sees_all1

Obama made Syria important when he drew his red line.

A really expensive thing to do to earn Russia's respect. Is it really worth it? More importantly is Eastern Europe worth it either? I mean if Ukraine was a major oil supplier to the US we would be getting involved and negotiation would be something along the lines of "one step closer and we drop the nukes" It's not just Russia, it's the rest of the world. Obama shows he won't use military force, then there is no threat of the U.S. engaging with anyone. What if China decided to take over Japan, or North Korea over South Korea, or Iran over Iraq? Each one of those instances would be a much bigger commitment than droning Syria, and each a bigger threat since the theoretical aggressors know they won't have repercussions. If the U.S. had a President as strong willed as Putin, I think the real Putin would have thought twice about invading Ukraine.

If Obama can't keep his word on smaller, easier matters, why would anyone think that he'd keep his word on more difficult ones? If the U.S. went scorched earth with drones in Syria after the chemical weapons, who would've batted an eye? The U.S. has been in the middle east for most of the last decade.

If we had someone similar to Putin I think we would have invaded Syria / Egypt / Libya / Iran or any combination of those four by now, in which case that might be incentive enough for (real) Putin to invade Ukraine. Why would invading any of those four countries give Putin more incentive to invade Ukraine? Also, Putin has already invaded Ukraine, so why would it matter? As far as I can tell, stopping Russia from annexing Ukraine would have done some good. If there was no fighting in that area, MH17 likely would not have been shot down sparing 298 innocents. I mean what you're suggesting with that statement is that Putin wouldn't invade the Ukraine because the US's hardass president would [bleep] him over somehow, but if we were already invading countries x y and z we would probably have more difficulty generating that response. It's easy to look back in hindsight and say 298 people could have been spared but you have failed to consider the events that might have unfolded had we intervened. Obama had a red line in 2012, warning Syria not to use chemical weapons. Syria did, and it drew no response from the U.S. What happens when Obama tells Putin that invading other countries will draw a response from the U.S.? Obama now has history of losing games of chicken.

If we had someone similar to Putin I think we would have invaded Syria / Egypt / Libya / Iran or any combination of those four by now, in which case that might be incentive enough for (real) Putin to invade Ukraine. Why would invading any of those four countries give Putin more incentive to invade Ukraine? Also, Putin has already invaded Ukraine, so why would it matter? As far as I can tell, stopping Russia from annexing Ukraine would have done some good. If there was no fighting in that area, MH17 likely would not have been shot down sparing 298 innocents.

An observation - the United States has less influence around the world today than say, ten or twenty years ago. I think this has more to do with the political atmosphere and the current president then it has to do with military strength or technological capability. Put another way, if the United States had someone similar to Putin for President, I don't think Putin would invade Ukraine.

NPCs are wondering why players won't leave them alone.

No. TNPW post within 24 hours.

Bandit camp in the wilderness is also a decent place to mine if you're not looking to bank. I've clocked it to about 40k xp/hr in the past, provided that you bring enough food for the hobgoblins to stop being aggressive. Not sure if it's single or multi since the introduction of legacy, but there are areas where you can continuously mine even in low population worlds.

I thought there were some revenants that were higher than 100 (such as knight being ~120), but since the area is multi it's a royal pain just to kill 1.

That would be most helpful. I'm not sure I'll be on RuneScape for a while though, I'll be traveling for work in the near future. I'm not quitting, just so you all know. I promise I'll be back.

I'd like to inform you all that I've just recently leveled up to 1405... Unfortunately JaGEx nerfed my dungeoneering experience due to a long forgotten level cap, if you know of any skillers willing to help me there? Slow and steady wins the race.

Been PKing in F2P for most of my time on RS since legacy. They seem to adjust 2h damage every day (yesterday they seemed to increase it), which makes PKing even more risky. Seems in F2P that using anything other than a 2H weapon is a waste of time. Pre EOC you'd use a scimitar to maximize damage, then try to finish with a 2H for one big lucky hit. Also it seems the death mechanic might have changed on teleport. Way back you could still get hit after a tele, you'd die and drop all your stuff for the person that killed you. Pre EOC the hit wouldn't count in the teleport animation. Now you'll get hit after the teleport, but you'll get a gravestone instead of outright dying. Saved me a couple sets of rune.

Suppose I'll have to settle for Zezima2.

http://static2.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/4/6/2/large2/2649896.jpg TNPW post three rules.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Facebook_Logo_Mini.svg/200px-Facebook_Logo_Mini.svg.png TNPW be made within 24 hours.

TNPW include a rule.

Finally! I can get Zezima. :twss:

Within the hour, no less. TNPW do whatever

uncounting postcount TNPW post one hour or later.

Getting hit hard by experience nerf in dungeoneering as a combat level 105. Suppose that means I need to go back to using leeches. GF Jamflex.

TNPW do whatever.

No, it is not just as easy to interpret, especially when there are half a dozen other things you need to be doing at the same time. But I'm surprised you're arguing about something so petty as my opinion.

If you can quote it, I'll believe you. However, recently I've experienced 1/2 xp dungeons with combat averages right in that range. And it hasn't been one odd dungeon or anything (with the same group, I'll have a series of low xp dungeons), and it hasn't been because of leeching (had high experience and low experience with leeches, only thing that mattered was group combat average). Do you understand why the metric system has so many prefixes? My hitpoints will be worth 150% more for each incremental level, and I'll have the same hitpoints regardless of my armor. Going from 900 hitpoints to the equivalent of 500 hitpoints wasn't particuarly pleasant for me.

I didn't post a gif, I posted 24. TNPW post 0 gifs.