FallenPaladin 0 Posted March 5, 2003 What`s so different to GW1? In GW1 they used lots of ship-launched missiles and lots and lots of different airplanes, too. The "normal" US strategy in GW1 was: 1. Bomb everything 2. Bomb everything 3. Yeah, bomb that shit... 4. Send in the French Foreign Legion 5. Send in US troops I`m really sorry for the GIs which wont have the French Foreign Legion this time to do the urban warfare. Will be pretty rough without the french But you can`t make the soldiers responsibe, they`re just doing their job as good as they can. It`s the fault of the T.B.A. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Mar. 05 2003,23:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">About carpet bombing, would you explain me, why the USA has transferred a dozent or more B52 to a british airbase just this week? Those planes are not really known for their precision bombing, at least in Afghanistan you could see how they laid carpets over suspected enemy positions... Where he finds refugee? I think we had the same discussion with Ibn Laden. But the question is also whether we should handle the bad stuff with a bad solution...<span id='postcolor'> I'll have to say that, as FSPilot said, B-52's have a variety of options. If you think the US is going to carpet bomb Baghdad, especially after the international outcry that will happen if they go it alone, then you are mistaken. If carpet bombing is to be used, it will most likely be used on the defensive perimeter and trenches that have been established (check way back...an article was posted on it) around major cities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 05 2003,23:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What`s so different to GW1? In GW1 they used lots of ship-launched missiles and lots and lots of different airplanes, too. The "normal" US strategy in GW1 was: 1. Bomb everything 2. Bomb everything 3. Yeah, bomb that shit... 4. Send in the French Foreign Legion 5. Send in US troops I`m really sorry for the GIs which wont have the French Foreign Legion this time to do the urban warfare. Will be pretty rough without the french  But you can`t make the soldiers responsibe, they`re just doing their job as good as they can. It`s the fault of the T.B.A.<span id='postcolor'> What's different is the sheer amount of bombs, and the time in which they are dropped, and the percentage that will likely be precision. The "air war" as well will be 48 hours....as opposed to a month or more. It seems the TBA is going for a modern Blitzkreig. According to the article and "report" that is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted March 5, 2003 Are you nuts?! You seriously think that the US would run B52 Arclight missions through downtown Baghdad?? Good God, you people really don't know too much about us, do you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jinef 2 Posted March 5, 2003 FSPilot and Tex and everyone You would be horrified to know what the Americans actually do in combat. Whenever i've fought next to them they act like a bunch of dickheads, there is little to zero respect in the British military for the Americans when they do their 'stuff' in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. In the 91 war America used shitloads of bombs, only 10% of them were guided. We used even less. But the RAF hardly attacked anything that had the risk of collateral damage. For example we would come in at 400 knots at 30 ft AGL and drop cluster munitions against Iraqi planes parked on military airbases. We did not drop 2 2000 pound bombs into civillian air raid shelters or decide to bomb the chinese embassy (only complete remedials could mistake that for military) If you do join the USAF, you will be among the most well equipped and trained bunch of twats with no restraint or discipline and you will have a 40 % chance of being assigned a target which ends up with civillian casualties. Don't say things like 'we don't do that anymore' because the US military has hardly changed for decades. Sad truth  But then again i'm going to town tommorow night so that should be fun   (i'm going to see the film the ring) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 06 2003,04:53)</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">In the 91 war America used shitloads of bombs, only 10% of them were guided. We used even less.<span id='postcolor'> This proves 2 things. 1) Jinef's military didn't do much in GW1. 2) Most of the US's bombs are precision aimed.  I guess you caught me on a techncality.  Yes "dumb" bombs are dropped all the time.  But using different computers and lots of training they're extremely accurate. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But the RAF hardly attacked anything that had the risk of collateral damage. For example we would come in at 400 knots at 30 ft AGL and drop cluster munitions against Iraqi planes parked on military airbases.<span id='postcolor'> Which is stupid, considering that cluster bombs are extremely ineffective at low altitudes. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We did not drop 2 2000 pound bombs into civillian air raid shelters or decide to bomb the chinese embassy (only complete remedials could mistake that for military) <span id='postcolor'> Both of which were accidents. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you do join the USAF, you will be among the most well equipped and trained bunch of twats with no restraint or discipline and you will have a 40 % chance of being assigned a target which ends up with civillian casualties.<span id='postcolor'> Ok.  Now this is getting personal.  My dad served in the USAF for 30 years.  I'm going to serve in the USAF.  My uncle is also serving in the USAF.  You need to shut up before you start pissing people off by using broad overgeneralizations and childish remarks. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sad truth  <span id='postcolor'> Sad truth spun by obvious anti-Americans to make us look bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted March 5, 2003 It makes no difference for me if B52´s drop payloads of SO CALLED precise weapons or not. What is the important thing that the US and Brit airstrikes do / will attack the infrastructure of Iraq along with the military targets. Everyone who works for a telephone company or works at the local water pump station is a target. You can tell me 1000 tiomes that the bombs are precise (precision depends on the targetted building, doesn´t it ? ) but they will kill a lot of civilians along with the "military abused" civillian installations. How would you like it if a precise bomb would kill you at work as a telephone service technician. But oh yes, I forgot we are taling about high skilled republican guards operating the Iraqi telephone network... Jeez ! It doesnt make a difference how precise your bombs are. They will in fact kill civillians on purpose. That´s it. And don´t start me talking about your bomblets with versatile landmine use. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sad truth spun by obvious anti-Americans to make us look bad. <span id='postcolor'> Either with us or against us... That mouthfull of shit again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 05 2003,23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you do join the USAF, you will be among the most well equipped and trained bunch of twats with no restraint or discipline and you will have a 40 % chance of being assigned a target which ends up with civillian casualties.<span id='postcolor'> My Dad served in the Air Force for 21 years, as did both my grandfathers. You're ignorant over-generalization borderlines "bigotry" as defined by the board rules, certainly prejudicial. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">§2)No bigotry Racists, sexists, homophobes or any other type of bigots are not welcome to these forums.<span id='postcolor'> I'm sure the moderators will say its not though, since its not dealing with race...just an entire group of people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 06 2003,05:13)</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">Everyone who works for a telephone company or works at the local water pump station is a target.<span id='postcolor'> That's not true at all. The phone company or water station are targets, and we typically bomb them at night to reduce civilian casualties. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How would you like it if a precise bomb would kill you at work as a telephone service technician. But oh yes, I forgot we are taling about high skilled republican guards operating the Iraqi telephone network... Jeez !<span id='postcolor'> If they're out after curfew they're not going to be safe. And like I've said before. We bomb them in late hours to reduce civilian casualties. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They will in fact kill civillians on purpose.<span id='postcolor'> The US does not target civilians unless they're a military target. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 06 2003,00:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It makes no difference for me if B52´s drop payloads of SO CALLED precise weapons or not.<span id='postcolor'> Whether that is important to you or not, that was the gist of the comment made, that B52s would be carpet bombing Baghdad, and that is what the responses were about (on my part)...not whether or not they will cause civilian deaths. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted March 5, 2003 Yep, someone posted that before: The british had more casualties because of US troops than because of Iraqis. Very precise indeed... May I also remind you of killed Canadian troops? Must`ve been a very smart bomb, because to me Canadians look like US guys. I wouldn`t have known the difference... Another funny thing is that US puppet Harmid Kharzai was almost killed by a smart US bomb in Afghanistan. He survived with light wounds, but some GIs died in that accident. Well, that`s collateral damage... "If I shoot, the enemy ducks." "If the enemy shoots, I duck." "If the US troops shoot, everyone is sitting ducks... It`s all because of T.B.A. Â Those pics are originally from www.whitehouse.org. Funny thing is that the site seems to be down... Guess what might be a reason Ooooooooh land of the free... Â Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 06 2003,00:13)</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">Sad truth spun by obvious anti-Americans to make us look bad. <span id='postcolor'> Either with us or against us... That mouthfull of shit again.<span id='postcolor'> How true. Part of the gung-ho, John Wayne mentality. The sad thing is most American's probably don't have this f**ked up attitude, but enough of the noisy minority do to make the who country look bad. And they they whine "you Euros hate us good clean living Americans". Same people who brand you a coward/hippie/commie just because you speak out against a largely unnneccessary war where lots of inncoent people are going to die. Same people who keep bandying S11 about, when S11 has NOTHING to do with Iraq. Bah, don't get me started. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 06 2003,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US does not target civilians unless they're a military target.<span id='postcolor'> How can civilians be a military target? Please explain that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 06 2003,05:19)</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">Yep, someone posted that before: The british had more casualties because of US troops than because of Iraqis. Very precise indeed... May I also remind you of killed Canadian troops? Must`ve been a very smart bomb, because to me Canadians look like US guys. I wouldn`t have known the difference...