Thank you Captain Obvious
jon@af
01-28-2003, 12:12 PM
Well, it looks like someone finally figured out what most people have been thinking anyways. This would be that the US has double standards when it comes to Iraq. Gee, imagine that!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&ncid=564&e=9&u=/nm/20030128/ts_nm/iraq_australia_butler_dc_5
I need not say more.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&ncid=564&e=9&u=/nm/20030128/ts_nm/iraq_australia_butler_dc_5
I need not say more.
Monkey-Magic-S15-R
01-29-2003, 06:21 AM
i thought they would just bomb them like in Afganhnistan?? They wouldn't dare use Nuclear weapons would they?
Darth Cypher
01-29-2003, 08:43 AM
I don't think that we will resort to using nukes and most of you who are either pro or anti-US should agree. If it's about the oil, we aren't going to nuke the oil are we? If not, then it's simply a means to threaten saddam to comply. It's basically like the Cold War again.....actually it is similar to the first Gulf War. I might be mistaken but I remember Margaret Thatcher once threatening to use nukes if Iraq didn't remove his forces from Kuwait. Well, no nukes were fired where there?
(Eagerly awaits the flames and saying stuff like Bush is a psyco with an itchy trigger finger over a big red button)
(Eagerly awaits the flames and saying stuff like Bush is a psyco with an itchy trigger finger over a big red button)
Cbass
01-29-2003, 05:48 PM
Bush and his generals would love nothing more than to nuke the major cities and not have to deal with them. It's been conclusively proven that no one can defeat the American army on open ground, except maybe the Chinese or the Russians, as they are the only modern armies with enough strength.
The American armies biggest weakness, proven in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia and every other conflict they have been involved in, is inner city fighting, and guerrilla tactics.
The American armies biggest weakness, proven in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia and every other conflict they have been involved in, is inner city fighting, and guerrilla tactics.
Monkey-Magic-S15-R
01-29-2003, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Cbass
Bush and his generals would love nothing more than to nuke the major cities and not have to deal with them. It's been conclusively proven that no one can defeat the American army on open ground, except maybe the Chinese or the Russians, as they are the only modern armies with enough strength.
The American armies biggest weakness, proven in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia and every other conflict they have been involved in, is inner city fighting, and guerrilla tactics.
yea cuz their guns are dated no offense to the M6 but its been around since Vietnam and longer.
Not to mention when they go into cities they walk in the middle of the street
anyone seen Full Metal Jacket? Tanks don't seem all too usefull anymore do they? Maybe they should have something that hovers ?
Bush and his generals would love nothing more than to nuke the major cities and not have to deal with them. It's been conclusively proven that no one can defeat the American army on open ground, except maybe the Chinese or the Russians, as they are the only modern armies with enough strength.
The American armies biggest weakness, proven in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia and every other conflict they have been involved in, is inner city fighting, and guerrilla tactics.
yea cuz their guns are dated no offense to the M6 but its been around since Vietnam and longer.
Not to mention when they go into cities they walk in the middle of the street
anyone seen Full Metal Jacket? Tanks don't seem all too usefull anymore do they? Maybe they should have something that hovers ?
kris
01-30-2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Monkey-Magic-S15-R
yea cuz their guns are dated no offense to the M6 but its been around since Vietnam and longer.
Not to mention when they go into cities they walk in the middle of the street
anyone seen Full Metal Jacket? Tanks don't seem all too usefull anymore do they? Maybe they should have something that hovers ?
lol, you are basing outdated military training off a movie? lol. Thats a good one.
As a Ex Marine, who served in the Infantry, I can tell you our urban warfare training is by far better than you can imagine.
As for the m16, what needs to be updated? You aim, and pull the trigger. Bang, you're dead. They are not made to be pretty, or have all sorts of accessories. You can fire off round after round, with sand blowing everywhere, getting in your way, filling the mechanism, and it still works like a charm.
yea cuz their guns are dated no offense to the M6 but its been around since Vietnam and longer.
Not to mention when they go into cities they walk in the middle of the street
anyone seen Full Metal Jacket? Tanks don't seem all too usefull anymore do they? Maybe they should have something that hovers ?
lol, you are basing outdated military training off a movie? lol. Thats a good one.
As a Ex Marine, who served in the Infantry, I can tell you our urban warfare training is by far better than you can imagine.
