agusto

. It' s time a for CMSF: Shell Game module.

Iraq currently very much reminds me of post-WW1 Germany. The following is by no means and objective or complete analysis, just my subejctive impression. I think people in Iraq have never lived in a democratic country and are in general not used to take the responsibilities that living in a democratic society requires of each and every citizen. Saddam was what held Iraq togather by force, and after Saddam was, gone people were attracted by various extremist groups because they offered them a sense of power and security in a time where they felt powerless and threatened. This attraction to extremeist groups was further amplified by the dire economical situation after the 2003 invasion and by the lack of experience of living in a democracy. The result of all of the above is ISIS, which is pretty much the Iraqi version the 1940s Nazis. The biggest difference between ISIS and the Nazis is IMO that, unfortunately, the Nazis had the economic and military power to actually implement their extremeist views. ISIS totally would do 1939-1945 all-over again if they had the power to do so. Here is a pic ISIS released recently:

You can download the Arma2 demos via arma2.com. I would post a direct DL link, but advertising non-BFC games is not allowed on this forum. Google for Arma 2 demo, you will find it quickly i am sure. You could also try the tactical shooter Americas Army. It is one of the US Armys advertising platforms and it is completely free to play. EDIT: Regarding the Joystick: I currently use a Logitech Extreme-3D-Pro. It is not the most accurate Joystick i have ever had but it' is cheap (IIRC about 30-40 USD new) and will do fine unless you are into acrobatic or formation flight. The best Joystick i have ever had was the MS Sidewinder 2 Precision, but a new one will cost about about 70 USD on amazon. I found used ones for only about 20 USD though. The Sidewinder 2 Precision is very accurate and you can easily fly in formation or do some crazy acorbatics like flying through a couple of barns while doing barrel rolls (well, the later will still require a couple of houndreds hours of training, but with the Sidewinder 2 Precision,an inaccurate Joystick wont be your problem).

And with his last breath he whispered "...but i just wanted to go outside to take a piss, sir."

Well i dont see anything wrong with telling them what you think is wrong with their countries. It only becomes crontroversial when you start to actively deny them the freedom to live they way they deem appropriate for them.

Oh i found it funny. I just wanted to point out that his long absence could be much more serious than you might think.

He is typing from his phone i think. That' s a great idea. No one needs a perfectly good thread to get closed because of unsolvable political differences.

Isnt a death penalty in the US more expensive than life imprisionment due to the obligatory multiple appeals etc? I have heard so, but i am no expert on american law. Actually his life in prision will most likely be very depressing and terrible. There wont be much similing and - depending on the prision he will be held at- not more than 1 an hour of sun each week. High profile criminals like him are usually kept isolated due to the danger other prisioners pose to them, so there will be next to no human interaction for him. In general the conditions in US supermax prisions are nothing to feel envy for, in some cases i think the conditions are even close to torture. What value does Tsarnaevs life have? How will his future existence contribute to society and how has he contributed to society in the past? Not only did he not contribute, he did great damage, both immaterial and material, and every day he continues to exist he will continue to do more damage, both to society and to the innocent survivors and victims, even if he is imprisoned. It is very unfortunate and sad that a young man threw his life away like that and that he took so many others with him, but he has chosen this path consciously and willingly. He must be permanently removed. Well there is definately some thing to be done if someone blows up a crowd of innocent civillians out of sheer political extremism. For one, the offender needs to be removed from society so he cant do any more damage. Secondly, the damage he did must be minimized as much as possible. Will his death improve the world and society in some way? It wont. But his continued existence will do even more damage. I think killing him as part of trying to minimize the damage he did is legitimate. I dont think it makes much of a difference when compared to life imprisonment, but i think it' s legitimate. Will terrorism and fear stop tomorrow because of this verdict? It is irrational to ask this question in this context because terrorism and fear exist independent of Tsaranev and this verdict. On this i agree with you. I dont think putting a teenage pickpocket in prison will help make him a better man in the future. I dont think that smoking weed in public or possesing small amount of drugs is an offense worth of even a single day in prison, particularily in the case of first time offenders or youths. But there is a certain point where "lashing out at society" becomes an euphemism, and this point is when people start getting killed or injured.

You are really mean Mord. As far as i remember he is in his 70s, he could very well be dead or seriously ill.

How about we get back on topic? I see this thread going to be closed soon if we continue down that road.

