Saddam Hussein captured!

He may be rich, but not too bright.

[w3sy]

AN POEM

So Damn Insane,
Dat mofo got no game.
When a cat ain't got no soul,
He hide down inna hole.

They found him wid da mice,
Then they check his hair fo' lice.
And to top off th' takeover,
They done give him a makeover!

I hope dey string him up
Then da boyz will yell "Wussup!!"
Quick, hang him from a tree,
Before the ACLU set him free!

[ai4ep]

....about time !! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif by this time he COULD have been shacked up in a local motel in YOUR city and never got caught....no telling how many MILLIONS of $ went to finding him....wonder what happened to the folks NEARBY that undoubtably KNEW who he was and was HIDING ( or trying to ) him for so long ? ...now maybe some of our troops can come back home ?? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.main/index.html

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IAMKC9ANQ @ Dec. 14 2003,07:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.main/index.html[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In other news, later today L. Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority announced that security forces had actually captured Ted Kaczinsky. Kaczinsky, known as the &quot;Unibomber&quot;, had been service time at the ultra-max maximim security federal prison. It is not known what Kaczinsky was doing in Baghdad.

Bring him back to the USA and give him his freedom........under the watchful eyes of the NYFD http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[nx6d]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IAMKC9ANQ @ Dec. 14 2003,07:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bring him back to the USA and give him his freedom........under the watchful eyes of the NYFD #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There's that urban legend again regarding Saddam's involvement with 9/11.

Despite the admitted lies put forth by the Bush administration, there is absolutely no proof there was any connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the middle east knows the jihadis had as little patience for the secular Iraqi regime as they do for Americans. The idea of Saddam and al Qaeda working in concert is absurd.

Now the Bushies can have their show trial just in time for the '04 elections. The &quot;president&quot; and this war are both complete frauds.

WX7B

[w3sy]

Yo, OM WX7B.... Aren't you a little late for that Howard Dean &quot;meetup&quot; scheduled for today? HAW!

Why, why, why, oh WHY can't some people deal with the fact that Bush won the 2000 election? You doodz kinda need to build a bridge and get over it.

I'm perfectly ok with us going over there and sticking a few boots up a few butts. Did So Damn Insane have direct involvement with 9/11? Who cares? The guy was a Papa Radio One Charlie Kilo, and had it coming for a LONG time. If nothing else, he wished HE could have done the 9/11 thing on us FIRST. Screw him. Maybe Howie Dean can go &quot;comfort&quot; SoDamn Insane in his cell.

Can't wait to see Garry &quot;True Dope&quot; Trudeau get all boo-hooey about Saddam in his ridiculous &quot;Doonesbury cartoon.&quot;

HAW!!

God Bless the USA!

dit diddle dit dit... dit dit.

[K9STH]

Is it just me, or did Saddam appear &quot;relieved&quot; when he was shown on TV. That is, like he was really tired of &quot;running&quot; and might actually be happy that he got caught?

Glen, K9STH

[N8CPA]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ Dec. 14 2003,09:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is it just me, or did Saddam appear &quot;relieved&quot; when he was shown on TV. #That is, like he was really tired of &quot;running&quot; and might actually be happy that he got caught?

Glen, K9STH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's the impression I got. He was tired of hiding in a hut. He knew it was over long ago. Now he just wants to get that huge can of whupa$$ behind him.

I knew he'd either off himself or surrender without resistance when he was finally captured. It was even less dramatic than I expected.

!!

[KG6JTB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There's that urban legend again regarding Saddam's involvement with 9/11.

Despite the admitted lies put forth by the Bush administration, there is absolutely no proof there was any connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the middle east knows the jihadis had as little patience for the secular Iraqi regime as they do for Americans. The idea of Saddam and al Qaeda working in concert is absurd.

Now the Bushies can have their show trial just in time for the '04 elections. The &quot;president&quot; and this war are both complete frauds.

WX7B [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, the news today was also discussing some recently discovered documents linking a meeting between 9/11 hijackers and the Iraqi government. However, the capture of Saddam has eclipsed this story, and the docs still need to be confirmed.

There is also an old arabic proverb: &quot;The enemy of my enemy is my friend&quot;. Those in the middle east that have a common objective against the West will work in concert. To say it's absurd is to be ignorant of middle-east history.

What a great day!!!

Dave
KG6JTB

[KC0OFZ]

&quot;Now the Bushies can have their show trial just in time for the '04 elections. The &quot;president&quot; and this war are both complete frauds.&quot;

WX7B

Yep,it has already started, Hussein is proclaimed innocent by the likes of WX7B. And still crying about the election, funny thing is they are more concerned about the past election than they ever were about 9/11!!

[w3sy]

NEWS FLASH!

A platoon of ACLU lawyers, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson are en route to Iraq to try to free the &quot;illegally seized&quot; SoDamn Insane. Stay tuned to your local Doonesbury or Boondocks &quot;cartoon&quot; for unfolding developments!

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w3sy @ Dec. 14 2003,08:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why, why, why, oh WHY can't some people deal with the fact that Bush won the 2000 election? You doodz kinda need to build a bridge and get over it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's the whole root of the problem, he _did_ win the election and he's president.

Some people are born into greatness, others have it given to them as a graduation present. Still others have it bestowed upon them as a diversion from drugs and alcohol.

I'll let you pick which one applies here. Fact remains that this man is a puppet of monetary interests and he's done incredible damage to this country, irrespective of your views on 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope your grandchildren enjoy paying the tab for the party Bush has thrown.

[nx6d]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0OFZ @ Dec. 14 2003,12:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yep,it has already started, Hussein is proclaimed innocent by the likes of WX7B. #And still crying about the election, funny thing is they are more concerned about the past election than they ever were about 9/11!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You obviously missed my point. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and Iraq was just something tossed up to GHW Bush by his little boy W. What a loser, and what losers people are for buying into this ridiculous, stupid war.

