Sam Samson

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jester983 @ Oct. 21 2002,00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is for the people that have actually been in some RL battle. What i want to know is: what goes through your head when you're getting shot at? Are you scared? and does politics and all that shit go right out the window?<span id='postcolor'> I assume it gives you a knotted feeling in your gut when you drive through a war-ravaged city and positively nobody is on the street but your car. in case you should have to get out for some reason you might feel very much, (extremely!, alive, and you would like to keep it that way. at the same time you might seriously think about God and how little you know about dying. actually, all kinds of archaic emotions might rummage around deep in your inner being, without you being able to articulate them at the time. on the other hand hearing the little sonic boomlet of a live bullet zipping by might, at the moment, agitate you less than you think. you might not take it serious. that is, until somebody next to you goes down. you'll have "seen the elephant." you might never be the same afterwards. but who am I to know?

I find a lot of replies here hysterical. we have mods threatening to ban one another, everybody tripping over their own smart replies... especially where you guys hit on da duke. pardon me while I chuckle *chuckles* what the kid is trying to say is that the people won't cut down all trees on the planet and that your fluffy hysteria is actually uncalled for. (it is entertaining though). even in 500 years, - duke, if the Lord tarries -, people will figure that they will need a certain amount of trees to be able to live, and won't cut them down. I see the real problem with cutting so deeply into the jungles with the virus reservoir humans are working themselves into now. in those dense jungles, - and I have been in some of them -, you find sicknesses no man is accustomed to. think of hiv, ebola, hanta, lassa or marburg. they all came right out of the rainforest. the problems stemming from that are much more far-reaching than meets the eye. I wouldn't worry about them trees too much.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Oct. 17 2002,22:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My favourite part of that article: The North Korean official then shocked Kelly when he looked at him and said "something to the effect of, 'Your president called us a member of the axis of evil. ... Your troops are deployed on the Korean peninsula. ... Of course, we have a nuclear program,'" according to the senior administration source, who was briefed on the meeting. Qutie a good answer I would say  <span id='postcolor'> mwahaha, yeah really. do you really think they would have been so forthcoming with their admission (to their shame) if bush wouldn't have rattled the saber so much? they're scared! the wording of the korean implies it. they're trying to forestall any dismantling of their hermit empire by US might. I agree however that the president will now have to readdress and reassess his politics with this axis of evil.

col kurtz sports the special forces pine in his avatar...? ...how far are you with your book? got published yet? anyway. you might want to see the detention of those gentlefolks down in cuba as a kind of life insurance for them. because when they are released they will be deported to their countries of origin. and there they will summarily be executed. how does that strike your bleeding hearts? why? remember that al quaida is also the sworn enemy of the royal house of saud and the other corrupt (in aq's eyes) elites in the region. the saudis don't mess with detention, in comfy cages, for people questioning their rule. you might want to consider that they sport a sword in their green flag for a reason. but I'm sure that those oppressed "irregular combatants" will find asylum in northern europe before too long. and why not? the population of those countries is aging rapidly. they can stand the influx of some energetic young men, entrepreneurial, decisive in their approach to problem solving. better get ready for the muezzin's call. (in speer's biography I read that hitler wondered why the germans fell for sissy christianity in the first place. he found islam to be a much more appropriate religion for the nordic race. what do you think?)

I'm amazed that none of the usual suspects has yet aired the suspicion that george bush is the sniper... after all, he lives in a house in downtown washington. what's the matter with you guys? not up to form?

mmh. hmm. well, we should just drop a few of our peaceniks into the theater with the 82nd to go out for 6 days and hunt down aqs. puts you into a real tranquil frame of mind. if they fire at you, just catch the bullet and eat it. better yet: invite'm to your support group and explain to them what their real motives are. and, just to be on the safe side, supply them with a picture of bin laden to walk on or shoot at. (you can try to sneak a W pic in if you're brave.) what do you guys expect? a gardening club giving knitting lessons? the 82nd airborne are the awfullest, wickedest... dogs of war! they're trained into a one track mind! they are the fiercest killers on earth. they sleep with knives between their teeth. blast it, their looks can kill you! al quaida on the other hand strokes lambs. and the special forces, green berets, ..., well. few folks are worthy to even lick their boots. though many have tried.

you guys remember that the lt col in apocalypse now always put playing cards on dead vietcong? (you know, the sniper left a tarot card...) either he just watched too much ap. now or he's a military wannabe or both. I agree with e6hotel. a real sniper would'nt have chosen a 5.56 mm and would have shot from further away. (in the US you can buy powerful sniper rifles for more than 20.000 $ in some stores.)

