EnderAndrew

I'm very careful of my words. I didn't say all detractors. I said "the major detractors" (such as political lobbying groups and foreign powers). France, Germany and Russia all sold weapons illegally to Saddam, and were owed money by Saddam. They were the three nations to most vocally oppose the war. You have to sit and question their motives, while 30 industrial nations lent their support. Yet it seems people suggest most of the world opposed the war. You can certainly make a care otherwise. I won't argue with you there, as there were multiple reasons to go into Iraq. People also forget something. After September 11th, the UN Security Council got together and passed a new resolution telling Iraq to comply immediately or else. While Bush didn't blame Iraq, the UN seemed to imply they might be corraborating with the terrorists. World support for the US and empathy for the US was up. Had Bush wanted to go into Iraq, he could have marched in on September 12th with most of the world's support, but he would be going in for the wrong reasons, as Saddam didn't have anything to do with September 11th. Even though diplomacy had failed for 10 years in Iraq, Bush pushed for another 2 years of diplomacy. Does that sound like the action of a war-mongering government? When we went in, we then gave them an exact date and two weeks notice, which I considered foolish. Saddam used that time to hide weapons, to move military vehicles into hospital parking lots, to sabotage oil refineries, to shut off food and water supplies to towns, etc. There are a number of dictators I wouldn't mind seeing deposed, but I don't believe we have that right to randomly depose people. However, we did have a legal right to go into Iraq. The cessation of military action against Iraq in 1991 was based upon Iraq's cooperation with security resolutions. They were found in violation of over 75 security violations, and we had prior authority to go in. Given that it was the UN who first authorized and called for military action in Iraq, and that Iraq tested the legitimacy of UN power, I would think the UN would take Iraq more seriously. But as the UN is a farce, they didn't. If there were a true international government in this world, perhaps incidents like the Rwanda genocide wouldn't occur.

Such films rarely become classics.

Yes, but the sphincter acts as a valve that allows one way traffic.

It may be. But isn't a sphincter basically a valve?

http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?sh...ndpost&p=386558

What did either the US or UK have to gain? We've both lost lives and billions of dollars. The UN claimed our only motive was to steal oil, which wasn't true. Countries that vocally opposed the war however didn't care about humanitarian efforts, or the 30 million people living in Iraq. Countries like France were only concerned with how much money Saddam owned them. Furthermore, we discovered that the countries that vocally opposed the war like France and Russia also illegally sold weapons to Saddam during the embargo. Last time I checked, the UN security council unanimously and repeatedly found Iraq at fault, and in violation of their security resolutions. However the UN was unprepared to do anything about it, 12 years later. The League of Nations was also unprepared to punish Germany when Hitler was forming illegal militias, marching into the Rhinelands, and then invading Poland. If you pass over 75 security resolutions finding someone at fault and threaten action for 12 years, but never take it, will anyone take you seriously as an international government? Did the UN do anything about genocide in Rwanda? When Liberia was about to erupt into bloodshed, the UN sat on their hands while the US helped the situation come to a peaceful resolution. I can understand on principle people finding the US and UK arrogant for taking matters into our own hands. But honestly, the UN is a mockery of international justice. Lastly, if the US was so wrong, then why did the UN recognize the US as legally occupying Iraq? They validated the war. The UN made it all legal. And if the US was so opposed to the rest of the world on the issue, then why did over 30 countries lend their support? Honestly, the major detractors to this war are people who already were looking for any excuse to bash the US, or people who had to something to lose from seeing Saddam go. Also, the last time I checked, while Saddam had 23 personal palaces and spent tons of money on weapons, he intentionally starved his own nation. I guess the UN should stand by and watch 30 million people starve, not due to the poverty of the nation, but due to a cruel strangehold of it's dictator.

Go Pyloric Valve, go!

So they're willing to spend money on bandwidth for nicer video and sound, but not for content?

I do that to remove intro videos from certain XBox games.

Cats might make better lickers. Instead of a big sloppy tongue, you get a deft and quick tongue.

In KOTOR:1, I was Soldier for 2 levels, and then Guardian for 18 levels.

Not much. Dark Empire says Palpy has hopped through several clone bodies, but that's about it.

Baley is my idol!

No we sent troops into Kosovo right away. We just didn't choose sides, and tried not to fire our guns. Our sole duty there was to provide food and medical relief. There were war crimes committed there, and maybe we should have intervened, but the UN sure didn't. Initially it was really hard to determine which side, if anyone was in the right there. Our job is not to remove all dictators and force the world to accept Democracy. However, there should be some level of international justice. Ideally, the UN would uphold it. The Security Council system is horridly flawed in that it requires unanimous approval to act in any manner. The problem is that any country on the security council, or any ally of a member of the security council can do whatever they want with no reprieve. Add to that, the UN has routinely ignored genocide, so what purpose are they really serving as supposedly an internation body of government? With the Warsaw pact breaking up, perhaps NATO could now include militaries from the entire world, change it's name and become a new peace-keeping force on an international level. I think there should be a 2/3 majority necessary for any use of an international military/police, and they shouldn't be afraid to use it if the need arises.

Fixed. And Servent of Eru just leveled up in T.O.M.B.S, I think we can all agree.

That's how I usually earn my golds.

The Fallout Bible also linked to a set of Fallout PnP rules that were based off SPECIAL. I've been told Sawyer's rules aren't based off SPECIAL.

This went from "D&D sucks" to "I really miss old-school D&D". It must be nostalgia, because I've played all versions of D&D and I think they were fine as innovators, but they pale in comparison to far superior systems.

What happens if I put peanut butter on myself and speak the command "Lick" into the DS?

Blizzard released three of their classic games together on the Gameboy. I think it was Rock and Roll Racing, Lost Vikings, and another.

Probably because after the first few hours I found the combat not only easy, but boring and broken with said item. I found the game overall boring and I just wanted to beat it to see what the fuss was all about. It doesn't help that I really don't care for the D&D rules system. Either way, I think Ultima 7 trounces BG1 in terms of a world to explore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I catered that response to my best friend Steve. I put answers in that I figured he'd pick, and then wrote said response. So don't feel bad.

Open source is always free. If they release the source code, then you can grab it and compile it for free. And if people are nice, then they release precompiled versions as well.

Post count, meh. I'm somewhat excited about this game.

You need to sell me Talisman! I've been looking for a copy for quite some time!