Messages

Allright, the entertainment factor of this thread has dropped below AGS standards by now.

Oops, this pub had to be shut down.

Vintage: Stop making new threads. If you find, after extensive researching, that there exist absolutely no threads which suit your abnormal posting needs, at least put some thought into the ones you start.
Right now you just click the New Thread button and then you say "Hey look everybody I made a new thread now let's all talk in it!"

2ma2 is not greek, so I don't see what he's got to do with anything.

I think in a close-up perspective, there have been military interventions that have been successful, yes.
To create long-term stability, you need to make the world used to solving matters diplomatically. The recent intermezzos have increased the tension in the world again; USA is producing weapons like never before and their defense budget is astronomical. Israel makes ambiguous allusions towards nuclear weapons, Korea as well as Iran are directly challenging USA with threats about WMD's.

USA has lost its role as a nonpartial mediator. The world is getting even more polarized; middle-east versus the west. Terrorists thrive. You can be as sceptical as you want about this dystopian scenario (and claim that it's better now than in the middle ages or whatever) but I think you must agree that USA once had a really really good chance of becoming a true role model, the perfect mediator, but that chance is lost, and it will take ages to mend that reputation.

One way to lower the tension between A and B is if A takes advantage of the forces and movements that already exist inside B, and applies pressure with pr and money and good examples.

And then again, sure, in a few isolated occassions of on-going and immediate genocide, a well-planned and multi-laterally founded intervention can be justified.

The thing is, that when you write a poem like this, with a very defined rhyme-scheme, and also with a pop-cultural theme, you need to do it flawlessly.

Any normal poetry can never be labelled "amateurish" or bad, since poetry is often about inner feelings and subjectivity etc, but this one isn't, so you need to do it really really well.

Start by checking your rythm. In order to sound nice, it should be consistent. Check up how to use beats and adopt a nice verse-meter. Iambic pentameter is the most common English meter, and would work well with this poem.
ta-TA ta-TA ta-TA ta-TA ta-TA

right now, you first line goes:
ta-TA ta-ta-TA TA-TA TA-ta.....or something....very hard to read aloud.

Generally I find Family Guy awefully repetitious and unoriginal. This I found quite amusing, though:
The fat guy, Peter, and a bunch of other people have been taken hostage. The hostage takers confer; "if we want the police to take us seriously, we need to kill one in the hostage. But who?"
Then Peter know-it-allingly corrects them: "it's 'but whom'"

Snarky, it seems you have composed an extremely extensive post that only focuses on one idea, on one "vision". It would be interesting if you could touch upon the means of pursuing that sort of global ideal community, because, even though you're primarily a private insultant, I think you make many good points.

I agree with you (and would go farther than Helm in that respect) that it's not morally injustifiable to apply pressure on a certain state to change the direction of its political "course" so to speak, as long as it's not carried out unilaterally, but with the support of e.g. UN and globally agreed upon documents, like the charter for human rights.

My fundament in this case is that this cannot be obtained by external brute force. Not by military action. Not ever. Violent uprisers maybe, but not an invading force.
You mentioned how the invasion of Iraq backfired in a way that almost benefited the UN, simply because it became blatant what a bad decision it was. Well, to many of us it was blatant even before it happened. It shouldn't have had to happen. We have a history to lean on, we have the Vietnam, we have South America, we already know what's working and what's not.

My horror scenario is that USA starts bombing Iran now as well. My girlfriend has friends and family still left in Iran. In Iran people are enlightened and educated, the underground culture scene is vibrant and groundbreaking, people are hospitable and relatively western-friendly. Persians are not Arabs, they have less reason to be pissed off at westernes, and if you would travel there people would invite you for dinner. Persians always invite you for dinner.
So far.

