BruceVC

You make it sound like such a sweet deal, but no thanks anyway. Yeah GD Jadedmeister is right on this one. You need to work on your sales and marketing my friend

Nah, you don't have to stop on account of me. Though I will say this, trough out most of history and wars Serbia was always on the side of the West, no matter who the enemy was how far he outnumbered us and what the consequences were to be. We never got help until it was too late, we always made a difference and we always lost the most because of it. What have we got to show for it today? Being depicted as the villains in every movie and tv show out there, thus poisoning the minds of future generations with rubbish like Serbs are evil, etc. and to add insult to injury a movement has started to revise the history of WW1, where the Serbs are depicted as the aggressors. With nations like Germany, Japan and Croatia it's forgive and forget, no matter what anyone has done, but Serbia it seems has some sins to repent for until the end of days. I mean ffs, even the Americans who are genocidal with Muslims has for some reason stepped in to protect the interests of Albanians, though that had more to do with that giant military base they plopped in Kosovo. Despite what you may think I don't, for example, think that the Serbs are evil. Its not a question of good and evil, these are manmade constructs and not applicable in a discussion of the Balkans due to the complexity of the history. What I keep trying to get you understand is that accepting your countries part in certain events in its past doesn't make you evil or bad. Its not a judgement on Serbia or on it people. Its makes you honest about your history. But this should be seen as something positive that you can now move forward from and strive to not repeat again I'm not sure why you don't understand what I keep trying to explain, maybe someone else can explain it you in a different way because I am obviously failing And I know this makes sense because of my history as a South African and Apartheid

I'm exactly the same, I have enjoyed every Bioware game I have played. Or maybe it is more fair to say the " good far outweighs the bad " around the overall Bioware gaming experience . Nothing to be embarrassed about

Which is why their games are so creepy. Monte I want to ask you an interesting question. In games like " Who wants to be a millionaire " when a contestant has the option to ask the audience and contestants see the results of what the audience thinks they mostly go with what the majority of the audience say is the correct answer? Why do you think that is, why don't they go with answers that don't reflect what the majority of people say is the right answer? Define the "majority". I agree that among BSN specimens romance is a huge thing, and i agree that romances are a very major part why some people like recent Bioware games. But what for the people WHO DON'T LIKE recent Bioware games? And for some of those people romance is one of the worst aspects of Bioware games. Don't get me wrong, personaly i would say that a game should appeal to the people it was made for and the rest can go jump in a lake. But this is contrary to EA's Edmonton division Bioware's goal, which is appealing to the biggest posible audience, not only their previous game's fans. And among Obsidian/CDPR/Bethesda's fans bioware romances aren't seen as a good thing judging by their forums at least. Skyrim's audience (which is what Bioware want to have) would be more interested in modding tools and horse penises armor than romancable companions. The lgbt romance crowd is already in Bioware's thrall, bought DA2 nd ME3 and possibly liked them and will continiue to do so. But all things are indicating that this audience isn't big enough to support Bioware, the same way the "old school" audience wasn't. That's an insightful post and you have basically raised what I was going to say to Monte. In the Bioware context of there games the majority of fans want Romance so it is silly to call them creepy. Romance and Bioware are inextricably linked. That's just the way it is and will continue to be. The only point I would raise is " what if you guys are the ones who are wrong about Romance and in fact they do improve the RPG experience?" Just a thought, its like the guy who doesn't take the audiences answer in the " who wants to a millionaire" and he is wrong because he went against what the majority of people said ?

I agree, this problem should have been dealt with years ago primarily by Nigeria and the AU. I also don't want to be negative but even if you defeat Boko Haram and drive them from Nigeria I doubt you will get all the girls back. Apparently some have been already sold into forced marriages

Now you're just trolling. Not really, you don't think there aren't many fans of Bioware games who love the genres because of the Romance? Of course other factors are equally important but Romance is very relevant to many people

Which is why their games are so creepy. Monte I want to ask you an interesting question. In games like " Who wants to be a millionaire " when a contestant has the option to ask the audience and contestants see the results of what the audience thinks they mostly go with what the majority of the audience say is the correct answer? Why do you think that is, why don't they go with answers that don't reflect what the majority of people say is the right answer?

