Albert Schweitzer

That with the bunkers makes sense, no doubt. But does that mean then that the ordinary bunkerbuster wasnt efficient enough?

No, i am not horny about post-counts. THose times are over (i hope). But I have been participating in so many fori that I must seriously ask myself if I use more time online than in bed. And I need a lot of sleep. So where and how often did you rape your keyboard in other discussion-centers than OFP Here comes my wasted time: OFP: 3169 posts Bigsoccer.com: 675 posts MichaelMoore.com: 321 posts

it is a latin term: forum, fori, neutrum! Some people here started with latin as first language

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([TU]$33ker @ Jan. 20 2003,21:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 20 2003,20:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">let me just respond to that. Germany started the incredible terrible bombing strategy and the allied forces simply adopted this escalation of bombing and improved it an "observe impact and improve impact" strategy. In the last years of the war the allies bombed out german cities simply for testing purposes. During the last years the allied were so sophisticated that they were able to adapt bombs to cities. Old cities had a wodden floor so the bombs were made heavy in order to let them blow up after having fallen through several floors. New cities had wodden roofs and so the bombs were modified that the explode right away. And those bombs {blockbuster) were fire-bombs that simply put an entire city on fire. There  was no protection from theses bombs cause those ate up the oxygen and people even in the cellar died because of no air. Then the allied threw bombs that blew up even up to half and hour later so the ambulance and fire-workers would be blown to dust. So taking this into consideration we should see that the allies didnt start the war but were willing to adapt and improve the level of brutality.<span id='postcolor'> I've seen such bombs at my workplace when i've been working as an ammunition clearing worker at the district governement. Albert is right the allies tried absolutely everything that worked as a bomb in the last days of WW2! they tried all kinds of explosives and igniters. the bombs became bigger and bigger. and I saw the results of such bombings on old photos made by reconnaissance aircraft. but that's enough offtopic now.<span id='postcolor'> I know offtopic but I wanted to add one last thing (and afterwards I will proceed ON-topic) My statement wasnt meant to put the blame away from germany, I think I never left a doubt that Germany is the one and only initiator of the most cruel war ever

with the bad ABC protection the army has right now I doubt the marines are that suicidal.

urgh, I dont like those people still insisting on Athlon. Those are the people that rarely give tips during their hollidays and are nitpicking about every penny. Pentium is the Bentley of processors and I like nice cars!

You know what would be great? That in the end everything turns out to be a diplomatic masterpiece of international cooperation: the US (never seriously having intended a war) were willing to play the bad cop. The UN (especially european union) were acting as well, playing to hold back the mad dog (US) from attacking Iraq as long as Saddam shows cooperation. That would be great! A big clue, nothing else

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote the germans focused on civilians, british and americans tryed to attack military targets Oh then Berlin must have been dreaming when 18 waves of carpet bombings went over them during ONE day ! Same with Dreden, Hannover... They intentionally bombarded civilians to lower morale and bring them to their knees. This is no secret. Also US and Brits make no secret of it.<span id='postcolor'> let me just respond to that. Germany started the incredible terrible bombing strategy and the allied forces simply adopted this escalation of bombing and improved it an "observe impact and improve impact" strategy. In the last years of the war the allies bombed out german cities simply for testing purposes. During the last years the allied were so sophisticated that they were able to adapt bombs to cities. Old cities had a wodden floor so the bombs were made heavy in order to let them blow up after having fallen through several floors. New cities had wodden roofs and so the bombs were modified that the explode right away. And those bombs {blockbuster) were fire-bombs that simply put an entire city on fire. There was no protection from theses bombs cause those ate up the oxygen and people even in the cellar died because of no air. Then the allied threw bombs that blew up even up to half and hour later so the ambulance and fire-workers would be blown to dust. So taking this into consideration we should see that the allies didnt start the war but were willing to adapt and improve the level of brutality. Concerning the oil-prices. Why do you think the price of gold is rising so heavily right now. Cause gold is a substitute currency for oil. The oil proces already rose heavily due to the Iraq war threat and they will not settle even years after the war. Cause if you would know the stock-market then you would know that not availabilty makes the price but certainty/uncertainty of forecast. Watch a bit CNN Buisness news and you can see how the price of oil is rising steadily and any agressive speech by Bush gives it an extra boost.

I stick to OFP for serious talks, but there are other fori out there where I can freely insult other people and through this I make sure I am relaxed when returning to OFP-Offtopic. And yes 99% of all my posts are offtopic. And strange but true but I guess the most loyal members are to be found here anyway. I hope this board survives...

hence or hense? I love it, I am Mr. Piss-everyone off tonight!

You try to flatten my arguments but they are valid points. Hating america and willing to invest your life to kill to suicide-bomb a nation is a fine and powerful difference. Saudi Arabia is already very unstable, thanks for supporting me on that one. A war might be the motivating step for Saddam to become a and active terorist. Maybe this will trigger off what you try to prevent. Without double standards we can say that a war in Iraq might cost more lifes than a terorist attack!

