rhino 0 #76 February 8, 2003 QuoteAsk yourself which is the greater threat - a man who cannot move out of his country, a man who knows that he will be utterly destroyed if any trace of a terrorist activity is shown to be his doing, or a man who has proven he can take out buildings, who can evade the best the US can throw at him, and who is completely invisible? While you have a good point the Iraq border is VERY big.. And he doesn't and won't hesitate to sell or give away WMD's. Especially if he knows they will be used on the US.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasterfaller 0 #77 February 8, 2003 QuoteAt least if nukes are used you will be able to peer through the glass and see where the oil is?? ***If that's a joke, it's not funny.Quote I thought it was funny . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Iflyme 0 #78 February 8, 2003 QuoteWe are in the #1 seat in the world. You are self-appointed. The rest of the world didn't choose you as leader. That what the U-N is for. Now maybe you don't like the U-n ... but remember: the rest of the world doesn't necessarily like the USA directing global policy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #79 February 8, 2003 QuoteYou are self-appointed. The rest of the world didn't choose you as leader. That what the U-N is for. Now maybe you don't like the U-n ... but remember: the rest of the world doesn't necessarily like the USA directing global policy. The UN is a joke.. Apparently the US doesn't give a fuck what the UN thinks because we are going in anyways. The US is being terrorized.. Not the UN.. Get real.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JJohnson 0 #80 February 8, 2003 Don't take me out of context. I meant in military might. Anytime any other country wants to claim global leadership have at. I'd like to hear all the other countries pissing and moaning about someone else for change anyway. Anytime someone needs help, the U.S. chips in. When we destroy someone, we dole out money to rebuild them. No matter what the U.S. does, we get critized for it.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites misskriss 0 #81 February 8, 2003 QuoteNo matter what the U.S. does, we get critized for it. That's the truth...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JJohnson 0 #82 February 8, 2003 Bin Laden is the guy in the field. Hussein is the whacko in the background who will fund shit to let Bin Laden harm us. And if it ain't Hussein and Bin Laden there are few dozen others that would take their place.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JJohnson 0 #83 February 8, 2003 No they are strangled by politicians who won't let them win, by any means available. The goal of a war is to win. Not to kill as many as possible. Cut off the head and let the body die. The only time that your concept of war holds true is when nukes are used. Yes in mass battle you need to fight en mass. But if given the chance to divide and conquer, to rob the military of it's leadership you take it. Trying all the other options is fine. But waiting another 10 years is stupid. If it takes him.them 10 years to comply, they are only stalling for time to relocate their power base and fortify their positions. Now will innocent people die? yes. But if they wanted to do something about it, they would have. The majority of their population sides with him, not against.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Iflyme 0 #84 February 8, 2003 QuoteThe UN is a joke.. Apparently the US doesn't give a fuck what the UN thinks because we are going in anyways. The US is being terrorized.. Not the UN.. Get real.. Yeah ... it attitudes like yours that earn a great deal of disrespect for your country from others around the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JJohnson 0 #85 February 8, 2003 Again, Saddam is. He runs a country. One with wealth. He does not need to leave his country to fund shit, to put plans into motion. He knows he cannot stand up to us in an armed confrontation. Does that leave him powerless? Bin Laden couldn't leave Afghanistan and look what he did. Like Bin Laden has access to anything Hussien doesn't? If Hussien can fund anything that will hurt us, he will. He don't need 20 years, he probably has plans laid already for more dickless terrorists to do shit the minute things don't go his way. I am not comparing him to North Kores either, so I'm not sure where you drag that in from. We will deal with that when the time comes. Perhaps a show of force here will let North Korea know we are not willing to back down. If we play pussy with Iraq, maybe North Korea will think they can get away with whatever they want? Saddam may not be the biggest threat to us, but he makes top 5. And he is the one that is overdue to be rectified.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JJohnson 0 #86 February 8, 2003 You said forgtten, not liberated. And lets be real, we don't really care what they do with their country. If so we should have "liberated" them years ago. It's not like theri poor situation developed overnight. We went there for one reason only. To get Bin Laden. We failed. Now it is in our best interest to help them for sure. I hope we do, most sincerely. But I agree with you. We will probably move onto the next bullshit crisis.