Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

quite astonished about ping from us

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 18, 2004 4:58:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

i played on a uk based server (i traced it with neotrace) and had a
ping around 60 ms from germany-hannover. then i came into ingame chat
with a guy from new york. he had a ping just around 80 to 90. wow
thats rather fast for going round the half planet. is there a new
undersea-cable? making lightspeed computer connections?
the world is going to be connected by 2k4.
scnr

More about : astonished ping

Anonymous
April 18, 2004 4:58:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:58:45 +0200, Klaus Bregel <space-orbit@gmx.de>
wrote:

>i played on a uk based server (i traced it with neotrace) and had a
>ping around 60 ms from germany-hannover. then i came into ingame chat
>with a guy from new york. he had a ping just around 80 to 90. wow
>thats rather fast for going round the half planet. is there a new
>undersea-cable? making lightspeed computer connections?
>the world is going to be connected by 2k4.
>scnr

I've seen this too Klaus. Makes me wonder how accurate the ping report
really is. I've played on some servers with a very low ping and they
are based in Europe with me in east coast US. They didn't feel slow or
laggy though. Maybe 2K4 will create a universal economy and unite all
the worlds people (well, except for George Bush).

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
Anonymous
April 18, 2004 4:58:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Klaus Bregel <space-orbit@gmx.de> wrote:
>with a guy from new york. he had a ping just around 80 to 90. wow
>thats rather fast for going round the half planet. is there a new
>undersea-cable?

Dunno specifically, but there are always new fibers, and it's turning
out to be cheaper to operate them than satellites, and the low latency
doesn't hurt...

For a good read: How The World Was One [sic] by Arthur C. Clarke.

--
William Smith
ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com
Related resources
Anonymous
April 18, 2004 4:58:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

gopostal wrote:
>
> I've seen this too Klaus. Makes me wonder how accurate the ping report
> really is. I've played on some servers with a very low ping and they
> are based in Europe with me in east coast US. They didn't feel slow or
> laggy though. Maybe 2K4 will create a universal economy and unite all
> the worlds people (well, except for George Bush).

I've played on a UK server with a ping of just 2 - I guess it's just
optimistic.

--
Mutley!! Doooooo Something!!
Fix Outlook Express - http://flash.to/oe-quotefix/
as recommended by your friendly neighbourhood MeltDown
April 19, 2004 12:21:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:27:01 +0000, Littlemoot wrote:
>
> I've played on a UK server with a ping of just 2 - I guess it's just
> optimistic.

I've played UT99 on JANET, the UK University network with 10 Gbps
backbone, with a constant ping of zero. Of course this is impossible,
perhaps it's just when pings get below a certain point it reports them as
zero.

K
April 19, 2004 12:25:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

My ping is 999 and you are braging about a friggen fracken 60 ms ping
:p PPPP
If you want to find me I will be laying on the floor at a deathmatch near
you.


"Klaus Bregel" <space-orbit@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:ldn48092hkdrilglkqis1sojrofelfp346@4ax.com...
> i played on a uk based server (i traced it with neotrace) and had a
> ping around 60 ms from germany-hannover. then i came into ingame chat
> with a guy from new york. he had a ping just around 80 to 90. wow
> thats rather fast for going round the half planet. is there a new
> undersea-cable? making lightspeed computer connections?
> the world is going to be connected by 2k4.
> scnr
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 4:45:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

gopostal <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in
news:tur480puh4vbm4de72s8secaco7auhs044@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:58:45 +0200, Klaus Bregel <space-orbit@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
>>i played on a uk based server (i traced it with neotrace) and had a
>>ping around 60 ms from germany-hannover. then i came into ingame chat
>>with a guy from new york. he had a ping just around 80 to 90. wow
>>thats rather fast for going round the half planet. is there a new
>>undersea-cable? making lightspeed computer connections?
>>the world is going to be connected by 2k4.
>>scnr
>
> I've seen this too Klaus. Makes me wonder how accurate the ping report
> really is. I've played on some servers with a very low ping and they
> are based in Europe with me in east coast US. They didn't feel slow or
> laggy though. Maybe 2K4 will create a universal economy and unite all
> the worlds people (well, except for George Bush).
>
> --
> Everything I believe could be wrong.
>

Um, what's wrong with George Bush?


--
---
Chip

"Oderint dum metuant."
- Lucius Accius
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 4:45:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:45:38 GMT, Chip Anderson
<b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>Um, what's wrong with George Bush?

OK....and awaaaay we go.....

<Slides soapbox up>
He's dead set against any peace in this day and time. We just crossed
700 soldiers lost in Iraq. As a former vet of the first Desert Storm,
I cannot fathom why "wars" are fought this way. The US military is not
an occupational force. You'd be hard-pressed to find a soldier,
sailor, or airman who has ever been issued handcuffs or rubber
bullets. We were given M-16's with high velocity rounds and grenades.
Bush is on a simple vendetta here to settle a score left over from
Dad. He should know better, being prior service, and I for one am sick
of the lost lives. Not everyone in the world wants to be an American,
regardless of what Americans might think.
<steps down>


--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 4:45:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:16:18 -0400, gopostal
<agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:45:38 GMT, Chip Anderson
><b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Um, what's wrong with George Bush?
>
>OK....and awaaaay we go.....
>
><Slides soapbox up>
>He's dead set against any peace in this day and time. We just crossed
>700 soldiers lost in Iraq. As a former vet of the first Desert Storm,
>I cannot fathom why "wars" are fought this way. The US military is not
>an occupational force. You'd be hard-pressed to find a soldier,
>sailor, or airman who has ever been issued handcuffs or rubber
>bullets. We were given M-16's with high velocity rounds and grenades.
>Bush is on a simple vendetta here to settle a score left over from
>Dad. He should know better, being prior service, and I for one am sick
>of the lost lives. Not everyone in the world wants to be an American,
>regardless of what Americans might think.
><steps down>

Not to mention the fact that his Neo-Conservative Ultra Christian
views are no less extreme than the Muslim clerics he's set himself
against.
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 9:10:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

"> Um, what's wrong with George Bush?
>
>
> --
> ---
> Chip
>
> "Oderint dum metuant."
> - Lucius Accius
>

he's the only elected dictator in the world.

damyjuk
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 12:44:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Un header molto originale introduce la risposta a "damyjuk":


>
>"> Um, what's wrong with George Bush?
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---
>> Chip
>>
>> "Oderint dum metuant."
>> - Lucius Accius
>>
>
>he's the only elected dictator in the world.

And he's got weapons of mass distruction, too, and he even used
forbidden (by Geneva treaty) weapons.
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 3:52:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 05:10:26 +0100, damyjuk wrote:

> he's the only elected dictator in the world.

He was elected?

