Jediphile

You're completely ignoring my point that true democracy must always come from the will of the people. I dare say we would hear of it if US troops enforced the reign of the current rulers, but that just doesn't happen. Besides, democracy isn't the same as the dictatorship of the majority - it also means respect for the individual and the acceptance of certain principles. Osama bin Laden has long since demonstrated that he has no respect for any democratic principles. You're assuming rather a lot from the US presence in Saudi Arabia, and far more than I can support. For one thing, I think the US will pull its troops out within the next couple of years, since the political climate there isn't exactly favorable. Sadly you might be right there, but I'm not about to accuse the US of being guilty for doing something it has not yet done. I might suspect it to happen in a scenario like what you describe, but it hasn't come to pass, so there can be no blame, and it might not happen at all. If you want to accuse the US of something, then look at history instead - there are more than enough examples to choose from there. Again, you could be right, but I'm not about to accuse the US of imperialist tendencies in the future on the basis of possibilities or even probability. I still have enough faith that the US might change this sort of policy for something that shows greater respect for other countries. I will not abandon that hope so easily even if the reasons you give are compelling reasons. Worked for most democratic nations in the world...

Iraq's economy was shattered by the war with Iran. If we had really hated Saddam so much at the time, then that would have been a good time to go in and throw him out. We didn't. We decided to support him with weapons and money instead. Oh, and Saddam was already pursuing WMDs in the 70s. His nuclear potential was devastated by the Israeli, however, while we did squat about it...

I see that from this perspective.....the US sees democracy good only if it benefits their goals, when not, then they support various authocratic regimes that do so. They support the current regime in S.Arabia only because it's in their interest, mind the fact that S.Arabia is one of the most anti-democratic states in the Middle East and it terrorisis those of their citizens that don't act and live accordingly with their laws. Why not elections? Because that would endanger the flow of Saudi oil to the US, that would probably also mean they had to pull out their military facilities in S.Arabia. And why would they remove the present regime when they put most of their money in US banks - the Saudi have 1000 billion $ ( not kidding)stashed in US banks. Imagine that someone wins elections in S.Arabia and decides to cash out that amount, the US would be on the edge of financial chaos. MONEY BEFORE HUMAN LIVES, DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM The main policy of the US, if otherwise, they wouldn't be the superpower they are today. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, come on - that's not what he said. His point was simply that Saudi Arabia doesn't seem to be ready for democracy, and it's not really a bad point either. It's probably why things aren't going on well in Iraq. The US refused to look at Iraq from an evolutionary point of view, and just assumed that the people would hail the americans as heroes, since they brought freedom and democracy, which is rather naive IMHO - you cannot expect to bomb a country, invade it with tanks and planes, and then expect people to greet you with open arms. The iraqis saw it as an invasion, which is probably what it was. And any promises of democracy and fair treatment was probably ignored either due to Saddam's propaganda-machine or because people remembered what happened the last time the US asked them to "rise up against the tyrant Saddam"... Besides, you cannot blame the US for any lack of democracy in Saudi Arabia - they may have bases there, but they did not install the current regime, nor do I get the impression that they are keeping it in power. If there was an uprising, the US would pull out rather than defend the king, so democracy will come to Saudi Arabia when the Saudis are ready for it and not before. Democracy must come from the will of the people in a country - you cannot create it by force. As one arab journalist said quite mockingly about the invasion: "Democratize now or we shoot!"

When I said "we" I meant the international community, not just the US. Sorry for the confusion. Surely you jest... Hopefully something will come of the peace talks this time. The trouble in the last few years was that Arafat was more concerned with keeping power to himself while being determined to fight the Israeli. Unfortunately Bush did not hold his ground, but instead let Israel do whatever it wanted. The results weren't pretty. Harsh though it may sound, I feel the best thing Arafat has done for his country in the last five years is to die, so there was room for more progressive people like Abbas to take over. Seems there is some talk of peace now, but that could still just be either or both sides stalling. I live in hope of peace...

