Messages

Nope!  Your avatar just reminds me of the character Mat Cauthon from the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan.  So I was just wondering ...

sorry 'bout that

dm

[DaveGilbert]

Looks cool!

Hey DaveGilbert, just outta curiousity, does the name Mat Cauthon mean anything to you?

dm

I love your style man!  I can't wait to see a final game to come outta this.  Just the style of your art makes me want to play the game.

Keep up the great work!

dm

[EDIT]

I like it!  But shouldn't the shell go behind him?  When you fire a gun left handed (unless it's a right handed gun) the shell travels out to the left.  So I'm going to assume he's left handed (like me) but the gun is tooled for a right handed shooter.  Yeah, that's it ... now the world makes sense again.

dm

EDIT - How 'bout making the chamber on the gun slide back too.  That would add a lot to it!

[DARTH]

DARTH - Well I think if you've  been hiding under a rock for the last 27 years or so you won't know what that's in reference to.

MANDARB - Is a name from Robert Jordan's the Wheel of Time series of books.  It's a word from the old tongue which translates to 'Blade'

I started reading WoT back in 1991 and have used the nickname Mandarb ever since.  Then, when signing up for theforce.net's message boards I figured I should go with something Star Warsie ... so I added the Darth.  Then, when signing up here, I figured I'd stick with the same name.  Just 'cause I'm used to using it.

dm

DVDs aren't as expensive as VHS tapes.  For some reason, when places like Blockbuster get VHS tapes, they're initially from $75 - $100.  Which is rediculous.  But DVDs they get for normal price.

These places ask for/need a credit card.  Otherwise losers would come in, open false accounts, and then never return the product(s).

And rule of thumb;  Don't insult the employees enforcing the rule.  It's company policy, not their's.  And because it's company policy, you can either accept it, or rent elsewhere.

If you want to get mad at somebody, get mad at the losers who caused this to become necessary by stealing product, not the people in charge of keeping their businesses prosperous!

(can any of you tell I used to work at Blockbuster??)

Bummer man ...

You should just do what I do;  have many meaningless wild nights with random gals you pick up at the pub until you find the 'right one'.  She's out there ... and Michelle obviously wasn't her!  Don't sweat it!

I dated a gal named Michelle about 3 months ago ... she turned out to be a BAD BAD person ... perhaps that name is cursed?  Does anybody know any good Michelles ??  The current gal I'm seeing is named Megan, she's nice so far.  I'm also in the beginning dating stages with another named Renee and she seems alright too.

Rich, were any of your other bad experiences with Renee's or Megan's?  Maybe you could warn me away from these ones ??

I'm just trying to cheer you up man!  It'll get better, believe me, we've all been there!

dm

That's one thinkin' gal there!

Great idea!

dm

This is awesome!

I was working on something like this, but you just did the work for me!  I don't know if I'll use this in my game Rebel Spy because I like to use all my own stuff.  But if I can't get it to work on my own, can I use this?  If I do you'll get props in the credits!

dm

[Ultimo]

Star Wars: Rebel Spy - A Prelude to Hope

Ultimo - Thanks for the praise!

I thought (EU wise) that it was Kyle Katarn (the guy from the Jedi Knight game) who stole the plans.  That's what the Star Wars Encyclopedia says anyway.

But as far as the game goes, I'm just using what's in the movie, so worry not!  I've got it all figured out!!  I've thrown in some suprises, which I just can't give away here

dm

[The AGS board: 'War Unleashed ...' Armistice]

Some good points.

But France isn't the reason why Bush couldn't get the support of the Security Council. Noone denies that the US would have had a whole lot less than the required 9 votes. It wouldn't even have been necessary for France to use their veto.

I think that too many of the countries wanted to support the US but were too invested with a relationship with France, and since France wasn't going to back it they were too chicken shit to step up.  Plus, and I'll be the first to admit this, the US tends to do what they want regardless of public/world opinion.  Almost all those countries who wouldn't support the US originally have now stepped up.  The coalition has gotten like 42 members in support now.

The AGS board: 'War Unleashed ...' ArmisticeI don't think I'm going to reply to this thread anymore.  I know some of you now hate me (or perhaps just strongly dislike me) and I am saddened by that.   I respect that you all believe as strongly as you do, I hope you can respect that I believe what I believe strongly as well.  But to be honest I'm getting a headache from this thread and I don't want that.  There's enough anger and dissent in the world right now.  I don't want to add (even in this small insignificant way) to it.  I became a member of this forum because I found AGS and am a huge fan of adventure games and I wanted to add to this community.