Unfortunately, the people have still not managed to rise up against their leaders, the revolution is still to take place. The president of Iran is a psycho, a warmongering chauvinist who keeps challenging USA and UN mostly because he has some sort of illusions of grandeur.
What the global community can do, is to pour money into the oppositional movements in Iran, they can reach the young people via the internet, they can strengthen the democratical network, maybe even help installing political figures and pay their campaigns (and this figure should not be installed to serve the economical purposes of USA, as has always been the case before). Apply pressure, but not with bombs.

Now, in the end the revolution in Iran may turn out bloody. Trust me, I may sometimes refer to myself as pacifist, but I'm also a keen enthusiast of student revolts, and I know that in the end, a leader may have to be thwarted violently.
But it must be Iran's own revolution, and it must be allowed to take time. It must not be americans bomb, it must be Persian sticks and stones and banners and slogans.

The moment the first american (or Israeli) bomb drops on the soil of Iran, a certain percentage of its people will start to support their president instead, and a certain percentage will start to grow hostile and suspicious towards USA and in extension the global community.

Of course, all this applies to Iraq as well, only in Iraq it's too late now.

Very good post, Esper.

And yeah, the trend that most people add the claim "....but don't get me wrong, I still support the troops" is mostly because they want to sooth the people they're debating with, by not breaking the final taboo; to criticise the brave soldier himself.

I personally think you're responsible for your own actions. If you kill a person, don't blame anyone else.
USA does not practise mandatory drafting, and even though poor teenagers might be gullible enough to actually join the army with good intentions, it's still a matter of choice.

Every time you hear an official person, or a talk show host or whoever, condemn the war, or at least mildly question the moral excuse for it, they will always end with "but God bless our troops, they fight for what they think is right, yadyadya.."

So damn tired of it. Most of them are soldiers because they enjoy shooting with big guns.

Never heard of it...truthfully, I don't understand the point with it, granted of course that the very theme of the game isn't about our visual surroundings or graphics or whatever; a meta-representation of the game theme, so to speak.
Just having any random adventure game feature such a development seems a bit...strange.

When it comes to the dangers with having one aggressive military state acting without the support of the global community, attacking and invading other nations as it pleases it, USA constitutes a good example.
This is why I find it strange that people still choose to cling onto the idea that using military force whenever it tickles one's fancy can always be justified. It would be more understandable if USA did not have the history that it now in fact has.

It would be understandable if USA had a history of short, clinically planned military actions, fundamentally supported by the global community as well as their own population.

Tragically, USA has a history of lengthy, ill-planned, non-justified bloodbaths, and since Snarky is such a keen supporter of wikipedia, I'm sure he dig up references there.

Sometimes it feels like people are forgetting the past.

Not only do such notions hide the truth of the matter, but it would also mean that I'd have to buy into the idea that my voice, and the voices of all the other Americans that exercise their right to vote, and all the previous generations of Americans going all the way back to those people that fought a revolution and sacrificed their lives to found a nation based on the voice of the people are meaningless, because in the end the government will just do as it pleases. Sorry, I don't believe this, not for one second.

Don't get too sentimental, dude...but if you're so emotionally absorbed by the fate and the history of your grand nation, you should be much more worried than I am. If not for the sake of the stability of the world as we know it, but for America itself. Just refusing to believe things will not help your people to regain control of its constitution.

If I didn't think a great chunk of the Americans are perfectly reasonable and sensible democratic-loving citizens, I wouldn't spend so much time trying to prove my point in threads like this one. So well...good luck

Nacho, as SSH said in his post above, you're simply not very good at arguing. I don't know why you keep getting attracted to all these threads, cause you probably don't even like them yourself. You're the kind of person who's better off keeping to non-controversial stuff, being liked and saying nice things.

I think you're being provokative because you put words in my mouth, because you have a very fixed idea about what I'm like, mainly because I sometimes refer to myself as pacifist (by which I simply mean I'm against war. Interestingly, it's a term I've never used outside these forums).