Actually there is an excellent program out there that summarises you entire system specs into a pdf file..neat and clean.. I used it when I recently sold an old Laptop of mine.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 19 2003,22:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 19 2003,16:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">stop bitchin kids! Hell I am a unique amateur-wannabe-moderator<span id='postcolor'> You want us to stop bitchin' after 119 pages? Â I think it has been fairly civil. Â I haven't tried to offend anyone nor have I been offended. <span id='postcolor'> Dont take me too seriously on that, I rarely play the role of "listen to me kids and obey". was just kiddin,

Have we ever listed up the potential consequences? I guess yes but with this bad connection you cannot make me reread all those 119 pages. - a great amount of casualties. - a fully ruined infrastructure (back to the stoneage) - UN obligation to financially bring the country back on its knees - a destabilies region with unforseeable consequences - growth in support of anti american resentiments and terorist activities - hitting back on the ENTIRE western world. (and belive me the US wont be the next in line, the next terorist desaster can happen anywhere with simillar outcomes to the ones of 9/11) - a seriously injured relationship between the US and the rest of the western world. - a destabilised oil-price (and that untill Iraq is back on full oil-production capacity) - potential revenge strikes of Saddam - potential threats of revenge against Israel - a struggle of ideologies in Saudi Arabia (hell the biggest OPEC contributor) well I am sure I left some out here. Is it worth to pay this price. Wouldnt it be worth to show a little bit more patience to prevent those side-effects

stop bitchin kids! Hell I am a unique amateur-wannabe-moderator

I highly doubt it. Saddam has been overtly oppressive to these people. The reason a lot of people think they support Saddam is because they'd probably be shot for saying they dont, especially on camera. As a side note, I don't care how he's removed from power. I'd be happy with the US funding the rebellion in Iraq. But then again, what'd we do in Afghanistan. THat I doubt. People live in fear, but their rage against an agressor will reunite. I say this because I recently watched a docu about teenagers in Iraq. They didnt talk in fear of opression but in a fear of war. The will certainly be pulled into the army and later on appear in a glorious statistic as "IRAQI soldiers killed". Without the threat they would be civillians. Hell I can only repeat myself over and over again but a war does not only mean dead american soldiers but especially a great amount of dead civillians and recruits that have nothing to do with 9/11 nor any of Saddams intentions.

Yes, everything in richtige richtung, but too many richtungen. This reminds me of my early traumas with double brackets!

did you try Avons help pages. If this is the first time after you are playing then I cant help ya. But otherwise you might have installed too many addons, or addons are missing

thanks bn880 for creating this QUOTES mess that we have to read.

Quote  USA has developed nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in the past. USA has used weapons of mass destruction against civilians.(Hiroshima and Nagasaki) USA has invaded countries that haven't been a threat against them. (Grenada) USA has assisted tyrants to gain power in their countries and to cover up torture and other abuses. (Pinochet) USA has disobeyed international agreements. (Kyoto protocol) That doesnt belong here, basta! Just to inform you about past experiences all of us had: If something like this is posted and someone else consideres it as general US-bashing with no purpose than to ridicule a nation then the thread gets locked. That would be quite ashame after we discussed so disciplined for 117 pages. And once a thread like this gets locked, the moderators wont allow us to establish a new one untill some tempers have settled, and this can take days. A BIT MORE GERMAN DISCIPLINE PLEASE  ------------------------------------------------------------ The interesting question will also be what happens if even the UK will (ups sorry I mean "would") no longer back up an attack without a UN-resolution? Will the US go for it all alone, ignoring the international community?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 19 2003,19:11)</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">The one question that remains is...why should he commit a silly attack of revenge if the consequence would be his own death or loss of power? If his situation would be without hope then yes, but as long as he is the leader of a rich power-monopoly why should he give it up? <span id='postcolor'> If a suitcase nuke was given to terrorist by Saddam. Â It was used to attack the US. Â I would say there could be a good chance it would not be traced back to him. Â More so if the Uranium was obtained from another source outside of Iraq. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But no, he is not religious nor is he intending a Jihad. <span id='postcolor'> Funny that footage of him praying has been on TV? Â You have now whay of knowing that he is not religous for sure. Â At least I am trying to determine his stance by his own actions.<span id='postcolor'> Pah, to get this tiny nuclear bomb you dont have to wait for Saddam to finish it. I buy you a map of Kasachstan and by end of next week you will be the proud owner of one. Â But seriously, someone praying on a carpet doesnt mean jackshit, I mean Hitler also met the pope. Or do you realy seriously think that Saddam is driven by religious aims, well I seriously doubt that.

Pah, Allah Akhbar is as often used as the word "yeah" in american songs. Saddam is not religious and you are not proofing me wrong, you are simply stating that he uses the religion as another backup tool. As you might assume this is especially important for his haterage against the Isreali. And in the end this is his last boundary with the other arab nations! Why would he cut that line if he can use it. But no, he is not religious nor is he intending a Jihad. The one question that remains is...why should he commit a silly attack of revenge if the consequence would be his own death or loss of power? If his situation would be without hope then yes, but as long as he is the leader of a rich power-monopoly why should he give it up?

I HATE GAMESPY, peiuhhhh finally someone gives me a chance to release some steam. The all seeing eye works great but some games still refuse cooperation.

I only speak french if I try to hide that I am a german spy chasing after the secret recipe of Toblerone!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 19 2003,13:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Jan. 18 2003,02:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 18 2003,23:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Jan. 17 2003,21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Darklight, maybe you got it, but that was just some poor jokes by Albert  <span id='postcolor'> I know, i posted that just to get reactions like this one <span id='postcolor'> lol  sorry for even commenting (is that a word? ) I did not read through it again, and remembered it as 'not quite impossible to belive' ; now I re-read it and saw stuff like 'executed and left to dry in the sun'....  damn you Sherlock Schweizer  <span id='postcolor'> Hehehe, well, i sure had a good laugh... <span id='postcolor'> And homework for tomorrow is to count all the smilies on this page