Grand_Admiral_Thrawn

Yoda's fight in Ep II reaked of a bad Kun Fu movie. I prefer the standard way of dueling, not a green ball flying around that could probably give you a seizure if watched for too long

X-wings are a good balance of speed, firepower, and strenght (hull strength). You'd be surprised at how fast they can move. As for the Jedi Starfighter, remmber that compared ot any of the Imperial and Rebel/New Repbulic ships they would be archaic(sp?) and underpowered. I'd hasard to wagerthat even a Z-95 could handle one of those, though not piloted by a Jedi.

THERE IS ONLY ONE GAME WORTH HAVING! BATTLEFRONT! ALL OTHERS ARE INFERIOR!. KotR II doesn't really interest me, since it's pretty much KotR I with a few new items and a new story line. They should have updated the graphics a bit.

Corvette Summer as the movie he did after ANH. Can't remember hte plaot or anyting... had something to do wit ha Corvette. And between ESB and RotJ Mark had a car accident. Not sure how bad it was, though.

In the first movie mark wasn't very good, in ESB he was much better, but not the greatest, in RoTJ, after his car accident, he was superb. I though that the caracter evolved in maturity throughoutthe movies. Plus, I can't think of any one else being Luke Skywalker. I mean, imagine Johnny Depp (sp?) or Ben Aflec. *SHUDDERS*. he certainly did better than he did in Corvette Summer .

there has only been discussion so far. There is a forum for suggestions and what-not.

I'm also rushed... so I'll leave my reply (and actually reading Fett's post) 'till later. Don't worry folks, I'll edit this post to answer.

I also found that with KotR. It was too easy, even as a light-side Jedi with almost no force powers. However, I find your claim that you beat it in every manner possible in only two weaks rather far fetched. Remember, there is 3 difficulty settings (maybe more, I can't remember), three classes, and three posssible force alignments (light, neutral, dark). Plus, there is manny situations where your choice effects the rout you take to complete a level (ie. kill the big fish, or destroy the Republic pumps. Sneak into the Sith base using false ID cards, or break in by killing a bunch of Dark Jedi and stealing their ship).

My favrouite would have to be Luke. he doesn't go out of his way to pick a fight, but he's gotthe power to back him up if he has to. I think he was unfairly portrayed in the EU.

I don't think either Fett, nor myself have actually seen the movie. We're just big on keeping up-to-date on current, and past, events.

Not to be a nag, but htose three posts could have been one by using the edit function. Posting like that is spamming.

Super Troopers? You mean the Dark Troopers? I wasn't too big on the Arc Hammer. I don't like the ships that the LA teams cook up that are suppose to be like SSDs, they just look corny.

i beat the game on the second-from-most difficult setting. Bad, were you talking about Dark Forces, Jedi Knight, or Jedi Knight II. The original Dark Forces is reather easy, but Jedi Knight is quite the opposite.

Surprisingly it only took me one try to kill Dessan, and even then it wasn't too challenging. As I said, I was rather dissapointed.

Best of luck Fett. You know, it's wrong of you to leave. Who will I debate with?

