The Iraq Thread

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 03 2003,02:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fror the first line of countries to (including) the Macedonians it was indeed the case. Not because they wern't well fed but becuase the existing communist system could not provide the economic requirements of the people. There were no revolutions there. The communist lost in democratic elections.

In the case of Kosovo the Albanian uprising was the effect of over 10 years systematic economical opression. The Albanians were thrid-class citizens in Yugoslavia. They were (and are) extremely poor compared to the other nations in the region.

Now as for the rest on the list: North Irland - a political revolution attempt, not supported by the majority of the population. That's why it hasn't succeeded yet. People are too comfortable to make a revolution.

The same goes for the Basque. As for the black South Africans it was also primarily due to the inhumane economic situation for the black.<span id='postcolor'>

I think reducing understanding of conflicts as a matter of economy or economic hegemony is far too simplistic. There are lots of theorists - including Marx and Engels - that follow such a path, but it's not a satisfactory explanation. It might explain some - or even many cases where Marx's historic view of poverty and control over capital and the means of production, would end in a revolution, but certainly not all. There are far too many factor to consider and the picture is usually very complex. Thus there are no "universal" theory that can explain all cases simply because such a theory would fail to consider diverse sets of factors.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 03 2003,02:56)</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">Now as for the rest on the list: North Irland - a political revolution attempt, not supported by the majority of the population. That's why it hasn't succeeded yet. People are too comfortable to make a revolution.

<span id='postcolor'>

This is actually wrong!

The conflict between catholics and loyalists in Northern Ireland has continued on since the irish fight for independence.

IRA is not a phenomenon from the 60's and the conflict itself is not about poverty. Untill recently (80's) economy was a way of trying to understand the conflict, but the social scientists now focus on ethnicity and generative process of violence and myth.

I highly recomend "Formations of Violence: The Narrative of the Body and Political Terror in Northern Ireland", written by Allen Feldman for those of you with a special interest. Mind you though, it's not a book for the faint of hart - and I'm not kidding. I actually became sick when reading some of the narratives.

http://btobsearch.barnesandnoble.com/textboo....6240711

[Tex -USMC- 0]

lol, I like this one:

[Longinius 1]

"ummmmmm......not quite right. You see, a large number of Ukranians DID welcome the Germans as liberators - they were slaughtered en-masse anyways. The Nazi's saw the Slavic race as an inferior race also. Plus after this, Ukranians weren't the most popular people among the Soviets, and they were generally used as cannon fodder. "

Yes, they were actually slaughtered anyway. But naturally they did not know this until it was to late.

My point was, many people had a choice between two evils, one being an invasion and the other an insane dictator. Many, not all, but many, tend to side with the dictator. They choose the evil they knew even if they were not sure what would happen if they went with the other option.

I recently read the book Stalingrad, where it was stated that many russians sided with Stalin simply because the Germans were an invading force. I assume the guy who wrote the book did research on this particular subject as well, since he seems to be very knowledgable.

And any rate, I think it is quite natural to see an invading army that represents a totally different way of life as a threat. Even if they MIGHT be a better option than what you have (after all, you can never know what is to come).

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 03 2003,11:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point was, many people had a choice between two evils, one being an invasion and the other an insane dictator. Many, not all, but many, tend to side with the dictator. They choose the evil they knew even if they were not sure what would happen if they went with the other option.<span id='postcolor'>

And my point was that it was more like a choice between a dictator and the destruction of their race. You stated that unless they were jews, they should be ok. However, in Mein Kampf, Hitler describes both Jews and Slavs as sub-human. Soviet propaganda made good use of this.

[DarkLight 0]

All the people saying that the Iraq people prefer their great leader who protects them against the evil west above the evil west itself are right. This is exactly what's happening. I've said this a billion times but we western ppl cannot understand that not everyone loves us.

I've tried explaining this a lot of times but all i hear is "he gassed his own people"

[Longinius 1]

"And my point was that it was more like a choice between a dictator and the destruction of their race. You stated that unless they were jews, they should be ok. However, in Mein Kampf, Hitler describes both Jews and Slavs as sub-human. Soviet propaganda made good use of this."