The west certainly kept Saddam in power and helped him become the tyrant that everybody knows and loves - we were perfectly content to give him weapons and equipment as long as he fought Iran. I've seen old footage of Rumsfeld sitting in Saddam's palace shaking hands with him as if they were good chums. This would have been back in the 70s or 80s, I guess. So yes, we did create him. He was a bad man already, sure, but we gave him weapons and allowed him to be a monster to his neighbours and to terrorize his own people... To give a man like that weapons and then deny responsibility is absurd. The weapons that he committed those mass murders with were weapons we supplied him with. Yet people insist that we have no responsibility for that. We do, and we need to face up to it, and we also need to face that we let Saddam butcher the resistance that *we* encouraged after the first Gulf War in 91. A big part of the problem during the invasion in Iraq was that the Iraqis had not forgotten that we just sold them out and let Saddam slaughter the opposition back in 91. As long as our memories continue to be this "selective", we will be seen as playing double standards by middle-east nations.

Your wrong and Bush was wrong if he said it. Saddam used to pay members of Hamas to blow themselves up. Technically he paid the families (since you cant pay the bomber) but when your life is **** and dying gets you into your version of heaven and your family has $10,000 to spend its what you would call a hell of an incentive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True enough, but if that is a basis for going to war, then the US is going to be pretty busy invading an awful lot of nations. There is certainly no shortage of nasty leaders in the world doing terrible things to their own people and to others. And Saddam wasn't even the worst... Heck, he was our own creation - the west supported him with weapons and money, when we wanted someone to fight Iran. We may not have put him in power, but we certainly made sure he stayed there. As it has been said here, he did not just use the weapons we gave him against Iran, he also used them to terrorize his own people. And we were perfectly content to let him do so for decades...

Who's spouting propaganda now? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I spout propaganda when I defend my democratic right to free speech and my own opinion? Oh, I'll fight for my way of life if and when it comes to that. I just don't agree with you that I must necessarily shed blood in order to do so. And I will question governments who torture captives for information - that is *not* my way of life! Oh, and I have reported you to the moderator for all the good it'll do - calling me names is not permissible, and you won't see me calling you one. That might be, but hopefully there are people around me who stop me from acting out of revenge in such a case, since I would then hardly be in a frame of mind to make rational decisions. And which governments are those? Afghanistan has already been taken care of - and for the record, I supported that. Iraq, however, had nothing to do with terrorism, as Bush has admitted *after* the war... Nor does war - soldiers are dying on a daily basis in Iraq in case you didn't know... I wouldn't call a terrorist rational, but then I wouldn't call a serial killer rational either, and yet the police catch those by making profiles. That suggests they are not beyond any form of understanding, in which case the same could be true for terrorists. We don't hear about that, though. I'm not saying we should just do nothing against terrorism, but we should be wary of what it is we do and take care that we find the guilty people instead of committing acts of horrible injustice in our zeal to hav revenge. It's really just the principle of not giving in to terrorists, since that just encourages more of the same. If they see us changing our way of life and shredding our civil rights, then we are giving in. If we mobilize and become aggressive, then we are giving in. If we stay firm, they'll see that they can do whatever and we won't budge, so why bother...

Yes, it is. If the US and the Brits didn't involved themselves in the Middle East after World War 2 in forming Israel and pretty much left those people ALONE. We wouldn't be in this mess now. We need to mind our own store and not interfere with others. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, not that I disagree entirely, but I don't think we can avoid getting involved in the long run. There are atrocities going on in the Darfur region of Sudan right now, and we need to get involved there too. The problem is that if you go back and read a little objective history, you'll see that Israel wasn't just formed out of the kindness of someone's hearts. The leaders of Israel at the time did pretty nasty things to the Palestinians. It's just that since western nations supported Israel after WW2, we tend to want to see that in a better light than it really was. We want to see the world in all black and white. The trouble is that the world isn't populated only by heroes and demons - it's populated by real people who are almost exclusively somewhere in between, and they all have reasons for what they do. I cannot blame the Palestinians for wanting to be free of the Israeli. I do not support Palestinian suicide bombers, but I also do not support Israel bombing a house and killing 14 or so children just to get one man, and then basically just shrug and say that you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs... And I've seen parents of Israeli children killed by Palestinian suicide bombers say that *they* understand why they do it on 60 Minutes! That's makes far more of an impression on me than the self-serving arguments of any government!

