PFC Mongoose

Yes, I agree with that point. And as I said before, I do feel strongly that those responsible should be punished for this. ...but they won't be. It's a sad fact, but true. They might be sacked from their jobs, but even that isn't too likely. I think I'll go load up Op Flash and go shoot some virtual Americans. Maybe I should make a Mongoose model so when people get irritated at me, they can go shoot me. Hmm... back on topic, any new developments from The Land of the Rising Sand?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 13 2003,12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 13 2003,05<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It was pretty stupid of them  to guard the museum so poorly.  I wonder how thinly stretched their forces are, or if it was just a command screw up. The backlash will be forceful. Still, even if they are ancient artifacts, and even if they hold a lot of history, to me, people are almost always more important than stuff.  People can reproduce, but if your friend dies, that person is gone.  Their decendents may resemble them, you may meet other people like them, but someone close to you has been erased off the face of the earth. Losing ancient relics and artifacts is a tragedy, but to me, losing people is almost always far worse.<span id='postcolor'> I don't think you realize the scale of this disaster. Torching the Louvre would have been less disasterous. You could destroy every museum in America and you would not come near the damage that was done here. If you want a war crime, this is it. According to the Geneva conventions the occupational forces must enforce law and order and prevent looting and the destruction of property. If I had a say, I would execute the complete chain of command responisble for this,  starting with Bush. I'm against the death penalty, but in this case I'm willing to pull the trigger myself.<span id='postcolor'> I am absolutely aware of the scope of this. I know a little bit about the Mesopotamian cultures and am aware of a bit of the history of Babylon and Assyria.  This doesn't change my stance on the subject. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurts @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But without the artifacts, how can the knowledge be backed up? It would be like if Tutankhamens tomb was blown up and all his artifacts were either destroyed or stolen. A history book can still talk about his life and show pictures of what the artifacts looked like, but you can't go into a museum and see the artifacts any more. And if someone says its all fake, you don't have proof to show them that they are wrong. Just words and pictures that could be faked. <span id='postcolor'> Yes, and that's a shame, but almost nothing survived from Sumer, and yet we still know of roughly where and when it was, what they did and what they accomplished.  The 'stuff' is gone, the knowledge lives on. However, fi you are dead, the knowledge is meaningless to you, the stuff is meaningless to you, because you are not alive, you do not exist as a persona nymore.  Thus, lives are more important than stuff, cultural knowledge is more important than stuff.  If it can't be back ed up, it can't be backed up.  I know you won't agree, and this is fine.  I really can see your side in this.  But again, it doesn't change my viewpoint. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> About how severe the looting of the Museum of Iraq is, imagine this: Every single painting done by famous artists are brought together and put into one museum. The country that museum is in becomes a dictatorship and then 25 years later it is liberated. There is lots of looting and the museum is looted and all the famous paintings of the world are either destroyed or taken off to hang on the wall of the looters homes. It would just be such a huge loss. <span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (blaegis @ April 13 2003,12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I cannot believe you actually said that. "Just stuff"?!?!? Irreplaceable artifacts of Mesopotamia, the cradle of our civilization, are now gone forever because of indifference or negligence. Those soldiers should have fought to the death to protect the museum (not that it would even be necessary, a couple iof shots in the air would've dispersed the looters). Your ignorance, and ignorance of those in the chain of command that allowed this to happen truly knows no bounds. <span id='postcolor'> Artifacts are useless to dead people, irreplacable or not. I'm not defending the soldiers actions.  I'm not defending the chain of commands actions. I do not disagree that they were responsible for those artifacts and should be held accountable. I still maintain, that it is just stuff, just objects that, if not preserved in a museum, would have likely faded to dust sooner or later, and been forgotten. I will also argue with denoir's implacation that allowing this looting to occur is more of a war crime than those civilian lives on his ticker. I am aware of the artifacts lost.  I am aware of the value of the artifacts.  I know this, and I dispute that these irreplacable artifacts are more valuable than life, without which, thiese artifacts would have no meaning, and further than that, would not exist. If you still feel I am ignorant on this issue, please explain to0 me in clear terms how this is so, because I am appeaernly ignorant of my own ignorance. Edit: I tried to put the syntax as denoir pointed it out to me, but it doesn't seem to be working.  Denoir's edit: sure it works, you just have to have equally many open and close quote tags. Edit 2: Oh, I thought I did. Please excuse my stupidity. Yes, you may quote me on that.

