Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FAI

  1. The Skynet's idea of air defence is a couple of lousy flaks? Future soldiers don't have NVGs and still have to make do with flashlights when assaulting (no so) heavily defended enemy fortress? What kind of CPU is running the Terminators? 486s? It couldn't hit anything form a very short range with a friggin minigun! And don't even get started on the time travel conundrum....
  2. Umm, who bought regiments of T-72s for bargain price in your region?
  3. Well, the guy running our IT department here thought Win2000 was good enough for our desktops, anyway
  4. So, if it was just a separated but stationary unit, why didn't they just bypass it?
  5. Somebody needed to die according to the plot, and an MG42 was a cool way to die on a war movie. You should ask why on earth the lone MG42 was there at the first place?
  6. Perhaps the comparison should be between BMP-3 and Stryker MGS?
  7. When I KO'd my first M1 in the demo, I think, with early T-72s no less. A lone M1 charged the Red infantry line, right into plain view of at least a company of hiding T-72s. Everybody opened up with everything they got. The M1 must have taken more than a dozen hits before the crew bailed out.
  8. CoD:WaW, where while playing the Rusian campaign, you were also frequently encouraged to execute German POWs, though with less gore than the slitting of Japanese soldiers' throat.
  9. The early Bourne, yeah. But the latest Bourne, not so much.
  10. Who could forget the gloating screenshots of an ace Tiger with impossibly long list of victims in a single engagement
  11. You think that pothole by the road looks a tad suspicious and wonder how many 152mm shells could be buried in there...
  12. Does it mean the breakdown of current Iraqi government after US withdrawal is not a matter of "IF", but "WHEN"?
  13. Somebody tell his editor that... Yeah, that was (one of) the laziest game review I've ever read, despite the praise. Maybe just to be safe or whatever.
  14. The Hammer's Slammers is a good model for SLOD...
  15. Have you thought about other forms of delaying tactics? Ones that don't involve cruise missiles and wanton murder? Ones that don't burn all the bridges and ensure no peaceful solution will come out of it? And do you think that Iran would simply take it on the chin? Iran too, has resources, capabilities and willingness for violence. Somebody flew airplanes into buildings in your cities, and you invaded two countries for that. Imagine what Iran would do should somebody offered them a much more gratuitous insult? With their present and future capabilities? With airstrikes and assasinations, you may have peace until 2012 or 2020, but nor after that. Maybe not even until 2012 or 2020.
  16. Not just Israel's nukes, really. Everybody's nukes. The genie is out of the bottle now, and short of full scale military intervention, eveybody who wants nukes badly enough will get it. Even a full scale military intervention will not stop the proliferation since it would also give all the reason to go nuclear in the first place. It is possible that the world community is only using Israel's nukes as a confenient raison d'ĂȘtre to sit on the fence. But that argument is untested, since Israel already have nukes anyway, thanks to the US.
  17. Excatly. Everybody grudgingly accepted and assumed that the US would only act based on her national interest and her allies', not necessarily for everyone else's benefit. Nobody actually believed that the US would lift a finger to disarm Israel's nukes, for example. And thus the US' idea of non-proliferation is doomed to fail partly because of its inherent hypocrisy. Unless the US is willing to enforce this non-proliferation by force, pretty much alone.
  18. The real suggestion is that you cannot prevent a select few from having nukes while you happily allow their natural enemies to amass nukes without being called out as a hypocrite. Well, by similar default the US is in the proliferation camp for ignoring other proven nuclear weapons.
  19. The previous US administrations did not view allowing (and helping) Israel to have hundreds of nukes while saber rattling Iran for attempting to have a few of their own as hypocrisy. Of course, nobody could have suspected the US of sincerety in dealing with nuclear proliferation either.
  20. What kind of hand grenade that could shatter a stone wall?
  21. So is the Dutch, to a degree I thought the French will have more "entertaining" value. I bet it would triple the Blue vs Blue scenarios in no time. FFL vs USMC, anyone?
  22. A very fatalistic approach by Israel. Short of full scale invasion, Iran will get the nukes. Assasinating a scientist or two would only stoke the anger already broiling in Iran. It could be that Israel thought they couldn't get it any worse with Iran's attitude as it is now, but it also could be the straw that broke the back of the camel.
  • Create New...