Killing sadam

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

Whatever form of Goverment many middle eastern states use is not working, they are not the most peacful places on earth.

[ralphwiggum 6]

middle eastern gov't don't have civil unrests.

it's localized to Israel-Palestinian area, and international conflict.

[Sam Samson 0]

balschoiw,

in your case we have a perfectly intelligent person who nevertheless drank deeply from the conspiracy theory fountain, inspired by paranoia, mixing fact and fiction and actually believing the result.

let me try to answer you anyway, since you are sincere.

1. the US is territorially satisfied. it doesn't wage war for territorial gains. (obvious.)

2. the life-blood of our civilization, oil, makes nations rich. everybody gains when we buy and they sell. (not obvious to many.)

3. the US cultural blueprint is winning everywhere in the world because it emphasizes individual freedom, the rule of law, political participation of the people and it rewards personal development. this is the best system there is. (even less obvious to the jealous.)

4. the US is principally a peaceful nation, even befriending leaders that are less than worthy of its friendship in order to sway them. (obviously doesn't always work. this also provides rich fodder for conspirationalists.)

5. the differences between the 3rd reich and the US are so obvious that I won't bother to talk about it.

hitler started wars, bush wants to forestall attacks by two-bit hitler wannabes and his likes who recently killed 3000 US citizens.

bush's rethoric works: UN inspectors can go back in. something the UN didn't achieve by itself in years n years.

btw: carl schmitt wrote in 1932. that was still weimar republic (democratic) time. I'm sure you remember that hitler ascended to power only in the beginning of 1933.

6. the war on terrorism is still going on. it is successful, albeit invisible.

7. who guaratees you that saddam won't give his botulinum or anthrax-spores, rabbit fever, plague, etc, to al-qaida fanatics who will act as his dupes in attacks on the west?

btw: have you heard about the 4000 jews?

you know the ones who didn't go to work on 9/11 2001?

they were tipped off...

(folks in the mid east really believe this!

conspirational paranoia seems to flourish in places where people traditionally spend more time destroying the other man's house than building their own.

[Sam Samson 0]

about action in iraq: a war on iraq will swiftly come to an end.

what will it take?

a carrier group in the gulf.

a company from the 5th SFG with it's a-teams for deep recon and laserpainting (already there?)

one, two marine divisions coming from the south.

an airborne task force from the north. elements of the 82 are already in the afghan theater. add some 101 screaming eagles.

then an armored cav division from saudi arabia into the flank.

this "war" will be over on d-day + 50h.

hussein's own claqueurs will probably hand him over.

the US invaded panama when it became obvious that noriega was a drug-pusher. he's now a permanent guest in leavenworth.

he should share his appartment with ole saddam.

so, now. who wants hussein to remain in power?

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

GOOOOOOOOOOOOO SAM!!!!!!!!!!! People just do not want to give Bush credit, are they do not realize all he has done. At this point in time I wold support an attack on Iraq.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Oct. 05 2002,22:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">this "war" will be over on d-day + 50h.

hussein's own claqueurs will probably hand him over.<span id='postcolor'>

I hope you remember that if the war drags on for months and more flag drapped confins containing the body of American 'Heroes' start coming back.

And about the Cav Division coming up from Suadi Arabia, since when were Suadi Arabia supporting the war?

[Goeth 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Oct. 05 2002,14:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so, now. who wants hussein to remain in power?<span id='postcolor'>

Who wants Bush to remain in power?

[Longinius 1]

"3. the US cultural blueprint is winning everywhere in the world because it emphasizes individual freedom, the rule of law, political participation of the people and it rewards personal development. this is the best system there is. (even less obvious to the jealous.)"

Individual freedom, rule of law and political participation wasnt created by Americans and it isnt the reason American culture is winning "everywhere". The reason is Hollywood, McDonalds, Coca Cola, television and filthy rich celebrities, combined with the rediculous notion of the "American dream". Do you really think that kids and young people of today, who are the main reason American culture can spread, are even aware of the importance of individual freedom or political participation? They know what they hear and see, which is McDonalds and MTV. They know it is American, so America is cool.

"4. the US is principally a peaceful nation, even befriending leaders that are less than worthy of its friendship in order to sway them. (obviously doesn't always work. this also provides rich fodder for conspirationalists.)"

A peaceful nation? Well, someone said that if you want peace prepare for war. So I guess you could be right. Peace through superior firepower.

"bush's rethoric works: UN inspectors can go back in. something the UN didn't achieve by itself in years n years."

