Hoo Boy

[Battlefront.com]

juan_gigante, while I agree that Israel should not be let off the hook for MANY of the things it has done, is doing, and will do in the future, this is incorrect...

Oh wait - none of Israel's nearby enemies have NBC weapons!

You forgot Syria. They have Chinese SCUD missiles in hardened bunkers in the mountains to the north along the Turkish border. These were purchased specifically to hit Israel. The also have chemical weapons of their own, though I think it hasn't been proven that they've matched the two together. It is likely they have.

This thing about Syria is not fiction. You can question if they would use them or how effective they would be, but saying that Israel has nothing to fear in the NBC department is simply false.

And then there is Iran, a country that has the technology to hit Israel and is seeking to put home grown nukes on the tips. Oh, and of course the President has just come out and said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. But I suppose no Muslim nation has ever followed threats of violence so Israel has nothing to fear (sarcasim intended).

That being said, Israel has worked pretty hard to make sure everybody in the region still hates them. I think the only nation that has come close to pissing off people as much as Israel would be the recent US Administration. Other than that... nope... nobody comes to mind.

I got my dose of reality about Israel's part of this when an ex-girlfriend came back from doing her IDF service. She felt, in 1989 mind you, that average Israelis wanted peace but the government really didn't. The government wanted things on its terms and only its terms, and therefore there could be no peace. Just one Israeli's opinion, but it is one I have seen little evidence to suggest is far off the mark in the 16 years that have followed my last conversation with her.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I got my dose of reality about Israel's part of this when an ex-girlfriend came back from doing her IDF service. She felt, in 1989 mind you, that average Israelis wanted peace but the government really didn't. The government wanted things on its terms and only its terms, and therefore there could be no peace. Just one Israeli's opinion, but it is one I have seen little evidence to suggest is far off the mark in the 16 years that have followed my last conversation with her.

I think I can match that anecdote and maybe go it one better. All the way back in 1965, I had a close friend and classmate who was a jew and almost messianic about Israel. He finally got to go there and spend the summer in Jerusalem that year. He went with high hopes of finding a cosmopolitan, literate, liberal country devoted to reason and the pursuit of high ideals. He came back very disillusioned, virtually a broken man. He once satirized the radical nationalism he found there by saying, "We will create a jewish state in Israel that will last a thousand years!" and giving the Nazi salute. You cannot imagine what it would have taken to provoke this guy to make such a gesture. I have seldom felt sorrier for anyone in my life. The light had gone out in his life and in the remaining year that I knew him, he did not find another to replace it, though he tried with several pie in the sky spiritual sects.

Michael

[The Graeme]

How willing would the Arabs be to use nukes? Israel is a very small country. Any nuclear explosions would kill many Palestinians, as well as impact Jordon, Egypt, etc, thru radiation. And surely no Arab power would want to nuke Jerusalem, Islam's 3rd holiest city? In other words, is not developing Arab nuclear weapons more of a prestige obsession than a practical military consideration?

Secondly, for similar reasons, Israel would be crazy to use nukes in a tactical local sense. They can only be of use in their present role, a threat in being presumably reserved for distant targets, like capital cities in Libya, Iraq, etc.

It also strikes me there is a second deterrent implication, a doomsday scenario no one ever talks about. If Israel were quite obviously going down, about to be overrun, etc, why not take revenge in advance of their own destruction by dropping nukes on Mecca and Medina, the two holiest sites in Islam? And Jerusalem, on the principle 'if we can't have it, you can't have it?' I mean, if you are about to be exterminated anyway, why not take as many enemy as you can with you, and their most important shrines as well?

I've often wondered if the gap between arab rhetoric and Arab performance is at least partly due to fear of pushing the Israelis too far and triggering this revenge doomsday scenario?

Personally, I would hope a miracle eventually takes place and Palestine and Israel sincerely agree to co-exist in peace. I would also like world peace, putting an end to slavery, to world hunger, etc, etc, not to mention winning the lottery.

