![]() |
|
June 12, 2003
U.S. forces move against Iraqi resistance
International Herald Tribune: THULUIYA, Iraq - American forces on Wednesday engaged in their largest combat operation in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, with more than 3,000 soldiers backed by fighter jets, armored vehicles and patrol boats surrounding a 30-square-mile peninsula north of Baghdad that is said to harbor gunmen attacking American soldiers.Full story »» Posted By Willie Galang at June 12, 2003 07:27 AM | TrackBack Yo! Operation Sunni Monday! Posted by: eliot at June 12, 2003 08:01 AManything on an F-16 and Apache being shot down heard a Col. say that wemen and childern are VF - They're takin' a baath. Don'll be visitin' soon, lettin' us ALL know how the RKBA folks are gettin' upset for us takin' 'personal protection' away from law-abidin' Iraqis. Right, DON? Posted by: Dave Dubé at June 12, 2003 09:09 AMAccording to CentCom reports, the Apache was shot down and the crew escaped pretty much unharmed. The F-16 was not shot down, but went down because of mechanical failure. The pilot was recovered later, after ejecting. Posted by: Don at June 12, 2003 10:54 AMfor DaveD: Son, if it is not clear to you that Arms Possession is the Surest Single Protection Against Tyranny, then you haven't been keeping up on the gun fondler sites. It is Known that gun possession was very high indeed in the period prior to the Liberation of Iraq. Gun sales across the counter -- without benefit of background checks or any other Statist Oppression -- were high enough to be reported widely in the meeja all over the USofAye. So, apparently it worked, yes? Since there were guns all over the place, including Military Arms in the hands of a civilian populace, then it stands to reason that there just Couldn't have been Statist Tyranny. The Armed Populace would surely have thrown it down in an instant. Now, the Coalition Liberation Forces have instituted Gun Control. It was going to be somewhat more stringent at first, until it was discovered that they simply couldn't do it, so they backed off some later. And if you can't see just a little Irony in that discussion, you need a new stone to hide under. Iraqis are allowed to retain an assault rifle and a side arm. Thats more than most Americans are allowed these days. The confiscation has been aimed at heavy weapons and grenades. Posted by: Mark Buehner at June 12, 2003 11:28 AMHey Mark, Yea, confiscating thier RPG's and Grenades! those bastards, It is my GOD(Charlton Heston, same difference) given right to carry a shoulder mounted missle launcher in my home for my protection. Assault rifles are fine for keeping the kids off the lawn but wont do shit to an elephant, We NEED our RPG's. Next thing you know the coalition will be confiscating thier anti-door to door salesman land mines. Youll pry my bouncing betty from my cold dead hands! Posted by: Ronin at June 12, 2003 11:48 AMThat's right Ronin! The first inalienable right: LIFE! I should not be denied anything i deem necessary for the protection of my life, be it a M1A1 or my own personal nuke in a monogrammed suitcase. Posted by: Wafflestomper at June 12, 2003 12:55 PMDufusDON! Is that all it took to goad your worthless chadcovered ASS out from underneath your rock? LMAO. You are one bitter, old fart, you know that SONnyboy? Notice the post by Mark Buehner, Commander, and some ample return fire on your worthless chadded ASS by none other than our well-equipped Ronin and Wafflestomper of 'LAUGHedMyChad-OFF' fame. Too bad they didn't take the CHAD missiles away from US!! LMAO. OBTW, DON. A big twenty-one gun (make that one AK fully-loaded, with a side of .45s) salute to Dave Dubé for lightin' that fusé hangin' outta that CHADcovered ASS you got hangin' way out there! Posted by: Cap'n CHAD at June 12, 2003 01:30 PMIn a February 1998 speech, President Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush. Clinton went on to insist, in words now poignant, that the world had to address the "kind of threat Iraq poses . . . a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who travel the world among us unnoticed." I think Bush said that, too. So if you like a good conspiracy, this one's a doozy. And the best thing about it is that if all these people are lying, there's only one person who ever told the truth: Saddam Hussein. And now we can't find him either. Sure Don, they were innocent civilian iraqis sitting around on a lazy hot day in the shade, taking pot shots at soldiers, it's their right. Posted by: Alvin at June 12, 2003 01:33 PMHey Don, Gun ownership is neither a neccessary or sufficient condition for a democratic/"free" society, no matter what the gun fetishists tell you. Nor is gun ownership the bane of all human existance either, as the anti-gun fetishists would tell you. Both crowds are suffused with ideas that can only be put under the label "technological determinist non-sense." Posted by: Jacques at June 12, 2003 05:58 PMJacques! You be pickin' up some good bytes here! Don't