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #87 February 8, 2003 QuoteQuoteWe are in the #1 seat in the world. You are self-appointed. The rest of the world didn't choose you as leader. That what the U-N is for. Now maybe you don't like the U-n ... but remember: the rest of the world doesn't necessarily like the USA directing global policy. The world did choose us, and several times when we didn't want it either (WWI, WWII) a couple of times when we were directly affected (Korea), when we were asked (Barbados, Kuwait) and times when noone would do anything (Balkans). Nevermind the leverage we gave to NATO. No, for the majority of the 20th Century, the United States was trying to "stay out of it". It was the enlightened world that chose to bring us into it. The giant has been awoken for the final time.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 20 #88 February 8, 2003 QuoteThe UN is a joke.. Apparently the US doesn't give a fuck what the UN thinks because we are going in anyways. The US is being terrorized.. Not the UN.. Get real.. The UN is lacking power only since they are lacking funds to beable to finance projects. Take a guess at what member is the furthest behind in paying their dues? The US. In 1996 we owed $926 million in back dues, in 2001 we payed back $582 Million under the assumption it was to be used directly to fight terrorism. The US was removed from one UN committe and being in debt played a part in not winning the election to be on the anti-drug committe. The UN is weak since we won't support it.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #89 February 8, 2003 QuoteThe UN is weak since we won't support it. Is it worth supporting? After all, it was the UN that voted Libya to head the Human Rights Committee. Should the US contribute general dues which will support committees like that? I wouldn't want it to.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,588 #90 February 8, 2003 The world is probably a better place with the UN than it is without it. It's a forum for countries that disagree to at least try to talk about it. Not to mention that if you belong to an organization whose intent is, in part, to stop war, it might just give you some incentive to hesitate before doing anything really stupid. I doubt that any country thinks it's perfect. But then again, just like I pay my taxes even during the years that someone I disagree with is Mayor, Governor, President, or whatever, the US should pay their dues. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ColdDuck 0 #91 February 8, 2003 QuoteThe world is probably a better place with the UN than it is without it. It's a forum for countries that disagree to at least try to talk about it. Not to mention that if you belong to an organization whose intent is, in part, to stop war, it might just give you some incentive to hesitate before doing anything really stupid. I doubt that any country thinks it's perfect. But then again, just like I pay my taxes even during the years that someone I disagree with is Mayor, Governor, President, or whatever, the US should pay their dues. Wendy W. Couldn't have said it better myself!! "Insurance should called In case shit happens, if shit don't happen shouldn't I get my money back?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #92 February 8, 2003 QuoteThe world is probably a better place with the UN than it is without it. It's a forum for countries that disagree to at least try to talk about it. Not to mention that if you belong to an organization whose intent is, in part, to stop war, it might just give you some incentive to hesitate before doing anything really stupid. I doubt that any country thinks it's perfect. But then again, just like I pay my taxes even during the years that someone I disagree with is Mayor, Governor, President, or whatever, the US should pay their dues. Very well put indeed. However, I'm wondering if it isn't time for an evolution in the process. A "forum" is all well an good, but if it doesn't serve the interests at hand why continue? I wonder if focused alliances aren't more efficient. As taxpayers, we have a vote, and a voice. Our leaders are servants and they govern. The UNs role is not to govern. Its representatives are servants to their political leadership. When our leadership is called into account, there is a mechanism to impeach, or censure. The leadership may resign. Even better, the "flaws" are discovered during a campaign and the representative isn't elected. Sometime we don't care (i.e. non-inhaling Clinton, or don't drink anymore Bush, both issues which kept Kennedy, Hart and others from becoming President). In the UNs case, it allows itself to be stalled, and it openly accepts serious flaws in its leadership (i.e. my aforementioned example). I'm curious too about what the Organization of American States has to say (if anything).So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ColdDuck 0 #93 February 8, 2003 Very well put indeed. However, I'm wondering if it isn't time for an evolution in the process. A "forum" is all well an good, but if it doesn't serve the interests at hand why continue? I wonder if focused alliances aren't more efficient. The UN was created because it was alliances that many felt were the root causes of WWI an WWII. What do you mean by it does not serve the interests at hand? As taxpayers, we have a vote, and a voice. Our leaders are servants and they govern. The UNs role is not to govern. Its representatives are servants to their political leadership. When our leadership is called into account, there is a mechanism to impeach, or censure. The leadership may resign. Even better, the "flaws" are discovered during a campaign and the representative isn't elected. Sometime we don't care (i.e. non-inhaling Clinton, or don't drink anymore Bush, both issues which kept Kennedy, Hart and others from becoming President). In the UNs case, it allows itself to be stalled, and it openly accepts serious flaws in its leadership (i.e. my aforementioned example). I'm curious too about what the Organization of American States has to say (if anything). "Insurance should called In case shit happens, if shit don't happen shouldn't I get my money back?