Wrath of Dagon

Having to fight a war just interferes too much with the whole Jesus complex Obama got going. But how is it going to domino India, isn't it overwhelmingly Hindu?

Some supposedly insider info on the US Afghanistan policy: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/world/as...olicy.html?_r=1

I don't think it supports 1680x1050, you just have to use resolution closest to widescreen (1240x960 I think).

You must have not done everything on Dantooine, you're supposed to talk to the leader of the mercenaries. Read the walkthrough, that must be your problem (may be you need to go back to crystal cave, and deal with the mercenaries there). You can't necessarily do the second part of Onderon on the Xbox at all, Kreia will just tell you to go back to Dantooine and that's it. Happened to me on my first playthrough, when I did Onderon last.

You could try to just re-install the game, although I don't know if your save will still work.

Mine works fine under 7. Try to install it in its own directory, instead of under Program Files, although I doubt that's the problem. Probably something with the video driver, may be try a newer or an older version.

This is not a question of what is right and wrong. This is a question of what is actually happening. If you think about it I think you will agree with me. I'm not sure what you're saying. Judges shouldn't be deciding what's rigtht and wrong, they should be deciding what conforms to the law. The legislators consider right and wrong when they pass the law. Yes, that would be the ideal case. However, a law that accounts for every specific situation is not practically or maybe even theoretically possible. Yet again you go back to talking about what judges "should" do. That is not what I am talking about. My point is that it's impossible to apply any set of laws without interpreting them. What would be the need of law schools if there was no need to interpret the law? If anyone could just look up their case in a book of laws, none of that would have been needed. -snip- This is not about the judges deciding what they want the law to mean, this is about it being THEORETICALLY AND PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to not interpret the law. I wasn't saying judges shouldn't interpret the law. Clearly their job is to interpret the law. What I'm saying is they need to be completely honest in trying to determine what the original intent of the law was, instead of coming to a conclusion first and then using twisted reasoning to justify why the law says what they want it to say.

At this point, I started laughing so hard tears came from my eyes. Clearly, you have very little grasp of legal decision making as a process. I suggest you check it out - of course, I don't see you as somebody wanting to broaden their horizons, but... And you have very little grasp of what we're discussing here, or of the American constitutional law. This is not a question of what is right and wrong. This is a question of what is actually happening. If you think about it I think you will agree with me. I'm not sure what you're saying. Judges shouldn't be deciding what's rigtht and wrong, they should be deciding what conforms to the law. The legislators consider right and wrong when they pass the law.

No, the government needs to do what's it's authorized to do, unless they obtain the authorization needed in the way prescribed. Saying "there's room for interpretation" is really just an excuse for judges to legislate, and puts no limits on the power of the government, which is what we have now. And I don't agree the constitution needs to be easily amended. A major change in the way government function should require something like 70% consensus, which is about what it would take.

Do you understand rule of law or not? Law doesn't work when judges decide what they want the law to mean, that's tyranny of the judiciary, not democracy or rule of law.

If the Constitution needs to change, there's the amendment process. It's a favorite trick of the liberals to run to the courts to get their way instead of trying to win over public opinion.

No, but sending some Bradleys to the rescue would have made hell of a lot more sense than sending in Humvees. Not to mention they were ridiculously undermanned for what they were trying to do, and apparently had no contingency plans.

Hey, look, TOR is out early! http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/09/15...ne-argument-ed/

lol at anyone who expects a coherent story from Bio

Iraq wasn't even in the same ballpark as Somalia. Afghanistan is under NATO, not UN, although that's not terribly relevant here. Hmmm, if you don't mind me saying so Wrath, that's a bit of a lawyer's answer. It matters not what the mission is sold as, the brains should be saying... "look we are gonna be doing a lot of fighting in failed states. Our light armour solutions are sub-optimal because peace-keeping RoEs forbid us sending in an armoured cavalry regiment. So we need up-armoured light vehicles." This isn't armchair general stuff, serving friends agree with my basic argument and the UK has made the same mistakes. No, no one was saying that after Somalia. Before mission creep, it started out as a humanitarian mission. After, everyone was saying "never again". It took 9/11 to change everyone's mind, and only if it was clear our vital interests were at stake. And if peacekeeping ROEs forbid armored cav, we shouldn't be in that mission in the first place. Well, that's as good explanation as any, except perhaps not everyone in the military was the tactical genius to see that writing in the 1990s.

Cherry picked statistics without historical context. For example, the richest states historically are Northeast and California, which are more liberal. The conservative South has always been more rural and less industrialized.

OK, I see this quote misinterpreted at least a couple of times in this thread. Obviously he doesn't literally want a government that governs least, since that would be anarchy. What he means is he wants a government that uses the least possible amount of coercion to still achieve the functions that the government properly has, such as provide for common security and rule of law.

The Somalian debacle was actually because they weren't allowed to have heavy weapons. Also the whole thing was run by UN. In any case, the issues in Somalia have almost nothing to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, it was sold as a humanitarian mission, not a counter-terror or threat to US mission.

Why, do you resent his success?

If you send an email threatening to behead our king and poop in his pants, the guys at the royal IT department would just delete it and go have coffee. You know, the sensible thing to do. Sure, they might forward it to the cops first, who in turn would delete it and then go have coffee aswell. How many kings have you had assassinated?

The military was build to fight the Soviet Union, the Humvees were never meant to be on the front lines, the problem is with counter insurgency everything is a front line. The Cold War ended in 1989 when everyone was seriously digging Francis Fukuyama. 2003 was a long, long way off. No excuses there, I'm afraid. When did Stryker come online, and your Marine corps has had LAVs since the 80's IIRC. And they still got it wrong. Let me get my position clear: I supported the Iraq war until I discovered the absolutely shabby, arrogance-laden lack of planning by the Bush administration. No one expected 9/11 though, so there was no clear idea what the next war would look like. Unarmored Humvees weren't a problem during the first Iraq war.

Translation: You better buy it from us, since you'll never be able to write it yourself.

I agree the woman had other issues. Probably after her husband died her mental state deteriorated, it's not just a case of a normal person being addicted. I've heard of similar cases before.

I don't think they'd ban him for insults, but if the police is right that there were threats, they would almost have to ban him, they take this kind of thing very seriously here. If it was a US resident, it's almost certain he'd be investigated.

The Russians claim their new plane is better than the F-22, and at the least it's a lot cheaper. Not really, it's all tax money, if it was left in the private economy, it would go to improve the standard of living. The only economic benefit is the R&D they do may prove useful for other things. Not that I'm against defense spending, but economic benefits are not a justification. The military was build to fight the Soviet Union, the Humvees were never meant to be on the front lines, the problem is with counter insurgency everything is a front line. Since the early years of the Iraq wars, getting all vehicles armored has been a top priority, and by now the situation is much improved. Humvee itself is being replaced by an explosion resistant vehicle (this is all at great cost of course). And yes, you still need tanks, even in urban warfare. M1 is the only vehicle we have that's nearly impervious to most RPG's insurgents are likely to have. To see what happens when you don't use tanks properly, one only has to look at the last Israel-Hezbollah war, and that certainly wasn't any kind of a super power conflict.