I think this is an excellent idea. It would aslo be great to have a bonafide referrence to point to, instead of just saying 'do a search for _x' where _x is the subject, and many of the results won't have much to do with that particular _x.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ April 13 2003,10:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Edit: Basically what Denoir said on the issue of the museum been looted and the faliure of coalition soldiers to stop it. As for the people dying vs. artifacts, I would rather see 10 soldiers killed and the artifacts saved than no one killed and the artifacts taken and destroyed. Its harsh, but sometimes human lifes have to be sacrificed to save things. The Mesopatamian was the first really advanced civilisation. They were the first to use writing as a way of recording information. They got into science and mathematics. Artifacts to atest to these remarkable achievements have probably been lost. I think that will have a greater affect on a world wide scale than a couple of soldiers been killed.<span id='postcolor'> I can understand that point of view. I didn't really mean 'better the articats were destroyed than soldiers died defending them', but that swhile these artifacts are representative of ancientcivilizations, and are valuable beyond belief, they are just stuff, and stuff just generally isn't as important as lives, to me. The knowledge of these civilizations lives on. To me, the knowledge of these civilizations are far more important than the relics.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 13 2003,09:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FYI, sandbags are carried empty. Â How hard is it to get a spotlight or something to shine in the driver's eyes?<span id='postcolor'> Yeah, but filling a quantity of sandbags enough to create a blockade, I'm assuming would take some time. As for the spotlight, depends on if they brought any with them, or not. Or if they came across any between the time they got off the boat and the time they set up the roadblock, or not. If not, they';ll have to get some from Turkey or Kuwait, or something.,

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 13 2003,07:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And people wonder why I want to fly the hog. Â They say it's ugly. <span id='postcolor'> I don't think my eyesight is good enough to ever fly a plane. But I'd like to fly the hog, also. Especially since, in Op Flahs, at least, as far as combat piloting goes, I can't handle anything faster.

Out of curiousity, what felony did Clinton commit?

Exactly. My point all along has been, while they need to set up a proper checkpoint, they've basically been fighting a war over the course of days; so, it's kind of hard to expect them to set up proper fortifications.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 13 2003,03:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ April 12 2003,19:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 12 2003,11:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Sweden we don't elect our PM directly. We have a representative democracy which means that we elect the members of parliament and then the majority party forms a cabinet. It has to be approved by the parliament. Usually the party leader of the majority party becomes the PM. So we have no limit on terms served. Â It's not common however for PMs to serve more than two terms in a row. Until a couple of years ago we had elections every three years, but it's four years now. Our chief of state, king Carl Gustaf XVI is of course not elected, but he has no political role <span id='postcolor'> Isn't that a parliamentary democracy, Denoir? And I seem to recall that the British system works so that a Parlimentarian (do the English call them Commoners and Lords or what?) representing Liverpool, for example, doesn't have to be from Liverpool. That the person's party picks and chooses what region he will represent. Thus, someone living in London can be put on the ballot for Nottingham because that's where the party wants him to run. Am I wrong? I seem to remember this being the case from my comparative international politics class. Is it the same in Sweden, or are people representing Gottenborg (sp?) actaully required to have residency there?<span id='postcolor'> It is indeed a parliamentary system. Â The reason the U.S. is a hybrid, and not a representative democracy is because of the electoral college.<span id='postcolor'> Canada's system is reversed to that... we elect our Prime Minister, then he selects his caucus from members of his party. And that vote of confidence deal is crap. Did the Gun Registry vote pass? I sure as hell hope not. I bet that will be one of the first things to get the axe when we finally get a new Government.