--
R.L.U. #300033, running WM 0.80.1 under MDK9.1
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 4:14:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

gopostal <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> schrieb:

>On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:45:38 GMT, Chip Anderson
><b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Um, what's wrong with George Bush?
>
>OK....and awaaaay we go.....
>
><Slides soapbox up>
>He's dead set against any peace in this day and time. We just crossed
>700 soldiers lost in Iraq. As a former vet of the first Desert Storm,
>I cannot fathom why "wars" are fought this way. The US military is not
>an occupational force. You'd be hard-pressed to find a soldier,
>sailor, or airman who has ever been issued handcuffs or rubber
>bullets. We were given M-16's with high velocity rounds and grenades.
>Bush is on a simple vendetta here to settle a score left over from
>Dad. He should know better, being prior service, and I for one am sick
>of the lost lives. Not everyone in the world wants to be an American,
>regardless of what Americans might think.
><steps down>
wow! bravo!
and u r really a first iraqi war veteran? nice to hear someones
opinion who really knows about what he is talking of.
full ack
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 4:55:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

gopostal <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in
news:cl9680190par0smagfscnf4qoqvjm26kfp@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:45:38 GMT, Chip Anderson
> <b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Um, what's wrong with George Bush?
>
> OK....and awaaaay we go.....
>
> <Slides soapbox up>
> He's dead set against any peace in this day and time. We just crossed
> 700 soldiers lost in Iraq. As a former vet of the first Desert Storm,
> I cannot fathom why "wars" are fought this way. The US military is not
> an occupational force. You'd be hard-pressed to find a soldier,
> sailor, or airman who has ever been issued handcuffs or rubber
> bullets. We were given M-16's with high velocity rounds and grenades.
> Bush is on a simple vendetta here to settle a score left over from
> Dad. He should know better, being prior service, and I for one am sick
> of the lost lives. Not everyone in the world wants to be an American,
> regardless of what Americans might think.
> <steps down>
>
>
> --
> Everything I believe could be wrong.
>

Your tag says it all.


--
---
Chip

"Oderint dum metuant."
- Lucius Accius
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 4:55:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

"damyjuk" <aquq24@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:4083510d$0$20402$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com:

>
> "> Um, what's wrong with George Bush?
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---
>> Chip
>>
>> "Oderint dum metuant."
>> - Lucius Accius
>>
>
> he's the only elected dictator in the world.
>
> damyjuk

Hyperbole will get you nowhere.


--
---
Chip

"Oderint dum metuant."
- Lucius Accius
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 4:57:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Stefano <oppenheimer@bomb.ne> wrote in
news:GjMgc.100800$rM4.4015114@news4.tin.it:

> Un header molto originale introduce la risposta a "damyjuk":
>
>
>>
>>"> Um, what's wrong with George Bush?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ---
>>> Chip
>>>
>>> "Oderint dum metuant."
>>> - Lucius Accius
>>>
>>
>>he's the only elected dictator in the world.
>
> And he's got weapons of mass distruction, too, and he even used
> forbidden (by Geneva treaty) weapons.
>

If the U.S. were a rogue nation, then the rest of the worlds would attack
us and remove our weapons of mass destruction.

As for forbidden weapons used, which would those be?


--
---
Chip

"Oderint dum metuant."
- Lucius Accius
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 4:59:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Mr K <duffstuff@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4083b004$0$26198$cc9e4d1f@news-
text.dial.pipex.com:

> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 05:10:26 +0100, damyjuk wrote:
>
>> he's the only elected dictator in the world.
>
> He was elected?
>

President Bush was duly elected by the process mandated under the U.S.
Constitution. This despite desperate efforts by the Democrat party to
hijack the election process.


--
---
Chip

"Oderint dum metuant."
- Lucius Accius
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 5:05:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:55:06 GMT, Chip Anderson
<b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>gopostal <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in
>news:cl9680190par0smagfscnf4qoqvjm26kfp@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:45:38 GMT, Chip Anderson
>> <b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Um, what's wrong with George Bush?
>>
>> OK....and awaaaay we go.....
>>
>> <Slides soapbox up>
>> He's dead set against any peace in this day and time. We just crossed
>> 700 soldiers lost in Iraq. As a former vet of the first Desert Storm,
>> I cannot fathom why "wars" are fought this way. The US military is not
>> an occupational force. You'd be hard-pressed to find a soldier,
>> sailor, or airman who has ever been issued handcuffs or rubber
>> bullets. We were given M-16's with high velocity rounds and grenades.
>> Bush is on a simple vendetta here to settle a score left over from
>> Dad. He should know better, being prior service, and I for one am sick
>> of the lost lives. Not everyone in the world wants to be an American,
>> regardless of what Americans might think.
>> <steps down>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Everything I believe could be wrong.
>>
>
>Your tag says it all.

Nice rebuttal. Good to back up your thoughts with facts and
observations.

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 6:31:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:59:24 GMT, Chip Anderson wrote:

> President Bush was duly elected by the process mandated under the U.S.
> Constitution. This despite desperate efforts by the Democrat party to
> hijack the election process.

Hmm... I could've sworn Bush didn't win the election, yet managed to
become President by winning a court battle.

--
R.L.U. #300033, running WM 0.80.1 under MDK9.1
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 6:33:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:55:06 GMT, Chip Anderson wrote:

> Your tag says it all.

Is that selective reading skill kicking in? You appear to have missed:
+----
| As a former vet of the first Desert Storm
+----

Btw, don't bother replying. You're only wasting bandwidth.

--
R.L.U. #300033, running WM 0.80.1 under MDK9.1
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 6:33:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:33:34 +0100, Mr K <duffstuff@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:55:06 GMT, Chip Anderson wrote:
>
>> Your tag says it all.
>
>Is that selective reading skill kicking in? You appear to have missed:
>+----
>| As a former vet of the first Desert Storm
>+----


You know, I'm not especially proud of that fact either. Contrary to
what everyone saw on CNN, the US military is rather ruthless. The
general population saw a much sanitized version.

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 8:11:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:18:17 -0400, gopostal wrote:

>> As a former vet of the first Desert Storm

> You know, I'm not especially proud of that fact either.

Well you should be. I was there too, although in a relatively safer place
offshore.

> Contrary to what everyone saw on CNN, the US military is rather
> ruthless.

Thank goodness. That's how a military is supposed to be, isn't it?

> The general population saw a much sanitized version.

Nothing new about that. All wars are that way.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 8:41:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

"Klaus Bregel" <space-orbit@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:ldn48092hkdrilglkqis1sojrofelfp346@4ax.com...
> i played on a uk based server (i traced it with neotrace) and had a
> ping around 60 ms from germany-hannover. then i came into ingame chat
> with a guy from new york. he had a ping just around 80 to 90. wow
> thats rather fast for going round the half planet. is there a new
> undersea-cable? making lightspeed computer connections?
> the world is going to be connected by 2k4.
> scnr

I think the pings reported by 2K4 are wildly inaccurate. My clan server
gives me a ping of 150-200 in ASE (which is about how it "feels") which 2K4
says is about 25.

