Oligo

"Two, did they really know what they were going into? I mean, the infantry was huddled down low behind the armor as if trouble could be right around the corner, but you have take into account weather or not they actually knew the numbers of forces involved in the ambush or weather or not they even knew if one was coming." The germans had plenty of city fighting experience. Does Stalingrad ring a bell? Nevertheless, I'm not talking about the surprise factor and all that. I'm talking about the germans seeing tens of their pals being blown away by snipers and bombs and whatnot and the morons still stayed in the streets, running over the bodies of their comrades. Do you really think that they would not have entered the ruined buildings and advanced in the cover provided by them? Furthermore, unless the german commander was a moron, tanks would never advance in cities without being completely covered by infantry. Which means that the infantry goes in first and looks into every nook and cranny, looking for that lone dupe with the bazooka. And my last point. Tanks have machine guns. You can even see that in the movie. But for some reason, the german commander had issued orders that they should not be used. Just look carefully, the machine guns never fire. Considering that they are the main anti-infantry weapons of tanks... you catch my drift.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ May 14 2002,02:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, saving private ryan was on my mind when i thought of this. That last scene where they hold the bridge, i saw a gross amount of anti-tank capabilities missing. That could have really been helped by even a couple AT4's, which would be where the demo guys come in. If they had taken out the tanks, they would have had a HUGE leg up. Jackson would have survived, and probably taken out a hell of a lot more infantry than he did, captain miller wouldnt have died, cause he wouldnt have gotten shell shocked by the tank round that hit the alamo towards the final stages of that battle, etc.<span id='postcolor'> Well, the ending battle of Saving Private Ryan is not the epithome of realism anyway. I don't think ze germans had any more tendencies to run mindlessly into slaughter, than the average G.I. Joe. Unfortunately that is what they do in the movie. The tigers weren't really that sucky.

"I would for instance gladly give my "right to free speech" away to get the "right to a shitload of money and chicks"." Oh, yeah, I'd go for that too. Who needs to whine, if they have a shitload of money and chicks? "Whoever said that democracy is needed to prosper? Democracy is just a current fashion thing - was the Roman empire democratic?" I hate to be a nitpick, but the Roman empire was ocassionally a republic, which was a sort of a democracy, so Roman empire actually ocassionally was quite democratic. Anyway, there is a problem with the rule of the masses. A majority of the masses reacts to issues purely with emotion and without thinking of the big picture. So if you ask a John Everyman: "Should we ban the use of lab rats, because the scientists are evilly killing them fluffy, cute animals?" John is going to say 'yes'. But if you say: "We should not ban the use of lab rats, because then 80% of your children are going to die, since we'll run out of drugs!" John would say 'Yes, we should not ban it'. So when important issues arise, majority of the common people are unable to form opinions based on the big picture. Yet these morons get to dictate the policy. "And yes or no: Is Hussein’s possession of WMD’s (not just mustard gas, I’m talking about the mushroom cloud inducers) acceptable to you? Unless something changes, it’s a matter of time before he has them." That's a very interesting question. Granted, Saddam is a dictator, who has used some chem weapons against his own people. Then again, U.S. has used nukes against other people. Also we have to remember that your own CIA reports have profiled Saddam as a sane, rational person. So the answer to you question is that NOBODY should have WMDs. But since you and many others have WMDs in your not-so-very-responsible hands (Bush has the goddamn nuke authorization!, I really can't feel too worried about another irresponsible person getting his hands on them. I guess I don't know whether him having WMDs is acceptable or not, but I do know that I wouldn't be scared if he did have them. I just don't care.

"We may live in democracies locally, but in world politics and international affairs it is the law of the jungle that is applied. The only relevant things there are military and economic power. The strongest dictates all the terms. Today the strongest one is the United States and we have to bite the bullet and accept their terms and will until somebody stroger comes up. Simple as that." Theocracy = rule of the religion, Oligcracy (sp?) = rule of the few, Democracy = rule of the foolish masses. I mainly resent just the eternal claims of U.S. that they're doing it all, just because they're so very very good and righteous. So I just HAVE to point out all the ocassions they acted with dubious motives. But the fact that the strongest ruleth merely because he is the strongest, I do not dispute. And I doubt the next strong player will be China, not for a long time at least. They're too far behind in the technology race.

