The Iraq Thread

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 03 2003,19:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I don't think the war has started yet so there is still time for the U.N. to decide to support or not support Bush.  They have not said either way.  Isn't Jan 27th a deadline they announced for a report to them.

Also, I wouldn't assume that everyone in the U.N. is rational.  You know what they say about assuming! <span id='postcolor'>

I can guarantee you that you will get not much support, at least not from good ol' Belgium... and perhaps not from whole Europe... We'll see

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 03 2003,20:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How do you know that Saddam hasn't sold them anything or won't in the future if nothing is done?  You don't!  <span id='postcolor'>

Exactly, we don't know shit about anything that's going on, no one supports the war because there's no good reason why we should attack...

It are all "might" and "think" and blah blah blah that we hear, there's no real proof...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There has also been reports that Syria is hiding Saddam's WDM within it's borders. Nice behavior from a security council member!

<span id='postcolor'>

Don't believe everything you read or hear...

My neighbour reports that he sees yellow elephants running in his garden every night...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree that Bush should have proof before invading. I believe he has it, he just hasn't made it public. But I don't believe Bush has attacked anyone yet has he?<span id='postcolor'>

No proof = (probable) no support

So as long as he doesn't make it public, he isn't gonna have support.

I ask you to read my post, it's a rather long one, i think it's on page 71 or something like that, it's worth it...

By the way, i can't believe you guys find it weird that Iraq is angry and that you aren't allowed to visit every damn place in Iraq.

You have absolutely no fucking bussiness there, none at all...

[5thSFG.Hawkins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 04 2003,20:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By the way, i can't believe you guys find it weird that Iraq is angry and that you aren't allowed to visit every damn place in Iraq.

You have absolutely no fucking bussiness there, none at all...<span id='postcolor'>

No business there? That's an effective point. So we are supposed to sit back and watch a rogue nation gain power and continue what happened in the early 90s?

I still don't see how you all believe Saddam has changed. We are talking about a person who had(has) numerous WMD projects in operation. This same individual gassed his own people, suppresses his people to follow his way or they are executed, etc. It is not like all of a sudden his view is going to do a total flip and actually be receptive of new penalties, restrictions, etc. The only way to be sure that the country is safe and secure is by removing Saddam and what few faithful cohorts he has from power.

Do you think that if a reporter asked a Iraqi citizen about the conditions in Iraq that they would give a truthful answer? I would highly doubt it because they have lived in fear for years, experiencing firsthand the tactics that Saddam employs to get his way.

So, we have every right to help and aid the people of Iraq to give them a better chance in life to experience freedom and not be the tool of an evil tyrant.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By the way, i can't believe you guys find it weird that Iraq is angry and that you aren't allowed to visit every damn place in Iraq.

You have absolutely no fucking bussiness there, none at all... <span id='postcolor'>

We aren't allowed?  The U.S. is not in charge of the weapon inspectors! What a joke! They are from the U.N.!  Iraq agreed and are required to cooperate with the U.N. and its components.  Iraq accepted the recent U.N. resolution allowing the inspectors free access to Iraqi sites.  Iraq also agreed to cooperate as part of the sease fire in the early 90's.  But yet they broke that agreement many times over too for 10 plus years now.  At what point are you going to realize he is a thug and is dangerous to us all?  Wether it be directly or indirectly.

Also, the weapons inspectors are not talking to anyone until the report comes out on the 27th.  So, it is possible that they may found WDM and are waiting to get a final report done for the security council.  So, how do you explain they can't tell anyone where they destroyed all the artillery shells with VX gas in them?  They should be able give a location and I would imagine there would be some sort of metal left to verify their destruction.

If I recall correctly.  I don't think alot of the world believed there was concentration camps in Germany before WW2 because there was no proof.  We know how that turned out.