Yes, it works. So why wont he use it for something that really matters? Like putting a stop to the chaos in Israel / Palestine? Of course everyone jumps when the US says to, you are a fool if you don't. It has nothing to do with rethoric though, but everything to do with "might is right".

"6. the war on terrorism is still going on. it is successful, albeit invisible."

Really? That remains to be seen I reckon. And the price of its success is a very high one. Setting aside democratic and humans rights, to preserve democracy and human rights, is a strange way to approach things.

"7. who guaratees you that saddam won't give his botulinum or anthrax-spores, rabbit fever, plague, etc, to al-qaida fanatics who will act as his dupes in attacks on the west?"

He is far more likely to do it if America keeps messing with him. Actually trying to get along with people would result in less enemies than regulary pushing people around.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Oct. 05 2002,14:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">this "war" will be over on d-day + 50h.<span id='postcolor'>

I've heard that sort of talk before somewhere, hmmm now where was it....

[Balschoiw 0]

I am not a fan of conspiracy themes anyway.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. the US is territorially satisfied. it doesn't wage war for territorial gains. (obvious.)

<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. the life-blood of our civilization, oil, makes nations rich. everybody gains when we buy and they sell. (not obvious to many.)

<span id='postcolor'>

There was a meeting in Paris lately. National oil and gas reserves at the current US consumption behaviour (which will unlikely change -> Kyoto ) will run out for the US in about 10 years. This is fact. Therefore US needs to have cheap (or better none cost) oil sources for the future. I dont talk about what will happen in 50 years. The sources US have are limited to 10 years from now on. And why pay much for Russian or ME oil when it can be secured cheaper. Neither CIA nor members of the government deny this. Also the pipeline plans for Afghanistan had been made before Afghanistan war has been started. Check governmental and White house papers on "Unocol pipeline project". There were negotiations with Taliban long ago.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. the US cultural blueprint is winning everywhere in the world because it emphasizes individual freedom, the rule of law, political participation of the people and it rewards personal development. this is the best system there is. (even less obvious to the jealous.)

<span id='postcolor'>

...come on... are you serious? I am very happy not to live in the US . And although we were "americanized" as many other nations on the world we still are able to get on without taking everything over from US side. I am happy we still have a national identity apart from the US one. further more  I don´t get the "winning everywhere in the world because it emphasizes individual freedom" thing. This is a lot of bull-****.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US is principally a peaceful nation, even befriending leaders that are less than worthy of its friendship in order to sway them. (obviously doesn't always work. this also provides rich fodder for conspirationalists.)

<span id='postcolor'>

Since Bush is at the rudder I fail to see that. He only calls the ones friends that follow his will. All critics are thrown in a bucket labelled "anyone who is not for us is for the terrorists".

Pretty peaceful eh ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5. the differences between the 3rd reich and the US are so obvious that I won't bother to talk about it.

<span id='postcolor'>

Same here but you are on a good way to get a president that has very much power in his hands. And you can´t deny Mr. Bush isn´t the smartest president USA ever had.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bush wants to forestall attacks by two-bit hitler wannabes and his likes who recently killed 3000 US citizens.

<span id='postcolor'>

...unfortunally THIS IS NOT ALLOWED !!!!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">btw: carl schmitt wrote in 1932. that was still weimar republic (democratic) time. I'm sure you remember that hitler ascended to power only in the beginning of 1933.<span id='postcolor'>

I love people who think that germany was taken over overnight by Hitler. Hitler and his NSDAP were active long before he finally got leader of germany. They went the usual way: They setup a party, gave it a name and program and brought their "truth" to paper as concepts. After that they gathered people around them more and more...

Long after this Hitler was able to take over power. But the thoughts and concepts behind 3rd Reich ideology where written down long ago.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the war on terrorism is still going on. it is successful, albeit invisible.<span id='postcolor'>

Aha...where is Bin Laden then ? Do you really think they are seriously interested in getting him ? Little example: I´ve been to Somalia. I have been in Moga and Belet Huen. The Somialia "Most wanted" was General Aidid. He was guilty for all that happened in the region.At least that was the thing they told us all the time. One day General Aidid went through Belet Huen camp. For the ones that dont know the camp was split and a road led directly through it. I was a regular grunt that time and we had to secure the road form a hill above the camp. We had TOW´s , 20mm guns and mobile AT weapons plus some AA rockets we actually never used. Back to point.

