FSPilot

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Dec. 24 2002,09:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">can we stay on topic? <span id='postcolor'> Of course you say this before I get a chance to fight back.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> You seem to miss the fact that no proof whatsoever has been presented. Saddam has not been linked in any way to terrorist organizations (even the US admits to that).<span id='postcolor'> There is proof, but just because you don't see it on CNN or whatever your mainstream news source is doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Â President Bush showed the U.S. senate this proof and they all agreed that Saddam was a threat. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now any rational person demands some form of explanation/proof before believeing something. That's why so many people (including many Americans) don't believe that Saddam is of any danger. Simple as that.<span id='postcolor'> IMO, they don't think he is because they want to disagree with Bush. Â But that's just me. Â There is proof, and our elected officials agree that saddam is a threat. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Think of how many Japanese lives you would have saved by coming to a diplomatic solutions. I have been taught in school that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were one of the worst war crimes comitted during ww2. Hearing somebody defending it is to me like hearing somebody defending the extermination of Jews. Â Anyway, this is offtopic, lets stick to the topic.<span id='postcolor'> DIPLOMATIC SOLUTIONS!?!? Â THEY ATTACKED PEARL HARBOR!!! Â agh you're right it's off topic. -_- Do you have any proof that the U.S. intentionally took military action to cause a civilian casualty? Â I doubt it. Â The U.S. typically attacks civilian targets that are of use to the military at night when they're not staffed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (morbid @ Dec. 24 2002,04:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Perhaps its cheaper to drop a single laser guided bomb onto a target than to drop a whole lot of unguided bombs in the area of the target in order to hit.<span id='postcolor'> Have you been reading what I've said? The USAF spends millions of dollars developing these weapons, more money training pilots to use them too. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are not trying to reduce civilian casulties when you go to war. If you choose not to make war, then you reduce civilian casulties.<span id='postcolor'> How many civilian casualties would we get if saddam handed a nuclear device to some terrorist organisation? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The "I don't know what it is, but I'm sure Bush does" argument is not quite a convincing one.<span id='postcolor'> I do know what it is, everyone does, but not everyone accepts it. I know it's about WMDs, and I trust my president, and my senate about the evidence to support that. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kosovo then. Third phase of "Allied Force" was the bombing of civilian infrastructure. TV-stations, police stations, fire departments, government buildings etc. Many civilian casulties. War crimes by any book.<span id='postcolor'> Source? And the U.S. actually saved lives by nuking Japan. Think of how many Marines we'd of lost if we tried to invade the Japanese mainland, more than if we just nuked them I'll tell you that much.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Dec. 24 2002,05:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can't find any Belgian stuff... THIS WEBSITE SUCKS!<span id='postcolor'> go eat a waffle

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 24 2002,02:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No I don't think so, because you know you will kill civilians anyway, it's a calculated tradeoff. Â So what if you work on precision weapons, are you saying there are expected to be no civilian casualties? Common sense... look who is talkig about common sense. Â If you think there is an excuse to have a war like the one being planned vs Iraq, you lack all sorts of common sense. Â Civilians will be the casualties of yet another "for our interests" war.<span id='postcolor'> We're trying to reduce the casualties. Â That's the point. Â Of course there will be civilian casualties, there always will be, nothing can be done to prevent them. Â The point is that we are trying to stop them, he's trying to cause them. And there's a perfectly good excuse for the war on Iraq, you just don't accept it. And hiroshima and nagasaki didn't happen today, they happened over 50 years ago, things have changed.

I LOVE the A-10. I can't wait for LOMAC to come out so I can do some strafing with that gattling gun. mmm... I know how you feel Tovarish. I just signed up with an F4 squad and passed their checkride (w00t). Once I get my f*ing router fixed I'll be able to fly online with them. There's nothing like flying online with real people and real voice comms. At least on the computer.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 24 2002,01:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US never has? Â Okay, anyway, if you know there will be collateral damage and decide to proceed, then you intend on proceeding and killing civilians. Â BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY WILL DIE. Â You will be making a trade off, just like Hussein made some sort of trade off in his mind. I can't explain this any other way quickly.<span id='postcolor'> No! You don't intend to kill civilians! If we intended to kill civilians we wouldn't spend millions upon billions of dollars developing laser guided bombs! This is common sense! There's a difference between recklessly targetting civilians, and accidentally killing civilians while targetting a military objective.

I understand that, but I'm talking about intent here. Saddam intended to kill civilians, the U.S. never has. Therefore you can't compare the two on that level.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 23 2002,23:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Because the collateral damage is known to occur in advance, therefore it is done with intent. For instance, why do you think hostage situations are not handled by an airborne regiment, even though there are "evil doers" inside a building? Collateral damage.<span id='postcolor'> There's a difference though. The military makes an attempt to reduce civilian casualties, Saddam tries to achive them.

I loved U.S. Navy, still have the copy of it I think. Just loved it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 23 2002,22:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 23 2002,17:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Blind patriotism blind Bush hate....different sides of the same coin.<span id='postcolor'> Look at it in absolute terms. Bush has killed far more civilians in Afganistan (collateral damage) then Saddam has in Iraq.<span id='postcolor'> How can you compare collateral damage to purposefully gassing a civilian population as a military action?

I've got you beat Tex. Hey, he violated restricted airspace. Granted, it's not OFP, but it still took me too long to make it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 23 2002,10:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then whatever you Yanks called it when you had the P-51 and P-47's in England . I've always been more interesed in the Eastern front airwar, one of the reasons I'm such an Il-2 fanatic.<span id='postcolor'> AAC, Army Air Corps. USAF wasn't founded until 1947 I believe. What would I do without you, tovarish.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 22 2002,22:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hate to break up your fun here, but leaky subs are a bigger embarassement to the UK. Â Who sold them to the Canadians... Â junk, what do we need the damn subs for...<span id='postcolor'> When did I mention the UK?

So why are the French in the Ivory Coast? Another French colony?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Dec. 22 2002,22:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There will be a Falcon V, which will feature most of the features from SP3. It is supposed to focus on two aircraft, the F-16 (Of course), and the F-15.<span id='postcolor'> Ugh, barf. I can't stand the F-15. Why would the implement it in a game called "falcon"? And what happened to implementing a 2-seater falcon? That would RULE! bah.

But the USAF never fought the Luftwaffe! Sounds like a cool game for it's time.

Much like the NVA was fighting against S. vietnamese troops who were advised by the U.S. and partly supplied by them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Dec. 22 2002,13:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Cretien? Celine Dion? Leaky sub?<span id='postcolor'> Russia never looked better. I don't like to tie myself to either political party. If I like what she says, I'll vote for her, if not, I'll vote for the republican candidate. If I don't like what either of them say, I'll throw my vote away and vote for a 3rd party candidate. At least then I can still be a patriot.

I only know of spec ops going into cambodia. i've got no idea why they'd go into china, uness it was to cut any direct Soviet - North Vietnam supply line. But I wouldn't know.

I remember playing a game called "aces of the sky" or something like that. Â I think it had a dynamic campaign. Â Standard pre-win 95 graphics, didn't get very popular. Â It was out at about the same time Red Baron was I think.

Downloading the demo now. Check back in... 3 1/2 hours. XD

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pzvg @ Dec. 22 2002,11:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Think outside the box, most active operations outside the MACV area were not conducted by regular military forces.<span id='postcolor'> Ahh yes, they must of been conducted by a different type of force. A force not usual, a force not of the normal. A... special force, if you will.

This is my piece.

Canada never looked better.