I do not think that vengeance or the suffering of the offender is the point of justice. That' s where i disagree with your first post. It does not make a difference. As i said, what' s important when dealing with people like Tsarnaev is that they are permanently removed from society one way or another so that they cant do any more harm. I find death or life imprisionment both equally just in the case of Tsarnaev. There is no way he can undo the damage he did nor that he can ever again contribute to society in a positive way. The difference between justice and vengeance is a difficult question. I think the purpose of justice is to ensure that as many people as possible can live and work peacefully in a state. That' s the goal. The tool by which this goal achieved is (besides many others, such as education etc) to force people to submit to a commonly accepted code of conduct by threatening them with punishment. If someone still commits a crime, the tool by which justice achieves its goal is to -a minimize the damage and -b punish the offender is such a way he wont do any more damage in the future. The punishment though must to be porportional to the crime committed and the future threat the offender might pose. There is no point in, for example, executing a pickpocket, because this would do much more damage than good. Vengeance, on the other hand, does not have the well beeing of anyone in mind and just serves the satisfaction of the victims emotional needs.

I havent yet got a message from Kieme that he is finished with his re-textureing mods.

Does it really matter? I think that what' s important when dealing with people like Tsarnaev is that they are permanently removed from society one way or another so that they cant do any more harm. No punishment, be it death or life imprisionment, will bring back the dead or let lost limbs grow back.

CMSF Tutotrial on how to assault a building: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/82077-assaulting-a-building-fierce-and-agille/ The same things still apply to CMBS. A few thoughts on you post: If possible, dont enter a building you expect to be filled with bad guys. My tactic for taking a building i expect to be occupied is to first recon by fire. A 3 man infantry team gets an order to fire a Target Briefly mission for 30 secs and then, if anything fires back, i hit the building with something HE-ish. A few bursts of 30mm will do the job nicely. In general it's a good idea to properly prepare buildings with 30mm if you want to assault them. Then i send in my guys to check out the corpses. If that is not an option, i order at least a platoon of infantry to fire a Target Light mission on the whole building i want to occupy. Then i send in an assault team (you can split the team off the squad using the Assault button under the Administrative tab). The assault team gets the oder to enter the room and then immediatly supress the adjunct room with a 30 secs Target Briefly order. This is to make sure that anything in the adjunct room is immedialtly supressed and/or killed. For maneuvering inside a building i usually use 2 assault teams with quick commands and 15-30 second pauses between each move. It takes a bit of exercise to get the timings for a proper bounding overwatch right, but it it is possible and it works well for me. The most important thing is though to ensure that at all times there is a significant overwatch element outside the building that can immediatley kill any ambushers your assault teams might run into . Also, i dont use smoke when in am assaulting a building. The reason is that the smoke will obscure the view of the overwatch elements and my assault team will be on its own once it has entered the building, and that is pretty much a death sentence if they run into an ambush. I also dont use the hunt command in buildings for the reason you mentioned in your post. EDIT: Human opponents will make excessive use of short covered arcs and ambushes in MOUT terrain, a tactic at which the AI isnt particularily good at. I also agreee with c3ks line: You WILL lose men in MOUT. No competent enemy will let anything else happen. Since there interior of buildings are abstracted, you should expect enemy to survive your cover fire/grenading when you enter. So, even if you follow the procedures I've written, men will die. This just minimizes it. Hopefully. You will lose men in MOUT. There is no way around it. Dont be bothered too much by casualties, as long as you complete the mission, you have done a good job. EDIT2: On a side note, due to beeing fully equipped with modern body armor, US & Russian infantry in CMBS is much more resistent to 20-30mm HE than the Syrian infantry in CMSF. You should keep that in mind when preparing a building for an assault.

I wasnt reffering to this thread in particular. As i said, i find it perfectly alright to link to the stories John publishes on the Internet. But if you act disrespecful towards anyone, not just John, it might negatively reflect on Battlefronts reputation IMO. You can mock people all day long as a private person, but when you officially link yourself to a company, what you do and say will, to a certain degree, not only be seen as your opinion but as that of the whole company. But lets leave it here, i dont think that the whole JK thing deserves as much attention as we are paying to it.

The small but important difference though is that the dream of the ancient romans was to subjugate and enslave all non-romans that were unable to withstand romes armies. The roman republic (which was more an aristocracy with the ordinary free people having nothing but an indirect veto and the large slave & un-free population having no political rights at all) than what we today understand as republic) wasnt any better than the later imperial rome in this regard. I know that you didnt want to say that, and i am just kidding, but now that i think of it, the way i just described ancient Rome is exactely how North Korean media describe modern day America. Here is a sample of NK propaganda: Sorry for posting off-topic again btw.

