James

[color=#808080]I'm sure that there will be a lot of discussions about how that is handled. I know that Australia's SAS forces have been doing a spectacular job so far. The coalition is said to be extremely impressed with their performance, which is a further confirmation of the quality of the ADF. But as I said, these things are bound to happen. I don't know exactly how the United States monitors its Patriot Missile systems; the details of that are probably a bit harder to find. But, you know, when you consider the massive amount of forces in the area, these mistakes are bound to happen. From my perspective, I'm not going to lay any kind of massive doubt on the USA because of this one incident. But by the same token, I think all incidents like this need to be followed up very thoroughly.[/color]

[color=#808080]In relation to the GBA thing..I think it's mostly an attempt to sell more GameCubes (by tying GBA/GCN together). But I'm happy about that. lol I don't see it as a cynical marketing exercise though. Really, I think that there is huge potential to add to these games. The Tingle aspect does add something quite significant to TWW I think. And when you look at upcoming games like Roll-a-Rama (or however that is spelled), you can see how integral the connectivity becomes. Anyway, I'm still thinking about how to go about this. My brother and I play cooperative on certain games...maybe he can be Tingle when I play TWW and vice versa. I don't know if I want Tingle's help though, because I don't want to make the game any easier. o_O[/color]

[color=#808080]Regarding the Patriot Missile System; it is primarily automatically controlled. At the time of this incident, there were many, many fighter aircraft moving through that region. A large number were leaving for bombing raids whilst others were returning from missions. It seems to be, based on all the information, that this was a technical error; the Patriot Missile's on-board computer software misjudged the target. Obviously, these systems are relatively accurate and are designed to shoot down missiles themselves. And so, in this situation (which was undoubtedly very confusing for the navigation technology), a mistake was made. It was obviously a horrible mistake though; so I really hope that the United States can investigate and work out what went wrong so that it can be prevented. But let's not assume for a moment that friendly fire incidents won't occur -- they can and do occur. Although it's true that the United States seems to encounter them more frequently than other coalition forces. But that's probably because the volume of American troops is much larger. So you know, it's a ratio/percentage thing as well. As for Iraq's plans...Iraq has obviously been a very aggressive state in the past. They obviously pursue various unconventional weapons. We have to use logic here. Why does one pursue such weapons? In America's case, these weapons are used as a deterrent. History supports that logic. In Iraq's case, these weapons are used as a tool to threaten and conquer. History supports that logic, too. When people say that America has to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction, I cringe. I cringe because these simplistic statements [i]totally[/i] disregard history. Can we assume, if Saddam had nuclear capabilities, that he would not use them against other countries? If Saddam had such capabilities, Israel, Kuwait and Iran would probably cease to exist as we speak. Sometimes you really do need to act in a preemptive fashion in order to prevent a looming danger. In my view, that's just common sense. If you take out all the spin and silly rhetoric, you're presented with some very basic facts. And I think, for me at least, common logic dictates that the end result is very worrying. Once again, I refer to that "tooth" analogy that I used last time. I think it's very apt. Oh and...I'm glad that Charles made that post. I think it was needed. It [i]is[/i] possible to have a sensible discussion without resorting to underhanded tactics. I'm pretty sure that it's already self explanatory, but it's always worth reinforcing.[/color]

