alo, for one thing what goes up must come down...

think, its somethig used to knock down planes not to bomb ground, it has very low explosive comparated with a real bomb. NO ONE BOMBS with SAMS. Do you kill flys with guns???

anyway, belive me that saddam is very happy because of your bombs at both parallels. you're doing "his work" and belive me that is not a joke.

I thought that Spain was on our side, am I mistaken?

Very ignorant statement that US and UK planes are bombing Kurds. Not too long ago a video was released showing an Iraqi SAM being fired at a US jet. In instances like that the US and UK will retaliate with taking out that SAM site and equally any C3 installation that are in the area.

Your talking none sense and I think there's quite a few military personnel past or present here that can see that very easily

And alo_cmr: read carefully.
Jolly said that the Iraqi SAM base were bombed. Not that SAM were being dropped from planes. You must have missread a bit.

alo, USA = United States of America, hence "America." Just as the United States of Mexico = Mexico, which celebrates the 16th of September, a date you should know about I think. The Americas = North, Central and South America. Since you're picky about your nomenclature.

Also, the Soviets' rush to Berlin in WWII was for a reason, not just to end the war. They wanted to get there before the other Allies to get what they could, territory, scientists, nuclear secrets, etc. (Some of the reasons became clearer with the opening of some of the former Soviet Union's records of that time.) And the Soviets treatment of the civilians of Berlin was not exactly humanitarian. (Of course, neither was their treatment of their own people, including Soviet citizens freed from German occupation.) Read up on it if you don't know. There was a reason before the war was over Germans who could, civilian and military, fled to the West to get to Brit and the American military forces rather than be overtaken by the Russians.

Liberty, Fraternity, Equality...yes, the French Revolution, noted for its moderation, Paxx. Inspired by whose example, although the execution (no pun intended) was considerably different? And if I recall correctly, France's support of the American revolution might have had a tad to do with its relationship with England. Not entirely because of the kingdom's commitment to the ideals of democracy and the overthrow of a king's rule. Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" was a bit of a hit in the colonies. Probably more of a best seller in the colonies than Rousseau's "Confessions." Although I assume you're probably thinking of "The Social Contract" and other works

If everyone was like you, Paxx, there would be no wars or violence. But as you know, everyone is not and hasn't been like you in the history of humankind. Turning the other cheek to Hitler would not have ended the Third Reich. And if you say, someone would put the killers in jail and bring them to justice, how? A "come along now" might work for some bobbies, but mostly law enforcement types carry weapons since folks prone to violence do not always come along quietly. Just an observation.

alo_cmr, it is not about oil for blood. In fact, we are going to go to extreme measures to save those oil fields so the revenue can go to taking care of the Iraqi people. Which is what Saddam was suppose to be doing all along instead of buying weapons. America does not need Iraqi oil. But I'd be willing to bet we'll buy a lot of it once this is over.

JollyFE

sig: I never said differently about the French revolution. We agree 100%.

About "the Americas" it may be a language thing. In French we just say "L'Amérique" (singular) to describe the whole continent (North and South), maybe it's the same in Spannish.

About wars. How about if nationnal armies were outlawed? Only have an International Law Enforcement forces that would be deployed only when necessary, that is when a country shows any sign of enroling a local militia. I'm sure that would keep most countries quiet and peaceful.

That wouldn't be feasible...for one and it just comes to me as the first thought is that an international force would have to reside in each conutry because an attack can occure in a matter of hours, a la Blitzkrieg.

You need to have a sustainable force defending your borders because ordering an army to go with super size fries like your at Burger King won't work.

In Brooklyn.

"I feel for you paxx because the day your faced with a life or death situation you would rather die then defend yourself even if it meant killing someone. If you have a girlfriend or wife I suggest you tell them that you plan on wimping out before hand so that if your ever faced with a life or death situation you'll turn and run."

I'm sorry Green - I like you as a person and all - but that statement shows some disgustedly narrowminded thinking. Because a person has ideals or views that differ from your own that instantly makes them a coward or a wimp? Personally, I think in today's world where violence is a glorified ratings-grabbing thing, that it's good to see people who still possess personal ideals such as these. In case you forget, these same ideals were held by other notables throughout history: Ghandi, The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr... Oh, and these other two that you just might know. Jesus and Buddha.

Just my 2 cents... one other quick post and I'm done - I really hate getting involved in threads like these.

"About wars. How about if nationnal armies were outlawed? Only have an International Law Enforcement forces that would be deployed only when necessary, that is when a country shows any sign of enroling a local militia. I'm sure that would keep most countries quiet and peaceful."

Isn't that what Hitler wanted to do?

And obviously the UN isn't effective in being any type of deterant to the likes of Saddam Hussain and Bin Laden and his rag tag crew...

It's ok though... France never has to pick up a weapon and stand up for itself or for any other body of people in need. Once again, the onus is on us. I mean hey, France basically gave Iraq the means and methods to produce nuclear weapons to Iraq.

And it was the Iranians who initially bombed it, and the Isreali's finished the job. In a one breath sentence, the Iranians had more common sense than the French did. and isn't it good to know that good ole Chirack is still in control of France and trying to be dictator, of the EU.... (Over my dead body he will)

Providing Iraq with Nuclear capabilities, and people are supposed to listen to that idiot? I was born on a day, but it sure as hell wasn't yesterday.