposing US interests whenever and wherever possible. In 1992 Iran helped establish Hezbollah (the Party of God) which operates against Israel from bases in Lebanon and Syria, and continues to provide arms and financial support. While the reformist Rafsajani had often been at odds Ayatollah Kameini, voters in 1997, elected another moderate president, Mohammed Khatami. This has been seen in the West as a signal that Iranians are rejecting strict fundamentalism and seeking a return to modernization. Iran has acquired and tested medium range missiles, capable of reaching targets throughout the Middle East region and has raised concerns about possible intentions to develop nuclear weapons. In 2002, Iran and Russia announced plans to construct additional nuclear power plants and to complete the Bushear plant. These plans have provoked protests from the US and other Western states. However, Iran claims to have a severe power shortage. According to the U.S State Department, U.S. complaints about Iran include: Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and other WMD Involvement and support of international terrorism. Support for violent opposition to the Middle East peace process Threats and subversive activities against its neighbors Iran

Well, the panel appointed to investigate intelligence failures - appointed by Bush, mind you - conclusively said they weren't there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is absurd. The UK has evidence in the public domain that clearly shows the disparity between the intelligence and the stated intelligence by the coalition governments. It demonstrates that the intelligence given from the Intelligence Community (secret services, MI5, MI6, CIA, etc) had been pruned of all qualifying adjectives, like "allegedly", and all grading of the intelligence was replaced with exclamations. There is even a famous addendum, now totally discredited -- but never really believed, where the claim that Saddam Hussein could attack the UK within 45 minutes. They even plagerised some doctoral thesis from the interet -- the guy was interviewd because he was angry about it. And they had taken all his qualified assessments out of the text, too. (They famously had copied large sections verbatim, including an obvious spelling mistake.) There was a deliberate and demonstrable effort to misrepresent the facts and assessments -- what for? The only feasible answer to that is the US had a prior agenda, and the UK was looking for evidence to back it up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Perhaps the reason is that our real target is Iran. Just think about it. They are a threat because right now they are threatening to start up nuclear programs. The U.S. is now flanking Iran, so we could just move in from both sides, forcing Iran to fight a two front war. Edit: Iraq also borders Syria, which is now testing SCUD's that will carry their biological/chemical weapons. These could be used against Israel or anyother neighboring country. So it's possible that we will go there to, and Iraq will serve as a base of operations.

Oh. Sorry, but in battle, civilians are only a nuisance. Untrained and ill-equipped personnel are not helpful in the battlefield, and their slaughter will only contribute to decrease the moral of the army they are supposed to support. And most high-speed ordnance (such as the one fired by AK-47s) can pierce civilian models of kevlar, so... yeah. No amount of tactics is going to change the fact that you can't take down a fighter with your handgun. If civilian partisans were effective fighting forces, there would be no need to maintain a dedicated army. It's that simple. Whatever. I just hope you open your eyes before a bullet opens them for you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, that's true.

I just rolled my eyes because you missed what I put in my initial post. I said that these forces would be supporting the main military force, not taking on the enemy by itself. And kevlar could be provided to these forces because you can buy kevlar vests/helmets from almost any gun store these days. And yes, I know the importance of weaponry in battle, I was just stating that tactics are more important. You could have an army of soldiers with high caliber weapons, but it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't know how to lead or use tactics in order to destroy the enemy force. If you're not familiar on how to use techniques such as bounding and overwatch to cross a DA, or if you don't know when to use certain formations; your Soldiers with high caliber weapons will be pretty dead. As for your comment on common sense, f*ck you.

