Commissar

OK, I get it now. So what I'd say in response is that civilian casualties and Abu Ghraib have probably swelled the ranks of those who hate the coalition and are willing to oppose it actively. I can't offer any evidence for this, however I believe I've heard a senior British security person say on TV that recruitment for the IRA always used to go up whenever there was a shooting of a civilian by the police or British soldiers. Can't source it, though. So I agree that we started with a core of haters who were never going to be converted to another view. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Absolutely. On the other hand, it's incredibly naive to assume that all of these incidents were preventable. Abu Ghraib was; 'everyday' civilian casualties are certainly not. Taks pointed out earlier that Monday morning quarterbacking it from the States is a whole different story from being downrange and having to make truly unimaginable decisions at a moment's notice, well aware that if it's wrong, your career's over, you've killed an innocent, or, worst of all, you'll be writing a letter.

So Iraqi hearts and minds were unwinnable from the outset? Perhaps. You're suggesting that Iraqi public opinion neither affects nor is affected by the success of coalition troops in creating security for Iraqi civilians? I just want to check that's what you're saying before I respond if I can. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, I'm saying that in the absence of things like the Abu Ghraib pictures and unfortunate civilian casualties, the people who truly hate the coalition and want it gone now would not have changed that opinion.

You might be right. The focus of the story was on western security contractors, though. How would you go about establishing that the events took place? Speak to witnesses? Hard to track down in a few days, especially since there's no date on the video and the road is notorious for attacks. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, I trust the video, for the most part. I just don't think it goes anywhere towards establishing a motive. You could frame it however you like. An anti-coalition activist would suggest that it's contractors run amok. A contractor who nearly got killed by a car bomber racing up behind his convoy yesterday might suggest that these guys are doing precisely what they need to be doing.

In the sense of being what it appears to be, rather than a hoax. The presenter made all the necessary caveats, about 'if this proves to be true' and so on. It's not unheard of for a major news network to be fooled by a hoax, but it's fairly rare. They clearly feel it's not, and I have no idea how they would establish that, but it's their reputation on the line, so they've clearly done enough to satisfy themselves. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, I think they confirmed that the guys were actually shooting, and the events actually took place. What it appears to be is a bunch of security contractors on a joyride. If they came to a conclusion that there's no other explanation, I'd be quite surprised.

It seems that people who like us are rather thin on the ground: Link. Do you think all the 82% of people who are 'strongly opposed' to the presence of coalition troops are active in the insurgency? Of course not. There are many complex opinions and many shades of grey. The world doesn't divide neatly into 'with us or against us'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And you'd be hard-pressed to find a quote of me suggesting that everyone who doesn't like us or doesn't want us there is involved in the insurgency or terrorist acts. What I'm saying is that without any - and I mean zero, none - allegations of misconduct or things going wrong on the ground, those people would still not want us there. None of them would go, "Well, gee, the coalition pulled off the impossible: they performed sustained and large-scale military operations without a single accident or mistake, or even misconduct by any of over a quarter of a million people. I suppose that I am now in favor of their occupation of my country because of this."

Checks out in what regard, though?

I just saw Kingdom of Heaven a couple days ago. The story shows a lot about how Christians totally lost credibility by going on the cruscades and killing "infidels". my favorite theologically incorrect quote in the movie was from a young catholic monk, "To kill an infidel is not murder, it is the path to salvation." lol, such bad theology for a Christian. I enjoyed Orlando Bloom's character because he looked past his illogical priests/advisors who were spouting out blasphemy and instead he focused on being rightous and benevolent. Surprisingly, it was a emotional movie for me, even though i felt that it slightly lacked in the romance department. i don't know how you could make that better, it must be hard to write romance well, but i thought it was good enough for what the movie is, and it complimented it. The Muslim main character i thought was generally a nice guy from what was shown. In summary, you should watch the movie if you already haven't, but make sure you don't go generalising Christianity solely because of it, and even Islam for that matter. It's more of a historical fiction, so keep that in mind. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm starting to think you have a one-track mind, Blankie.

I'm fairly certain Keith Richards is doing some sort of cameo for the new movie, if not playing an even larger part. The comparison is accurate, because Depp said throughout that he was basing his performance on a sort of 18th century Keith Richards; I believe he opined that pirates were the rock stars of their day. It was a fun flick, and I have little doubt the new one will be, too. People are certainly entitled to their own opinions about the actor or the movie. I've always liked him, and I've liked most of his movies. I thought The Ninth Gate was particularly good. Plus, my wife loves him, and it never hurts to take her to see a Johnny Depp movie. Eh? Know what I'm saying? Eh? Eh? Know what I'm saying?

hehe, eldar's also a little more politically to the right of center than commissar. not to suggest that eldar is a fanatical right wing evangelical and commissar is a looney left liberal communist, just they are on opposite sides of the spectrum. who's confusing you two anyway, commissar? certainly not me. hehe... taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I honestly can't recall, now that you mention it. I just know that it's happened. I want to say kumquatq3, but that doesn't seem right.

