Re: So, you pile excuse on excuse on excuse?

Post #91,057 by cybermace5 3/24/03 1:17:02 PM Reply	Re: So, you pile excuse on excuse on excuse? > "no organised resistance"? Those are MILITARY UNITS with MILITARY EQUIPMENT. > You don't get more "organised" than that. Oh...wow. I had thought you were capable of rational thought and debate, but that comment just tossed my little theory out the window. You honestly have no clue. Maybe it's a point of pride for you to have no idea how wars are run, but it should be obvious that merely having guys with guns is not organization. Study some of the great military actions of history, and you'll find that the key to an effective resistance is fast communication, precise distribution of troops and resources, high-level coordination from one or a few individuals, creative tactics that allow flexibility in all possible situations, and keeping the enemy off-balance while giving your troops the advantage. Saddam Hussein and top Iraqi leadership is skilled at military efforts, having practiced on their own people. So far there has been NO sign of top-level coordination, just pockets of resistance where an especially devoted commander has managed to form up troops. Guys + guns <> organised.
Post #91,063 by Brandioch 3/24/03 1:35:42 PM Reply	Vietnam One by one, I take apart your excuses. First was why Saddam wasn't deploying nuke/chem/bio. Then it was how to decon a bombed VX site. Then it was whether Saddam was alive after the missile strike. Now I will educate you on war. Study some of the great military actions of history, and you'll find that the key to an effective resistance is fast communication, precise distribution of troops and resources, high-level coordination from one or a few individuals, creative tactics that allow flexibility in all possible situations, and keeping the enemy off-balance while giving your troops the advantage. Vietnam. Our communications were MUCH better than VC's. They had to rely upon runners to bring supplies/intel. They didn't have ANY "high-level coordination". Their "flexibility" was how fast/far they could run. Oh, now you're going to post more excuses on why Vietnam is a bad example. We spend 300x more on our military than Iraq does. They cannot defeat our military. All they can do is wear us down over time. It's call a "quagmire". Saddam learned from the last war. We are now facing smaller, more flexible units that can merge with the civilian population surrounding them.
Post #91,076 by cybermace5 3/24/03 2:42:18 PM Reply	Big difference Vietnam was an internal collapse of the U.S. government. The military wanted to supply enough troops and effort to finish the job, but our president mushed out and only supplied enough to keep the war going longer than it should have. Did not have the guts to stare Communism eyeball to eyeball.
Post #91,082 by ChrisR 3/24/03 2:59:39 PM Reply	Parallels... I think we had sufficient troops and equipment in Vietnam. The constraint was whether we would breach the North/South line in efforts to win the war - i.e. it remained a defensive war of attrition. And any mush out that occured was due to the Americans not wanting direct military confrontation with the Russian and Chinese governments. Oh well. Maybe had we spent another couple of billion dollars, we could have won the war. Wonder if it's too late in the game to rectify our lack of will?
Post #91,083 by ChrisR 3/24/03 3:12:37 PM Reply	And one other thought... ...the main lesson that the military got from Vietnam is that before using force, you better (a) clearly define the objectives; (b) establish a "military" plan for achieving those objectives; (c) not place constraints on the military that prevents it from doing it's job. One thing that I notice is that we've got some heavy duty constraints on our military in Iraq: (1) Try and keep civilian casualties to a bare minimum; (2) Don't piss of the natives; (3) save the oilfields; (4) Save the infrastructure; (5) minimize American casualties; (6) Do all this within a very, very, very short amount of time; (7). Keep the scuds/missles from being launched at the neighbors in Kuwait, Saudi, and Israel. There's probably some additional constraints that I'm not thinking of. A lot of these constraints are also based on Political objectives - not Military. Which is probably where I'd draw more of a parallel with Vietnam. Practically every military objective was accomplished in Vietnam. The problem was that not one of the political objectives was met.
Post #91,085 by ChrisR 3/24/03 3:20:21 PM Reply	And another... ...Guess I should have thought it out..but... I forgot to mention that many of the constraints I cited have also been turned in Political Objectives.