I figured they could dig ditches, leaving a zig-zag pathway through them up to the checkpoint, but that's quite a few manhours of work, as I'm sure is filling enough bags with sand to build a proper barricade. A good idea, but probably not very expedient, especially since from what I gather, most soldiers didn't have much time to even get rest, much less spend a few hours each on labor. But, again, I know very little about the military, and the conditions in the field for the soldiers, so I don't know.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 12 2003,18:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 12 2003,17:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now I am genuinly pissed of. The national museum in Bahgdad has been looted. It contained historic treasures dating 5 000 years back in history. It was a part of humanities heritage. It was guarded by TWO American soldiers, and it has now been sacked. The coalition sucks cowballs. <span id='postcolor'> Yepp. I posted this yesterday The looters did not just steal artifacts but they destroyed a lot of it. I don't know if the stupid fucks that were supposed to guard that place are aware what they let happen. There was a huge amount of priceless artifacts in that museum that are now gone. This is IMO a greater disaster than the people killed. People can reproduce, this is lost for ever. NYT article: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Looters Plunder Iraqi Museum; 50,000 Artifacts Are Taken By JOHN F. BURNS BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 12 — The National Museum of Iraq recorded a history of civilizations that began to flourish in the fertile plains of Mesopotamia more than 7,000 years ago, but once American troops entered Baghdad in sufficient force to topple Saddam Hussein's government this week, it took only 48 hours for the museum to be destroyed, with at least 50,000 artifacts carried away by looters. The full extent of the disaster that befell the museum only came to light today, as the frenzied looting that swept much of the capital over the previous three days began to ebb. As fires in a dozen government ministries and agencies began to smoke out, and looters tired of pillaging in the 90-degree heat of the Iraqi spring, museum officials reached the hotels where foreign journalists are staying along the eastern bank of the Tigris River, with word of what is likely to be reckoned as one of the greatest cultural disasters in recent Middle Eastern history. A full accounting of what has been lost may take weeks or months. The museum had been closed during much of the 1990's, and like many Iraqi institutions, its operations were cloaked in secrecy under Mr. Hussein. So what officials told journalists today may have to be adjusted as a fuller picture comes to light, and as the world learns whether some of the museum's priceless gold, silver and copper antiquities, some of its ancient stone and ceramics, and perhaps some of its fabled bronzes and gold-overlaid ivory, had been locked away for safekeeping elsewhere before the looting, or seized for private display in one of Mr. Hussein's ubiquitous palaces. What was beyond contest today was that the 28 galleries of the museum and vaults with huge steels guarding storage chambers that descend floor after floor into darkness had been completely ransacked. Officials with crumpled spirits fought back tears and anger at American troops, as they ran down an inventory of the most storied items that they said had been carried away by the thousands of looters who poured into the museum after daybreak on Thursday and remained until dusk on Friday, with only one intervention by American troops, lasting about half an hour, at lunchtime on Thursday. Nothing remained, museum officials said, at least nothing of real value, from a museum that had been regarded by archaeologists and other specialists as perhaps the richest of all such institutions in the Middle East. As examples of what was gone, the official cited a harp in solid gold from the Sumerian era, which began about 3360 B.C. and started to crumble about 2000 B.C. Another item on their list of looted antiquities was a sculptured head of a woman from Uruk, one of the great Sumerian cities, dating to about the same era, and a collection of gold necklaces, bracelets and earrings, also from the Sumerian dynasties and also at least 4,000 years old. "The Americans were supposed to protect the museum," its deputy director, Nabhal Amin, told Reuters. "If they had just one tank and two soldiers nothing like this would have happened. I hold the American troops responsible for what happened to this museum." <span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'> It was pretty stupid of them to guard the museum so poorly. I wonder how thinly stretched their forces are, or if it was just a command screw up. The backlash will be forceful. Still, even if they are ancient artifacts, and even if they hold a lot of history, to me, people are almost always more important than stuff. People can reproduce, but if your friend dies, that person is gone. Their decendents may resemble them, you may meet other people like them, but someone close to you has been erased off the face of the earth. Losing ancient relics and artifacts is a tragedy, but to me, losing people is almost always far worse.