[color=#808080]LOL -- I agree with Semjaza on that one. Do you notice that it's always rubes/hicks that get abducted? I sense that alcohol plays a part in that somewhere. o_O Anyway, I think it's possible that aliens exist. Of course, we may never know. Considering that [i]we[/i] exist, I think it's pretty likely that there are many other species in the Universe (considering how big it is an' all lol). But who knows. There are people who will dismiss any idea of aliens...there are people who will say that they exist and visit earth...etc etc I don't think all these alien stories are true -- you know, the flying saucer and the abductions. I tend to put that in the same basket as palm reading and such. But the idea of aliens living far away that we've never encountered? I think it's possible.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GinnyLyn [/i] [B] Anyways, my parents just asked me one thing: "do you believe in evolution now that it is in your game?" [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#808080]That's really scary. o_O Anyway, I think the key point here is not just whether you are personally swayed by something, it's whether or not your parents trust your judgement. I mean, my parents never had any problems letting me play any kind of games, because they knew I was educated enough about the real world that I'd obviously not start believing in things that aren't real or whatever. I tend to find that most children are actually a lot more savvy with these things than parents give them credit for. Most kids understand that it's harmless fun, I think. But parents start to bring fundamentalist religion into the equation, or some weird political belief...and that really hurts their own children I think. I mean, it's a restrictive force on the children. Besides, with something such as Harry Potter...if parents actually READ the book, they'll find that it doesn't even come close to encouraging Satanic things. It's basically a story about friendship and courage; it just happens to be set in a world of wizards. But, do we then not teach our children about ancient myths in history because we're afraid that they'll be swayed? That reminds me of the Taliban blowing up those ancient Bhudda statues, because they couldn't even respect history itself due to their own short sightedness. Blah, I'm sure we could all go on and on about this...but considering this entire site is built around fantasy and imagination, I'm pretty confident that nobody here is concerned about being swayed by a video game or an anime. lol[/color]

[color=#808080]You know, there's a site (I forget the name) that talks about corruption of Christians via D&D and Pokemon. One example cited was a boy who stole money from his mother in order to buy the latest trading card collection. When confronted he said "the devil told me to take the money" and his entire family burnt the cards and prayed for him to get better. o_O Can you believe that? That little bastard should have been [i]punished[/i]. lol I've never seen a more clear cut case of scapegoating in all my life. God forbid that their child was a stupid little brat -- no, it was the [i]devil[/i] who did it. lol I don't think we'll ever stop having people who feel that games influence their kids or something. It's bound to happen. Thankfully, most people are logical enough to realize that you can't blame a game for life's ills. [/color]

[color=#808080]Thanks to some idiot? I don't know what happened with your former account, but if it was deleted, that action was probably taken due to a breach of the rules. So, if I were you, I'd behave. You want to ensure that it doesn't happen again. ^_^[/color]

[color=#808080]Yes indeed. I'm looking for a DVD of the series; I'd love to buy it at some time. It's a classic anime -- Zone of the Enders owes its orbital frame designs to Teknoman. ~_^[/color]

[color=#808080]I'm just wondering if anyone here knows where I can find a map of the Pokemon universe (the towns and everything). I'd be most grateful if someone could help out with that. I might delete this thread afterwards, as it's not necessarily a straightforward discussion. [/color]:)

[color=#808080]I'll be happy to do what I can to answer. 1) Maha does indeed talk without sound. Don't worry, you don't have any problems with your equipment. ^_^ 2) I honestly have no idea; I haven't seen the American show. 3) I'm so happy to hear your comments on the site! I haven't had ANY time to work on it lately and as such, it's been REALLY difficult to do updates. If you'd like to help, please email me at [email][email protected][/email] I'd love to recruit some staff for theOtaku.com: .hack//SIGN [/color]

[color=#808080]The GameCube was the fastest selling [i]home game console[/i] ever upon its launch. That doesn't mean that it is the [i]highest selling[/i]. GBA has consistently set fast selling records throughout its lifespan. After the release of the latest Pokemon titles in Japan, GBA sold over a million units in a ten day period. That doesn't mean that it's outsold any of its predecessors; it's just a measure of sales growth within a short period of time.[/color]

[color=#808080]The same thing can be said about Harry Potter or something; there are always nutty people who feel that the media has something to do with Satan worshipping or whatever. I think that most reasonable and intelligent people can differentiate between fantasy and reality. If you are weak minded enough to let some sort of game affect your religious beliefs, then those beliefs must not be very strong in the first place. Really, I think it's just a matter of common sense. Just because I play something like Resident Evil, for instance, doesn't mean that I'm going to go out there and pour petrol over someone and light 'em on fire. Only unstable minded people are going to gain inspiration from any aspect of media -- whether it's a tabletop game or something else. When I see people burning Harry Potter, it makes me angry...because it's so misdirected. I always think that if you're actually [i]afraid[/i] of a book, then your own beliefs must not be particularly firm in the first place. Surely that's a logical conclusion when it comes to something like this.[/color]

