Spring RTS Engine

Sorry, little flamey there, nothing personal intended

Forboding Angel wrote:

LathanStanley wrote:I support him like a brother... he puts moral values, family, and security over tedius crap like money.

lol, his ability to speak publically.. lol still sucks.. but who cares.. he's a good guy...

+1 for truth.

Truth? I figured that was sarcasm.

Decimator wrote:

Lindir The Green wrote:-He is a very very conservative Republican (I would support John McCain.) Being a very very conservative Republican means a lot of stuff, which I'll get to below.

-He isn't conservative, and saying that he is because of who is around him is like saying that Lieberman is far left because he's in the Democratic party

He is very conservative in the issues that I care about, such as the environment, separation of church and state, and torturing POWs.

Lindir The Green wrote:-He is for drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. While I know skyrocketing oil prices will make it happen eventually, I am completely against everybody who supports it. Hopefully we can delay drilling until oil isn't as useful anymore, and so it becomes unneccesary.

-It's a freaking cold desert, and not only that, an oil spill kills off plants for two years and then acts as fertilizer after it breaks down.

Yes, it is in fact a cold desert. And because it is so cold, any damage to it takes a very very long time to heal, due to the short growing season. Even if the oil only kills plants for two years, it could take 100 years for them to grow back. And I seriously doubt that the oil would break down and start acting as a fertilizer anytime soon... It's made out of carbon and hydrogen, neither of which fertilize lichen and moss.

There is also more ecological damage than just oil spills, such as roads and cities and actual drilling sites and pilelines.

Lindir The Green wrote:-He is against signing the Kyoto agreement, because "China didn't sign it." I would think we could do better than China. Apparently not with Bush in charge.

-Kyoto would destroy our economy for a crackpot theory.

A crackpot theory? It has been proven that the carbon dioxide causes the greenhouse effect, which leads to global warming. It has also been proven that burning hydrocarbons releases carbon dioxide into the air. It has also been proven that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has increased since when we started burning hydrocarbons. It has also been proven that the average global temperature has increased since we started burning hydrocarbons.

That's good enough for me to assume that it would be a good idea to cut carbon dioxide emmisions by, what was it, 10%? 10% is barely going to do anything, especially now that the icecaps are melting which speeds global warming up by reflecting less heat back into the atmosphere and absorbing more of it into the ground, where it is slowly released over time.

Lindir The Green wrote:-He invaded Iraq because he claimed the it had "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Well, actually, it didn't. Oops. I guess now we're fighting for Freedom now. Or is it Democracy. Or maybe against Evil, which seems to be defined as Muslims who want us out of their homeland. And don't give me BS about how we were fighting against a corrupt regime. There are many many more corrupt regimes, but Iraq was the one with oil.

-Flypaper

Huh? Flypaper? Is my argument especially sticky or something?

Lindir The Green wrote:-His invasion of Iraq diverted troops from Afganistan, which is now being taken over by the Taliban, yet again. The Taliban openly harbor Terrorists.

-I think we should project our full force there, destroy all of the poppy fields, and then the taliban would have no money.

And I agree with you! But Bush isn't doing that.

Lindir The Green wrote:-North Korea actually does have Weapons of Mass Destruction, and they are working on missles to deliver them to vulnerable targets. But of course we are going to be diplomatic with them, instead of striking them so hard they will not be able to strike back. Bush needs to read Enders Game. And Iran, which also harbors terrorists, is openly working on enriching Uranium. That's a scary thought. A single nuke that slips through our nets could kill... a lot of people, as well as collapsing our economy yet again.

-We're probably going to let Japan and China do the work here.

Yes, probably. And we supposedly are moving missles there and stuff. But this argument is about Bush, and Bush is pushing for diplomacy. He seems to want us to give North Korea's government more food and money, propping up the communist regime, so that when they finally get their nukes and their missles to work properly, we can do this whole thing again except for North Korea will have even more bargaining power, because they could nuke our west coast.

