213374U

It sure as hell beats mopping floors...

If it lacks a fundamental component (whatever it is that's worthy of being implanted by means of force), doesn't that mean they are less advanced for not having developed and instituted it themselves?

That is not a stance I would support. If you are indeed willing to compare the degree of development of certain aspects of a culture, you must concede that democracy is usually superior to the alternatives, despite its many flaws. Otherwise, you must fall back to cultural relativism, in which the phrase "advanced culture" has no place.

I think I like sex better than having my skin punctured. Does that answer your question?

Getting tattoos is an unavoidable step in the quest to fulfill my childhood dream of becoming a pr0n star, so...

Are you referring to strategy games specifically? If so, I'd say it's quicker and easier to have the AI just cheat than actually develop an AI that can react to changing circumstances and come up with effective solutions to problems that aren't part of a set of predictions included in its original programming (as opposed to chess "AI"). Also, if a game did feature a true adaptive, learning-capable AI, I have no doubt it would be effectively unbeatable. And that's no fun either... In the end, you are playing against a clock. A complex one, but a clock still.

Does it? I don't think so, just look around. Maybe one day humankind will be advanced enough that laws can be passed to effectively govern war (I'm not even going to get into the moral implications of that), but then again, the same can be said for say, gravity itself. What do you mean "legally binding"? As you said, there's no formal court where the US can be taken to answer for their ignoring and bypassing the UN. That's as binding as me telling you I'll be mailing you $1M next friday. A law that can't be enforced is not a law, it's a joke. It all comes down to this: in international politics the strong do as they please, and the weak get the raw end of the deal. This is the way it always has been, even before there was such a thing as "international law". So, in the end, it is all just a farce to have the masses sleep at ease. "International law" is not only vague and inefficient (being dependent on what international lawyers happen to agree upon from time to time), it's not legitimate (veto power?) nor enforceable.

So you actually promote having an organism that decides when it's "okay" to have a war, and when it isn't? A set of "laws" that would turn wars into the legal equivalent of mass executions. So, who's going to decide, and on what criteria? It would be funny if it wasn't so absurd.

Yo Commie! Long time no see mate. ^_^

You are grasping at straws here. I already explained how Iraq's situation is different to that of either Australia or Canada, and how and why those countries are already covered by what I said. Keep nitpicking if you want, because there's not much else to do about that particular point. A war that lasted for less than a year (with major operations ending two months after the start) and what, maybe 100k dead? No, I don't think that's quite devastating when compared, for instance to Red October or the Thirty Years War. Even more so, when considering that the civil war that would probably have ensued is being artificially prevented. It didn't have much impact in the culture of the country either, nor have there been many of the uglier things associated with war such as ethnic cleansing. For a war that utterly destroyed the Iraqi state, I think it was rather neat and tidy, frankly. My bad. Reading Hades gets old real quick, so I wasn't following what he was saying. I was, however, answering a question you had posed. I don't see how that makes my comments irrelevant, as I was simply explaining my original statement after you questioned its validity. If you don't want to be caught flat-footed in discussions, don't leave yourself open like that, not even with Hades. If you are not interested in this discussion or think it's gone off on a tangent a bit too much just say so and we'll drop it right here.

Australia was a penal colony established by the British just one year prior to the French revolution and during a period of great unrest and change in Europe. They were for all intents and purposes British. I'm sure you can see how England's conflicts affected and influenced Australia as well. The same goes for Canada. Those two didn't acquire a distinct national identity until later, when "modern" society had already been developed, an aspect they inherited from their metropolis. I thought this was pretty obvious. Yes, Sweden and the rest of the nordic countries didn't suffer civil wars per se (that I know of), but they were close enough to the French revolution, the religious wars and power struggles of the 16-18th centuries to be permeated by their influence. I'm sure there's a point in being purposefully limited in your scope, but I can't see what it would be. Trying to understand how modern society came to be without taking into consideration the weight revolutions and other conflicts have had is like reading only a book's even pages. The thing is that western culture and history have been written in blood. We have peace now because our forebears paid dearly for it.

Either civil wars, revolutions, or devastating conflicts with the surrounding groups or cultures (as the present concept of "nation" is quite new, historically), yes. Change is never easy. And it often demands that a price is paid in blood.

demo plz

The ability to go on without sleep indefinitely. And, of course, super powers.