So I'll make this 'truce' pledge to all of you.  I will continue to post in other threads.  I won't hold my values and beliefs against any of you who oppose them in other posts/threads if you'll do the same for me.  This war is a touchy subject, but lets see if we can rise above our differences and get past this.  I look forward to hearing from you guys (and gals) in other threads.

dm

PS
If there are any serious questions that any of you want me to reply to please PM me.

[suspicion]

The reasons given by the administration have changed almost every day, depending on what suits the current mood of the public.

The initial reason for this war was that "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and we must initiate a preemptive strike in order to stop him from attacking us in the future."

We didn't initiate a preemptive strike without first trying to get him disarm through diplmacy.  12 years of diplomacy to be exact.  Do you think we should have left him alone to continue developing these weapons?

It has changed from that to being about not complying with the UN resolutions, coupled with telling the UN that the US doesnt really give a rats ass about its opinion, while at the same time conveniently using its resolutions as a reason.

The UN failed.  Actually, I don't really blame the UN.  I blame France.  I'm disgusted by France's unwillingness to help the US.  The 56,681 Americans who died liberating France in World Wars I and II are rolling over in their graves.

The third and now the noble reason, ah to liberate the people of iraq. They are so opressed. Well people are opressed all over the world, why isnt the US stepping in there? There's a saying that goes 'A man usually has two reasons for doing anything, one reason that sounds good, another that is the truth'. This is the reason that sounds good.

I would imagine that the US is stepping in.  But if it doesn't come down to military action it doesn't get much press.  I don't like the cynasism in the world that demands that there's always deceit in every situation.  Why can't the reason that sounds good and the truth sometimes be the same?

In my opinion, the US has lowered the standards for starting a war. There was no attack by anyone, there was no evidence that there would ever be an attack, there was nothing but a suspicion that he might attack at some future unspecified date. Tomorrow if someone decides the US might attack them sometime in the future, sort of like what n korea is saying, then are they wrong when they attack the US? That reasoning gives every country a reason to attack almost any other country who shows the least bit of aggression towards them. Hell, Saddam didnt even blink towards the US before all this started.

It's not like the US said, "Well, they might attack us so let's invade" that's silly.  Iraq has been defying the UN for 12 years since the end of the Gulf War?  We didn't (necessarily) invade Iraq just because of their potential threat.  We invaded because they weren't disarming and were defying the sanctions put on them after the Gulf War.  They were throwing it in the worlds faces.  Denying interviews with weapons inspectors, denying them entrance into certain areas, denying them entrance into Iraq at all.  Then giving the run around about supposedly disarming.  They were asking for it.  I think they wanted this war.

Again, its not about Saddam being good, it is about railroading the world into a war that is causing casualties on all sides and accomplishing little except wiping out every bit of goodwill the US has had in the world, in the short space of a couple of months.

Removing a dictator from power and freeing an oppressed people is not 'accomplishing little'.  Again, I say I am afraid of world reaction to what we're doing over there, but again, it's worth it, for the people of Iraq.  I know, and hate that fact, that many will die because of the war in Iraq.  But if Saddam is left in power, far worse tradgedies will continue, in Iraq and possibly around the world.

PS: I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I meant that the US cannot just appoint itself arbiter of what does and does not define freedom according to its own ideas of freedom. So you can't just go attack a country because it is not conforming to what your idea of freedom is. Everybody will end up attacking everybody. Unless you somehow intend to apply this rule to the US only, in which you are making it the arbiter of freedom for the entire world.

I didn't misinterpret you, I just don't agree with you.  Freedom is freedom, and everybody should have it.

The idea that the US is the arbiter of freedom in the 'free' world sounds pretty arrogant to me.  "Oh,you don't meet our ideas of freedom, off you go!"

If we (America) don't do it, who will?  Do you think just because Saddam's regime doesn't meet our ideas of freedom we should let him go on killing people?  What about Milosovich?  What about Hitler?  What about Mohammad Farrah Aidid?  These people shouldn't continue to benefit in their reigns of terror just because they don't meet our ideas of freedom.  You either misinterpret what I said/meant or perhaps don't agree?

Darth: I am very sorry to tell you this, you probably will not care about it because you may think I'm just crazy, but you are really brainwashed, and I say it because all the arguments you say are just what the politicians say and everyone can realize they're just sophism...