--
Cycho{HHR}
http://home.rochester.rr.com/cyhome/
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 8:54:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

"gopostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cl9680190par0smagfscnf4qoqvjm26kfp@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:45:38 GMT, Chip Anderson
> <b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Um, what's wrong with George Bush?
>
> OK....and awaaaay we go.....

With a number of excellent points.

>
> <Slides soapbox up>
> He's dead set against any peace in this day and time. We just crossed
> 700 soldiers lost in Iraq.

The actual cost in human lives (yes, Iraqis are humans, too) must be many
thousands. That includes Iraqi soldiers (who, after all, were just trying to
make a living by joining their own military) and civilians (including
children). That's why you can't unleash the deadly American military without
being *absolutely* sure you are right.

> As a former vet of the first Desert Storm,
> I cannot fathom why "wars" are fought this way. The US military is not
> an occupational force. You'd be hard-pressed to find a soldier,
> sailor, or airman who has ever been issued handcuffs or rubber
> bullets. We were given M-16's with high velocity rounds and grenades.
> Bush is on a simple vendetta here to settle a score left over from
> Dad. He should know better, being prior service,

Um, you mean pretending to attend National Guard meetings? I don't think you
get a true taste of the horrors of war that way. The way you get it is the
way you got it.

> and I for one am sick
> of the lost lives. Not everyone in the world wants to be an American,
> regardless of what Americans might think.

So true. I would only add that having the world's most powerful military
does not make us responsible for the quality of every government on the
planet -- or even just the ones with large proven oil reserves.

> <steps down>
>
>
> --
> Everything I believe could be wrong.
>

--
Cycho{HHR}
http://home.rochester.rr.com/cyhome/
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 8:54:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:54:45 GMT, "Cy Edmunds"
<cedmunds@spamless.rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>"gopostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:cl9680190par0smagfscnf4qoqvjm26kfp@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:45:38 GMT, Chip Anderson
>> <b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Um, what's wrong with George Bush?
>>
>> OK....and awaaaay we go.....
>
>With a number of excellent points.
>
>>
>> <Slides soapbox up>
>> He's dead set against any peace in this day and time. We just crossed
>> 700 soldiers lost in Iraq.
>
>The actual cost in human lives (yes, Iraqis are humans, too) must be many
>thousands. That includes Iraqi soldiers (who, after all, were just trying to
>make a living by joining their own military) and civilians (including
>children). That's why you can't unleash the deadly American military without
>being *absolutely* sure you are right.
>

I sincerely apologize for patently missing this point. Honestly I
don't get so upset at other countries losses, but I went to a local
boy's military funeral a few days ago who was lost in Fallujah. I
guess the anger was still a bit close to the surface.

>> As a former vet of the first Desert Storm,
>> I cannot fathom why "wars" are fought this way. The US military is not
>> an occupational force. You'd be hard-pressed to find a soldier,
>> sailor, or airman who has ever been issued handcuffs or rubber
>> bullets. We were given M-16's with high velocity rounds and grenades.
>> Bush is on a simple vendetta here to settle a score left over from
>> Dad. He should know better, being prior service,
>
>Um, you mean pretending to attend National Guard meetings? I don't think you
>get a true taste of the horrors of war that way. The way you get it is the
>way you got it.
>
>> and I for one am sick
>> of the lost lives. Not everyone in the world wants to be an American,
>> regardless of what Americans might think.
>
>So true. I would only add that having the world's most powerful military
>does not make us responsible for the quality of every government on the
>planet -- or even just the ones with large proven oil reserves.
>
>> <steps down>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Everything I believe could be wrong.
>>

One of the strongest observations I had while there was the total
difference between the culture there and the way the average American
lives. Talk about your polar opposites. We will never "Americanize"
that region because it's not what they want at all. It's best that we
stay out of the way. I understand that women and children will suffer
for it, but you cannot dictate to the world how to live just because
you currently have the biggest stick. Didn't we start this country for
that very reason?

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 9:21:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:11:54 -0500, Dan C
<youmustbejoking@invalid.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:18:17 -0400, gopostal wrote:
>
>>> As a former vet of the first Desert Storm
>
>> You know, I'm not especially proud of that fact either.
>
>Well you should be. I was there too, although in a relatively safer place
>offshore.
>
>> Contrary to what everyone saw on CNN, the US military is rather
>> ruthless.
>
>Thank goodness. That's how a military is supposed to be, isn't it?
>

Yes and no. I'll give you a fer instance: When the ground offensive
began we approached the trenches )where the regulars were dug in) with
dozers and just pushed the dirt berms back on top of them. Now
according to Geneva conventions you are not supposed to shoot an any
soldiers coming over the berm away from you because technically they
are retreating, only the ones that come towards you. That's not how it
happened though. Also we were told to shoot "everything that moves"
when sweeping the trenches because on a back-sweep if you find a
wounded man you are compelled to offer medical assistance (also
Geneva). Let me ask you guys how many Iraq soldiers you guys saw on US
military medical stretchers?

This is going so OT it's not funny....

>> The general population saw a much sanitized version.
>
>Nothing new about that. All wars are that way.

That's why they keep happening.


--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 11:02:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:18:17 -0400, gopostal wrote:

> You know, I'm not especially proud of that fact either.

The way I see it, you had no choice in the matter. You were given orders
and were expected to carry them out. :/ 

> Contrary to what everyone saw on CNN, the US military is rather
> ruthless. The general population saw a much sanitized version.

The general public is always fed a sanitized version of war. Only the very
first films of "Our boys on the front" from WW1 weren't. And after the
ministry (of whatever) realised the general public didn't like seeing
their troops getting killed, the war reports were 'trimmed' to show the
bits that the public would like.

--
Mr K, listening to "Funker Vogt - This World (Made of Battlefields)"
R.L.U. #300033, running WM 0.80.1 under MDK9.1
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 11:16:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:21:01 -0400, gopostal wrote:

>>> Contrary to what everyone saw on CNN, the US military is rather
>>> ruthless.

>>Thank goodness. That's how a military is supposed to be, isn't it?

> Yes and no. I'll give you a fer instance: When the ground offensive
> began we approached the trenches )where the regulars were dug in) with
> dozers and just pushed the dirt berms back on top of them. Now
> according to Geneva conventions you are not supposed to shoot an any
> soldiers coming over the berm away from you because technically they
> are retreating, only the ones that come towards you.

I don't believe there is any Geneva convention (or any other rule) that
says you can't attack retreating enemies. I really don't think so.

> This is going so OT it's not funny....

Sure is. Let's not forget who got up on the soapbox, though... :) 

>>Nothing new about that. All wars are that way.

> That's why they keep happening.