Sure, Hussein was a jerk, now doubt. Was Iraq and OUR resources worth taking him out? NO. This whole Iraq thing smacks of some of the stupid BS we used to do in Latin America in the '50's. Of course we aren't in Guatemala anymore, because protecting the oil companies is WAY more important than protecting the United Fruit Company, (now Standard Brands). Also enriching vendors at the expense of the USG is completely scandalous. Halliburton should be banned completely, due to the Cheney connection.

Why aren't you neo-cons outraged about the gross amount of money spent on this stupid escapade? Why aren't you enraged about the massive amount of tax dollars being spent in some other country? I'll bet if the name on this invasion was &quot;Gore&quot; instead of &quot;Bush&quot; you'd be up in arms, and your talk show toadies would be against it too. Admit it, W is a moron.

W will always be &quot;president&quot;. He lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes. I hope he loses big in '04. I'm certainly going to work hard against that piece of crap.

WX7B

[N8CPA]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 14 2003,15:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0OFZ @ Dec. 14 2003,12:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yep,it has already started, Hussein is proclaimed innocent by the likes of WX7B. #And still crying about the election, funny thing is they are more concerned about the past election than they ever were about 9/11!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You obviously missed my point. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and Iraq was just something tossed up to GWH Bush by his little boy W. What a loser, and what losers people are for buying into this ridiculous, stupid war.

Sure, Hussein was a jerk, now doubt. Was Iraq and OUR resources worth taking him out? NO. This whole Iraq thing smacks of some of the stupid BS we used to do in Latin America in the '50's. Of course we aren't in Guatemala anymore, because protecting the oil companies is WAY more important than protecting the United Fruit Company, (now Standard Brands). Also enriching vendors at the expense of the USG is completely scandalous. Halliburton should be banned completely, due to the Cheney connection.

Why aren't you neo-cons outraged about the gross amount of money spent on this stupid escapade? Why aren't you enraged about the massive amount of tax dollars being spent in some other country? I'll bet if the name on this invasion was &quot;Gore&quot; instead of &quot;Bush&quot; you'd be up in arms, and your talk show toadies would be against it too. Admit it, W is a moron.

W will always be &quot;president&quot;. He lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes. I hope he loses big in '04. I'm certainly going to work hard against that piece of crap.

WX7B[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Haven't you read the Constitution? The process is described in several Articles and Amendments. Our forefathers had the foresight to see to it that no regional subculture could dominate the National political scene. That was but one consideration that led to the establishment of the electoral college. Hence, the point of the Presidential Election is like the World Series. It isn't how many points a team gets, it's how many games it wins. Gore couldn't even carry his own state! And once he forefeited it was over!

I like what Michael Graham said about the fiasco. To summarize, Gore cut his campaign by telling people how stupid they are. In Florida, it worked! He ended up attracting people who were too stupid to know how to vote for him.

[KC0OFZ]

WX7B

Yes, more money was spent than ever needed by far, however, the other side wastes money on their special interests as well, admit it.

Now the proper trial is needed to expose Hussein for the tyrant that he was.

As for working hard in 04, go for it, I respect your ambition

KC0OFZ

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 14 2003,15:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W will always be &quot;president&quot;. He lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes. I hope he loses big in '04. I'm certainly going to work hard against that piece of crap.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I remain thankful that the electoral college is there too. If you look at a map of the United States with the counties won by Bush and the counties won by Gore, you'd see an overwhelming number of counties taken by Bush. Where is it fair that a more populous region like the greater New York area should have more voting weight than Backwoods, Idaho population 100? The electoral college evens that problem out because your vote is 1/xth of the state's electoral vote whereas with a popular vote, your vote is 1/yth of ALL votes. Keeps places like major metropolitan areas from totally controlling the election.

It wouldn't have mattered either way, Gore certainly isn't any brighter than GWB and probably brings to the table his own unique set of bad manners. The good news is, we get to select from a probable equally bad set of candidates next year.

And yes, I think GWB is a loser simply because of the deficits he's running and his callous disregard for the middle class.

[w3sy]

From the W3SY mailbag! Larry Liberal writes:

You know, like, George, like, Bush shoulda not, like, been made President, okay? I mean, like, he didn't win all the, you know, like, votes? Okay? Um, like, he likes to, like, you know, cut taxes, okay? And I don't, you know, think that's right, okay? There are a lot of people who need money, and like, he doesn't give it to them, right? Also, like, we shouldn't attack countries like Afganistan and like Iraq. They never did anything to us, like, okay? I mean, that makes us bigger criminals than them, like, right?

I think, like, they should have, like, a, you know, recount of the votes and all, from the 2000 election, okay? I mean, it's just not, you know, fair.

I'm a supporter of Howard Dean. He's like cool because he's like on the Internet and all. I totally like him because, like, he wants to raise taxes so that poor people can get more money, okay? I think he should run with Hillary Clinton. She has a lot of, like, experience, you know because she was in the White house for 8 years and now she's like one of the best, you know, Senators, okay? Also, they will do away with the Army so there's no more, like, war and all, rigght?

Conservatives are, like, so mean and unfeeling. We need someone who is, you know, liberal to run the country. We need the government to, like, take care of us. Canada has, like, free health care. That would be like so way cool! Why do we have to pay so much for doctors, okay? Why can't the government pay for that? I mean, like, they have a lot of money and all, okay?

Well, I gotta go. We are having, like, a bunch of college kids, stay at home dads, soccer moms, and MILFs over at my house for a Howard Dean Meetup in a few minutes. Gotta put out the chips and sodas. Like later, man.

Larry Liberal, Seattle Washington.

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Let us see now... saddam is caught... the men who were shooting folks around Maryland got caught... that Randolph guy got caught ...let us see who is left...oh yea,,,BIN LADIN ( almost forgot about ole BIN )...gee we are almost out of folks to watch out for ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ..he could be here in the good ol U S A if he shaved his beard and became a baseball/football/basketball fan...might even be hard to recognise if he DID shave his beard and moustache ( might even be YOUR neighbor a few doors down ) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif so keep your eyes open, looking for ol BIN !!