But should nightmares triumph over dreams, threatening to nuke Mecca strikes me as a plausible last resort for Israel. So, are Arab leaders aware of this posibility? I wonder.

[juan_gigante]

Steve - I had not heard about Syrian chemical weapons. The only NBC activity I had heard about in Middle East Arab nations was (besides Iraq ) Iran's attempts to get nukes, an effort that I was under the impression they were failing at. Especially considering the world at large's tolerance for allowing Israeli jets to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities (see: that one time that happened). My point is that the argument that Israel needs nukes for self-defense is defunct, and concurrently, that every argument - every argument, mind you - that I had heard for Israel to have nukes was based off incorrect assumptions. As I have heard from Israeli supporters (both in the board and out), the reasoning is that Israel needs them for defense. But they don't! As I said before - Israel has conventional weapons supremacy (as has been demonstrated a few times before) and has the support of nearly all of the Western World. I think that in my posts here, I have conclusively proved the fact that Israel no longer needs nukes. Any NBC attacks against Israel would be retaliated against with absolutely overwhelming force, Israeli nukes or no. I'm going to go ahead and assume this is proven.

The second factor is the Arab view of our actions. Holding Arab nations to a standard which we do not hold Israel to is viewed as Zionist, racist, and unfair. Considering that Muslim societies generally consider justice to be such a high priority, I can see how they might be offended.

I'm restating myself here. Honestly, I feel that this is one of those arguments which has a definate right and wrong - like whether Hitler was a bad man or whether or not puppies are cuddly. Israel should not have nuclear weapons. They are unnecessary, and our support of a nuclear Israel is greatly undermining our support in the region, which translates directly into higher oil prices and more dead American soldiers. Israel should disarm.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

The only NBC activity I had heard about in Middle East Arab nations was (besides Iraq ) Iran's attempts to get nukes, an effort that I was under the impression they were failing at. Especially considering the world at large's tolerance for allowing Israeli jets to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities (see: that one time that happened).

Are you referring to that occasion in 1981 when they bombed the Osiris facility in Iraq?

My point is that the argument that Israel needs nukes for self-defense is defunct, and concurrently, that every argument - every argument, mind you - that I had heard for Israel to have nukes was based off incorrect assumptions. As I have heard from Israeli supporters (both in the board and out), the reasoning is that Israel needs them for defense. But they don't! As I said before - Israel has conventional weapons supremacy (as has been demonstrated a few times before) and has the support of nearly all of the Western World. I think that in my posts here, I have conclusively proved the fact that Israel no longer needs nukes. Any NBC attacks against Israel would be retaliated against with absolutely overwhelming force, Israeli nukes or no.

There is one additional possibility, and that is that when the USSR was giving major military support to the Arab states, Israel was developing nukes and delivery systems as a threat against that country and an inducement for it to lean on the Arab states to use discretion.

Otherwise, I am in general agreement with your position as you have described it here.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Michael, excellent story.

Well, personally I think WMD are about the dumbest invention since the pet rock. They are utterly useless. The only ones likely to use them now are non-state terrorist groups, which means no retalliation is possible. The money and damage these weapons do sitting idle is a horrific waste. Like Israel, the US has enough conventional might to lay waste to any terrorist state that might be stupid enough to use them, such as Iran or North Korea. Plus, we'd have a LOT of help doing it.

Steve

[Scott B]

Israel is not party to the NPT. The NPT implicitly acknowledges that all sovereign states have a right to develop nuclear weapons; the basic "grand bargain" of the treaty is that non-nuclear weapons states party to the treaty (including Iran) give up that right in order to receive assistance on the development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes. There's no legal basis under the NPT to do anything with regard to Israel, but there's plenty for Iran if they're believed to be in noncompliance, as they were declared to be by the IAEA earlier this year.