I'm not sure that having sanitized TV coverage of wars is what causes them
to keep happening... Perhaps it contributes a little, because the general
population back home doesn't see the actual horrors of real warfare, but
it's certainly not a main reason for wars.

I'll get off the soapbox now too, with this parting comment: I think we
were right to be there in 1991, but am quite sure we should not be there
now. This time it's even more political than is usual for wars, and
perhaps even personal for a few key people in the country. Very sad, and
I hope it ends (or we withdraw) soon. Regardless of what the political
spinsters say, this has all the markings of this generation's Vietnam.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 11:34:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Un header molto originale introduce la risposta a "Chip Anderson":



>If the U.S. were a rogue nation, then the rest of the worlds would attack
>us and remove our weapons of mass destruction.
>
>As for forbidden weapons used, which would those be?

I don't know the name in english, they're called something like grape-
bomb or fragmentation bomb, somthing like that in italian at least. It's
the kind of bomb that explodes before reachin the ground damaging all
the area. Not a chemical or mass destruction weapon, but it was
forbidden by Geneva treaty.

Stefano
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 11:34:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:34:58 GMT, Stefano <oppenheimer@bomb.ne> wrote:

>Un header molto originale introduce la risposta a "Chip Anderson":
>
>
>
>>If the U.S. were a rogue nation, then the rest of the worlds would attack
>>us and remove our weapons of mass destruction.
>>
>>As for forbidden weapons used, which would those be?
>
>I don't know the name in english, they're called something like grape-
>bomb or fragmentation bomb, somthing like that in italian at least. It's
>the kind of bomb that explodes before reachin the ground damaging all
>the area. Not a chemical or mass destruction weapon, but it was
>forbidden by Geneva treaty.
>
>Stefano

Cluster bombs. And no, they aren't forbidden.

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 12:56:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:16:14 -0500, Dan C
<youmustbejoking@invalid.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:21:01 -0400, gopostal wrote:
>
>>>> Contrary to what everyone saw on CNN, the US military is rather
>>>> ruthless.
>
>>>Thank goodness. That's how a military is supposed to be, isn't it?
>
>> Yes and no. I'll give you a fer instance: When the ground offensive
>> began we approached the trenches )where the regulars were dug in) with
>> dozers and just pushed the dirt berms back on top of them. Now
>> according to Geneva conventions you are not supposed to shoot an any
>> soldiers coming over the berm away from you because technically they
>> are retreating, only the ones that come towards you.
>
>I don't believe there is any Geneva convention (or any other rule) that
>says you can't attack retreating enemies. I really don't think so.
>

Sorry, it was my bad. It was not Geneva, but Rules Of Engagement (ROE)
we were given there. It's been a few years and it's all gotten a
little fuzzy. I got the convention and ROE's mistaken.If you'd like
I'm sure I can find a link somewhere to them. Actually the ROE's would
change from day-to-day depending on what the political climate was.

>> This is going so OT it's not funny....
>
>Sure is. Let's not forget who got up on the soapbox, though... :) 
>

Agreed. Some things I am passionate about. Maybe to a fault.

>>>Nothing new about that. All wars are that way.
>
>> That's why they keep happening.
>
>I'm not sure that having sanitized TV coverage of wars is what causes them
>to keep happening... Perhaps it contributes a little, because the general
>population back home doesn't see the actual horrors of real warfare, but
>it's certainly not a main reason for wars.
>

For years I would wake up at night and hear the screaming in my head.
What bothered me most was that I had trouble distinguishing between
the diesel engines and the Iraqi soldiers being buried alive. Somehow
it just made the whole thing wrong to me that I couldn't even give a
dying man the dignity of hearing him.
Real guns make me sick to my stomach. My guy friends think I'm a pussy
because I don't care to go shooting or hunting with them. I just laugh
it off. I like to play FPSers because of the "escape" value but I
don't have any urge to cause real harm to anything anymore. I'm not
saying "expose the masses" to the very real face of modern warfare,
but a little education goes a hell of a long way. Collectively we
learn from our mistakes, but we have to see them first.

>I'll get off the soapbox now too, with this parting comment: I think we
>were right to be there in 1991, but am quite sure we should not be there
>now. This time it's even more political than is usual for wars, and
>perhaps even personal for a few key people in the country. Very sad, and
>I hope it ends (or we withdraw) soon. Regardless of what the political
>spinsters say, this has all the markings of this generation's Vietnam.

I could not agree with you more. Well said.

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 4:38:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Un header molto originale introduce la risposta a "gopostal":



>>>If the U.S. were a rogue nation, then the rest of the worlds would attack
>>>us and remove our weapons of mass destruction.
>>>
>>>As for forbidden weapons used, which would those be?
>>
>>I don't know the name in english, they're called something like grape-
>>bomb or fragmentation bomb, somthing like that in italian at least. It's
>>the kind of bomb that explodes before reachin the ground damaging all
>>the area. Not a chemical or mass destruction weapon, but it was
>>forbidden by Geneva treaty.
>>
>>Stefano
>
>Cluster bombs. And no, they aren't forbidden.

I don't know if they're called Cluster bombs, but i know that that
weapon was against the treaty
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 4:38:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:38:38 GMT, Stefano <oppenheimer@bomb.ne> wrote:

>Un header molto originale introduce la risposta a "gopostal":
>
>
>
>>>>If the U.S. were a rogue nation, then the rest of the worlds would attack
>>>>us and remove our weapons of mass destruction.
>>>>
>>>>As for forbidden weapons used, which would those be?
>>>
>>>I don't know the name in english, they're called something like grape-
>>>bomb or fragmentation bomb, somthing like that in italian at least. It's
>>>the kind of bomb that explodes before reachin the ground damaging all
>>>the area. Not a chemical or mass destruction weapon, but it was
>>>forbidden by Geneva treaty.
>>>
>>>Stefano
>>
>>Cluster bombs. And no, they aren't forbidden.
>
>I don't know if they're called Cluster bombs, but i know that that
>weapon was against the treaty

The Air Force uses them extensively to attack large targets like
runways or fields of mechanized vehicles. I've never heard of them
being banned. Now if they separated and landed without detonation to
be triggered later by opposing forces they would be forbidden as land
mines. Other than that, I'm not sure what you could be thinking of.

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 4:52:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Mr K <duffstuff@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4083d585$0$25240$cc9e4d1f@news-
text.dial.pipex.com:

> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:55:06 GMT, Chip Anderson wrote:
>
>> Your tag says it all.
>
> Is that selective reading skill kicking in? You appear to have missed:
> +----
>| As a former vet of the first Desert Storm
> +----
>
> Btw, don't bother replying. You're only wasting bandwidth.
>

I read quite well, thank you. I am a veteran myself; what has that to do
with anything, please tell me. As for wasting bandwith, your unthinking
reply is the waste.