[color=#808080]The Tingle aspect is more interesting than most people think. IGNinsider had some information about it, which went into more detail. Basically, without spoiling anything major, I can tell you that if you want to unlock [i]everything[/i] in this game, you'll need to utilize the two player GBA/GCN capability. There are some really interesting side quests and dungeon-related things where Tingle will be essential to finding certain unique items. Of course, you'll find that out when you do it yourself...but yeah, it'll be a very interesting addition. By the way, I notice lots of us have TWW banners now! lol My avatar sucks; I need to make a new one. But I like my banner. ^_^ [/color]

[color=#808080]Hiachi, please do not double post on OtakuBoards; we don't allow it. As for a Phantasy Star sequel, I've not heard about it yet...but it certainly sounds interesting. Also, it has been confirmed that Sega will produce a second Skies of Arcadia game; which is incredibly good news for GCN owners. ^_^[/color]

[color=#808080]If you read our main page, you'll find that the Poetry/Fan Fiction forum actually includes Manga. So, there [i]is[/i] a manga forum on OB.[/color]

[i]Originally posted by Harry:[/i] [quote][b]For the People not supporting it, they didn't support stepping in when Hitler was invading either. And this applies directly to England too. [/b][/quote] [color=#808080]Not true, actually. At least, not true in Australia's case. Australia lost over 1 million troops in WWII. We could have easily argued that Germany was nowhere near us...and therefore, we wouldn't have to be involved. But we [i]were[/i] involved because we saw the importance of defending Europe's freedom. And we wanted to express support for the United States and Britain in the strongest possible terms. We made that decision, as a people, because we understood how important it was to defeat Hitler. And so, even though Hitler was not a threat to us, we took action. I might remind you also that 1 million was [i]one sixth[/i] of our population during the 1940's. Also, after sending massive numbers of troops to Europe, we were attacked on our own doorstep -- both Darwin (our northern most major city) and Sydney (our most populated city) were both attacked by Japan directly. Thousands of our troops died in Papua New Guinea, defending that nation from Japan. So, as far as Australia goes...we might be relatively small, but I don't think anyone can say that we don't back up our position on International issues.[/color] [i]Originally Posted by DuoMax:[/i] [quote][b] compare USA and England to germany and Itay in WW2. I mean, after iraq, whos next? Iran, North korea, Syria, France, Germany, Canada, china? his hole war buisness really sucks.[/quote][/b] [color=#808080]Duo, I'm sorry...but that comment is completely unjustified in any sense. There is one clear example that I'd like to illustrate for you -- which will singlehandedly demonstrate why your comment is 100% unjustified. When Germany attacked other nations, what did she do? She conquered them. She took them over and absorbed them into her empire. But, what happened when the United States defeated Germany and Japan? Did it absorb 'em into some sort of empire? No. The United States defeated both nations and then [i]gave power back[/i] to their citizens. And now look at them -- Japan is the world's second largest economy and it's also a democracy with freedom of speech. Same goes for Germany. The United States, in both cases, was not a conquerer or an Imperial power. No; it was a liberator. And the same example will be demonstrated in Iraq. For you or anyone to suggest that the United States is an imperial power is not only totally and utterly false, but it also demonstrates an ignorance in relation to the country's history.[/color] [i]Originally Posted by Transtic Nerve:[/i] [quote][b]However a full out war... I dunno if thats ever really the answer... it may be the quick easy way, but thats what America is about eh? Quick and easy.[/b][/quote] [color=#808080]I dunno, Chris. I really think you're starting to draw a long bow here. All the WWI/II stuff...I don't know if you're terribly confident in your own points sometimes. Earlier today, when speaking to Pressure, I used an analogy in relation to Iraq. I told her about having a sore tooth. If you have a rotten tooth and you simply leave it there because you're afraid to pull it out...what happens? It gets worse. It potentially infects your blood stream. It causes infections in your gum. In the end, if you leave it, you pay ten fold for that decision. But what happens if you pull it out right away? You [i]know[/i] that it's rotten and you know what will happen if you leave it. So, if you pull it out immediately, you can get rid of it. Sure -- you'll suffer temporary pain and fear. But once it's over, you will not regret your decision. You will have saved yourself a [i]lot[/i] of pain in the future. It may seem like a silly analogy, but I think it's accurate. Whatever we do, we will feel pain. If we leave Iraq as it is and do nothing...we'll pay a massive price in future (when Iraq actually [i]does[/i] posess large delivery systems and nuclear weapon technologies). But if we nip this problem in the bud now, we'll suffer short term pain for sure...but that pain will be more short lived and will be substantially less than it might otherwise be.