[AB8RU]

Here is the FBI Wanted page on Terrorists

FBI Most Wanted Terrorists page (http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm)

as to Saddam I am glad he is caught, watched CNN today but I can say maybe send him to Isarel to hang him they would probably do that as a friendly jesture.

In honesty he will join Adolf , Amin , and his sons in the eternal pit that burns forever and the Devil himself will be there saying .. Gee I get these guys to shovel brimstone ?

[N8CPA]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ka8ncr @ Dec. 14 2003,17:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 14 2003,15:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W will always be &quot;president&quot;. He lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes. I hope he loses big in '04. I'm certainly going to work hard against that piece of crap.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I remain thankful that the electoral college is there too. #If you look at a map of the United States with the counties won by Bush and the counties won by Gore, you'd see an overwhelming number of counties taken by Bush. #Where is it fair that a more populous region like the greater New York area should have more voting weight than Backwoods, Idaho population 100? #The electoral college evens that problem out because your vote is 1/xth of the state's electoral vote whereas with a popular vote, your vote is 1/yth of ALL votes. #Keeps places like major metropolitan areas from totally controlling the election.

It wouldn't have mattered either way, Gore certainly isn't any brighter than GWB and probably brings to the table his own unique set of bad manners. #The good news is, we get to select from a probable equally bad set of candidates next year.

And yes, I think GWB is a loser simply because of the deficits he's running and his callous disregard for the middle class.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
But Bush doesn't seem to overestimate his own intelligence. In that way, he is more intelectually honest than Gore. When he voices his opinion, he supports them with facts. Gore, on the other hand, purported opinions and called them facts. But then, he's a democrat--so it all depends &quot;what the meaning of is&quot; is, doesn't it? In fact, that's sometimes true in Spanish, never in English.

[N0KLT]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ Dec. 14 2003,10:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is it just me, or did Saddam appear &quot;relieved&quot; when he was shown on TV. #That is, like he was really tired of &quot;running&quot; and might actually be happy that he got caught?

Glen, K9STH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Honestly my impression of his looks and expressions were more of being dazed and confused as well as very very tired and discouraged. I was struck by the facial resemblence before they shaved his beard off to Castro. Before they cleaned him up and he was being examined I was somewhat reminded by the look on his face and in his eyes, esp with his hair so dirty and unkempt of some of the pictures of Howard Hughs near the end of his life when he was such a recluse. Maybe I am reading more into the pictures then there was there but it made me wonder about his mental stability. Not that I ever considered him mentally stable but this is on a whole different level of instability.

Whatever, I am just glad he is in custody. I just hate to think of all the money that will be spent on security and keeping him in custody and trying him whereever they finally decide to have the trial.

73

Gary NØKLT

[kg4rrm]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AB8RU @ Dec. 14 2003,21:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here is the FBI Wanted page on Terrorists

FBI Most Wanted Terrorists page (http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm)
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
wow, no wonder we can't seem to find terrorists. just look at Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's picture, looks nothing like him.

[ke4pjw]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 13 2003,16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You obviously missed my point. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and Iraq was just something tossed up to GHW Bush by his little boy W. What a loser, and what losers people are for buying into this ridiculous, stupid war.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, seems you are completely uninformed.
It was bad intel by the British, (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:znDPxTxAr_QJ:www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/15/1032054710979.html+british+intelligence+%22al+qued a%22+iraq&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) unless you are so so bold as to contribute to malice something that can be adequately explained by human error. Never heard that GWB was taking orders from GHWG, did you just make that up?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 13 2003,16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sure, Hussein was a jerk, now doubt. Was Iraq and OUR resources worth taking him out? NO. This whole Iraq thing smacks of some of the stupid BS we used to do in Latin America in the '50's. Of course we aren't in Guatemala anymore, because protecting the oil companies is WAY more important than protecting the United Fruit Company, (now Standard Brands). Also enriching vendors at the expense of the USG is completely scandalous. Halliburton should be banned completely, due to the Cheney connection. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It was worth it just to shut North Korea the hell up. I suspect the reason is, our friends in P5 land were impressed with our demonstation of &quot;Look what I can do.&quot; We own Iraq, and have held it for ALMOST A YEAR with less than 500 dead. People keep comparing this war to Vietnam, but it is my understanding that we were loosing 7,000 troops a WEEK by the end of that war.

In what way was &quot;protecting oil companies&quot; more important than making damn sure that Iraq didn't have any ABC weapons? After all, what good is it being a oil executive if you or your family is dead because Iraq decided to use some Al Qaeda jihadi as a delivery system?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 13 2003,16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why aren't you neo-cons outraged about the gross amount of money spent on this stupid escapade? Why aren't you enraged about the massive amount of tax dollars being spent in some other country? I'll bet if the name on this invasion was &quot;Gore&quot; instead of &quot;Bush&quot; you'd be up in arms, and your talk show toadies would be against it too. Admit it, W is a moron.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Quite frankly, because it is a very public display to the people who wish us harm that we can pretty much do anything we want, so don't piss us off.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 13 2003,16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W will always be &quot;president&quot;. He lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes. I hope he loses big in '04. I'm certainly going to work hard against that piece of crap.

WX7B[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Clinton lost the popular vote too, so what's your point? This is not a Democracy, it's a Representative Republic. We don't have mob rule, get used to it.

[KI4BOO]

Left Wing/Right Wing bickering. ALWAYS a treat to sit back and read. Not sure if Ill vote for myself or Jello Biafara next year. We both have about an equal chance of winning, so it's a toss-up. Vote for me, by the way.

I myself am a bit skeptical about this capture... You don't take control of a country by being stupid. In my opinion, Saddam knew what was up and was out of Iraq by 9AM on September 12, 2001.