<span id='postcolor'> Friendly fire is, more often than not, human error. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another funny thing is that US puppet Harmid Kharzai was almost killed by a smart US bomb in Afghanistan. He survived with light wounds, but some GIs died in that accident. Well, that`s collateral damage...<span id='postcolor'> No, thats friendly fire. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ooooooooh land of the free... <span id='postcolor'> You know if you said that in Iraq right now about the Iraqi government you'd probably be dead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's not true at all. The phone company or water station are targets, and we typically bomb them at night to reduce civilian casualties.<span id='postcolor'> Oh great ! How gratius ! I don´t know how it works in the US, but here in Europe most of the substential infrastructure systems run 24 hours a day and the workers also stay there 24 hours a day. But maybe this is different in the US. Anyway have you ever thought of the problems and lives wasted as an effect of a massive infrastructure bombing ? No light - no water - no electricity ? Does this ring a bell ? This does not only mean that there is no internet, but people will die of it. You wouldnt even be able to call a doctor if your kid dies cause it has drunk bad water. All this technical US warmachine bullshit has an effect on real lifes. Is this so hard to get ? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US does not target civilians unless they're a military target.<span id='postcolor'> Haha ! You define them as a target and there you go. Stop telling BS. I´ve seen enough of your so called military targets being every day civillians. You declare them as victims nothing else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 05 2003,23:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The "air war" as well will be 48 hours....as opposed to a month or more. It seems the TBA is going for a modern Blitzkreig.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, I think that carpet bombing of Baghdad is out of the question. Blitzkrieg works to some extent in certain situations. It does have its limitation though. If there will be urban warfare then there is a complet new set of rules. Iraq does have one big advantage and that's that USA does not have the stomach for accepting own casualties. This is not only restricted to the poltical layers or military command but it is a very serious issue for the soldiers as well. A US serviceman does not count with the possibility of getting killed. It's not considered being a normal occupational hazard. This is quite opposite from the British soldiers who consider the risk of getting killed as a normal part of the job. The US military has a rather unique view on military jobs - very good in many cases but accepting losses is out of the frame of reference. As long as they can rely on high altitude bombing and cruise missiles, there should be no problem. If it on the other hand gets to fighting street by street, house by house then USA stands no chance. Hi-tech weapons won't help there. I saw a military analysis report the other day that estimated about 40% casualties for urban fighting in Baghdad. If only special forces were to be used the report estimated 25% casualties and said that at least 70,000 troops would be required to take Baghdad. That's over 17,000 dead - a figure that would be impossible to accept. So while certainly USA could beat the crap out of Iraq the question still remains what price it is ready to accept for a victory. Another alternative of coure is a full scale siege of the city - to starve it until it surrenders. The civilian casualties would however be worse then carpet-bombing the city. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 06 2003,05:25)</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">Oh great ! How gratius ! I don´t know how it works in the US, but here in Europe most of the substential infrastructure systems run 24 hours a day and the workers also stay there 24 hours a day. But maybe this is different in the US. Anyway have you ever thought of the problems and lives wasted as an effect of a massive infrastructure bombing ? No light - no water - no electricity ? Does this ring a bell ? This does not only mean that there is no internet, but people will die of it. You wouldnt even be able to call a doctor if your kid dies cause it has drunk bad water. All this technical US warmachine bullshit has an effect on real lifes. Is this so hard to get ?<span id='postcolor'> No but you're saying we're striking at the civilians. Which is just wrong. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Haha ! You define them as a target and there you go. Stop telling BS. I´ve seen enough of your so called military targets being every day civillians. You declare them as victims nothing else.<span id='postcolor'> lol You got a source for that or just your "personal experiences". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E6Hotel 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 06 2003,00:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A US serviceman does not count with the possibility of getting killed. It's not considered being a normal occupational hazard. This is quite opposite from the British soldiers who consider the risk of getting killed as a normal part of the job. The US military has a rather unique view on military jobs - very good in many cases but accepting losses is out of the frame of reference.