Still, I doubt the people knew about the holocaust at that time, or atleast the extent of it. I dont think they really knew what the Germans would do to them.

Yes, Russian propaganda at the time warned about what would happen. But Germans had propaganda as well. And by the time people found out what the Nazis would do to them, it would generally be a bit late to do much about it.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Mar. 03 2003,11:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've tried explaining this a lot of times but all i hear is "he gassed his own people"<span id='postcolor'>

Damn straight! Just ask George W, lethal injection is much better!

[Necromancer- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Snoopy @ Mar. 02 2003,20:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Human Shields group fleeing Iraq

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It heightened fears among some peace activists that they could be stationed at non-civilian sites. Mr Meynell and fellow protesters who moved into the power station in south Baghdad last weekend were dismayed to find it stood immediately next to an army base and the strategically crucial main road south to Basra. Iraqi officials said there was little point in guarding what they considered to be low-risk targets.

<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

LOL that's ironic to read...

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 03 2003,03:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 03 2003,03:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No revolutions, huh?

Slovenia - 1991

Croatia - 1991

Bosnia - 1992<span id='postcolor'>

What are you talking about? Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia - there was no revolutions there. It was a fully democratic transition (1990). The communist parties of those then republics in Yugoslavia allowed free democratic elections and they lost. Kucan came into power in Slovenia, Tudjman in Croatia and Izetbegovic in Bosnia. There was no revolution there.

The later violent breakup of Yugoslavia had nothing to do about people revolting against an oppressor.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok... I'm beginning to see what you mean.  However, if a given republic, territory or even ethnic group takes up arms and declares independence from it's presidency or leadership then I would call that a revolution.

I don't mind crossing Slovenia off the list because only ~14 people died when they declared independence from Belgrade's oppressive  rule.

Thousands more died when Croatia did the same, without even considering the internal revolt by the Krajinan Serbs.

And when Karadzic's Serb nationalists walked out of the newly independent Bosnian parliament, that was a revolt, albeit in favour of an oppressor.

Again, the main point is that revolutions are not always as poorly fed as you have claimed.

In Milosevic's Yugoslavia under sanctions, the people didn't overthrough him (and ignite the parliament) until there was clear evidence that he'd permitted freezer trucks of dead Kosovar Albanians to be dumped in the Danube or buried on military bases.  Poor living conditions that all were suffering had not been enough to bring about change.  And I doubt it will be enough in Iraq, as well.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 03 2003,16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't mind crossing Slovenia off the list because only ~14 people died when they declared independence from Belgrade's oppressive  rule.

Thousands more died when Croatia did the same, without even considering the internal revolt by the Krajinan Serbs.<span id='postcolor'>

The war between Slovenia vs. Yugoslavia and Croatia vs. Yugoslavia were not rebellions against an oppressor. They had full constitutional right (Constitution of 1980 for SFRJ) to leave the federation. All the republics had since the foundation of the Yugoslav federation their own parliament, their own police forces and national guard. The war that Milosevic started was about forcing the republics to stay within the federation. This was not a revolution, it was a classic war, country vs. country. It was not even about political control, but control of territory and resources.

The only 'revolution' was the Serb's uprising in Croatia. On the other hand, that was carefully orchestrated by Sesilj and Milosevic and had very little to do with any reality for the Serbs living in Croatia.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok... I'm beginning to see what you mean. However, if a given republic, territory or even ethnic group takes up arms and declares independence from it's presidency or leadership then I would call that a revolution.<span id='postcolor'>

It was the quite opposite. First the people didn't distance them from their leadership - on the contrary - they embraced it beyond reason. The republics were autonomous in Yugoslavia to a very large extent (much more then for instance the states in USA). They separated from the Yugoslav federation through legal constitutional means. They did not take up arms, they did not rebel. They did defend their country's territory.