We saw a convoi of 2 or 3 APC´s identified as 60´s and 70´s Russian production moving along the road leading to the camp. We instantly reported and also mentioned that it is possible General Aidid cause there were no radio traffic coming along and they didnt respond our queries. We had a clear briefing with wich tank foramtion was moving around and have identified the convoi as Aidid´s mobile HQ. No doubt . Images were counterchecked and we were sure. Now we got ready to take the convoi out. Only had to wait for firing order. HQ checked Moga base for orders and surprisingly we were not allowed to ambush the convoi. Imagine this:

You are able to take out the enemy No 1 in the region without much risk and are not allowed too. We were pretty fucked as you maybe can understand. It was our task to protect refugees and disarm local forces. But the major task of the whole mission was to get that guy. When we were able we were not allowed to. You see what I mean ? Maybe some people are not really that interested in getting Bin Laden. Yeah, play around with some Taliban and get some guys from the administrative section of Al Quaida. Freeze some bank accounts, not all of course but some, and all will be happy.

And before the question comes up, why there is not much in the news about Bin Laden as a person at the moment, we have a new enemy ! Hurray ! Hunt Saddam down...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">7. who guaratees you that saddam won't give his botulinum or anthrax-spores, rabbit fever, plague, etc, to al-qaida fanatics who will act as his dupes in attacks on the west?<span id='postcolor'>

Counterquestion : There were Anthrax mails in the US already.

The Anthrax came from US laboratries. So why should anyone make the long and controlled way to Irak when he can get Anthrax likely very easy in the states also ? You can blame any nation that posseses NBC weapons at the moment to sell them to Taliban or other terrorists. This argument is lame. For example during the collaps of the USSR more weapons were sold to unknown people than we all can think of. Even Russia has no idea how many N components are missing. If you want NBC weapons my first address would be former USSR states at the moment. For B and C weapons I would prefer USA cause you dont have to be afraid that you get cought at the custom´s when you retreive the hot material if you are already in the country. Can you guarantee for no abuse or selling NBC weapons in USA? I think we went over this point long ago.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">btw: have you heard about the 4000 jews?

you know the ones who didn't go to work on 9/11 2001?

they were tipped off...

(folks in the mid east really believe this!

conspirational paranoia seems to flourish in places where people traditionally spend more time destroying the other man's house than building their own. <span id='postcolor'>

I dont follow conspiracy threads and prefer hard facts. It has shown that facts are only thing that really count.

My opinion: No facts - no measures.

To start a war only on speculations and with the lame argument of "preserving freedom" is nothing than illegal.

[edc 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe some people are not really that interested in getting Bin Laden<span id='postcolor'>

I think if BIn Laden was still alive there would have been another tape. We probably would not know if he's dead because he was probably in one of the caves we bombed. What was left of him after the actual explosion was buried under literally a mountain. Therefore he's probably dead.

[ralphwiggum 6]

from last few videos, it seems like he is out of Tora Bora alive, and is well hidden.

however, releasing too many videos would give out infos on whereabouts of himself, so he is keeping low.

[edc 0]

Yeh, but when did the last video come out-it was quite a while ago. I think he would make another one to try to embarrass the countries involoved in Afghanistan and to show to all the people who support him that he's still alive.

[SirLoins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CosmicCastaway Posted on Oct. 05 2002,16:58

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote (Sam Samson @ Oct. 05 2002,14:48)

this "war" will be over on d-day + 50h.

I've heard that sort of talk before somewhere, hmmm now where was it.... <span id='postcolor'>

As I recall, all news sources, so called military experts, and world opinion was, that for hundreds of years, no one had ever been sucessfull with any invasion of Afganistan.

They also predicted that the US would be no different in their efforts. I think we have proved them wrong.

So as far as Iraq, I agree with Sam.

I remember Sadam's "elite" Republican Guard running with their tails between their legs. They were waving the white flag like nobodys business, kissing the feet of American soldiers and begging for their lives, which were spared by a compassion for life they knew nothing of.

I believe they will do the same once again.

[ralphwiggum 6]

for him, death is not much of a loss.

to be alive means that he is able to conduct his activity. should he make new videos, it'll give out his position, and that is a big drawback that he doesn't want to take.

also, even if he is dead, he becomes a 'martyr'(yeah right) among some fanatics. so AQ may dissolve, but his legecay of bigotry goes on.

but since he wants to lead the AQ, he won't be suicidial, like giving new infos about his whereabouts.

anyway, let's not go off topic.

