FAI
-
Posts
320 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by FAI
-
-
Well if I may chime in here on a few points:
But in a total defence approach in terms of interoperability, logistic spt, etc. I'd say "yes".
In a region where people are buying Regts of T-72's for bargain basement prices, we need to maintain our technological edge.
Did that cover it?
Umm, who bought regiments of T-72s for bargain price in your region?
-
Early Vista was awful. So bad that I recommended that my company just skip it and wait for 7 (by "recommended", I mean that it was my decision as I run the IT department).
Well, the guy running our IT department here thought Win2000 was good enough for our desktops, anyway
-
LP/OP; or a patrol that decided to dig in rather than rejoin it's parent unit.
So, if it was just a separated but stationary unit, why didn't they just bypass it?
-
Okay. So when the guys come across that mg42 why do they rush it rather than stand off and let the sharpshooter do his work?
It just seems pointless, stupid and poor tactical decision for such well trained troops.
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?
-
Let's compare apples to apples. Compare Bradley with BMP-3 not the ancient BMP-1/2. It's the same as saying that 30 year old man will kick the ass of a 70 year old men.
You can do a test in game - set up 5 BMP-3 vs 5 Bradley's and see the results.
Perhaps the comparison should be between BMP-3 and Stryker MGS?
-
Note to self -- big tanks make big targets for big 'splodey things. Run like hell.
Steve
Or don't bunch up your armor...
-
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.
-
The last time I was "offended" by a video game was when I watched some Medal of Honor: World at War videos (if I am not mistaken) and saw for the first time the knife attack to the throat of a Japanese soldier! In that moment I just thought to myself: "WTF, how can they show something like this in a mainstream video game!" It was not Fallujah, but offending nonetheless!
Best regards,
Thomm
Thomm... I know what you're talking about... big turn off for me too. I love running around in an FPS game and blowing away the enemy just as much as the next FPS guy, but at some point it becomes too... personal. Too real. I play FPS games to have fun, and as far as I'm concerned slitting someone's throat crosses the line. Doesn't matter who is getting the throat slashed, so I'm consistentSteve
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.
-
Maybe so, but I never could suspend disbelief with Bond, but always could manage to do so with Bourne. At least as far as the character went, anyway.
The early Bourne, yeah. But the latest Bourne, not so much.
-
actually, does anyone know if we might be getting in game kill stats for individual units in CM:N; however, I think stats for killed/wounded, kills, and bullets fired would be sweet. I would most definitely have a nerdgasm if we got that.
Who could forget the gloating screenshots of an ace Tiger with impossibly long list of victims in a single engagement
-
You think that pothole by the road looks a tad suspicious and wonder how many 152mm shells could be buried in there...
-
-
it what it is.. I'm not that down on the US guy... not stirling work but its a heartfelt expression and at least its some sort of communication
I don't pretend to know how much he is on the money but not far off is not out of the question...
the thing is it just highlights how difficult it task it was from the start with the skill set you have.
the us (military) are not renowned for tact or social insight into other cultures never mind trying to fixing them....
on a aside there is concern in kurdish areas that a us withdrawal will trigger civil war between the central gov and kurdistan... from kurds themselves that rumor.
Does it mean the breakdown of current Iraqi government after US withdrawal is not a matter of "IF", but "WHEN"?
-
Agreed. Didn't seem like he put a lot of effort into it.
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.
-
Space Lobsters of Doom is something I would love to see. All the restrictions on history lifted and the developers imaginations let free to caper madly. It's bound to be good.
The Hammer's Slammers is a good model for SLOD...
-
Virtual punishment battalions... ah... sounds like an idea for CM: Eastern Front
Steve
Is that an OK for NKVD units?
-
I'm not okay with Iran having weapons, but I acknowledge in the long run it probably cannot be prevented short of full scale invasion. Regardless, if strikes can delay that date to 2012 or 2020, or whatever, I think that's worth doing. Delay means there cannot possibly be nuclear exchange in the interim.
How do you see it?
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.
-
FAI - Your argument seems to be that since the USA aided Israel in achieving nuclear weapons, Iran is bound to obtain them too, since our plan wasn't to give them to everybody from the start. So the inherent unfairness in our policy will be it's undoing. Presumably then, had the Western powers not seen fit to arm Israel, the entire world community would now be united in it's efforts to prevent Iran from arming, since there would be no unfairness or hypocrisy to the policy. I can't agree with you there. From my perch, outside of the USA, the 'world community' is pretty passive and toothless in these matters. Iran would arm unmolested, but for American and/or Israeli intervention.
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'être to sit on the fence. But that argument is untested, since Israel already have nukes anyway, thanks to the US.
-
And since when are feelings a national security concern? We're supposed to allow the world to weaponize so America is not called nasty names? That's childish and foolish.
Of course, this focus on popularity, and seeking the approval of others, drives much leftist thought around the world, regardless of consequences. Better to be conquered than to be called a warmonger or a hypocrite.
This mentality might be conducive to dating, but fails in the harsh realm of international competition. The nation that loves his enemy, and turns the other cheek, cannot endure.
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.
-
I reject the implicit suggestion that if everybody has nukes, the world is a safer place because nobody will risk a hot war. It only ensures that eventually there will be a hot war with a nuclear exchange.
Those non-interventionists who advocate doing nothing physical to prevent regimes like Iran from going nuclear are by default in the proliferation camp. Unmolested, they will gain the technology. I can't see how that makes the world a safer place.
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.
-
The big problem is the Israeli nukes. Iran is increasingly becoming a major player in the ME, it does not feel comfortable knowing Israeli nukes are mere minutes away from delivery. Furthermore. Notwithstanding the legitimate security concerns of Israel, the increasing saber rattling coming from Tel Aviv will certainly not reassure Teheran.
Much like the USSR after WW2, Iran will not feel comfortable unless it has its own nukes so there is a collision coming between Israel and Iran. Whether it will be a balance of terror, like the Cold War or degenarate into a hot war, only time will tell.
I am very interested to see what President Obama will do to ease the tension.
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.
-
Taliban is fragged by grenade, while incoming grenade wounds Marine. Total Tally - 21 Taliban WIA or KIA. 1 Marine WIA.
What kind of hand grenade that could shatter a stone wall?
-
Sweden is really worth doing. Canadians are just Germans with a shoestring budget.
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?
-
and yet another twist...
from the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4640052/Israel-launches-covert-war-against-Iran.html
I don't know if it is true or not, but assassination is certainly less public than an air strike...but the question remains, do the ends justify the means...
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.
Terminator Salvation" won't hit theaters until next summer, but thousands of fans got
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
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....