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 13 2003,03:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">edit - the Iraqi army surrendered or just left. Â the SRG or RG, whichever you want to call them, are the ones who stayed behind and fought, causing civilian casualties. Â if they really cared about civilian casualties they would of done something when saddam was slaughtering people, not help him.<span id='postcolor'> IIRC, the Special Republican Guard is the unit based directly in Baghdad, while the Republican Guard is divded up into districts in the area around it. But otherwise, I agree with your point. And as far as the checkpoints; yes, I firmly agree that they should have tried to find a way so that cars could not approach the checkpoint itself at high speeds, but whoever suggested flashing lights and sandbag bunkers - I don't know how viable that would have been. They moved across a large expanse of land in a remarkably short amout of time by being light and mobile. I think just now are they in a position to ship in things like sandbags, lights, and other such gear. I don't think it is stuff they could have just stacked between M113s on a transport plane. Maybe each solider could have carried a sandbag in their kit? I'm sure they would have loved that. It may have been viable (getting the stuff there, not soliders carrying sandbag s in their kit) but I'm not certain.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 12 2003,07:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And, I hate to be a stickler for detail, but the U.S. is neither a true democracy, nor a true republic. Â It is a representative democracy, a hybrid. Â Though calling it a republic is closer to the truth than calling it a democracy. Â Read Robert Dahl's famous book, "How Democratic is the American Constitution?" for more on this. Â It's required reading in a lot of Universities for Political Science majors.<span id='postcolor'> Unsurprisingly, none of my friends attending Canadian Universities have heard of this book. Â </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA, just look north and see what happens when someone stays in power too long My god, imagine if Canada had limited terms, sigh COLINMAN <span id='postcolor'> I would like an election every four years, but not a limit to how many times a candidate can run consecutively. Besides, generally, PMs take the hint; if their popularity is dropping rapidly, they tend to bow out. However, corruption is still a problem. Still, lately, I haven't really cared that Chretien is still running the country, as I realise that Provincially (I live in B.C.) it doesn't matter who the Premier is. It really doesn't. Every Premier @#$%s us over worse than the last one. This priovince is screwed. And Provincially, none of the PM candidates speak to me at all. I really have no idea who I'd vote for anymore. I used to be a stingent Liberal Supporter, but any faith I had with them is utterly gone.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 12 2003,00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">HJ Res 11\ Dictatorship on it way? What purpose would this serve? None other than an ongoing ruling Executive Branch possibly. EDIT: Good thing is it has been stuck in the House Judiciary Committee since Jan. 7th.<span id='postcolor'> Hey, if there's no limit to terms, maybe they can bring back Clinton. I'd take Clinton lover Bush aaaaaaaaaaaaanyday.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 12 2003,15:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ April 12 2003,14:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraqi atrocities? Hey its a different culture, we shouldnt judge. Im sure those torturers had the Iraqi peoples best interests at heart.<span id='postcolor'> I'll try typing more slowly, perhaps then you'll understand. Â Perhaps my English is so bad that it's impossible to understand what I am saying. The atrocities that the Iraqi government committed before this war are not valid as war crimes. USA does not have jurisdiction over it. Not even the ICC has jurisdiction over it since they were committed prior to 1991 (Hague tribunal foundation). I'll type it once again, just to be safe that you get it: The atrocities that the Iraqi government committed before this war are not valid as war crimes. USA does not have jurisdiction over it. Not even the ICC has jurisdiction over it since they were committed prior to 1991 (Hague tribunal foundation).<span id='postcolor'> The ICC doesn't have any jurisdiction over America, either. That doesn't mean that those in Iraq and America responsible for War Crimes shouldn't be punished, or at least brought to trial.

