Rostere

I need him to go further back in the chain of events, so we can continue this discussion in a meaningful way. To my original question there are several answers, of which the one I got was a trivial one. In short, it was a meaningless exchange similar to "Why did the US bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki?" "Because Harry S. Truman was the president". You've got to know the reasons, the motivations, the further context. Without several very important circumstances, Hamas would not have had any power at all, maybe not even existed today. So give me a in- depth answer: Why does the rockets come from/ why does Hamas rule Gaza and not the West Bank? ???

Still, you're not answering my question, only reiterating that Gaza is under control by Hamas. Let's put it this way so you can understand it easier: Why are Hamas in power in Gaza and not in the West Bank? And FYI: I know the current political situation in Palestinian territories perfectly well. Israel is already guilty of racial discrimination (see Law of Return and this law labeling Palestinian return to Israel "Infiltration"). And even though the stated purpose of not only assassinating Hamas' leaders but also murdering their families is not terror, they are closer to genocide than you appear to believe. I would also point your attention to quotes by Benjamin Netanyahu (Israels next leader?) that speak of the race of Arabs of a "demographic threat". And that is primarily pointed at Arabs who live and work peacefully in Israel. Last but not least, I'd like recommend you all to read this excellent analysis of the current situation by Rabbi Michael Lerner.

Sure thing, just like when you commit a crime, then you should also be punished in any way the victim deems appropriate. Fair? I hear that Hamas say the punishment for murdering civilians in Gaza is death. I'm sure we'll see an end to this conflict soon, if everyone who feels victimized just keep in mind that they should "respond in whatever means they deem appropriate".

No honestly, go ahead and pick an example of where an oppressed minority got recognized as equals/ got their own land and then chose war instead. Hamas would get zero credit when the resources were coming from a third part, neutral in the conflict. If you could choose, would you get your food from, say, the UN or from some crazed fanatics? The situation is worse in Gaza because it has a larger population density and a lower standard of living. These circumstances are in place because of events earlier in the conflict, and the main factor today is Israel's embargo, making impossible all trade and humanitarian aid. Also since those circumstances has been around for a while, Gaza is the traditional stronghold of more radical movements than the West Bank. Like I've already explained, the only helping hand remaining for the inhabitants of Gaza in need of food, work and medical aid is Hamas. Seriously, why do YOU think rocket attacks come from Gaza and not from the West Bank? Is it because the people living in Gaza are inherently "evil" (and therefore, they deserve to be massacred)? They act the way they do because they're desperate and, through the influence of Hamas, brainwashed. You've got to use reason to reach your goals, there's no point with or need to run around whacking peoples heads with clubs like this was the stone age. Right now, Israel is raising the stakes and instead of ending the conflict peacefully it will end with genocide, from one side or the other.

That is a fine way to live as long as you don't get into a fight with someone else who follows the same philosophy. Then you'll never see the end of it. Actually, Hamas would not really benefit from a ceasefire and/ or lifting of the embargo preventing food and medical supplies from reaching Gaza. You see, this is a game that is played on many levels, not only by military forces. Did you know that about 90 % of Hamas activity is in the field of social welfare and education? Can you even begin to understand the kind of popular support they get in a place like Gaza, where medicine, food and somewhere to work are hard to come by? Whose side would you be on, if (some or all of) your relatives have been killed in an Isreali air strike, your house in Israel was razed by the military as "retaliation" for an act of terrorism you don't even know of, and now you are a refugee in Gaza, hungry and without somewhere to go. Did you know that of the 1.4 million people living in Gaza, 1 million are Palestinian refugees who were once living in Israel? Now, I think you can begin to understand how Hamas can have popular support even though they will not take the conflict one further inch towards peace. And to even think there are people who think "let's just do one more air raid, and then they'll learn and we can all have peace" or "let's starve them to death through embargoes, maybe then they won't go to Hamas for help". Those actions will only further increase the support of Hamas, and in the end the Zionist and Palestinian extremists who want to kill each other will be the only ones who benefit from their situation. No, you got it all wrong. It should be like this: 1. Israel opens the border, letting medicine and food in as they are needed. 2. Any possible suicide bombing or rocket shooting is met in Jesus-style: "We forgive you". 3. Israel restores water and power to Gaza. 4. Support for Hamas and other extreme movements diminishes because their humanitarian efforts are no longer needed. The 1967 borders are restored, and illegal (under the Geneva convention and international law) Israeli settlements on Palestinian land are abandoned. American, European and Israeli organizations co- operate to build new schools, hospitals and places to work where you won't need to sign an oath of allegiance (sic) to Hamas. Since the quality of life has increased for those in Gaza, more moderate elements gain power, a process which has already begun in the West Bank. Palestinian refugees are allowed to return to their homes in Israel, after being prohibited to do so by the Israeli government simply because of their race. 5. Peace. I've already answered the first two questions in my response to "Wrath of Dagon". I do condemn violence regardless of which side it comes from. The last month, one side has murdered four people with rocket attacks. The other responded with a ruthless massacre where over four hundred people died and over two thousand (!) were wounded. Can't you see how someone is using their authority and military superiority for the wrong ends? Suppose you neighbour killed four people, would it lead to a better world if the military bombed your block, leaving four hundred buried under the rubble of your houses? Four hundred is such a large number it's hard to even begin to understand the bad repercussions it will have in the conflict.

