Moronic Max

This question was actually answered in a post prior to yours, but: in a different thread. One not intended to be a joke. I suppose you could get a joke thread on-rails, with enough effort, but who needsthat much work?

He's practicing for his upcoming congressional run.

Presumably he meant 'they shot the crap out of the enemy infantry, so the enemy infantry didn't shoot the crap out of my infantry'.

He meant the rest of the world likes Putin as much as they like Bush--not a lot. But Russians like Putin a lot.

On nationalism, perhaps. Most potent drug in the world, don'cha know.

I'm pretty confident Steve's stated, on multiple occasions, that they won't do a Fulda Gap title because the market isn't there.

Who says they'd be left wing?

F: waiting to upgrade my computer, first.

I'm in LA County, and I'd be interested. Might be able to con a buddy into going as well, but probably not.

Even if each and every Syrian plane takes one American plane down with it, there still won't be any Syrian planes left when the invasion kicks off.

To hammer home what Steve's saying here, the team Irrational has making BioShock had two programmers spend a whole year doing nothing but water effects. The mind boggles.

I'm in the 'in BFC wants to simulate it, I want to play it' camp. But maybe that's just my fanboy heart shining through.

Wait, you couldn't get Far Cry to run on that? I had it running a 2.8ghz Celeron with a piss-poor intel integrated GPU. I mean, okay, the grass wasn't rendered. At all. And large chunks of the ground weren't textured. But it still ran.

Wow, that worked really well. I wonder if a thread saying "jesus, I want CM:SF NOW!" would have a similar motivating effect. Hmm.

Just wait 'til Cyrsis comes out. Then you'll see jerky. I think the screenshots alone cause my GPU to have aneurisms.

It has to be going fast enough not to stall immediately, to begin with. Fine if it's already cruising along at 300 mph with the nacelles horizontal. Less fine if the nacelles have a 30 degree tilt and it's only going 40 mph when someone puts a few .50 rounds into an engine. And I'm guessing it's most likely to take small arms fire when it's transitioning. SAMs, of course...

John, don't take this the wrong way, but your support is often the kiss of death.

Yeah, since US meddling in Latin America goes back to 1898, I don't think we can bring out the commie canard to explain it. Much as I'm reluctant to mention anything Kettler has, Smedley Butler's assertion that he was nothing more than a racketeer for American corporations has entirely too much truth to it: Now, I suppose the motivation for American intervention may have changed post-WWII, but the evidence indicates otherwise.

Although his last post did have some decent points, to be fair.

Northern Ireland, anyone?

Ah, I should make it clear that I am not, in fact, serving; I was thanking those who are for their service. My fault for not articulating that clearly.

Splinty, M1A1, civdiv, Sixxxkiller, everyone I'm missing: Thank you.

Granted, it could just be a publicity ploy. But they talk about 'encouraging' stuff like veil wearing while simultaneously saying that no one should be 'forced' to wear it. And then there's what the ISG advisor said (don't have the article handy, and it's not online; I'll post a name in a day or two); what they'd like to do and what they actually can do are two separate things. The Egyptian populace wouldn't stand for strict Sharia. I'll grant upfront that your knowledge is likely more extensive than mine, so if one of us is wrong, well, it's probably me.

I don't agree. They--at least the group in Egypt--have renounced violence, and AFAIK have stuck to that. So, frankly, even if they do hate all things western--which I'm only willing to concede for the sake of argument--it doesn't matter. They're not our problem. And, given that every observer I'm aware of holds that if there were free and open elections in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood would win a pluarity, we need to take them seriously, and engage with them.

Meh. If we really wanted to take on militant Islam, we'd be making nice with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. We'd be desperately trying to encourage 'reform' groups in places like Saudi and Pakistan that aren't a bunch of googly-eyed lunatics. We'd be engaging in constructive dialogue with Iran. We'd be seriously pressuring Egypt and pals to ditch the corrupt, undemocratic processes. But we don't, so we're not. Because dealing--really dealing--with militant Islam is going to require a major shift in American foreign policy. And, well, that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Can you imagine what O'Reilly and Coulter and pals would be saying if we actually started talking to Iran?