--
---
Chip

"Oderint dum metuant."
- Lucius Accius
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 5:37:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

gopostal <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in
news:fm188018863oirul0bu4g7na2p7ifj7c27@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:55:06 GMT, Chip Anderson
> <b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>gopostal <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:cl9680190par0smagfscnf4qoqvjm26kfp@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:45:38 GMT, Chip Anderson
>>> <b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Um, what's wrong with George Bush?
>>>
>>> OK....and awaaaay we go.....
>>>
>>> <Slides soapbox up>
>>> He's dead set against any peace in this day and time. We just crossed
>>> 700 soldiers lost in Iraq. As a former vet of the first Desert Storm,
>>> I cannot fathom why "wars" are fought this way. The US military is not
>>> an occupational force. You'd be hard-pressed to find a soldier,
>>> sailor, or airman who has ever been issued handcuffs or rubber
>>> bullets. We were given M-16's with high velocity rounds and grenades.
>>> Bush is on a simple vendetta here to settle a score left over from
>>> Dad. He should know better, being prior service, and I for one am sick
>>> of the lost lives. Not everyone in the world wants to be an American,
>>> regardless of what Americans might think.
>>> <steps down>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Everything I believe could be wrong.
>>>
>>
>>Your tag says it all.
>
> Nice rebuttal. Good to back up your thoughts with facts and
> observations.
>
> --
> Everything I believe could be wrong.
>
>

OK, here goes.

Seven hundred casualties in a war is very light by any ruler you choose to
use. Don't act ignorant, of course the U.S. military is an occupational
force. Many servicemen carry handcuffs. As a Security Specialist in the
Air Force, I had to learn to apply handcuffs and plastic retraints. I must
admit that in operations we never carried any but you get the idea. Then
of course, there is the military police and shore patrol.

As for as light weapons, we worked in four man fire teams that carried, as
a rule, three M-16s, one w/M203 grenade launcher and an M-60 machine gun.
We also carried various other devices. I admit were were trained as
anything but occupational forces but that was not our mission.

The Army, Marine and Air Forces were used to destroy the Army in Iraq and
are now being used to supress insurgents. Elements of the Army and Navy
are being used for many other things there also. Don't be fooled, we are
winning.

Saying that President Bush is carrying on a family vendetta against Saeddam
Hussein flies in the face of all evidence.

As for being sick of lost lives, you aren't the only one. I have had to do
a lot of soul searching and still feel ill when I think about some things.
However, after all is said and done, I find our war on Islamic Jihadists to
be just.

Millions of people in the world would like to be American. But then, of
course, there are billions of people in the world.

It is self-evident that not everyone in the world wants to be American.
They are quite proud of their own histories and accomplishments. However,
everyone does want to be free to choose their own path.

As part of the war, we are not trying to Americanize Iraq but we are trying
to leave a non-autocratic government that will find Islamic Jihadism
anathema.


--
---
Chip

"Oderint dum metuant."
- Lucius Accius
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 5:37:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Stefano <oppenheimer@bomb.ne> wrote in
news:CRVgc.105502$rM4.4160369@news4.tin.it:

> Un header molto originale introduce la risposta a "Chip Anderson":
>
>
>
>>If the U.S. were a rogue nation, then the rest of the worlds would
>>attack us and remove our weapons of mass destruction.
>>
>>As for forbidden weapons used, which would those be?
>
> I don't know the name in english, they're called something like grape-
> bomb or fragmentation bomb, somthing like that in italian at least.
> It's the kind of bomb that explodes before reachin the ground damaging
> all the area. Not a chemical or mass destruction weapon, but it was
> forbidden by Geneva treaty.
>
> Stefano
>

You mean like artillery? If you think all artillery rounds are meant to
explode on impact, you are sadly mistaken. Rounds can be fuzed for both
air and ground burst. I know of no army that fields artillery that does
otherwise. You must be thinking of something else.


--
---
Chip

"Oderint dum metuant."
- Lucius Accius
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 5:38:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 01:37:04 GMT, Chip Anderson
<b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>OK, here goes.
>
>Seven hundred casualties in a war is very light by any ruler you choose to
>use.

Tell that to the tens of thousands of family members who have
senselessly buried a loved one lost in this "war".

>Don't act ignorant, of course the U.S. military is an occupational
>force. Many servicemen carry handcuffs. As a Security Specialist in the
>Air Force, I had to learn to apply handcuffs and plastic retraints. I must
>admit that in operations we never carried any but you get the idea. Then
>of course, there is the military police and shore patrol.
>

Ignorant? Who's acting? :D 
Military police. Doesn't that say it for itself? How much "riot
control" did you learn in basic? Urban combat training consists of
seek-and-kill operations. To even say that the US military is designed
as an occupational force makes me question whether you even served.

>As for as light weapons, we worked in four man fire teams that carried, as
>a rule, three M-16s, one w/M203 grenade launcher and an M-60 machine gun.
>We also carried various other devices. I admit were were trained as
>anything but occupational forces but that was not our mission.
>

Afraid you lost me here. What was not your mission?

>The Army, Marine and Air Forces were used to destroy the Army in Iraq and
>are now being used to supress insurgents. Elements of the Army and Navy
>are being used for many other things there also. Don't be fooled, we are
>winning.
>

Winning? Don't fool yourself. We can't win this thing. It's just going
to get uglier until it's finally over. This has all the markings of a
quagmire in the making. We have absolutely no business being there.
There were no WMDs or established terrorist connections. Simply a
bully dictator, but you need only to look as far as Korea or Africa or
China to find much worse things happening. Still I'll wager no
invasion of mainland China is going to happen anytime soon.

>Saying that President Bush is carrying on a family vendetta against Saeddam
>Hussein flies in the face of all evidence.
>

Ok then. Why are we currently doing what we are doing? <cough
cough..oil....cough>

>As for being sick of lost lives, you aren't the only one. I have had to do
>a lot of soul searching and still feel ill when I think about some things.
>However, after all is said and done, I find our war on Islamic Jihadists to
>be just.
>

Why? Because they believe differently than we do? You sound just like
the average American who has been spoon-fed his opinion by CNN.
Terrorism is nothing new. America just has been lucky so far not to be
involved in most of it until the last bit. As a service member did you
ever travel overseas? One of the first observations I had when I began
overseas duties was that we are so very lax on security issues. The
average American will not tolerate a 2 minute delay at the airport
unless it is just absolutely demanded. Hell, I got flagged going
through Orlando last year coming back from Disney. The Marshalls that
pulled me out asked me where my bag was and I showed them. I started
to unzip it and they told me it wasn't necessary. They ran a "sniffer"
wand over it and I was away. If that had been any foreign port, I'd
have had my bag opened, searched, and I'd have been questioned as a
matter of course. That's how security is supposed to work. Face it,
America has gotten fat, lazy, and apathetic. We were tailor-made for
an act of terrorism to hit us.