Lindir The Green wrote:-Bush supports interrogation techniques that are against the Geneva convention, and that HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO NOT PROVIDE USEFUL INTELLIGENCE.

-*cough* http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/b ... e-tactics/

*cough*
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/519416/
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/tor ... _study.htm

There are lots of other studies, but I'm at school so I don't have time to look. Basically, someone being tortured has no incentive to tell the truth, but a lot of incentive to say something that the torturer will believe. You can make anybody confess with torture, because that's what the torturer wants to hear. You however cannot extract useful information.

Lindir The Green wrote:-He's from Texas

-Should I even bother?

Nope. It's just another reason I don't like him; he comes off as a cowboy who likes going around shooting stuff. Though I think he's more like a spoiled brat with rich parents.

Lindir The Green wrote:-He is against embyonic Stem Cell Research.

-Fixed

Yup. And I am for embryonic stem cell research. Because I think that instead of throwing away unused embryos, we should use them to help cure currently uncurable diseases.

Lindir The Green wrote:-He is completely Pro Life. Well, I'm also Pro Life, but not in the same sense of Bush. I think Life is a good thing, but I also think that it should be the mother's decision whether or not to have a baby.

-He doesn't believe that anyone should have the right to choose whether an innocent person lives or dies.

So what qualifies as a person? An embryo? An egg? A sperm? I believe that is a question best left up to the mother.

Lindir The Green wrote:-His stupid No Child Left Behind act relys on standardised testing, and punishes schools with low test scores. These are the schools in poor areas, which need the most funding.

-I'd abolish public schools altogether, myself.

The problem with that is that it would hurt the poor, and help the rich by using less of their tax money.

I am perfectly ok with some people being poor and some being rich; I think that there is no way to prevent that from happening. The people who are the most well adapted to modern society will make more money, and pass on their well adapted genes and way of life, so their decendants will make even more money. And the other way around too, with people who are not well adapted to modern life.

And I am ok with that. But I think that there needs to be some way for people who are adapted to modern life, but whose parents arent and so are poor, to become rich. And the way to best do that is to provide a free and good education system.

Public Schools are also good for the US in general, because they help to make sure that the smartest and most buisness savy people will always be the richest and the most powerful.

Lindir The Green wrote:-He's like a tax n' spend Democrat, except for he's more like a spend n' spend republican, or a cut taxes for the rich n' spend republican. And his spending is for stuff like "Faith Based Initiatives." And now we have a huge budget deficit.

-And yet our debt is shrinking, funny that.

He is partly the reason for all the debt in the first place. And the reason it's shrinking (if in fact it is...) is because our economy is finally starting to pick up again, which is not due to him. The best way to pick up the economy is to cut taxes on the poor instead of the rich, because the poor buy stuff while the rich store all their money in investments like mansions n' stuff.

edit: added some stuff. I had to go to my next class before I could finish.

Did I read church? I'm a proud atheist in that case!

Atheism ftw.
I do not support bush, and I do not support most of his actions, especially the entire war in Iraq. But I don't know enough about the subject to argue about it.

I don't see a reason to believe in God anymore than I do in Santa Claus. Same silly concept.

I also love how the media actually manage to make Americans doubt the climate change or evolution by pulling out some false or biased studies and presenting a tiny minority of the science community (what others would call conspiracy theorists) as a large portion of the scientific world so it suddently seems like evolution or climate change were highly controversial theories while they are actually commonly accepted. You could try that in any other educated country and you'd be lauged at.

I would like to see an analysis on how many people might have died in the past 6 years if we had let Saddam stay in power. More casualities than all the civilian, military and insurgent death's combined?

Addtionally, what if we have never even gone to war in Desert Storm, would 9/11 had even happened, would the Oklahoma City bombing even happened?

Timothy McVeigh killed Iraqi Soldiers during Desert Storm with a 25mm cannon mounted on a M2 Bradley.

