Sam Samson

*thinks* how about e.m. remarque's "all quiet on the western front"? or graham greene's "the quiet american." or wait! I'll give you a line from my upcoming "samson's war on terror" novel: "He reached down again and took a submachinegun out. Its black steel reflected the shine of the car’s lights. An “Ooh,†oscillating between anxiety and excitement, rose from the crowd." how's that?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 11 2002,23:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 11 2002,23:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Right at the end of desert storm the U.S. told the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. Â They thought they would have U.S. support against Saddam's armys, so they did. Â But the civilians ended up getting slaughtered by the army. Â We couldn't do anything because we had just signed the cease fire, but they wanted Saddam out of power and tried.<span id='postcolor'> Lol, that was a very very minor rebellion in the north. Not a civil war.<span id='postcolor'> nonsense, buddy. saddam was smart to negotiate the southern no-fly zone the way he did, since he sent no-fly-exempt helo gunships against the rebelling shiites around basra. I predict that iraq territorially will not continue the way it is today, if an invasion - not least by exile-iraqis - will occur early next year.

the US SF are using the PVS-7D battery powered image intensifiers which come with that green tint. I heard they're clumsy and fragile. but as a soldier I'd use them. if I were a rocket on the other hand, I guess I'd go for an infrared / heatseeking device.

"We have no time to recover from one blow, and then comes another one, stronger. It's better to have a war. Better war than a drop here, a drop there. Better for them, too. What we have now is worse." -TIPPY ANKARI, at the funeral of two Israeli boys killed in Kenya. is an all-out war better than the alternative low-simmering conflict some peoples endure with terrorist threats, culminating regularly in the death of innocents? war - the gargantuan struggle between tribes, peoples, nations, ideas, religions, ideologies... over territories, resources, preeminence and the souls of men. when do you think a war is justified? (or is it ever? )

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Dec. 05 2002,23:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Generally, you want to get another sniper to combat enemy ones.  Becuase one sniper can hold up a whole advance!  And when you can't shoot em, Tanks  <span id='postcolor'> in a real life direct action involving snipers it would probably be an entire ODA going in with two snipers and their spotters. the rest of the team would set up blocking positions with a SAW up front and several others providing cover with their M-4s, just in case the mission would go to pot and they'd come after you. to take a sniper contingent out would most likely involve heavy casualties on the attackers' side. but I heard it can be done...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Dec. 05 2002,23:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Dec. 05 2002,23:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so: would it be legitimate for the "great warrior from beyond the sea" to come and take over resource distribution? (in the spirit of the marshal plan, let's say. )<span id='postcolor'> Let the Iraqi people decide (and not a US puppet government).<span id='postcolor'> and who will give them a voice, smartypants? you obviously have lived too long in a free society to appreciate the pressure those people have to live under day in and day out. iraq's government is not exactly known for its fondness of a free press.

saddam is a wily fox. he's been playing the west for suckers for a long time... whaddaya think he'd a done with all that fine equipment and those soldiers intact? regroup and attack again. or did you think he'd sit and twiddle his dictator thumbs. (never underestimate you foe. )

like I said before: I think the biggest problem of the palestinians is their leadership. different leaders bring out different qualities in people. hitler, for instance brought totally different qualities out in the germans than, say konrad adenauer, a great and civil man. in 1970 arafat and the plo were kicked out of jordan, because they had created a de facto parallel government there, and were unbearable. in 1980 arafat made war within lebanon with israel. the palestinians deserve a more competent leadership, one that recognizes israel's right to even exist for one. we know how most of you feel about the israel/palestine issue, but let's not further discuss it in here. -------------------- how about war for resources. to you bleeding hearts: why would it be better for saddam to control the oil of iraq, than say, tommy franks (tommy pasha), cinc of centcom. franks would make sure the people would share in the wealth generated from that, as opposed to saddam. so: would it be legitimate for the "great warrior from beyond the sea" to come and take over resource distribution? (in the spirit of the marshal plan, let's say. )

denoir!! I can't believe it! you're using the enemy's factbook? shame on you

while everybody should favor peace in the first place, of course, I don't think an all out war is always wrong. to answer your question: yes. remember lucius clay and germany? or doug mcarthur and japan? those two nations - behind the US - went on to become the economic powerhouses of the world. - definitely a better use of their energies than their former warmongering.