Guys don't forget, and I know many of you dismiss this, but Bioware games also offer Romance options in an appealing and entertaining RPG experience. I can't stress enough how Romance is a contributing factor to why some people invest time and money in RPG

I assume you are asking why would the USA try to assist in defeating Boko Haram? Several reasons, they are already involved throughout Africa in places that are potential breeding grounds for Islamic fundamentalism. But the main reason is that most people, including the USA, think that the kidnapping of young girls to be sold into slavery is an utterly unacceptable situation and needs to be condemned and stopped. The good news is the USA has already offered to help https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nigerian-girls-captor-sell-them-122202090.html?.tsrc=yahoo#e9OMLLo This is good news Malc, the USA is getting involved

You boys may be right and DA:I may be a disappointment but I say "hope springs eternal in the human breast "

Slaves are not something new to Nigeria. At least according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria#Human_rights Seems to have a lot of ingrained societal problems. I wouldn't be surprised if parts of Nigeria see it as normal for them. Why you interfere with our normal lives? or something similar. I don't see the success of trying to fix one problem when you have so many (from a western viewpoint). You right the reprehensible act of slavery still does exist in benighted parts of Africa, but its not legal or acceptable by almost all aspects of African society. In fact in a particular backward north western Africa called Mauritania slavery was only abolished in 1981 !!! And its still practiced illegally http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/world/mauritania.slaverys.last.stronghold/index.html

I'm honestly of the view that DA:I is going to be an amazing game. I think Bioware has learnt from the past mistakes of DA2 and the gameplay and fun factor of DA:I is going to blow us away

And in that case the Tigers lost largely because they weren't an insurgent force any more. When they were an insurgent army they were extremely successful, perhaps too successful since that success led to them formalising all their structures and basically setting up a mini Tamil statelet complete with all the trimmings and a regular army during the truce- an army which then got steamrollered when the conflict resumed because, as a regular army, it was no match for the Lankan one. I'm interested in what is your solution for dealing with Boko Haram?

That may be true but what has that has got to do with people who live in a particular area acknowledging what there forefathers did in a particular conflict? Do you not think that part of healing process is acceptance of past injustice ?

I have a question for you Bruce. How does one independently and with proof, weigh up the atrocities on a scale and see who committed the most atrocities? Good question, for me its the number of Serbs who are being charged in the Hague compared to the Croats and Bosniaks. During there trials evidence is presented. The Hague is not a kangaroo court. So for me the obvious response to your question would be " the Serbs committed the most atrocities as they have the most people facing charges"

You see Walsie that has been partly what I have been trying to explain to Sarex and Drowsy about the history of Serbia in the Bosnian war. But they seen conditioned around a certain perspective and aren't prepared to certain historical facts I firmly believe that people who come from a country that has had a checkered or controversial past and history shouldn't try to deny it or make excuses for it. By accepting mistakes of the past its almost a cathartic experience and can be liberating. It allows you to move on and helps to not repeat mistakes. It does not define you or your country going forward In South Africa Apartheid IMO can also be considered a crime against humanity. We dehumanized people based on the colour of there skin for decades and we have whole generations of people that don't know what a normal life is. But we don't deny it, we accept it was a terrible and appalling system of segregation. But I don't feel guilty about it. I believe by accepting what we did wrong as South Africans we have a stronger nation that is rebuilding its confidence and self worth. Of course we still have serious social problems that we need to address. This is one of the reasons I take issues of social justice so seriously. I know how harmful they can be to a country if left to fester or they become acceptable As you also alluded to for me if a country doesn't accept its role in past injustices there is the risk they may repeat them

