Blank

people like you not wanting the US to interfere with foreign affairs... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually it would have been two nuclear super powers going to war. You do the math on what the end results would have been. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so now you want that they didn't interfere? look at your first comment i quoted^... this just supports my belief that there will always be criticism about political decisions no matter what happens.

after reading that, mothman, i think that was totally in character for CoF to do.

people like you not wanting the US to interfere with foreign affairs...

There are plenty of evil, tin-pot dictators in the world...are you proposing that the US should intervene everywhere? I found it pretty funny how 2.5 years ago Bush was playing dress-ups on an air-craft carrier declaring victory and now he's begging for continued patience and saying that victory in Iraq is "still possible". I can't believe the US public was dumb enough to give this guy a second term. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well, if you read the thread before posting, then you would know my stance on that question.

but they are already standing on their own. what the heck? the country was not developing in a good way, it was developing in a bad way, epitomized by the bad bad Saddam ruler. so we are responsible to interfere with a country's development, in that, we were protecting ourselves from Iraq becoming a dangerous place, and we were protecting Iraq's own people from being further oppressed by Saddam. we can stick our nose in, and we can pull our nose out. which we are doing, slowly but surely, i don't see a problem in that.

"with great power comes great responsibility". i believe that quote. although the US has been irresponsible by making mistakes in using their power in wrong places, i also think it has fulfilled some of its responsibilities when it comes to stopping the evil in the world. of course, the US doesn't hold this principle nor do they act upon it, but i do hold that principle. so even though people crticize the US's reasons for going into war with Iraq, i think Saddam himself was evil enough to start a war.

look at it this way, the fact that no wars are there now can be attributed to the US bases . you can't know for sure, so that argument will always hold up. even if it isn't true, it still might be partially true, and again, you can't know for sure. ... omg you are criticizing that the US didn't help when they weren't involved back in WW2 and then you are criticizing modern day US for helping when they weren't involved... so what the heck are you saying? but the fact that there was a freakin war in europe which consequently ushered in economical malaise doesn't mean it is the US's fault that the war happened to start with. and therefore it doesn't mean it is the US's fault that there was economical malaise subsequently. but countries do give stuff away. just look at all the money for food flowing into Iraq from the US. and look at all the money flowing in to louisiana from other countires. and look at all the money that flowed into tsunami ridden southeast asia from other countries. you must be talking about something else... EDIT: its just me probably... i am used to thinking Someone is watching me (God), so i guess if somebody wrongfully accused me when i was innocent, i wouldn't care because i know justice will be served after my death. the possibility doesn't seem high to me that they'd bust in on me, but it does to you. we might just always disagree on that since it is a matter of opinion.

Oh, only Adams did the free speech thing. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and FDR threw thousands upon thousands of American citizens in concentration camps. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ah, i see now. yes, habeas corpus is pretty unfair, and i don't see Lincoln's reasoning in that, even if there was a war, why not just answer lawfully to people asking why you are holding somebody in custody? (logical explanation: because it was not legal) FDR i think made his biggest mistake as president with the japanese in concentration camps thing. but with Adams, if he only suspended it for a short time due to war, i understand him and somewhat would support him if i was back in the day.

... no, those other words would not convey my opinion "i guess it comes down to trusting or not trusting US intelligence people (who's actions are regulated by strict laws) who will listen in or track you." those intelligence people have a mandate to keep the country safe and secure, and if they don't step out of those bounds, then i am willing to sacrifice some of the peripheral freedoms i have like keeping my whereabouts unknown or my internet being monitered. if it got out of hand then people would vote it out, simple as that. if they got to not allowing us to vote then i am sure people would rebel, and i am sure that won't happen. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. 'fraid not. See, the government most definitely does not have the right to listen in on the frequent calls from my household to Russia. And they're made on a weekly basis, with e-mail going a lot more frequently. The current administration claims that it's all kosher with the ol' Constitution, but they have yet to prove it. Sounds like an astonishing violation of the rights to privacy and due process to me. i see what you are saying and agree. they say it's constitutional to listen in on international messages from the US, when it is not. i didn't want to throw out the whole constitution, so that is why i disagreed when you asked what i said "in other words". but the next statements imply that i am willing for amendments to be made on the things that i don't think matter. of course, i alone would not be the one deciding, there'd be much deliberation before an ammendment like that. i agree there is always the fear of an eslcalation effect in which freedoms would continue to be lost until the fundamental freedoms of the constitution were taken away. but i really doubt people would stand for that. When it comes to speaking against the government during war-time, you really need to look at their motives. who wants a part of their nation undercutting the rest of it when a situation as delicate as dealing with war is going on? though it "horrendously violates" American civil liberties, i understand and sympathize with those presidents and their decisions. after war though, take it away take it away take it away now, but hopefully they made the law temporary until the war was done or whatever, so you wouldn't have a lingering and no longer helpful to the nation law that is unconstitutional

... no, those other words would not convey my opinion "i guess it comes down to trusting or not trusting US intelligence people (who's actions are regulated by strict laws) who will listen in or track you." those intelligence people have a mandate to keep the country safe and secure, and if they don't step out of those bounds, then i am willing to sacrifice some of the peripheral freedoms i have like keeping my whereabouts unknown or my internet being monitered. if it got out of hand then people would vote it out, simple as that. if they got to not allowing us to vote then i am sure people would rebel, and i am sure that won't happen.