Post #91,092 by Brandioch 3/24/03 3:32:17 PM Reply	+10 for insight. Complete agreement!
Post #91,087 by deSitter 3/24/03 3:23:04 PM Reply	Re: Parallels... The Vietnamese respect us because we didn't carpet bomb their cities (as a rule - Linebacker excepted). If we had, the victory would have been swift. The purpose was not to win, but to not lose. Didn't work out. -drl
Post #91,086 by Brandioch 3/24/03 3:21:41 PM Reply	How many WOULD have been sufficient? We lost how many troops? Yet you claim we didn't have ENOUGH troops. Like I said, another excuse. So, how many troops WOULD have been sufficient? And, since the VC did not have ANY of the requirements you posted, why weren't the troops we DID supply sufficient to take the country? The only proof is prediction. You claim that certain elements MUST be present to defend a country. I give an example where those elements were NOT present and the defense was successful. Therefore........... The US did not allocate sufficient troops/equipment to take the country. Despite over 50,000+ US troops being killed. So, your requirements are meaningless. As for not allocating sufficient troops, here in Seattle, you can't throw a rock without hitting a Vietnam vet.
Post #91,091 by ChrisR 3/24/03 3:31:14 PM Reply	The biggest difference.... ...between Vietnam and the current situation is that there is not another superpower in the background supporting the opposition. Just as we reciprocated in Afghanistan, the Soviets more than willing to engage us vicariously. From the standpoint of Iraq, it's unlikely that anyone's going to come to Saddam's aide. But once you get rid of Saddam, there's a vacuum. The Baathist aren't going away - Syria will see to that. The Kurds and Shias will have their axe to grind. The Iranians are going to see one impediment to Persian expansion replaced by another. The Turks used to own this stuff as an empire. The Soviets and French want their business interests restored. The Saudi's aren't going to like have their monarchy undergo scrutiny.....
Post #91,101 by Brandioch 3/24/03 3:56:33 PM Reply	:) But if no one watches it on TV, does it matter? Once we take out the existing government, it will get worse, not better. Except that it won't be covered on CNN. So the average US citizen won't know about the problems. Just as they think that Afghanistan was a "success".
Post #91,115 by ChrisR 3/24/03 4:34:53 PM Reply	Afghanistan has been a good theatre for us. First, we used it to crumble the evil empire and all it cost us at the time was some lars rockets and olympic medals. More recently, we managed to overthrow the Taliban and reimplement the more historic strongman form of government - taking care to tinker with the balance between the various factions. Okay, we actually won that war before it even started by getting Musharef to side with us and hooking up with the local militia. Because the presence of American troops was minimal we did it without causing an undue resentment of American power. I think the fact that we have any semblance of goodwill left in a country we just blew the bejeevers out of, has to say that the strategy was pretty damn effective. I know from your writings, that you consider the Afghan war to be a failure. But I think the real problem with Afghanistan is that we were too dang successful. So successful in fact that we think that we can get a repeat performance in Iraq, with very little blood loss (at least from our side) and the people will love us for it. Also in our rush, we've probably opened the backdoor again for Afghanistan to return to it's state of Wild-Wild-West (or is that East). I think that one thing that people don't consider is that it really may not make a difference whether the Iraqi people hate Saddam. Even if we rid them of the evil dictator and they gain more freedom, it does not necessarily translate into goodwill. Those in the opposition may find us temporarily useful, but they will unlikely acknowledge any sacrifice in their quest - perceiving historical entanglements and self financial intents.
Post #91,123 by Brandioch 3/24/03 4:56:47 PM Reply	My problem with Afghanistan is..... Also in our rush, we've probably opened the backdoor again for Afghanistan to return to it's state of Wild-Wild-West (or is that East). I can't say it any better than that. And we do NOT look like we're going to do anything to improve the situation. I think that one thing that people don't consider is that it really may not make a difference whether the Iraqi people hate Saddam. Even if we rid them of the evil dictator and they gain more freedom, it does not necessarily translate into goodwill. Those in the opposition may find us temporarily useful, but they will unlikely acknowledge any sacrifice in their quest - perceiving historical entanglements and self financial intents. Again, I can't say it any better than that. Hate Saddam != Love USofA So we have TWO major disasters going at once. Pity whomever replaces Bush. He's leaving one HUGE mess.