>Millions of people in the world would like to be American. But then, of
>course, there are billions of people in the world.
>
>It is self-evident that not everyone in the world wants to be American.
>They are quite proud of their own histories and accomplishments. However,
>everyone does want to be free to choose their own path.
>

You never spent time outside the border, did you? You'd see how
asinine that statement is if you had. People anywhere are basically
sheep. They'll live any way a strong leader tells them to, and they'll
think they have it made because their mud hut is slightly larger than
the neighbors. Look at Germany when the wall came down. Everyone was
so excited to be able to get across. When it was all said and done
what happened? Most people just went back home. People will accept the
status quo as long as it meets the basic needs.

>As part of the war, we are not trying to Americanize Iraq but we are trying
>to leave a non-autocratic government that will find Islamic Jihadism
>anathema.

How exactly do you propose that the US military is going to convince
these (probably) millions of people around the world who support the
"separatists" with shelter, food, money, and information? One needs
only to look at history to find that wars based on religious grounds
are violent, bloody, and enduring. America cannot police the world and
it shouldn't. We should end this charade now before the rest of the
world turns even more against us.

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 5:39:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Mr K <duffstuff@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4083d585$1$25240$cc9e4d1f@news-
text.dial.pipex.com:

> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:59:24 GMT, Chip Anderson wrote:
>
>> President Bush was duly elected by the process mandated under the U.S.
>> Constitution. This despite desperate efforts by the Democrat party to
>> hijack the election process.
>
> Hmm... I could've sworn Bush didn't win the election, yet managed to
> become President by winning a court battle.
>

Then you would have been mistaken. If you want, I can outline the course
of events for you or you can look them up for youself.


--
---
Chip

"Oderint dum metuant."
- Lucius Accius
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 7:05:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

gopostal <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in
news:gct8805ed9gfcaktjah4hsv3lcvkomvel9@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:38:38 GMT, Stefano <oppenheimer@bomb.ne> wrote:
>
>>Un header molto originale introduce la risposta a "gopostal":
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>If the U.S. were a rogue nation, then the rest of the worlds would
>>>>>attack us and remove our weapons of mass destruction.
>>>>>
>>>>>As for forbidden weapons used, which would those be?
>>>>
>>>>I don't know the name in english, they're called something like
>>>>grape- bomb or fragmentation bomb, somthing like that in italian at
>>>>least. It's the kind of bomb that explodes before reachin the ground
>>>>damaging all the area. Not a chemical or mass destruction weapon,
>>>>but it was forbidden by Geneva treaty.
>>>>
>>>>Stefano
>>>
>>>Cluster bombs. And no, they aren't forbidden.
>>
>>I don't know if they're called Cluster bombs, but i know that that
>>weapon was against the treaty
>
> The Air Force uses them extensively to attack large targets like
> runways or fields of mechanized vehicles. I've never heard of them
> being banned. Now if they separated and landed without detonation to
> be triggered later by opposing forces they would be forbidden as land
> mines. Other than that, I'm not sure what you could be thinking of.
>
> --
> Everything I believe could be wrong.
>
>

Land mines are not forbidden by the Geneva convention. Perhaps you were
thinking of the Ottowa Convention, of which the U.S. is not a signatory.


--
---
Chip

"Oderint dum metuant."
- Lucius Accius
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 12:39:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

gopostal <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in
news:jeb980d0slkkdvtpoeac1q69c538p737nk@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 01:37:04 GMT, Chip Anderson
> <b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>OK, here goes.
>>
>>Seven hundred casualties in a war is very light by any ruler you
>>choose to use.
>
> Tell that to the tens of thousands of family members who have
> senselessly buried a loved one lost in this "war".

I realize that simply because casualties are light does not make the deaths
any less tragic. However, this war is just. I'm certainly not falling for
the war to end all war/terrorism bit. There will always be discontent and
war, we must deal with it in the most rational and efficient manner
possible to lessen war's duration and impact.

>
>>Don't act ignorant, of course the U.S. military is an occupational
>>force. Many servicemen carry handcuffs. As a Security Specialist in
>>the Air Force, I had to learn to apply handcuffs and plastic
>>retraints. I must admit that in operations we never carried any but
>>you get the idea. Then of course, there is the military police and
>>shore patrol.
>>
>
> Ignorant? Who's acting? :D 
> Military police. Doesn't that say it for itself? How much "riot
> control" did you learn in basic? Urban combat training consists of
> seek-and-kill operations. To even say that the US military is designed
> as an occupational force makes me question whether you even served.

No riot control in basic but in tech school. Air bases with nuclear
weapons were constant targets for anti-nuke demonstrations. It would have
been very bad altogether if we had used rifles instead of water canon at
Greenham Common.

As for saying that the US military is designed as an occupational force, I
say no such thing. However, occupying defeated nations is a fact of
warfare.

>
>>As for as light weapons, we worked in four man fire teams that
>>carried, as a rule, three M-16s, one w/M203 grenade launcher and an
>>M-60 machine gun. We also carried various other devices. I admit
>>were were trained as anything but occupational forces but that was not
>>our mission.
>>
>
> Afraid you lost me here. What was not your mission?

We were not occupational forces but tasked for air base ground defense.

>
>>The Army, Marine and Air Forces were used to destroy the Army in Iraq
>>and are now being used to supress insurgents. Elements of the Army
>>and Navy are being used for many other things there also. Don't be
>>fooled, we are winning.
>>
>
> Winning? Don't fool yourself. We can't win this thing. It's just going
> to get uglier until it's finally over. This has all the markings of a
> quagmire in the making. We have absolutely no business being there.
> There were no WMDs or established terrorist connections. Simply a
> bully dictator, but you need only to look as far as Korea or Africa or
> China to find much worse things happening. Still I'll wager no
> invasion of mainland China is going to happen anytime soon.

There were chemical and biological weapons and efforts to obtain nuclear
weapons and there were terrorist connections. To say otherwise is to deny
the truth. This is a regional war that was brought starkly to our national
attention Sep. 11, 2001.

After denying al Queda and the Taliban their base in Afghanistan, do you
think we should have simply stopped at that point? The Islamic Jihadists
certainly would not have stopped.

After finding Iraq defiant in the face of 12 years of international efforts
to come clean, we invaded. It is true that we have not subsequently found
large caches of chemical and biological weapons. However, they were there
at one time and the question that still needs answering is where did they
go?

In the current situation, Iraq has become a magnet for every Islamic
Jihadist who wants to thwart the U.S. This is not unexpected and is being
dealt with accordingly. As Iraq goes, so goes the Middle East. This is a
plan not without risk but the potential rewards are great. Our biggest
achilles heel is here at home in the political arena and our foes are
working very hard to cut that tendon.

North Korea is being dealt with also.

As far as China goes, yes there is a large potential conflict with them
looming over the horizon. Our best efforts to avoid war with China, either
by proxy or outright, will be used to keep them convinced that dealing with
us in other than military engagements is best for all concerned.