Now you're embracing the US position of "well, what does it matter that there weren't any WMDs - Saddam was a bad man doing horrible things, so who cares?". Well, that's not what Powell told the UN before the war. Nobody talked about chemical weapons or mass graves back then, no, it was WMDs and nothing less, and it was all over the headlines. To just shrug now and say "well, so what" is to accept lies and misinformation because it's more convenient than admitting something was done under pretense. Now, I'm not blaming anyone here. Heck, I voted for a government that supported that war. There has since been another election, however, and I decided that I could not support that government with my vote again. That they wanted to do something about Saddam is one thing - that I might have accepted - but they lied about the reasons, and I will not be lied to and then accept those lies because I don't like admitting that I was mislead. They did mislead me, and it has cost them my vote! And if the US cared so much for the admittedly poor people murdered under Saddam Hussein's regime, then why did the US just pull out of Iraq and let Saddam slaughter the resistance against him during the first war in 91? That was a just war IMHO, but the fact that the alliance of the time (and I'm not just blaming the US, because the other nations involved are just as much to blame) just pulled out and let Saddam butcher the opposition in Iraq (an opposition that *we* had encouraged, I might add) has also been conveniently forgotten - who do you think are in those mass graves you mention? It's the people our nations incited to rise against Saddam, but whom we then abandoned and allowed Saddam to murder back then... I don't support the terrorists, but it's about time we faced up to our own responsibility in that mess - we're not beyond blame!

Now you're just spouting propaganda... Like Ghandi was weak? If that's the company I'm in, then I'll be happy to be weak. Besides, I have not argued doing nothing, as you seem to suggest. I just hold firmly that to support democracy is to allow individuals to choose for themselves. You seem to think that it's to choose a side in the war. Well, I don't want to belong to extremists on either side, and I will not let anyone tell me that I must! I'd agree with you that it's an attack on our culture, but you don't win a war by destroying the enemy, because you can't destroy the enemy. We're not at war with just a select group of people - we're at war with an extremist ideology. We're not going to win that war by embracing an opposing extremist ideology. We're going to win by sticking with our principles and ideals and demonstrating that we do want peace and justice and that they cannot anger us into becoming the monsters they claim we already are. Already we've begun reducing our own liberties and rights for the sake of "national security". But in doing so, what message are we sending the terrorists? We're telling them that they *can* change us, that they can make us abandon our principles. We need to stop that and instead show them that they can kill as many of us as they like or not - it will not make us change our position or, as Blair put it yesterday, our resolve.

Well, I wouldn't say toothless, but certainly with less of a bite. But then the US probably needs the UN as much as the other way around. Well, I guess the obvious rebuttal to that comment would be "what weapons?", since they rushed in to prevent that, and yet didn't find any weapons. Seems the inspectors weren't so wrong after all. Yet the fact that there were no WMDs is also forgotten, since that does not serve the governments who supported the war.

I do support democracy and freedom. I'm just not quite so convinced that Mr. Bush does. To argue "with us us or with the terrorists!" is not a particularly democratic position - it's a threat to get people to submit. That's not particularly democratic. And I will not let Mr. Bush or you or anyone dictate to me that there is no middle ground - I'll find that answer myself and decide for myself, thank you very much. Oh, please. I think I have already demonstrated better grasp of reality than that, but the quote is still very obvious, and it certainly tells us what Lucas thinks. I didn't say that, but then I see that the "with us or with the terrorists" approach is working quite well, sadly

I didn't mean to imply that the Bin Laden family is suspicious no matter what, just that their dismissal of Osama does not somehow put them above suspicion. And I don't think the problem many have with the US today stems from its actions during the Cold War. It's probably more that it looks like bias against arab nations in many cases. The US argued that Iraq should not be allowed to violate UN decisions, and that action had to be taken. Well, how does that look to arabs, when Israel has been in violation of similar UN decisions and yet the US has vetoed any sort of response to that every time? Now put the US reluctance to let weapon inspectors do their job in Iraq on top of that, and the picture begins to look rather disturbing. Hans Blix spoke very harshly against the aggressive tone of the US before the Iraq war, yet that seems to be somehow forgotten today.

Who? And why?

Definitely Episode V for me. The original movie was eye candy and adventure on mass scale, but in Empire Strikes Back, the story truly turned epic and the tone became much grittier and menacing, and yet the movie was somehow far more mature in its conflicts than its predecessor. They dropped that in Jedi, however, which was too much muppet show and too much rerun of earlier ideas otherwise. Again a death star threatens the heroes, again the rebels attack it, again Luke and Vader battle, etc. The effects and the 40+ minutes finale were good though - others have tried to pull a finale like that, but I know of no one else to have succeeded as they did in ROTJ. Episode III was pretty good, though I also like Palpatine's manipulations in Episode II - they're sublte there - but neither of them can reach the original movies (except ROTJ - I consider ROTS a better movie than ROTJ). And who on Earth voted for Episode I ?!?