Forboding Angel wrote:

BigSteve wrote:Lathan, how can you possibly associate George with having moral values?
he cheated his way into the white house for godsakes! twice most likely after introducing his easily hackable electronic voting system. ^^

Ive even seen a clip of him on TV saying " I wanna be remembered as a warring president, I've always got war on ma mind"
I mean come on, hes a bloody neanderthal.

Ungh, uninformed . Every time a republican president has been elected in the past 20 years the democrats have cried foul. Get your british self out of american politics, and stop posting crap.

BTW WMD's WERE found in IRAQ. Most news agencies failed to mention that. CNN did a very small piece on it.

Youre funny,I may be British, well half, my mother is from Connecticut, but im obviously more informed than your American self with regards to your bungling and corrupt president Al Go.. I mean George Bush ^^
What precisley was uninformed in the above? are you saying he got into the White house fair and square?

Anyway American politics affects more than just Americans considering theres now a Chimp in charge of the most powerful country on the planet so Im allowed my British opinion thanky'a very much.

Neuralize wrote:I would like to see an analysis on how many people might have died in the past 6 years if we had let Saddam stay in power. More casualities than all the civilian, military and insurgent death's combined?

Addtionally, what if we have never even gone to war in Desert Storm, would 9/11 had even happened, would the Oklahoma City bombing even happened?

Timothy McVeigh killed Iraqi Soldiers during Desert Storm with a 25mm cannon mounted on a M2 Bradley.

If the renaissance had never happened would World War 2 have taken place? There's a billion actions and reactions to every event in the world. The only way that you could guarantee those events would never have taken place would be to make everyone sit on their hands and do nothing until they die, but the end result will just be a bunch of people in a dead world. Progress sometimes leaves blood behind it, you can't stop trying just because you're afraid of the unpredictables results.

It's a VERY huge stretch be believe that the WTC event would not have occurred if the gulf war had never happened, the Muslim extremists would still believe exactly the same thing they do now. It's possible that the Oklahoma City bombing would not have happened, but it's possible that it would have as well, either way it can't be blamed on the gulf war.

pintle wrote:Forbodbing, post ANY proof of WMD being found in Iraq before making such sweeping, insulting statements. If they were found (and not moved to Syria before "operation Iraqi freedom" (HARHAR at least Bush understands irony) the you would do well to read about how they got there.

And telling Steve to get his british self out of american politics....xenophobic for a start, but also: Get your war mongering president and meat headed USMC out of the free world!

Care to have a piece of humble pie?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=38213

http://www.humanevents.com/sarticle.php?id=10101

├óÔé¼┬ó Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

├óÔé¼┬ó Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

├óÔé¼┬ó Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

├óÔé¼┬ó Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

├óÔé¼┬ó Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
[/list]

More:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2006 ... 060623.asp

And for those of you too lazy to click a link, here is a good article about the declassified portion of the document.

MORE THAN 500 WMD FOUND IN IRAQSINCE 2003



SO WHY AREN'T TOP MEDIA REPORTING NEW FACTS ON IRAQ's WMD?



Tell a friend about this site



Alexandria, VA├óÔé¼ÔÇØSince the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 there have been thousands of news stories declaring as fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. A typical media example comes from CBS's Ed Bradley, who said on 60 Minutes April 26, "no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq."



However, a partially declassified ArmyNationalGroundIntelligenceCenterreport confirms that since 2003 U.S.forces have discovered more than 500 shells of ordinance containing sarin or mustard gas, i.e., WMD. It is now a definitive fact that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein lied to the world when he said Iraqhad no WMD.



This information was disclosed at a Wednesday, June 21, press conference held by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-PA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.



To date, some of the top media have refused to report this story. They include:



CBS Evening News

CBS The Early Show

ABC World News Tonight

ABC Good Morning America

ABC Nightline

NBC Today

Los AngelesTimes

USAToday



To date, some of the top media that have downplayed or dismissed the findings include:



CNN: Quoted Democrat Jane Harman, "nothing new here," and weapons inspector Charles Duelfer that the ordinance did not constitute an ongoing WMD program.