[/color] [i]Originally Posted by Orien_Xel:[/i] [quote][b]Gokents, I have a question how come when we disagree with you, you call us unitelligent? Just because you disagree dosen't give you the right to call us unintelligent, stupid, idiotic, etc. That is not fair to people trying to express their opinions and is called FLAMING!!! You can't just call us "ignorant" and expect us to automatically say "Oh! We were wrong the entire time! Lets flock to the other side!!" All you are doing is driving us even further from your viewpoint! You are just showing YOUR ignorance. How can you? [/b][/quote] [color=#808080]Gokents is not making these claims [i]because[/i] he disagrees with you. If you make an uninformed point, as DuoMax did, then I think it's reasonable to expect people to respond to that. Of course, I don't support direct personal attacks (calling someone stupid or something), but by the same token, if you demonstrate yourself to be misinformed...what more can you expect? You can be anti-war if you like, but there's no need to compare the USA to Nazi Germany or something -- not because it's disrespectful, but because it's not actually factual.[/color] [quote][b]EDIT: I'd just like to tell you all that we (war protesters) DO NOT support Saddam! We think he is a horrible person! But we do not want war! I know he has done horrible things! We do not contest that!!! We do not want war! We think there is a better way of dealing with him! Before you ask "Well, how?" I will tell you this: Get to the people. Bombing his people will not get them to like you. Might I add that Bin Laden WANTS this war? It will mean thousands if not millions for new recruits for him! Thats all my ranting for now... [/quote][/b] [color=#808080]A couple of points here. Firstly, there is this misnoma that we're "bombing his people". Wrong. Have you even been following the war so far? Do you realize, in comparison to the number of warheads launched, the insanely [b]low[/b] civilian casualties? You're underestimating the accuracy of today's weapons systems. You're also misjudging the intentions of the allied coalition. Firstly, we can see (based on any information that you look at), that these targets are not civilian targets. In fact, few of them have even been [i]near[/i] or within proximity to any civilian buildings or sites. In addition, I would remind you of two important facts: 1) Massive amounts of aid are already on their way to Iraq. The aid is being shipped by the coalition forces, to feed both civilians and surrendering Iraqi soldiers. 2) In at least two cities in southern Iraq, there were scenes of people [i]celebrating[/i] on the sides of the street as coalition forces moved through. These people were jubilant when the forces arrived. That is [i]hardly[/i] the sign of people who disapprove of military intervention in their country -- these people have been murdered, raped and tortured by their own President. And therefore, they are pleased to see the International community [i]finally[/i] living up to its own commitments and removing that internal threat.[/color] [quote][b]I believe DouMax was referring to the Imperialistic tendencys (conquering other countries, etc.) Not to atrocities commited. (Although we do train terrorists at the School of the Americas to support American puppet regimes in Centeral and Southern AMerica) Once again, thats my ranting for now... [/b][/quote] [color=#808080]Once again, refer to my above comments. The belief that the United States has Imperialistic tendancies is so blatantly false and so dismissive of history that it totally erodes your credibility in any political debate.[/color] [i]Originally Posted by Pressure:[/i] [quote][b]Who the hell are we, to play righteous lords, and attempt to save the Iraqi people? Do we REALLY have that right? Are we supposed to set an example as Americans? We have the highest rate of illiteracy, homelessness, domestic abuse, drug abuse, etc, and we are supposed to be an example? How can we save another country full of people, if we cannot even save ourselves?[/quote][/b] [color=#808080]I won't respond to your entire post, because my previous posts and our AIM discussion have really cleared up my own position on this subject. However, there is one thing I want to point out to you. Firstly, we have to understand that this isn't just America "playing righteous lords" -- a coalition of [b]40[/b] nations is involved here. This is a simple case of the international community deciding to remove a threat -- a threat not just to surrounding nations, but also a threat to the Iraqi people. Things are going very well so far (better than anyone expected -- even the military) and based on the early reception to troops, I'd say that the Iraqis are going to be thankful to our coalition for many decades to come.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by postbagboy [/i] [B]why do my posts keep getting deleted. EH?! you anti-religion heretic Mods!?! EH!? [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#808080]If you'd actually read this topic at all, you'd have known that all posts involved were to be kept relevant. In my opinion, your recent bad behavior has been inexcuseable. You yourself have been spamming on several parts of the site and you seem to have absolutely no regard for our rules. Thus, you're now banned. When I ask for a thread to be kept on topic, I'm not just saying it for fun. I'm absolutely committed to keeping that particular discussion from degenerating into some silly back and forth situation. [/color]