But what about the (alleged) Plutonium Processors? To my knowledge, Nuclear Power Plants generally don't use plutonium (IIRC, some make it, as a byproduct of the energy-generation process)

I really, really wanted to play this, as I was insanely interested in the idea of WWIIOnline (but, all my friends at GameSpy said it was utter tripe, and got me hooked on OpFlash instead) but presently, I'm too broke to even get the game, much less pay the fees. Still, the concept I think is fabulous, and I can't wait to see if the game can succeed where WWIIOnline failed.

Ah yes, the infamous veto. The main reason for whcih the Security Council was all but useless during the Soviet years...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hit_Sqd_Maximus @ April 11 2003,04:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Marines find nukes? <span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Marines Hold Nuclear Site - In the suburbs about 18 miles south of the capital's suburbs, this city comprises nearly 100 buildings — workshops, laboratories, cooling towers, nuclear reactors, libraries and barracks — that belong to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission. Investigators Tuesday discovered that Al-Tuwaitha hides another city. This underground nexus of labs, warehouses, and bomb-proof offices was hidden from the public and, perhaps, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who combed the site just two months ago, until the U.S. Marine Corps Combat Engineers discovered it three days ago. Today, the Marines hold it against enemy counter-attacks. ... So far, Marine nuclear and intelligence experts have discovered 14 buildings that betray high levels of radiation. Some of the readings show nuclear residue too deadly for human occupation. A few hundred meters outside the complex, where peasants say the "missile water" is stored in mammoth caverns, the Marine radiation detectors go "off the charts." "It's amazing," said Chief Warrant Officer Darrin Flick, the battalion's nuclear, biological and chemical warfare specialist. "I went to the off-site storage buildings, and the rad detector went off the charts. Then I opened the steel door, and there were all these drums, many, many drums, of highly radioactive material." To nuclear experts in the United States, the discovery of a subterranean complex is highly interesting, perhaps the atomic "smoking gun" intelligence agencies have been searching for as Operation Iraqi Freedom unfolds. Last fall, they say, the Central Intelligence Agency prodded international inspectors to probe Al-Tuwaitha for weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors came away with nothing. ... Mindful of nuclear weapons inspectors, ISIS said the Iraqis developed methods to thwart them when they visited Al-Tuwaitha. "Iraq developed procedures to limit access to these buildings by IAEA inspectors who had a right to inspect the fuel fabrication facility. On days when the inspectors were scheduled to visit, only the fuel fabrication rooms were open to them. Usually, employees were told to take their rooms so that the inspectors did not see an unusually large number of people," according to a 1999 report Albright wrote with Corey Gay and Khidhir Hamza for ISIS ... Despite being destroyed twice by bombings, Al-Tuwaitha nevertheless grew to become headquarters of the Iraqi nuclear program, with several research reactors, plutonium processors and uranium enrichment facilities bustling, according to the Federation of American Scientists. ... For him, Al-Tuwaitha is like a crime scene, and the next detectives on the atomic beat will be Army specialists. Seegar promises to hold the nuclear site until international authorities can take over. His men hunker down in sandbag bunkers, sleepless, gripping machine guns. Last night, they followed running gun and artillery battles on both sides of the complex, fought by U.S. Marines and soldiers against Iraqi Republican Guards and Fedayeen terrorists. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 11 2003,11:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Obevakat uranlager hittat i Irak Tre irakiska lagerlokaler med sammanlagt 2 500 tunnor uran har stĺtt obevakade söder om Bagdad i flera dagar, rapporterar tidningen Los Angeles Times. Lageranläggningen, omnämnd som "Location C", är Iraks enda internationellt kända och enda sanktionerade lagringsanläggning för kärnmaterial. Därmed är den ocksĺ ett givet mĺl för alla dem som i krigets skugga försökt skaffa sig klyvbart material." - Aftonbladet.se Great, a warehouse filled with 2 500 barrels of uranium has been left unguarded for the last couple of days south of Baghdad. Shouldn't this be a place of interest for coalition troops or maybe it doesnt matter if some potential terrorists get a hold of a barrel or two? Because if they do, its Saddam who provided it since the place was left unguarded during the collapse of his regime, right? Right...