<span id='postcolor'> I can only say that I beg to differ. Semper Fi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 06 2003,00:25)</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">Ooooooooh land of the free... Â <span id='postcolor'> You know if you said that in Iraq right now about the Iraqi government you'd probably be dead.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, but if I were in an US school I`d get thrown out of class for saying that. If I were an US employee I would get problems with my boss for saying that. If I were a US movie star like Martin Sheen or Sean Penn I would get threat calls, threat of canceling contracts and no invitation to the Academy Awards ceremony. ... ... You are only a few steps away from becoming what you fear. Think about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No but you're saying we're striking at the civilians. Which is just wrong.<span id='postcolor'> So what is your definition for it ? You don´t kill civillians or take into account civillians die as an effect of your bombs ? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You got a source for that or just your "personal experiences".<span id='postcolor'> Oh great. Now you try to put down my reputation with the "personal experiences" phrase. Yes I have made my experiences in the fields. I have no problem to talk about it. And I feel no need to tell any nonsense stories. How about you FS ? Any experiences so far ? So what is wrong with my experiences ? Don´t they count ? Show me yours. I return to the point I was at some time ago. It makes no sense to argue with you. You want me to flame. Bad luck. There are things worth investing energy and there are things not worth it. Guess which position you take. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 06 2003,05:36)</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">Yes, but if I were in an US school I`d get thrown out of class for saying that. If I were employee I would get problems with my boss for saying that. If I were a movie star like Martin Sheen or Sean Penn I would get threat calls, threat of canceling contracts and no invitation to the Academy Awards ceremony. You are only a few steps away from what you seem to fear so much. Think about it.<span id='postcolor'> If you school kicked you out for saying that, they'd get smacked by the ACLU and a dozen other lawsuits. If you were fired for it your boss would be in hot water, plus numerous lawsuits from the ACLU and others. Threat calls = freedom of speech. Cancelling contracts = showbiz. No invitation to the Academy awards = also showbiz. I guess we're only close to a dictatorship if you only read the first paragraph of what you see on CNN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 06 2003,00:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No but you're saying we're striking at the civilians. Â Which is just wrong.<span id='postcolor'> Legitimate target? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 06 2003,00:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">May I also remind you of killed Canadian troops? Must`ve been a very smart bomb, because to me Canadians look like US guys. I wouldn`t have known the difference...<span id='postcolor'> Just because it is a "smart" bomb doesn't mean it can distinguish between friend and foe...geez... The bomb went right where it was suppose to...it was the pilot that shouldn't have dropped it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what is your definition for it ? You don´t kill civillians or take into account civillians die as an effect of your bombs ? <span id='postcolor'> We're blowing up the tank that the Taliban parked next to a daycare center. Unlike what you want everyone to believe, the US does care about civilians, we do care who gets hurt by our bombs, and we've spent billions of dollars and changed our tactics to reduce civilian casualties. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh great. Now you try to put down my reputation with the "personal experiences" phrase. Yes I have made my experiences in the fields. I have no problem to talk about it. And I feel no need to tell any nonsense stories. How about you FS ? Any experiences so far ? So what is wrong with my experiences ? Don´t they count ? Show me yours.<span id='postcolor'> Why should I tell you mine if you're not telling anybody yours? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I return to the point I was at some time ago. It makes no sense to argue with you. You want me to flame. Bad luck. There are things worth investing energy and there are things not worth it. Guess which position you take.<span id='postcolor'> So you're giving up? No, I don't want you to flame me. But I do want you to stop going off on tangents when an accident happens and look at reality instead of filling the forums with anti-US lies. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Legitimate target?<span id='postcolor'> Written by obvious anti-US propogandists. And yes, TV stations are infrastructure and are military targets. Why? Because they're easilly used by the military to serve their purposes. Communication and coordination. And even that article says that we did it at night, indicating an attempt to reduce civilian casualties. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted March 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 06 2003,00:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Threat calls = freedom of speech.<span id='postcolor'> The callers threatened to kill them because of their lack of patriotism. That`s freedom of speech in your eyes? Great! If someone says "I`ll kill ya!!!" it`s just freedom of speech and ok. But if Saddam Hussein is suspected of having WMDs and not even threatening someone directly with words or actions, you say it`s justified to declare war on him. Nice double morale. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