Actually, yes, you should. Attacking before youare actually threatened is called apre-emptive strike, you know, the sort Japan undertook to pull the U.S. in WW II? The sort Germany engaged in to start WW II. No matter who you are , a preemptive strike is a violation of the Rules of War (yes, there are set guildines), and just plain wrong. I know that Saddam as an ass, I'm not arguing against that, but the fact is, you attacking him first is just as bad as him attacking you first. I wold also point out that the foreign policy I would use (as stated above) is much better than near-unilateral action, undertaking a war that destabilizes an entire region, and in the end creates more problems than it solves. Plus, shold I run for office, I would have won. You make a good point. They certainly are less likely to sell thier nukes to Al Qaida than Saddam would have been, but then again, Saddam didn't have any nukes, and is the least likely to sell nukes to Al Qaida in the whole of the Middle East, simply because him and Bin *insert-profanityhere-laden* don't like each other. Korea may have been brought around to negotiations, but they've still got the "gun". There is nothing to justify these actions, but why not attack Saudi Arabia? Their terrorist training may not be as overt as Iraq's was, but they've more ties to Al Qeda than Iraq. As for the resolutions they defied, that is the UN's fault and should have been dealt with earlier. However, as none of the UN's resolutions can be forceably imposed upon a nation, there really isn't much you can do about it. Perhaps if there was an international body designed to deal with criminals... oh, wait, there is! The International Court of Justice! Yes, it was created to deal with leaders such as Saddam. Sadly your vaunted Bush reneged on Clintons endorsement of said court. Why? Because heaven forbid an American ever be tried for something! His intentions are indeed obviouse, but how long would it take him before he would be able to produce one nuke, let alone 142 of them? Might I also remind you of a certain nation that has the largest number of nuclear weapons in the world. They're not being used in the same manner as North Korea's, but they are being used, in addition to considerable militery strength, to get what they want. "Deterrents" I believe they are being called. Canada has the largest uranium mine in the world, with enough U 238 to make far more than 142 nukes. Hell, we could ship it to whoever we want! (This includes the U.S. We supply the U 238 to be converted into Pl to replace the stuff in your existing nukes). We may want to build a nuclear weapon, and we're right next to you! I know we're not at odds, but the justification is the same. Intent isn't enough, the crime has to be committed. Ah, so labeling them "enemy comatants" allows you to distance them. Well, since it's a "War on Terror", they are soldiers in said war. What do enemy soldiers do? SHOOT AT YOUR SOLDIERS! The scum that are beheading innocent civilians are not the same people in Abu Graib. Those prisoners are either regular prisoners, or soldiers from the war. If they were the people who like to take a little too much off the top, they'd be in Guantanamo. No matter how you spin it, their treatment is in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document all member nations of the UN signed in 1948. Then get the information through standard interrogation techniques So you want me to trust the intelligence of A) a fractured nation that's more concerned with internal struggles, B) the same nation that lied to start the first Iraq war, as well as the Falkland Island (and what a mess that was!), and C) a greatly underfunded once-super-power that has a herd enough time keeping it's jets in the air long enough to take arial servailance photos, and has to give tourists flights in thier Migs to fund thier Air Force? Of those only the latter is even slightly trustworthy, and then only because they didn't support the war t begin with. Funny how intel tends to support the wants of the nation providing it. No, Bush and Blair didn't lie, I know that. And they did act on what information they had. However, you can't expect me to believe that there wasn't some one in the White House who knew the truth. That's the problem with pretty much every government to date (not just U.S., I mean them all), there is always some one who knows more than the leader, and who has their own motives. I don't blame bush, I blame his cabinet. I've already covered this with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Plus, because they're not American, they don't have rights? What if an American soldier is captured by terrorists. Why should they release him if he's just going to be back in thier desert fighting them again, just as soon as he can get his well manicured hands on an M16 again? As soon as the war is over, they have to be released. Go ahead and hold them until that point, they're POWs. However, the conditions they are living in are not acceptable. I didn't say that the comparison is a carbon copy for Guantanamo, as you seem to have taken it. However, it is pretty close to Vietnam. Yes, American POWs were treaded far more terribly, but the Vietnamese are attacked for politacl reasons only, very similar to the reasons those at Guantanamo enlisted. Well, I have yet to see Isreal conceed to all of Palestine's requests. As a matter of fact, all of Israel's requests are unrealistic. You must also remember that Palestine didn't have a choice as as to whether or not Israel went there. The allied nations took the land after the Second World War. Sure the Palestinians weren't using hte land, but it was still theirs. There is no reason the two nations cannot live in peace, but the influence of a superpower backing one side is to blame for the difference of views. Israel has every right to defend its self, but thier actions are now preemptive. Attacking areas that are residential with a tank or helocopter? I don't care if there are] terroists, that is nonsensical. The UN is more than the sum of its parts. Each nation is responsible for taking action and working together. The administrative aspects ofthe UN are really unessicary, only the bodies composed of member nations have any sway. If there is any ineptitude, it is due to the member nations. The U.S. went beyond enforcing the U.N.'s resolutions. The powerlessness of the U.N. is because of member nations who don't get what they want, so they move on thier own. Just because the U.S. can't get its way they thorw a hissy fit and take actions unilaterally or with those who will wupport them. Just because you're the bigest doesn't mean the rest of the world should listen to you. From my experience, anyting CNN covers is decidedly anti-Kerry, and you can't tell me that at station that airs Larry King Live, a dedicated Republican, is not right-wing? I admit they are better his year than last, but in the end, they're pro-bush. As for me being liberal, what of it? That's not the insult here as it is down there. As a matter of fact, guess who I voted for this year? The Liberal Party of Canada. GASP! Your Republicans pride them selves on saving people money. Well, our liberals have been in power for well over 10 years, our country hasn't been in deficit since (by the way, the U.S. is billions, if not more, in debt ), and our taxes have stayed at a comfortable level. Despite my voting habbits, I'm closer to supporting an authoritarian government than anything. You need only look at the Saturday morning US political shows to see that most networks are in fact pro-bush. So the tactics taken in the War on Terror are working? The world (save the coalition of the "willing") are agains the U.S., we are no closer to finding Osama than before, terrorists are still striking around the world, and I think the terror level just went up. Yup, we're all much safer. We've turned the corner:wink:. Iraq is certainly free... well, if you ignore the constant battles, hundreds of deaths, car bombing, militant groups, beheadings, grenades, tanks, and general carnage. But we can balance that all out by taking some ofthe shots fired in Iraq and distributing them to Libya and Iran. Makes things look much nicer. No, I don't think Bush and Blair are the anti-christ, and they did act on with what they had, but why did the rest of the world know enough to stay out? And no, the whole thing can't be blamed on America's thirst for oil, that just doesn't stand on its own. He did it to protect American citizens? Are soldiers considered citizens? if so, he should really discuss that with the families ofthe 500+ killed in recent months in Iraq. I thought he was doing it to protect the citizens of Iraq from Saddam, but I don't think those blown apart by rockes, bombs, and mortars, or buried under rubble would agree. Sorry, just had to point this out again Absolutely true. The news has a time limit, and they only hsow what the owner of hte station would think pertinent. That's why I read the news paper, two to be more exact. I always read the left and right of the situation and find that it is usually somewhere in the middle, though occasionally it is to one side. If we're going to keep this up, can we keep it short? My hands are killing me from all this typing!