[w3sy]

I always laugh my a$$ off when Bush Bashers claim he lost the popular vote. What these people fail to realize is that in states where Bush won handily, THEY DID NOT COUNT THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS. And it it known that absentee ballotts tend to lean heavily in the Republican direction. So, as they say in Porgy and Bess, &quot;It ain't necessarily so...&quot;

By the way --- know why it took so long to capture SoDamn Insane? Because it took this long for Satan to get Hell hot enough. Buh bye, Saddam. Yo' a$$ is GRASS... an' WE da LAWNMOWER!

dit dit

[N8CPA]

I don't speak Kurdi or Arabic but I loved those pool reporters who stood up and started shouting when they saw the footage at the press conference. I recognized the word Saddam; I bet the rest of it was &quot;!@x# you!&quot;

I saw one analyst who said that the low drama of the capture left Iraqis quite disappointed in themselves to have allowed such a coward to push them around for so long.

God bless the Iraqis--that nightmare is over.

!!

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke4pjw @ Dec. 14 2003,21:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We own Iraq, and have held it for ALMOST A YEAR with less than 500 dead. People keep comparing this war to Vietnam, but it is my understanding that we were loosing 7,000 troops a WEEK by the end of that war.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Be patient. More US soliders have died in Iraq than died in the first 8 years of US involvement in Vietnam. There's plenty of time yet.

By the way, counting for the change in slang idioms from then to now, your &quot;own Iraq&quot; statement echos precisely the claims Westmorland was making just before the Tet offensive.

It's a funny world where &quot;owning&quot; a country means sending US soldiers there to needlessly die, just because dubya's got a smaller pee-pee than jeb, and wanted to prove something to his daddy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
In what way was &quot;protecting oil companies&quot; more important than making damn sure that Iraq didn't have any ABC weapons? After all, what good is it being a oil executive if you or your family is dead because Iraq decided to use some Al Qaeda jihadi as a delivery system?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The UN was doing a good job of making sure, at a whole lot lower cost. Guess it just wasn't flashy enough to serve dubya's need to outdo his brother.

Was it really worth the 80-150 billion dollars this is going to cost the US just to find out there are no WMD in Iraq, just as the UN had said?

By the way, if you want to find human rights abuse in the middle east, by a government that does have weapons of mass destruction, I suggest you visit Palestine.

You wouldn't happen to know, would you, when dubya plans on invading Tel Aviv?

[n3mvf]

Irregardless of politics.......remember 9-11! Political beliefs aside, if your an American, you have a target on your back. Debating our troops missions is like ignoring 9-11. A friend of mine was in the WTC on a business call when it collapsed.....ask his spouse and children if they feel sorry for these a-holes.

Support our troops and God bless America,
Greg

[kc5nyo]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 15 2003,03:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
It's a funny world where &quot;owning&quot; a country means sending US soldiers there to needlessly die, just because dubya's got a smaller pee-pee than jeb, and wanted to prove something to his daddy.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Gee Marty...... I've always appreciated your knowledgable, &quot;objective&quot; posts and replies on the forums. This &quot;subjective&quot; view of yours is quite strange to say the least! A smaller pee-pee?! Does this statement come from knowledge, research, or both?

'Tis far better to take the fight to the enemy...... never let it be fought on your own soil again , as happened on 9-11.

Mike
kc5nyo

[KI4BOO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n3mvf @ Dec. 15 2003,05:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Irregardless of politics.......remember 9-11! Political beliefs aside, if your an American, you have a target on your back.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If you are human, chances are that someone somewhere would like to see you dead. Yes, even you.

Americans do not have targets on their backs. We MIGHT have one terrorist episode caused by a foreign terrorist every ten years. The rest are caused by Americans. Am I trying to downplay 9/11? No! Has 9/11 become a way for the American people to justify EVERYTHING we do that is wrong? Yes!

When was the last time you went to a Football game and worried about a bomb going off?

When was the last time you walked down the street, and worried about being shot by a stray bullet from a machine gun, or got pelted by rocks?

When was the last time you saw a City Bus blown up on an American street?

In Israel, these threats are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week... Even holidays. There is always a threat of an IRA attack in London. Yes, London, as in England.

The &quot;target on your back&quot; mentality is exactly what you are supposed to believe. They want you to overlook the freedoms and security our country provides us with... The ones we all take for granted. When they are taken for granted, they can be taken away and nobody will notice.

The only thing we can do with this war is support our troops, and pray that every single one of them is returned home. Troops follow orders. The troops didn't start this war, Ignorance on behalf of the American people did. We are all responsible, regardless of which &quot;side&quot; we are on, Left or Right. War is sick. War is not an answer to anything.

[nx6d]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6JTB @ Dec. 14 2003,09:12)</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">There's that urban legend again regarding Saddam's involvement with 9/11.

Despite the admitted lies put forth by the Bush administration, there is absolutely no proof there was any connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the middle east knows the jihadis had as little patience for the secular Iraqi regime as they do for Americans. The idea of Saddam and al Qaeda working in concert is absurd.

Now the Bushies can have their show trial just in time for the '04 elections. The &quot;president&quot; and this war are both complete frauds.

WX7B [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, the news today was also discussing some recently discovered documents linking a meeting between 9/11 hijackers and the Iraqi government. However, the capture of Saddam has eclipsed this story, and the docs still need to be confirmed.

There is also an old arabic proverb: &quot;The enemy of my enemy is my friend&quot;. Those in the middle east that have a common objective against the West will work in concert. To say it's absurd is to be ignorant of middle-east history.

What a great day!!!

Dave
KG6JTB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What documents? Did you hear that on some wacky talk radio station. You and I both know that if those documents really did exist, and were credible, that information would be splashed all over both the media. And no, it's not a result of left wing media bias, which completely doesn't exist.

In regard to your arabic proverb. The reason the middle east countries can't get it together is they spend all their time fighting each other. This has been going on since the demise of the Ottoman Empire. These guys can't agree on anything! If they did, they'd take away our oil and make the 1973 oil shock look like a day at the beach.