^ same for me i guess the next thing i would do is use the google search engine, but with that you need to shift through some stuff in order to get a simple basic definition of something. so i think wikipedia is helpful in the speed and availability factors of unofficial researching.

i guess it comes down to trusting or not trusting US intelligence people (who's actions are regulated by strict laws) who will listen in or track you. But if you are innocent, and they have evidence that you conspired to something, i am guessing that you probably conspired to something or you sounded a lot like you did, especially since the jury (hopefully reasoning and logical people) will be sitting in on a case. If they searched my home for no reason i think that'd be just fine. i'd leave cookies for them or something. seriously though, i doubt they would take the effort to bother with me or other innocents like that unless they have a probable case against us and want more evidence. even then an innocent would comply and allow them to investigate the house anyway, i mean, why not? would it take more than a few days to inspect somebody's house? i think not. Sveet, an RFID chip implanted in my driver's license. now if i ever get lost in the wilderness you guys will be able to find me. what a great christmas present

What an attitude to have. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> he said it like it was some deep dark secret that was soooo bad and everybody should hate the US cabinet right now just because of that. i was just putting in my opinion that nobody who is innocent should care.

but this thing in Iraq should've been resolved a decade ago with Bush's dadda in office. they kind of left the power vacuum and we saw what happened. EDIT: i looked at Wikipedia to get some general backround about this, and i know its not the most accurate site, but here is a quote anyway- "In a foreign policy move that would later be questioned, President Bush achieved his stated objectives of liberating Kuwait and forcing Iraqi withdrawal, then ordered a cessation of combat operations

Umm... Scandinavian countries have conscription system, because of amount of people living in each country. Finland has 5 million people and to keep a believable army force conscription is needed. And since every one in scandinavian countries has a choice to take civil service instead of army service when that time comes, you can say that they are as good volunteers as those who serve in US troops. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> you can say the guys who chose the civil service instead of army service are as good as US volunteer troops... but i am guessing more of the people over there choose army service? especially since it would make you look victimized and your families who hate war wouldn't judge you as much then. (in the last two sentences i am generalising very badly, please have an easy time refuting me about them, its my gift to you i just wanted to have the idea out there)

i think the interests of the US in making Iraq have a democratic government was to ensure the US's safety, since Bush believes that a democratic nation won't go into war unprovoked. i think that it's good to fill the power vacuum. are you just taking note that this is what happened? or are you critiscizing it? you obviously are grounded in your opinion that the US had extreme ulterior motives in making Iraq a democracy. the things you are saying sound more like conspiracy theories than actual reasons. Why would it be bad that Iraq would do buisness with the US if they appreciate what the US did for them? Would the US really be worried that the fundamentalist clerics come to power by the system and then kick out the US? why would they be worried about that? it isn't as though the US is depending on Iraq like it is some power socket that unconnected would stop the US's functions. You are making it sound like the US is severely dependent upon Iraq liking them afterward, and i am here to say that they aren't. I agree with you totally on this one. it very well *could* be one of the beneficial legacies, but i doesn't justify them at all. However, i don't think anybody but you thought that the US was trying to justify themselves by noting this possible benefit. The US's justification for war can only come from the fact that Bush and Friends acted seriously upon intelligence that was presented to them (whether they knew how sketchy it was or not is the real issue, but if they were sincere about it, then please hear me out...). and role-play in their shoes for a second. What if the intelligence was absolutely true, it might not be, but what if even a part of it was ture? dang, if they didn't do anything, then critics would never stop criticizing the decision if something bad happened, like what they do now for the decision that was made. The U.N. Sanctions on Iraq were imposed in 1991, and Iraq repeatedly violated them. repeatedly. and the UN continued trying to reason with words when that obviously wasn't working, so Bush backed up his words by showing that it was unnacceptable. to me, it seems like Saddam with his power-trip and all was in character by not submitting to the UN sanctions. why would he let his people see that others can push him around and tell him what to do? that does seem possible to me too. it'll be very interesting to see a major decline of the US as a superpower though, if i am still alive to see it. Post Script: it always seems like people are unhappy that Saddam is out of power, e.g. some left-wing anti-warrers. i am disturbed by this, because taking note of all that Saddam has done to his people, i think that alone is enough of a reason to try and take him out of power. this also means that i would want to take out many other sick people in ruling positions, but what is bad about taking them out? they would only compound the damage they are creating if they are left there. my opinion doesn't seem valid to very many other people, but i just can't stand blatant injustice. this, among other reasons, is mainly why i don't lead a nation of my own, because nobody would follow these types of ideas.