Well, they would have done that in any event given what the alternative was... Nor did I say so. But most terrorists that have been identified do seem to be Saudi. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were, if memory serves. There was a push for that long before Iraq war. Though the leaders of Saudi-Arabia have voiced support for the US, that does not mean that the population feels the same way. Don't forget, the leaders of Saudi-Arabia are scarcely democratically elected. That's also a thought for concern...

I feel the exact opposite way - I'd accept less planets if that means stronger plot and better characterization. Sure, more planets would be great, but someone has to do all the work, and I'd much rather have focus on plot than on graphics. Of course, then plot will be very linear and not much longer than before, or else too many fans will not play, but I want plot to have priority, and I think more planets would interfere with that. I've suggested Coruscant, Alderaan, Myrkr, Sleheyron, Khar Delba/Khar Shian, Ziost, and finally Coruscant again. That's six worlds or seven if you count Khar Shian (the moon of Khar Delba). That's about the same as in KotOR1 and a little less than KotOR2. But if it supports a deep plot, then fine by me. Besides, fewer planets also get my vote if it means they finish the game... "

First of all, I want to express my condolences to relatives and friends of the dead in London after the events of yesterday, which demonstrates atrocious acts by barbaric savages, who should be hunted down and punished without mercy - there is and can never be any excuse for willfully targeting civilians - ever!! That said, let me address a few comments here. For one, the US is scarcely on friendly terms with Saudi-Arabia. It has been and that is why there are bases there, but the relationship is strained, and many people of Saudi-Arabia want the US troops out of their country. Some have argued that this is one reason for the invasion of Iraq, since the US could then set up bases there instead. Not sure myself, but it's a possibility. Indeed, most of the extremist terrorists seem to come Saudi-Arabia. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi. Also, while I do share some of the concerns that Hildegard mentions, that does not mean it is reasonable to blame all americans or even the entire administration for the policies that may be questionable. For example, I find **** Cheney's association with Halliburton and its many contracts in Iraq to be highly questionable and indication of corruption, but that does not mean that I will hold people like Rice or Powell responsible for it. Indeed, many americans have themselves questioned the Cheney/Halliburton relationship and argued corruption and nepotism. Let us not tear this forum into a battleground for the war on terror. There are always extremists on both sides of a conflict, and they will always seek to polarize the situation and so draw people from the middle to one side or the other. I don't like it that Bush said, "with us or with the terrorists" - as Patrick Stewart once said, "That's Orwellian!" I will not Bush or anyone else to tell me which side I'm on - that's my own business, and I'll thank everyone else to respect that, thank you very much! Doing something about terrorism is, of course, necessary, but while I accept that, I'm also fairly convinced that Bush made a lot of sympathizers for Al-Qaeda with his comments, and we really don't need to bolster their ranks. I find it interesting that George Lucas has Anakin practically quoting Bush in one of his darker moments. "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy!" Well, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes..." To polarize the situation is to continue the war. No, we should not just sit down and ignore the whole thing, but we should also not allow terrorists to tell us which side we're on. They're only out to make this into a religious conflict between Islam and other religions, which is a lie - wars are never truly about religioius convinctions, though some people delude themselves and others into thinking so, since they apparently feel their atrocious acts are somehow heroic and morally defensible if it's all for a higher and nobler cause. It's still a lie, though. Wars are about politics, and this one is no different. Let us not accept the lie.

I might consider that, except nobody knows those rules, I have only one of the rulebooks, and the rest is long since out of print as well as out of date. So it's not really an option.

Why? That's actually pretty pricey. Especially if the group decides to protect themselves with it every battle. My players think long and hard before using the money on it. Besides, all it does is reduce damage to zero. Well, I never thought you suggested that. My apologies if I gave you that impression. I just meant to address that as a possibility, which IMO meant discounting it, while we were on the subject. Quite right. I don't see Steve Jackson Games doing that, however, for the reasons I have mentioned above - they would be about the last company to do it, methinks.

