Nick_i_am

I was tempted to reply stating 'spam' but I thought that might be pushing things a bit far As far as Atlantis goes, I was a big fan of the original Stargate, but never actually got to the series where they brought in the Farscape guys properly. So yeah, how does Atlantis stack up against the Anubis ark in terms of characters and storytelling?

Yeah, people tend to confuse story with story-telling, or use the same word to mean both. The Halo universe is a pretty nice, if slightly generic, sci-fi setting with decent amounts of backstory and some interesting concepts and themes. No more than the average cult TV sci-fi, but it's still there.

http://atimes.com/atimes/China/JB12Ad01.html (the article deals with US vs. China, but it's not that particular comparison that I want to focus on) Think about it from the perspective of someone living in another country, one perhaps not on the best of terms with the US. The US has enough nuclear weapons - and conventional weapons, for that matter - to destroy any country or set of countries in the world. The only thing holding back the US is American democracy, which in recent years have produced such great presidents as George W. Bush and candidates like John McCain. Now, the Americans don't seem like a serious people (at least not from our popular culture), and they don't seem like they want to take over the world - but are you really going to risk your life, and potentially the life of your people on the notion that Americans, ignorant and content as they currently are, will never fall under the sway of someone who did have ambition? What's to prevent, in other words, an American Adolf Hitler, who might ride in on the coattails of an economic depression? It only takes one mistake of the US political system to send the entire world spiraling into chaos. It only takes one real threat to the untested, pampered, and sheltered Americans for a demagogue to rally the masses. There would be no shortage of scapegoats - the Pentagon invents them as a matter of course, to justify our inflated military spendings - and while the Americans are horrible at occupation, there is no reason why they must occupy. The Americans have been known to shoot first and ask questions later, after all. They don't seem like people you can reason with, once the fighting's started. So, what would you do, rationally, in this situation? Well, in the short term, you know that you must pamper the Americans. Ally with them. Lower their sense of distrust, their reason to fear you. But in the long term? You don't want to sacrifice yourself for the Americans forever, and no amount of pampering will appease a truly belligerent leader, anyhow. In the long term you have no choice but to try and equal the Americans - for as long as they have an overwhelming military advantage, to the point where they can destroy you without you being able to touch them, you can never sleep easy. It's like living next doors to an alcoholic gun collector in Detroit. He might bid you good morning everyday and invite you to his house, but those nights when he holds them NRA parties... You're never quite sure whether those loud noises you hear are from his boom box or ... Or something else. I believe that Americans are better than most when it comes to internalizing what we fear. Our political culture is based, in some sense, on threat politics, so we're quite familiar with it. So, I surmise, it should not be difficult to understand what fear does to a people. The fear of Islamic terrorists, however small of a threat they are to us, sent us into two wars in the Middle-East. We continuously play up the notion of a worldwide Islamic Revolution, wherein Islam would conquer all of Europe and send the world back to the twelth century. We belabor ceaselessly the point that the "liberal West" is "blind" to the threat of foreign immigrants, and that it will be too late before we have the guts to respond - another apocalyptic war, we tell ourselves, is inevitable. Such an active doomsday imagination we have, such a negative notion of other people... That it almost begs the question, How would we act, if we were in their shoes? If Islam, or China, or Russia, were in control of the world, and not us? What if they had the power to annihilate us without us being able to do a thing about it, and the only thing we could do is hope that they will not, despite the fact that their politicians and media sources are continuously playing up the "threat" that we pose? Such a scenario, I argue, is inconceivable to the modern American mind. We do not know fear as the rest of the world knows it. Thus, we do not understand why they would ever feel the need to militarize. In the eternal words of Donald Rumsfeld, "Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment [in the military]?" I can just imagine what the Chinese equivalent to the Secretary of Defense must have thought when he heard those words: "Indeed, what do we have to fear, but fear itself?"

Well, if you go back far enough, back to World War 2, the US most certainly planted the seeds of the Cold War with the creation of the atomic bomb. As for Israel, it is the fault of the US and Britain why their is so much conflict in the Middle East over Israel. If Israel was cut from the lands of German and Italy, the Axis powers of Europe that caused World War 2 instead I don't thikn we would have as much conflict in the Middle East as we do now.

The fact that the US _might_ get taken over by a lunatic can be overstated. Anywhere can be taken over by a lunatic. Democracies are less likely; nothing more. But that does not automatically mean we must cripple the USA. IMO the safe option is no magic wonder theory. It's lots and lots and lots of hard work. It's a daily struggle for probity and integrity in our business, public and personal lives.