Post #91,093 by cybermace5 3/24/03 3:33:50 PM Reply	Re: How many WOULD have been sufficient? shakes head so clueless.... A war is not won by trickling troops in to die, making them stay there until they die, sending just enough troops in the replace the ones that died, letting them get picked off one by one, not confronting the enemy and not going for total victory. You reinforced my point above better than I could have ever done. The US had lots of troops, maybe enough to mount some serious attacks, but did not consistently organize troops and coordinate attacks. The leaders were divided and not willing to plan total victory. Simply having military troops and military weapons does not equate to an organised force. There were some examples of battles fought in Vietnam that WERE planned, and used the troops efficiently. I spoke with one man who was involved...he said the VC were obliterated, pushed back, their group was barreling across the country...then they were ordered to pull back. Later on, they were ordered to repeat their assault and retake what they had taken before...then ordered back. Idiotic top level leadership.
Post #91,105 by Brandioch 3/24/03 4:08:33 PM Reply	And you add ANOTHER layer of excuses. So, because Charlie didn't have centralized control, high tech commo, fast deployment...... He still beat us because: You reinforced my point above better than I could have ever done. The US had lots of troops, maybe enough to mount some serious attacks, but did not consistently organize troops and coordinate attacks. The leaders were divided and not willing to plan total victory. Simply having military troops and military weapons does not equate to an organised force. There were some examples of battles fought in Vietnam that WERE planned, and used the troops efficiently. I spoke with one man who was involved...he said the VC were obliterated, pushed back, their group was barreling across the country...then they were ordered to pull back. Later on, they were ordered to repeat their assault and retake what they had taken before...then ordered back. Idiotic top level leadership. Yes, I see. I see that you will make up ANY excuse to "justify" your claims. The only proof is prediction. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=91090\|I am a GOD!] The part YOU still don't understand is that ANYONE can find SOME excuse for why their claims do NOT apply in an example. Meanwhile, I had posted my prediction about how this war would go BEFORE we attacked. And my prediction has proven accurate. The only proof is prediction. So, without good commo, a defensive force will fail unless the attacking force's leaders do not plan total victory. Yet, that does not seem to apply to Afghanistan where they do not have good commo and our leaders did plan for total victory, yet our troops come under fire at least once a week. So, to answer that you'll add ANOTHER layer of excuses.
Post #91,109 by cybermace5 3/24/03 4:22:40 PM Reply	Re: And you add ANOTHER layer of excuses. Excuses for what? "The War on Terror" was not a war. It was hunting down individuals across national boundaries, involving the police of different countries as much as our military. The objective, as you seem to have missed, was not to take over the Afghanistan people. It is an ongoing police action against international criminals. You are so hung up on your predictions, you'll never accept anything that contradicts what you predicted. That's fine, go on living in your own little world.
Post #91,114 by Brandioch 3/24/03 4:33:12 PM Reply	Like I said, another layer of excuses. Excuses for what? "The War on Terror" was not a war. It was hunting down individuals across national boundaries, involving the police of different countries as much as our military. They have bad commo and our leaders were dedicated to total victory but they're still fighting back because....... it wasn't really a "war". Meanwhile, my predictions seem to be happening just as I've stated they would. Iraq did NOT use nuke/chem/bio. Iraqi troops ARE fighting from within cities instead of in the open. The US is killing civilians. You are so hung up on your predictions, you'll never accept anything that contradicts what you predicted. That's fine, go on living in your own little world. Well, you can claim that, but you have yet to provide any information that contradicts my predictions. Iraq did NOT use nuke/chem/bio. Iraqi troops ARE fighting from within cities instead of in the open. The US is killing civilians. Hmmmm, so I'm "clueless" but capable of predicting events with near God-like accuracy. Meanwhile, you add layer after layer after layer of excuses why what you claim is NOT happening. :D The only proof is prediction. The reason you have to layer on excuse after excuse after excuse is because you are starting with FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. Therefore, you have to provide a SPECIAL CASE for each and every example. When every example is a special case, the likelyhood is that your basis is flawed. The only proof is prediction.
Post #91,122 by cybermace5 3/24/03 4:55:27 PM Reply	Re: Like I said, another layer of excuses. Iraq did NOT use nuke/chem/bio. Iraqi troops ARE fighting from within cities instead of in the open. The US is killing civilians. 1. The war is not over (it actually began with Desert Storm, this has been a cease-fire), so all you can claim is WMD have not been used YET. 2. I never heard anyone say all the fighting would be out in the open. I fully expected the troops (the ones that have a death wish to fight) would pull into civilian districts out of cowardice. If they are willing to die, then let them die...not take civilians with them. 3. Never heard a claim that civilians wouldn't be killed. An effort would be made to keep the casualties to an absolute minimum, but it gets difficult when civilians are being herded into military installations and troops are sitting tanks in between apartment buildings. The reason you have to layer on excuse after excuse after excuse is because you are starting with FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. Therefore, you have to provide a SPECIAL CASE for each and every example. When every example is a special case, the likelyhood is that your basis is flawed. I'm not sure what excuses you are referring to. Is your definition of an excuse something like "relating facts and opinion counter to my godlike prediction capabilities"? Well, I like examples. Everything is a special case. You like examples too, when they support your opinion. What false assumption did this thread start on?
Post #91,143 by Brandioch 3/24/03 5:40:01 PM Reply	And even more excuses from you. 1. The war is not over (it actually began with Desert Storm, this has been a cease-fire), so all you can claim is WMD have not been used YET. And I will predict that they will NOT be used. You are free to predict that they WILL be used. Although, at this point, I understand your reluctance to do so. 2. I never heard anyone say all the fighting would be out in the open. I fully expected the troops (the ones that have a death wish to fight) would pull into civilian districts out of cowardice. If they are willing to die, then let them die...not take civilians with them. It isn't "cowardice". If they are in the open, they will die from our long range weapons. I'm sure that if it came down to hand-to-hand combat, they'd be happy to take on our troops. Or do you think our troops were "cowards" in the first Gulf War because we wouldn't do mass charges at their dug in positions and, instead, bombed them? 3. Never heard a claim that civilians wouldn't be killed. An effort would be made to keep the casualties to an absolute minimum, but it gets difficult when civilians are being herded into military installations and troops are sitting tanks in between apartment buildings. Ummm, you really don't understand modern urban combat, do you? We are taking CITIES. The troops and equipment will be INSIDE those cities. Again, you can come up with all the excuses you need to "correct" your position. We are invading Iraq. The Iraqi military will dig into civilian areas and we will have to kill LOTS of civilians to get them out. Which is what I predicted. You make excuses about how it is the fault of the Iraqi troops that they don't stay in the open so we can kill them at long range and "Free" Iraq without losing any of our troops. I'm not sure what excuses you are referring to. The excuses you keep giving. The defenders need good commo or they'll lose. Excuse: except in Vietnam because our leaders didn't want total victory. Excuse: except in Afghanistan where they had bad commo and our leaders wanted total victory because it wasn't really a "war". Those excuses. Is your definition of an excuse something like "relating facts and opinion counter to my godlike prediction capabilities"? Nope. An "excuse" is an "excuse" you give AFTER the fact because something didn't work out the way you said it would. Well, I like examples. Everything is a special case. No. Everything is NOT a special case. That is the reason I am able to predict the future with such amazing accuracy and you have to retreat to excuses. What false assumption did this thread start on? Here's a [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=90895\|link] to one of your posts in this thread where you start with a false assumption (that Iraq has nuke/chem/bio weapons) and then you layer on the excuses as to why such have not been found or used.