I wholeheartedly congratulate mr carter. done lots of worthwhile social work after his presidency. and during clinton's pale and powerless first term ("the presidency is still relevant." o-tone clinton) he actually seized the moment and did some foreign politics. so did newt gingrich and everybody else. still. he did something. too bad for him that it is more of a political statement against W that the swedes felt compelled to undertake, than a genuine honoring of carter's own fine work. honestly: I don't take the peace nobel or the literature nobel serious. their laudatios are mostly contrived nonsense by a bunch of eternally left leaning intellectuals in academe. but it's their money, comittee, price... I find the medical, physics, or economics nobels much better.

this is new: sayeret matkal forces are in western iraq to pinpoint hidden scud-launch-sites and other targets of value in the case of an attack on israel by iraq. they are working on a relevant map of high priority targets which will have to be taken out first thing should iraq not comply with UN resolutions and a use of force should become neccessary. jordan has agreed to letting israel use it's airspace for possible sortees. israel has not objected to the wish of the jordanian king to incorporate the sunni-moslemic part of iraq into it's borders after a war. sounds good. not clear is what is to be done with the kirkuk oilfields of iraq, since the arabs, turks and kurds (of iraq) are all laying claims to them. (right now saddam controlls them.) currently suppressed northern iraqi kurds are working on a constitution for an autonomous region. with US consent. and balschoiw (since ralphwiggum closed the killing sadam thread ( ) I'll answer here): you were in mog and were not allowed to take out aidid when you could have? what outfit where you with? UN from where? you have to consider several factors in a situation like that: 1. you might not have gotten the order to shoot because of poor force protection. in case you killed aidid it might have been possible that your position would have gotten overrun by aidid-friendly forces from the city. you might have gotten yourself turned into minced meat had you acted. 2. it might have been that an informer was right down there with aidid. can't act then neither. about the unocal oil situation: unocal formed a consortium to build a pipeline from turkmenistan through afghanistan into pakistan. they withdrew in 1998 because afghanistan has no infrastructure for building such a thing. anyway. should the world's oil supply really be about to run dry in 10 years you would see all kinds of big corps develop alternative resources right now. however, the yet untapped arctic wildlife refuge in alaska alone will supply oil for 30-50 years, if I'm not mistaken. of course th US won't start to deplete its own resources before everybody else's have been used.

I read france, russia and china all struck lucrative billion $ oil deals with saddam for the time when the sanctions are lifted. all 3 are permanent, veto-powered members of the UN security council. F and R are already doing brisk business under the food-for-oil program. hmmm. no wonder they all gripe so loud about the robust UN resolution bush wants. has nothing to do with peace or concern for the people of iraq. they want cheap oil! a war would only disrupt the supply. imagine the US goes it alone, installs a US-friendly regime and engages in nation building? imagine this new government then tells F, RUS an china: sorry guys, deal's up. we're doin' business with the US now. awful, ain't it? no wonder folks are bashing bush and his bad, bad, wicked oil-biz veep. imagine also this new iraqi government would tell the "martyrs": sorry, we're through funding you guys. and would make peace with israel?

in my eyes he's a wannabe. real life certified snipers are mentally stable, otherwise they'd never get the job. and it is almost never executed anyway, since federal law puts up huge barriers against it. I personally would dislike the job. for some reason I don't see any bravery in it. it's almost sort of cowardly. (maybe I'm too oldfashioned.) about the supposed silence of his gun: he fires from a car. when you shoot from inside a car the space works like a sound suppressor. the ordinarily loud crack sounds like a much less distinct and less locatable hollow boom. (I read...) what does the fact that he used a tarot card point to? he's playing fate? underlining his claim to be God?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Oct. 08 2002,23:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Oct. 08 2002,19:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hamas and pal-pa-police were fighting too yesterday in gaza. most notably the pa-police chief died. did any of you bring that up too? nooope. 'cuz wasn't israel doin' the killin' Â <span id='postcolor'> When ya can't attack us for what we say then you might as well attack us for what we don't say, huh? (Bernadotte checks to see if the moon is full.)<span id='postcolor'> *sam helps bernadotte back up since dot tripped over his double standard on his way back out of the dark* in 1995 the israelis freed 900 palestinians and ceded 4 settlements in keeping with the oslo accords. (hey, just the other day they dismantled 4 more and threatened to level other, illegal, settlements.) and what did arafat do in turn? nuthn'. he got bernadotte as his lawyer! aww shucks.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bogo @ Oct. 09 2002,23:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look what i found Jordan denies an agreement with Israel permitting the Israeli planes to attack Iraq through Jordanian airspace<span id='postcolor'> from arabnews.com! well, bogo what do you think you will hear from israel when you ask whether its spec ops are operating in western iraq? or when you ask certain nations in the region: "do you plan on dismantling iraq?" you know what they'll say? whaddayathink? they'll put their hand on your sholder, look at you intently, and then they'll lie through their teeth. I don't see anything wrong with working on iraq, if it serves peace and stability in the region, which it probably will. (iraq changed a lot all by itself in those thousands and thousands of years since 1925.)