[FallenPaladin 0]

The USA knew about the concentration camps in nazi Germany, but they didn`t care. That`s a sad fact. The days back then it was more important for the US government to get the german scientists, which were the world`s best that time. They brought all to the USA, where a lot of them were involved in different projects, large projects, take a guess... Even guys that commited horrible crimes got pardon by the US government when they worked for them afterwards!

But that`s all long gone, I mentioned that only to show that a comparison between the iraqi problem and nazi Germany isn`t working.

Let`s just wait for the report of the weapon inspectors and then discuss more.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

I never said the US, I said alot of the world. But I digress... I agree, wait for the report. We will hopefully know more at that time.

[FallenPaladin 0]

Allright, we`ll talk more on the 27th

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 04 2003,13:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree that Bush should have proof before invading. I believe he has it, he just hasn't made it public. But I don't believe Bush has attacked anyone yet has he?<span id='postcolor'>

He would be running the whole middle east by now if he got the support or if he had no resistance from rational people/places.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 04 2003,17:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 04 2003,13:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree that Bush should have proof before invading.  I believe he has it, he just hasn't made it public.  But I don't believe Bush has attacked anyone yet has he?<span id='postcolor'>

He would be running the whole middle east by now if he got the support or if he had no resistance from rational people/places.<span id='postcolor'>

On what basis is that? I think not. So he would have invaded Saudi, Kuwait and all... Whatever man... Wait til the 27th and we will go from there. All else is speculation at this point.

[bn880 5]

5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 04 2003,185)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 04 2003,17:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 04 2003,13:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree that Bush should have proof before invading. I believe he has it, he just hasn't made it public. But I don't believe Bush has attacked anyone yet has he?<span id='postcolor'>

He would be running the whole middle east by now if he got the support or if he had no resistance from rational people/places.<span id='postcolor'>

On what basis is that? I think not. So he would have invaded Saudi, Kuwait and all... Whatever man... Wait til the 27th and we will go from there. All else is speculation at this point.<span id='postcolor'>

You know what I mean, and you don't have to take every country by force to have a great deal of control over it.

Basically, Bush would love to set up an Amercian "policing" force in every country out there and have it supported from the resources that exist in those countries. Or Bush doesn't actually know what he wants, since he likes fighting like his father.

Edit: Sure I will wait till the 27th.

[brgnorway 0]

What I've seen so far in this thread is very interesting although most arguments tend to either challenge or justify an eventual US lead war on Iraq. Instead, I'd like to hear your opinions on WHAT IS TO BE EXPECTED AFTER THE/A WAR ON IRAQ?

Here is something to consider:

1.  </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq has no serious internal opposition, and there are doubts about the various organisations that have set themselves as opposition groups in exile - some are badly run and disunited, others have no popular support in Iraq at all. <span id='postcolor'>

Who will govern Iraq? Will they be accepted by the Iraqi population - and if not - will this lead to hostilities and possibly another Vietnam for the US forces since they obviously must protect the regime? If so - how will this affect the politics in the region given the diversity of ethnicity and oposing muslim variety?

2. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Officially, Middle Eastern governments would rather see Saddam Hussein stay in power than face the prospect of civil war and the break-up of the country.

If Saddam Hussein lost power it is possible that Iraq would fragment into three entities controlled by the Kurds in the north, the Shia Muslims in the south and Sunni Muslims in the centre.

<span id='postcolor'>

How is USA possibly going to control such a large country from breaking up? If the government they establish has no mandate in the different parts of Iraq will this not lead to even further war and suffering. A civil war would be disastrous, not only for the people of Iraq, but for US' middle eastern politics in general. USA would not be happy about a shia-muslim state in the southern Iraq. The shia's would propably turn to Iran for support in many ways. The Kurds in the north would possibly like US support even if they were abandonded in -91. However, this would not go well with Turkey who definately would not like an autonomous Kurdish state with claims on parts of their own territory. Because Turkey is one of the most important allies with US in the middle east USA would not risk their support. So, no independent Kurdistan then!

I don't know, but to me these matters have not been discussed particularly well by the affected parts in this conflict. I have a feeling a disaster is on it's way!