In that case, no, I did it the hard way.

No, when you edit posts your post count does not increase, so your rank remains the same.

It has to be completed first, though. Hopefully there will be some one to help out.

We could host RebCon in someone's home town each year. Actually, the chances of a good number of us getting together in RL a slim, since, as we now know, we are quite spread out.

That's why I'm encouraging any members of the community with modeling or other modding skills to help out the Imperial Assault team.

From my understanding Rebellion 2 has only begun in the planning stages, and nothing concrete has been developed yet.

There is mention of him, but he doesn't become a major player unter Allston starts writing.

OOC: I always thought that the major victory was attaining hte plans forthe Death Star.

First, Yes Saddam supported suicide bombers, and for that, he's an ass. However, wanting to get WMDs and having WMDs are very different. North Korea is more of a threat, but was pushed out of the lime-light. The U.S. and her allies falsified reports to justify war. By the way, Bush Sr. did the same thing in the first war, though it was MI6 who did the falsification. It takes more than uranium to make a nuclear weapon. There is complex science, as well as other materials (catalysts etc.) to develope such a weapon. As to your criticizm of the UN Human rights council, those countries are exactly those who should be there. THey have suffered through some of the worst Human Rights violations to date. Thier current governments are not those responsible for said atrocities. You don't classify the actions at Abu Graib to be torture? So, if you were arrested for a crime on U.S. soil and the police decided to strip you down and force you to pose in humiliating positions with other's who had yet to be tried and convicted of any crime, you would not think that torture? How could that stop another 9/11? There isn't a connection between Iraq and Al Queda. The "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo are aslo needlessly punished, at least in the sense that they are being held without charge. You say "screw the bastards" and that they "wouldn't be there unless they were pointing a gun at our soldiers". What about the war on the Pacific in WW II. Maybe the Japanese weren't too rough on your troops then? After all, they were pointing guns at Japanese soldiers. Or the treatment of POWs in Vietnam. Yup ,seems fare to me. Maybe the U.S. can pay for a memorial wall in Kandahar for those killed in Afganistan. You speak of corruption in the UN Security Council? Tell me, what country uses it's veto on any action that could have brough peace to Isreal and Palestine, simply because Isreal is the only nation not agianst them in the middle-east? There is no corruption, only a group of countries that didn't agree with what the U.S wanted to do. But I guess down there the U.S. is infallible. I suggest you get your news from somewhere other than CNN. Then again, there isn't a news station that isn't slanted towards your republican party. Get satellite and watch the BBC for objective news.