As for the m16, what needs to be updated? You aim, and pull the trigger. Bang, you're dead. They are not made to be pretty, or have all sorts of accessories. You can fire off round after round, with sand blowing everywhere, getting in your way, filling the mechanism, and it still works like a charm.
YogsVR4
01-30-2003, 10:37 AM
I'm not sure why someone would think anybody would want to drop a nuke on a whim. If it were that simple, it would have happened in Korea or Vietnam
As for kris's comment on the :machinegu - lots of other weapons have been in use for decades now with little to no changes. Just because something is older doesn't mean that its outdated.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
As for kris's comment on the :machinegu - lots of other weapons have been in use for decades now with little to no changes. Just because something is older doesn't mean that its outdated.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Cbass
01-30-2003, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
I'm not sure why someone would think anybody would want to drop a nuke on a whim. If it were that simple, it would have happened in Korea or Vietnam
As for kris's comment on the :machinegu - lots of other weapons have been in use for decades now with little to no changes. Just because something is older doesn't mean that its outdated.
I expected you'd have a better answer than that... :eek:
First of all, the Korean war was a legitimate conflict, and was an active civil war. The war in Vietnam was the result of the Vietnamese people rising up against a regime that grown out of the French colonial days, and had just substituted wealthy Vietnames politicians for the wealthy French politicians when they left. It was a revolution, and the only reason America got involved to prevent them from becoming communist, which they had every right to do... Sort of like how the Germans interfered in the Spanish civil war?
If they had dropped a nuclear bomb in the middle of a civil war, it would be kind of pointless, now wouldn't it? It would kill thousands, and irradiate the area. Not only that, Russia would probably take a very dim view of it.
I'm not sure why someone would think anybody would want to drop a nuke on a whim. If it were that simple, it would have happened in Korea or Vietnam
As for kris's comment on the :machinegu - lots of other weapons have been in use for decades now with little to no changes. Just because something is older doesn't mean that its outdated.
I expected you'd have a better answer than that... :eek:
First of all, the Korean war was a legitimate conflict, and was an active civil war. The war in Vietnam was the result of the Vietnamese people rising up against a regime that grown out of the French colonial days, and had just substituted wealthy Vietnames politicians for the wealthy French politicians when they left. It was a revolution, and the only reason America got involved to prevent them from becoming communist, which they had every right to do... Sort of like how the Germans interfered in the Spanish civil war?
If they had dropped a nuclear bomb in the middle of a civil war, it would be kind of pointless, now wouldn't it? It would kill thousands, and irradiate the area. Not only that, Russia would probably take a very dim view of it.
Monkey-Magic-S15-R
01-30-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by kris
lol, you are basing outdated military training off a movie? lol. Thats a good one.
As a Ex Marine, who served in the Infantry, I can tell you our urban warfare training is by far better than you can imagine.
As for the m16, what needs to be updated? You aim, and pull the trigger. Bang, you're dead. They are not made to be pretty, or have all sorts of accessories. You can fire off round after round, with sand blowing everywhere, getting in your way, filling the mechanism, and it still works like a charm.
hey man thats not what i meant
its an example i just read somewhere that the M4 is better than the M16 or M40 i dunno whatever the special forces use
no doubt the M16 is a well know widely used military weapon but don't you think its a bit out dated?
............altho at least its better than the SA80 or whatever the British Army uses all i heard about that is how much it sucks
peace
lol, you are basing outdated military training off a movie? lol. Thats a good one.
As a Ex Marine, who served in the Infantry, I can tell you our urban warfare training is by far better than you can imagine.
As for the m16, what needs to be updated? You aim, and pull the trigger. Bang, you're dead. They are not made to be pretty, or have all sorts of accessories. You can fire off round after round, with sand blowing everywhere, getting in your way, filling the mechanism, and it still works like a charm.
hey man thats not what i meant
its an example i just read somewhere that the M4 is better than the M16 or M40 i dunno whatever the special forces use
no doubt the M16 is a well know widely used military weapon but don't you think its a bit out dated?
............altho at least its better than the SA80 or whatever the British Army uses all i heard about that is how much it sucks
peace
Cbass
01-30-2003, 07:04 PM
The weapons the US has are just as good, and in some cases better than the weapons that Iraq has. I'm not sure, but I think Iraq moved to the 5.56 round when they were being supplied with thousands of M16A2s by the CIA... Then there are the AK47/74s they stock, which chamber 7.62 and 5.56 respectively.
The problem they face is, the fanatics who are willing to cut down a squad from a window, or walk into a crowded room with a grenade are not in uniform, and loose robes easily conceal weapons and bombs.