In the news today: Arafat makes a statement. So, Arafat says that he is preparing to say that having a jewish state is ok. Nice politico talk, BTW. Let's consider what this means: -If the hard-liner extremists on his side believe that he actually means it, there will be a (possibly succesfull) attempt to assasinate him. -Israelis will never believe that he means it. Makes me wonder why he made such a statement, because it is not going to help jack shit, except maybe get assassins after him. Is he trying to woo for international support? I doubt he can get any more than the scattered support he already has.

"The agents they harbored did.  In addition, they clearly aided and abetted Al-Queda after the fact." "It’s called unconditional surrender.  We didn’t pioneer the concept." "Well, we haven’t reached that point yet.  We’ll have to see who gets tired first." I'll just sum all of these threads, since this reply fits them all. You obviously see yourselves as knights in shining armor, riding off again, as so many times before, to fight the evil dragons. I, however, see you as Don Quixotes, riding off to fight the windmills again, when the peasants would need the windmills for grinding grain. Neither of us is going to yield in our opinion, so there is really no point in continuing this part of the argument. "This is just my American naivete again, but from a European perspective, if NATO is such a bad deal for everyone but us, what’s keeping the European countries in?  And we’ve had to make our sacrifices, too – 9mm over .45?  Acckkk!" I didn't claim NATO to be a bad deal for everyone but you. But a european army would be almost as mint and it would also give EU more political maneuvering room. You ask what's keeping European countries in? Well, mainly you at the moment, because even any preliminary talks of dismantling NATO get met with a bullying response from your diplomats. So you're concerned that you'll loose your hold of europe, fine, just say it. Oh and the NATO members wouldn't necessarily want to disband it, they just don't have the chance of saying it, because your opposition drowns the voices of everybody else. "Unfortunately, what I think gets reinforced with every news report I see." Yeah, well, every bit of news reinforces my thinking that both sides in the Middle Eastern conflict are just full of shit. """It’s impossible to forget.  No one likes warfare, we just happen to be skilled at it.""" ""Or you're just too immature to be the only one doing it, rather."" "Obviously we’re not the only troops there.  Are you saying that negotiating longer with the Taliban would somehow have been more mature?  They made their position clear.  It’s sad, but you can’t reason with a rabid dog." Err, your (or maybe my) answer went a little off the track here. I just pointed out that you seem to be the only western nation immature enough to fight wars all the time. That's what I meant. Anyway, nothing in history has proven that you are particularly skilled in warfare, it's just that you pour the most money into it. Your soldiers seem to be nothing special (good, but not spectacular), as judged from historical facts. "On a slightly unrelated note, what’s your opinion regarding Afghan soldiers being trained by Americans?  Are we trying to help, or do we have something up our sleeves?" The outcome of the Afghan crisis is not yet clear. So it's impossible to say. Anyway it's always cool to have an army grateful to you for the training, but I don't think I can blame you for something sinister. Time will tell. """This might be hard for you to believe but soldiers don’t like to see civilians suffer.  Maybe the Iraquis would be better served if their leader expended the same resources on their welfare as he does on his presidential palaces and pursuit of WMDs?""" ""The Iraqis did not elect mister madman Hussein to represent them. If you're going to arrest a madman, should you kill his family as well?"" "Can you elaborate on this point a bit?  Sorry, I’m just not tracking here." I was trying to say that there are all these people trapped under the unelected rule of Saddam the crazy. They're victims, really. Many of these people are forced to serve in the Iraqi army (draft). Now, when you went to punish mister nutcase Hussein last time, you killed all these victims of him, but not the man himself. When you go after him the second time, you'll kill more victims of his and hopefully the man himself. Poor bastards. "IMHO, “imminent nuclear showdown†is overly dramatic.  And unbiased data usually doesn’t include the phrases “self-serving stupidity†or “self-indulging understanding of history.† I’m being put into the uncomfortable position of defending Ronnie Raygun, but when you have two wildly opposing points of view, sometimes the answer is somewhere in the middle." You know, the data is unbiased (all these things actually happened), but the interpretation is not. So ignore the interpretation and do your own. Anyway, if you're so peace-loving, why didn't you react to any conflicts by saying: 'Look, there seems to be a crisis developing. We should sort it out, because we really cannot afford a conflict.' Instead you said: 'You fucking commies. Give us what we want or we'll drop the bomb on your commie ass.' So you think this kind of commentary is striding for something in the middle? And they were supposed to be the evil hegemonists... But think what you want man. "The goals are not the same.  Allow me to point out a minor difference: If people stop buying McDonald’s hamburgers and visiting EuroDisney, the businesses will close and move on.  We probably wouldn’t deploy troops, or construct military checkpoints with concertina and minefields.  Abrams tanks rolling over Paris would almost certainly not be considered." Tanks and such things are not part of cultural conquest. However, the goals of military and cultural conquest ARE the same. Anyway, would you believe that I have pretty much nothing against your cultural conquest? You're putting me into position to defend those anti-globalization freaks, which is something I don't really want to do. "You always have options.  Advertising cannot cram anything down your throat if you don’t want it there." Look, I just don't want to see people suing companies over spilled coffee. That's what I meant. This is the one part of your culture I'd hate to see take root in here. There's not much I can do about it, though. "Not watching it works for me." Yeah, there's always that. However, it pains me that I know they're sending such shit from the telly, BECAUSE so many of my fellow countrymen want to watch it. Â