That has happened and will continue to happen on regular patrols. They use any cover they can get that they think will make us pause and consider. You can "blame the commander" all you want, but it doesn't really work like that. Rarely are you ever in a position where there's not the potential for civilians to get hurt. The insurgents and terrorists love populated areas, because they know they can often turn it into a win-win situation. I realize I made a mistake in my earlier statement, and now I'm in something of a pickle as to how to clarify. Essentially, a lot of first reports out are just plain wrong, and people can misinterpret things pretty badly if they don't know what they're talking about, or if they're simply looking for something to scream over. Most often, both are true. I've said earlier that we do indeed need to do it better and cleaner, and that I don't buy the argument that we can afford to do bad things just because the insurgents or terrorists are doing worse. On the other hand, some people simply delight far too much in attempting to paint a picture of the US occupation as given to wanton slaughter. The troops aren't preventing the job from getting done. There aren't any undecideds in Iraq any longer, if there ever really were. The people who like us, like us, and the people who hate us aren't going to stop hating us no matter how many flowers peace activists shove down rifle barrels. That's the way it is. That's fine, except they didn't need to be there in the first place. A peace tour through Iraq is, quite honestly, one of the dumbest things I could think of if I was trying. Furthermore, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines don't get the same luxury of being able to denounce the occupation if they get captured, and they are in fact obliged to be there. These idiots put themselves in a bad situation, got precisely what just about anyone with a functioning brain cell would have predicted, and are now attempting to both score points and get their people back in a rather cowardly way.

He's in K2 also ... he's the cranky old hombre Jedi when you go to Dantooine. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, yeah. That guy. "You ruined my plan to be captured by mercenaries, sold to the Exchange, and killed!"

No, but my wife is. Judging by the various relationship threads that've sprung up, an attractive female is all that's required to keep most of the clowns 'round these parts at bay. Jesus, I crack myself up.

Ed Asner voiced Vrook? Far out. Now, if I could only remember who the hell Vrook is...was he only in the first game? And argue all you like, but Bastila sounds better when pronounced correctly, rather than with the 'l' actually enunciated.

Nothing scares me quite like the possibility of acquiring a stalker from a RPG developer's forums. Then again, I have a secret weapon.

Well, there's a marked difference between pixelated violence and somebody calling you rather derogatory names. I could see someone contentedly sitting through Pulp Fiction and getting upset when an individual addresses them personally with a racial slur on their way out of the theater. Different ballgame when you're the target.

Agreed but I pay particular attention to writing styles. I 'map' personalities. That's actually part of the reason I started the thread on temperment types. It provides a little fun for you guys but also gives me some insight aboutthe members here that I don't know. That is another reason why I know that the two are not the same person. I've mentioned that I've caught mods doing it even. A writing style is hard to mask over the long term and similarities show up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good, then maybe you can finally convince people that I'm not Eldar.

Well. Plenty of people mask their IPs. I'm not saying -I- do, of course, but there are plenty of utilities out there to do it.

Wasn't the Exile the general in charge of giving the order to destroy Malachor, though? I thought I remembered that from the game. Apologies if incorrect, I'm brand-spankin'-new to the whole KotOR saga.

And that'd be fine, if she weren't obviously a latina with an attempt at a Spanish name. Edit: By the way, I'm Eye-van. This is my friend Jew-an.

Fine. Don't blame me when people laugh at you for saying, as examples, "gill-uh monster" or "coop dee grayce" or "chey serruh." Ever heard of Don Kwiksote?

Not necessarily. Parents have the discretion to decide if their child is mature enough to handle a title rated accordingly. Hell, my very own pop introduced me to Wolfenstein way back when I was a tot, and sure, I've shot at people, but I'd say I'm rather well-adjusted.

Because thats the way it looks. Why should it be Bas-tee-uh (which sounds stupid by the way)? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because that's the way you'd pronounce it.

I can't figure out why it's pronounced "Bas-till-uh" instead of "Bas-tee-uh" like it should be.

Oh, come on. Same mechanic. Either way, it's having to relearn how to be a Jedi/Sith all over again, and it needs to stop.

Do me.