WX7B

[nx6d]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8CPA @ Dec. 14 2003,18:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But Bush doesn't seem to overestimate his own intelligence. In that way, he is more intelectually honest than Gore. When he voices his opinion, he supports them with facts. Gore, on the other hand, purported opinions and called them facts. #But then, he's a democrat--so it all depends &quot;what the meaning of is&quot; is, doesn't it? In fact, that's sometimes true in Spanish, never in English.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's a complete fantasy. You have no basis in fact for that comment. And don't spout the &quot;Al Gore invented the internet&quot; comment. That was a quotation that was taken completely out of context and multilated by the talk radio freaks.

[nx6d]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke4pjw @ Dec. 14 2003,20:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 13 2003,16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You obviously missed my point. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and Iraq was just something tossed up to GHW Bush by his little boy W. What a loser, and what losers people are for buying into this ridiculous, stupid war.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, seems you are completely uninformed.
It was bad intel by the British, (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:znDPxTxAr_QJ:www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/15/1032054710979.html+british+intelligence+%22al+qued a%22+iraq&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) unless you are so so bold as to contribute to malice something that can be adequately explained by human error. Never heard that GWB was taking orders from GHWG, did you just make that up?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 13 2003,16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sure, Hussein was a jerk, now doubt. Was Iraq and OUR resources worth taking him out? NO. This whole Iraq thing smacks of some of the stupid BS we used to do in Latin America in the '50's. Of course we aren't in Guatemala anymore, because protecting the oil companies is WAY more important than protecting the United Fruit Company, (now Standard Brands). Also enriching vendors at the expense of the USG is completely scandalous. Halliburton should be banned completely, due to the Cheney connection. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It was worth it just to shut North Korea the hell up. I suspect the reason is, our friends in P5 land were impressed with our demonstation of &quot;Look what I can do.&quot; We own Iraq, and have held it for ALMOST A YEAR with less than 500 dead. People keep comparing this war to Vietnam, but it is my understanding that we were loosing 7,000 troops a WEEK by the end of that war.

In what way was &quot;protecting oil companies&quot; more important than making damn sure that Iraq didn't have any ABC weapons? After all, what good is it being a oil executive if you or your family is dead because Iraq decided to use some Al Qaeda jihadi as a delivery system?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 13 2003,16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why aren't you neo-cons outraged about the gross amount of money spent on this stupid escapade? Why aren't you enraged about the massive amount of tax dollars being spent in some other country? I'll bet if the name on this invasion was &quot;Gore&quot; instead of &quot;Bush&quot; you'd be up in arms, and your talk show toadies would be against it too. Admit it, W is a moron.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Quite frankly, because it is a very public display to the people who wish us harm that we can pretty much do anything we want, so don't piss us off.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 13 2003,16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W will always be &quot;president&quot;. He lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes. I hope he loses big in '04. I'm certainly going to work hard against that piece of crap.

WX7B[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Clinton lost the popular vote too, so what's your point? This is not a Democracy, it's a Representative Republic. We don't have mob rule, get used to it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You seem to have some trouble with reading comprehension. Nowhere did I saw GHWB had anything to do with directing this fiasco. AS for bad intel, doesn't it make sense to throughly check out intel especially when we are dealing with something this severe instead of acting on something that gives the answer you want?

The North Koreans aren't likely to shut up anytime soon. They have a dysfunctional desperate failing regime and shake the nuclear stick whenever they need money from us. Also, Seoul South Korea is what, 40 miles from the North Korean border, so they could vaporize the capital very quickly.

The whole WMD thing was a red herring. We didn't find any and we won't.

As for the &quot;public display to the people who wish us harm&quot; there is still no evidence of any Iraqi involvement with al Qaeda. All we've done is destabilze a government, created chaos, and probably politicized (against us) a whole new generation middle easterners for no apparent gain.

Mob rule? What are talking about?, And no, Clinton never lost the popular vote in either of his elections.

WX7B

[w3sy]

Yo Marty, that comment about Bush's &quot;pee pee&quot; was very disturbing. I, for one, could go a whole YEAR without thinking about another dood's, um, &quot;pee pee.&quot;

But if you MUST refer to the Presidential Genitalia, could you please show some decorum and refer to it as a &quot;tannywhacker?&quot; Or at least &quot;President Johnson?&quot;

[W0UZR]

It's funny that he didn't use some of the $750,000 he had to decorate his hole a little bit.

kb0uzr

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc5nyo @ Dec. 15 2003,06http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 15 2003,03:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
It's a funny world where &quot;owning&quot; a country means sending US soldiers there to needlessly die, just because dubya's got a smaller pee-pee than jeb, and wanted to prove something to his daddy.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Gee Marty...... I've always appreciated your knowledgable, &quot;objective&quot; posts and replies on the forums. This &quot;subjective&quot; view of yours is quite strange to say the least! A smaller pee-pee?! Does this statement come from knowledge, research, or both?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I got it from a drunken Bush. <!--emo&amp;http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Seriously, though, I have an objective view on this issue, (or at least as objective as one can be on this topic,) but there's so much uninformed nonsense being spewed about it that I'm just not up to stating it coherently.

I will say that the behavior of those who think they vilify by using the word &quot;liberal&quot; as an insult, gladden my heart, by making me believe that I just might one day live up to the liberal standards of Thomas Jefferson.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
'Tis far better to take the fight to the enemy...... never let it be fought on your own soil again , as happened on 9-11.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

We have met the enemy and he is us -- Walt Kelly

Marty

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w3sy @ Dec. 15 2003,19:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yo Marty, that comment about Bush's &quot;pee pee&quot; was very disturbing. I, for one, could go a whole YEAR without thinking about another dood's, um, &quot;pee pee.&quot;

But if you MUST refer to the Presidential Genitalia, could you please show some decorum and refer to it as a &quot;tannywhacker?&quot; Or at least &quot;President Johnson?&quot;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Q: Why do most guys name their tool?

A: Because they don't want their important decisions made by a total stranger.

[ke4pjw]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 14 2003,03:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Be patient. More US soliders have died in Iraq than died in the first 8 years of US involvement in Vietnam. There's plenty of time yet.