Denoir, you defector: "I don't agree with you on that Oligo. NATO is a mutual interest organization. It is American dominated but all the countries involved have their interests. We Europeans share a number of interests with the Americans, and we profit from the Americans enforcing them (oil anybody?). Of course USA profits the most from NATO, and is therefor agains the dismantlement of it or independent European defense efforts." I wasn't saying that nobody else profits from NATO. I just said that U.S. profits the most. Also, NATO nicely makes sure that european union cannot ever have a REALLY different opinion from the yanks, because we lack any military credibility whatsoever (most of the significant european armies belong to NATO). Additionally, U.S. spending to NATO has nothing to do with altruism and therefore cannot be claimed to be 'humanitarian' spending, like some few yanks so often do. "We can at least say that the intentions were good." Good intentions should be feared the most, for they so often spawn crap. "Yes, but the US has never started a war directly." This is not technically correct. U.S. had many wars against the indians for example, which they started. Also, U.S. directly initiated the war against the taleban, who had not attacked U.S. Although, I grant it, the result of that war should be good (I very much hope so), if things don't get fucked like they often do. "Nah, won't work. Take the talibans for instance. They knew that the US had the will and the means to do them serious harm, yet they ignored it." Ok, if you consider issuing 'yield or die' demands to other nations acceptable, then I guess the U.S. policy is just mint. Maybe we should not fight about a thing, which is clearly just a matter of opinion? "A war is a war and shit happens. You can't prevent that. The only objection that I have is the attempt to justify everything by pretending you do it out of altruistic reasons. Just say as it is: Give us what we want or we'll kick the living #@!! out of you, since we have the biggest baddest military around." I got to admit that this 'pretending to be altruistic' shit is what ticks me off the most as well. It's just too bad that all these innocent people have to die in the constant wars. "Very interesting reading. I never knew for instance that Grobachev proposed in 1985 to get rid of all the worlds nuclear weapons by the year 2000. I wonder who stopped that?" If I remember correctly, Gorba was weak and tried to maneuver a little. The yanks dismissed the proposal, because 'it could never work'. For all I know, they might have been right. "Don't kid yourself. We want that trash culture. It is a free world market. The things we don't want, we don't import (I hear that Disneyland in Paris and McDonalds in France is loosing money big time. USA is a very stron industrial nation and we want their stuff." I never said that we don't want it. I'm not one of those anti-globalization morons. But we only want it, because it is crammed down our throats by advertising. This is not wrong in any way, I'm not claiming that. But it IS conquest and a very efficient way of doing it, because the enemy WANTS you to take them. The only part of U.S. culture trying to snake in here that I very much resent is the culture of lawyers, courts and celebrities. I'd love to live without it, but I'm not sure I have that option. Now to E6Hotel: "Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner." All we have is a clear indication of what you think. "Don’t trivialize the issue. If we or our allies are attacked we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to eliminate the threat. THAT’S exactly how we are." Ever considered that you ran out of threats that you are capable of eliminating? "It’s impossible to forget. No one likes warfare, we just happen to be skilled at it." Or you're just too immature to be the only one doing it, rather. "This might be hard for you to believe but soldiers don’t like to see civilians suffer. Maybe the Iraquis would be better served if their leader expended the same resources on their welfare as he does on his presidential palaces and pursuit of WMDs?" The Iraqis did not elect mister madman Hussein to represent them. If you're going to arrest a madman, should you kill his family as well? "Someone’s using the word “imminent†loosely. And clearly no bias in THAT link, especially the ending editorial." Don't read the comments. Rather, read the BACKGROUND, CRISIS EVENTS and OUTCOME parts of each crisis. I like quotes like: "We're going to drop it on you," Truman is reported to say to Gromyko. "Comparing our exportation of Big Macs to France with Uncle Joe’s intentional starvation of tens of millions of his own people isn’t valid, IMHO. And my sympathies about the TV." Only your goal is the same, not the means. And man, I'd like to know how you survive the crap they're pouring from your telly. Major Fubar: "sticking their political penis into countries all over the world where it doesn't belong" This is the nicest way of putting things I have ever seen. Congrats for being so clever.

Did somebody already mention Pitch Black?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ May 09 2002,10:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This all sounds very civ 3 indeed.<span id='postcolor'> Ha. Very much so, doesn't it?

said: "Gimme T, gimme E, gimme C, gimme H, gimme N, gimme O! TECHNO!" Everybody cheered and the tank commander put on some Scooter. So they sang: "Faster, harder, Scooter" and the loudspeakers were screaming 'UTS UTS UTS'. And good times were had by all.

"Two factors that I can think of:  (1) How are the Israelis supposed to identify the terrorists, who are native to the area; and (2) How do they defend against an enemy who’s literally “dying to kill?â€" The pals who suicide bomb often come from West Bank or Gaza, don't they? Why the hell do the Israelis let anybody without an ID showing he/she is a jew come into Israel proper? I heard that the pals are not allowed to work in Israel proper anymore, so why are they allowed in to suicide bomb? Are the suicide bombers maybe smuggled over the border? I'd just like to know how it is, could Avon maybe explain the facts? Anyway, IDF must have some kind of SOP for dealing with potential suicide bombers, because I don't see many suicide attacks on military checkpoints. Or maybe the pals just prefer to attack civvies. "The Taliban had one month to decide.  They didn’t want to play ball, so they got the bat up their @$$.  And no one here thinks this is a simple solution, it’s just the first stage of what’s going to be a long process." Oh, that's so very mature. Why does that sound like a bully on the sandbox going: "If you don't give me that toy truck, I'll kick your @$$!" But that's exactly how you are, I guess. "If you re-read what I’ve been saying about this, my point is that our involvement was due to our NATO responsibilities and not national self-interest.  We keep going back and forth here but I think we’re actually in agreement." If you're claiming that NATO is not an organization purely about U.S. world domination, I just have to laugh. NATO is all about your national self-interest. If it was not a tool of your domination, but some kind of altruistic help organization like you seem to imply (thus being a bit of a burden for you), why do you fiercely attack anybody who talks about dismantling NATO? Why did you have to object even to euros having their own GPS system? "War in defense of attacked or oppressed people is the HIGHEST FORM of public service." I wonder how many of the oppressed people you 'helped' are grateful for your public service. I bet they just love to live in the middle of rubble and unexploded munitions. "As I’ve stated before, there is a difference in reacting aggressively when provoked and being an aggressor.  Of course we initiated OUR involvement, and attacking is better than the alternative.  I ask again, though, who typically initiates the hostilities we get involved with?" Look, I know it is easy to gaze at all the past conflicts and say: "Those evil people were having a delicious little war against the oppressed people and then we went in and helped the oppressed people. Hooray for us." It's even easier to forget the price paid: Accidental civilian casualties, soldier casualties (soldiers don't always volunteer for war you know), destroyed infrastructure, famine, plaque, etc... Even a war fought for good reasons is just as deadly. Also, it's not like you ever fought a war because you're so kind. You always did have some nice bonus agenda like oil. Maybe you should get more patience, talk with the evil people far longer and avoid these 'decisive' air campaigns which tend to be very violent. But I don't know, it's just what I think. "So we should have rebuilt Hanoi and Iraq?  What other wars are we talking about?  If history shows anything, it’s that we’re always ready to help a former enemy that “realizes the error of their ways†-- look at Germany and Japan, for heaven’s sake." Yes you should have rebuilt Hanoi and Iraq. You know, there are over 22 million people in Iraq. How many of those do you think was really your enemy? Yet, who do you think suffers the consequences of detroyed infrasturcture? "The Cuban Missile Crisis is the only imminent nuclear showdown that I’m aware of.  I assume you’re familiar with GRU Colonel Oleg Penkovsky, who provided the U.S. with data on the U.S.S.R.’s capabilities and intentions?  This information enabled us to call Krushchev’s bluff.  Fanatics?  Nah, we just had an ace in the hole.  And the entire situation could have been avoided if the U.S.S.R. had kept their nukes out of our backyard." You can check out all the sixteen cases in here: Imminent nuclear showdowns Interestingly enough, you were the ones threatening with nukes in most cases. Sounds pretty fanatic to me. "First, I never bought into the “evil empire†stuff.  However, the Soviet Union showed a tendency to swallow up countries throughout its history, and not because they were eager to be a part of the “social experiment.† (Unless of course you think the Berlin Wall was built to keep the West Berliners out, in which case all I can say is, “Wow.â€)  As far as Finland not being absorbed, I’m pretty sure the Soviets would have known that there is no way we would stand by while they invaded a Western European country, NATO member or not.  (The idea of “Winter War II†would probably have given the Soviets the heebie-jeebies, anyway.  Heh.)" It's good that you don't believe the 'evil empire' shit. But really, yours and their politics are not that different. The soviets maybe took over some countries by force, but you did it and still do it by the trash culture you export everywhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm not whining against your cultural conquest, I don't care. I'm just pointing out that you are swallowing up other countries all the time. So funnily enough, the soviets never conquered us, but you did. They're showing fucking 'Cheaters' and 'Divorce Court' in our telly now. Â

