That doesn’t really happen, does it?
TELL ME THAT DOESN’T REALLY HAPPEN! 
please, God…I’m only 34…
Didn’t Onan spill his seed on his sister-in-law, or somesuch? Yuck!
Too late. And no point in beseeching Tech Support, you’re on hold at birth, then its three-score and ten of soft jazz and insincere messages of concern. “Your existence is important to us…”
Ah, Hell, what can it hurt to be kind? Just kidding, Mil starting at 34 your sexual prowess and stamina climb roughly 33% per year. For all the good it does you. I still meet any number of hot young randy chiquitas. They call me “sir”.
Well, you are older than Moses, after all. 
“Look, Moishe, listen up here, 15 is out of the question, they won’t go for it…you’ll be lucky to get 10 past them. Look, keep the adultery thing if you got to, but I’m telling you, its like telling fish to keep thier fur clean and dry…”
Ah, hooey. Reeder was rapped on the knuckles for starting too many threads on the same subject, which is a violation of the UA. That doesn’t mean he’s under any obligation to hold his tongue on the subject all together. Don’t be an ass.
Yes, because they’re finally working towards eliminating the danger, rather than spending a decade lamely flying about and letting a psychotic killer violate UN sanctions in firing missiles at them.
I thought it was a soldier’s job to go into dangerous territory… I suppose you’d rather our armed forces sewed doilies, instead? Great idea! But… hmm… who will we send into conflict zones? Girl scouts?
That might work. DING-DONG “Hi, Mr. Saddam, want some Thin Mints? They’ve got extra cyanide, just for you!”
May I suggest we not get sucked into labeling this as a circle-jerk? The thread’s OP is spot on. Given how the Bush admin has been playing semantical games over the rationale for war (“we never said immediate threat” etc), it is entirely appropriate to challenge them on it, and what better way than to have incontrovertible evidence.
This is important. Very important as it opens up the door to looking at why the admin did what they did. Did they aim to deceive? Did they manipulate the intelligence to meet their own ends? If yes, what did they seek to achieve and why? Or did the admin make an honest judgemental error regarding SH’s regime? Were they principled? Were they looking out for the public’s interests?
I believe these are pivotal questions for the US public to ponder over while they decide if they can continue to trust this admin to protect and represent them. To this end, knowledge is power. Smart individuals like IzzyR got something from this thread.
Labels always confuse the issue.
That’s not what I meant. Talk about a nitpick of a nitpick!
I propose you pick 3 of the Usual Suspects and go with a “See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil” theme.
Can I still be monkey #1? 
Actually, that position is reserved for the Primate of Athens…
Ahem. As far as I can google, there were *no * US casualties, even wounded, enforcing the no-fly zones.
I believe tha no-fly zones were not authorized by the UN so, in effect, Saddam was well within his rights when he was firing at the allied planes. Not to mention, that no plane was ever hit, as you say.
Side note: back in the day, I remember hearing Rummy going on about how Saddam had fired some 600 missiles at Our Brave Boys, without so much as a reference to why they were 0 for 600. I broached the question here, and got an answer.
When the Iraqis fired thier missiles, they fired without using radar guidance systems. Not they didn’t have such systems, they did, but if they turned them on, an anti-radar missile could be launched to fly up thier butt.
Firing off an anti-aircraft missile without radar guidance is approximately equivalent to duck-hunting with a snub-nosed .22 pistol. Blindfolded. In effect, then, the Iraqi’s firing these missiles was a show of bravado and defiance, and entirely futile, as most such gestures are.
Of course. The issue is Spoofe’s odd assertion that US troops are *safer * now. Perhaps he’ll favor us with an explanation soon? Or is he just the latest poster child for the Cognitive Dissonance Fund?