The situation will be complicated by the current US strategy of carpet bombing their cities, which will kill many more civilians than soldiers and militants. These civilians will be their families, BTW... When arms are readily available, wouldn't you want to take up arms against the invading foreigners who killed your family?
Ever wonder why the Germans fought so fanatically during the closing months of WW2? Perhaps because they had fresh memories of their families being killed in bombings, like at Dresden, when the allies firebombed an open city with no tactical value...
The problem they face is, the fanatics who are willing to cut down a squad from a window, or walk into a crowded room with a grenade are not in uniform, and loose robes easily conceal weapons and bombs.
The situation will be complicated by the current US strategy of carpet bombing their cities, which will kill many more civilians than soldiers and militants. These civilians will be their families, BTW... When arms are readily available, wouldn't you want to take up arms against the invading foreigners who killed your family?
Ever wonder why the Germans fought so fanatically during the closing months of WW2? Perhaps because they had fresh memories of their families being killed in bombings, like at Dresden, when the allies firebombed an open city with no tactical value...
Monkey-Magic-S15-R
01-30-2003, 07:08 PM
yea but they also did the same thing to England so thats different
If you go invading a Foreign Country its a well know fact that defending your own soil gives the opposition some desperate drive to win which means they are probably going to end up being slightly suicidal.
Thats all i learned from war movies and such .............
any comments Kris?
If you go invading a Foreign Country its a well know fact that defending your own soil gives the opposition some desperate drive to win which means they are probably going to end up being slightly suicidal.
Thats all i learned from war movies and such .............
any comments Kris?
Cbass
01-30-2003, 07:14 PM
The M16A1 was developed by Fabrique National of Belgium in the early 60s, to replace the M14 rifle. It had several issues regarding maintenance, and was somewhat unreliable and less accurate when compared to the Russian AK47, which was an out and out copy of the Sturmgewehr 44, developed by the Germans in 1944.
The M16A2 was introduced in 1982, and is a thoroughly modern assault rifle, with all the problems and flaws of the original fixed. It is somewhat inferior to high end German rifles such as the Heckler and Koch G3, or their more modern variant, the HK33, and the newest rifle, the G36K.
The new SAW machine gun is an excellent weapon, and is easily better than anything the Iraqis will field.
Still, one fanatic with an automatic rifle or explosives can kill a half dozen soldiers in an ambush, and there will be a lot of fanatics in Baghdad. I'm not even sure if the Americans will take the city, or just incircle it and let the valiant defenders hold it until everyone starves.
The M16A2 was introduced in 1982, and is a thoroughly modern assault rifle, with all the problems and flaws of the original fixed. It is somewhat inferior to high end German rifles such as the Heckler and Koch G3, or their more modern variant, the HK33, and the newest rifle, the G36K.
The new SAW machine gun is an excellent weapon, and is easily better than anything the Iraqis will field.
Still, one fanatic with an automatic rifle or explosives can kill a half dozen soldiers in an ambush, and there will be a lot of fanatics in Baghdad. I'm not even sure if the Americans will take the city, or just incircle it and let the valiant defenders hold it until everyone starves.
Monkey-Magic-S15-R
01-30-2003, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Cbass
The M16A1 was developed by Fabrique National of Belgium in the early 60s, to replace the M14 rifle. It had several issues regarding maintenance, and was somewhat unreliable and less accurate when compared to the Russian AK47, which was an out and out copy of the Sturmgewehr 44, developed by the Germans in 1944.
The M16A2 was introduced in 1982, and is a thoroughly modern assault rifle, with all the problems and flaws of the original fixed. It is somewhat inferior to high end German rifles such as the Heckler and Koch G3, or their more modern variant, the HK33, and the newest rifle, the G36K.
The new SAW machine gun is an excellent weapon, and is easily better than anything the Iraqis will field.
Still, one fanatic with an automatic rifle or explosives can kill a half dozen soldiers in an ambush, and there will be a lot of fanatics in Baghdad. I'm not even sure if the Americans will take the city, or just incircle it and let the valiant defenders hold it until everyone starves.
not to offend anyone with my utter naivity of Army tactics but that sounds like a siege and if so i'd set up sniper across the city to take out anyone with a gun
its a pity they haven't got anything which can detect Guns and bullets or anything like that .......... altho i think thats a bit star trekkified
The M16A1 was developed by Fabrique National of Belgium in the early 60s, to replace the M14 rifle. It had several issues regarding maintenance, and was somewhat unreliable and less accurate when compared to the Russian AK47, which was an out and out copy of the Sturmgewehr 44, developed by the Germans in 1944.
