213374U

Uh, no. A successful guerrilla campaign, such as the one that forced the retreat of the best land army in the world, and the political collapse of the regime that ran that show.

I HATE that ****ing ad ****. I only ever watch promo vids on YouTube, because of that.

Bad press? I guess genocide means nothing to you, then? Because it would take an extermination campaign in an unprecedented scale (the nazis tried it in the occupied Soviet Union, they failed), to triumph in a guerrilla conflict by brute force alone. After the invention of the rifle, just destroying the population centers of the enemy doesn't work anymore. You'd think that after roughly 200 years of successful guerrilla campaigns against regular armies, people would have caught that much on.

The analogy fails in that I am not God (shocking, I know!). I am not omnipotent, which means that my control over what my son will be is woefully limited. Furthermore, unlike God, I cannot configure the conditions of the universe in advance, which means I don't know how these conditions will influence my son. If you say that God simply pressed the "randomise" button at Satan's character creation screen, a conflict arises with his omniscience, and we are back to the irresistible force paradox. You enjoy watching people crash and burn?

If He knows, then it's predestination -- choices aren't yours at all, any more than a rock "chooses" to obey gravity. The rock is most definitely not aware that gravity is about to ruin its day, but it will. The idea goes that God created all. He did it in a way that would result in an "end state" that He knew even "before" He started (he exists outside of time, remember), by virtue of His omniscience and timelessness. The outcome of everything is the result of how He created the universe which is finite, among other things, in information. Had He wanted a different outcome through a different path, He would have made things differently at the beginning. God may exist outside causality, but that doesn't seem to be the case with our universe. And that's assuming a "hands-off" scenario! What you are suggesting is that Satan and, by extension, us, had an illusion of free will. Illusions are nice, but try and quench your thirst in a mirage. Yeah, I was being sarcastic. I know that's the theologian's #1 rule: God is unknowable, unfathomable, and a whole bunch of other "un-"s, heh. The problem is that accepting that makes this debate and any related completely pointless -- the guys with the "holy gifts" will always win, because they say so. Even if what they say makes no sense whatsoever. Especially if what they say makes no sense whatsoever. Good work, guys. I want my ten minutes back.

...and the manpower issues, resources and leadership imbalances, mad supply system, unrealistic air AND naval warfare models, and probably a bunch of other stuff I'm forgetting. But yeah, this is what the game needs. They should keep adding features. It's not like that could introduce new bugs, right?

Umm. If God is possessed of both omniscience and the quality of existing outside of time you ascribe to him (I agree with that, as it makes everything even more absurd), it all amounts to Him dropping a stone and then kicking it afterwards, in punishment for falling. He would have known before creating Satan that he would disobey and be punished. Ergo, no free will at all -- either He cannot predict what His creations will do (back to the irresistible force paradox), or He created Satan knowing he would betray Him. Of course, if God exists outside of the realm of logic...

Pretty much. Ever heard of that Gary Powers guy? He was a bit of a problem for the US, back in the day, because U-2 flights couldn't be easily justified. This isn't much different... except it's Iran. The sarcasm ain't cool, though. Where did that pic come from, anyway?

And that makes judging other cultures impossible how? The only problem I can see with this is with retrospective, where such judgements are used as distorted referents to advance political agendas. But with regards to contemporary cultures? No big deal, at any rate. One culture has trivialised violence, the other sexual deviances. All in good fun.

Что?

We do not want your Butthurt. Er, yes. In an unprecedented act of kindness, I'm going to play nice and point you in the right direction... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=butthurt It's not that we hate you because "you don't want to give" -- it's that doing crazy **** like cutting off all of Eastern Europe's natural gas supply during winter to put political pressure on your increasingly western-leaning Ukrainian neighbors tends to sit badly with folks. While you would not have got the impression from the western media there was no doubt that (1) Ukraine was not paying its bills and had not been for years, (2) was understating the amount it was using/ siphoning other country's supplies and (3) had a large discount in the first place. In any case Yuchenko was a lame duck long before then- his position was terminal as soon as he had fallen out with Tymoshenko. Oh, of course. Russia had a perfectly legitimate right to update the prices of their gas to Ukrainie, and to try and put a stop to the gas theft. But in my eyes that was a convenient excuse to flex their muscle a bit, and show that one of the pillars of their newfound international influence is energy dependency in the West. I'm not trying to paint the Ukrainians exclusively as victims, here. But no matter how you look at it, those antics aren't good for making friends. Does Russia need friends, or just customers? Obviously, I'm not going to dispute Putin's efficiency, especially when compared to that drunken clown predecessor of his. But the amount of power held by the FSB is something that would make me feel very uncomfortable if I lived in Russia. And I didn't even know about conviction rates, heh.

I was referring to the Russians, obviously not you.

Yeah, realpolitik is a bitch. But that wasn't my point. Oby was going on about how poor Russia does nothing to earn criticism. On the one hand you have Medvedev and Obama making deals on strategic arms reductions, and on the other, you have them shifty Russkies selling top-of-the-line SAM systems to Iran that will be used to cover nuclear sites. At least the US make a PR effort, in an attempt to keep a semblance of credibility and trust. The Russian neofascists, however, can't be arsed. Butthurt much?