[color=#808080]There's really nothing we can do to avoid the creation of DBZ/Pokemon type threads. It's bound to happen. Afterall, we do have a large DBZ/Pokemon fanbase here. If you don't like it, you should invest some time to create a non-DBZ/Pokemon RPG yourself.[/color]

[color=#808080]I pretty much agree with Liam on that one. I don't mind peace protesting, but why make everyone else suffer? lol Besides, a [i]lot[/i] of the peace protestors are highly ignorant of the specifics on the war...in addition to what led up to it. Just look at the "they'll just bomb all the civilians" comments that I referred to earlier. That's basically a comment coming from ignorance. The first couple of days of this war have already contradicted that sentiment. Of course, people are allowed to disagree with the war. But I guess that sometimes people are twisting the facts. It's fine to accept the reality of the situation but still be "anti-war", if that makes sense. I'm anti-war myself, but I understand that sometimes war is necessary to [i]protect[/i] the peace that we all desire.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Postbagboy, you haven't been doing your homework either as far as I can see. Bush is the stupid front; he goes up in front of the "nation" and says things. Behind him he has hundreds of people working to run the country, they make most of his decisions and tell him how to act in situations.[/quote][/b] [color=#808080]That's not really accurate. President Bush might not be the best public speaker, but he's certainly not a puppet. After seeing interviews of those who have met with him (even briefly), they've all mentioned that Bush has a very commanding presence amongst his peers. Obviously, in any Administration, you have a large team of people working together. There's nothing subversive about that and it certainly doesn't demean Bush's legitimacy or capabilities.[/color][quote][b] Gokents, I've been looking through the UN papers, and I can't find anywhere that says that SCUD missiles are illegal. Or even specifically mentioned? Also those missiles (last time I check) may not have been scuds; they could have been any number of other classes. As for your other argument, not even going to bother with it.[/quote][/b] [color=#808080]Two things here. Firstly, the SCUD missiles are actually prohibited in relation to Iraq. The primary reason for this is their sheer distance; the UN has place specific restrictions on missile range. And, as with the missiles launched only yesterday, we already know that Iraq's missiles violate UN guidelines. The Al-Samoud II missiles also violated these said guidelines. That matter is a black and white issue of UN guidelines; it's really not up for debate as such.[/color][quote][b] Also if you are in Australia have a watch of Lateline on ABC, it?s having very in-depth reports on what is happening. It also doesn?t seem to be having the extremely strong bias of the streams from America that the other stations are. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#808080]I find that CNN International and BBC World are generally pretty non-biased. Lateline can be somewhat liberal at times (which can be annoying, because it's not objective), but generally I don't have much of a problem with them.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B][/b] I was refering to more not the government affiliation of the 3, but that of what horrid costs they provided. Hitler killed 4 million people. With the wars Saddam has been in and the people he's killed, it still hasn't reached near that number. I understand that he is a bad person, but... I don't think you could truely compare him to the mad man that was Hitler. [/b][/quote] [color=#808080]I think that when you've killed at least a thousand people, numbers are pretty irrelevant. ~_^ But for the record, Saddam Hussein has killed over one million civilians during his time in power. Many of which were people who were, of course, his own citizens. So yes, I'd very much compare him to Hitler. Hitler is simply a Saddam with an army. If Saddam had the massive capabilities of Hitler...he'd probably be even worse.[/color][quote][b] It's not really a what if. We have 3,000 bombs ready to drop on Iraq. IF, whihc is the only IF here, we do, innocent people WILL be killed. [/b][/quote] [color=#808080]Yes, innocent people will probably die. And in any conflict, innocent people do die. The main thing I'm worried about is the idea that Saddam will retaliate against his own people if there is an uprising. Also, he's apparently planning to have some of his troops dressed in American uniforms so that they can slaughter Iraqis (that is a war crime, obviously). I'd also point out that precision weaponry ensures that you can now strike the top two or three stories of a ten story building without damaging the rest of the structure underneath. The death of civilians won't be caused by indiscriminate bombing from the allies -- it will be caused as a direct result of Saddam's actions. Of course, accidents might happen (like the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade several years back), but if we avoid conflicts based on those possibilities, we wouldn't be a free people.