Eh. He had some popular support. And he succeeded the previous dictator, IIRC. Something similar couldn't happen in the US or Europe. Yeah. Your reliable Colt against the enemy's attack helicopters, cruise missiles, fuel-air explosives and most importantly: KEVLAR. But fear not, for you know the terrain! Oh, wait. They have GPS. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I guess it's better than nothing at making you a target. It's better than nothing at giving a soldier an excuse to shoot you. Other than that, I don't see how small caliber weaponry in the hands of untrained personnel can do any good against a well equipped and trained military force. The government can't just "become too powerful". There are laws to prevent that, and if those laws are broken, whoever is responsible may be prosecuted. Totalitarian regimes are always supported by a large segment of the population (if only at first). You don't want the gov't to have too much power? Don't support a power-hungry megalomaniac and you should be just fine. ) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Look at Saddam Hussein. We thought by helping put him into power, he would be a great leader. And then he slowly became more powerful, and more oppressive. It happens. And I didn't see Iraqi citizens earnestly supporting him. And just because you have small caliber munitions doesn't mean you can't win. You would have the advantage of knowing the terrain (just like in the Revolutionary War), and tactics play a huge role in the outcome of a battle as well.

But that's pretty much the only form of attack that these insurgents are using. And this discussion actually shouldn't be about firearms, it should be about "useful information"

But wouldn't this be against the Geneva Conventions? An irregular fighter out of uniform, those are the same kind of people you call terrorists in Iraq. ^_^ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But last time I checked, those insurgents are focusing more on killing their own people instead of us. I'm talking about a resistance force that only fights the enemy, not one that kills it's own countrymen. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But they would still be violating the Geneva Conventions, and from what I gather your government and media (and people too) refer to every armed opposition out of uniform in Iraq as a "terrorist". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, they're terrorists. They are blowing themselves up, and taking innocent people with them. That doesn't seem terrorist to you?

That it would.

Do you really think that small caliber guns are a threat to a well equipped military force? And why the hell should you need to be ready to overthrow the very government you have supported in the first place? Civilians shouldn't be allowed to have functional guns. There's no justification for it. If you want to shoot things, get into the army or the police. They are always in need of more people. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A small caliber gun is better than nothing. And I'm talking hypothetically. What if your government becomes too powerful. To the point where your freedoms begin to be suppressed. It could happen, you never know. This thread has really derailed. I think the green dragon will be shutting it down soon.

But wouldn't this be against the Geneva Conventions? An irregular fighter out of uniform, those are the same kind of people you call terrorists in Iraq. ^_^ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But last time I checked, those insurgents are focusing more on killing their own people instead of us. I'm talking about a resistance force that only fights the enemy, not one that kills it's own countrymen.

Which is exactly why the United States had to take the initiative and go to war without the UN's approval.

Oh and Hooah it's actually an upgraded M16, Canadian manufactured rifle called C7. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, I thought it looked different from the M16 models that the U.S. uses. Thanks for the info. Now for those who think that civilians should not have guns, I have to disagree. I do agree, however, that civilians should not be allowed access to high powered military weaponry such as the M82 Barrett. I don't see the point of a civilian owning a 50 caliber weapon other than saying "hey, look what I got." Weapons should be permitted to the public in case a coup is needed, in the case that the government gains too much power and needs to be overthrown. And should a nation be invaded, resistance forces can be mobilized out of civilians that own weapons, and can assist the nation's military in fighting back the enemy force. Don't worry Fionovar, I'm done now. Only useful info now Now for my useful information, which pertains to the Army Rangers. Did you know the name RANGER was selected by General Truscott because the name Commandos rightfully belonged to the British, and we sought a name more typically American. It was therefore fit that the organization that was destined to be the first of the American Ground Forces to battle Germans on the European continent should be called Rangers in compliment to those in American history who exemplified the high standards of courage, initiative, determination and ruggedness, fighting ability and achievement.

You sound just like the stubborn Anakin in ep2 and ep3 where he talks about the senate (in this case the UN) being "useless and just talking instead of taking action and stuff like that"......and you know where that path took him ...where it could take the US See you in 2 weeks... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What I'm saying is that when the trouble with Iraq started, the UN held us back. In retrospect, it was basically like giving Saddam a heads up that we were coming in, and telling him "you better hide your WMD's or get them out of country quickly, as well as prepare your troops."