[ralphwiggum 6]

let me say this again.

SunTzu's principle. "Those who have to go long way into battlefield will be more tired than those who waits beforehand"

Even though US can get help from ME nations, it has to fly longer and drive longer. while as Iraqis can wait at their place to do something.(in desert most likely surrender). However, when it comes to Baghdad, you have urban fighting and unless we bend ROE significantly, US has hard time to go through city blocks.

comparison btw Afghanistan and Iraq is a bad one. Afghanistan had 2 factions within a country, and most Afghanies did not care about hatred against US. Also, they wanted peace, so whoever seemed to be winning, they surrendered to that side. and currently, there are small factions of Talibans and AQ that still attacks US troops. so it's still a warzone.

[Balschoiw 0]

totally right Ralph.

Afghanistan is still hot. And if you compare the amount of Talibans to the amount of Iraki soldiers it is no good comparison. Irak is "high-Tech" compared to Afghanistan.

US especially lack of basa isn the near of Irak at the moment. If Jordania keeps up it´s policy of not - allowing the US to use their air corridors it will be hard. This time the battle cant be won from air. Do you think Saddam is stupid and hasn´t learnt from his faults ? Never underestimate your enemy !

With the right tactics this man can do much harm to the invading troops. And don´t forget that there are several islamistic nations preparing for battle now also in case Irak is attacked. A multiple front war cant be won by Allies. The long support routes make it impossible to react fast and flexible to unexpected confrontations.

this "1 day plus 50 hours" is a laughter to all who know, how the win has to be achieved this time. In this time ground forces wouldn´t even have crossed the desert, so forget about it. Donald Rumsfeld whom I assume as an expert in this case (haha) told that this conflict could last for A WHOLE GENERATION in time. Do you doubt your own experts ?

[SirLoins 0]

I don't see the comparison as a bad one. The point is that it seems the US military is consistantly underestimated by our enemies.

You are right, Balschois, to never underestimate your enemy. I have the confidence in my country to know they won't.

I don't doubt Saddam's army will, in the beginning, try to give a fight. But in the end, they will give up just as they did in the Gulf War.

I also think the people of Iraq are so intimidated by his power, (this includes the military), that given half a chance, they will rise to the occasion.

Even the people closest to this madman are frightnened to speak their peace, fearing he will kill them.

Taking it to the streets, in Bagdad, could be less of a problem than you may think.

They could just be waiting for a chance to get rid of this guy, which by the way, was what this thread was about, that if one of his own was to take him out, would that be such a bad thing.....I think not.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">this "1 day plus 50 hours" is a laughter to all who know, how the win has to be achieved this time. In this time ground forces wouldn´t even have crossed the desert, so forget about it. Donald Rumsfeld whom I assume as an expert in this case (haha) told that this conflict could last for A WHOLE GENERATION in time. Do you doubt your own experts ?<span id='postcolor'>

Balschoiw, I don't know where you got that quote, but assuming it is correct, I would think he was referring to the whole MidEast, not the war against Saddam.

I doubt there is much we can do, at least in my lifetime, to change the minds of children that are taught that killing Americans will guarantee their place in heaven.

This, I agree, could take a whole generation.

What we are trying to do is protect ourselves,and believe it or not, some of you guys from a nuclear attack by this man.

Whether it be directly by him, or supplied by him, do you doubt this willingness to use WMD?

[ralphwiggum 6]

chance of Hussein doing a WMD attack, either directly or indirectly is less than what is percieved.

4 planes, 19 hijackers was all it took to get consent from international community to let US kick Taliban's ass.

And Hussein knows that if he does anything stupid, he will nail his own coffin. so he'll keep low, and wank himself in his own territory.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Oct. 05 2002,13:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CosmicCastaway Posted on Oct. 05 2002,16:58

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote (Sam Samson @ Oct. 05 2002,14:48)

this "war" will be over on d-day + 50h.

I've heard that sort of talk before somewhere, hmmm now where was it.... <span id='postcolor'>

As I recall, all news sources, so called military experts, and world opinion was, that for hundreds of years, no one had ever been sucessfull with any invasion of Afganistan.

They also predicted that the US would be no different in their efforts. I think we have proved them wrong.

So as far as Iraq, I agree with Sam.

I remember Sadam's "elite" Republican Guard running with their tails between their legs. They were waving the white flag like nobodys business, kissing the feet of American soldiers and begging for their lives, which were spared by a compassion for life they knew nothing of.