this sniping dc weirdo strikes me as somebody who is - a homegrown, genuine US-idiot. - proud all the way into the tips of his hair. ("I am God") - a coward (he's sniping, not going mano-a-mano) - has a nihilistic overall worldview. (kills indiscriminately). - maybe some (ex) sarge who tried but didn't make it into the SF. (wonder why ) - wants to prove that he is good enough for the job anyway. (hurt pride, "marksmanship"). - was discharged dishonorably. - full of the devil - uses a civil issue military rifle (semi-auto). - with either too much or not enough military psych-training. (dysfunctional conscience). - or post-traumatic-stress-disordered. (didn't take some particular battle experience very well. unlikely.) his pride will set him up though. he'll make mistakes. proud folks always do. nobody is so good that he'll fool all of the people all of the time. it's just a matter of days now, I hope, until they get him.

back to topic had hoped somebody would pick up on the first couple of thoughts I threw in. about the israelis agreeing with jordanians about jordan's incorporation of iraqi territory. folks those two talking like that..., that's nothing less than revolutionary! figure: if israel and jordan are agreeing on enlarging jordan all the way to the tigris river, that could rapidly solve the israeli-palestinian question. provided arafat is substituted. I for one think jordan's government is probably the most benevolent among the arab governments. for iraqi sunni arabs to be ruled by jordan would be fantastic. maybe somebody is talking to iran about the shiite part of iraq... if iran were allowed to incorporate the south, that might ease the aggressive stance iran had towards the US (and the rest of the world) for the last 23 years. the northern iraqi kurds could declare their republic of kurdistan. dunno if turkey would like that though. whaddayathink? (just don't feed me any baloneyous flamey oneliners. have mercy with an old man.

hamas and pal-pa-police were fighting too yesterday in gaza. most notably the pa-police chief died. did any of you bring that up too? nooope. 'cuz wasn't israel doin' the killin'

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Oct. 07 2002,04:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sam, didn't you realize as soon as you mentioned oil, it would be the topic of this thread. ...<span id='postcolor'> sirloins: you're right. shoulda known. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">therefore dubya and his cronies are not any better than Saddam and his cronies. <span id='postcolor'> oligo: aah. always good for some bash-bush hatemongering. bush has a yale (or stanford) mba. what do you have? he is also a yale skull and bones member. dunno how much you know about that fraternity. but it's exclusive. members vote only 15 new ones in every year out of all of yale, and only those who seem to stick out in some positive way. it is very old. the bonesmen have produced an extraordinary large amount of leaders, including 3 presidents. seems those who know bush see something in him that oglers like you don't get from several thousand miles away. ad hoc he's not very articulate. I agree on that. but then, we never heard YOU give a talk either. chill! so you are the nazi who accidentally got deep-frozen in 1941 and recently escaped from his cooler. chill-man, the REAL problem is the walla-spy ring that rules the world through the UN out of geneva! the israeli spy thing didn't work. you found out about them. they can't influence you. they are done for. but you didn't find out about the walla intrigue. their fearsome warcry is "walla walla!" better duck when you hear it!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Oct. 05 2002,22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Oct. 05 2002,20:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Oct. 05 2002,13:11)</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">CosmicCastaway Posted on Oct. 05 2002,16:58 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote (Sam Samson @ Oct. 05 2002,14:48) this "war" will be over on d-day + 50h. I've heard that sort of talk before somewhere, hmmm now where was it.... <span id='postcolor'> As I recall, all news sources, so called military experts, and world opinion was, that for hundreds of years, no one had ever been sucessfull with any invasion of Afganistan. They also predicted that the US would be no different in their efforts. Â I think we have proved them wrong. So as far as Iraq, I agree with Sam. ...<span id='postcolor'> U.S., we, the cloalition, hasn't won yet in Afghanistan. Â Things are still bad, there were and are already attacks. Fear is everywhere. Â And there is a possiblility of the new govt. not working out.<span id='postcolor'> True enough. What if the new ruler to come after Hussein (hypothetical) is no less open to so called 'Western' ideas about how the country should be run? As for the war being over in 1 day +50hrs, I'd just call that foolish optimism with no basis in reality. ...<span id='postcolor'> oh yeah? you might not recall that the gulf war ended after d-day + 100h. and it was fought against 545.000 personel, 4300 tanks and 3100 pieces of artillery. the coalition won by using a bunch of cowboys (400.000) and 1500 tanks as well as 250 gunships, etc., as well as some very competent allies. the iraqis surrendered to anybody western who stood around. do you think they're stupid? they won't die for saddam! they even surrendered to sam donaldson! the blabmouth from nbc, (or whom does he work for now?) this time we're up against a massively demoralized foe. we'll spare them, if they give it up. we're liberating a nation from a tyrant. (take your bleeding heart elsewhere.) nevertheless: we should only go in in keeping with a fortified UN resolution, which we will get in the end. THE TOUGH TALK NEEDS TO BE KEPT UP for saddam to buckle under! (did you ever realize that there is de facto not much of a mobilization of western forces going on?) balshoiw, i read your post. engaging. will answer later. I'm out of time.