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #78 February 8, 2003 QuoteWe are in the #1 seat in the world. You are self-appointed. The rest of the world didn't choose you as leader. That what the U-N is for. Now maybe you don't like the U-n ... but remember: the rest of the world doesn't necessarily like the USA directing global policy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #79 February 8, 2003 QuoteYou are self-appointed. The rest of the world didn't choose you as leader. That what the U-N is for. Now maybe you don't like the U-n ... but remember: the rest of the world doesn't necessarily like the USA directing global policy. The UN is a joke.. Apparently the US doesn't give a fuck what the UN thinks because we are going in anyways. The US is being terrorized.. Not the UN.. Get real.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #80 February 8, 2003 Don't take me out of context. I meant in military might. Anytime any other country wants to claim global leadership have at. I'd like to hear all the other countries pissing and moaning about someone else for change anyway. Anytime someone needs help, the U.S. chips in. When we destroy someone, we dole out money to rebuild them. No matter what the U.S. does, we get critized for it.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
misskriss 0 #81 February 8, 2003 QuoteNo matter what the U.S. does, we get critized for it. That's the truth...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #82 February 8, 2003 Bin Laden is the guy in the field. Hussein is the whacko in the background who will fund shit to let Bin Laden harm us. And if it ain't Hussein and Bin Laden there are few dozen others that would take their place.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #83 February 8, 2003 No they are strangled by politicians who won't let them win, by any means available. The goal of a war is to win. Not to kill as many as possible. Cut off the head and let the body die. The only time that your concept of war holds true is when nukes are used. Yes in mass battle you need to fight en mass. But if given the chance to divide and conquer, to rob the military of it's leadership you take it. Trying all the other options is fine. But waiting another 10 years is stupid. If it takes him.them 10 years to comply, they are only stalling for time to relocate their power base and fortify their positions. Now will innocent people die? yes. But if they wanted to do something about it, they would have. The majority of their population sides with him, not against.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #84 February 8, 2003 QuoteThe UN is a joke.. Apparently the US doesn't give a fuck what the UN thinks because we are going in anyways. The US is being terrorized.. Not the UN.. Get real.. Yeah ... it attitudes like yours that earn a great deal of disrespect for your country from others around the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #85 February 8, 2003 Again, Saddam is. He runs a country. One with wealth. He does not need to leave his country to fund shit, to put plans into motion. He knows he cannot stand up to us in an armed confrontation. Does that leave him powerless? Bin Laden couldn't leave Afghanistan and look what he did. Like Bin Laden has access to anything Hussien doesn't? If Hussien can fund anything that will hurt us, he will. He don't need 20 years, he probably has plans laid already for more dickless terrorists to do shit the minute things don't go his way. I am not comparing him to North Kores either, so I'm not sure where you drag that in from. We will deal with that when the time comes. Perhaps a show of force here will let North Korea know we are not willing to back down. If we play pussy with Iraq, maybe North Korea will think they can get away with whatever they want? Saddam may not be the biggest threat to us, but he makes top 5. And he is the one that is overdue to be rectified.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #86 February 8, 2003 You said forgtten, not liberated. And lets be real, we don't really care what they do with their country. If so we should have "liberated" them years ago. It's not like theri poor situation developed overnight. We went there for one reason only. To get Bin Laden. We failed. Now it is in our best interest to help them for sure. I hope we do, most sincerely. But I agree with you. We will probably move onto the next bullshit crisis.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #87 February 8, 2003 QuoteQuoteWe are in the #1 seat in the world. You are self-appointed. The rest of the world didn't choose you as leader. That what the U-N is for. Now maybe you don't like the U-n ... but remember: the rest of the world doesn't necessarily like the USA directing global policy. The world did choose us, and several times when we didn't want it either (WWI, WWII) a couple of times when we were directly affected (Korea), when we were asked (Barbados, Kuwait) and times when noone would do anything (Balkans). Nevermind the leverage we gave to NATO. No, for the majority of the 20th Century, the United States was trying to "stay out of it". It was the enlightened world that chose to bring us into it. The giant has been awoken for the final time.