economy left/right: 3.25; three to the right. authoritarian/lib: 1.18; one up. I'm an all around positive guy.

russia attack denmark? they'll never do it! their conscripts might side in with dk. as sad as it is, but right now the impact of russia in the market is about as big as that of ... the netherlands. denmark attacking russia... the more threatening version?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USMC Sniper @ Dec. 04 2002,04:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't like the way Israel is treating Palestinians, and vice versa. In the bible, it always talks about peace, respect for your neighbor, etc. It says how killing, violence, etc, are bad. Now if my memory serves correctly, the Israelites invaded a land called Canaan and killed everybody there, just so they could live there themselves. This practically contradicts  everything taught in the bible! *Remembers the gigantic "god" topic.* Ah, the good old times.  <span id='postcolor'> something went wrong with that post-edit up there... if you think that, you're obviously drawing conclusions from only a limited set of concepts. (I'm not saying you're stupid. ) one of the concepts which all but disappeared in the west is that of personal sin. in the east - especially in wahhabi-islam - the concept survives, albeit in a perverted form. it says that sin, even when committed by the high and mighty, will be judged sooner or later by God, unless you turn to God and make amends. take canaan: God looked at i.e the deeds of the people of amalek for more than 800 years, before he finally told king saul to make war on them. if you study history you will find that the amalekites were aggressive, wicked, evil, mean and nasty - to the point of burning their own children for their gods. God told abraham in 1800 bc that he couldn't have the land of canaan yet, "because the measure of sin of those people is not yet full." (genesis 15, 16) roughly 800 years later the prophet samuel - one of the most powerful types in the bible - tells agag king of amalek: "as your sword made women childless, your mother will go childless among women." (1 samuel 15, 33) then he killed him. yes, God is a redeemer, but he is a warrior too. (jahwe sabaoth) he doesn't like it, but he will make war if he has to. (just read revelations 19) about joshua's conquest: he actually proposed peace to all those cities and nations, but they rejected him and attacked. peace just wasn't in them. ...this is not to be construed that I'm for the annililation of the palestinian people, so don't blackball me! that's ludicrous. I want peace down there as much as the next guy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Dec. 04 2002,00:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">War is never justified, but it's always justified. I know it may not sound right, but in my head it makes sense, anyone else catch me?<span id='postcolor'> greyfox: that would be "oppresso" with two p. Â you mean to say that a war is always started by somebody driven by base motives, who later puts a positive spin on the show by claiming a noble cause. sort of like the pharisees who delivered Jesus over to the romans claiming they were trying to keep the faith pure from the supposed soilings of the heretic from galilee, while even pilate could see that they were merely jealous of him. ...wars are started by people with blind spots?

is this another anti-US bicker-thread by the usual suspects? the danish prime minister (or whatever) is hardly in the same league as your ole buddy saddam. the danes obviously didn't find enough on him to detain him. they can tell the russkis where he might be, so they can go visit and ask him themselves.

did you guys never hear about echelon? echelon was/is used to monitor all telecommunications traffic in europe. has been for years and the info about it is unclassified. you don't know half of what the US government can do and already does. ...and it's still not all-powerful as 9/11 proved.

bernadotte. still sucking arafat's toe? get a life.

prague is past now, and we know that nato will grow. with this alliance - the most powerful ever to exist on the face of the earth - there's a chance now - like never before - to play hardball with noxious dictators and other threats to basic human rights and our common interests. but this is not to be another political thread. it seems obvious that in a force of that magnitude there would be a lot of unnecessary duplication of capabilities. why not specialize? like with different nations taking over different jobs for which they historically of technically are most qualified. what would your country be best at in your opinion? germany: tanks and commandos? france: tactics? ... what do you think?