By the way, counting for the change in slang idioms from then to now, your &quot;own Iraq&quot; statement echos precisely the claims Westmorland was making just before the Tet offensive.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ok, let me say this AGAIN for you. This is not Vietnam. The reason we lost Vietnam was because it was un-winable, it would have turned the cold war into a shooting war with Russia and China. There is no China or Russia to have the former Iraqi regime's back. There is no one able to supply them, there is not any type of organized effort to kill large numbers of our soldiers or take back and hold any ground. Oh yea, we have even captured their leader, too. (Sort of the point of this thread.)

Stick a fork in them. They are done. We beat them.

If you don't see that, you are not as objective as you think you are.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 14 2003,03:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's a funny world where &quot;owning&quot; a country means sending US soldiers there to needlessly die, just because dubya's got a smaller pee-pee than jeb, and wanted to prove something to his daddy.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Owning a country is how you win wars. You take, hold and occupy the enemy's land.

Ah yes, it can't be that Bush cares about protecting this country, he is a man completely fueled by ego and desperately needs his father's approval. Nothing like good old Ad Hominem attack to attempt to make a point.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 14 2003,03:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The UN was doing a good job of making sure, at a whole lot lower cost. Guess it just wasn't flashy enough to serve dubya's need to outdo his brother.

Was it really worth the 80-150 billion dollars this is going to cost the US just to find out there are no WMD in Iraq, just as the UN had said?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

What?? They got kicked out of there in '98 (We couldn't have restarted the war then because it would have looked like Clinton was starting a war to divert attention from that dumb Monica crap. I don't know who to blame more, Clinton or those &quot;Ned Flanders&quot; conservatives that thought America really cared about him getting a BJ)

When they went back in five years later, of course everything had been moved and cleaned out. This whole thing was caused because of accounting problems with the UN weapons inspectors.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 14 2003,03:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By the way, if you want to find human rights abuse in the middle east, by a government that does have weapons of mass destruction, I suggest you visit Palestine.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Did I say anything about &quot;Human Rights Abuses&quot;? I think we were justified in RESUMING the war the moment they broke the ceasefire agreement and kicked out UN inspectors.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 14 2003,03:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You wouldn't happen to know, would you, when dubya plans on invading Tel Aviv?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I suppose when Israel decides that the Arabs are really their best friends, that the whole misunderstanding was due to the United States helping create the UN and thus the state of Israel and they start pointing their nukes at us. In other words, never.

[KD7VKR]

In 12 years even I could hide the WMD. Especially when the inspectors were kicked out every other month. And your can't look here. Not there either. OOps your getting too close, you gotta leave now while we bury them deeper.
You can dig a deep deep hole in sand in 12 years.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke4pjw @ Dec. 16 2003,18<!--emo&amp;http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, let me say this AGAIN for you. This is not Vietnam. The reason we lost Vietnam was because it was un-winable, it would have turned the cold war into a shooting war with Russia and China.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

It is unlikely, short of using nuclear weapons, that anything the US would have done beyond what it already had would have drawn either the USSR or the PCR any further into the conflict. #The USSR had other fish to fry and the PCR was subsidizing the North, anyway. #I believe that this is why Johnson was unwilling to use nukes, although he did consider the alternative.

But that's of no consequence; since the reason the US failed in Vietnam has to do with the Vietnamese, and not the USSR or the PCR. #You can't back a corrupt regime, in a country where you can't tell your side from the enemy, and do anything but fail.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
There is no China or Russia to have the former Iraqi regime's back. There is no one able to supply them, there is not any type of organized effort to kill large numbers of our soldiers or take back and hold any ground. Oh yea, we have even captured their leader, too. (Sort of the point of this thread.)
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I would assume that you are aware that there are many countries right now that would find it in their interest for the US to lose this one, including Russia and China. Of course, Russia is not in a position to fund an insurgency, and I have no idea whether China would or not. It might please the Saudis to do so, though.

But again, that's not the issue. #Iraq has far more complex problems internally than the US is prepared to cope with. #And if you think that the Baath party is the only problem, as implied by &quot;captured their leader&quot;, I would suggest you do some research on the relationships between the Kurds, the Shi'ites, and the Suni.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Stick a fork in them. They are done. We beat them.

If you don't see that, you are not as objective as you think you are.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

It is interesting that the US commanders in the field don't agree with you, nor those responsible for US military strategy. #CenCom (sp?) has stated that they believe US troups will be needed in Iraq for at least two more years.

I dunno about you, but where I grew up, if the meat can still bite you, it ain't done yet.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Owning a country is how you win wars. You take, hold and occupy the enemy's land.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Remind me again how much of Japan the US had taken, held, and occupied before the Japanese surrender at the end of World War II. #Also, how much of Western Europe Hitler held before losing WW-II.

There are many kinds of wars. #In this particular kind, holding land has small strategic importance.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Ah yes, it can't be that Bush cares about protecting this country, he is a man completely fueled by ego and desperately needs his father's approval. Nothing like good old Ad Hominem attack to attempt to make a point.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

There wasn't anything there to protect the country from. And despite what was said on TV, Dubya knew that.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
When {UN inspectors} went back in five years later, of course everything had been moved and cleaned out. This whole thing was caused because of accounting problems with the UN weapons inspectors.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Ah yes. #This reminds me of another presidental Faux Pas. #The US claimed not only that the Iraqis had WMD, but, through aerial intelligence, the US knew where those weapons were. #And yet, here we are, six months after the US &quot;owned&quot; Iraq, without any WMD.

So where, precisely, had &quot;everything&quot; been moved to? #We're talking large complexes full of heavy equipment here, not the sort of stuff you carry around the dessert in semi trailers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I think we were justified in RESUMING the war the moment they broke the ceasefire agreement and kicked out UN inspectors.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

There was no war to resume. #The first gulf war ended 10 years ago.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 14 2003,03:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You wouldn't happen to know, would you, when dubya plans on invading Tel Aviv?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I suppose when Israel decides that the Arabs are really their best friends, that the whole misunderstanding was due to the United States helping create the UN and thus the state of Israel and they start pointing their nukes at us. In other words, never.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Ah well. Maybe he'll start with Haifa then.