Post #91,124 by jake123 3/24/03 5:05:55 PM Reply	Re: And you add ANOTHER layer of excuses. Excuses for what? "The War on Terror" was not a war. It was hunting down individuals across national boundaries, involving the police of different countries as much as our military. The objective, as you seem to have missed, was not to take over the Afghanistan people. It is an ongoing police action against international criminals. \r\n\r\n Right now, it looks like a war. Or is Iraq not a war on terror? If it's not, what is it exactly? \r\n\r\n What happened in Afghanistan, if not a war? We had units in Afghanistan, and it sure looked like they were in a war from what we heard about what was happening to them, and from what they told us when they came back. In fact, a goal in Afghanistan was regime change; getting rid of the Taliban. That was a stated goal of the coalition that went in there. Regime change, and a military campaign... what is it if it's not war? Or are you going to start leaning on legalistic splitting of hairs about what is and is not a war? \r\n\r\n Also, Bush had the opportunity to make bin Laden and al-Qaida into criminals in how he reacted to 9/11, but he blew it, and turned them into warriors and martyrs instead. They should have treated this as a criminal issue, not a war issue. It would have promoted clearer thinking and better decision making if they had. However, it very nicely dovetailed into their existing views on how the US should position itself in the global community, so they used it. \r\n\r\n You are so hung up on your predictions, you'll never accept anything that contradicts what you predicted. That's fine, go on living in your own little world. \r\n\r\n Those grapes were sour anyway. If you want to shut him up, find something that contradicts his prediction. The problem is you can't, yet. \r\n\r\n Cybermace, you're the one that looks like you're living in a dreamworld to me. Watch... even after Saddam falls, western soldiers will continue getting killed in Iraq. Do you think that the Iraqi are going to start dancing in the streets when Saddam falls? What's your prediction about what will happen when Saddam falls? \r\n\r\n Now, as Brandioch likes to harp on about prediction, my prediction is that the people in the south of Iraq (Shia) wait for you to kill the regime (Hussein and his top people) in Baghdad, and then turn on the allied forces. \r\n\r\n Say, Cybermace, did you see the picture of the little girl being pulled out of the rubble in Basra? Did you see what was hanging out the bottom of her right pant leg? It was her foot. Go take a look at that picture, and perhaps you'll appreciate why the help perhaps is not being that well appreciated. She's going to lose her foot at minimum, and probably most of her lower leg. \r\n\r\n Have you considered the possibility that your government and media are lying to you? Or perhaps are trying to deceive you? Your journalists hopped on board to become "embedded" in your armed forces... ours didn't. Perhaps you should try getting some of your war information from other parts of the world. I have the rare good fortune to live with a Russian and a Chinese guy, and they've been filling me in on what their media have been saying about what's happening over there. So far, they're being quite accurate, and tend to be breaking stories a LOT sooner than they are being broken by US or even Canadian media. Example: the Chinese broke the story of POWs around 20 hours before al-Jazeera even did, and the NA media didn't break anything until after al-Jazeera. Do you think that if perhaps al-Jazeera hadn't broken that story, perhaps no one would've known at all? After all, they were only replaying what they taped off the Iraqi television stations. Why aren't CNN watching Iraqi media and telling you about what they're saying on it right away? --\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \r\n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \r\n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #91,133 by rcareaga 3/24/03 5:27:17 PM Reply	the 4th Estate is heard (or not, as may be) The idea of embedding journalists with troops was a masterstroke. The White House certainly knew that reporters would bond with their units and identify with them. In effect, the press would serve as P.R. flacks for the operation, especially since one of the stipulations in granting the media access was that every interview would be on the record. So much for any of the soldiers criticizing the prosecution of the war. This was coverage that was virtually certain to be uncritical and supportive, essentially cheerleading...But the administration wasn't just relying on proximity. It also felt confident enough to embed the press because it knew this current generation of reporters, unlike the skeptical Vietnam generation, was not likely to challenge the conventional wisdom. This bunch was reliably docile. It was one of this claque, after all, that actually asked President Bush at a recent press conference how his faith was sustaining him in these troubled times. These guys were patsies. [link\|http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/03/24/images/print.html\|http://www.salon.com...images/print.html] cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Post #91,141 by cybermace5 3/24/03 5:38:18 PM Reply	Re: And you add ANOTHER layer of excuses. What a welcome relief, someone who actually takes some time to think and come up with some serious discussion. Someone who isn't focused on the war for the sole purpose of claiming it is going according to prediction. You bring up many excellent points. I cannot argue about what happens in a war, I cannot argue that our media leaves much to be desired. I am not basing my opinions on the accounts our media provides, nor am I swallowing everything al-jazeera says. The only part I take issue with is this: Those grapes were sour anyway. If you want to shut him up, find something that contradicts his prediction. The problem is you can't, yet. Cybermace, you're the one that looks like you're living in a dreamworld to me. Watch... even after Saddam falls, western soldiers will continue getting killed in Iraq. Do you think that the Iraqi are going to start dancing in the streets when Saddam falls? What's your prediction about what will happen when Saddam falls? ...simply because it is not over yet, and I do not believe anyone can truly predict what will happen in the next few weeks. I hope that the Iraqi people will be able to recover from decades of demoralization and oppression, but that will depend on what the rest of the world does.