The M16A2 was introduced in 1982, and is a thoroughly modern assault rifle, with all the problems and flaws of the original fixed. It is somewhat inferior to high end German rifles such as the Heckler and Koch G3, or their more modern variant, the HK33, and the newest rifle, the G36K.
The new SAW machine gun is an excellent weapon, and is easily better than anything the Iraqis will field.
Still, one fanatic with an automatic rifle or explosives can kill a half dozen soldiers in an ambush, and there will be a lot of fanatics in Baghdad. I'm not even sure if the Americans will take the city, or just incircle it and let the valiant defenders hold it until everyone starves.
not to offend anyone with my utter naivity of Army tactics but that sounds like a siege and if so i'd set up sniper across the city to take out anyone with a gun
its a pity they haven't got anything which can detect Guns and bullets or anything like that .......... altho i think thats a bit star trekkified
Cbass
01-30-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Monkey-Magic-S15-R
yea but they also did the same thing to England so thats different
If you go invading a Foreign Country its a well know fact that defending your own soil gives the opposition some desperate drive to win which means they are probably going to end up being slightly suicidal.
Thats all i learned from war movies and such .............
any comments Kris?
Well actually, during the early years of the war, the Germans sent light Heinkel bombers after ports and industrial targets, with the exception of an incident over London, where a bomber mistakenly released it's munitions over the city.
From the very start, the British, and later the Americans, carpet bombed any German city they could reach. It was murder, and bomber command knew it, there were no German soldiers in those homes, there were women and children. It's called terror bombing, and the British invented it.
It's more than just defending their country, it's fighting for their very existence. They've been bombed and starved for over a decade, had acts of war committed on a daily basis, and now they finally going to have a chance to shoot back... I can only imagine what they are feeling right now.
yea but they also did the same thing to England so thats different
If you go invading a Foreign Country its a well know fact that defending your own soil gives the opposition some desperate drive to win which means they are probably going to end up being slightly suicidal.
Thats all i learned from war movies and such .............
any comments Kris?
Well actually, during the early years of the war, the Germans sent light Heinkel bombers after ports and industrial targets, with the exception of an incident over London, where a bomber mistakenly released it's munitions over the city.
From the very start, the British, and later the Americans, carpet bombed any German city they could reach. It was murder, and bomber command knew it, there were no German soldiers in those homes, there were women and children. It's called terror bombing, and the British invented it.
It's more than just defending their country, it's fighting for their very existence. They've been bombed and starved for over a decade, had acts of war committed on a daily basis, and now they finally going to have a chance to shoot back... I can only imagine what they are feeling right now.
kris
01-30-2003, 07:24 PM
The M4 is virtually a M16 with a smaller barrel.
The SAW is a awsome weapon, which is what I was lucky enough to carry.
But you really cannot base any military tactic off of what hollywood thinks.
The SAW is a awsome weapon, which is what I was lucky enough to carry.
But you really cannot base any military tactic off of what hollywood thinks.
Monkey-Magic-S15-R
01-30-2003, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Cbass
Well actually, during the early years of the war, the Germans sent light Heinkel bombers after ports and industrial targets, with the exception of an incident over London, where a bomber mistakenly released it's munitions over the city.
From the very start, the British, and later the Americans, carpet bombed any German city they could reach. It was murder, and bomber command knew it, there were no German soldiers in those homes, there were women and children. It's called terror bombing, and the British invented it.
It's more than just defending their country, it's fighting for their very existence. They've been bombed and starved for over a decade, had acts of war committed on a daily basis, and now they finally going to have a chance to shoot back... I can only imagine what they are feeling right now.
i doubt that it was just one insident over london .............. i doubt that very much
Well actually, during the early years of the war, the Germans sent light Heinkel bombers after ports and industrial targets, with the exception of an incident over London, where a bomber mistakenly released it's munitions over the city.
From the very start, the British, and later the Americans, carpet bombed any German city they could reach. It was murder, and bomber command knew it, there were no German soldiers in those homes, there were women and children. It's called terror bombing, and the British invented it.