That what they teach you at the Putinjugend rallies these days? Heh, and here I thought the #1 source of income for Russia nowadays was actually tapping into her huge natural resources deposits. It's not that we hate you because "you don't want to give" -- it's that doing crazy **** like cutting off all of Eastern Europe's natural gas supply during winter to put political pressure on your increasingly western-leaning Ukrainian neighbors tends to sit badly with folks. How are those SAM sales to Iran going, btw?

You know, I was going to point out that nobody was ever shot in A-team. But just before I hit "add reply", I realized that that was probably your point. So, *ahem*, how is RapeLay a "realistic rape simulation" and GTA is not its general street crime counterpart? For the record, I have played neither.

I doubt he can give any, since it's doubtful he's ever murdered anyone. So he wouldn't very well know what a "realistic murder simulation" actually looks like. Sleep tight, Hurlie.

Look up "Blowing Up Russia". The book was banned in that country, for one reason or another, and was authored by that guy that was killed with Polonium in the UK a few years back. And don't forget to polish your tinfoit hat.

You obviously forgot about the small "incident" that the Ottomans once almost took over Europe in a very brutal way, right? What, you mean the 14th century Ottomans? I was specifically referring to the Caliphates that filled the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Western Roman Empire... six centuries earlier. Your bringing up Ottoman expansionism in response to my point about religious tolerance in Al-Andalus makes about as much sense as comparing the Crusades to the US invasion of Iraq. A bit too much Medieval Total War, perhaps?

So, God would have indeed created a stone so heavy it could not be lifted, not even by Himself. Welcome to the realm of theology, where logic is often the first thing to go out the window. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox If you haven't yet, try to get Demon: the Fallen from White Wolf. It's pretty cool, and unlike actual theology, reading the mythology chapters doesn't feel like a complete waste of time afterwards -- you can excuse yourself by claiming you're setting up a game...

If my country did that, I'd GTFO. We are supposed to have a professional military over here... only, "professional" is the one word you'd never use to describe it. Low morale, outdated practices, dismal preparation, gaming the system as a form of life, chronic equipment shortages at all levels (I remember the ****ing recruiter jokingly telling me "you'll jump, if there's money for fuel, hopefully" when I enlisted for airborne service) -- that is the sort of traits that will draw your attention from my country's military. Of course, my view may be a bit jaded by the fact that our army was "professionalized" (LOL!) overnight, so to speak, to fulfill one of the promises made during campaign time by the party in power. The result was disastrous, and the force is, from what I've seen, professional on paper only. Further, the military estate has a terrible reputation and has to bear some very ugly stigmas that stem from its role in the civil war and following dictatorship, and as a result, nurturing the military is very unprofitable business, from a political standpoint. So I guess the answer is very much dependent on where the person giving it hails from. I not only have intellectual compunctions against conscription (here's a little something: try to find differences between that and slavery), but also experience that leads me to believe that a conscripted fighting force can only be truly effective if the homeland's breadbasket is being overrun by waves of panzers, perhaps. On the other hand, I agree with Mes, and some good things can come out of a little military duty. The best thing I got out of my time there was the bit about knowing myself and my limits much better than I previously thought possible, but this was only after spending a few hellish months in the green berets capacitation (basic) course. And I know for a fact that 99% of personnel don't come anywhere near that sort of physical and psychological exertion, so there. I also agree with Wals that some sort of "give back to the community" compulsory period wouldn't be too bad, if only because that forces people from different backgrounds to live and work together -- that sort of reality check is invaluable and very difficult to experience otherwise. That is the only other positive experience I got. Eventually, I gave in and played the system to weasel my way out of that ****hole as best I could. So that's the story of how what is for all intents and purposes a conscription military can ruin a military vocation. I'd hazard a guess and say that's universally a bad thing and the exact opposite of what is intended. So, as a rule of thumb, conscription = bad.

Nah. He had voiced his support for the putsch. That by itself may not be a criminal offense, and it's not the same as being involved in the coup itself.

Can't argue with that, that's for sure... You misspelled "Wrath of Dagon." I lol'd

That's interesting, but I'm inclined to believe it actually works the other way around: media outlets are more popular the more they say what people want to hear the way they want to hear it... being EXTREME is usually a synonym of being biased. Or that's the common perception, anyway. Nobody's preventing anyone from going to the party for somethingorother website for their news, right? But they'd rather browse the NYT...

Fair enough. I personally don't have an opinion on the issue of whether it's possible that such a thing as man-made warming could be happening -- I'm not qualified to judge, not by a long shot. But the more I read, the less convinced I am that presently science is close to accurately explaining what's really going on, so preditions shouldn't be taken as gospel. The ostracization of scientists that don't subscribe to the mainstream opinion doesn't help, either. However, having seen first-hand how petty, unprofessional and most importantly, unscientific some scientists can be (scientists are people, too), I'm not going to trust either side just because they say I should, especially when the results of their work aren't what is advertised. It can't be stressed enough that climate modelling is a work in progress, and therefore the debate is far from closed (this constant need for adjustment and revision of predictions is what denialists use as ammunition against AGW). I guess my stance on this could be summed up as "hold your horses", until the job is done and the data cherrypicking shenanigans and political bull**** is finished on both sides. For reference, the "changelog" between TAR (2001) and AR4 (2007) models: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_docum...l_evolution.pdf As you can see, we aren't quite there, yet.

Who needs friends when you have MS points.