Post #91,149 by jake123 3/24/03 5:47:23 PM Reply	Hey, that's my prediction Whether I'm right or not, only time will tell. That is my take on the likely outcome in southern Iraq, that's all: after Saddam is killed and his regime falls, I think the Shia in southern Iraq are going to turn on the coalition in a very big way. Time will tell whether I'm right. I should perhaps underscore the fact that I have little doubt that Saddam's regime is going to fall. The question is, what happens after that? That's going to be the hard part... and the serious death toll in and blockading of Basra (no electricity or water now for over 72 hours, ongoing bombardment) is not going to help with how the locals (no friends of Saddam in southern Iraq) see the continued presence of US and UK forces. As for Brandioch, so far his predictions have been borne out by the facts. He'd probably be more convincing if he didn't gloat about that so much, but then again, he's military; exulting in victory is what they do:] /me puts on the asbestos suit. Don't forget, the further into central Iraq the coalition goes, the more difficult it's going to get... Saddam's regime is Sunni, and so is the area around Baghdad. The local population is going to be even more hostile than it is in the south. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #91,152 by Brandioch 3/24/03 5:50:07 PM Reply	That is because you do not understand. The only proof is prediction. ...simply because it is not over yet, and I do not believe anyone can truly predict what will happen in the next few weeks. Well I can. #1. Saddam will STILL not use nuke/chem/bio. #2. US forces will take MORE hits as they fight through the cities. #3. Within the next month, Saddam will be killed and the US will declare "victory". #4. The fighting will continue in "isolated" incidents attributed to "terrorists". The only proof is prediction. Those who cannot make accurate predictions do NOT have a sufficient understanding of the situation. Which results in the need for them to makes excuses when events do not unfold "correctly".
Post #91,241 by boxley 3/24/03 10:16:21 PM Reply	absolute horse sh*t The only reason America didnt completely roll the VC and the NVA was "rules of engagement" There was plenty of troops and supplies to do the job but the chronics at home and in the joint chiefs didnt want to engage thoroughly. Guerrella war can be sucessfully fought. In Rhodesia without the boycott of the world it would still be there. Tibet is still run by china. The Ukraine after WW2 was pacified by the Russians by 1955. It takes all out effort and no morals but it can be done. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] To a lot of people in California hunting anything but the wild tofualope was equivelent to sacarificing babies to satan. S.M. Stirling
Post #91,277 by rcareaga 3/25/03 12:21:51 AM Reply	boxley brings us truth in labeling! "absolute horsehit" describes the premise of the referenced post, that the US could have prevailed in Vietnam, eloquently and economically. An American "victory" in 2003 would resemble (A) the surface of the moon, or (B) Vietnam 1969, with urban centers and "strategic hamlets" under nominal government control by day, and the nights and the countryside in firm possession of the resistance; hundreds of thousands of US troops in occupation and the bars & bordellos of Saigon roaring along. The Vietnamese (still provisioned by China and, in all likelihood, a still-intact USSR) were never going to give up and go home for the simple reason that they were home already. cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Post #91,239 by boxley 3/24/03 10:10:11 PM Reply	welcome to khassim :0 will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] To a lot of people in California hunting anything but the wild tofualope was equivelent to sacarificing babies to satan. S.M. Stirling

Welcome to IWETHEY!