[ke4pjw]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 16 2003,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is unlikely, short of using nuclear weapons, that anything the US would have done beyond what it already had would have drawn either the USSR or the PCR any further into the conflict. The USSR had other fish to fry and the PCR was subsidizing the North, anyway. I believe that this is why Johnson was unwilling to use nukes, although he did consider the alternative.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You think the Russians were not selling North Vietnam their (North Vietnam's) most lethal weapons? And if we tried hard enough, we could have beat them without dragging China and Russia into it? Ok.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 16 2003,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But that's of no consequence; since the reason the US failed in Vietnam has to do with the Vietnamese, and not the USSR or the PCR. You can't back a corrupt regime, in a country where you can't tell your side from the enemy, and do anything but fail.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Look at the USSR. They kept those folks in the Balkens in check for most of the last century. If there monetary system was not so completely broken, they could have kept it up for a long time to come.

You can hope that right makes might, but being mighty is an a-moral thing. To think otherwise is to believe in fairytales where good always wins.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 16 2003,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would assume that you are aware that there are many countries right now that would find it in their interest for the US to lose this one, including Russia and China. Of course, Russia is not in a position to fund an insurgency, and I have no idea whether China would or not. It might please the Saudis to do so, though.

But again, that's not the issue. Iraq has far more complex problems internally than the US is prepared to cope with. And if you think that the Baath party is the only problem, as implied by &quot;captured their leader&quot;, I would suggest you do some research on the relationships between the Kurds, the Shi'ites, and the Suni.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Don't forget France, you know, the guys that were breaking the U.N. sanctions and helping out their good buddy Saddam under the table. Well, I don't know that for sure, but hey, we all have our suspicions. I believe that it would be politically very damaging for either Russia or China to fund the Saddamites (Hi Hi AKA Baathist).

Yes, I am aware of the relationships between the various ethnic groups in Iraq. Yes, I am aware that our best friends are most likely going to be the Shiites, who hate us. But they all hate us, so let's just make the best of it shall we? Kurds don't like the Shiites, Shiites don't like us, but we in that particular part of the world, we all don't like the Sunni. The US dosen't like them because most of them are Baathist.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 16 2003,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is interesting that the US commanders in the field don't agree with you, nor those responsible for US military strategy. CenCom (sp?) has stated that they believe US troups will be needed in Iraq for at least two more years.

I dunno about you, but where I grew up, if the meat can still bite you, it ain't done yet.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Two years sounds a little short to me, I was expecting about a 5 year occupation. 2 years is a very short period of time. But in any event, it doesn't sound like Centcom is going to surrender.

I don't know where your getting your information, but I haven't seen this meat bite yet. I was expecting about 2000 casualties the first week of the invasion. We are into this thing for the better part of a year and we have less than 400 combat deaths.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 16 2003,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Remind me again how much of Japan the US had taken, held, and occupied before the Japanese surrender at the end of World War II. Also, how much of Western Europe Hitler held before losing WW-II.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, well let's see.
Japan didn't own squat and started by bombing us in Hawaii, but they did soon take the Philippines and a whole mess of those little islands out in the Pacific. They pretty much owned the Pacific until around 1945. We could have invaded and won, but it may not have been quick enough. At that point we were a little worried that they would surrender to the USSR, who broke the peace treaty with Japan just two days after us nuking Japan. So we nuked them again, just to make sure they knew who to surrender to. We occupied, ('owned') them for 12 years after the war.

Germany 'owned' these countries when they declared war on us Dec 11, 1941.
Czechoslovakia, half of Poland,Denmark,Norway,France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania,Yugoslavia, and Greece. Germany was split up by the western allies and the USSR. They were occupied ('owned') for about 5 years.

With the exception of parts of the north that the Kurds controlled, Saddam controlled the rest of the country before we invaded. Now he doesn't control any of it, we do.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 16 2003,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are many kinds of wars. In this particular kind, holding land has small strategic importance.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Depends on what your idea of &quot;winning&quot; is. The purpose of the war was to make sure that if Saddam was not able to produce WMD. Were pretty close to making that happen. The only way you can make that happen is to take and hold land. By doing so you deny the enemy the ability to move about freely.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 16 2003,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> There wasn't anything there to protect the country from. And despite what was said on TV, Dubya knew that.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Please provide proof that he knew there was no threat, please. If this President is as corrupt as you say he is, why not just plant some WMD on the enemy? Why lie to start a war, when you know that your lie will be figured out in the end? Unless you REALLY think Bush started this war to line the pockets of the American energy companies. If you think that, it exposes the fallacy in your logic.

Sometimes a cigar is simply, a cigar.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 16 2003,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ah yes. This reminds me of another presidental Faux Pas. The US claimed not only that the Iraqis had WMD, but, through aerial intelligence, the US knew where those weapons were. And yet, here we are, six months after the US &quot;owned&quot; Iraq, without any WMD.

So where, precisely, had &quot;everything&quot; been moved to? We're talking large complexes full of heavy equipment here, not the sort of stuff you carry around the dessert in semi trailers.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Last I recall, before the war, Powell was talking about small mobile labs. We are talking about a batch of chemicals that can be buried in an area about the size of a back-yard swimming pool.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 16 2003,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There was no war to resume. The first gulf war ended 10 years ago.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Some people agree with you. (http://www.hwcn.org/link/mkg/sect_9.html) I on the other hand think we didn't give up the right to make war on Iraq to the U.N.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke4pjw @ Dec. 17 2003,20:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You think the Russians were not selling North Vietnam their (North Vietnam's) most lethal weapons? And if we tried hard enough, we could have beat them without dragging China and Russia into it? Ok.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Selling and subsidizing are different things. The USSR sold weapons to a lot of countries, including North Vietnam. They did not, however, subsidized them. The PCR did that.