If this shit was going down in U.S. the pals would be extinct by now.

A voice of God boomed from the clouds: "Thou shalt not make up bragging bullshit of thyself in third person, Aculaud! Or my divine wrath shalt be focuseth upon thee!"

Yes, but the teeming masses of pals in West Bank and Gaza cannot get it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ May 08 2002,00:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or here's an idea! Why don't they just live in Isreal peacefully?? Â Hmm? Then they can pray and live at the site of their holy land just like the Isrealis do. Hmm? Â Wouln't that be a better idea than killing innocents for glory??<span id='postcolor'> Only one problem: They don't have and cannot get an israeli citizenship, because they belong to the wrong ethno/religious group. Bummer.

"Israel has a fairly tight defensive posture right now (slight understatement), but these clowns don’t seem to have much trouble blowing civilians into bloody chunks." And I ask again, how does the suicide bomber to be get into Israel proper to blow him/herself up? Finland has about a 1000 klicks of border with Russia and a lot of it is in totally undeveloped wilderness (roadless and such, you can still find old crashed german and russian warplanes from WWII in there). Still, we manage to guard this border so well that it is next to impossible to get in undetected. So how the hell cannot Israel do that? Explain it, I want to know. "They made themselves a good enemy. If they had stuck with blowing up statues and cutting animals out of paintings I don’t think we’d have gotten very upset. It was providing training grounds and safe haven for those Al-Queda rascals that slightly peeved us. “Happened to have talked to the evil terrorists,†indeed." The problem is that while I admit the talebs deserved to be kicked (not for the reasons you claim, but for being oppressive bastards), your reaction to this 9/11 matter was so classically yanky: 'Find an enemy quick, so we can bomb, because talking is so confusing, because there is no clear winner.' You just love simple solutions, but simple solutions don't work in a complex world. "Oh no you don’t, you don’t get away THAT easily! Heh." Ok. "Sorry, but there was not. Seriously, ask yourself: Can you imagine the typical American demanding that we send our boys to Czech-, er, Saraj-, I mean, Yugoslovakia-land? Please. Even I can admit that back in ‘95-’96 the average American would think that “Bosnia-Herzegovina†was a female gymnast." The public outcry need not come from your citizens, but it can also come from your allies and such, which you need to suck from time to time in order to keep them in the leash. "Perhaps we have overdeveloped public-service glands. And how many of these wars have we initiated?" I don't know what you think, but war is never a 'public service'. And the way I see it, you have never exactly been dragged into a war, either. So technically, you initiated your involvement into them all (usually with an attack). "Two words: Marshall Plan." In the little wars after WWII you have been involved in, you have always gone in, dropped bombs and left others to sort out the shit. Promises don't count. Only after you have really done something, you have the right to claim that you have changed. "We can look back now and brush off the threat communism posed, but it was a different world back in the 50’s and 60’s. Pardon us if we felt threatened by a bushy-eyebrowed goon in charge of the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, who got up in front of the whole world and shoe-beat a table threatening to “bury†us." Yet communists were always the ones who backed away from imminent nuclear showdowns (f.ex. the Cuban missile crisis). It was never you. So who's the fanatic? "I also suspect that without NATO, many people in Western Europe might have developed a slightly different opinion of the communist threat." I'm from a country that did not and does not belong to NATO. I'm from a country that the Soviet Union tried to take over several times, sometimes with war. Yet, we survived the cold war. The bear did not consume us. Why is that if they were so completely evil? Could it be that they were not completely evil, but merely human, having a social experiment which failed?