I don't mind one bit if they deem the US as a permanent threat because I consider them a permenant and hostile threat against us. There is nothing you can say that will make me change my mind on that. The only way I will no longer consider China a threat is when they have a complete and total change in their government and economic policies that is more democratic and capitalistic in nature.

To be perfectly fair, Llyranor, China considers Tibet and Taiwan its own territory. Now, we can debate whether that is actually the case, but if you're going to base your gauge of a country's likelihood to threaten the US by how it treats its separatist problems, then you have to throw almost every country in the world into your "threat list," because almost everyone's got separatists and ethnic nationalists of their own that they either actively suppress or sweep under the carpet. Look at the Maoists in India, for instance, the IRA in the UK, or even the Hawaiian sovereignty movement in the US.

Anyway, I for one support Llyranor's view ( at least I think I do). this is an interesting article. It is saying armament is reciprocal. We need to expect others to arm up as a safeguard against the future. This is immeasurably more important now than it was 100 years ago, when an army could be put together by sewing together some old sacks for uniform and giving everyone a bolt-action rifle. Training, equipping, and supporting a premier league armed force takes nigh on twenty years. It would be quite literally impossible to just sound alarms and take a disarmed nation to war in the time needed to belt them senseless. I have no problem with China being armed. Fair's fair, after all. But I completely disagree that they are a paper tiger. Not only do they have the numbers, but they have the morale, organisation, training, and increasingly the equpment to pose a significant threat.

I am not into forcing other countries to our view, but against other countries trying to force theirs on us. I am very much against us openly attacking another nation, like what we did in Iraq, but we need to be ready when other nations decide to attack us. I doubt that China will one day be nicey to everyone within and out of their borders. That is just naive. As Krezy said, to hope so surmounts to burying one's head in the sand. Appeasement never works. If a country is a threat to us, attacks us, then we need to face that threat head on and remove it.

Whatever happened to the Indians that declared their own state last years in the US in response to every treaty being breched? Oh right... Those are jokes to be laughed off hehe... I forgot we`re only looking at china russia and the likes of serbia when it comes to ignoring sovereignty and upholding "rights" hehe... And genocides are only applicable in certain cases too *wink* My point being only that one must be pritty thick if he believes to be living in the world where his side is inheritly "good" and the other side is inheritly "evil/bad" cos its not 100% like his side and is of belief he must force others to comply... One should fear such people weather they fly the hammer&sickle, the crescent moon of Islam OR stars`n`stripes...

You do realise that a large motivator for the protests were the feelings that reforms undertaken by the party (under the guidance of chicago school economists) went too far casuing big infaltion and threathened livelyhoods? An irony of chineese tanks defending elements of pure capitalsim (some seem to be of an impression every1 would embrace hehe)? You need to broaden your horizon to include all aspects of stories... Take off the tinted glasses so to speak... Sand, dont take this the wrong way, but you`re partly the prototype of what ppl all over the world fear when it comes to america... a selfcentered, selfrighteous, paranoid person thinking "his way" should be the only way (and that way he "exports" via any and *all* means) and fearing everyone else is out to get him, just cos hes out to get anyone else on account of some selfpreservation fobia; with the finger on a nuclear button... And with the affinity to prefer to "keep things simple" aka us good them bad we bomb bad... That and the fact you evoke "your maker" on the highest level of decision making only about 10% less of the time than the ppl blowing themselves up on markets... Its freaking frightening. You blame ppl for raising their eyebrows when you put up missle defence shields on their borders and/or parade aircraft carriers in front of their shores backing it up with rethorics remeniscent to the Iraq modus operandi? The sooner strategic balance gets restored the better...

That is a rather naive view of the world, Llyranor. Being all nicey nicey to other countries will not change them either. The strong will always prey on the weak and if we appear weak we will be attacked and invaded.

I don't care if they become democratic or not. I am for perserving our democracy and doing what is right. They are a threat to the US. Unless they change, which I doubt they will, we should prepare ourselves to face that threat.

The threat is this: If China is willing to do that to their own people just think what they would be willing to do to those who aren't Chinese citizens if given the chance. Also, I would rather have a good ol' apocalypse than live under a dictatorship. It is better to die free than live in a cage.

