Othin

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 22 2003,12:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They showed footage on Swedeish television earlier today that looked like the wreck of an F-18 as far as I could make out. That's however a single seat fighter if I'm not mistaken.<span id='postcolor'> It's either a single seat (A,C,and E) or double seat (B,D, and F).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 21 2003,20:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Damn. That's some serious stuff. Of course, I imagine the limiting factor is the cost- no way Russia can afford to outfit alot of tanks with something like this. But if they could (or if they got it in their heads to sell it around...), then... well, I don't really need to say it, do I?<span id='postcolor'> Was serious. After watching the new Hellfire(s) test and evaluation for the last two years I can say with confidence that they better start on something new. Let's not forget the Javelin either.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 22 2003,11:49)</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">Debateble. Some say he was supported by the CIA.<span id='postcolor'> Ok, if you want to talk about unproven could be's then I'll raise you a "Some say he was supported by the French Government." See travel schedule of one Jeac Chirac. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Atleast one shipment was sent from the US army center for bacteriological research in Fort Detrick. (Mentioned in an article in new York Times on the 28th of february 1998). A US army installation is about as American as it can ever get.<span id='postcolor'> Hey now, there you go again ignoring the whole story. We didn't send him munitions prefilled OR the equipment needed to turn the cultures into weapons. I say again, talk to France and Germany about that part. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">After the attack on Kurds at Halabaja in 1988 the US did not call out against the masskillings or try to do anything about it. Instead the support for Saddam increased. Biological material for example continued to be delivered until as late as 1989 when Bush Sr. also granted Saddam a substantial loan. If they had not supported the killings of Kurds, why did they continue cooperating and supporting him?<span id='postcolor'> I could ask you the same of the gruesome twosome, France and Germany. Shipments continued from both of those countries all the way till the recent inspections. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just because a government changes it doesnt mean that the over all agenda does. There hasnt been a very big difference in how America has acted throughout various administrations since well before the Vietnam war. 4 years is such a short period that its nearly impossible to make any major changes in policy. Besides, various lobby groups maintain the same influences no matter who is in charge, and their agenda keeps influencing the decesions that are made.<span id='postcolor'> There is no way I can agree with you on that one. The U.S. has had a haphazard foreign policy since the late 60s. And the administrations have acted WILDLY different. There is no way to compare the Carter administrations foreign policy with the current administrations. I have no interest in joining the tinfoil hat brigade, so I don't really put much into everyones claims about lobbys and outside influences.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 22 2003,11:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He is justified in his hate against the American government because it is the government that put him in power, supplied him with WMD's, cheered him on while murdering Kurds and now use it as an excuse to attack him. If I was in his shoes, I'd be pissed aswell.<span id='postcolor'> Ok, for the 99,0000th time, the US did NOT put him in power. He came to power through his own machinations. The US supported him later (as did France and the UK) as a counterbalance to the perceived threat from Iran. Nor did the US give him WMD. A US company sold him the cultures (admittedly this had to be ok'd by the State Dept). France and Germany supplied him with the equipment to turn it into a weapon. France also sold him a nuclear reactor that would produce weapons grade material. I also would like proof that Sadaam was "cheered" on after the attacks on the Kurds. Last time I looked at a calender there wasn't a "Happy murdered Kurds" day. Also, it would serve you to remember that there is the possibility of a new govt in the U.S. every four years. An extremely unfortunate side effect of this is the varied foreign policies that have come out of Washington. I don't like it either, but it's a fact.

CNN just reported conformation of reports from SKYnews and Reuters(I think) that 4 American soldiers were killed in central Iraq. They were at the head of a column in two Humvees. Apparantly the Iraqis were lying in wait and attacked with RPGs as the vehicles passed. What's interesting is that they is a Brit embedded with this group of soldiers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DracoPaladore @ Mar. 21 2003,18:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wasn't there a large force of Iraq moving south before the attack? And what about the ones stationed in the city? If the US decides to attack the city, they can't just go up and start blowing up buildings due to the civilian population. An urban warefare enviorment, woulden't that make tanks and IFV's a little difficult to control in?<span id='postcolor'> Right now the majority of Iraqi armor is in the field. It seems the Coalition forces are pretty confident they can take them out with their own armor, or that they're going to go the way of the 51st and surrender. I'd be willing to bet that if the Iraqi armor starts making a dash for Baghdad or some other city then they're going to send in a massive air strike to take it out.

For those of you in North America looking for another source, CSPAN is carrying a feed from Lebanon.

Just a heads up, anyone with IRC can hop on efnet and #cnn-live has a live closed caption of CNN. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Man, CNN is such a piece of crap, they summerized that at most 6 missiles were involved in the last bombing of Baghdad... when I watched at least 20 hit. Bullshitters. Trying to cover up tragic military actions.<span id='postcolor'> I saw them discussing 6 specific hits, but I haven't heard them deny that the rest of the bombs hit?? It's obvious if you count by the sound of explosions alone. Plus FOX, MSNBC, and BBC are all going with the several hundred story. I also think that it's slightly early to be calling anything "tragic military actions". I know you're just hoping against hope, but there is nothing proving or disproving that at this point.

In other news... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 21 2003,10:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A reporter on the ground in Baghdad says there are actually no particular targets where the dozens of bombs have landed. Â She says this is basically carpet bombing!<span id='postcolor'> Doubt it, most of these were grouped together. I could be wrong, but I believe most of these fell in the "military area" near the Presidential palace. The other thing that supports that claim is that you're not hearing so many firetrucks and such. And power is still on. If it was carpet bombing I imagine a transformer or station would have taken a hit or been over or under loaded by masses of houses being taken out.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 21 2003,10:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Seen a few SAM launches. I hope any aircrews in the area watch themselves. It appears to be multiple cruise missile strikes mainly.<span id='postcolor'> I would disagree. I think there were some cruise missiles, but I think there were quite a few B2s dropping JDAMS.

