It doesnt cover anything, believe what you must believe, whatever, your just to stubborn to see my points, arguments and facts.
Facts? You just pulled a titling formula out of your ass and confused genre for franchise. You're ignorant as hell.
No i'm treating them like franchises, your treating them like a story or a name or a setting.
Oh my god. You're so horrible at this. You're saying that WoW can't be part of the Warcraft franchise because it's an MMORPG and not an RTS. Thus, you're classifying them by genre. Therefore, you couldn't possibly be talking in terms of franchises.
No they dont you dumbass, you think they wouldv named WoW Warcraft 3 if they wanted too? (your still not getting WoW WAS Warcraft 3)
Obviously not, as there is a Warcraft 3, and it is the RTS, as opposed to World of Warcraft. I don't give a shit if WC3 was originally slated to be an MMORPG. That's not what I'm talking about.
Thats not the point, stop being dumb.
Ladies first. *that's you doppel*
WTF are you talking about? THATS NOT THE POINT, dumbass.
(but it is as of today the standard of Blizzards MMORPG's, or do you want to debate that? lol)
If you weren't the dumbass, you would have noticed that I wasn't saying that in reference to anything you said in particular. I was addressing something that was urking me. Way to go, dumbass.
You think your some kind of filosophical genius? LOL, give me a brake, or better yet give yourself a brake because your filosophical thinking SUCKS.
For the record, not only did you spell philosophical wrong, but you used the wrong word for "break". "Brake" is what is in your car.
Anyways, it's not a philosophy you dumbass. It's common sense. Why would they make a sequel to a game they can release expansions and patches for to update and improve the game? Not only that, but considering that the game is continuous, there is no ultimate goal to be achieved, thus there is no ending.
I never said both games cant tie in with eachother, fact remains Warcraft is Warcraft, WoW is WoW.
If WoW isn't Warcraft. It wouldn't be in the title.
So if I'm not addressing any of your points, then you should take care to clarify your points. Although I doubt you'd get anywhere with that, as it wouldn't make any sense, anyways.
Quote from name="dictionary "franchise"" »
A brand name under which a series of products is released.
Warcraft is in the name, World of Warcraft, therefore, it has the brand name, thus making it part of the series of products. Therefore, it's part of the franchise.
(For the record, Doppel threw the first punch. Just saying that in case someone tries to point the finger at me.)
The ones that had to pay for it (with their lives) were innocent people, in both the US and Iraq.
The innocent always suffer as a result of war. It's a rule of thumb.
Its tragic to see people defending these stupid war hungry pricks.
I hope you're not talking about me. In which case I'd have to say that it's tragic that you're only seeing a sliver of my basis.
First, I'll start off with my opinion (based on factual evidence, mind you)
The Iraq War was initially a good idea. Saddam Hussein killed over 61,000 Iraqi civilians, during his reign, that have been found. According to many human rights groups, there are approximately 500,000 that have been buried in mass graves. Approximately 41 locations have been confirmed and accounted for in terms of casualties. Another 270 locations are suspected to have dead civilians buried.
Approximately 100,000 casualties, were caused by the Iraq War. I can't find how many were civilians and how many were militant Iraqis. I did not take my information from places such as iraqbodycount.org for the reason that the number of civilian casualties may be slightly embelished. So this larger number includes opposition as well. But about half of them are civilians, give or take. America casualties rate about 2500.
Considering that the majority of sources put Saddam's number killed far above Bush's, between Desert Storm and now, it would seem that removing such a tyrant from power was overall, a good thing.
However, due to the lack of intelligence and proper procedure on Bush and his administration's part, the casualties are far above what they would be, had it been handled by a more competant president. In effect, this war has caused a backlash for America.
I defend the war, not how it was handled. Bush did a terrible job and managed to make even more enemies than what we had initially.
On the subject of WWII, I would just like to say, Fingolfin, on the pure basis of reality, countries like the British would not have made it, had America not jumped in. There would not have been enough soldiers for a successful D-Day, and there would have not been enough pressure on Germany's western front in order for them to collapse from being enclosed by the Russians, North Africa and the West, at the time of the end of the war. At best, the war would have ended a few years later than it did.
''our soldiors died for my freedom of speech''
I find that quote to be rather innaccurate. Or at least, not from an intelligent source.
seems like a giant pisstake to both the soldiors who most of wouldn't have actually wanted to be there, and the innocents that were killed in setting up this system of ''well, we've sacrificed our sons and daughters, our country is automatically great''
What soldier in their right mind, would want to go to war, unless they had a death wish? Trust me, I am absolutely positive that Britain has sent soldiers against their will repeatedly throughout history. It's not a matter of killing our children that supposedly makes our country great. It's the fact that America, during WWII, maintained superiority, defeating Japan, which was renowned for its naval arsenal, as well as lending a huge hand in the ultimate defeat of Germany. And from that point, America has been a super power and has been declared great.