<span id='postcolor'> Isn't that the same facility from the 'Marines find Nukes' link?  If so, there's actually a large number of MArines guarding it untill Army Specialists can come in.  Maybe it's a different facility housing tons of radioactive material, though.  I can't be certain. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinus @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Newsflash for you. There are no winners in a war, only different degrees of losers.<span id='postcolor'> That really depends on your definition of Winning. I define Winning as achieving a set goal. The U.S. Goal was appearently to oust Saddam. From what I hear, Saddam is no longer in power. If so, then the U.S. has achieved it's set goal. By that logic, they've already 'Won'.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 11 2003,04:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">America health care system isn't the best in the world.But close to it.But i heard how bad canada health care is,Which is free,they just tax the hell outta you.I heard in canada you have to wait a month or two to see a docter.Unless it's an emergency.Also you have to wait an month/two for surgery.<span id='postcolor'> Well, from what I gather, the waits are worse on the West coat than out east. I haven't been in to see the Doctor in a long, long time, but I live in a small town, so getting an appointment at the clinic can vary. Sometimes I have to wait a couple of days, sometimes I can go in that day. Dentist waits are CRAZY out here, but they aren't covered by Medicare. As far as paying goes, I dunno what gets taken from taxes, but I pay Can$50 a month for medicare, which comes to about US$35. I bet that's a lot less than what most Americans pay for Health Insurance.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 11 2003,05:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Problem is, it was still a war of aggression, that was against the rule of law. Â Just because you are right doesnt mean the means are right. Â Just so we're clear on that <span id='postcolor'> You know, it may be so, but I'm starting to have more faith in the United States as an International law enforcing body than the United Nations. Much like the police officers who you report a theft to, give an eyewitness account of who did it, and then watch as they do nothing, I've lost confidence in the U.N.'s ability to do what it says it's going to do. Maybe in the future, if they prove they can pass a Resolution with a microm of expediency and enforce said Resolution without totally relying on the United States to enforce it, then I'm sure my opinion will change. But untill then, I personally feel that the 'rule of law' is an empty point. For taking the issue into their own hands, the United States has come under fire. And yes, in doing so, they did violate international law. But just as if I had been forced to walk down to that theif's house, beat his face in with a bat, and then get arrested for assault, I would feel morally justified, and I'll bet the U.S. Government feels morally justified, even if they are in the wrong.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hit_Sqd_Maximus @ April 11 2003,02:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 10 2003,23:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Beuhler....Beuhler....Beuhler.... <span id='postcolor'> LOL! I havent heard that name in a long time, I love that movie I dont really beleive the US economy is in that bad of shape, is there any good links w/ the numbers of the bear market from before the war? Here is the only link I can find on it and it claims the US economy isnt in as bad as shape as a lot of people fear.<span id='postcolor'> What movie? And yeah, I haven't been following American economy lately, but it's been pretty up and down over the course of the war... investors are fickle, timid people; as a generalization.

People will likely be looking, but if he's gotten asylum in Russia, the Whatever-the-KGB-is-called-these-days will probably have some responsibility to keep him safe. Why would Russia harbour him? To end the conflict (that they've been opposed to all along, giving them a bit of a peacemaker look PR-wise, perhaps so keep him alive to potentially use whatever covert operatives he still has in Iraq... lots of reasons, I guess. We need some kind of former intelligence agent to hang out on these boards.. would be very informative.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 11 2003,01:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They didn't set all the oil fields on fire either. Â <span id='postcolor'> Not all of them, but they tried to torch quite a few.