NBC Nightly News: "One senator's new claim that weapons of mass destruction have been found."

MSNBC Countdown: "They are WMD: weapons of minor discomfort."

New York Times: headline, "For Diehards, Search for Saddam Hussein's Unconventional Weapons Isn't Over"

WashingtonPost: "Democrats criticize claim on Iraqi arms."

Associated Press: "├óÔé¼┬ª probably are so old they couldn't be used as designed ├óÔé¼┬ª"

Knight Ridder Newspapers: "├óÔé¼┬ª no new evidence ├óÔé¼┬ª"

I'd also like to reiterate a point I feel is often lost: Saddam...was...NUTS!

Published on Friday, January 23, 2004 by Reuters
Ex-Arms Hunter Kay Says No WMD Stockpiles in Iraq
by Tabassum Zakaria

"WASHINGTON - David Kay stepped down as leader of the U.S. hunt for banned weapons in Iraq on Friday and said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons."


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0123-12.htm

If you have something beyond that date, let us know.

May I point out that nearly all sources of information are biased, and much of it is false from both angles.

I personally cannot observe the situation myself - but mass media runs on conflict, and as the desire to maintain profit margin overrides the desire to maintain political stance in the current climate, the only possible reason not to report the existance of weapons of mass destruction on the part of a large firm is if they have not been found, as scandal is destructive even to those who profit by revealing it elsehwhere. A small media group has no chance of making a significant profit regardless, so pressing the political point is often more important to them than accuracy... and scandal is irrelevant because nobody takes them seriously but zealots tending to that extreme.

The crux of what I am saying being that the source of your information has little motivation to be correct and due to the focus of the report is highly unlikely to be telling the truth in the context of economic and political pressures.

This is a general point for everybody in this discussion - you can never use a "source" and be assured of authenticity. This is why debating concepts rather than specifics is often more effective among intellectuals - specifics can always be false, yet often seen as true until proven otherwise. Nobody assumes concepts are infalliable.

Did anyone here happen to know that dear old Mr Bush is wanted for torture in Canada?

I read it somewhere, in the T&D forum of TAU. Can't remember why, but the linked article used as proof seemed genuine

but mass media runs on conflict, and as the desire to maintain profit margin overrides the desire to maintain political stance in the current climate

BBC FTW!

Calm down people! Bush may not be the best guy, but at least he hasn't been connected to outright fraud. (unlike a certain lopsided prime minister who shall NOT remain nameless, Cretien). I think that the west needs to rethink its strategy about the whole anti-terrorism war. We can't just kill them all, that only makes more of them.

Zoombie wrote:I'd also like to reiterate a point I feel is often lost: Saddam...was...NUTS!

Quoted for truth. The world didn't lose any karma points when Saddam was forced out of office. Saddam being taken out was the right thing to do, although the cost was high. It seriously enrages me how much talk of pulling out there is going on right now. WOW, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS, A POLITICAL VACCUME IN THE MIDDLE EAST! I'm very far from a right winger, but as a human being who is not evil I don't see how there is any ethical ground for pulling out of Iraq.

Yay...someone noticed! Sadam was a nut. Say what you will about Bush, but at least he's not a nut.

Also we're building roads, schools, hospitals and such.

last post of mine in this thread methinks.

Neddiedrow's thoughts on the media "coverup" of the WMD found seem particularly apt to me. Partiularly so when i found and advert for this https://www.conservativebookclub.com/Jo ... d_cd=c6959) on one of the articles forboding cited.

Niether Sarin or mustard gas are posses "the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of human beings" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wmd) without an enormous amount of ammunition and/or a large scale sophisticated delivery system. None of the other things you listed are actual weapons, if you take as given warheads need delivery systems.

How did Saddam get that equipment?
How did Saddam get into power?
Did he have US support when using chemical weapons against his own people?

I know its cliched flamebate to say this, but chomsky has written a lot of really interesting, accountable, accurately referenced writing on the subject.

peace