So you are suggesting a genocide then? Should Israel kill even more people than they already do? "Why should they sacrifice the lives of their soldiers when they can kill with a push of a button, and destroy their enemies." Seriously, that sentence scares me. Did you watch "Dr. Strangelove" recently? If you did not, you should. In case someone punches you in the face, do you proceed to (after careful consideration of what will bring the best future to you) hit that person back? If you are insulted, do you always feel obliged to return an insult? I hope you realize human beings can't behave that way.

I am very intrigued by Guitar Rising. That might be an interesting game. Otherwise only HoI 3 and DoW 2 (plus Alpha Protocol, of course) are games I can say I will buy as soon as they come out. There's definitely some wacky games on that list, though - for example Zeno Clash and Love.

The question is not about which course of action you feel values, morals and ethics permit you to follow, but how the problem should be solved. Regardless of what you have the right to do, do you really think bombing Gaza is the best solution? Personally, I don't think a Palestinian air strike victim would just sit down and say that now that his family is dead and his home destroyed, he forgives every injustice he thinks the Israelis are behind. That person would be more likely to be eager to fight back. Which basically shows the futility of the primitive "retaliation" response that will only lead to more bloodshed. I'd rather you stayed away from ad hominem arguments. By the way, I do not identify myself with what I think you mean with "liberal", and I fail to see what leads you to believe I would be one, if "liberal" isn't just a derogatory word you use for people with an opinion differing from your own. I did not. The children of today are potentially soldiers of tomorrow and considering the scope of this conflict, they are definitely relevant to our discussion. The whole Israeli population are not within the rockets' reach, while on the other hand the entire Gaza strip is within reach for Israeli aircraft and artillery. I can't really relate to Stockholm being under rocket fire without a larger context, the solution for the problem would of course be different depending on the reason for the attacks. Oh, and FYI if I wanted personal safety I'd choose living in Ashkelon over Gaza any day of the week.

The answer is simple: only 15 Israelis have been killed by rocket attacks (since 2002) while over 600 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military in Gaza in response to these attacks. Tell that to the children being killed, and who watch their friends being killed, in both sides of this conflict. The violence has to stop if those are to get a chance to grow up to anything else than violent fanatics themselves.

Are you also the kind of person who supports death penalty, and corporal punishment in schools? You know, "retaliation" is only a primitive instinct, if you would hit everybody back when they hit you we would have WW3 already. When someone attacks you, you should first think "why"? Yes, of course some kind of punishment is needed so that crime does not pay. However a person who commits a crime without gaining something will obviously not stop because of common sense. Israel should strive to improve the living conditions for those in Gaza, so that they can see that cooperation pays off. You don't teach children to do right by beating them when they are wrong - if you act that way you'll only create a violent person.

Hell yeah! Add some bearded knights in spotted underwear as well, and we're ready to go! "Ghosts & Beards: The Platform of Horror" No seriously, I like that idea.

"NWN 3: One Does Not Simply Drive into Waterdeep" Hey! I herd you liek carz so i put a car in yo RPG so you can car while ya RPG

I hope it's a racing game based on the DnD franchise. That would be so fresh

"Postal: Lazytown".

HoI 2 was one of my favourite games of all time. I've been keeping an eye on HoI 3, and if it's anything like what I think, it will probably earn a place in my "Best 5 games of all time". Or something. Anyway, I look forward to playing SU on Very Hard in HoI 3 100% agree, those are basically my opinions on this as well.

No, I think you've only understood parts of what I wrote. I'm suggesting that you should somehow unite the various factions who fought against Saddam before overthrowing him, and in the latter process I'm not averse to foreign military aid. When you suddenly remove a authoritarian, repressive government in a country which does not have a significant enough partisan movement to even begin the fight themselves, you can only expect anarchy. It's either utterly na

I really hope someone has the guts to make Warszawa Ghetto: The Game. As long as it's true to the real deal, I hope won't be banned because of dealing with sensitive issues. You've got to learn from history, you can't ignore it, so why not make a game?