What are your thoughts?

Source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1879841.stm

[NavyEEL 0]

hey! retards! Bush hasn't declared war on iraq, so stop all your anti-American posts! do you think we want to go to war? you think we're dying to get ourselves involved in yet ANOTHER conflict? oh yeah, we just love going off into foreign countries that hate us. we love sending our soldiers, sailors, and marines into combat and never seeing them again. we also love draining our economy by going to war, but then again, who doesn't?

Bush doesn't WANT a war with iraq--none of us do. sure, war with iraq may turn out to be the right solution, but it's not like we WANT to get involved in another war. we're already trying to fight a war on terrorism in afghanistan, AND we're still militarily involved in about seven other nations as well. believe me, war is not something that we DESIRE. a lot of you guys have some serious problems, and damn im getting sick of them. you all have so much to say, pulling your fancy news articles off the internet and what not, when in reality you probably have no clue what's best for the United States, for iraq, or for your own country for that matter.

i still stand by my opinion. no... make that a fact. George W. Bush is the best president the US has had in a long time. unfortunately, like most good things, people won't realize how good it is until it's gone.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Jan. 05 2003,01:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

OK - maybe some posts are best left ignored due to lack of maturity! Nonetheless, here we go again:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hey! retards! Bush hasn't declared war on iraq, so stop all your anti-American posts!  <span id='postcolor'>

No, Bush hasn't done that yet. But he will pretty soon I think. If you at least try to follow his rethoric you will learn that if it's possible to declare war without saying the very words clearly, war has still technically been declared. Try this for one: We (US) declare war on terrorism. Do you wonder why the Bush-administration relentlesly try to persuade any- and everyone that there is a connection between Saddam and Al Quida? If Bush say that Saddam and Iraq has not followed the resolution set forth by UN - wouldn't you say that Bush (in his logic) has declared war on Iraq - for not complying with the UN resolution?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">do you think we want to go to war?  you think we're dying to get ourselves involved in yet ANOTHER conflict? <span id='postcolor'>

It certainly looks like you are. But I hope you don't!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bush doesn't WANT a war with iraq--none of us do<span id='postcolor'>

Oh yes he want's war - even though you may not!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">we're already trying to fight a war on terrorism in afghanistan, AND we're still militarily involved in about seven other nations as well.  believe me, war is not something that we DESIRE.<span id='postcolor'>

So why do you think Gore, Putin and many others fear you are not concentrating on fighting a war against terrorists? Looks like you are loosing the focus. You may burn your fingers on this war and the sad result will be dead US-soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi civilians and a middle east in political tatter.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a lot of you guys have some serious problems, and damn im getting sick of them.  you all have so much to say, pulling your fancy news articles off the internet and what not, when in reality you probably have no clue what's best for the United States, for iraq, or for your own country for that matter.<span id='postcolor'>

This is perhaps the best reason for not responding to your post!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i still stand by my opinion.  no... make that a fact.  George W. Bush is the best president the US has had in a long time.  <span id='postcolor'>

You voted not I. But I seriously doubt he is good news for the rest of the world. Foreign policy is not like running a company or domestic politics. It is not about just "doing it". It's not about right or wrong - but about right and wrong and everything in between!

Besides that you should grow up or start being polite to other forum members!

[NavyEEL 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 05 2003,02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the sad result will be ... a middle east in political tatter.<span id='postcolor'>

it's too late for that.

and my post is not a lack of maturity, it comes from being fed up with a large number of very disturbing posts. sure there was a lot of emotion in my post, but it's no worse than any other post on this topic. this topic is getting out of hand and--as most political topics do--it is turning into a flame war against Americans and Bush.

as for your statement "Bush may be good for the US but not the rest of the world"... last time i checked, he is President of the United States, not President of Planet Earth. despite that, the United States has and is doing more than anyone else to try and bring peace to the world. now whether we're right or wrong, or successful or unsuccessful is up for debate. but at least we're trying to do the right thing while the rest of you sit back, relax, and eat your bon-bons.

so go ahead... flame us. flame our government. flame our President, pretend to be intelligent and "mature" on these forums, and do whatever else you like. because in the end, we know and the rest of the world knows who the greatest nation on earth is, and who the sole protectors of peace and freedom are: the United States of America.