I believe they will do the same once again.<span id='postcolor'>

U.S., we, the cloalition, hasn't won yet in Afghanistan. Things are still bad, there were and are already attacks.

Fear is everywhere. And there is a possiblility of the new govt. not working out.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Oct. 05 2002,20:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Oct. 05 2002,13:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CosmicCastaway Posted on Oct. 05 2002,16:58

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote (Sam Samson @ Oct. 05 2002,14:48)

this "war" will be over on d-day + 50h.

I've heard that sort of talk before somewhere, hmmm now where was it.... <span id='postcolor'>

As I recall, all news sources, so called military experts, and world opinion was, that for hundreds of years, no one had ever been sucessfull with any invasion of Afganistan.

They also predicted that the US would be no different in their efforts.  I think we have proved them wrong.

So as far as Iraq, I agree with Sam.

I remember Sadam's "elite" Republican Guard running with their tails between their legs.  They were waving the white flag like nobodys business, kissing the feet of American soldiers and begging for their lives, which were spared by a compassion for life they knew nothing of.

I believe they will do the same once again.<span id='postcolor'>

U.S., we, the cloalition, hasn't won yet in Afghanistan.  Things are still bad, there were and are already attacks.

Fear is everywhere.  And there is a possiblility of the new govt. not working out.<span id='postcolor'>

True enough. What if the new ruler to come after Hussein (hypothetical) is no less open to so called 'Western' ideas about how the country should be run? As for the war being over in 1 day +50hrs, I'd just call that foolish optimism with no basis in reality.

I seem to recall somewhere back in the annals of history that someone once said a certain war would be 'over in time for Christmas', and we all know (hopefully) how that one turned out...

[Gollum1 0]

Hitler accused Poland of attacking Germany just before he rolled in a couple of 1000 tanks.

WHY the hell would Poland attack Germany, they´d be crushed in 2 nanoseconds!

Seeing any similarities?

(and don´go saying that Hitler was a dictator US is a democracy blah blah it´s the exact same thing in this situation.)

And then Germany welcomed Poland as the next stat...I mean as a new part of the Third Reich.

And read my sig before you answer!

[Sam Samson 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Oct. 05 2002,22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Oct. 05 2002,20:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Oct. 05 2002,13:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CosmicCastaway Posted on Oct. 05 2002,16:58

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote (Sam Samson @ Oct. 05 2002,14:48)

this "war" will be over on d-day + 50h.

I've heard that sort of talk before somewhere, hmmm now where was it.... <span id='postcolor'>

As I recall, all news sources, so called military experts, and world opinion was, that for hundreds of years, no one had ever been sucessfull with any invasion of Afganistan.

They also predicted that the US would be no different in their efforts.  I think we have proved them wrong.

So as far as Iraq, I agree with Sam.

...<span id='postcolor'>

U.S., we, the cloalition, hasn't won yet in Afghanistan.  Things are still bad, there were and are already attacks.

Fear is everywhere.  And there is a possiblility of the new govt. not working out.<span id='postcolor'>

True enough. What if the new ruler to come after Hussein (hypothetical) is no less open to so called 'Western' ideas about how the country should be run? As for the war being over in 1 day +50hrs, I'd just call that foolish optimism with no basis in reality.

...<span id='postcolor'>

oh yeah?

you might not recall that the gulf war ended after d-day + 100h. and it was fought against 545.000 personel, 4300 tanks and 3100 pieces of artillery.

the coalition won by using a bunch of cowboys (400.000) and 1500 tanks as well as 250 gunships, etc., as well as some very competent allies.

the iraqis surrendered to anybody western who stood around. do you think they're stupid? they won't die for saddam!

they even surrendered to sam donaldson! the blabmouth from nbc, (or whom does he work for now?)

this time we're up against a massively demoralized foe. we'll spare them, if they give it up.

we're liberating a nation from a tyrant. (take your bleeding heart elsewhere.)

nevertheless: we should only go in in keeping with a fortified UN resolution, which we will get in the end.

THE TOUGH TALK NEEDS TO BE KEPT UP for saddam to buckle under! (did you ever realize that there is de facto not much of a mobilization of western forces going on?)

balshoiw,

i read your post. engaging. will answer later. I'm out of time.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Last time, though, you had the support of 20 odd nations.

Now you are virtually alone.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Oct. 05 2002,00:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Last time, though, you had the support of 20 odd nations.

Now you are virtually alone.<span id='postcolor'>

Alone in the desert...

sounds more like a video game...