The American war of independence is an interesting counterexample, but the important difference between that and the invasion of Iraq is (like you say yourself) that the former was started by the American people on their own soil. I would not at all have argued against helping Iraqi rebels overthrow Saddam's regime. The problem was just that there was no unified rebel movement, which in turn led to the civil war- like state after the US invasion. It's a little bit like the notion of the government helping private companies with money. Why throw away money at a company that can't fend for itself in a free market? The solution is of course to first see to it that the company will be able to help itself. In a similar way the US should have secured popular support first, so that the people of Iraq could begin to establish a democracy themselves. Instead, already being the most resented country throughout the Middle East (except Israel), they go in and shoot everyone who makes armed resistance, and expect "Happy Happy Land of Laughing Lollipops" as soon as Saddam is put to justice. The Bush government's plan for Iraq was absurd. And it doesn't contribute to making things better that US troops lack the kind of legitimacy needed for rudimentary peacekeeping operations. Someone should have asked themselves the questions: "How come Saddam has not been overthrown yet?", "Who, and where are the rebels?", "How can you, under these circumstances, build a stable democratic nation?" Instead, someone picks up the club and goes to bash some heads, without a thought regarding the delicate balance of order that is about to be tipped, costing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children their lives. The situation has hardly been improved since before the war. It will eventually, though. But if you're considering this whole business from a long-term perspective there are other ways to reach the same ends. The cost for the war has this far been over 550 billion dollars, and that's only for the US. With economical backing of that amplitude, there would have been other ways to resolve the situation without the incomprehensible (really) loss of human life the war has caused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War I've never seen an estimate of the total number of French civilian casualties exceed 300000, and that is for the entire war. I'd be very surprised if 300000 of those died in the months it took the Allies to free France (since that's what I think you mean with "the Liberation of France"). While I do believe it is true that people do not always know their own best, I don't think it is right to bring war to a country in the way that happened in Iraq. I am willing to bet that no single person on this forum would sacrifice the lives of their own friends and relatives against their will. War is a bad and simple- minded solution to problems, a solution which is likely to have repercussions more dire than the original problem.

For everyone who's interested in life as a partisan/ spy during WW2 I'd recommend the movie "Come and See" and the russian TV- series "Seventeen Moments of Spring". Or maybe everyone have heard of these already.

This is exactly my opinion. I'm not saying that US foreign politics is to blame for every death in Iraq since the invasion, and not that nothing good has come out of it. But declaring war to the left and to the right without caring about the consequences is irresponsible. A pity there's no one who can ask the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are dead now if they are happy that their country is "liberated".

That sounds like a great idea for a game. I think Poland would be the ideal setting for this kind of game, since most of the atrocities were committed on the eastern front. Or perhaps somewhere in the Baltic states, because of the greater internal schisms there (some factions would be fighting for the Nazis, some for the Soviets, and some just for independence). It is my opinion that partaking in the actual war would not create an interesting game experience (trenches, anyone?). WW1's imagery though, as I noted before, is something that still has not been used in any game this far (if you don't count Iron Storm. Probably the worst game with the best setting in the world, or something), to any real extent. Landscapes that are shredded by artillery for several miles, giant underground fortresses surrounded by mazes of trenches and barbed wire, hills of corpses riddled by machine gun bullets and horribly disfigured by mustard gas... I think scenes from WW1 have a very distinct feeling to them. When game designers wanted to use the imagery of the 19th century without having the game take place in the actual 19th century, they created steampunk. I think it's time to extract the essence of WW1 in the same way (WW1- punk?).

I am amazed that it looks as if no one gets to take the blame in court for everything that's happened leading up to the war. If this entire business had happened where I live, a regime change would have triggered a massive amount of investigations to search for every piece of disinformation spread by the former government. But I guess it's just a matter of different cultures.

This is an interesting discussion. Myself, I don't think I wouldn't even have thrown a shoe at Hitler, given the chance. From this guy's point of view though - since the President is commander- in- chief of the army and navy, he would be able to defend his attack using Bush's own moral rules. The reasons Bush stated for the invasion was that the population of Iraq were oppressed by their rulers (which was true. But it's not that the rest of the world made things any better with the sanctions), that Iraq was a percieved threat (which is slightly farcical), and the alleged complicity in the 9/11 attacks. The two latter reasons could easily be translated into reasons why an Iraqi might want to throw a shoe or two at Bush. The US is a threat towards moderate Muslims in Iraq and indirectly in Palestine, by supporting Israel (And also in Saudi Arabia, by supporting the current regime). By destabilizing these regions through sanctions and war, extremist factions will attract more followers. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed directly or indirectly by the US invasion. Additionally, if you keep in mind the Israel- Palestine conflict, US legitimacy for intervening in the middle east (through a Muslim's perspective) is virtually zero. But like I stated in the beginning of my post, throwing shoes at each other is not tolerable behaviour. Both the invasion of Iraq and this "shoe attack" are wrong. What we really should discuss is this idea that problems should be solved through violence, not the question of who threw the first shoe.

I definitely want to see that game.