[brgnorway 0]

9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Jan. 05 2003,039)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 05 2003,02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the sad result will be ... a middle east in political tatter.<span id='postcolor'>

it's too late for that.

and my post is not a lack of maturity, it comes from being fed up with a large number of very disturbing posts.  sure there was a lot of emotion in my post, but it's no worse than any other post on this topic.  this topic is getting out of hand and--as most political topics do--it is turning into a flame war against Americans and Bush.

as for your statement "Bush may be good for the US but not the rest of the world"... last time i checked, he is President of the United States, not President of Planet Earth.  despite that, the United States has and is doing more than anyone else to try and bring peace to the world.  now whether we're right or wrong, or successful or unsuccessful is up for debate.  but at least we're trying to do the right thing while the rest of you sit back, relax, and eat your bon-bons.

so go ahead... flame us.  flame our government.  flame our President, pretend to be intelligent and "mature" on these forums, and do whatever else you like.  because in the end, we know and the rest of the world knows who the greatest nation on earth is, and who the sole protectors of peace and freedom are:  the United States of America.<span id='postcolor'>

Seriously - are you trying to turn this thread into a late night comedy show? (it's 0313 over here).

[NavyEEL 0]

you sure are eager to reply to my posts. if i wanted comedy, i would simply have to ask you to give me some. i mean, you seem to know how to handle the world better than the President of the United States, better than NATO, better than the UN... forgive me, i was unaware that i was in the presence of a political genius and the discoverer of the formula for world peace!

[Jinef 2]

If America really wants to just get on with life and start making soap operas about 11/9 then why doesn't it, if it has proof, why not just send someone else to do it like it usually does? Would it not be better to get a multi national UN coalition together who all have this undeniable proof to go in and remove saddam and restore Iraq's power and economy but with a democracy? Without of course leaving large corporate oil companies in the region to take away Iraq's chance of actually succeeding.

If we went in and then straight back out after establishing a democracy and a downsized military who could rebuild the country and get it on it's feet we could bring an element of power to the region who would always counteract Israel's oves therefore creating a balnce of power. We could maybe even make an ally out of Iraq.

But no, America would go in and walk all over the people giving less of a shit about them than the pollution that plagues this world, it would go straight to the oil and then leave Iraq a barren wasteground of hatred and a civil war would most probably ensue causing huge instability in the ME and might even trigger a war between the two happy factions - Arab nations v Israel.

See we could go into Iraq and do good stuff, make it better for the people, but no one cares really about them, it's just the gooey stuff under their feet.

This world is so depressing when you look at it from a vantage point (like a first world country), where you can see images of people starving and you think that it would be good if they could just stop starving and Buffy could be uninterrupted. But then you think you are being callous so you do your bit - Å5 a month to a charity and you think you've done good but in reality the good you have done is on a scale so small you will probably think there's no point.

So my advice is to get a job where you feel you are doing something to help someone, you could join the forces like i did, the jobs where you help are few and far between but sometimes you feel they are worth it. At least in the RAF anyway which has won awards for relief efforts, but then i also have to remind people of their ruined lives when they look at me in NI or some other war torn ruin.

For all the people who believe that America will go in and be welcomed as they hand out food, medical supplies and blankets - you're living the American dream.

[5thSFG.Hawkins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 05 2003,02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Jan. 05 2003,01:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

OK - maybe some posts are best left ignored due to lack of maturity!<span id='postcolor'>

Honestly, what is that comment for? We have been on these threads, but have faced little support for issues that you should be concerned with. Navyeel's comments were well in align, because he along with many others of us have seen the conduct displayed towards both the United States and imparticular President Bush.

