Nick_i_am

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.

The irony is that he's complaining about 3E being completely rigid and inflexable because he's being completely rigid and inflexable about it.

Yeah Xard, go back to hiding behind the internet!

WE SEE YOU LURKING!

If I could use the free camera without it getting stuck in walls or up my characters butt i'm almost completely happy.

Halo is popular because it did what no other game had done before, made a console FPS that was actually fun to play. People get up in arms about Halo 'not being that good' and in a sense they're right, but it's because they're judging it from completely the wrong point of view. The effect it's had on the genre and the indistry as a whole speaks for itself, but the point is that Bungie made a console FPS that WASN'T just a dumbed down PC FPS that you had to had to play with a contoler, it was designed for consoles and most of the indistry now follows the president it set. Adding in coop at a time when coop games simply weren't being made restarted that phenomenon too and made Tale bitter and twisted. Exactly the same thing is probably just about to happen to RTSs and it's going to incite the exact same 'it's not that good' responce from PC RTS fans for whichever console RTS eventally breaks the barrier of making a console RTS intuative and fun.

Would they accept it if I mailed them a poop?

Hey, thanks for reminding me, I bought JA2 on steam a little while ago but got distracted. It's time to dig it back out. I agree by the way, the seperate strategy/tactics sections of JA2 and Xcom are both awsome.

Didn't they learn from Ninja Gaiden? bah.

Carbine? More like Carmine LOL.

BRACE FOR IMPACT!

I'm not a huge fan of a redneck populus armed to the teeth, but I basically agree with what you're saying about it being far more of a social issue, and that people ranting about gun control is just dodging the main problem. However, the statistics gathered from Washington don't outright suggest that anti-gun laws are ineffective as much as they suggest that such laws are very hard to uphold in an obviously violent city which has very little control over guns entering or leaving its bounderies. You're right though, the majority of america doesn't want gun control and geographically america is far too big and 'open' (given its land-links to both mexico and canada) to really consider this an option that would have any real effect, even ignoring a stuborn populus and a constitutional law that's linked to the very founding of the countary itself. Gun control HAS 'worked' in other countaries, but they are by and large countaries that are able to restrict the flow of illegal guns through their borders and have a population that actually supports said gun control. What i'm saying is that I wish people wouldn't start ranting about gun control any time there was a shooting in america since canada 'proves' that a civilian population can be allowed to own guns without trying to shoot up a school every other week and that the issue obviously lies elsewhere. Personally i'd start to point the finger at a school system that seems to do nothing but ostrosize the social misfit as being a freak of nature.