Nice try, buddy. I'll repeat the question and I will put the question into big capital letters so you will be able to read it: WHAT STATE DO YOU LIVE IN?
to answer the last question??? Or are you AFRAID to answer the question??? Please don't run away from us now!
ARogue/Optional777 apparently believes it was such a cakewalk that the French and British could each have done it on their own. As you have pointed out, he fails to see that it was our military's overwhelming numbers, massive air/artillery support, special forces, and training that carried us to victory. Leaflets and other propaganda were useful too, and the buildup and presence of our forces plus reminders of how we trounced their butts in Gulf War 1 were excellent psychological tools. That the Iraqis did not put up the resistance we expected does not mean they would do the same if they were facing a less formidable opponent than us. The Brits and French have nowhere near the manpower and equipment necessary to invade, defeat, and occupy a country like Iraq, certainly not in the time frame we accomplished it in and with the relatively low casualty rate. The British would probably make a decent go of it given their limited manpower and equipment, but the French would have turned around the first time their commandant's croissants failed to arrive in time for breakfast. They'd be screaming for Beau Geste the second some bullets came in their general direction. Rogue/Optional simply can't get over that it wasn't another Vietnam quagmire as most domestic opponents predicted it would be, and would prefer to present it as an incapable enemy instead of giving the deserved credit to a well-trained/equipped and highly motivated US military.
Since you asked, yes he would. He would also like to know if you fly "his way". Maverick, be careful with this postal psycho. It was THIS thread where he started out nolan-vinny-sam, and then continued the SAME argument as wiggle. A truly dumb thing as long as he's trying to hide his alias. He must have been distracted at the time, and I don't want to know what the distraction was!
Touche! However. The threat wasn't so much that Saddam, himself, was going to use them, as it was that, being as anti-US as he was, and given the changes in the post 9.11 world order, Saddam could no longer be trusted. At the time, it's not too much of a stretch to believe that, based on our best guesses, Iraq did possess such weapons. Personally, I don't see the failure to yet locate any as nearly as much of a fatal flaw as liberals do. The fact is that there had long been good arguments for taking out Saddam. Eventually, a confluence of factors emerged that provided the catalyst for going in. I'll also say that there are a sickening number of dimwitted peaceniks in the US, who simply cannot understand the concept of looking forward to tomorrow and that somes things you do to make a better world aren't always going to be 'by the book'. So I don't blame the administration for doing whatever it took to get public support for its actions. Yes, "freedom loving" peaceniks make great sounding legalistic arguments, but when you look at the bigger picture, or at least when I do, most of it just doesn't stack up. See my earlier post on this thread about why going to Iraq was an excellent decision.
if he's got a pussy, then he wouldn't qualify on your short list of available san fran gay blades. That's why you're upset, you're frustrated that you cannot find your latest man on an internet chat fight over politics. I'm sure your spanking your monkey right now at the news. Bad monkey!
I gave you my address. Now here is my phone number. (Mod Edit) Please do not post your personal information on any of the boards. Use PM for that. THANKS! Why don't you give me a call? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.