It's more than just defending their country, it's fighting for their very existence. They've been bombed and starved for over a decade, had acts of war committed on a daily basis, and now they finally going to have a chance to shoot back... I can only imagine what they are feeling right now.
i doubt that it was just one insident over london .............. i doubt that very much
Cbass
01-30-2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Monkey-Magic-S15-R
not to offend anyone with my utter naivity of Army tactics but that sounds like a siege and if so i'd set up sniper across the city to take out anyone with a gun
its a pity they haven't got anything which can detect Guns and bullets or anything like that .......... altho i think thats a bit star trekkified
They don't need to be in firing range, they can kill anyone or anything that comes near the city, and bomb out their power and water infrastructure. That would be the wise thing to do, if Bush actually gives a damn about saving American lives, which I don't believe he does, judging by the fact he's starting an unneccessary and immoral war.
not to offend anyone with my utter naivity of Army tactics but that sounds like a siege and if so i'd set up sniper across the city to take out anyone with a gun
its a pity they haven't got anything which can detect Guns and bullets or anything like that .......... altho i think thats a bit star trekkified
They don't need to be in firing range, they can kill anyone or anything that comes near the city, and bomb out their power and water infrastructure. That would be the wise thing to do, if Bush actually gives a damn about saving American lives, which I don't believe he does, judging by the fact he's starting an unneccessary and immoral war.
Monkey-Magic-S15-R
01-30-2003, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Cbass
They don't need to be in firing range, they can kill anyone or anything that comes near the city, and bomb out their power and water infrastructure. That would be the wise thing to do, if Bush actually gives a damn about saving American lives, which I don't believe he does, judging by the fact he's starting an unneccessary and immoral war.
by definition i thought US WAR = Massive bombing campaign
They don't need to be in firing range, they can kill anyone or anything that comes near the city, and bomb out their power and water infrastructure. That would be the wise thing to do, if Bush actually gives a damn about saving American lives, which I don't believe he does, judging by the fact he's starting an unneccessary and immoral war.
by definition i thought US WAR = Massive bombing campaign
Cbass
01-30-2003, 07:48 PM
That's pretty much the scope of it, except this time the objective is to completely remove the current government, which is a legal government of a sovereign nation.
I think the US/UK propaganda is quite entertaining, on how he's an oppressive dictator, and how his people want to overthrow him... I think it might be quite a shocker when Americans and Brits start coming home in body bags :(
I think the US/UK propaganda is quite entertaining, on how he's an oppressive dictator, and how his people want to overthrow him... I think it might be quite a shocker when Americans and Brits start coming home in body bags :(
Monkey-Magic-S15-R
01-30-2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Cbass
That's pretty much the scope of it, except this time the objective is to completely remove the current government, which is a legal government of a sovereign nation.
I think the US/UK propaganda is quite entertaining, on how he's an oppressive dictator, and how his people want to overthrow him... I think it might be quite a shocker when Americans and Brits start coming home in body bags :(
i heard his sons shoot people and rape women and that its never publised in the news. Hey this apparently came from a ex CIA historian type fellow but i wouldn't know if its the truth.
Since WW1 and WW2 the middle-east has been a bloody mess and its about time Europe, Russia and the US set things straight because there's been nothing but chaos ever since.
That's pretty much the scope of it, except this time the objective is to completely remove the current government, which is a legal government of a sovereign nation.
I think the US/UK propaganda is quite entertaining, on how he's an oppressive dictator, and how his people want to overthrow him... I think it might be quite a shocker when Americans and Brits start coming home in body bags :(
i heard his sons shoot people and rape women and that its never publised in the news. Hey this apparently came from a ex CIA historian type fellow but i wouldn't know if its the truth.
Since WW1 and WW2 the middle-east has been a bloody mess and its about time Europe, Russia and the US set things straight because there's been nothing but chaos ever since.
Cbass
01-30-2003, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Monkey-Magic-S15-R
i heard his sons shoot people and rape women and that its never publised in the news. Hey this apparently came from a ex CIA historian type fellow but i wouldn't know if its the truth.
Possibly, I can't comment on that, I'm not well enough informed about them.
Originally posted by Monkey-Magic-S15-R
Since WW1 and WW2 the middle-east has been a bloody mess and its about time Europe, Russia and the US set things straight because there's been nothing but chaos ever since.
The reason the region has been a bloody mess is because of the meddling of the western world. I believe if we leave them to sort it out themselves, we might even see peace...
i heard his sons shoot people and rape women and that its never publised in the news. Hey this apparently came from a ex CIA historian type fellow but i wouldn't know if its the truth.
Possibly, I can't comment on that, I'm not well enough informed about them.