actually, it is a commie symbol. it symbolizes the five continents of the world and communist conquest of those. ...and didn't they create the oak-leave-ritterkreuz w diamonds for rudel?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Nov. 27 2002,03:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Nov. 26 2002,16<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">gotta walk softly, harnu. all that superiority didn't help the supersoldiers in primitive mogadishu.<span id='postcolor'> okay, so you too saw the movie "blackhawk down" and want to act smart in saying that not even technology could save soldiers in somalia. Â but, last time i checked, they accomplished their mission. nobody said that going in... humdihum...<span id='postcolor'> well, buddyboy, I didn't see the show. I also don't rely on hollywood for my after-action analysis. but I did read mark bowden's book. and I have been to africa. (not on vacation. ) believe me, I'm the last one to put down US SF personnel. but in mog the force protection measures were a joke, i.e. in giving the enemy visual access of the compound. (their hangar's doors wouldn't close. ) the city sloped and their base was at the bottom of the slope. (crazy. think of the uncalculable sniper threat. ) the general officer discounted the mortars coming at the base from the city. in the end they resulted in several deaths and injuries. (would you want to sleep under a thin sheet roof, knowing a mortar could break through at any minute? ) and lining soldiers up against a mere tin wall to wait for their slop, while cars (bombs) can be parked along the outside is not wise either. I don't fault the kids. it's some of the officers that worry me. so behind all the brawn you still need a brain. ... sure the US can fight two regional wars at once and do everything by itself. that's been standard doctrine forever. but - as supah pointed out - at least in europe forces might start to specialize, if for no other but monetary reasons.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Nov. 27 2002,23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sam its not just my opinion, but fact that shows humans are inclined to better themselves. Perhaps its more accurate to say "better ourselves" in the sense of entertainment and living conditions, but we also have surgery, medicine, enhancements (hearing and visual aids) and such. We are always looknig for ways to make life better for our race.<span id='postcolor'> and I'm all for it. I believe in using your talents and seeing to it that they are used for the benefit of your neighbor. and if you get rich in the process I'll cheer for you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Nov. 27 2002,23:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Step forward now, you soldier, how shall I deal with you? Have you always turned the other cheek? To My Church have you been true? The soldier squared his shoulders And said, No Lord, I guess I ain't<span id='postcolor'> did you know that Jesus himself didn't turn the other cheek when he was smitten in the sanhedrin shortly before the crucifixion? (you can read it in John 18, 22 ) the cheek-thing was a general appeal to solve your conflicts peacefully, as much as it is in your power. there are other times, when you just have to stand your ground. btw, there are a lot of christians in the force these days - and not just grunts - like hugh shelton, JCCS, former USMC commandant chuck krulak, etc. great poem, fspilot. *wipes off a tear*

I'm against cloning for several reasons. 1. I'm forever partial to the traditional way of producing humans. 2. you'll need to waste something like 500 embryos until you'll get to the first viable. 3. harvesting organs is only possible via embryonic stem cells, a process which destroys the embryo. 4. seeing all this I ask: where's the respect for human life? kingbeast: to try to better yourself as a human is an exercise in futility. man is uncurable wicked. that's why he needs a saviour. you must get a new heart by getting born again through faith in Jesus. ...but that puts the discussion way over into theology. (sorry. couldn't help myself.)

for me to align myself with a country, bind myself with an oath of allegiance, and fight in its name would not come easy. I don't believe that any one country is better than another in and of itself. for me to die for a nation (or in its name), it would have to be based on certain ideas. I could fight for ideals much easier than for a nation, to be honest. if push comes to shove I'd be ready to fight for my family, for freedom, and my faith. (in the armed forces of a nation which respects those.) what for would you lay your life on the line?

err... is there nobody but ole balsh who looks up to some kind of leader in his or her environment? how about parents, teachers, profs, wives, ...mods (chchch )