I don't think you're crazy.  You have your opinions, and you choose to believe what you choose to believe, as I do.  I wouldn't say that makes me any more 'brainwashed' though.  I mean, I can turn around and say that you've been brainwashed by those people you site as your sources.  They can make statements about the evil acts committed by this person or that, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.  Why does what they say mean more than what somebody else says.  It's been my experience that for every person who says one thing, there is always a contradicting point made by somebody else.  Do you believe that every politician is a bad person?  That all they do is lie?

And when the general in charge asked for 48 more hours so he could get Saddam (and he really could) daddy Bush stopped the war right there because he wanted Saddam right in the place he were. See how it ended now.  Remember to read the other side of the coin, there is always a hidden interest in every politic action, always.

The first Gulf War's intention was the liberation of Kuwait.  Not an invasion of Iraq.  That's one of the reasons President Bush called a cease fire.  That's another side of the coin, perhaps you should have read.

I don't mean offense, but you told me to read the other side of the coin.  I'm a historian, and one thing I know for fact is that for everything you think you know about an event, there's always 10 things you don't.  So please, don't make the assumption that I don't 'read the other side of the coin'.  There is a difference between not reading the other side and stating my opinion.

darth: Business and economy prospers in the war due to massive government spending, as you said, the government spent 60 billion dollars on this, this means that that 60 bill will go towards the businessess or whatever has any relation towards the war.
To put it in proper terms, the government has made a 60 billion dollar injection into the economy.
just thought I'd try and clarify that point for you

Well, as I said, I'm no economist, but that didn't clarify anything for me.  That just doesn't make sense.  They're taking money 'from' the economy and spending it 'on' a war ... were is the injection?

[Argument:]

Okay people.  Since my 'sarcasm' has obviously offended some of you I will attempt to tone it down, because I do seriously wish to continue proving my point.

Argument:
Saddam kills innocent civilians.  I made this point and it was responded to by saying something about all the people George Bush killed with the death penalty.

My Response
Saddam kills innocent people.  In 1988 he gassed and killed over 6000 innocent people.  In America, people who are given the death penalty are not innocent.  They have been convicted of a crime, and were sentenced to death.  (whether or not they were actually guilty is an argument over the US justice system and shouldn't be touched here ... start another post )  And not every state has the death penalty anyway.  George Bush may be for the death penalty, but so are a lot of other people.


Argument:
US is sticking its nose in where it shouldn't (paraphrasing)

My Response:
Freedom is, in my opinion, the simplest and most important value in the world.  It is something that I feel a lot of people take for granted.  Because I think, and very deeply feel, that freedom should be a worldwide right, I think that where ever there is an injustice, where ever there is a tyrant, where ever there is oppression, where ever there is a people being restricted and denied their freedom, somebody should step up and help out.  To restore freedom where it has been removed.  It seems to me (just my opinion) that it's always the US who steps up.  Why anybody else can't I don't know.  In the words of the constitution "... all men are created equal."  This doesn't just mean Americans.  All people are equal and deserve to have freedom ... use whatever form of government you want, but you must have freedom.

Argument:
I have been called a 'victim'.  A victim of public opinion, and a victim of the desire to be on the winning team.

My Response:
I believe very strongly in the American ideal and way of life.  I believe that America is the greatest nation in the world.  I believe that Saddam must be dealt with.  So I support the action being taken.  I am deeply concerned about the reprecussions of what might happen due to US (and UK) involvement.  I just don't think we could have or should have let the injustice continue any longer.  If caring about my country, and wanting it to remain great, makes me a victim, then I suppose I am a victim.  If caring about what happens to innocent people on the other side of the world, and being behind the effort being undertaken to help them achieve freedom, again, I guess I'm a victim.  I don't consider myself a victim, I consider myself a patriot and true American.


Argument:
The US is a war monger.  They just used this war to stimulate the economy, etc.  (again, paraphrasing)

My Response:
I don't feel that the US is a war monger.  I think 12 years of diplomacy to enforce UN sanctions on Iraq is way too much time.  I feel that the UN failed, that diplomacy failed.  I have spoken to a lot of people who agree with me on this.  I have heard countless people being interviewed on TV and in the papers, and on websites, who feel this same way.  If it was just me, I wouldn't be expressing my opinion so adamantly.  And lastly, this war is going to cost 60 billion dollars plus.  I don't see how that is beneficial to the economy, but I'm not an economics major, so I could be wrong.


That's all for now.

dm

[DGMacPhee]

That's such an important point, Evenwolf.. And extremely relevant. I think it is very parallel to the idea of 'preemptive attacks'. Let's kick the Iraqi's ass, just in case. WE don't really have evidence, but they ARE the bad guys, and we ARE the good guys, so we can bomb them anyways.