Oh yeah, i love comrade Badasski:D. His first name is Ikillyourbitch.

Welcome! If you like CMBS, be sure to check out CMSF as well.

@Sublime: Not is not more off-topic than the discussion about Iraq and Afgahnistan we are currently having. @John: In general i think you are taking this way to seriously, John. Just ignore them, i mean litterlly ignore them by using the "ignore" function of the forum. You wont see their posts anymore if you ignore them. I do agree with you though on LukeFFs behaviour beeing inappropriate though, not because he is occasionally makeing fun of you, but because his profile says he is an official CM Beta Tester, which gives his statements and opinions influence on the general reputation of Battlefront.com. If i were Steve, i would tell LukeFF that publicly making fun of one of their customers is a big no-no because it may hurt the companys reputation. At the end of the day, if the behaviour of the people you named really bothers you as much as you say, i recommend you collect their posts and as soon as you have sufficient evidence of their "bullying" write a ticket at helpdesk or send a PM to one of the Admins.

Yay, a hairsplitting thread . I love those. Let' s look at your definition of "dynamic" and the example sentence: Definition of dynamic: "(of a process or system) characterized by constant change, activity, or progress." Example sentence: "Going from traditional employee reviews to peer reviews changed the dynamic of our office." Given your definition of dynamic, the example sentence means that the way activity takes place and/or progress is beeing made in the office has changed. It doesnt implicate though whether or not it has improved or worsened. Strictly speaking the definition of dynamic given by you would also allow the interpretation of the example sentence as ;"the way things in the office constantly change has changed.", but while this may be logically correct, it is not going to be understood particularily well by most people (except Master Yoda of course). You are describing how the relationships between office employees changed and that this change altered the way work is done in the office. You do not say how the change of the relationships between office employees altered the way work is done, though. It could be that it is better than before, but it could also be worse, that information is not part of the example sentence.

When i was that age i was equally naive, but i was at the other end of the specturm, more like the hippie-kinda guy. I simply found it very difficult to understand that it is so difficult for some people to get along with one another peacefully. Most unfortunately though there are destructive people on this world who cant be reasoned with, and some of them are in leadership positions. And most unfortunately, these extremists who are in leadership positions did not get there by magic, they got there by the help of many voluntary followers who are part of a system that is not only is harmful to themselves but also (or usually mostly) to others. ISIS in Iraq and Syria is a prime example of an organisation that can only be met with force. The Taliban in Afgahnistan were also pretty much in the category of people that should be met with force IMO.

Actually the war Afgahnistan was legitimized by both the UN Security Counsil (Resolution 1368 was accepted unanimously by all members of the counsil, including Russia) and NATO. Iraq is more problemtic regarding international law IMO.

@ Zebbe: you can also always use the Quick Battle function to generate a battle of your likening. It takes a bit of time to figure out which QB configurations work well and which dont, but it is entirely possble to have fun playing QBs vs. the AI.

Just keep calm and ignore posts like the one made by Wicky, John. It is the best thing you can do. Let' s assume for a moment "the Wests" recent military campaigns were as unlawful as you say; would that make Russias unlawful military campaigns more legitimate? One injustice does not justify another. Furthermore it is not reasonable to generalize and blame all of the Wests citiziens for those military campaigns you claim to be unlawful, in fact many countries of the western hemisphere and most european countries havent actively engaged in warfare since 1945. I have never personally broken international law or participated in a military campaign, nor has the country i was born in since 1945, nor is my country a member of NATO. According to you reasoning, i would still be to blame for things i had absolutely no influence on at all, which is at least absurd if not offensive. Another interesting question is the on of the lawfulness of military campaigns. Who is the one to judge? The UN, of which Russia is a member? I think that law is a collection of well defined practices to which people or countries submit to either due to be beeing forced to or due to recognizing the authority of the organisation that publishes the laws. While the UN may be recognized by most countries on earth (193) as authority regarding international law, it lacks the means to enforce it, which usually makes its judgement nothing more than and academic exercise. Practically there is no international system of the classical trias politica type, which makes it even more important for states and their leaders to act responsibly and morally without beeing forced to by a third party. The fact that there is no institution that forces Russia or any other country to restrain itself from making war at will ist not a green light for invading your neighbours at will.