SOCL

Please do not post content, namely images, which could be potentially incriminating and/or offensive for users, including the user posting such content. Also, for future reference, refrain from posting images in posts unless they are a thumbnail. Links are best.

And I probably will, and then get a little to very sick. I love the GIF of me you have there, Mad.

And me, too!

Dude, Jahled, you need to steal the hat!

Yes, especially since you didn't make every one of your edits a new post! Welcome...sort of...RogueIce

Best white wine I've ever had came from the Land Downunder.

Lucky number? And here I was this whole time thinking it was your IQ! Just kidding.

I'm so creative: It's my initials.

Welcome to the site, Matt! Make yourself at home!

I understand the idea of comparing fatalities between the conflict in Iraq and other wars, but there's a major dilemma in doing this, namely that medicine and medical technologies have come a very long way since World War II or even more recent conflicts like those in Korea and Vietnam--hell, the technological advances since the Gulf War, about 15 years, are amazing on there own. Another figure is 22,000: that's the number of non-fatal major casualties sustained in combat operations in Iraq. (read or listen to this report) In this sense, saying that 3,000 is a low number because more died in one battle of one war alone (i.e. the Battle of Normandy) is, as you said, comparing apples and oranges--they simply do not match up. Besides which, World War II was a conflict of various nations from across the world, not one nation primarily leading others in the invasion of a nation whose military has been destroyed and whose new enemy is a native-born insurgency instigated by foreigners, albeit minimal. The very fact more troops were thrown into the mix during World War II alone explains why there were more casualties in that war than in this one. In any event, the number of casualties following the conclusion of "Major Combat Operations" is on the rise, and by quite a margin. As for the "liberal media" bit that I keep hearing over and over (and over) again, remember when in October the media made a big deal about the fact that US fatalities in Iraq would be the highest since early 2005/late 2004? Yes, well, in the end October's fatality for the USA came to 110. Well, did they do quite as much near-counting-down when the death-toll for December came to 118? No, not nearly as much as they did for October. Most people I have spoken to, in fact, had no idea December had a higher casualty rate than October, though clearly remember the media blitz over the death-toll three months ago. This has nothing to do with liberal media. In the end, it all depends what party is in power, and I don't mean Congress, I mean who holds the presidency. This is the very same reason why during the Clinton Administration then-First Lady Hillary Clinton made her famous remark over a "vast right-wing conspiracy" of which she specifically named the media. It's just political mumbo-jumbo, which the media enjoys as it gives them more to report: a vicious cycle. The media will, invariably, criticize whoever is in power--more so whoever holds the presidency as they are 1) a single person and 2) easier to criticize than Congressmen and -women who can easily point fingers at another--because that person is in the limelight and they are running the nation. That's the way it happens in every presidency because the people out of power are not nearly as interesting as those invested in running the country--in that sense, they brought it upon themselves. Decision-makers are the epicenter of the evils of the nation, so the media is liberal when Republicans control the Presidency, and the media is conservative when the Democrats control the Presidency. Really, I could care less what the media says. It will influence politics and decision-making, but what can we do about? Ban the media? No, we just let them do what they do, and that is attract readers. This is why I prefer the BBC over the private news networks and companies: because they owe no loyalty to readers; rather, they put out the news whether people listen or not. This is the same reason I prefer NPR. But that's just my bit.

Elegos' death meant more to me, but likely because I had first met him as the tragic figure of the Hand of Thrawn trilogy and not the over-glorified politician he was made out to be in I, Jedi (italicized or underlined, Tofu: it's a book ), but that might just be my anti-Stackpole bias coming out... Further, he was the only character throughout most of Star Wars who when he said he wanted to find a peaceful means to a peaceful resolution, he truly meant it. Not like the Jedi and, dare I say, every character who said they wanted a peaceful resolution and a peaceful means to the same, but gave up on that on page 5.

On a final comment, though, I want to make it quite clear that the administration had nothing to do with Darth_Officer's change in both name and avatar. Certainly it must have been an administrator who changed the name, but only at Darth_Officer's request, not at the insistence of anyone on the staff. Indeed, you'll note no staff members commented on the matter, either.

But we, of course, don't support illegal downloads, even if it is available on YouTube....

Islamist is actually the word used for Muslim Extremist. I can understand how it would sound like something "Islamic" or something "Islamist" would seem to be the same as Muslim in the same sense "Christian" or both the noun and modifier (that is, adjective) of Christianity. Even so, something isn't Muslim, rather, it's Islamic. In the case of extremist who kill and carry out actions in the name of Islam, yet are not accepted by the main-stream, they are referred to as "Islamist" (no matter what they may call themselves). It's the same situation when members of the KKK call themselves Christians: no one really agrees. And to clear it up, Islamic is the modifier for something that is of the faith of Islam, that is, something being nonhuman. Therefore a mosque is Islamic, a worshiper at a mosque is a Muslim, and someone like bin Laden is an Islamist. I apologize for not making the distinction clear when I made my previous post. Relating to the topic, this report by NPR states that General Abazaid (US Army), after resigning from his post as Commander, US Central Command will be replaced by a Navy Admiral (an unusual development, to say the least), but more interesting concerns the command of ground operations in Iraq. In a surprise move, the eternally loyal General George Casey is being replaced. I find this very strange because Casey has been there virtually every single day since the invasion began and pulling someone who has been there that long without warning of any sort seems to signify a stark change in the wings. If nothing else, the fact General Petraeus (who I actually know personally) is being appointed to the post is telling of a huge change. I realize that Petraeus isn't that well known (despite being prominently displayed in the most recent "Time" magazine and his lightning-fast ascension in the hierarchy), but those who know him and those who have served under him know quite well that he is nothing like Casey to the point of being near-rivals. Further, Petraeus is still a Lieutenant General (three stars) filling a post filled before by a four-star General: telling of Petraeus' continued ascension, as well as his ability. General Petraeus is a great commander and individual. I can only hope that his appointment to the post is a good thing.

