So the only time to goto war is when you're defending yourself? Hmm...ok. What happened last time we accepted that viewpoint? OMG...NOO! You called me a villainous, corrupt, and self-serving party!!! Oh no! So I guess we should just ask these leaders nicely to provide deprogramming to all their future soldiers? I'm sure they'll agree to that right? I'm sorry, but you're an idiot with your head in the sand. To compare these great and wonderful villains with the US....yeah so we water borded a few people...great...what did those nations do? Gas entire populations and commit genocide? But let's ignore all the innocent they have killed when the USofA did something horrible right? You're a joke man...get a life.

The world is not black and white. There is not right and wrong, it is all subjective to the situation and the real facts that no one can honestly truly know.

I think it is in bad taste to produce a game in which there is no historical reference to place a black and white line onto yet.

Imperialistic views started WWII and WWI. You may see a big ugly thug but the truth is we remember what nearly destroyed our nation in the past. Sitting idly by is not an option even if you are a super power. You may see a thug but honestly each small little war staves off another global war as dictators are allowed to amass power, ignore the UN, and rattle their sword anytime they want something.

I did not support the war even though a large part of me thought it was needed. You seam to have a lot of hate in you...while nations have poisoned the minds of their children to hate the US and the western world...we have done no better in our actions of recent. The real question is if we would have been forced to take such actions if you did not allow such a dictator into power in the first place...see you on the battlefield.

My proposal was made after all of one minute of thinking about the subject...it was hardly even considered a proposal...hence why I didn't even bother to log in. I mean you are taking this way to seriously... Look, if I really wanted this model to work...let me devote five minutes of thinking about it instead of the 30 seconds from before... damn only gave it three minutes. The current peer to peer network obviously would not work. There would not be a method to make it profitable for an online entity to publish works via the peer to peer network. You would need several things to get this to even work. First of all a way for CNN, ZDNET, or whoever to deny responsibility for the distrobution of the content in question....so they could not then be charged for the amount of bandwidth their content takes up. Secondly they would need a way to profit from distributing their content to the public. And again, you jumped the gun...I know browsing on a peer to peer network is nothing like browsing search results on google or other search engines that use web bots to gather info. So...if peer to peer networks where to be used to avoid getting charged extra mula for distrobution...well let's goto the TFA... Their idea was to limit the amount of bandwidth sites like google or cnn could broadcast to their users...to get past the limit they would have to pay mucho mula. If cnn published their works via a peer to peer network there would be NO WAY the ISP could then limit their traffic unless the ISP actually filtered everything based on the content of the packets instead of simply who was sending what...they would be forced to read the data...not just IPs. I don't think ISP want to do this...and even if they did you can introduce SSL or some other encryption. Let's move onto searching...well let's think for another two seconds here. Assuming we could even come close the the quality of results a current web search engine produces...who would they then charge for that extra bandwidth? Again you come down to a very simple issue...peer to peer software could be open source...so let's say they block the ports...we could go on for hours about this but the point is if you could produce results that where even close to the quality of google...use encryption...maybe some way to randomize the ports being used...ISPs are not going to be able to charge someone like google...but then again google wouldn't exist in this model unless we came up with another protocol that could be used in peer to peer network trafic for major search engines...look we can play god here and say the networks of the future will be run off of candy canes and lolly pops...that's not the point...the point is we can work our way around what the ISPs are suggesting if we wanted to. And how would they get paid...who the freaken heck knows...and at this point i don't really care...lol. Look man my point is don't simply act like how you are...the biggest thing I've hated about my field where the smug types that honestly thought they knew everything in the world and everyone else was brainless...not that I'm calling you that...but don't simply discredit someone else's random comments for being made of fairy dust. The point in this field isn't what can't work...it's what you could make work if you wanted it to. Peace man.