Using the death of innocents is not a logical reason for mitigating the purpose of a war. Innocents will always die. However, a good deal could have been done in order to minimize casualties. But, such is the nature of war.
Their is no end to terrorism. There will always be jealousy, hate, greed, and need.
Jealousy, hate, greed and need are not intermingling ideas within the concept of terrorism. Although you are right that there is no end to terrorism. Which is why the idea of declaring war on a word is ridiculous. It's even more far-fetched than a war on drugs.
and if you blow both arms off it unlocks a helm class that you can headbutt with.^_^(as much as I would like to see this implicated, it just seems a bit silly:P)
1
Facts? You just pulled a titling formula out of your ass and confused genre for franchise. You're ignorant as hell.
Oh my god. You're so horrible at this. You're saying that WoW can't be part of the Warcraft franchise because it's an MMORPG and not an RTS. Thus, you're classifying them by genre. Therefore, you couldn't possibly be talking in terms of franchises.
Obviously not, as there is a Warcraft 3, and it is the RTS, as opposed to World of Warcraft. I don't give a shit if WC3 was originally slated to be an MMORPG. That's not what I'm talking about.
Ladies first. *that's you doppel*
If you weren't the dumbass, you would have noticed that I wasn't saying that in reference to anything you said in particular. I was addressing something that was urking me. Way to go, dumbass.
For the record, not only did you spell philosophical wrong, but you used the wrong word for "break". "Brake" is what is in your car.
Anyways, it's not a philosophy you dumbass. It's common sense. Why would they make a sequel to a game they can release expansions and patches for to update and improve the game? Not only that, but considering that the game is continuous, there is no ultimate goal to be achieved, thus there is no ending.
If WoW isn't Warcraft. It wouldn't be in the title.
So if I'm not addressing any of your points, then you should take care to clarify your points. Although I doubt you'd get anywhere with that, as it wouldn't make any sense, anyways.
Warcraft is in the name, World of Warcraft, therefore, it has the brand name, thus making it part of the series of products. Therefore, it's part of the franchise.
(For the record, Doppel threw the first punch. Just saying that in case someone tries to point the finger at me.)
1
I hope you're not talking about me. In which case I'd have to say that it's tragic that you're only seeing a sliver of my basis.
First, I'll start off with my opinion (based on factual evidence, mind you)
The Iraq War was initially a good idea. Saddam Hussein killed over 61,000 Iraqi civilians, during his reign, that have been found. According to many human rights groups, there are approximately 500,000 that have been buried in mass graves. Approximately 41 locations have been confirmed and accounted for in terms of casualties. Another 270 locations are suspected to have dead civilians buried.
Approximately 100,000 casualties, were caused by the Iraq War. I can't find how many were civilians and how many were militant Iraqis. I did not take my information from places such as iraqbodycount.org for the reason that the number of civilian casualties may be slightly embelished. So this larger number includes opposition as well. But about half of them are civilians, give or take. America casualties rate about 2500.
Considering that the majority of sources put Saddam's number killed far above Bush's, between Desert Storm and now, it would seem that removing such a tyrant from power was overall, a good thing.
However, due to the lack of intelligence and proper procedure on Bush and his administration's part, the casualties are far above what they would be, had it been handled by a more competant president. In effect, this war has caused a backlash for America.
I defend the war, not how it was handled. Bush did a terrible job and managed to make even more enemies than what we had initially.
On the subject of WWII, I would just like to say, Fingolfin, on the pure basis of reality, countries like the British would not have made it, had America not jumped in. There would not have been enough soldiers for a successful D-Day, and there would have not been enough pressure on Germany's western front in order for them to collapse from being enclosed by the Russians, North Africa and the West, at the time of the end of the war. At best, the war would have ended a few years later than it did.
I find that quote to be rather innaccurate. Or at least, not from an intelligent source.
What soldier in their right mind, would want to go to war, unless they had a death wish? Trust me, I am absolutely positive that Britain has sent soldiers against their will repeatedly throughout history. It's not a matter of killing our children that supposedly makes our country great. It's the fact that America, during WWII, maintained superiority, defeating Japan, which was renowned for its naval arsenal, as well as lending a huge hand in the ultimate defeat of Germany. And from that point, America has been a super power and has been declared great.
Using the death of innocents is not a logical reason for mitigating the purpose of a war. Innocents will always die. However, a good deal could have been done in order to minimize casualties. But, such is the nature of war.
Jealousy, hate, greed and need are not intermingling ideas within the concept of terrorism. Although you are right that there is no end to terrorism. Which is why the idea of declaring war on a word is ridiculous. It's even more far-fetched than a war on drugs.