Originally posted by Monkey-Magic-S15-R
Since WW1 and WW2 the middle-east has been a bloody mess and its about time Europe, Russia and the US set things straight because there's been nothing but chaos ever since.
The reason the region has been a bloody mess is because of the meddling of the western world. I believe if we leave them to sort it out themselves, we might even see peace...
Monkey-Magic-S15-R
01-30-2003, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Cbass
The reason the region has been a bloody mess is because of the meddling of the western world. I believe if we leave them to sort it out themselves, we might even see peace...
ahh but its all linked to the ottoman empire when they united with Germany. They had to split the empire up so you are left with what you have today
The reason the region has been a bloody mess is because of the meddling of the western world. I believe if we leave them to sort it out themselves, we might even see peace...
ahh but its all linked to the ottoman empire when they united with Germany. They had to split the empire up so you are left with what you have today
Cbass
01-30-2003, 08:35 PM
While that played a part in it, it's minor compared to the influence of the British and the Americans who took their place.
Monkey-Magic-S15-R
01-30-2003, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Cbass
While that played a part in it, it's minor compared to the influence of the British and the Americans who took their place.
yea but basically it stems from that because the US, UK and russia carved up the land and divided it so they could each have some and control the power so that there wouldn't be another Ottoman empire. Then they decided to leave didn't tell them how to run it and left a nasty mess for the locals
While that played a part in it, it's minor compared to the influence of the British and the Americans who took their place.
yea but basically it stems from that because the US, UK and russia carved up the land and divided it so they could each have some and control the power so that there wouldn't be another Ottoman empire. Then they decided to leave didn't tell them how to run it and left a nasty mess for the locals
Darth Cypher
01-30-2003, 10:20 PM
Ok, I understand about "villifying" an enemy. One thing is that I don't believe that thing about Iraq doing that thing with the babies or whatever (I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about). However, he has shot his own generals, ALLEGEDLY (still only suspicion) of killing on of his son in laws. I have heard about one of his sons who abused women. He did gas his own people.
He has done good things for his country that is true but still..... Like I have before, this is someone who once said that America is a "society that cannot accept over 100,000 dead in one battle". And of course we can't because we do care about our soldiers.
The government might legally be there (from a certain point of view) but you have to admit those "elections" he had were a bit too much of a landslide.
He has done good things for his country that is true but still..... Like I have before, this is someone who once said that America is a "society that cannot accept over 100,000 dead in one battle". And of course we can't because we do care about our soldiers.
The government might legally be there (from a certain point of view) but you have to admit those "elections" he had were a bit too much of a landslide.
jon@af
01-30-2003, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
...However, he has shot his own generals...
...He did gas his own people...
...those "elections" he had were a bit too much of a landslide.
those are the reasons WHY he always wins the elections, everyone is afraid for their lives.
...However, he has shot his own generals...
...He did gas his own people...
...those "elections" he had were a bit too much of a landslide.
those are the reasons WHY he always wins the elections, everyone is afraid for their lives.
Cbass
01-31-2003, 05:04 AM
The Kurds are no more his people than the Gypsies are Czech people.
Really, it's all propaganda. Yes, he's a ruthless dictator, but no more than any dictator that the US is allied with, like the Sauds...
Really, it's all propaganda. Yes, he's a ruthless dictator, but no more than any dictator that the US is allied with, like the Sauds...
Monkey-Magic-S15-R
01-31-2003, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by Cbass
The Kurds are no more his people than the Gypsies are Czech people.
Really, it's all propaganda. Yes, he's a ruthless dictator, but no more than any dictator that the US is allied with, like the Sauds...
and the Gypsies in England .........honestly i really do hate Gypsies
The Kurds are no more his people than the Gypsies are Czech people.
Really, it's all propaganda. Yes, he's a ruthless dictator, but no more than any dictator that the US is allied with, like the Sauds...
and the Gypsies in England .........honestly i really do hate Gypsies
Cbass
01-31-2003, 09:07 PM
Everyone hates the Gypsies.
jon@af
01-31-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Cbass
Everyone hates the Gypsies.
Ive never met a Gypsie, so I really cant say that I hate them, but from the sound of them, I know I dont like them, if that makes any sense.
Everyone hates the Gypsies.
Ive never met a Gypsie, so I really cant say that I hate them, but from the sound of them, I know I dont like them, if that makes any sense.
Cbass
01-31-2003, 09:41 PM
That was somewhat in jest, but it's true... they're pretty universally hated, from what I've been told.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025