[/color][quote][b] I was just curious, based on what you stated, your opinion on the difference between innocent people, the same being killed by Saddam, the reason you stated you wanted him removed for, killed by the American bombings or Saddam's guns. They are dead still no matter which way you look at it. [/b][/quote] [color=#808080]Well, yes and no. There is a substantive difference between accidental casualties during the course of conflict and the deliberate and calculated slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents. For example, during the Gulf War, thousands upon thousands of Iraqi conscripts surrendered in the desert. Allied forces would have had a clear shot; we could easily have murdered all of those soldiers. And they were [i]soldiers[/i] and not civilians, which provides even more of an excuse to kill them. And yet, none of them were killed by allied forces. Despite the opportunity and the obvious cover that could exist, the allies didn't kill the conscripts. And so, given all of the events in the history of conflict, I find it odd that people can still talk about an indiscriminate bombing of civilians as though it's bound to happen. I would also remind you of Hanoi during the Vietnam war. The allies could have easily won the war if we'd bombed those cities. But we didn't; we played by the rules of war. And as a result, we deliberately lost that war. If America and her allies were so indiscriminate about killing civilians (like Saddam), then surely even at that point in history, we'd have bombed the hell out of Hanoi and such. It didn't happen. And it's not going to happen in Iraq.[/color][quote][b] I'd rather not either, but it seems people will die regardless. I'd rather not see the continued death of people, but I truely don't think it's justified by killing any less. [/b][/quote] [color=#808080]You could argue that if we left Saddam in power, more people would die per year than they would in a single war of liberation. So yes, people [i]will[/i] die regardless. And if we fail to act, it's quite possible that [i]a lot more[/i] people will die at the hands of Saddam. As an Australian, I'm glad that our forces are involved, because I want our current actions to help prevent far more Iraqi deaths in future.[/color][quote][b] Neither. I think if the US is going to liberate to "save" the people of Iraq, it should be in their best intrest to try to avoid the death of ANY innocent civilian. Which means it should be their first priority to make sure every innocent person in Iraq is safe. Unless ofcourse the only reason for going after Saddam is to get Saddam.... What is the reason. To get Saddam, or to save the people. They are not one in the same. While it may seem like it, the action to do one or the other is totally different. [/b][/quote] [color=#808080]I disagree. People talk about the goals being confused, but really they aren't. Going after Saddam himself goes hand-in-hand with both disarmament and liberation. Saddam is the epicentre of the hatred and horrific repression that is the Iraqi regime. And so, going after him (whether killing him or arresting him for international prosecution) is absolutely essential. The same could be said for some of his top people, such as his sons and Republican Guard commanders. The priority [i]is[/i] to make innocent Iraqis safe. But there is only so much you can do when Saddam is still in control, for however long that might be. Making Iraqis safe is being done via both precision weapons as well as frequent information broadcasts to citizens -- broadcasts that provide advice on how to avoid the hostilities. And if forces move in very swiftly, it's likely that they can be there to protect the citizens of Baghdad from Saddam's Republican Guard (for reasons I mentioned above). So that is why it's highly important to be able to take major cities very quickly -- quickly enough that the Iraqi forces will be overrun and will either give up or be destroyed. Even that strategy reflects a desire to protect the Iraqi civilians.[/color][quote][b] I would feel the same if it was anyone other administration, democrat, republican, whatever. I think that Saddam does indeed need to be removed. But I think there are better way to do it then a full fledged war with 3,000 bombs dropping on the cities killing innocent people.[/quote][/b] [color=#808080]There are better ways, but those ways are off the cards right now. You could argue that it would be ideal if the Republican Guard itself were to overthrow Saddam. But without military intervention, it's not going to happen. And once again, saying "3,000 bombs dropping on cities killing innocent people" is a kind of general and dismissive statement. The implication is, as I said, that the bombs would be dropped without discrimination. But that's obviously not true. The strikes are (as we've already seen) specifically targeted and "surgical". In addition, a major thrust of the war doesn't even include air support. A major aspect includes a very quick movement of ground forces to overrun the Iraqi military. And so, none of that really involves "dropping bombs on civilians". It's important, I think, to be aware of the strategies and to consider the complexities of the situation. That's why I never like it when someone says "dropping bombs on civilians isn't a way of liberating them". People who say that tend to be using slightly falsified emotive arguments, which aren't actually telling the whole story. I'm not saying that you are doing that, because I think your approach is quite a bit more level headed than some people. I guess I'm just clarifying my own feelings on that point.[/color]