GURPS, but I'd actually like to hear both. Precisely. Why extraordinary? Yes, Stoneskin is completely unbalanced as written in 2e rules, and in my campaign we long since embraced costs for the diamond dusts needed (150 gp per casting that actually went down when listed as cheaper in Spells & Magic). We also accepted a maximum time limit for Stoneskin, though not for the wizard himself - his stoneskin could remain active for as long as needed. Don't see why Fire Shield was extraordinary in 2e, though. It made the attacker take the same damage that he inflicted. That's not so bad, since he can just choose to not attack or used ranged attacks until the effect goes away. As such it served as a deterrent to hostile attacks against the wizard and so had a strategic value. This was already toned down from 1e, where attackers took twice the damage they inflicted! In 3e, however, it's reduced to "okay, I'll roll the dice and take my chances..." - so much for hailing the "good old days" of 1e in 3e, I guess "

Exactly, and it fits uncomfortably nicely with my predictions and suggestions for the Exile in KotOR3, and those were just based on the odd way that the confrontation with Nihilus ends - I had actually forgot all about the dark side version of the Exile on Korriban. I mean, both the Exile and Nihilus have this power to suppress the force and were both on Malachor V, yet when the Exile takes his mask, but can't even be bothered to look at his face to see it's someone he/she knows? Odd, isn't it? I'm now more confirmed about my suspicionss of the Nihilus/Exile relationship than before...

For the setting's sake, I hope that never happens. *Ugh*.... I can't imagine playing Planescape under GURPS rules.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nor can I, but it's not likely to happen. For one, WotC wouldn't allow it, since Planescape is supposed to be a D&D product. If Planescape wasn't compatible with Ravenloft (a demiplane) or the D&D cosmology, then it all goes out the window quickly. Secondly, the fanbase would be screaming bloody murder - the established Planescape fans would never embrace Planescape with GURPS rules, and so why would anyone bother publish one? Finally, if Steve Jackson Games wanted to do a fantasy cosmology/multiverse campaign, then why would they waste money getting rights to use D&D's? Surely they could come up with something fairly similar (even if that means stealing Planescape ideas with arms and legs) and not have to care about WotC or the D&D/d20 system at all.

How so? Some of those cows definitely needed to go. I was so disappointed that they stuck with the cumbersome and horribly outdated magic system that has got to be one of the most hated and limiting aspects of D&D. The 2e Player Option: Spells & Magic book was even beginning to change that a little by introducing a spell point system (not good, but better than the old thing). Since many of the Player Option rules were introduced into 3e (faster rounds, AoO, etc.), I really did expect 3e to embrace a different magic system as well, or at least offer one as an alternative. But nope - magic went back 20 years to the very inception of AD&D 1e rules Armor Classes definitely need to go. They may be simple, but you have to consider at which point a rule becomes so ridiculous that it's better to replace it with something that's more convincing. D&D players might not accept GURPS armor rules, but I dare say compromise between those two that takes both ability to dodge and armor penetration into consideration is possible. Oh, I don't know... It's initial design might have been slicker and, as others have said it, more polished, but then 2e was a decade old and much better games had been released in the meantime, so 3e had better be better. Yet for a game that professes to cater to existing D&D fans, it sure did manage to alienate a large percentage of teh fanbase - it's really annoying when spells like Fire Shield or Stoneskin don't work the way you're used to anymore for no good reason - they completely lost the strategic edge they had before and just became dull protective spells with none of the deterrent that had made them strategically attactive before. What, the game designers just forgot that? And of course, 3e soon turned out to be just as flawed as it's predecessors... True enough, but then TSR were also terrible at handling and inspiring plots and characters that people might have liked. To force Salvatore away from Drizzt after he created him, claiming that they owned the character and knew better what to do with him than the author signifies stupidity and greed on a level that just scares customers away. It's the sort of thinking that earned TSR its "T$R" nickname... If they had inspired writers to do interesting campaigns and plots, then things might have been different. But instead they just recycled old AD&D 1e stuff and used it for the likes of Rod of Seven Parts and Return to the Tomb of Horror - not bad per se, but not terribly inspiring either... And it will end the same way as it did for TSR's 2e venture - once the customers realize that the market is flooded with endless cascades of superficial and boring material, they will stop buying... It's just too bad that it hasn't quite sunk in yet...

Huh? When did that happen? I was under the impression that he was imprisoned until the events of the Jedi Academy trilogy set some seven years after ROTJ, which is more than 4000 years after his imprisonment at the end of the Sith War.