The difference here China has proven itself to be a threat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Squ...rotests_of_1989 I will never forgive nor will I ever forget. Until the Chinese government is casted down and replaced with a democracy that gives basic freedoms and rights to all of its citizens I will always see China as a threat. If I had any say in it I would sever all ties to that nation. And you know what the US Republican president did? Give those bastards favored trade status. Bush Sr. awarded the Chinese government for massacreing their own people.

I should also commend Llyranor on a well-thought out post that captures much of what I wanted to say. I should add, though, that world opinion is not necessarily mass opinion. Most people in the world, I think, have positive impressions of Americans, or at least America. But their governments - that is to say, their political elite - must necessarily fear us, because we have demonstrated that we are perfectly willing to intervene and undermine their interests. The Orange Revolution, for example, ingrained a deep distrust into the heart of a Moscow thawing from the Cold War, that has now empowered Putin and his supporters into forming an anti-US league. Our pledge to defend Taiwan and encirclement (with Japan, S. Korea, and Australia) of mainland China (along with a long history of tensions) did something similar to Beijing. The fact that we overthrew a popularly elected government in Iran no doubt left scars, there, and the War against Terrorism has only further cemented the Muslim community against us. All of these nations have reasons, and good reasons, to fear us. And it's not just the abstract fear that Europeans or Canadians or the rest of the West feels, sometimes, about not being in control of world affairs. It is a tangible, real, and existential fear far greater than anything we feel towards the Islamists, who, I think, we still basically aren't taking seriously (because, understandably, the thought that a handful of extremists could take down the US is a bit ludicrous, even with the scare mongering). And until we understand - and recognize - that fear, I don't think we're prepared to deal with it. It being, of course, why countries do what they do, aside from the rather ignorant and dehumanizing notion that "they're evil."

I should chime in and say that my post is not that America "will become the next Nazi Germany," and if you read my post as that, then you've missed the point. The point is not about America, per say, but about the fear that America must certainly generate in everyone else. Once again I point out the analogy of the alcoholic gun collector living next door - it might be that he's totally harmless, but I'd probably think twice before deciding that I'm going to be "gun-free," especially if I think he doesn't think straight, sometimes. America, to the rest of the world, is like the alcoholic gun collector. We tout enough firepower to blow up every country in the world, and more importantly, first strike capability against all the nuclear-wielding nations. So, essentially, we can decide tomorrow that we don't like the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Europeans anymore, and blow them all to hell. They wouldn't be able to do a thing about it, because we have the ability to preemptively destroy their entire defensive array. Why would we do it? I don't know - we certainly wouldn't do it now. But in history, nothing is certain; nobody in 19th century Europe thought that their civilization would collapse under two World Wars, either. And that's just the big nations. A small nation like North Korea wouldn't stand a chance. Yes, we're not very good at occupation, but that doesn't mean a thing to the leaders, who're going to be the first to go in any invasion (ie Saddam in Iraq). I mean, if it's not like we haven't overthrown a dozen governments in the past, elected and otherwise. So, in essence, the post was an attempt to look at the world from other people's eyes, particularly those parts of the world that do not really "trust" us, for whatever reason (be it colonialism, Cold War interventionism, or w/e). It's from that perspective that you really begin to understand and - yes, sympathize - with nations developing their militaries and nuclear arsenals. They're only doing what's rational, given the threat that the US could potentially pose. But keep the thoughts coming, everyone.

Llyranor's commentary tries to describe something that is slightly off the perspective in which we normally consider these things; so, though not for the lack of eloquence, it might well draw the familiar response cycles of "but at least America is democratic and free" and "Bush is nothing compared to Kim Jong Il". I hope it doesn't devolve into another aimless round of such lone bombshells; the argument at stake, as I understand it, is not that America is going to destroy the world and we have to fight it, or that Islamic suicide bombers are justified, of course. We don't even need to go there. The point is that we have seen the way in which the citizens of America can be mobilised, or at least shepherded, into wars based not on concrete evidence of devastating threat, but concrete evidence of minor potential threat, the memory of 9/11 and a lot of rhetoric. This does not give any sort of evidence that America is ready to embark on Hitler-like invasions at the drop of the next demagogue + terrorist attack combo: I don't think that's what Azarkon means, either. What it does tell us is that there is a presence of a sociopolitical and epistemological mechanism that could in the future produce such a situation. Sorry, that's a lot of waffletalk. What do I mean? I mean that nobody is saying America is ready to gung ho bomb the world; simply that America has demonstrated a mechanism by which divisive and fearful rhetoric, shallow stereotypes of the Other that do not seek to understand why they are so opposed to America, a strong tradition of the discourse of patriotism, freedom and policing of the world, and the current American dominance in the field of ready, effected violence (as opposed to, say, China - see the article) all combine to wage war on almost any nation without a strong history of Western-style democracy. This mechanism has so far operated in relatively small scales compared to a world war, and even then has met a *lot* of resistance (though, it must be noted, lots of Americans saying "oh hell no" didn't stop America as a country from doing it anyway). Thus, there is no evidence at the moment to suggest the impending threat or capability of America Gung Ho

