Hildegard

My Dad worked in IBM for 6 years in Johannesburg and was so succesfull he made it to senior management in their South African subsidiary, but then the pricks in the US decided to move business elsewhere so he had to choose between going to work in either London or Riyad, he decided to quit and move all of us back home. Good choice dad

Yeah, we are. The weight classes range from 103-275 pounds. I currently qualify for the 145 pound weight class, but I'm trying to make it down to the 140 pound class. One of the reasons being that the other guy in my weight class is an absolute stud who's been at the sport for a lot longer than I have. At the 140 pound class I'll have a much better chance at starting. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wanna know how is height relevant in wrestling combined with weight?

Mothie are you separated in weight categories on your trainings or not, and if so which one do you belong to?

City Road Surre.....City Road.....

I promise I'll check it out tomorrow. Good Night

if true, so what? pretty harmless so far. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So far, if he does any sh*t, I'll just use my MSG90A1 - does it ring your bell Surre.

I can see a bomber running towards me...I can't see the guy up in the tower leveling a high-powered rifle at my head from 300 yards out. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Can you see an IED burried under your feet as you pass, if so please contact the US military. " But I get what you mean

He's an alt.

First it was Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev that took out 225 German soldiers....then, only by some Soviet reports, did the Germans send Major Heinz Thorvald to get him. Allegedly after a hunt of several days Zaitsev shot him dead.... Fool

The only thing stupid on this page is your naive and foolish comment how the US forces should deal with this Jaba which just proves the fact you're talking pure BS. How will you send one sniper to go find another in a vast city such as Bagdad, plus US sniper teams go on the field in two man teams - a shooter and a spotter, not one man hotshot style ...yes snipers that would go get other snipers, but one on one - this is no Arnie movie or Enemy at the Gates. That's why it's practley impossible for the US forces to catch him like that. My view is that it's a long shot, they'll catch Juba when/if he makes a mistake.

^

Many of your question are answered in the link.....I'm sure the coalition is doing everything in their power to find him and take him out, I damn sure they don't want Juba to become Iraqi Vasily Zaitsev...

Nor does it say he's epicly sapping moral on the level of entire Iraq....he's sapping moral amongst Coalition soldiers in Baghdad, especially in southern Bagdad.

With stories like that about over 50 US soldiers being sniped by a mistery sharpshooter aka Juba in Southern Bagdad alone, would you like to go on a daily patrol there? I know I would be very very happy to be reassigned somewhere else, but that's just me.

Your logic and reasoning will find no home here! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What are you talking about? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He's joking man.

If you just read one bit from the article I linked in this thread, you would now that I quoted it. About my anti americanism - I'm really not in the mood to talk about that right now, sorry.

This thread will be moved soon with out doubt....but hey you didn't say how much money you have available and do you have an AGP 8X or the PCI 16X slot on your motherboard?

Almost everybody claimed Juba did it, no regular insurgent/s can take out four marine scouts in one place at the same time and shoot them all with headshots using sniper. Doing things like that he's actually mocking the ability of US forces on the ground, if you want to watch the video say so and I'll PM you the link.

Did you watch the entire video?....the sniper a.k.a. JUBA already took out over 50 US soldiers in Southern Bagdad and he claims he killed 146 of them, it's not overly dramatic at all.

I posted the article and said if someone wishes a link for the video just ask, so what's your point?

I guess we do cattus....

Here's the link about the story. If anybody wants to watch the 15 minute video - ask and I'll PM you the link. But be warned, even for me being all anti-US military and anti-US in general, it was disturbing for me to watch and it certainly would be for you Yanks.