i think somebody needs a hug

the first post gave me the impression that this was about the DS, but it's topic title is open to both technically. i chose K2 since most DS things involve getting more money for yourself. it'd be fun to get more lightsaber crystals or other rare items by doing DS stuff, like in the iziz cantina with the sith lady and the crystal Visas seems to know all about.

is that how you say "i don't believe that you want to help me" ? because all you said was that i somehow stereotyped you, when i didn't do that at all. seriously. please, can you tell me how i was being a hypocrite so that i can better my personality? i really want to know and i won't flame you for anything you say.

please, i beseech you to read my last post once more and keep in mind that i want to help you be accepted here. i seriously am not on a power-trip, and if you still think i am, then i will officially stop bothering you about this stuff.

No. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> um, yes, unless you ignore the truth. the idea was taken from Jesus' birth of a virgin. but you obviously don't care, so i won't either. on topic: adding to my first post, the midichlorians are the force, and maybe having more personally allows you to control midichlorians. and thats that. end the thread please? i think Surrptishus said it best, "All you can do is speculate wildy about what is essentially a mistake. Personally i think that is a bit pointless." agreed my gorilla acquaintance, agreed.

Hey man, you don't need to prove anything to any of us. if someone calls you an idiot, the best choice is to refrain from commenting on it, otherwise you show how little self-control you have. you also sounded extremely condescending when you said this, "accept your hypocrite ways and please if you are going to make personal attacks make them coherent and not full of holes." that was not wise to say considering that you are still new here and already have a bad rep IMO (and i think acronyms like that are okay to post, since i learned it from here and i am sure most people have used it too). and i don't want to get into this pissing match, but when you said that his personal attacks weren't coherent, they were... and you might want to consider the holes of his argument in a different way, like he is just joking for the most part rather than use them as poor flak to launch back. also, friendly advice: don't use so many emoticons, because that can get annoying too, like your first line had two "geek" faces. trust me, one face would have been enough and would've conveyed your idea much better by not being distracting. EDIT: i know that you knew Gabrielle said that exact line when you wrote it. i recommend not using a line from 4 posts previous to yours. and i don't want to sound condescending either, i am sincerely trying to help you. you also present a good opportunity for other new arrivals to see what to do and what not to do, otherwise i would PM you.

i agree that graphics are somewhat important. If the gameplay and story suck then the graphics are what you fall back on, and if it stinks too then the game must be really bad. such was the case for me and my personal game preferences when it came to morrowind: elder scrolls 3. the gameplay- guy in 3rd person looks like a retard when he runs; you can't hit much of anything when you are point blank smacking the "enemy", who is usually a powerful pixelized box vaguely reminiscent to a mouse; the missions are so lame and boring you would rather ditch them and run around the infinite amount of landscape trying unsuccessfully to smack evil little boxes; you can kill anybody and steal anything and pawn it all off for money, which was the game's only redeeming quality for me. the story- simply put: not exciting, i didn't get very far into it, but i could see right through the ploys they had to make me think i was on a fun mission when i was actually just running around back and forth talking to the least colorful virtual representations of humans that have ever existed. like i have said in the few other reviews i have given of this game here, it is an mmorpg without the second m and o, and with a pathetic r and p. so more of a massive game. the graphics- so after i realised this game had nothing for my personal preferences in terms of gameplay and story, i then discovered why the suck-factor was amplified for them both the whole time i was playing: the graphics. they were horribly blocky and ugly. the only thing that looked good was the water. the graphics, in my mind, failed to convey the ideas of the physical world that they tried to represent. Game music- the theme song is good. thats about it. it was good for the 100th time too when it kept playing throughout the game, and it never got old for me, but one song is not enough. as for the in-game noise, it made me want to be deaf. the game overall for me is number one on my most dissappointing games list. sorry i reviewed it again, but it was so bad for me that i keep feeling like i need to tell other people about how bad it was. but this did have to do with what we were talking about, so whatever.

i like how some games reward you for not killing the enemies, e.g. splinter cell 3, your mission score gets lowered for every person you kill, or MGS2 your only silenced gun to start out with is a tranquilizer one and if you just tranq a guy and his buddy finds the body, the guy who was attacked is awoken and doesn't really know what happened, and no alarm goes off or anything.