To tell you the truth, despite my cynical and general discontent with the NJO, I'm actually looking forward to reading the Legacy series. It just seems like the more mature Star Wars for the 21st Century, going it's own way rather than trying to hold on to the same line of dialog from the original trilogy. That probably contradicts my critique of the NJO in an earlier post, but I have gotten the same impression as Evaders, namely that it's more similar to the Black Fleet Crisis, a trilogy I actually enjoyed thoroughly. Plus, I like politics and such and their development, namely the way the comics allude to the Galactic Alliance become or being overtaken by the Empire...

Not true- I saw Bloodlines in paperback at my local bookstore. Didn't buy it on account of not having read enough of the E.U. to fully understand it (In addittion to only having about $50 to spend) but I saw it in paperback. My mistake. I meant to say Betrayal, the first in the series. Bloodlines was, in fact, a straight-to-paperback (mass-market) release, just like the recent one, Tempest.

I really don't want to become involved, but I feel a need to say something: there is a distinct difference between Muslims and Islamists. I know, maybe this may seem like what some people call petty political correctness, but please be mindful and sensitive of others on these forums and making generalizations. I have many friends and I have family who are Muslim--it doesn't make them terrorists or some sort of invaders...

ABC and NBC are the same thing. Atomic and Nuclear in this sense, namely weapon systems, are interchangeable. Neither is more correct than the other and, thus, neither is incorrect. WMD, on the other hand, stands for Weapons of Mass Destruction. This includes, but is not limited to ABC/NBC weapons. A Weapon of Mass Destruction can be a non-nuclear ballistic missile, which doesn't fit under the ABC/NBC designation. As the name implies, a WMD is any weapon that can destroy in massive amounts--thus, ABC/NBC weapons are WMDs, but not all WMDs are ABC/NBC weapons. Just thought I'd clear that bit up. As for the invasion: I have a hard time putting out-right support for continued deployment when I have neighbors die before I even get a chance to get to know them, much less my friends who I already know. I also have a hard time supporting continued action when I hear constant negative conversation coming from officers within the Army, and I'm not talking about lieutenants, either. I'm talking field and general grade officers. They certainly don't make it public (or, at least, not until retirement, as has been the case with many who called for Rumsfeld's resignation) as they would lose their job, but they sure do let each other know. I just happen to be sitting at the same table or around the same bowl of punch as them. The amount of doubt I hear coming from them makes me worry because it's completely different from what official and Administration sources keep telling us. Of course, this could be a minority.

Isn't this series also known as Legend of the Galactic Heroes? At least, the whole Galactic Empire concept and such sounds very much like it... I think that most scifi anime from the 1970s basically revolves around the same basic theme about war and such, reflecting the Japan's dealing with its past in having surrendered in World War II...

Well, it is from a Japanese cartoon/anime, but not from Star Blazers. The character is Amuro Ray from Yoshiyuki Tomino's Mobile Suit Gundam. The picture is specifically from something called Gundam EVOLVE, a CGI-based retelling of various scenes from many of the anime which fall under the Gundam universe, specifically a retelling of Char's Counterattack, a movie. Information is on Wikipedia, if you're interested.

Welcome to the forums, OldFan! Your name makes me think that you and DarthTex are going to get along quite nicely. Be sure to make a stop by the New Members thread and introduce yourself, though nothing beats the first post in an open thread. I, too, tried watching the rest of the Holiday Special, but settled on just the cartoon. The rest made me a little nauseous and I can't say I would be motivated to buy it if it ever came out in DVD.

The plan is a disaster in the making. The Army is overworked, over-deployed, and over-strained--hence why they gave over command of operations in Afghanistan to a greater NATO force and are slowly drawing back deployment numbers to just under a division-sized task force. Where they'll find the new troops necessary is beyond anyone's comprehension, though a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs from 1993 (that is, the senior military adviser to the president) is backing a movement to have the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule taken out and in favour of allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military. It's really the only pool of available troops besides of an all-out conscription of the general populace. The man is asking for troop numbers that are ridiculous. We're talking about three to four brigade's worth of soldiers--that's another whole division. Rumour has it they're going to do something very stupid and decrease the number of troops per unit to form more units to have more slots to fill overall. This doesn't solve anything, of course, just makes each unit smaller and weaker in hopes that patriotism for the cause will drive recruiting numbers up--since that's been working so well these last three years. Dear, God, I hope it doesn't come down to a draft.

It was Saddam Hussein and Rumsfeld playing Rock-Paper-Scissors.

For best Christmas animated GIF, I nominate Jahled. For best Christmas avatar, though, I say Tex's avatar should win just because of pure hilarity.

Woo! Maybe we'll actually get so drunk we put traffic cones on our heads whilst being talk to be police. Maybe not...