I admit I won't think its funny when the second cold war comes on quite strong with a new soviet order and an allied china. COLD WAR II We need to reject China and Russia. Russia has always been a harsh nation from the Czars to Stalin and even today with their "democracy". Though not officially confirmed, Russia has been beleived to be breaking international pacts and treaties with tests and developments of weapons of mass destruction. (The U.S. is known to still mantain its stockpile and is even upgrading its nuclear arsenal.) NEW NUKES The U.S. needs to reafirm its postition as global leader by stabalizing the U.N. and calling for the Europeans to action, who are enjoying paradise with their EU and no major wars since WWII. Iran, Cuba, Iraq, Afganistan? The threat is Russia. The second major power is China. Who is weak? The U.S. Who lets the innocents die with not even condemnation? The U.S. Who no longer calls for inaction? The U.S. Who not only lets its country decay and fall behind "3rd world nations" on health care and other domestic issues? The U.S. Who has an incompetent leader? The U.S. Who allows China and Russia to go unchecked, funding, supporting terrorists, becoming economic tyrants? The USA. Who is letting their economy fall to deficit, inflation, outsoursing, over importing unsafe goods, and commiting suicide internationaly? The U.S. Today we are. Hopefully 2009 brings better fortune. Russia and/or China will challenge U.S. authority. UN authroity. The right to freedom and capitalism (with all its faults) will be challenged. A new age is beginning. The Second Cold War has begun. Likely you, your children, or your grandchildren will fight against China/Russia. Economically, Militarily, Politicaly, or by other means. The war has begun. Who will stand? The only strong nation in the world is Israel. And look at them. Caught in a massive holy war since biblical times, poor guys. They fight for right and anyone who says otherwise has a terrorist complex and needs to see a shrink. The reasons why Europe lost the first series of real world wars (Crusades) is because the damn muslims are too well trained. The christians did not commit barbaric atrocity. The muslims murdered innocent jews, chrisitans, pagans and more so we responded in the MIddle Ages with Crusades to reclaim the holy land for peace. After our defeat, they stepped up with Jihad attacks. They think Allah is true and think they shall get virgins for murder. It is not war. It is killing innocents. They are cowards. Any muslims, russians, or chinese extremists who think they have power by murder and games (cold war) are true cowards. They're promises are false. Their people must open their eyes and begin the revolution! Under democracy, they could florurish! We could all live in peace. When we got tired of living together someone can blast off to another planet (By 2100 this may be very possible). I admire bush for his attemts, but Iraq is pointless now, similar to Vietnam (PS Reagan was the worst "good" president ever, terrible ****) REAGANS AN **** The world's militaryization is haywire fear and umbrellas (if u know what I mean). We must stop inaction, on the US and European part, as well as our other good allies out there.

Irony bonus.

rofl

I love the game, but don't disagree with any of your points. The trick to shooting though is to completely screw the aiming, it's useless, as you say. There is, however, an auto aim that most people don't realise. Just pull out a gun and tap the attack button and you'll automatically shoot at the nearest zombie in your visual cone. This is esspesally effective with machine guns.

Was that on PC? If so, yeah, that's entirely fair given what Rainbow Six used to be like (I was a big fan of the originals, and play vegas on the 360, but I wouldn't touch any R6 on PC past the second one).

I dunno man, you look at stuff like Half-life 2 and Crysis, the 'cream' of the PC FPS crop and I really can't see how they're conforming to the 'console drain'. CoD4 is the only series that's really done that, but even the first CoD game was taking after Medal of Honour (with many of the same devs) which started as a console game, so there's not really much room for complaint there. It sounds more like you're just bitter and twisted.

The average IQ of this thread has been lowered to the point where I now feel confident enough to post in it.