~Di

Exactly! Role Player, it seemed obvious to me (since you replied to support posts that directly referenced my own post) that you were implying that anyone who didn't like quest timers or other features you personally found immersive were obviously graphic whores who just wanted to have sex with NPCs. Obviously I'm not the only one who thought so. It's okay to disagree and state why you prefer your own playing style, but it's really not necessary to make snide remarks that encompass everyone who doesn't march to your particular drummer. I was insulted and annoyed by your response. Since you later denied you were referring to me personally, I'll drop it. Broad, sweeping generalizations, particularly insulting ones, will usually annoy someone, FWIW!

Pretty disheartening that more people don't feel the same way, really. For all the talk of immersion that's one of the things that strangely flies below people's radar. I guess credible behaviours from the big foozles just isn't as immersive as 256+ colors for my lightsber or party NPCs wanting to bang my PC after having known him/her/it only two hours ago. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, of course. If a player dislikes the pressure of a timeclock and prefers a more leisurely exploration of gameplay, then obviously that means said player wants a pretty light sabre and cyber sex. How silly of me not to have noticed.

Okay, I've figured out the problem. We simply do not speak the same language. I read text in English, and accept that it means what it says. You read text in English, and presume that it means what you want it to mean. Not once in that length quote does any USA official state that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Not. Once. Stating that Iraq was gleeful about 9/11, that Iraq cannot be trusted and harbors terrorists in no way can be distorted into a statement that Iraq was involved in 9/11. You can read, but you cannot understand what you read. The quote you so gleefully gloat over says nothing about the USA using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in a preemptive attack; it says that it supports a policy of preemptive attack against terrorists and hostile states which possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. If you are going to be sarcastic and insulting, at least manage to be correct. That's it for me on this thread, since it has been effectively derailed from the original topic.

Wish this was true. But Bush (lowest quote) is certainly a American official... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Post the quote where Bush himself states that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and directly link it to the source. I'm not going to paw through that pile of disjointed stuff for a third time trying to find the elusive "proof" you insist is buried therein. As usual, Bush is not attributed as saying any such thing in the article you've linked to. This is an indepth article about the Bush Administration's development of a Doctrine of Preemptive Strike. Nothing said about nuclear except that it would continue to be a "weapon of last resort." The article opines that this preemptive doctrine was preparing the American people for a preemptive strike into Iraq... which indeed it was. No nukes were either used or threatened. For the love of God, will you please stop asserting these links say stuff that they do not say.

Not one of them quoted an American official as linking the Iraqi government to the 9/11 attacks. Not. One. I have absolutely no idea what this means. It makes no sense at all. Anyway, I give up. Clearly you will continue to post pictures of dogs insisting they prove the existance of cats. There is no reasoning with that kind of... logic.

Untill I find a better quote from Bush here's Rumsfeld claiming it <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't see any place in that article where Rumsfield claims that Iraq was connected to 9/11, only that Iraq was connected to terrorist activities. Wow, a gap in the AMERICAN ARGUMENT... But ofcourse, according to Mothie, there was no argument from the US to claim this is the first place... explain that while I try to seek some more EDIT: Let's see; more on the 9/11-Iraq linking <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you're going to gloat over a quote, you might at least make sure that a representative of the US government has actually said it rather than some silly reporter for the BBC. Contrary to popular opinion, speculation from a BBC correspondent does not dictate American foreign policy. I suggest you reread the article in it's entirety. Edit: *sigh* Neither of the other links you put in give any indication that the USA has linked Iraq to 9/11. One BBC article merely quotes an Israeli as saying that Iraq was NOT linked to 9/11; the other was a BBC article right after 9/11 with Iraq denying they took part in it. Not a single statement by an American government official trying to link Iraq to 9/11. Edit: Imagine this... someone posts the picture of a poodle, a Great Dane, a German Shepherd and a ****er Spaniel. He then points to these pictures as proof that cats exist. Would you go... huh? Battlewookie, you can add links until the cows come home, but until you find one that actually quotes Bush as linking the Iraqi government to the 9/11 attacks, all you are doing is saying that pictures of dogs proves the existance of cats, and it is simply not true. This is true silliness, Battlewookie. You and I both know that Bush used fear from 9/11 to gain support for his invasion of Iraq; we both know that he used the words "terrorists" as interchangeable with Al Qaeda, in spinning political double-talk. The facts are damning enough; try to stick with provable facts instead of using dogs=cats type arguments. There is plenty to legitimately attack about Bush, his motives and his behaviors, but when you make stuff up, post opinion as fact, and blatantly refuse to correct your own mistatements when they have repeatedly been proven false then you lose credibility.