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #88 February 8, 2003 QuoteThe UN is a joke.. Apparently the US doesn't give a fuck what the UN thinks because we are going in anyways. The US is being terrorized.. Not the UN.. Get real.. The UN is lacking power only since they are lacking funds to beable to finance projects. Take a guess at what member is the furthest behind in paying their dues? The US. In 1996 we owed $926 million in back dues, in 2001 we payed back $582 Million under the assumption it was to be used directly to fight terrorism. The US was removed from one UN committe and being in debt played a part in not winning the election to be on the anti-drug committe. The UN is weak since we won't support it.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #89 February 8, 2003 QuoteThe UN is weak since we won't support it. Is it worth supporting? After all, it was the UN that voted Libya to head the Human Rights Committee. Should the US contribute general dues which will support committees like that? I wouldn't want it to.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #90 February 8, 2003 The world is probably a better place with the UN than it is without it. It's a forum for countries that disagree to at least try to talk about it. Not to mention that if you belong to an organization whose intent is, in part, to stop war, it might just give you some incentive to hesitate before doing anything really stupid. I doubt that any country thinks it's perfect. But then again, just like I pay my taxes even during the years that someone I disagree with is Mayor, Governor, President, or whatever, the US should pay their dues. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ColdDuck 0 #91 February 8, 2003 QuoteThe world is probably a better place with the UN than it is without it. It's a forum for countries that disagree to at least try to talk about it. Not to mention that if you belong to an organization whose intent is, in part, to stop war, it might just give you some incentive to hesitate before doing anything really stupid. I doubt that any country thinks it's perfect. But then again, just like I pay my taxes even during the years that someone I disagree with is Mayor, Governor, President, or whatever, the US should pay their dues. Wendy W. Couldn't have said it better myself!! "Insurance should called In case shit happens, if shit don't happen shouldn't I get my money back?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #92 February 8, 2003 QuoteThe world is probably a better place with the UN than it is without it. It's a forum for countries that disagree to at least try to talk about it. Not to mention that if you belong to an organization whose intent is, in part, to stop war, it might just give you some incentive to hesitate before doing anything really stupid. I doubt that any country thinks it's perfect. But then again, just like I pay my taxes even during the years that someone I disagree with is Mayor, Governor, President, or whatever, the US should pay their dues. Very well put indeed. However, I'm wondering if it isn't time for an evolution in the process. A "forum" is all well an good, but if it doesn't serve the interests at hand why continue? I wonder if focused alliances aren't more efficient. As taxpayers, we have a vote, and a voice. Our leaders are servants and they govern. The UNs role is not to govern. Its representatives are servants to their political leadership. When our leadership is called into account, there is a mechanism to impeach, or censure. The leadership may resign. Even better, the "flaws" are discovered during a campaign and the representative isn't elected. Sometime we don't care (i.e. non-inhaling Clinton, or don't drink anymore Bush, both issues which kept Kennedy, Hart and others from becoming President). In the UNs case, it allows itself to be stalled, and it openly accepts serious flaws in its leadership (i.e. my aforementioned example). I'm curious too about what the Organization of American States has to say (if anything).So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ColdDuck 0 #93 February 8, 2003 Very well put indeed. However, I'm wondering if it isn't time for an evolution in the process. A "forum" is all well an good, but if it doesn't serve the interests at hand why continue? I wonder if focused alliances aren't more efficient. The UN was created because it was alliances that many felt were the root causes of WWI an WWII. What do you mean by it does not serve the interests at hand? As taxpayers, we have a vote, and a voice. Our leaders are servants and they govern. The UNs role is not to govern. Its representatives are servants to their political leadership. When our leadership is called into account, there is a mechanism to impeach, or censure. The leadership may resign. Even better, the "flaws" are discovered during a campaign and the representative isn't elected. Sometime we don't care (i.e. non-inhaling Clinton, or don't drink anymore Bush, both issues which kept Kennedy, Hart and others from becoming President). In the UNs case, it allows itself to be stalled, and it openly accepts serious flaws in its leadership (i.e. my aforementioned example). I'm curious too about what the Organization of American States has to say (if anything). "Insurance should called In case shit happens, if shit don't happen shouldn't I get my money back?