This isn't to say that the Israeli nuclear program isn't a thorn in the side of nonproliferation efforts; just that statements being thrown around the thread aren't all that solidly grounded in an understanding of the current international nonproliferation regime.

Scott

[Yair Iny]

I am an Israeli who is very displeased with the hard line right wing stance taken by my government in the last 4-5 years of the palestinian uprising.

However, I would ask you to consider this. Israel is very much more powerful militarily than her neighbours. Yet, those countries still exist on the map, and their populations have not been exterminated by the IDF. If the reverse were true, i.e. Israel's arab neighbours were significantly stronger militarily than she, how many weeks do you think Israel would last (barring the US coming to her aid)? I think most would agree that it wouldn't be a very long time, and no country wants to depend on another one for her defense from destruction. That is the reason Israel has (allegedly ) nukes.

Cheers

[ December 15, 2005, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Yair Iny ]

[Tarquelne]

As I have heard from Israeli supporters (both in the board and out), the reasoning is that Israel needs them for defense. But they don't! As I said before - Israel has conventional weapons supremacy (as has been demonstrated a few times before) and has the support of nearly all of the Western World.

***

Counterargument:

#1

Israel's nukes have a "chilling effect" on the development of surrounding militaries. Even if one nation or any local coalition could field a conventional force that matched the IDF, there's still the nukes.... so why try?

Thus, the IDF's conventional superiority exists - at least potentially and in part - because of the nukes.

#2:

It creates a second line of defense. Any attacker will have to counter both a conventional and nuclear military threat. Any momentary weakness in one area can be partially compensatied by the other. Better safe than sorry.

***

While I agree there does seem to be a double standard operating as to who's "allowed" nukes and who isn't, I'd certainly rather see nukes possessed by Israel than anyone else in the region. (With the exception of nijis.) Because extermination of neighboring nations isn't as big a factor in Israel's foriegn policy as it seems to be with some others.

Overall, though, they (as j_g describes) still may generate more hostility than safety. I don't suppose there are any reliable "Exactly why do you hate Israel enough to kill?" polls around?

[gunnersman]

In these Israel Good/Israel Bad discussions, the people who have a predominantly jaundiced view of Israel seem to forget that there ARE Arabs living in Israel. And I dont mean on the other side of the wall the Israelis want to build. They live amongst the Jews.

They also have the opportunity to raise their families the way they want to? Am I wrong?

Now I will admit that I do not know how they are treated by the general population in Israel...but to me, the fact that Arabs do live in Israel seems to be a good thing.

The problem here, as in every civilized society, are the far, far, extremists on either side of spectrum.

[juan_gigante]

I agree that if there are going to be nukes in the area, they should be Israeli rather than, say, Iranian. That doesn't make it okay for Israel to have them.

I still don't buy the "Israel needs them for defense" argument. If Israel was attacked and their conventional forces were defeated (highly, highly unlikely), US forces would be there so fast, it'd be a blur. Especially if it was an NBC attack.

I guess I was a little confused on the attacking facilities. Osiris was the only one they actually attacked. Still, Israel may well have plans to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

And on the NPT, I suppose my point is that even though Israel, not being a signatory of the treaty, is not legally violating it, they are violating the spirit of it.

[ December 16, 2005, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: juan_gigante ]

[Saviola]

the people who have a predominantly jaundiced view of Israel seem to forget that there ARE Arabs living in Israel. And I dont mean on the other side of the wall the Israelis want to build. They live amongst the Jews.

Why do you think that is? You make it sound like the Israelis are doing the Arabs you speak of a favor. It’s like gloatingly saying, you know, the Bush administration does allow native Americans to live in the US. The Arabs that live in Israel are called the Arabs of 1948, they lived in Palestine before the Protestant reformation and in biblical days en masse, supplanting them from Nazareth and environs is like forcibly awarding your Iowan farm to Venezuelan nationals. Their demographics give the Israelis chills of horror.