What was the reson for separation? Blooming nationalism, you could say, but that's not it. It was all about economics too. Slovenia and Croatia did not like the idea of financing all the other republics that were much poorer. They had been complaining about it since 1971 but saw their first real chance to leave the federation after the democratic elections in late 1990.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Milosevic's Yugoslavia under sanctions, the people didn't overthrough him (and ignite the parliament) until there was clear evidence that he'd permitted freezer trucks of dead Kosovar Albanians to be dumped in the Danube or buried on military bases. Poor living conditions that all were suffering had not been enough to bring about change. And I doubt it will be enough in Iraq, as well.<span id='postcolor'>

You are very wrong there. The Serbian people did not overthrow Milosevic because of war crimes. On the contrary, they still support his actions. Kostunica's new government fully supports what the Serbs did during the war. They don't think there was anything wrong done on Serbia's part. There are two reasons why Milosevic was overthrown:

1) Serbia's economy was completely screwed. The commerce was Mafia dominated and the quility of life was shot to hell. From 1989 till 1999 the BNP/capita of the Serbs was reduced by more then a factor 15.

2) He lost Kosovo. Despite that he managed to complete his agenda there, he was forced to leave and the Albainans were allowed to return.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again, the main point is that revolutions are not always as poorly fed as you have claimed.<span id='postcolor'>

My claim is that people overthrow their government when they are discontent. Most people don't give a damn about politics. For regular people to take up arms the situation has to be desperate. The only thing that can really affect the large masses is their quality of life. For 90% of the world, this is about economics. Wealthy people don't start revolutions.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 03 2003,17:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 03 2003,16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't mind crossing Slovenia off the list because only ~14 people died when they declared independence from Belgrade's oppressive  rule.

Thousands more died when Croatia did the same, without even considering the internal revolt by the Krajinan Serbs.<span id='postcolor'>

The war between Slovenia vs. Yugoslavia and Croatia vs. Yugoslavia were not rebellions against an oppressor. They had full constitutional right (Constitution of 1980 for SFRJ) to leave the federation. All the republics had since the foundation of the Yugoslav federation their own parliament, their own police forces and national guard. The war that Milosevic started was about forcing the republics to stay within the federation. This was not a revolution, it was a classic war, country vs. country. It was not even about political control, but control of territory and resources.

The only 'revolution' was the Serb's uprising in Croatia. On the other hand, that was carefully orchestrated by Sesilj and Milosevic and had very little to do with any reality for the Serbs living in Croatia.<span id='postcolor'>

Denoir, I welcome all this additional detail, however I'm not sure how it challenges anything that I've posted.  And why start using the term rebellion when the discussion has, so far, been about revolution?

You don't have to agree that the war of independence was a revolution, however that's exactly how most Croats and Slovenes see it.  Milosevic's army did not need to invade much.  They were already present in great strength in both republics and weren't exactly ready to toss the armoury keys to the locals.  Indeed, they had to be kicked out, which is very different from the "classic" country vs. country conflict you've tried to depict.

And for all the constitutional rights to independence that they may have had, it took a good 6 months before that rightful independence was first recognised abroad (by Germany).

Furthermore, I'd advise you never to tell anyone from either of those nations that Milosevic was not oppressive.  After all, it was his refusal to let Croatia take it's turn as head of the rotating Yu presidency that ignited the conflict in the first place.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 03 2003,17:16)</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">Ok... I'm beginning to see what you mean.  However, if a given republic, territory or even ethnic group takes up arms and declares independence from it's presidency or leadership then I would call that a revolution.<span id='postcolor'>

It was the quite opposite. First the people didn't distance them from their leadership - on the contrary - they embraced it beyond reason.<span id='postcolor'>

Misunderstanding here.  I agree entirely.  I was referring to the federal presidency (Milosevic), which of course, they did not embrace anymore than the Kurds embrace Saddam Hussein (<= heavy-handed attempt to stay on topic ).