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #94 February 8, 2003 Then you come down to the situation where one of its members feels one way but a lot of others feel another way. Just since that one person/state is not getting the resullts that they want does that mean the process is flawed, or does it mean that that person/country needs to accept that they are in the minority on that issue and deal with the choices of others? Americans are acting like this is the first terrorist attack ever, guess what.. the rest of the world has been livign with this for years. France used to be attacked by North African terrorist groups all the time. Did they just insist on invading places? No, the listened to why people were mad and what they government could do to deal with that issue. For America there are a lot of options in dealing with the Middle East. One option (not that this is my choice) is just to pull completely out. No more bases in Saudi, Kuwait, Isreal, Egypt... any of them.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #95 February 8, 2003 Well said. The U.N. is about as effective as its ancestor the League of Nations. Great concept, but not effective due to the players involved are not gathered for a higher purpose but to voice their own countries ideals and agendas. Again, all other shit aside Iraq rates a whooping. Unless they do a real quick turnaround I don't see it being avoided. Bill Von, I respect you, but I don't think the powers that be are gonna give them another 10 years. Saddam and Co. may or may not be the most dangerous threat of the minute. But I don't want to wait around to find out either. Maybe life would be easier if our civilizations were run by a warchief. And he had to be the biggest and baddest fighter of the group. Then when war broke out, the two warchiefs got together and duked it out. At least that way the body count goes up slower. Maybe we made killing too easy and impersonal. Pull a trigger, push a button. Maybe we go back to swords, at least then we gotta look our enemy in the eye to kill him. It's funny, we all know killing is wrong. Yet none of us are willing to lower our guard for fear of someone else breaking the rules. Pacifism is a wonderful concept that gets blown out of the water by one person willing to use violence. Once the line is crossed the arms race begins. Mankind has been doing this shit since the day we crawled from the ocean. Maybe its in our nature to be hateful, spiteful, arrogant and proud. Don't none of you other countries try to claim innocent either. You all are as fucked up as the rest of us supposed civilized nations. I don't know the answers, but I gots lots of questions.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freefallfreak 0 #96 February 8, 2003 Just a thought here - late at night when most sane people are supposed to be asleep. How would one know if he didn't like war if he never experienced it? "I have a friend" that went to war - undeclared war at the time, and stayed far too long. He was a very peaceful person growing up but when he got back, the change was awesome. A question was posed one day, after "my friend" came back - "Why did you keep volunteering to go back to Hell?" The reply chilled me to the bone - "I began to like it." Understand, I've seen it first hand. But what about the people that have not - the ones that cry "peace at any price"? Knowing that life, under a regime such as the one mentioned at the start of this thread, could lead to life unbearable, would you go to war? Just a thought, ppl...I'm too old to make war anymore. That's a young man's game and I couldn't keep up any longer, but I believe with all my heart, I'd try my best... FFF It's lonely at the top....but you eat better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faber 0 #97 February 8, 2003 QuoteThey are a poor country with an abusive leader that many would not be willing to fight for Dont underrest your enemy,they will then win.. The people of N.Korea would probaly defend their cuntry.US lost last time.. Quote shouldn't attack N. Korea or Iraq without the support of the majority on the U.N. The evidence against S:Hussin,are strong enough to convince UN by now,there will be a war. Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faber 0 #98 February 8, 2003 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The UN is a joke.. Apparently the US doesn't give a fuck what the UN thinks because we are going in anyways. The US is being terrorized.. Not the UN.. Get real.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah ... it attitudes like yours that earn a great deal of disrespect for your country from others around the world. Yes thats why so many hat US... Sorry to say,but i dont think US will understand before they get a war in their own backyard..And dont count WTC.Why should the world feel whit US over a los like that?I feel alot for thour people who got inwolwed that day. Why should the world support US when they do it any way whatever we says.. Sorry too long ago since US had a war in their own cuntry,its like a video game to you.. Dont play whit stones when you live in glass.. About that S.Hussin and Bin Laden...they aint together,even your own people says that.. Get Bin Larden before you start alot other wars..Try finish one and help thouse people instead of moving on to the next war... Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #99 February 8, 2003 QuoteQuoteYeah, and that's what's really stupid about this whole escalation. Don't call me a tree-huggin' hippy or anything, but do that many people really need to die (on both sides) because we *think* he *might* have WMD and *might* use them? He has used them. He has used them on his own people. He continues to test them on his own people, as outlined by Powell's speech on Wednesday. It appears that quite a bit of Powell's speech came from a 9-year old PhD thesis.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #100 February 8, 2003 www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/07/1044579931896.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