You think native Americans wouldn’t like to see Anglo Americans disappear off the face of the earth? State legislators never end placating natives and making their notables rich by granting lucrative gaming entitlements to reservations. Guilt perhaps? A lot is said of Arab hatred of Israelis, but the hatred is mutual and the root cause is never touched upon. No Israel existed before the 1940s, it’s an Anglo transplant.

The Israelis are nearly doing to the Arabs of 1948 and their brethren in the West Bank what the Nazis did to Jews in Poland. Arabs and Jews of Sephardic, non European origin are treated as 3rd and 10th class citizens respectively in the Jewish state. It’s vastly disingenuous and uninformed to think neighboring Arab dictators are a threat to Israel or even desire to threaten it. Iran isn’t an Arabic nation, it’s Persian. The Arab armies are there to oppress, subjugate and smash Arab nationals. If it wasn’t for fear of popular Arab opinion, Arab dictators would seek sexual relations with Sharon. They want his stamp of approval. Look at Iraq today, it’s crawling with Israeli intelligence officers and business interests.

[Saviola]

The threat of pieces of **** Scuds? Seriously, the Israelis are so technologically advanced, last October they successfully tested their own version of the Patriot. They have possession of counter measure American and Israeli missile technology that’ll pulverize any ballistics the Arabs can’t and won’t bring to bear.

It’s the other way around, the Arab dictators fear the **** outa Israel and Israel laughs hysterically at their capabilities and cowardice. It’s the Arabs who are petrified of being thrown in the gulf, rather than the Israelis into the sea.

Iran is surrounded by mighty armies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asian states friendly to the US, but the Iranians are asked “why are you paranoid”. Even though we call you evil and say you can’t have this, you mustn’t be allowed that, your way of life doesn’t suit us, “why do you fear us.” The Iranians aren’t stupid, they see the North Korean intransigent stance, and they know a bomb is their only salvation.

Israel's nuclear arsenal is strategically intended to deter Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, all far away, Islamic states or endowed with an Islamic bend bordering on a gathering fervor. Regardless of all the hype, Iran’s bomb won’t materialize till 5 - 10 years from now if ever. The Israelis and Americans say in months or a year because they seek to instigate, raise “sexed up”, WMD-like fears to sway European, Russian, Chinese and Arab opinion towards sanctions then aerial bombardment.

As for Pakistan, it may not stay in the west’s lap for ever, coups can take on an eastern, nationalistic tone too. Nor will Turkey stay non nuclear within NATO till the end of time. Not while the Americans and Israelis keep making love with the Kurds down south, not while the Kurds make autonomous deals with Norway to develop potential energy and oil fields in northern Iraq. It all stinks of statehood vis a vis the Turks, they won’t stay quite indefinitely.

World peace can only be achieved by nuclear proliferation rather than non proliferation. Everyone will be afraid of everyone else, no one would dare mess with his foes for fear of mutual annihilation. Look how the Indians and Pakistanis are flirting and talking, how the Americans respect the Russians, Chinese and North Koreans to an extent, how England is cordial with France. There is no such thing as crazy dictators with a bomb, dictators are crazy about life, absolute power and riches, not their demise. People often said Kaddafi was crazy, was his last move what that is? Had Saddam known the US would intervene when he swallowed Kuwait, he woulda never crossed. Had Kuwait been nuclear-powered he woulda never crossed.

[ December 16, 2005, 05:08 AM: Message edited by: El_Operative ]

[Stavka_lite]

"Iran is surrounded by mighty armies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asian states friendly to the US, but the Iranians are asked “why are you paranoid”. Even though we call you evil and say you can’t have this, you mustn’t be allowed that, your way of life doesn’t suit us, “why do you fear us.” The Iranians aren’t stupid, they see the North Korean intransigent stance, and they know a bomb is their only salvation."