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ May 08 2002,00:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey ho, ive been chatting with a young Muslim in lebanon and its kind of changed my perspective on things once more. Ill post the history here, at least take the time to read it. He comes up with some pretty interesting answers...<span id='postcolor'> I wonder if he is really a muslim from Lebanon. That's the problem with Internet. But to me, he sounds exactly like the israelis I have heard from. He denies any wrongdoing by his side and calls the opposing side a bunch of demons. What it all comes down to is that both sides are really pigheaded, as I (and others) have said many times before. Now, there's even-handedness for you...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ May 07 2002,22:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And with catchy slogans like "Infinite Justice", how can it go wrong? As for the Taliban goes, they were an arbitrary target, of course closest they could find to Bin Laden, but still much of a political decision based on the popular demand for action. I won't however shed many tears for the Taliban. They probably deserved to get their asses kicked.<span id='postcolor'> Yeah, war is so much about catchy slogans and 'heroic' speeches that it never ceases to amuse me. Anyway, I don't produce any tears for the Taleban either. What pisses me off, though, is that they got kicked for the wrong reasons (they had nothing to do with 9/11). But that's just me and my opinion.

...paradox, since I can't do shit, since I'm dead (and perfectly happy that way).

I wonder how you'll be able to play any games at the pace you're doing now, when you join the force? Being in the military tends to shorten the time available for leisurely activities.

You know, pretty much everything has been tried already in politics. So I think this is as good as it gets. You'll get over it. Anyway, you're joining the army, so what does it matter what the civvies do.

You know, people, even politicians, get murdered all the time. So it is not the end of everything, merely the end of the baldy guy. That's the beauty of democracy, you see, the leaders are expendable, because there are always more leaders to be elected as long as there are any citizens left.

When I noticed that Frank the analist was listening to some porn channel with his radio, thinking that he was eavesdropping my exchange with the dreadlords, I despaired at the stupidity of these humans. Thus I promptly blew my head off with a pistol, grinded myself through a coffee grinder, burned the remains and scattered the ashes to outer space, where they were promptly evaporated by cosmic radiation. So I was utterly dead and gone. Meanwhile Frank and his 'friend'...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By Aculaud: Not just yet. First we need to figure out who IceFire and Aculaud are. They are the mysterious beings that sent them."<span id='postcolor'> "I believe it is you, who started to speak about thyself in the third person" I (?) said. "Anyway I ain't going to get into no cars with some analists. No sir", I then pointed out and climbed to my nice Dodge Viper. I utilized this fine automobile to follow the analist Frank and his 'friend' around, reporting to the Starbuckian Dreadlords in the process.