[color=#808080]I just want to make a couple of points about this thread before discussion continues. First, I'll allow this thread [i]because[/i] the war has started. Previous threads were more of a speculative discussion discussing legal issues and such. However, I want to make one thing utterly clear to everyone; let's keep this discussion very clean and to-the-point. I don't want to see personal attacks and I want to encourage everyone to keep control of their emotions in this thread. Perhaps this time, a thread will not need to be closed due to problematic members. I sincerely hope that everyone will remain level-headed here. Though that should go without saying. Let's bear in mind that we're a close community and it's important for everyone to behave in a respectful manner -- if you disagree with someone's points, it's fine to respond to those points one by one. It's fine to dissect their argument. That isn't spam or flaming. But if you start saying things like "you're and idiot" etc, you're only going to inflame things. Anyone who [i]does[/i] decide to initiate personal attacks will be out of here. It doesn't take much effort to carefully consider the way you present your points.[/color]

[color=#808080]Ah, I'll try to answer that. I don't know how many characters there are. I can't be bothered looking it up. lol There are about 16 or something, I forget. About the same as in MK3, but probably more. And yes, I'd say about 50-60% is made up of classic characters. Everyone from Kano and Sonya to Kung Lao and Jaxx have made their return. You can even play as Raiden or Cyrax, for example. And yes, there's a female Sub Zero. Her name's Frost. She has a weird fighting style...but she's quite good once you get to know how to use her. Believe me, I [i]loathe[/i] MK4. It's the biggest piece of tripe that Midway has ever produced (and Midway produces a LOT of tripe). BUT, having said that, MK:DA is a fantastic game. It stands on its own as a great game and it totally reinvigorates the MK franchise. It's worth buying if you're a fan of the pre-MK4 games. Trust me, I felt burned by MK4 as well...but this game restored my faith in the MK franchise. ^_^[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by S@bretooth [/i] [B][size=1] [color=blue] And until I see a monkey build a hydrogen fueled vehicle, I won't believe in evolution ;) but hay, thats my opinion. [/size] [/color] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#808080]Oh [i]please[/i]. If you're not going to make an informed comment, then it's really not worth wasting our time. As for the whole question of pollution and such...everyone really has a point. Yes, man has done some horrible things to the planet. And man has also done many great things. Ultimately, mankind is the master of his own destiny. Where we go in the future will be determined by our generation and successive generations. When you look at current trends (like fuel cell vehicles, recyclable materials being more frequently used, greater environmental awareness and stricter sustainable development standards), it's pretty obvious that things are headed in the right direction; albeit more slowly than some of us would like. I think we can have industry/economy and such while also protecting our environment. When I talk about things like the ozone hole shrinking...that's really an example of how some developments have been so positive to the Earth. The more our technology improves, the more we'll be able to leave far less harmful impact on the planet. It seems to me that this is just the logical conclusion that you make when you actually consider advancements over the last 50 years or whatever period you choose to consider.[/color]

[color=#808080]I guess the key is just to [i]expect[/i] that people won't always be able to participate to their fullest extent/ability. That way, at least maybe you won't be as disappointed when people back out. It's a shame, but it happens.[/color]