That's a question you should ask Paul Wolfowitz, methinks. At any rate, the whole point is that Bruce is unhappy with the Nigerian gov't progress at dealing with Boko Haram. By comparison, the Americans swooping in and "dealing" with them would be, in his mind, quick and easy indeed. Because if it wasn't quick and easy, why the hell would he be suggesting it? Okay I can't predict how long neutralizing Boko Haram would take, no one can. And yes it may take longer than a year. But the situation is actually simpler than Sierra Leone, I would argue its more like the Mali conflict that the French intervened in. Boko Haram doesn't have much popular support and they basically operate only in certain regions in Nigeria. So the military goal would be to destroy there bases and drive them across the border. This is not an insurmountable objective because as I mentioned they don't have the same local support as Al-Shabaab in Somalia. There barbaric actions have alienated them from most of the Muslim community in that part of Nigeria and that will make any military mission easier

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/05/elder-scrolls-online-getting-npc-theft-dark-brotherhood/#more-205279 Some new features coming out in ESO, looks good

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/05/us-nigeria-bokoharam-idUSBREA440BJ20140505 Boko Haram is actually giving Islamic fundamentalists a bad name. Now not only are they saying they will sell the girls into slavery but that according to Allah this is what is expected. IMO they have now gone far over what would be acceptable even by Al-Qaeda terms, using Islam to justify slavery as if its there religious right. I am confidant there time is limited and the target on there backs has just got bigger

There were albanians in Srebrenica? Or are you just engaging in creative associations? Yes, we were so interested in killing every Albanian that we called Associated Press to watch the conduct of the special forces operation in Racak, whereupon we massacred them all in front of Anyway the discussion is pointless, with your baiting attitude. Stick to your version Drowsy I want to ask you two questions. We know that in the Bosnian war most people accept that all three sides committed atrocities. But in the Hague being indicted and charged the majority of people are Serbs. So my questions are Do you accept that Serbia committed war crimes\atrocities Do you accept that the Serbs committed the most war crimes\atrocities

you will be disappointed. one thing I keep noticing is that it's VERY close to the real thing, it's either a conspiracy to cover up something really terrible (Dirty Wars and No Easy Day both describe certain episodes that are portrayed in Zero Dark Thirty very close to their text), or the writers actually had access to classified documents (as some SOF folks claim). it's very well filmed, and the actors are flipping amazing. especially Jessica Chastain, she's at the top of her game in this one, and it's an Oscar-worthy performance. it's the best movie of that year, and that's why you won't like it Yeah the movie was excellent. Amazing how they finally tracked Bin Laden down and how Maya Lambert's instincts were right. But why would you think I wouldn't like it? I'm missing that part?

That's looks soooooooo yummy and healthy

Absolutely, there is no doubt that if the Americans were publically invited into Nigeria and given proper operational authority they would end the threat of Boko Haram within a few months. The British and French could do the same, all these countries have proved that in the past in other conflicts. But its not politically correct to suggest that Western countries can effectively help certain African countries with there internal problems And sadly that's one of the greatest issues in Africa, the moment foreign powers get involved in African affairs even in an attempt to help words like "sovereignty" and " imperialism" get thrown around by those opposed to there efforts to help.....and the most frustrating thing is some people believe that so public sentiment get swayed and suddenly the West becomes the bad guys, like when Gaddafi was removed from power. So that's I want a clear signal from the Nigerian government asking for Western help so there is no blowback later in any regards

Sounds about right

Yes of course! An "effective" military campaign can do it, because if it fails to solve the problem for good, it wasn't "effective" to begin with, and your argument will emerge intact still, right? Only historical occurrences seem to suggest that military campaigns rarely can finish insurgent movements. No, not even in some magical "African context" where apparently force works where otherwise it wouldn't. A very progressive attitude, by the way. Oh, and the insurgency in Mali isn't over by a long shot, and we'll see what happens when the French pull out completely. The Sierra Leone civil war lasted for a decade. Quick and easy, right? Yes but the protracted civil war in Sierra Leone was ended within 2 years when the British directly intervened during Operation Palliser in 2000