Uhm...no last I heard the Iraqi army was efectively destroyed by the US Army, The Afghans haven't had a real army for 25 years, The Pakistanis as more worried about India than anything else and the Central Asian States can't cross the street much less invade another country. The Iranians are trying to become THE dominant regional superpower PERIOD. Personally, I say let them. They will find that that little title will tie their hands even more effectively that any sanction the UN can impose. Look what being a superpower did for the USSR and what it is doing to the US. China is facing the same problems.

[Stavka_lite]

Let me address the fact that the American are surrounding Iran. The Iranians are not stupid and they know that American public opinion will not allow any further (I really hate this term) American military adventurism and they know that the Americans will not open a "third front" against them, at least not overtly. The Iranians are not worried about the EU either for what I think are obvious reasons. Are the Americans putting pressure on Iran, absolutely and they should be. But once again I say, lets let them join that exclusive club and let them find out just how easily and effectively it will be used against them. Everyone and their little sister knows that they support terrorism and they know that that one little slip and it is good night Tehran just like North Korea knows. Everyone forgets that the US, the former USSR, UK, China and France have beeen living under that same shadow for the better part of 60 years. India and Pakistan found out quick what that shadow hid and it seems they are in the process of making amends with each other. So let'm get nukes...and if their intentions are peaceful, then so much the better.

[Saviola]

Uhm...no last I heard the Iraqi army was efectively destroyed by the US Army, The Afghans haven't had a real army for 25 years, The Pakistanis as more worried about India than anything else and the Central Asian States can't cross the street much less invade another country.

ahem.... What's meant by "mighty armies" are the ones and only US armies in the region. You've the mighty US Afghan army, the all mighty US Iraq army, America's ally in the war on terror, Pakistan which if pressed will lend its territory for US special ops, and you've the docile Central Asians who will lend air space and landing strips if needed.

By the way, I do like your logical and permissive approach to the nuclear issue S_lite.

[KNac]

Originally posted by Lee:

Because the idiots that run the UN put all

countries on the same moral plane, regardless of how the current dictator

of some 3rd world nation murdered his way to the top get in charge of that country,

or how that country abuses it's own people, or how that country treats

other nations.

Dictators who were placed there by "peacefull nations" to start with? who runs the UN? stop this bull****, welcome to the world of real-politik.

---

Nukes shouldn't exist at all, but unfortunaly they exist. preventing the expansion of these and dropping the existing ones should be what have to be done. But well, we are are humans and so stupids and autodestructive.

WMD are worthless and worst invention in a long long time as Steve pointed out later.

[ December 16, 2005, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: KNac ]

[GreenBlade]

Moderator please don't close this thread. It's interesting and a good example of an informed spirited debate---even if somewhat tangential to CMSF.

[yuvuphys]

Dear Battlefront,

Why oh why is there so much off-topic politics around here? I only want to come and talk about CMSF, but I've had to stop becase threads like this drive me nuts. Politics, or no politics?

Sincerely,

Looking Forward to Screenshots

[KNac]

Originally posted by yuvuphys:

Dear Battlefront,

Why oh why is there so much off-topic politics around here? I only want to come and talk about CMSF, but I've had to stop becase threads like this drive me nuts. Politics, or no politics?

Sincerely,

Looking Forward to Screenshots

YEAH!

[gunnersman]

Originally posted by El_Operative:

The threat of pieces of **** Scuds?...

All it takes is one nuke tip Scud. They dont have to be that accurate. And the Israeli's version of the Patriot is not all that great either.

It’s the other way around, the Arab dictators fear the **** outa Israel and Israel laughs hysterically at their capabilities and cowardice. It’s the Arabs who are petrified of being thrown in the gulf, rather than the Israelis into the sea.

I can see Israel marching all the way north up the coast of the Med, through Syria into Turkey, and then back down and west into Egypt and Libya THEN east into Iraq and Saudi Arabia, Iran, and then taking on Pakistan...it doesnt have necessarily have to be in that order. Yea, the Arab's should be REALLY scared.