Shock and Awe, aye. I knew it was coming, but it's another to actually see and hear it. I think I'm going to surrender for good measure.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 21 2003,07:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I payed a visit to my former boss today. He was happy to see me until he realized that I was just fishing for information One interesting thing that I heard is that coalition forces are not taking any prisoners. Instead they just give them food and send them home. This is at least what the British claim. I have no independent confirmation of it. I wonder if the same will apply to republican guard units? I can just imagine it: RG Soldier: I give up, don't shoot! Aussie soldier : No worries mate! Here's some food and water. Go home to your family. RG Soldier: May I keep my tank, please? Aussie soldier: Aw, sorry mate. Against the rules. We're told to take all your weapons. Silly rules I know, but I have to enforce them. Nothing personal. RG Soldier: Please, couldn't you make an exception? My nine year old son will be so disappointed if I come home without a tank. And my wife loves it. She picked the color. Aussi soldier: Oh, who am I to disappoint a little boy. Listen, this is what we'll do. See that tank over there, It's a Yank Abrams tank. It's very good and the same color as yours. Why don't you take that one instead and we won't break any rules. RG Soldier: Thanks a lot, my son will be very happy. RG Soldier: (Runs over Aussie soldier with the tank) RG Soldier: Sorry! Accident! Another Aussie soldier: No worries mate! Just watch out for those tank mines on the way and say hello to your son from us! RG Soldier: (Runs over the rest of the Aussies nearby and sets off back to his position while chewing on a kangeroo burger) <span id='postcolor'> Oddly enough Coalition forces in the region have the option of leaving the Iraqi military commanders with their weaponss. FOXNEWS and CNN were showing a copy of an information packet that was giving to Coalition commanders outlining what actions to take with Iraqis... Hearts and minds folks, hearts and minds.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Mar. 20 2003,18:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 21 2003,11:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CH-46 down....16 on board....none expected alive<span id='postcolor'> BBC is saying that it was 12 Americans and 4 British dead.<span id='postcolor'> err, I've heard the exact opposite. 4 American crew, 12 British "Commandos". Since it's a CH-46 I would say that's more likely.

FoxNews just showed the B-52s in England sitting on the flightline and what looked like fueling operations. Shock and Awe Airlines direct to Iraq may be leaving soon...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 20 2003,17:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not to sound cynical, but do not believe the US/UK when it comes to casulties. Back in '91, true reports didn't come out for weeks about the death of service men. Don't forget, the military use the media as a tool, and telling the public that a load of your soldiers just got blown away by an antique ex Soviet missile doesn't look particulary good.<span id='postcolor'> I think BBC is much more forthcoming with the info then the US media though. When I worked at Circuit City (an electronics store) some guy explained it to me. US Media has to wait till all the families of the servicemembers are informed, whereas the BBC operates under seperate rules. Not sure how true this is, but he wouldn't buy a DirectTV and Sony Wega off of me till I promised him that he could get BBC on it.

I think that might be Tarik Aziz's former office.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 20 2003,16:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hahaha, that sounds funny anyway, i've heard that there have been NO coalition casualties. Â this is from fox news and I havent been able to back it up yet. Â i've also heard from fox news that they heard from the coalition that one of the missiles launched at Kuwait was a SCUD. Â <span id='postcolor'> Well we know that has to be a false report, Sadaam said he didn't have any SCUDS!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Mar. 20 2003,14:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BBC has reported that there is a rumor that the Iraqis tried to destroy a Kuwaiti oil plant.<span id='postcolor'> I've heard two things on that. First I head that it was an Iraqi SCUD or some other ballistic missile, or that it was a Tomahawk that splashed down. Now I'm hearing Iraqi ballistic missile again.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 20 2003,13:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Seems an Apache just went down. Seems it was taking AAA fire, and contact was lost.<span id='postcolor'> MS-NBC is reporting that the crew is alright. I've also heard that the Apache was able to take back off (???)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 20 2003,12:59)</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">I'm guessing the Navy SEALs, not the sea lions trained by US navy  <span id='postcolor'> Oh, I don't know. I've heard those sea lions are vicious buggers, and will take on any mission in exchange for the right amount of fish! (Oh and apparantly Ricin has been found in a French train station)<span id='postcolor'> Seriously, I wouldn't want to screw with the Sea Lions or Dolphins trained by the USN. They're very very well trained.

It's interesting to see the video from the earlier strikes. You can see almost immediate secondaries after the initial explosion. Things that make you go hmmmm

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 20 2003,12:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Looks like the Royal Marines went in first, storming a beach. Second wave including armour is following up.<span id='postcolor'> I've heard that a Brit is in charge of a large number of U.S. Marines, any truth to this?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Mar. 20 2003,12:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i'm kinda flanked by how last 24hrs went by. was studying for final exam, so didn't get that much info, but seems like US forces are taking long time to do anything. they seem to be worried about sideeffects of massive bombing, so is taking every damn precaution. this will indeed change sooner or later, but it seems like troops are slowly taking places one by one, instead of firery barage that they've been talking about. maybe another disinformation that is covered by another misleading disinformation? <span id='postcolor'> I've taken quite the contrary away from it. I'm pretty surprised the ground forces are making their moves before the huge airstrikes. I guess the commanders want them in place to capitalize after the strikes occur.

Foxnews is reporting air-raid sirens in Mosul now