about action in iraq: a war on iraq will swiftly come to an end. what will it take? a carrier group in the gulf. a company from the 5th SFG with it's a-teams for deep recon and laserpainting (already there?) one, two marine divisions coming from the south. an airborne task force from the north. elements of the 82 are already in the afghan theater. add some 101 screaming eagles. then an armored cav division from saudi arabia into the flank. this "war" will be over on d-day + 50h. hussein's own claqueurs will probably hand him over. the US invaded panama when it became obvious that noriega was a drug-pusher. he's now a permanent guest in leavenworth. he should share his appartment with ole saddam. so, now. who wants hussein to remain in power?

balschoiw, in your case we have a perfectly intelligent person who nevertheless drank deeply from the conspiracy theory fountain, inspired by paranoia, mixing fact and fiction and actually believing the result. let me try to answer you anyway, since you are sincere. 1. the US is territorially satisfied. it doesn't wage war for territorial gains. (obvious.) 2. the life-blood of our civilization, oil, makes nations rich. everybody gains when we buy and they sell. (not obvious to many.) 3. the US cultural blueprint is winning everywhere in the world because it emphasizes individual freedom, the rule of law, political participation of the people and it rewards personal development. this is the best system there is. (even less obvious to the jealous.) 4. the US is principally a peaceful nation, even befriending leaders that are less than worthy of its friendship in order to sway them. (obviously doesn't always work. this also provides rich fodder for conspirationalists.) 5. the differences between the 3rd reich and the US are so obvious that I won't bother to talk about it. hitler started wars, bush wants to forestall attacks by two-bit hitler wannabes and his likes who recently killed 3000 US citizens. bush's rethoric works: UN inspectors can go back in. something the UN didn't achieve by itself in years n years. btw: carl schmitt wrote in 1932. that was still weimar republic (democratic) time. I'm sure you remember that hitler ascended to power only in the beginning of 1933. 6. the war on terrorism is still going on. it is successful, albeit invisible. 7. who guaratees you that saddam won't give his botulinum or anthrax-spores, rabbit fever, plague, etc, to al-qaida fanatics who will act as his dupes in attacks on the west? btw: have you heard about the 4000 jews? you know the ones who didn't go to work on 9/11 2001? they were tipped off... (folks in the mid east really believe this! conspirational paranoia seems to flourish in places where people traditionally spend more time destroying the other man's house than building their own.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 03 2002,09:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the 1950s there was a expression coined by the CIA - "blowback" to refer to unintended consequences of covert operations that come back to haunt the United States. When the term was first used, it referred to the consequences of the CIA's assassination of the then Iranian Prime Minister, Muhammad Mussadegh. The result of this self-serving interference in the affairs of Iran was to bring the Shah to power and 25 years of repression and tyranny, leading finally to the holding of the entire US Embassy in Tehran hostage for over a year and the revolution of the Ayatollah Khomeini. This polarization was in turn one of the factor behind the 11/9 attacks.<span id='postcolor'> mossadegh: the cia didn't assassinate him, silly. langley helped royalist forces, - the shah had already been in power -, to gain the upper hand and arrest him for treason on aug. 19, 1953. four days before that the shah had dismissed him from office. mossadegh was condemned to 3 years of solitary confinement for treason. after that he remained a private person. khomeini sent cassette tapes with his preaching from his exile in france to iran. they sparked the islamic revolution and his preaching fueled this hatred of all things american. btw, khomeini once said: "we must destroy the great satan (US). the small satans will fall by themselves." looks like somebody had himself a plan... ...denoir, why do you hate the US government so much?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 03 2002,09:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for assassinating your Saddam there are some thing (besides moral) that are to be considered: [*] It would be illegal according to US law. The 1973 executive order from Gerald Ford forbids US agencies to be involved in assasinations domestic or foregin. This executive order came because the CIA had become too trigger happy without considering the consequences of their actions. [*] It would be destabilizing for the mid-east. A removal of Saddam must be a complete replacement of him and his government. Anything else creates a volatile situation where it is possible that a civil war could break out over a power struggle. Also Iran might be tempted to do something bad if they got the chance.<span id='postcolor'> (this duke-kid really has a knack for starting ballooning threads. ) while I'm hard pressed to agree with denoir on many occations, ,in these two points he is absolutely correct: the US can- and should not go around assassinating heads of state. this law must remain on the books. I mean, what would be next? putin killing shevardnadze for allowing chechens in the pankisi valley? would open pandora's box. no, no. those murderers, dictators and other psychopaths gotta be nabbed, duly tried and only then executed. (or they die in battle. ) sort of like they did with nazi war criminals after ww2. no lynching. (duke: cain wasn't just killed neither for slaying abel. why? there was no law against that yet. came only later. God is against self-stlyed lynch-kind justice.) while the US government must always put americans first, they should, like tex said, hold the high ground. I believe america is great, because at the core it is good. it will cease to be great once it isn't good anymore.