I agree that Chirac is probably talking directly to Iran without mentioning it by name... interesting, considering that France is supposedly spearheading diplomacy with Iran as we speak. However, according to the article: "President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism." Now that sounds to me like he's willing to use nukes against a country that supports terrorists that attack French interests. How is that different from a country (Afghanistan) that supports terrorists (Al Qaeda) the attack American intersts (WTC, Pentagon, Embassies, etc., etc.)? And yet nobody on the planet would have supported an American nuclear attack on Afghanistan... and rightly so. But we can say that of any country and any situation. Heck, there are emotionally charged arguments all the time going back to WW2, and the bombing of Dresdan, the use of nuclear bombs on Japan, etc. The populace of those countries were obviously punished for the sins of a few. War does that, unfortunately. True, and I'm one of them. Afghanistan remains half-done, bin Laden is still alive, and we have mired ourselves into that country with less force than we need to do the job because of the Iraq invasion, which I personally feel was utterly unwarranted and illegal, dispite my dislike of Saddam himself. Agreed, obviously not true since we haven't taken a drop of their oil and our own oil prices have skyrocketed. I personally think it was pure hatred because Saddam tried to assassinate his daddy, but that's just speculation on my part, of course. However, anyone listening to Bush's 2000 campaign speeches knew or should have known that if elected he planned to finish what his daddy started. 9/11 just gave much of the country the will to let him do it. I suspect the interim government met with USA approval. However, the last election showed that the USA has little influence over the populace's politics, since the party voted in was the one the USA least wanted to see there. Like Bush couldn't have done the population numbers and seen the handwriting on the wall BEFORE he rushed in. Oh, well. Anyway, I've enjoyed reading your posts and your comments. You make some excellent points.

Hey, if the European media said it then "there has to be some truth in it, doesn't it." And I dare anyone to interpret this jewel: "Or do dozens of country had a major scam written for the US to feed to their people for... eh, nothing?"

No. He just changed tactics and went back to the "supports terrorism" mantra, because Saddam had been proven to pay off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Bush never said Saddam either supported Al Qaeda (bin Laden and Saddam hated each other) or had squat to do with 9/11. You are not the first European to make that allegation, however, so one wonders about the media coverage over there. Anyway, Bush can now say that Iraq harbors Al Qaeda with impugnity, since we kindly opened the borders and let them flood in. *sigh*

Hit a nerve, did we? LOLOL. Must have, since you haven't even bothered to deny the double standard, but have justified it instead. No, I don't think I'll get over Chirac's comments and the fact that most of the world turned a deaf ear to them any more than you plan to get over the fact that the USA invaded Iraq... an invasion, by the way, that I dispise even more than you do, if possible. Bigotry is blinding, young sir, no matter how noble you feel the basis for it may be. Edit: BTW, when you say "it's not like France has actually invaded something recently" you may want to discuss that with the citizens of the Ivory Coast, ok?

Define "all the way through." In the 6 years or so BG2 has been out, I've definitely started close to 100 games, but you've caught me, I probably only finished half to a third of them all the way to the final cutscene. Usually I'd get this great idea for a new character and... Well, you get the picture. Yes, I have too much time on my hands. Thanks for pointing that out! LOL!

I liked it too! Of course I am really a big Gothic fan to begin with, lol. I do not caer for respawning monsters, because I'm not really into grinding to level for level's sake. If I go on a murder spree, it's because I have a reason to do so. I'm collecting skins, or must clear an area to provide safe escort, or have to get from point A to point B... all of which provide the motive for Gothic's combat. I like that. Also, once an area is cleared, well, it's cleared. No annoying respawns to create endless combat. Probably why I hated Diablo so much. I'm sure there have been games I've enjoyed in the past that had respawns, but if so it was in spite of them not because of them. Point is that I hate game-playing with a timer. I want to take my time and go at my own pace. Finishing a game with my character shuffling up to the final battle on a walker is not my idea of RPG heaven.

There were parts of Fable that really interested me, like the ability to truly affect the world and outcome by your actions. But didn't you always have that tense feeling of having to rush in order to beat some invisible clock? I dispise that. I dispised FO1 because of the time limit. I want to explore my environment, dammit, peek in every nook and cranny, talk with everyone and his duck, do all there is to do... and not have the game suddenly blast me with a foghorn while the words "TIME'S UP, YOU LOSE SUCKER" flash across the screen. I just hate it when that happens.

