Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I have tried this battle on a new pc using windows 7 and it still crashes the game every time I play it. Even if I make a save game it always crashes in the same place. It looks like a fantastic scenario and I really want to play it. Has anyone managed to complete it?
  2. I keep crashing when I play Ambush at Dashkur using WeGo. I dont think its a CPU problem because I have managed to play some other larger NATO quick battles without crashing. I really like this mission but I always cash to desktop Windows XP SP3
  3. Could someone please direct me to a printable version of the Field Manual v1.20 (.pdf file).
  4. This looks very interesting indeed! I cant wait till its ready snake eye
  5. This was my first time playing the mission and it was superb! I made it into town with no casualties after getting some covering fire from the police snipers occupying elevated positions. Using CAS I managed to foil the enemies attacks but look heavy losses when the Cavalry turned up just in time. After clearing the town I secured the prisoner and began to pull out. Then, on the road out of town an F-15 that had been spotted by a KIA squad (meaning I couldn't give a cease fire order) took out the prisoner's transport :eek:
  6. Congrats Mord. Your dedication is inspiring.
  7. I thankyou Mead for complementing the "eloquence" of my assertions. I am trying to be very careful exactly how I express my counter points to test your arguments (which I dont entirely disagree with). For the record, I find this debate quite fascinating and I`ve learned a lot. I have a rule not to talk religion or politics in real life with people becuase it seems to always lead to argument and bring out the worst in folks (plus im no expert) but I have decided to risk it in cyber space, and I dont regret it. To clarify, I was not trying to create a moral-equilivence between the United States and that of Islamic Jihidists (which I agree is not true), but between American Christian fundamentalists and say Islamic Jihidists in Afghanistan, both of whom support global terrorism. I feel that I've made my point now and I wont labour it. I'm using Christian fundamentalists as an example here becuase of the parallels with Islamic Extremism, but other self-serving parties such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests groups lobbying, influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races. My second point was that I'm trying to humanize some of the enemy, and show that there is a real moral-equilivence. For instance, I do agree that there is no exclusively military solution to the Iraq/stan situation and to create a stable and secure state governed by its people, that does not represent a strategic threat to free democracies, is a better solution. This is working in the Musa Qala provence of 'stan where a taliban leader has changed sides and is now the district govenor. This could only be achieved by talking to the enemy and finding a moral-equilivence. However other Taliban leaders unreasonably refuse to negotiate becuase of a fundamental "conflict of visions" and bloodshed is a necessary solution. The enemy is a collection of groups, each one requiring a different approach. however, perhaps it is naive to think we can bring western style democracy to ancient tribal societies by force. It took 100's of years in Europe to evolve our system of government. I do beleive we can win these wars, but only if winning means not losing.
  8. If your ethics place you in opposition to Islamic extremists, and citizens of countries that support and harbour them, do your ethics also put you in opposition to Christian fundamentalists, and citizens of nations that support and harbour them? Or, becuase Christian fundamentalists pose not direct harm to you right now, do you not consider them not to be in violation of your ethics and therefor not your enemy?
  9. That was basically the attitude of the 9/11 terrorist. If elements within the US 'knowingly' facilitating said 'negative occurrances' on human beings whom otherwise are trying to go about their daily lives, which may include 'working' for money in order to sustain, protect, or otherwise benefit human life, ie 'innocent' people, then are they legitimate targets too? From the ME perspective some are even willing to live extremely dishonorable lives in order to see them cry. That's what 911 was all about. They would die for that not to happen again. Even if it means having to feed a lot of people Boeing 767/improvised JDAM sandwiches. And how would you feel if America was occupied and deverstated by a foreign invader in order to deal with this top level "terrorist" minority, becuase America is unable or unwilling to deal with them itself and even supports and harbours them? And how would you react if your home was layed to waste while being used as a magnet to draw out this enemy into open conflict? You see how your rhetoric was easy to turn around? My point is that 9/11 wasnt just solely becuase they wanted to see Americans cry. It takes two to tango and war is usually(perhaps always?) the result of failures on both sides. Conflict is however, sometimes a necessary reality. But becuase the innocent almost always suffer, it has to be used as a tool to ultimately save more lives then it costs. My fear is the Iraq war, or the support of Isreal, will not do this, so perhaps it is time to cut our losses.
  10. I agree meade95 some have earned a bullet and should get one. But perhaps it would make more sense to start with closer targets first, such as the Christian/Zionist religious extremists in America. I also agree that a bullet is only one solution, for example, freezing assets would limit their ability to support mass suffering, ethnic cleansing and terrorism. However, as Bigduke6 was saying, there are so many shades of gray. Do you go after those who have use theology to support politics and believe that Israel must not return illegally occupied territories in the interest of peace or negotiate, those who directly supported the establishment of terrorist states and acts of terrorism or those who favor and influence an unjustified war-mongering, hawkish foreign policy becuase of intolerant fundamentalist beliefs? forgive me for playing devils advocate, but remember one man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.
  11. very well put. There is another industry that also has a big hand in government, credit to sfhand for mentioning this. I fear, for reasons previously stated, that attacking Iran may only increase support for anti-western terrorism, the result being far worse then the current support by certain elements for Shiite Muslim militias.
  12. But has Operation Iraqi Freedom and the U.S. Global War on Terrorism really decreased Islamic terrorism? I honestly dont know the answer, but its not as clear cut as some of you are saying. ^ taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_and_U.S._Global_War_on_Terror#Increase_in_terrorism perhaps the question is this; do these "kenetic" solutions, such as cross boarder raids and military occupation, ultimatly do more harm then good by fueling the perception, that previously existed mainly due to support for Israel, that the U.S./West is at war with Islam?
  13. I agree the emphasis on this news story reeks of political manipulation, although the raid itself was primarily a military decision. I think the easiest ways to minimize radical Islamic terrorism would be to change our foreign policy, particularly the US support of Israel and its illegal occupation.
  • Create New...