>
>>Saying that President Bush is carrying on a family vendetta against
>>Saeddam Hussein flies in the face of all evidence.
>>
>
> Ok then. Why are we currently doing what we are doing? <cough
> cough..oil....cough>

See above.

There enough truth in the lie that this is only for oil to make it seem to
be "the truth". The problem is a very complex one and oil is indeed a part
of it.

>
>>As for being sick of lost lives, you aren't the only one. I have had
>>to do a lot of soul searching and still feel ill when I think about
>>some things. However, after all is said and done, I find our war on
>>Islamic Jihadists to be just.
>>
>
> Why? Because they believe differently than we do? You sound just like
> the average American who has been spoon-fed his opinion by CNN.

If someone believes differently from myself, that is not in itself casus
belli. However, attacking me is.

I do not watch television at home. I do have one, but the only thing
plugged into it is a VCR for the occasional movie from Blockbuster or the
library.


> Terrorism is nothing new. America just has been lucky so far not to be
> involved in most of it until the last bit. As a service member did you
> ever travel overseas? One of the first observations I had when I began
> overseas duties was that we are so very lax on security issues. The
> average American will not tolerate a 2 minute delay at the airport
> unless it is just absolutely demanded. Hell, I got flagged going
> through Orlando last year coming back from Disney. The Marshalls that
> pulled me out asked me where my bag was and I showed them. I started
> to unzip it and they told me it wasn't necessary. They ran a "sniffer"
> wand over it and I was away. If that had been any foreign port, I'd
> have had my bag opened, searched, and I'd have been questioned as a
> matter of course. That's how security is supposed to work. Face it,
> America has gotten fat, lazy, and apathetic. We were tailor-made for
> an act of terrorism to hit us.

Yes, I have been overseas and we were always briefed on the cuurent
THREATCON level.

As far as security goes on the home front, we are still painfully
vulnerable. I fly across CONUS throughout the year and as far as I can see
most airport security measures are simply feel-good measures. Regional
airport security measures are, for the most part, nonexistent. I have
occasion to do work at some regional airports and see this firsthand.

I could go on and on. Trains, malls, theatres, etc. This does not mean we
are fat and lazy. It means we have no desire to live in an armed camp.
That being said, our sense of security can be a very fragile thing. Just
ask the people who were in the Washington D.C. area when Muhammad and Malvo
were sniping around.

>
>>Millions of people in the world would like to be American. But then,
>>of course, there are billions of people in the world.
>>
>>It is self-evident that not everyone in the world wants to be
>>American. They are quite proud of their own histories and
>>accomplishments. However, everyone does want to be free to choose
>>their own path.
>>
>
> You never spent time outside the border, did you? You'd see how
> asinine that statement is if you had. People anywhere are basically
> sheep. They'll live any way a strong leader tells them to, and they'll
> think they have it made because their mud hut is slightly larger than
> the neighbors. Look at Germany when the wall came down. Everyone was
> so excited to be able to get across. When it was all said and done
> what happened? Most people just went back home. People will accept the
> status quo as long as it meets the basic needs.

I will have to beg to differ with you on this one. They went home because
there was no longer any need for them to leave.

You are correct in your assesment of most people just going along until
things become intolerable.

Although some people will work harder at making their own way than others
and some will follow whatever path is laid for them, my statement still
stands. Everyone does want to be free to choose their own path.

>
>>As part of the war, we are not trying to Americanize Iraq but we are
>>trying to leave a non-autocratic government that will find Islamic
>>Jihadism anathema.
>
> How exactly do you propose that the US military is going to convince
> these (probably) millions of people around the world who support the
> "separatists" with shelter, food, money, and information? One needs
> only to look at history to find that wars based on religious grounds
> are violent, bloody, and enduring. America cannot police the world and
> it shouldn't. We should end this charade now before the rest of the
> world turns even more against us.
>

It is not the U.S. military alone. Once the Iraqis can stand on their own,
they will defend their sovereignty.

I agree, America should not police the world. America should look out for
America by whatever means necessary.


--
---
Chip

"Oderint dum metuant."
- Lucius Accius
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 12:39:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:39:36 GMT, Chip Anderson
<b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>I agree, America should not police the world. America should look out for
>America by whatever means necessary.

Good points Chip. I'm afraid though that we could go around in circles
and this probably is not the best forum for it. How about we
respectfully disagree and let it lie at that? We have had different
experiences and obviously court opposing views on some subjects. Fair
enough?

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 4:44:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:39:36 GMT, Chip Anderson
<b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>As Iraq goes, so goes the Middle East. This is a
>plan not without risk but the potential rewards are great. Our biggest
>achilles heel is here at home in the political arena and our foes are
>working very hard to cut that tendon.

We've been propping up the Israelis with guns and money for years,
allowing them to steal land from the Palestinians and commit
atrocities against the Palestinian people. That has been the single
biggest force influencing the Middle East for the past fifty years.
The entire world is aware of the US's role in that mess. What rocket
scientist thought that we could waltz into Baghdad and have the locals
throw flowers at our feet? There is enough built-up hate for the US's
meddling in Middle Eastern affairs (and oil) these past fifty years to
last for several generations. Anyone who thinks we can turn Iraq into
some bastion of freedom while Israel continues to murder and steal in
that region is not thinking past their nose.

Bob Woodward and others have laid out the plan and motivation for
attacking Iraq and it had little to do with 9/11 and everything to do
with a Middle Eastern power grab. To stand on the sidelines and
applaud that type of behavior in our government leaders... no matter
what your military stripe, is to acknowledge that you place no value
on the lives of other cultures and it stinks to high heaven of
patriotism taken to an evil extreme.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 7:32:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Un header molto originale introduce la risposta a "Chip Anderson":


>gopostal <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in
>news:gct8805ed9gfcaktjah4hsv3lcvkomvel9@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:38:38 GMT, Stefano <oppenheimer@bomb.ne> wrote:
>>
>>>Un header molto originale introduce la risposta a "gopostal":
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>If the U.S. were a rogue nation, then the rest of the worlds would
>>>>>>attack us and remove our weapons of mass destruction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As for forbidden weapons used, which would those be?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know the name in english, they're called something like
>>>>>grape- bomb or fragmentation bomb, somthing like that in italian at
>>>>>least. It's the kind of bomb that explodes before reachin the ground
>>>>>damaging all the area. Not a chemical or mass destruction weapon,
>>>>>but it was forbidden by Geneva treaty.
>>>>>
>>>>>Stefano
>>>>
>>>>Cluster bombs. And no, they aren't forbidden.
>>>
>>>I don't know if they're called Cluster bombs, but i know that that
>>>weapon was against the treaty
>>
>> The Air Force uses them extensively to attack large targets like
>> runways or fields of mechanized vehicles. I've never heard of them
>> being banned. Now if they separated and landed without detonation to
>> be triggered later by opposing forces they would be forbidden as land
>> mines. Other than that, I'm not sure what you could be thinking of.
>>
>> --
>> Everything I believe could be wrong.
>>
>>
>
>Land mines are not forbidden by the Geneva convention. Perhaps you were
>thinking of the Ottowa Convention, of which the U.S. is not a signatory.

