I thought that Uday was the easy one to ID because of previous gunshot scars. Now what about the remaining son, Uck-Shmay? Better get him too.

Your too funny...LOL:)

Did you see the photos? I must say those guys wear shrapnel wounds quite well.

Uck Day seemed to be missing part of his nose. UcK Say looked quiet well for being dead!

The capation under their pictures should read ....See what happens when U mess with US.

They lived by the sword and they died by the sword. Or in this case a TOW rocket.

When you have the power use it - but for just 4 guys locked away in a second story room this sure sounds it took everything we had to get them:

account of battle

And after all that there was still one alive when the troops got in. Seems impossible with the amount of ordanance they pumped into the building. Bad shots?

I know nothing of battle on this magnitude, but I can imagine with four guys running around a sealed-off second floor, firing AKs, it could repel some already weary troops for a fair period of time.

But 6 hrs. does seem like a long battle. BTW, nothing was left of that house.

The Second Story of that house from one of the news accounts had bullet proof glass and was "hardened" meaning like a pillbox. So small arms including a 50 Cal MG wasn't going to do it. It took some serious ordinace to open that can.

Reminiscent of the Pacino movie, "Scarface."

F*@#& you (a quote from his character, Tony Montana)
Sherwood

Seems as if Uday was a player on the move...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/28/sprj.irq.uday.briefcase/index.html

Note to self: never get blown apart while possessing a "tacky tie."

From time to time, I will revive this thread, just to remind everyone that WMDs are the claimed reason why the US went in a preemptive war against Iraq.
So far, here is all I could find ;)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1062462787.jpg

Aurel

That's OK Aurel. You'll get Hillary back in a couple years and all will be well in your world. That fat ass know it all self centered cow will probably be elected just in time to take credit for a solidly rebuilt economy - just like her wet wick husband took credit for RR's work a few years ago.

Republican against democrat is not really the issue here. I know all politicians are liars anyway, and this is always how they fall...when their lies come to light. It is just a matter a picking a lesser evil: a lie about once private life, or a lie about a fabricated threat, to invade an oil rich country that puts soldiers in harms way...
At any rate, it will not be difficult, for whoever comes afer GW, to take credit for a better (hopefully) situation than that :
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1062491266.jpg

Aurel

How about this for Weapons of Mass Destruction ?

http://www.playback.demon.co.uk/porsche/egroup.htm

The health of the economy and deficit always follows a few years after an administration. If you think the Clinton administration had anything to do with the surplus, you are misinformed. Clinton, as I said earlier, followed on the coattails of previous admin. He was right place, right time.

Aurel, your chart is out of date. the new chart should have the latest projection off the chart down near the rueter's signature, about 480 billion.

I'll give credit to Clinton where it's due. He took Perot's lead and raised gas taxes and tax rates on higher incomes, from 33% to 35%. Remember the vote, when Gore had to come down to congress and cast the tiebreaking vote? Clinton should also get credit for "streamlining" government which took a lot of government workers off the payroll. (I was a skeptic on this one, but my niece works for the GAO and she insists it cut over 1/3 out of the organization).

A third major factor in the surplus was the election of a republican congress in 94, which began passing the costs of programs down to the states, although they are mandated by federal law. It's a big reason why many states are running deficits now too.

And what's happening now? With interest rates low, neither party in congress is afraid of more spending, GWB has increased discretionary spending by 32% in his 2 years (Gray Davis is at 38% in Calif. which earned him a recall) , and has yet to veto a spending bill.

The Concord Coalition (who's stated goal is to not pass on the debt to our children) gives this congress and administration an "F"

I for one am tired of this nonsense. I know that no one, regardless of how accurate will ever be able to convince someone like Aurel how wrong he is. Therefore this is really a pointless post. I do however like a little politcal discussion from time to time, so here goes.

That "propaganda" that you put in the form of a chart is wonderfully inaccurate. The way a "surplus" was "achieved" was when Clinton "balanced" the budget. There was a "projected surplus" IF the economy remained at the same level of growth for the next 10 years. This will no doubt be argued, but even if I were to agree to the incorrect chart, let's look at how he got to the "balanced" budget. He cut our military by 1/3. Very nice from the man that said he "loathed" the military, Bush may have served his time in a jet for the Guard, but at least he SERVED. But I digress. He put burdens on individual states for federal programs and he RAISED taxes. The list goes on and on. Was this "proposed surplus" worth it? When you turn a blind eye to the defense of our nation (using our "spy satellites" to research global warming? Good idea, if you are a moron).