I played BG2 close to 100 times. I played BG1 maybe 30. I played FO2 a couple dozen, PS:T at least 12 times. I've played Jagged Alliance 2 and its mods so many times that I honestly cannot count. I played KoTOR once. I played KoTOR2 once. I will not play either again. Don't get me wrong, they were excellent games. But they were "story" games, the kind of game that you may stay up all night playing to find out what happens next, but once you are through with the game and the story, that's it. Fini. Over. And no, the idea of playing a second time so I could be all red and evil was NOT enough motivation.

Gotta disagree with you there. America suffered a major terrorist attack that killed thousands of people. Did the world unify and say, "nuke the s.o.b.s?" No, the world did not. In fact the world wrung collective hands, horrified at the possibility that the bloodthirsty USA might just be mad enough to commit such an atrocity. Meanwhile, the world gave limp sympathies from one side of its mouth while the other side repeatedly whispered that we had asked for it. Indeed. That is what I found so blatant about the entire thing. I suspected that there would be little outrage if I posted it here, and I was correct. In fact, some folks even tried to take the focus off of Chirac's words and ... what a shock... yank Bush into the discussion. Others who would have gleefully dripped rabid drool into the conversation if this had been an American threat were quite conspicuous by their absence. If one person looks into this tiny slice of mirror and recognizes their own double standard and bigotry, then I can die a happy woman! I doubt that will happen, but hope springs eternal and all that cliched rot.

Er, no. I won't buy a game that forces me to rush through it before my character turns into a senile, doddering geriatric. Didn't buy Fable for that very reason. If this is the direction RPG's go, then I'll obviously have more time for strategy games because I utterly hate the entire concept of Aging and Forced Retirement in my recreation. I have enough of that in real life.

That was pretty much my point.

I was teasing you in what I had intended to be a mild and light-hearted manner. Please don't think that was meant to be a serious rebuke. See, there's the thing... I'm looking at the BBC website and I do not see a single, solitary mention of this. I kid you not. Seriously, I'd think this would be a real gasp-grabber throughout Europe, but... silence. Eh, maybe the USA papers were the last to pick the story up and it's been old news for days over there. I dunno. Still seems peculiar to me.

Oh, I see. You don't like the topic, so you're going to "unserious" it until Fionavar locks it for me! Bad kirottu, bad, bad kirottu. *picture frowny face* Edit: 'Tis a shame I cannot read, though. Jean, Janet, all the same to my tired old eyes.

??? Janet Reno has been retired and tending her Florida garden for the past, oh, 5-6 years. Whatever you are smoking, please share.

I figured I could get away with it because despite the fact that I obviously love my country, I've made no bones about the fact that I dispise the Bush adminstration. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, after all. @SteveThaiBinh: I thought France prided itself (and look, rightly so) as being a pacifist nation, preferring diplomacy over force if at all possible. Am I mistaken? No insult was intended in that statement, certainly.

Yes, of course, Bush charged into Iraq for oil. Of course, he's spent 200 billion dollars, more than could be received for all the freaking oil in the desert, and Americans now pay 30-50% MORE for petroleum products than they did before invading Iraq (and before last hurricane season, for that matter) so despite speculation to the contrary, oil was probably not very high on Bush's list of reasons for invading. Don't get me wrong, none of the reasons given for the invasion (and the one reason that wasn't given, which I personally give the most weight to) were legitimate, in my opinion, because I don't believe the invasion itself was legitimate. I just grow weary of the "he did it for oil" silliness, which has been proven false by reality.

Yes, it was vague. And a bit perplexing. This quote, for example: ""The flexibility and reaction of our strategic forces allow us to respond directly against the centers of power. . . . All of our nuclear forces have been configured in this spirit." What the heck does that mean, that all of their nuclear forces were previously configured to avoid centers of power? *shrug* The whole thing is odd to me. I've always felt that displaying and stroking one's nuke in public is rude and just a tad obscene.

Darque, exactly. The timing is... interesting. France, Great Britain and Germany are, after all, at the forefront of negotiations with Iran about its own nuclear ambitions. From the article: ""The timing doesn't look absolutely great," said Francois Heisbourg, a defense analyst who heads the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research. "It's not a speech you give if you're trying to convince people not to acquire nuclear weapons." That said, I can't say that I am particularly horrified by Chirac's threat, just annoyed by his hypocrisy. Then again, I've never seen a politician that wasn't a hypocrite, and Bush annoys me a hell of a lot more than Chirac does. I was just taken aback by such a blatant statement from a self-proclaimed pacifist nation... AND stunned that it was greeted pretty much by silence from the rest of the world. Wondered what y'all thought.

Do you think such a threat is appropriate and why?