Oh, well, I'll wander a bit on the net searching for the precise
information then I'll post it here.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 10:28:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

"gopostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i4g880psldmvepo9e16lcoqj5s3bvm8c59@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:34:58 GMT, Stefano <oppenheimer@bomb.ne> wrote:
>
> >Un header molto originale introduce la risposta a "Chip Anderson":
> >
> >
> >
> >>If the U.S. were a rogue nation, then the rest of the worlds would
attack
> >>us and remove our weapons of mass destruction.
> >>
> >>As for forbidden weapons used, which would those be?
> >
> >I don't know the name in english, they're called something like grape-
> >bomb or fragmentation bomb, somthing like that in italian at least. It's
> >the kind of bomb that explodes before reachin the ground damaging all
> >the area. Not a chemical or mass destruction weapon, but it was
> >forbidden by Geneva treaty.
> >
> >Stefano
>
> Cluster bombs. And no, they aren't forbidden.
>
> --
> Everything I believe could be wrong.
>
it might be the "daisy cutter" he was reffering to,but im not sure if it
igainst the geneva
convention either.

damyjuk
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 11:44:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:28:23 +0100, damyjuk wrote:

>> Cluster bombs. And no, they aren't forbidden.

> it might be the "daisy cutter" he was reffering to,but im not sure if it
> igainst the geneva convention either.

It isn't. Stefano is confused.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 11:24:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

{AGUT}gopostal <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in
news:jb5a80d599bt4iv5lcpmallhr8lo02j0ca@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:39:36 GMT, Chip Anderson
> <b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I agree, America should not police the world. America should look out
>>for America by whatever means necessary.
>
> Good points Chip. I'm afraid though that we could go around in circles
> and this probably is not the best forum for it. How about we
> respectfully disagree and let it lie at that? We have had different
> experiences and obviously court opposing views on some subjects. Fair
> enough?
>
> --
> Everything I believe could be wrong.
>
>

Fair.

--
---
Chip

"Oderint dum metuant."
- Lucius Accius
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 11:26:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote in
news:t0ka80lh8otqpodhmbd5792fc2tglvul6g@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:39:36 GMT, Chip Anderson
> <b_andersNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>As Iraq goes, so goes the Middle East. This is a
>>plan not without risk but the potential rewards are great. Our biggest
>>achilles heel is here at home in the political arena and our foes are
>>working very hard to cut that tendon.
>
> We've been propping up the Israelis with guns and money for years,
> allowing them to steal land from the Palestinians and commit
> atrocities against the Palestinian people. That has been the single
> biggest force influencing the Middle East for the past fifty years.
> The entire world is aware of the US's role in that mess. What rocket
> scientist thought that we could waltz into Baghdad and have the locals
> throw flowers at our feet? There is enough built-up hate for the US's
> meddling in Middle Eastern affairs (and oil) these past fifty years to
> last for several generations. Anyone who thinks we can turn Iraq into
> some bastion of freedom while Israel continues to murder and steal in
> that region is not thinking past their nose.
>
> Bob Woodward and others have laid out the plan and motivation for
> attacking Iraq and it had little to do with 9/11 and everything to do
> with a Middle Eastern power grab. To stand on the sidelines and
> applaud that type of behavior in our government leaders... no matter
> what your military stripe, is to acknowledge that you place no value
> on the lives of other cultures and it stinks to high heaven of
> patriotism taken to an evil extreme.
>
>

I side with the Israelis. 'nuff said.


--
---
Chip

"Oderint dum metuant."
- Lucius Accius
April 21, 2004 12:46:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Folk wrote:
>
> We've been propping up the Israelis with guns and money for years,
> allowing them to steal land from the Palestinians and commit
> atrocities against the Palestinian people. That has been the single
> biggest force influencing the Middle East for the past fifty years.
> The entire world is aware of the US's role in that mess. What rocket
> scientist thought that we could waltz into Baghdad and have the locals
> throw flowers at our feet? There is enough built-up hate for the US's
> meddling in Middle Eastern affairs (and oil) these past fifty years to
> last for several generations. Anyone who thinks we can turn Iraq into
> some bastion of freedom while Israel continues to murder and steal in
> that region is not thinking past their nose.
>
> Bob Woodward and others have laid out the plan and motivation for
> attacking Iraq and it had little to do with 9/11 and everything to do
> with a Middle Eastern power grab. To stand on the sidelines and
> applaud that type of behavior in our government leaders... no matter
> what your military stripe, is to acknowledge that you place no value
> on the lives of other cultures and it stinks to high heaven of
> patriotism taken to an evil extreme.

Hi Folk and GoPostal,

As an englishman opposed to the military conflict in Iraq, I'd like to say
how refreshing it is to see Americans willing to come out in the fashion
that the two of you have. Thankyou both for bashing the opinion that I had,
bolstered by the unduly patriotic types, ala Chip, of the average Yank.
Thanks again.

--
sid
RLU 300284 Mdk 10 2.6.3-8
My barber's getting very hard of hearing,
I asked him to make me look like a *count*.....
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 12:46:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:46:21 GMT, sid
<sidshouse@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:


>Hi Folk and GoPostal,
>
>As an englishman opposed to the military conflict in Iraq, I'd like to say
>how refreshing it is to see Americans willing to come out in the fashion
>that the two of you have. Thankyou both for bashing the opinion that I had,
>bolstered by the unduly patriotic types, ala Chip, of the average Yank.
>Thanks again.

It's just opinion dude. Tell you what though, throughout my life I've
learned far more from people I've disagreed with than people I've
sided with. Even though Chip and I don't see eye-to-eye on some key
points, I still respect his opinions and especially his rights to
voice them. Hell, it's like my sig says......

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 4:27:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 06:42:19 -0400, {AGUT}gopostal
<agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:46:21 GMT, sid
><sidshouse@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Folk and GoPostal,
>>
>>As an englishman opposed to the military conflict in Iraq, I'd like to say
>>how refreshing it is to see Americans willing to come out in the fashion
>>that the two of you have. Thankyou both for bashing the opinion that I had,
>>bolstered by the unduly patriotic types, ala Chip, of the average Yank.
>>Thanks again.
>
>It's just opinion dude. Tell you what though, throughout my life I've
>learned far more from people I've disagreed with than people I've
>sided with. Even though Chip and I don't see eye-to-eye on some key
>points, I still respect his opinions and especially his rights to
>voice them. Hell, it's like my sig says......

Couldn't have said it better.
!