you know who REALLY rules the world in cultural terms? It's not the US. Who would say they want to dress or eat like americans? (although everybody does...) it is, of all places: Italy! think: what suits are the most fashionable? same goes for shoes, etc. where do people like to vacation? food! (first took my wife, when she was still girlfriend, to western sizzlin, then almost exclusively to vito's pizza). man! they hauled me around bujumbura in central africa. (rwanda, anybody?). and, hey presto, amidst some bombed out ruins (with bodies still in them): a working pizza parlor! somewhere in the himalayan jungle east of kathmandu: a pizza place! beat that, mcdonald's. virtually all politicians read niccolo machiavelli's il principe. (even I, though not a pol). the army uses italian licensed baretta pistols. (m92f) moosic: the musical terms like adagio, etc, are italian. the pope lives in italy. (I'm not catholic, but you have to acknowledge that he holds a lot of sway.) know any other way in which italian culture rules? (or does yours rule? tell me if I'm wrong about italy).

yes, now I remember: let me say something about homosexuality too, since it came up: (until the 70s it was only as popular as pedophilia is today). homosexuality was a common feature in many ancient societies, I'll give you that. even socrates and plato mentioned it favorably. baal-worship in the mid east depended largely on male and female prostitutes acting as priests. but this behaviour isn't natural. I know that's probably what they told you in school. but they made a political statement. it's not scientific. homosexuality is the farthest thing from natural. (after all, God created adam and eve, not adam and STeve. ) the greeks had their malakoi, their loverboys. under the empire, (post-republic), the romans took it up as well: 14 out of the first 15 emperors were practicing sodomites! nero i.e. had himself a boy, sporus, castrated. then he married him in a full public ceremony to be his "wife." later nero, by a wicked scheme, had himself married to a man by the name of phytagoras who became his "husband." nero also married a horse... I agree: mooost gays don't go that far. but what am I supposed to think of somebody who has around 50 lovers a year? who sticks his weenie, tongue, fist, arm and assorted other stuff up somebody else's ...place where the sun duddn't shine? group sex, "golden showers" (you know, the yellow stuff), scatting (yum), "mud rolls", sex and pain? what on earth is natural about this? no sound military can put up with groups of soldiers behaving like that. statistically homosexuals abuse children at a rate 10 to 20 times that of straights. they rape and get raped in their subculture and don't think anything of it. and they are 5000 times more likely to contract aids than other people. homosexuality flourishes only in free societies, which brings me full circle: I'd rather live in a free, entrepreneurial, creative society together with a few fairies (who do their flukey thing in private and leave my kids alone), than under a "clean" repressive, stifling, backward dictatorship.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Oct. 01 2002,09:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Oct. 01 2002,00:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Old news, and its not true seeing how two brown haired parents can still have blond kids ..... or my sister isnt really family ...... Would explain allot! <span id='postcolor'> Brown haired parents can have blond kids because: There are two copies of the hair gene in a human cell. Let's call the dominant brown hair gene B and the recessive blond hair gene b. Thus people who are either BB, Bb or bB are all brown haired, whereas only bb people are blondes. Now let's assume that two brown haired Bb people mate to produce offspring. Since kids randomly get one of the genes from both parents, the offspring produced can be BB, Bb, bB or bb. Thus there is a 1/4 chance of producing blonde offspring.<span id='postcolor'> guess we're a BB-Bb-bB-bb-couple, since we have a blond, blue-eyed son.