First of all before I reply, the thing I'm trying to prove this whole time is that the situation in Iran regarding opression and human rights violations is far from the one in Saddam's Iraq or presently in North Korea, and especially the state of mind of Iranian people if an attack by US or Israel occured. The thing wrong with the Iranian presidential elections were in fact propaganda and weakening of liberal candidates, although as I already said they had their two main candidates in the elections...the thing that wasn't wrong at all was the numbers of voter turnout and the votes Amadinejad got which proves the fact that the hardline Islamist in Iran still have a strong support amongst the people. link link link That situation can have an influence on future events. I see two version of events like everybody, this being dealt by war on diplomacy: 1)Iran continues nuclear activities and the US launches strikes: First the US launches airstrikes against key nuclear strikes with cruise missles and stealth bombers. Consider the timeline somewhere after Novembar 9th US Congressional elections when domestic political inhibitions about the uncertain consequences of striking Iran would be greatly diminished, Israel launching strikes on its own is highly improbable. Iran, outraged by these actions, would accuse US of warmongering imperialistic actions saying this is the second operation Ajax to overthrow the Iranian goverment. Now the Iranians said that if US or Israel launches airstrikes that they would retaliate, probably on US troops in Iraq. Now the key question is, considering some Iranain facilities are deep underground, are airstrikes sufficient in order to completley wipe out Iranian capabilities to enrich uranium? In my opinion a full scale invasion is highly unlikely because there is a great chance it would be as worse as Vietnam. Why? First the Iranian army is far far better then the Iraqi was in terms of military hardware, military tactics and doctrines, logistics, organization and most of all moral. There is no way you can convience the Iranians that you are launching a ground invasion for their own good - because you really wouldn't, the Iranian ppl aren't so oppressed they would trade the current situation for your 'shock and awe liberation'. The current goverment would take an advantage from any of your strikes to further strenghten their grip upon the people which doesn't have any chance of turning in any revolt during a conflict with the second most hated country in Iran invading their homeland. The Iranian goverment through propaganda would demonize the US to a point that the Iranian ppl would viciously defend their homes and family against the crusading imperialistic forces as they would see them. They would get the same moral boost that helped you defeat the British in the Revolutionary War, the same fighting spirit that was one of the main factor why the Vietcong defeated you in Vietnam - and that is the fighting moral you have when you defend your home and your loved ones, that mixed up with their religious fanatisism would result in a hard, long and bloody war. Yes you would ultimately defeat the regular Iranian military, but keeping peace and stability in that country would prove to be far worse then defeating their military. You think that insurgency in Iraq is bad? You can beat your life the Iranian insurgency would be 3 to 5 times worse then the one in Iraq, Iran is in fact, the homeland of 'terrorism' as you know it and in maintaining stability and order your monthly casulties would equal does of half a year in Iraq. [/not overestimating] Furthermore, airstrikes on Iran and especially a ground assault would also result in opening of a new pandora's box of worldwide political and diplomatic unstability, increase in numbers of terrorists everywhere, downcrease in US popularity in the whole world, especially in the ME. Plus note one more obstacle if invading Iran on the ground - Iraq is mostly one big flatland besides on the north, that's why the Iraqi military never stood any chance in confronting the US Army in the open and giving the USAF little trouble in picking out targets in such battlefield. The Iranian geographical configuration is very very much different, it's pretty much harsh and mountainess and it certainly wouldn't aid the attacker....heck, guess your 10th Mountain Division would be one of the few who 'would not' have trouble with the terrain. 2)Put the war option completley out of option and give diplomacy a real chance this time: There are currently UN observers in Iran overlooking their nuclear activities, if the observers report some serious and disturbing events about Iranians aquiring material for a nuclear bomb or if Iranians kick the UN teams out of the country then they'll just report Iran to the Security Council and economic and other sanctions will be imposed on Iran. Sure that would have a serious impact with Iran holding back their oil from the rest of the world, but Iran imports so many various goods that it just can't function as a country without them. Plus, I certainly don't think that Iranian people would have much understanding for that kind of a situation they would have to endure because of their leadership's strive for WMDs. Further more if you think Europe doesn't have any diplomatic muscle to handle this situation then you're mistaken. Europe alone can make many problems for Iranians given the fact they import many goods from Europe, including, you're not gonna believe this, 40% of Iranian gasoline consumption. It's primarily because Iran doesn't have all the needed refineries to turn their large ammounts of oil to gasoline. Why I imply that the war option be put of the table is because if the US or Israel keep waving and indirectley threatening airstrikes and war against Iran it will just have the opposite effect. Iranian aren't some bunch of scaredy cats who'll back down the moment you threaten them with military confortation, Iranians are very stuborn and proud ppl, and under pressure of a military action they'll just be more defiant to the point a compromise would be impossible to reach. There are many other factors to consider here, for an example the US could show willingness to lift its embargo on Iran which still stands on certain products other then military hardware. There is also a big uncertainty would China go along with possible economic sanctions given the fact they import 2 million barrels of oil every day from Iran. Russia's unwillingness to go along with any drastic sanctions, not to mention possible war options, considering their close economic and other ties binding them. The list just goes on and on.... that's the ever complicated world of international diplomacy for you....but hey I would trade it nay given day for any of the scenarios I mentioned in part 1. No I didn't miss that statement, it just proves what I already said that was iregular with that elections - to much propaganda and political influence of the supreme leader. And it is my belief the election turnout was high because there is still very strong support amongst the ppl for the current regime, but that's where our view grow apart so let's leave it there. I'm not turning a blind eye on anything here, the whole purpose of my writing on Iranian politicals in this thread is to show any possible invasion by Western countries would meet very little if not any symphaty with the Iranian ppl which would result in a scenario very much different from the one in Iraq, one that wouldn't aid the possible attacker in any way whatsoever. Don't twist my words Mothie, I know you would like very much to demonize me, trying to show that I support the context of what he said, but I never said anything like that or meant it. I salute him only for having the guts to say what he means, what ever that is, out loud. It certainly isn't a trait of politicians today, but hey if on this day every politician came out saying what he deep down thinks on other countries, you would have WW3 tomorrow. No. To fully understand the present one needs to know the past. Yes the focus is on today, but the US was often ignorant to understand the broader prespective on issues such as this, seeing only things that suited her, that suited its interests. With operation Ajax executed by the US and the UK you have no moral high ground to talk down on Iran after you and your puppet Shah did to thousands and even millions of Iranians - inflicting death, torture, pain and humiliation upon the Iranian people just because their democraticly elected goverment wanted the same amounts of money as the western companies got from oil sales, sales of Iranian oil. But noooo, because five major U.S. oil companies, plus Royal Dutch Shell and BP saw that move as unfair and the US putting their economic interests first as so often. But hey I guess it's totaly irrelevant you drove around with your big cars on the expanse of Iranian ppl being killed and tortured. As they say, what goes around comes around....I believe there is justice in this world, it's very slow but it's there and one day you'll pay for those atrocities you inflicted upon the Iranian people and people worldwide so your geopolitical strategic and economic interests could be served.

Time is the school in which we learn, time is the fire in which we burn. Delmore Schwartz What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know. Saint Augustine