The United States tried everything short of nuclear weapons in Vietnam. What, then could have been done that wasn't that wouldn't have brought China in?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Look at the USSR. They kept those folks in the Balkens in check for most of the last century. If there monetary system was not so completely broken, they could have kept it up for a long time to come.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm... I wonder how the USSR went bankrupt. It wouldn't have had anything to do with the amount of money they were spending trying to keep the satellites in line, could it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
You can hope that right makes might, but being mighty is an a-moral thing. To think otherwise is to believe in fairytales where good always wins.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

It's a sad fact of US third world politics that the US has a bad habit of picking both bad guys, and losers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Don't forget France, you know, the guys that were breaking the U.N. sanctions and helping out their good buddy Saddam under the table. Well, I don't know that for sure, but hey, we all have our suspicions. I believe that it would be politically very damaging for either Russia or China to fund the Saddamites (Hi Hi AKA Baathist).
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I wouldn't crow too much about who did or didn't supply Iraq under the table. Several US firms were caught with their hands in that game.

I can't imagine how China could be politically damaged, given their current position in the world. However, I also can't imagine that the Baathists are the only folk who might like to throw a monkey wrench into a &quot;democratic&quot; Iraq.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Yes, I am aware of the relationships between the various ethnic groups in Iraq. Yes, I am aware that our best friends are most likely going to be the Shiites, who hate us. But they all hate us, so let's just make the best of it shall we? Kurds don't like the Shiites, Shiites don't like us, but we in that particular part of the world, we all don't like the Sunni. The US dosen't like them because most of them are Baathist.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The word you're looking for is 'quagmire'.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Two years sounds a little short to me, I was expecting about a 5 year occupation. 2 years is a very short period of time. But in any event, it doesn't sound like Centcom is going to surrender.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Doesn't sound like they think they've won either.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I don't know where your getting your information, but I haven't seen this meat bite yet. I was expecting about 2000 casualties the first week of the invasion. We are into this thing for the better part of a year and we have less than 400 combat deaths.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Still more than in the first 8 years of US involvement in Vietnam.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
We could have invaded {japan} and won, but it may not have been quick enough.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

In other words, The US never invaded Japan.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
With the exception of parts of the north that the Kurds controlled, Saddam controlled the rest of the country before we invaded. Now he doesn't control any of it, we do.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Well, you're half right. Hussein and the B'aath party don't control anything now.

But you've got a very odd idea of &quot;control&quot; if you think that the US is in control in Iraq yet.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 16 2003,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are many kinds of wars. #In this particular kind, holding land has small strategic importance.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Depends on what your idea of &quot;winning&quot; is. The purpose of the war was to make sure that if Saddam was not able to produce WMD. Were pretty close to making that #happen. The only way you can make that happen is to take and hold land. By doing so you deny the enemy the ability to move about freely.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Damn. I coulda swore that dubya specifically stated that the purpose of this war was to keep Saddam from the imminent use of WMD on the US.

Your descriptions of strategy, by the way, reminds me of a comment a professor at the Naval Postgraduate Center used to like to repeat. Something about the generals always fighting the last war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Please provide proof that he knew there was no threat, please. If this President is as corrupt as you say he is, why not just plant some WMD on the enemy?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Be patient. The evidence will be available soon. As to your question, you remind me of my favorite Iraq joke:

Q: How can the US be certain that Iraq has WMD?
A: The US kept the receipts.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Why lie to start a war, when you know that your lie will be figured out in the end?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

People lie, knowing that they will eventually found out all the time. Look how long Nixon lied about the plumbers after they got caught.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Unless you REALLY think Bush started this war to line the pockets of the American energy companies. If you think that, it exposes the fallacy in your logic.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No. I think Dubya's motives were, put less colorfully than last time, his known tendency to hold a grudge, combined with a strong desire to vindicate his father.

That's the reason why that target at that time.

Do I think that cynical businessmen have taken advantage of the situation? Of course. There has never been a US war without profiteering. Why would this one be any different?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Last I recall, before the war, Powell was talking about small mobile labs. We are talking about a batch of chemicals that can be buried in an area about the size of a back-yard swimming pool.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Your recollection is faulty. Powell, before the war, toed the party line on a nuclear threat. It is, by the way, that particular &quot;nuclear threat&quot; that holds the damning evidence of Bush's awareness that the war was based on a pretext.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I on the other hand think we didn't give up the right to make war on Iraq to the U.N.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Ah well. Dubya's daddy agreed that the war was over. But you are, of course, free to come to whatever opinion you'd like.

[N3TTN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WX7B Wrote: &quot;Now the Bushies can have their show trial just in time for the '04 elections. The &quot;president&quot; and this war are both complete frauds.&quot;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


Ah, WX7B...the neocon's neocom(mie). A conspiracy behind every &quot;Bush&quot; haw! You know, that vast right wing conspiracy. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[nx6d]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N3TTN @ Dec. 19 2003,18:17)</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">WX7B Wrote: &quot;Now the Bushies can have their show trial just in time for the '04 elections. The &quot;president&quot; and this war are both complete frauds.&quot;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


Ah, WX7B...the neocon's neocom(mie). A conspiracy behind every &quot;Bush&quot; haw! You know, that vast right wing conspiracy. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Come on, and I'm giving some semblemce of intelligence. Can't you see, every thing this admnistration has done is with politics in mind? Are you that stupid?

The little flight suit stunt,which they tried to blame the &quot;mission accomplished&quot; on the aircraft carrier?

The stupid turkey photo-op. No real serviceman got to eat the turkey or the grapes.

It's ALL bravo sierra, and dumbsh*t, it's a little late to call me a commie. Well, maybe it isn't, because you've shown you are pretty stupid....

WX7B

[N3TTN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's ALL bravo sierra, and dumbsh*t, it's a little late to call me a commie. Well, maybe it isn't,[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Relax man, it was only a little play on words. Frankly, I could not care less what your political leanings are.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">because you've shown you are pretty stupid[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


Is that all you've got?? Man, you take this stuff WAY too seriously, you need to take a chill pill before your Bravo Papa goes through the roof. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif