Walsingham

Strikes me as being a prime target for kidnapping. Assuming anyone wouldpay for his release. I don't know why the mob are so louche these days.

Steve, I've never met Gen. Dannat so I hesitate to pass judgement on his cahracter. But his comments, as reported appear indicative of a certain short-sightedness. Any precipitate withdrawal or handover during unrest will be interpreted by Islamofascism worldwide as a victory just as the withdrawal by the Soviets from Afghanistan was. It will be a shot in the arm for their morale, and signal to all regimes currently opposed to Islamofascism that the West hasn't the guts to stand by them. I don't think we are given enough credence to teh consequences of that event. Our existing demostrated lack of will has precipitated a rise in the number and scope of attacks in Morocco, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Thailand, and Egypt to name only a few. What I would hope the general was talking about was the fact that a long term presence in Iraq is unwise. I would not disagree in the least. I do not, however, agree with you that the two things (immediate withdrawal and long term phase out a la the Balkans) are the same thing. Sand, can you tell me where you got this notion that the people want the US and UK out immediately? I'll grant you there are mass protests, but the Iraqi prime-minister - elected in internationally approved democratic elections - keeps saying that we shoudl leave when he says so, not a moment before. As for the WMD debate I'm rather tired and even bored of it. The lines are so well drawen in that debate we need hardly go over them again, but just to recap: No WMD: Where are they then? A: They could be hidden in Syria. WMD: What happened to the thousands of tonnes of WMD noted by inspectors in the early nineties? Also, what were all those scientists skilled in chemical and biological warfare doing all those years? A: Probably tipped into the sands of the desert.

As an aside, someone just threw an egg at me on the way back from the pub.

You know, I be thinking the king of thoughts Walsh wants you to proffer are more easily found in My Name Is Earl, than Saint Augie's brain addles. My original subheading was 'Karma is a funny thing'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6541131.stm The Beeb doesn't say so in as many words but this is surely a case of comeuppance too late. However, I thought it might be nice to have something we can ALL agree on. The man seems to have been utterly without any human merit. Thoughts?

Ah, the epitome of human empathy and a determination to stand up for the weak and oppressed, wherever they may be. Thomas Jefferson would be proud! Sir, on a day like this Thomas Jefferson would be drunk. And I for one intend to follow his example.

I do want to see Obs do 40k.

Judging by the drama queen you usually are, that probably means your TV remote ran out of batteries or something. I just laughed coke out my nose.

I could quote Kipling on the need for risk takers, but frankly it's all down to monoamine oxidase. Low levels are associated with risk taking behaviour.

By 'with a clue', I assume you mean the editorial writers sitting thousands of miles away in a chair, rather than the soldiers coming back. Steve, I thought you and I agreed that the incident was misrepresented, even if we disagree on the war itself. I could have sowrn that is what you expressed last time I brought this up. *shrugs* In respose t your point as to teh roots of the betrayal, I agree that insufficient work was done on a reconstruction plan. However, I also think there was a serious underestimation of the potential for ethnic clashes. However, I disagree that you have to be an idiot to have not noticed that the result would be so serious. I for one didn't expect the Iranians to manipualte the Iraqi Shias so cynically, or anticipated that disbanding the army would occur so soon, pushing thousands of trained Sunnis into unemployment. I guess my main aspiration is to ask whether we ought not to set aside our differences, and try to make things work in Iraq, not for the Coalition, but for the damned Iraqis. We could also kee pin mind the way we have failed to follow through on our humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan. A country so denuded by war and despotism when we went in that you'd have been lucky to find a good solid building to pull over, let alone any statues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/3502633.stm I hadn't realised that this was going to be the anniversary of the day when that big Saddam statue fell live on TV. I was enthused enough to take the day off work, and settle in with the best wine I could find to watch the USMC roll into the city. Frankly I wasn't expecting it to be as bloodless as it was, with the marines rattling up to the international hotel seemingly oblivious to the danger of RPGs. Fortunately none were injured although they did come under 'sniper' fire briefly from the luxury apartments nearby (used by the Republican Guards and others). The World news chose to show only the images of the marines taking down the statue with a crane. But watching for a couple of hours on the BBC I saw a different 'off message' story, where marines politely and eloquently explained to reporters that they were content to let the Iraqis, who had gathered despite the fighting, and shots fired on them, take it down themselves. Events conspired to take on a curious metaphorical quality as the Iraqis tried with their bare hands, shoes, and sticks to take down this heavily reinforced effigy of Saddam. After I guess half an hour the marines bowed to pressure from the crowd and gave them one of their sledgehammers. This was weilded with incandescent fury by a sequence of men, but it was stilll taking ages, and might have taken days. Then, as Rageh Omar, the BBC's man on the ground was interviewing a man in the crowd, the marines drove one of their special engineer vehicles up, and with the assistance of the crowd got a steel cable around the statue. It was all very much a joint effort, with the yanks only stepping in when the crowd demanded it. Enter the unfortunate marine who scampered up the crane and put a US flag on the head of the statue. This was greeted with immediate disapproval by the other marines and the crowd, but the damage was done. World news agencies liked this image far more, and that is what hit the pages rather than the more repesentative image of collaboration, and certainly of Iraqi insistence. The moment went down as triumphalism, rather than a microcosm of the larger struggle by the Iraqi people against oppression. A struggle that was only resolved when the Coalition completed almost effortlessly with their men and machines what the Iraqi people wanted but couldn't achieve on their own. Looking back on this moment I recall thinking "Why in the name of mercy didn't we do this ten years ago? Was it to _prevent_ this that a hundred thousand people marched on London?" I also wonder if we have not allowed a perfectly reasonable dislike of GWB to obscure our betrayal of the that day of hope.

I was once pushed out of a really tall tree.

Steady on, gentlemen. If I can throw in an idea maybe it's the fact that - knowing firearms as we do - a game involving firearms throws more mental bells and whistles than one with 'black box' magic. More of our brains wakes up when we see a picture of a real gun than a glowing stick, even if they do precisely the same damage in game.

Really cool to read your travelogue there. Fantastic to hear someone who can appreciate another country without dissing their own. To picture my reaction, imagine this big Union Jack unfurling behind the PC and this lion stalking in majestically to roar to the accompaniment of the Royal Marines band playing 'Rule Britannia' from the deck of the Victory. Then, as you continued the flag fell down, the Victory sank, and the lion coughed and expired. I'm sorry now I couldn't find time to meet you while you were over. Your stay should havee included at least some sitting in a country garden sipping tea.

Please note: Fionavar does not mean MY grandmother.

I rather suspect that Jefferson put it along the lines of when you are in a democracy you have a say in the law, thus you have no excuse for disobeying it. BUt I learned that from a comic, so I could be wrong.

That's because you're a preternaturally intelligent hamster.

Asking for realism in a modern game is trouble. Wouldn't it also make more sense for someone who wants to kill your character to hire a sniper? Wouldn't it make sense for that shot to be unable to dodge against and kill you in one hit? I can't speak for other GMs, but the more realistic the damage system, the stupider I have to make the antagonists. Got a point. You get hit in the eye with a 7.62 round, front on you are hors de combat (which at one point I thought meant mercenaries) no matter who you are. It's awkward being too specific. On the other hand you could be biased and only roll location for NPCs.

If you want incidental NPCs I can 'assist' by hawing on endlessly about some of ours...

Sounds like a computer simulation of taking ketamine and LSD. i.e. terrifying and awful.

I have no problem with magic. But I do like to be able to upset magic users by throwing grenades at them.

QTF. To which I was agreeing that the ones who issued the death threats would do well to reexamine their own scriptures and 'turn the other cheek'. At least, that's what I was trying to get across in my first post. Apologises for any confusion. I was QFTing you, good sir.

Well don't look at me. I'm still a forlock tugging noob.

Id make a first person rpg about modern peace-keeping. It would be as realistic as possible. Thus you'd be exhilarated, educated, and subject to post-traumatic stress disorder after you finished.