Again, you are making assumptions about the post-civil war scenario - you don't know what would happen. And what I'm saying is not any more stupid than proposing that US forces stay there suffering casualties indefinitely to stop a war that may or may not end, even more so considering that the locals don't want it to end. And from where I hail, I would be punished for being the friendly neighbor of a serial killer, if I did know what he is, and didn't do whatever I could to stop him (in most cases, report him). So, yeah. The same hypocritical and sickening paternalist garbage. Why must we solve the problems of other people, when solving those problems themselves may be in fact what they need to progress past the barbarism they are immersed in? What if they don't want to talk? I'll say it again, since it seems you didn't get it the first time. We already tried providing them with the means by which they can solve their disputes in a civilized manner. Instead they chose to go out and start a civil war. The US' aim with the war wasn't to solve the ancient (yes, ancient) differences in an ethnically, politically, and religiously complex region. The aim was to bring down Saddam's government. That's what was done, and reparations were provided for that. The US is not the "world police", nor will it ever be. That's a bland caricature of the media. International politics isn't about law and order, good and evil, or anything else. They are about interests, and the US is just protecting their own. I see... and still you would demand of others what you would not do willingly yourself. Interesting. Indeed, armchair politics is just great fun.

Can I mix and match?

Lol. Good point, but irrelevant. They've had more than enough time to get used to the idea and learn to live in peace. It is favorable. For starters, you don't know what the political landscape will be like after a possible civil war. And even in the event of a rabidly fundamentalist, warmongering, anti-western faction gaining supremacy, it would take them a long time to rebuild and rearm the country into something that can be a threat. And when they do, well. If they are stupid enough to try and pull that one again after what's cost them, they deserve what's coming to them, quite frankly. Why this paternalist obsession with fixing their problems? The US didn't cause those problems, mind you. They only destabilized the already fragile balance that had been imposed (by means of strongarm and terror tactics, too) by Saddam. So, no. The invaders destroyed their state, and later helped them build a new one. However they can't seem to keep tribal feuds and old hatreds from resurfacing in the worst possible way... and there's very little anyone can do to stop that, even if we wanted to. The transition is complete, in case you have forgotten. The only transition that remains for the Iraqi people is the one that will make them into a fully mature society capable of living in peace without the threat of overwhelming force. Virtually all "modern" societies achieved this, by means of bloody (civil) wars. So why do you think it can be different with the Iraqi, even after facts suggest otherwise? Where do we draw the line and just quit, according to you? Also, and just for the sake of coherence, would you be willing to serve as a peacekeeper in a military unit in Iraq? Lol.

Um. Any sequels planned yet? JK2 didn't allow you to choose, there was no dark side ending, so it's probably a good thing you don't remember it. And (save for the cringe-worthy FMV acting) the original JK was pretty sweet. And it had an expansion that was even better.

Um? No, he hasn't, in fact. The war was aimed at toppling Saddam's government. It succeeded at that. Useless and meaningless according to whom? You like to tote this argument around quite a bit, but no matter how categorical you try to be, it is just an opinion that stems from your own prejudices and short-sightedness. Consider that not everyone is like you. Maybe some are proud to die serving their country, regardless of the political situation. I don't think they'd be happy about you cheapening their deaths like that. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, indeed. Nothing good is going to come out of it, since the Iraqi people have proven unable (and perhaps most importantly, unwilling) to live in peace under a democratic government. Well, perhaps they do need a civil war to sort it out. The mistake here is allowing them to set up a supposedly democratic government, and then doing their dirty work for them. They are either politically mature enough to run their own sovereign nation, or they are not. That's all there is to it, really. Kirottu wins! Fatality!

On the other hand, handing Kyle his ass in JA was just one of those moments, only surpassed by the sequence where Jaden impales Rosh. We need more SW games that allow the option to murder the main whiner.

Yeah, it's pretty cool. Unfortunately, with the cost of generating strong magnetic fields (I was told it was around $5k/T), I don't think we'll be seeing it in widespread use anytime soon... Meh. I'm sure an SFX specialist could think of a few ways to simulate that. Not saying those are fake, though.

Actually, it's the High Field Magnet Laboratory. If you're going to play smartass, at least try to make sense. )

Never read those. Sounds very Fallout-ish, though. Except for the you-can't-stop-doomsday bit, that is.