So, where did all the "good times" go? Remember 9/11? who do you think footed the bill for that? When you start to add up all of the costs to clean up the mess left in Manhattan, start up new protective agencies, get our current agencies up to battle readiness, loan billions to the already ailing air carriers, GIVE BILLIONS to the families of the victims of the attacks, extend unemployment benefits, run military actions halfway across the globe. Yikes. But I'm sure that there was a better more efficient way to do this and I am sure that every last one of you who condemns the president would have done a better job. Right.

Before I go any further let me say that I am NOT a republican. I have NO political affiliations at all. I am conservative (very) and a staunch "hawk". Unlike the "clinton defenders" I don't have a problem in looking realistically at my president and noting his errors. First of all, there is NO comparison to be made between Bush's WMD speech and the MANY lies told by Clinton. Period. End of story. If you want to try to justify what Clinton did go ahead, but it doesn't work. Let's just say for arguments sake that Bush knew that the infamous statement about Iraq were false. What would he benefit from this "lie"? Congress had already overwhelmingly voted to support the military action, so why would he do this? Did this military action go out to a vote and I missed it? Last time I checked, the president doesn't need "public opinion" to take military action. Don't get me wrong, it is VERY helpful if its there, but it is not necessary. I think he spent way too much time trying to convince people that he was never going to convince anyway. A president should do what is RIGHT, not what public opinion tells him. Clinton had no idea of what the right thing was, so he had no choice BUT to rely on opinion polls. Are you STILL using the "we went there for oil argument"? Now that we "control" the area (the oil wells anyway) are we "reaping the rewards"? I will be the first to admit that I personally would have done things differently at the "conclusion' of the war, but my methods lack a certain amount of "diplomacy". It's time to say that what we did in Iraq was not only the RIGHT thing, but also a good thing, for us, for them and for the stability of the region. It's time to move on and not use this as a campaign "soundbite" for those who long for the Clinton "era".

BTW "hardflex", you said you had a neice in the GAO, can she tell me why there is so much money that is unaccounted for in our government? After dumping BILLIONS into an education system that just doesn't work, are they ever going to account for the millions that no one can find? If the GAO can't do it's job, there is a problem that needs to be fixed. I was just wondering.

Pete

no projections here, actual figures.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0nospinhere

Nice to meet another independent, who is not afraid to look at our president fairly and realistically, although since I live in Tx i've had a couple extra years to watch him.

SmileWavy

with regards to the Education system, did you mean Federal dollars, state, or local dollars are missing? If you can point to the 1st million, my niece said she'd try to do that 480million more times and we'd get rid of that nasty deficit.

:D

If GAO is filled with citizens 1/10 as incompetent as some government employees, I would not trust anything they say. The things these agencies get away with on a regular basis makes Enron look not half bad. I'm not saying Enron is good. I'm saying the government really is that bad.

I am a Republican, but I think all politicians and government agencies are pretty much lousy. I do too well in private business to attempt to change the mainstream. Plus, I have too little patience. People won't demand change as long as mamma pig (government) continues to put out good sweet milk. So what if a few piglets get a bad taste.

WMD. well, I just don't know. I do know aurel is a master of baiting. I am sure what the US has done is surely worse the the French reaction to the heat wave several weeks ago.

Jürgen

"Once the truck convoy has left the back of the building,
you will be allowed in, to see that we have no WMD"
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1062524144.jpg

. . of course he wasn't lying. . . .it was obvious.:rolleyes:

Regardless of "IF" he had WMD; Saddam wanted everyone to believe he had WMD. Arguably so he could carry-on with his standing threat that he may again gas any region that didn't believe in his power.

This of course, flys in the face of his signed cease-fire agreement that he would SHOW PROOF of the destruction of these WMD.

Let's make sure I've got this right. The latest story is that Saddam tricked *****-for-brains Jr. and his cabinet into believing that he had WMD? While at the same time denying to the world and U.N. that he had same? :D Wow, my dad was once a great defense lawyer, but even he wouldn't have the nerve to try that one. :rolleyes:

"He tricked us into removing him from power, reducing much of his country to rubble and killing his sons! Conniving bastard! All to make me look like ***** in front of the world and ignore my domestic economy! He sacrificed his life (probably) to make sure that I won't get re-(not really)-elected! Wait until my stupid daughters grow up! They'll avenge this"! :D

Pete Pranger says that no one will ever be able to convince Aurel how "wrong he is". What exactly will it take to convince "ditto heads" that this is the most disasterous president EVER? Does he have to run the country and the world into the ditch AND get caught blowing Rumsfeld? Such idealogues I've never seen. You "conservatives" make Ayatollas blush.

BTW, I would agree that not everything that has happened in the world and economically was controlled by Bush, but his decisions will be demonstrated to be the worst ever. If in some fantasy world everything was going well now, you conservatives would give all of the credit to Clinton, right? Because of the "lag effect" of the economy? Previous administration gets the credit/blame? My ass you would. :)