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....op.html

Almost all of the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home last night after deciding that their much-heralded task was now too dangerous.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL

I don't think these guys are playing with a complete deck.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 03 2003,17:16)</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">In Milosevic's Yugoslavia under sanctions, the people didn't overthrough him (and ignite the parliament) until there was clear evidence that he'd permitted freezer trucks of dead Kosovar Albanians to be dumped in the Danube or buried on military bases.  Poor living conditions that all were suffering had not been enough to bring about change.  And I doubt it will be enough in Iraq, as well.<span id='postcolor'>

You are very wrong there.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you know about the scandal that I'm referring to?  ...The trucks full of corpses and the mass graves excavated on government property?  If not, I'll hunt down some references.

The nation had spent a decade in utter denial.  Every attrocity either had a logical explanation or it was a lie, an anti-Serb conspiracy.  The bodies of so many Kosovar civilians discovered in their own backyards could only have one explanation.  It was an immense awakening that suddenly called into question all the earlier anti-attrocity propaganda.  Not only did it ignite the final revolution, it triggered a revolt within the ranks of Milosevic's thugs, who had always been counted on to retain order.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 03 2003,17:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My claim is that people overthrow their government when they are discontent.<span id='postcolor'>Why didn't ya say so?  I can agree with that.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 03 2003,19:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, I welcome all this additional detail, however I'm not sure how it challenges anything that I've posted.  And why start using the term rebellion when the discussion has, so far, been about revolution?<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, revolution it is then (or by my view not ).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You don't have to agree that the war of independence was a revolution, however that's exactly how most Croats and Slovenes see it. <span id='postcolor'>

If anybody the Croats like to think of it as a conventional war and not a civil war. Thier "Domovinski Rat" is a holy grail for them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Milosevic's army did not need to invade much.  They were already present in great strength in both republics and weren't exactly ready to toss the armoury keys to the locals.  Indeed, they had to be kicked out, which is very different from the "classic" country vs. country conflict you've tried to depict.

<span id='postcolor'>

First, it wasn't Milosevic's army. He was not the main player yet. The control of JNA was in the hands of Markovic (a Croat, pro-Yugoslavian, dedicated communist). JNA had barracks in Zagreb, Karlovac, Pula and Udbina (military airport, if I remember correctly). They were entirely cut off (electricity, water and food). After negotiations they left with their weapons without incident (apart from one shooting incident in Karlovac, I think).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And for all the constitutional rights to independence that they may have had, it took a good 6 months before that rightful independence was first recognised abroad (by Germany).<span id='postcolor'>

It was the common view, especially pushed by USA that Yugoslavia shoudld remain as one country. It was first in late 1992 that it became obvious that it was not going to happen.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Furthermore, I'd advise you never to tell anyone from either of those nations that Milosevic was not oppressive<span id='postcolor'>

Don't take me wrong, Milosevic is a war criminal and a horrible excuse for a human being. He was however not 'oppressive' to anybody but the Kosovo Albanians in the sense that Saddam Hussein is oppressive towards his people. He did not commit atrocities towards his nation but towards other nations. Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia were never his to be oppressed. Saying that Milosevic was oppressive towards the Croatians is the same as saying that Saddam Hussein was oppressive towards the Iranians.

And don't worry, I have several friends from just about every of the ex-Yugoslav countries and I know what their political positions and views are. I know what to say and what not to say

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">After all, it was his refusal to let Croatia take it's turn as head of the rotating Yu presidency that ignited the conflict in the first place.<span id='postcolor'>

There was no refusal. Stipe Mesic was the Yugoslav president and Milosevic fully accepted that. What happened was that the Jugoslav military (JNA) led by Markovic and Kadijevic (both Croats ironically) took sides with the Serbian position that the separation of Croatia and Slovenia was unconstitutional and had to be stopped by miltary power. Milosevic was then still just the head of Serbia, but not in any way Yugoslavia. As the war in Croatia progressed a shift of power occured where JNA became more a Serbian military (officers and enlisted men from the other republics deserted) and the military came under Milosevic's control.