Everyone is quick to criticize Bush's actions and policy, and yet no one offers any EFFECTIVE alternative solutions. Why is the US and President Bush always the focus of criticism among many of the members on here? If I wanted to, I could easily start picking apart policy of any country. Honestly, it would not be that hard for me to do. So before you go out and start nit picking the policy and decisions of other countries' leaders, take a look locally.

Back to the topic at hand: Contrary to popular belief, President Bush does NOT want to go to war with Iraq. Why you may ask, because we actually value the lives of the men and women who have dedicated their lives to uphold the values of the United States and those of the free world.

However, there comes a point where one must face the grim reality that diplomatic efforts are of little help to achieve peace. One can cover up this fact and say they are working....but in the end you are only cheating yourself. A leader must make the difficult decision of sending in a military force with a clear intent on objectives. At that particular time, a leader has weighed the advantages and disadvantages making the best possible judgement.

If such action is deemed necessary in Iraq, any post government setup, whatever it may be, will by far be better than one currently in power. Despite what some of you may think, Saddam cannot only be contained. He must be physically removed from power. Sooner or later, he will want to get out of the "containment" (economic, military, etc). We have a pretty clear idea of what weapons he has at his disposal to get out of this grasp. It is only a matter of time. Saddam has used brutal tactics in the past, and what makes you think he has changed.

The US is trying to prevent such actions from ever taking place. I'm sure there may be problems in a new Iraqi government, however, those issues can without a doubt be resolved through diplomatic channels.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Jan. 05 2003,03:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">forgive me, i was unaware that i was in the presence of a political genius and the discoverer of the formula for world peace!<span id='postcolor'>

You are forgiven.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you sure are eager to reply to my posts. <span id='postcolor'>

....due to boredom right now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i mean, you seem to know how to handle the world better than the President of the United States<span id='postcolor'>

That doesn't take much effort.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">better than NATO, <span id='postcolor'>

Well, that troubles me because the general secretary

Mr Robinson recently stated that Nato should commit themselves and support US in a war on Iraq. I don't like a Nato that has changed it's role from being defensive to becoming offencive.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">better than the UN... <span id='postcolor'>

Do you realy believe UN is backing a war on Iraq? Do you know what UN is?

[Balschoiw 0]

to all 5th members that feel eager to promote their funny ideas about US domination in the world:

Why dont you discuss like grown ups do ? Show facts, proof, act polite, stay on topic and dont start to flame. It is you that intends to flame, other topic contributors show facts and use their brains before they post.

Edit : I wont be able to reply to this as I am leaving for turkmenistan this evening. The recent US plans have brought Iran on the track to start something weird in case Iraq is attacked. So the US foreign policy shows effects even if the war has not been started. Anyway pack your bags and come with me if you are so eager for war.

Cu guys.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 05 2003,04:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Edit : I wont be able to reply to this as I am leaving for turkmenistan this evening. The recent US plans have brought Iran on the track to start something weird in case Iraq is attacked. So the US foreign policy shows effects even if the war has not been started. Anyway pack your bags and come with me if you are so eager for war.

Cu guys.<span id='postcolor'>

Best of luck to you.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 05 2003,04:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Edit : I wont be able to reply to this as I am leaving for turkmenistan this evening. The recent US plans have brought Iran on the track to start something weird in case Iraq is attacked. So the US foreign policy shows effects even if the war has not been started. Anyway pack your bags and come with me if you are so eager for war.

Cu guys.<span id='postcolor'>

Best of luck - be carefull!

[Balschoiw 0]

Thx tovarish.

This one will be a little mission only. Only some pictures to take and people to talk with plus counting Iran units borderside and having a look in the air as US and Brit planes violate Turkmenistan airspace quite often the last months.

Hope they dont think I am a SAM site

[bn880 5]

Cu Balschoiw, stay in one piece.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hope they dont think I am a SAM site  <span id='postcolor'>

....or even worse...a SAM SAMSON