We had/have evidence people.  For the love of God open your eyes (and your minds).

Wrong. He - at MOST - discredited that one post, but probably only that one point, since the rest of his arguments were clear and reasonable, which can't be said for more than a few (I think I counted three or four sane arguments in *all* your posts on this topic) of yours. Asking how old he is, that one made me laugh. Not because it is witty or smart, but because it is pathetic. Truthfully, I went to check your age in your profile after reading the first two or three posts you made, because I couldn't believe you could be more than 16 or 17, judging by your attitude and arguments. I usually never do that, and I haven't done so with EvenWolf, because it just never occurred to me to check if he was a kid. It did with you. If that's not enough of an argument to make you think twice about your sarcastic (childish sarcasm, I might add) and naive argumentation methods, I don't know what is. You come off as a teenager, and I'm not saying this to flame you, I'm telling you because you do and because it's sad.

Because I back up what I say and make strong points that makes me 16 or 17?  Just because you agree with this Evenwolf character who doesn't make sense?  Just because you agree with him doesn't make me wrong.  So who is being close minded now?  Unlike DGMcphee who won't open his mind because I use sarcasm, you won't open yours because you don't agree with me.  Perhaps I should check your age.

And finally, my opinions only took four lines to state and yet you keep wishing to bombard me with sarcastic replies that make no sense whatsoever -- I consider that way more closed-minded than anything else.
A fool always persists in such folly.

I agree ... so why do you keep persisting?  My replies (yes, yes, using the dreadful sarcasm) may take a few more lines, but at least they prove my point.  Rather than being close minded and short.

So blather away, kiddo -- I'm only listening to Pro-Bush people who can at least keep a civil tongue.

Yeah, that was civil.  Freakin' hypocrit.

DGMacPhee
When you open your mind a little, I'll continue to debate with you.  If you can't take a little sarcasm, you shouldn't post your opinions.  You can't take sarcasm and  I don't like close mindedness.  The difference is that I am able to deal with your close mindedness.  Obviously you can't deal with sarcasm.

dm

Basically, you are correct but Bush initiated the current drive to have the inspections complete.  You failed to refute my previous point about the firing of scud missiles.  I know they are in violation and there were obviously in existence.  However, they weren't used until the US attack was beginning.

I agree with you on all points in this quote.  Bush did push.  And there's a part of me that says he only did it to finish what 'daddy' didn't.  The scuds were in violation, and he shouldn't have had them period.  Regardless that he only fired them after we invaded, why did he have them in the first place?  He wasn't supposed to, and for 12 years he was told (by the world) to disarm, and he didn't/wouldn't.

All I am saying is that Bush was pushing the completion of the inspections and regardless of the inspection's outcome, would've initiated an attack on Iraq.     How can we actually stand behind an individual that is unwilling to stand behind agreements that we've made as a country with other nations?  He's violating treaties formed under the United Nations.

I agree w/ this ... sort of.  I mean, I think he was pushing the completion for a few reasons.  I think he very likely wanted to take action on Iraq, and may have pushed inspections for that reason, but also (I like to think) that he also saw that Saddam was a potential threat.  I don't know if our country can take another 9/11.  ALL actions to prevent that should be taken in my opinion.  As far as violating treaties ... I hate that it had to happen, but don't you think the protection of America is important enough?  What treaties were violated?  I'm unfamiliar with them.

I did note that you didn't bother to defend his intelligence level.  His mental landscape is miserably bleak.

He does sometimes have an absolutely 'bewildered' look on his face

*However*, I certainly hope that the war accomplishes whatever it's supposed to as quickly as possible so that my friends in the service can get the hell home as soon as possible and the Iraqi populace can breathe a little easier.

Amen.

Also, you may rail against the pacifists and the protestors but have you stopped to think that some of their publicity and their actions might be enough to turn aside repercussion against our civilian population?  At least other nations will know that we're not an entire nation of warmongers and that some of us are not on a personal vendetta against the religion of Islam (I'm not saying Bush/US is..  it's just what the Arabs are saying in the press).

Actually no ... I never thought about it that way.  I wish that was their only motive though.  And of course, most terrorists are so fanatical, and their hatred so blinding, that the protesters probably wouldn't effect them.  But you never know!

dm

Thank you for allowing me to post my own comments, I will.  This is incredible that in your mind- you also think that knowing a person face to face = reading that person's mind.  If that was the only way to judge character in this world, then I would easily throw it back to you- Have you met Saddam?   No, but you do have evidence of his actions, of his character- you have documents and celebrity TV anchormen telling you what to think. Simply because I perceive Bush differently than you do- I personally must know him first before making any judgements?  How did you bypass this vital step- or are you sitting next to him right now?  "Do you KNOW him?"; such argument is so basic.