The situation in Iraq is completely different. You have one man in power who is ruthlessly applying his policy often at the cost of his own people. The ethnic and political minorities have no autonomy of their own. Iraq is centralized.

[Die Alive 0]

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 03 2003,140)</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">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....op.html

Almost all of the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home last night after deciding that their much-heralded task was now too dangerous.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL

I don't think these guys are playing with a complete deck.<span id='postcolor'>

Here's another article on these guys from the telegraph.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not everyone was upset by the latest turn in events. Ken O'Keefe, 33, the founder of the human shields movement who served as a US marine during the Gulf war, had always planned to protect Iraqi "installations" should bombs rain down on the capital.

During the journey, the heavily-tattooed O'Keefe, who earned the title "black Ken" on account of his penchant for the colour and outlook on life, had alienated his companions who felt he had developed both a death wish and a messiah complex. Prone to tantrums and mood swings, his credibility had not been helped by the fact that he had, for much of the journey, been accompanied by his mother, Pat.

In Baghdad, Ken came into his own. Dressed in a thick, grey dishdash, he took to ambushing me in the Andalus corridors to brief me on his latest soundbites. "Dark forces have worked against me," he said, "but I have survived. My mission is hard core, in-your-face activism."<span id='postcolor'>

He went to Iraq with his mommy.  Yet he says his mission is hard core, in-your-face activism.  Whatever, mama's boy.

This guy is a pathetic as these 15 year old goth kids at Cradle of Filth concerts who get picked up by their parents mini van after the show to take them back to their suburban homes.

-=Die Alive=-

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 03 2003,20:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...

The situation in Iraq is completely different. You have one man in power who is ruthlessly applying his policy often at the cost of his own people. The ethnic and political minorities have no autonomy of their own. Iraq is centralized.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, but what about Tiananmen Square?  Just kidding.

Thanks for the info.  It's been a few too many years since I last read "The Destruction of Yugoslavia" by Branka Magas (highly recommended).

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 03 2003,06:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lol, I like this one:

<span id='postcolor'>

I'll counter with this one

As a matter of fact my pic has much more relevance than yours    There are no way to compare present day Iraq to Mordor or even Nazi Germany (both highly industrialised major powers that no one could beat alone). While the only flaw in my pic is that USA is only a 'virtual empire', as I use to call it

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Mar. 04 2003,02:44)</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">This guy is a pathetic as these 15 year old goth kids at Cradle of Filth concerts who get picked up by their parents mini van after the show to take them back to their suburban homes.<span id='postcolor'>

Hey, hey.  Lay off the mini-vans.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Later, a Å500 donation from a well-wisher in Istanbul was squandered on boxes of Prozac in a misguided attempt to cheer up the war-weary Iraqi civilians.<span id='postcolor'>

These guys' cheese must've slid off their cracker.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As a matter of fact my pic has much more relevance than yours  <span id='postcolor'>

Even though it's talking about Afghanistan and not Iraq?  

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 04 2003,00:09)</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">As a matter of fact my pic has much more relevance than yours  <span id='postcolor'>

Even though it's talking about Afghanistan and not Iraq?  <span id='postcolor'>

Yep! It has been one of my favvo pics since late 2001 Its still as relevant in Iraq, even if its not as obvoius what it is that 'America strikes back' at - hell, who cares anyway? Its all about war baby!

[Guest]

When will an invasion occur? all bets are off

This seems like a real nightmare for the miltary planners. They must reorganize for an invasion without a northern front while at the same time the weather is getting warmer by the day in Iraq.

[FSPilot 0]

Warmer?  Just ride with the hatch open.

I agree though, this couldn't be worse timing.  But it's not like they can't handle it.  Don't get me wrong, I remember what general mud and winter did to the Germans in world war 2, but I don't think it'll work out that way.  If it becomes a problem they'll just do things at night.  Gives us an advantage anyway since most Iraqis don't have NV goggles.

[stgn 39]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Mar. 03 2003,21:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

Hope that US troops dosent wear winter uniforms when they attack.

STGN