forget these - ALWAYS point it in a safe direction, and A gun is ALWAYS loaded, even when it ain't. Cuz about the time you think it ain't, IT IS. Posted by: Dave Dubé at June 12, 2003 06:11 PMDave Dube, I look at this way, if, as a gun owner, the only way I have to defend my liberty against the government is to fight them with my .357, etc., then I haven't paying attention, and I am up shit crik w/o a paddle. :) In other words, the reason that the NRA has clout, as well as the AARP, GreenPeace, etc., is that their members vote, not because they own guns, carry placards, etc. Posted by: Jacques at June 12, 2003 06:15 PMDave, JACQUES! You vote? Good man! Talk to your friends, especially the French ones. How come when I say CHIRAC it feels like I got sumpin' stuck in my throat? Like a furball or sumpin? Curious. :-) social worker, Sometimes an individual will call a person "son" even when that is not the case - sometimes it is meant affectionately (as when an older gentleman asks a boy of say age 13 to help him with his groceries), at other times it is meant as an insult ("boy" is also used similarly). Posted by: Jacques at June 12, 2003 06:23 PMDave Dube, I vote for Chirac; rather him than fascist Petain-loving le Pen. Chirac will be out of power in 2007, and then he retires (France doesn't have term limitations, but generally a President never runs for more than two terms). Posted by: Jacques at June 12, 2003 06:25 PMSocial Worker - How many hours do you have? Curious. DufusDon? He had a following out in Florida over some CHAD or somethin' like that. It's a bitter GOREy pill he has to swallow, and he doesn't take his OTHER medication on time, either. He and Dave Dubé? They got nothin' in common, especially their family tree. :-) Jacques - le Pen? Which side of the French Love Boat is he hangin' on? Port or Starboard? French Politics. Ain't sure I can discuss much about that topic. I thought you folks were into that Socialist touchy-feely-we're-all-in-this-together stuff. Correct me if I'm in error. Posted by: Dave Dubé at June 12, 2003 06:30 PMDavid, le Pen is the leader of the National Front; they are known for their anti-semitism mostly, though they also tend to be for protectionism, are rabidly Gallican, and the like. le Pen is much like say Pat Buchanan, or a milder version of David Duke. Chirac is a Gaullist - they are center-right, free-market types, who also push for an independent French FP. Surprisingly they are more like Republicans than most assume. Chirac is currently the President, and his party holds the majority of the seats in the Parliament (made up of the National Assembly (direct popular election) & the Senate (indirectly elected)). As his party holds power in the Parliament (which is slightly unusual, like both parties have power in the Congress & the Presidency in the US), he gets to pick the PM - the PM is currently a fellow named Raffarin. Raffarin is the one trying to de-centralize education, create pension reform, lengthen the work week, sell-off state owned industries (France has been very successful at the latter over the past decade), etc. Jospin (the former PM until 2002, who was defeated in 2002 Presidential election in the first round) is a socialist, the other main party in France. The, are well, socialists - they prefer a lot of guardrails, a larger paternalistic, state, etc. There are also a bunch of smaller parties ranging from libertarians to communists to animal rights to catholic parties. Posted by: Jacques at June 12, 2003 06:43 PMThe latter being the equivalent of, say, Ralph Nader's party, right? Posted by: Wolf at June 12, 2003 07:35 PMHey Jacque? Which one burns the most Synagogues? Just kidding!!! !! !!! ahuh huh huh ha hmmmm..... Posted by: devils chewtoy at June 12, 2003 09:01 PMBetter question : Which one burns mosques? Devil's Chewtoy - you are sick and twisted. There. I said it. Posted by: Dave Dubé at June 12, 2003 09:06 PM>>>>>American forces on Wednesday engaged in their largest combat operation in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, with more than 3,000 soldiers backed by fighter jets, armored vehicles and patrol boats surrounding a 30-square-mile peninsula north of Baghdad that is said to harbor gunmen attacking American soldiers. Isn't this exactly what the Israelis should do with the Hamas????????? JMHO Yeah, that's what they call his party here, too. Hey Capn shrink, David, Oh, and I should mention also the current Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who may be Chirac's replacement in 2007 (if he wins the Presidential election then) and is considered the, hmm, Reagan of France. He has definately won much poularity with his law & order campaign in the last year; cracking down on much of the street violence and the like that worried France so much in 2002. Posted by: Jacques at June 13, 2003 02:12 AMJacques, does that mean he's a mosk burner? That seems to be were alot of that street violence in comming from. Posted by: Bubba at June 13, 2003 09:58 AMPost a comment
|