Wrath of Dagon

I'll buy it if it gets good reviews and the feedback is generally positive. Anyone heard of a demo?

There are strong indications Thief 3 will be announced soon, also Syberia 3 is being worked on, also Beyond Good and Evil 2.

This issue is a lot more complicated than you guys make it out to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weap...tions_1991-1998 Also I read that the real fear in the US after the anthrax attack was the believe that Iraq had weaponized smallpox, and the US had no defense against it. It was even considered to have the whole country immunized. Also there's evidence that Saddam planned to reconstitute his WMD program when opportunity arose.

So you're saying to a deontologist the ethical choice is not the better choice? Also you're assuming what it is that I'm assuming, and you're wrong. As far as what Kant believed, the quote I used indicates he was a deontologist, but I'm not assuming that either.

Re-read your own post, did I say anything about ethics being objective? So what does your post have to do with what I said? Also I'll point out I said I'm not a deontologist.

The ethical choice is the better choice, isn't it? I'm not sure what distinction you're making.

The Persian king once asked a Spartan traitor just how powerful are the Spartans, are they supermen, say can 1 kill 10 of us? The Spartan said individually they're not that different from any other man, but in a formation with shields interlocked and spears deployed they're almost invincible.

I didn't beat around the bush, I said what I thought. I also didn't know what Consequantialism was, and I don't apply philosophical theories in abstract. I look at the facts and try to see what is right and necessary. As far as "slam dunk", I don't have a link, I know he said it and the context, you can google as well as I can. Edit: I guess I know I'm not a deontologist

Just about every intelligence service in the world thought Saddam had WMD's, Saddam wanted everyone to think he had them. But yes, the faulty intelligence on WMD's coincided with the administration theory of remaking the Mid East and provided a convenient excuse, so the two went hand in hand.

That had nothing to do with ESRB since they never saw the original version, and was done at the request of the publisher, Atari.

What's more hideous than blowing up women and children? And once again, what was done was not torture and was not punishment, it was interrogation to obtain information to prevent future attacks and save lives, how convenient that so many of you seem incapable of comprehending that distinction. Edit: Btw, the speculation about Bush and Cheney faking Iraq info is short circuited by the fact that Tenet told Bush that it was a slam-dunk Iraq had WMD's.

Most of the civilians killed were in the course of miltary operations, or trying to undermine enemy morale and industrial output. Yes, see Rape of Nanking.

There was no military rational for killing the Jews, it was done purely out of racism.

Who will be the judge on what they deserve? How would you measure by metrics someone else's pain? What about the potential abuse of these methods by future governments? Also, do you even support the Geneva conventions? Read the links provided by taks, they pretty much sealed the deal. What do your first three sentences have to do with anything? And yes, I support those Geneva conventions which the US signed. Those apply only to uniformed soldiers fighting for a country which itself had signed the Geneva conventions. Thus Japanese soldiers were prosecuted because they had no right to do what they did under the Geneva conventions. Moreover, they did a lot more than waterboard, they beat and starve out soldiers, who were legal and legitimate prisoners of war. All the procedures approved by the Justice Department for terrorist interrogations are done to our soldiers as well, as part of their training to prepare them for possible capture and interrogation.

When they're a brutal, vicious, merciless enemy and have information we need to prevent future attacks and save the lives of our own citizens. Also the terrorist scum weren't tortured, they were interrogated with methods far gentler than they deserve.

So I guess that makes what the terrorists are doing now OK. I feel much better now.

I draw the line at the scum that intentionally blow up innocent women and children.

Yes, poor little jihadists, if only they got more love as children. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

No, it's just that your metaphor doesn't make sense. Maybe you should try another one. But there isn't really a sensible metaphor to explain torture is there? No, it's just that you didn't understand the metaphor. The point was that terrorists don't need to be treated as human beings, not that dogs should be tortured. Terrorists are in fact much worse than rabid dogs, since dogs aren't responsible for their own actions, as they aren't sentient.

MTW1 battles were a lot less arcady than Rome, and the battlefields seemed more real and less like battle arenas. I tried the MTW2 demos and the battles seemed the same as RTW, so I would go with 1.

As usual you miss the point.

That's right, they're rabid dogs, and need to be dealt with accordingly. And btw, speaking of intelligence professionals:

If you get no useful info from CIA's interrogation methods, they wouldn't have asked the Justice Department to authorize them, why would they waste their time and create political problems for something that doesn't work? Because I disagree with most of your leftist views? Promoting human rights makes you a lefty now? Promoting terrorist rights. These aren't political dissidents.

Because I disagree with most of your leftist views? And again, by Justice Departments legal interpretation, what was allowed did not meet the definition of torture, if you read the memos you'll see they were very careful to draw a line between what does and does not constitute torture, since torture is illegal under US law. Having said that, if they catch a guy who has info on a planned nuclear attack, I want them to use whatever means necessary, legal or not.

The point of coercive interrogation is to break the subject psychologically, so he becomes willing to cooperate. It's a part of a complex process, it's not like they just inflict pain and the terrorist starts talking. In fact inflicting pain was not allowed according to the released memos.