I guess all those preconcieved notions sort of clash with a basic idea that you've had ever since you joined these forums, which is that I'm a nice guy who you'd like to be friends with.
I can understand that that must be a conflict for you.

However, most of your posts that touch subjects which are important to me are full of rubbish, which I have a hard time reading without letting you know about it. Truthfully, I'm tired of reading your posts in threads like this one, Nacho, and I wish you could steer clear from them.

Eagermind, if you can come up with examples of how citizens of any other nation have actually threatened the freedom of the American citizens, maybe people like Helm will take interest in your arguments again.

Of course, those examples must not be disproportionately insignificant compared to how the American state assaults the freedom of its own people, because then the whole case will turn pretty academic.

Like this:
Random middle east citizen's (afghan, iraqi) threat to american citizens = X

Threat generated by the panic, the domestic hunt for terrorists, the fear and sense of insecurity of being a nation in war, the economical consequences of the military operation, the patriot act, etc = Y

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself if it's worth it, if X really outweigh Y. Cause I have this funny feeling that X is like really really tiny in comparison.

Read my post again. I placed the anecdote in the day where the Statue was destroyed. Most people thought the war was ended. If you didn' t, I admire your clarividency, but I don' t have that super powers.

I see that your idea of wars is that they are like computer games, which end after a certain symbolic act, like the capturing of a flag or destroying of a statue, and then everyone is happy and scores are awarded. 
It doesn't take super powers to understand that America's affairs in Iraq would have long-lasting consequences.

Apparently, some of the auto-named "pacifists" preffer a burning Iraq ensuring them victorious debate moments in the internet and coffee chats. Curious way of pacifism. That reminds me an anecdote that happend the day the war in Iraq ended (The day of the falling Saddam statue). I (the "fascist war-lover")was extremelly happy and I said in my college, loud: "Finally, it has ended". And a "pacifist" replied "No, it hasn' t... There is still some time where the Iraqis will kill those american bastards"

Are you one of those "pacifists"?

Hm, it's interesting that you don't see anything wrong with yourself celebrating how "the war in Iraq ended"...what ended, Nacho? Just because Bush pompously claimed "mission accomplished", didn't mean that anything ended. It's still happening.

You know what, Nacho, you've once again confused your own profound aversion against pacifists (because damn me if you don't take up various personal experiences you've had with pacifists every time debates like these arise) with what could actually pass as a reasonable argument.

Pacifists don't "prefer a burning Iraq" so that they can win debates, and you're being stupid and provokative for saying so. The fact is that Iraq is burning while we speak, we're having a debate about it, and we pacifists are saying war is wrong because it makes stuff burn, countries and puppies and people and such, that's why we think war is inherently wrong, and, seriously Nacho, I don't know what you think about it. The only thing that ever comes clear out of your debate posts is that you don't like pacifists.

Nothing.

Why do I keep browsing this forum instead of reading the articles for my seminar tomorrow?

Good job, those who made this thing happen, once again.
I don't remember when I attended one of those award ceremonies last time.
Think it was '01.

Some drunkard puked on my tuxedo.

I get your points, mates. Next time I will try to create a scenery which allows for more original elements, without appearing un-professional.
The final version of this image can be found here:
http://features.cgsociety.org/gallerycrits/266948/266948_1171118841_medium.jpg
Added more details.

All in all, I'm not particularly satisfied with the image per see, but I'm rather happy that I pulled off such a big project.

If you get back to my cgtalk page I'll soon start uploading WIP-images for my next project.
See ya around!

While you're at it, check out Norah Jones' "Sunrise". A very peaceful song that makes me calm and warm inside.

Because physics says so.

Why is World of Warcraft so damned addicting.

Because its designers have found a good balance in the strife/reward relation. After a certain amount of going through troubles, the game will give you rewards, making the player's brain send out dopamin, causing a sense of satisfaction that will make the player addicted.

What will happen when everybody's addicted to MMORPG's?