What has Bush done that makes you think he doesn't care for the Iraqi people?  That is my question.  I don't think you have to know somebody face to face to know what they want or think and care about.  I'm just asking you to back up your statement that Bush doesn't care about the Iraqi people.  I haven't met Saddam, but it's pretty much public knowledge that he's not a nice guy.  His actions in the last few decades have shown this over and over and over again.  What has Bush done that proves (to you at least) that he doesn't care about the Iraqi people?

We are NOT killing as few casualties as possible. Prove that point to me, and how a thousand missiles enters into the peaceful equation,

So do you think that the American military is aiming for innocent civilians?  You believe the propaganda that Saddam's lackies are using?  I can't necessarily 'prove' that we are trying to keep down the number of civilian deaths.  But I highly doubt you can prove to me that we aren't either.  This is a war.  In war, unfortunately, civilians are killed.  Saddam brought this on himself, so if you want to blame civilian deaths on somebody, blame him, not the American military.

And it doesnt even matter if he does?
So, if and when your leader lies to you- you are convinced such an instance is isolated from all the other fancy things he claims but never adheres to?

What has he said, and not adhered to?  Again, please prove your points so I can address them.

dm

Wolf - relax bro!  Take it easy.  We can't all be as smart as me!

They weren't supposed to?  When was this?  Before or after we threatened them with annihilation?  Was this before or after we deployed and began a bombing campaign?

After the Gulf War (1991 that is!) Iraq was, as the loser, given certain military restrictions.  One of these restrictions was that they couldn't have weapons of mass destruction.  These include (forgive my spelling) Scud missles, Al Sammoud 2 missles, and Al Abheer (sp??) missles.  Also, chemical and biological weapons of any kind.

First Saddam wouldn't even let the UN weapons inspectors in, then when they finally got in they found the Al Sammouds (and caught them trying to sneak them out the back).  Then Saddam forbid the inspectors from entering.  He was forced to let them back in (I think it was 1998) and then wouldn't let them privately interview anybody.  He gave them the run-around from the start and he's been doing this for years.  They even found proof of experiements with a nuclear reactor.

However, any rational individual knew, from the first time it was announced that weapons inspections would take place to determine if we would attack, that Bush would declare non-compliance and order an attack.

The weapons inspectors were ordered in years before (the current) Bush was elected into office.  And they were UN sanctioned (shocking).  So it's not like Bush Jr. came in and said "I'm going to invade Iraq"  Well ... I suppose he might have  But he didn't start the inspections.  He was just the one who said "It's been 12 years, we know he's got weapons he shouldn't have, this is rediculous!"

[edit]

Evenwolf

And you live in a bubble.  Mr Bubble Bugglage Bubbles

You just discredited everything you've ever said in these forums and will ever say here again.  How old are you?  I was asking a serious question, looking for a serious answer.  Thanks for proving my point.  (I know ... I know ... I use 'sarcasm' ... ooh the horror!)

Why are you so convinced that President Bush doesn't like or care for the Iraqi people?  Do you know him personally and he told you this?  Or are you just guessing 'cause you don't like him?  Even if he doesn't like them ... does this matter?  He's still going to be responsible for their liberation and they will love him for it.  (Now you can make your comments about that's what he wants)

Perhaps there's more fun stuff you can find at conspiracy.com ... I hear it's a great site!

We may never find biological weapons (most likely 'cause the Iraqis are probably, in a panic, over there right now destroying them!) but they've already fired scuds at our troops.  Which they weren't supposed to have.  Right there is proof.

As some in here are bound to ask, YES I heard about the scuds on CNN.  But I guess all the live footage is being faked right?  You probably think the moon landing was a scam too.

dm

edit Yak - I truely hope you don't have to go over there.  I wouldn't wish that on anybody!  I feel really bad for those Iraqi troops who are surrendering in big numbers.  I don't know if I could bring myself to shoot somebody like that.  I hope you never have to make that choice man.end edit

Okay people ... this has gotten WAY off topic here.

War Unleashed ...

So you're all for the war right?



For those of you who are Anti-War (or even pro-war 'cause this is great!!!)
Anti-War Protester talks vs. Iraqi Immigrant

dm