The only Western countries who give a damn are the French and Russians...only because they sell weapons to Arab countries.

Iran is surrounded by mighty armies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asian states friendly to the US, but the Iranians are asked “why are you paranoid”.....

The US couldnt invade even if we wanted to. The US population would have none of it and the US's "mighy Army" is spread thin. Besides the US does not need to invade Iran. There is the prevailing idea that the Gov't of Iran does not fully represent the will of it's people anyway.

Israel's nuclear arsenal is strategically intended to deter Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, all far away, Islamic states [are] endowed with an Islamic bend bordering on a gathering fervor. Regardless of all the hype, Iran’s bomb won’t materialize till 5 - 10 years from now if ever. The Israelis and Americans say in months or a year because they seek to instigate, raise “sexed up”, WMD-like fears to sway European, Russian, Chinese and Arab opinion towards sanctions then aerial bombardment.

Yea right. It worked so well the first time with the UN when the US tried to get them on board to invade Iraq, good ol' Dubya thought he'd try that tried and true idea again.

As for Pakistan, it may not stay in the west’s lap for ever, coups can take on an eastern, nationalistic tone too. Nor will Turkey stay non nuclear within NATO till the end of time. Not while the Americans and Israelis keep making love with the Kurds down south, not while the Kurds make autonomous deals with Norway to develop potential energy and oil fields in northern Iraq. It all stinks of statehood vis a vis the Turks, they won’t stay quite indefinitely.

World peace can only be achieved by nuclear proliferation rather than non proliferation. Everyone will be afraid of everyone else, no one would dare mess with his foes for fear of mutual annihilation. Look how the Indians and Pakistanis are flirting and talking, how the Americans respect the Russians, Chinese and North Koreans to an extent, how England is cordial with France. There is no such thing as crazy dictators with a bomb, dictators are crazy about life, absolute power and riches, not their demise. People often said Kaddafi was crazy, was his last move what that is? Had Saddam known the US would intervene when he swallowed Kuwait, he woulda never crossed. Had Kuwait been nuclear-powered he woulda never crossed.

You have some good points here.

[gunnersman]

Originally posted by yuvuphys:

Dear Battlefront,

Why oh why is there so much off-topic politics around here? I only want to come and talk about CMSF, but I've had to stop becase threads like this drive me nuts. Politics, or no politics?

Sincerely,

Looking Forward to Screenshots

Frankly I enjoy the back and forth discussion. As long as there is no name calling.

[akd]

Originally posted by yuvuphys:

Dear Battlefront,

Why oh why is there so much off-topic politics around here? I only want to come and talk about CMSF, but I've had to stop becase threads like this drive me nuts. Politics, or no politics?

Sincerely,

Looking Forward to Screenshots

The authenticity of the CM:SF setting hinges on current and ever-changing political realities, and BFC is all about authenticity.

[Tagwyn]

Jauanito et. al.: You make no sense at all! What are you studying, under-water basket weaving? Israel could not stop its "neighbors" if it did not have the ability to totally destroy them. On the other hand, Iran is not out enemy, nor is Iraq. The Jihadists are our enemy. They want to restore the Caliphate throughout N.Africa, Spain and all the way to India and into Russia!! US foriegn policy has not always been a picture of perfection but it was never used to hold territory. If the EU kiss Iran's arse any harder they will become permantly attached. Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. N.Korea and Iran are both ruled by lunatics and must eventually be freed. You have seen what S. Korea and Japan and Germany could do with freedom!! N.Korea and especially Iran could do the same. Communist China must bear most of the blame for this stupid standoff with NK. IF the West continues to ignore this, Japan will have to re-arm (produce nukes) in order to have a lelgitimate expection of protecting itself against N.Korea AND the PRC. By the way, what will the USA do when the PRC tries to conquer Nationist China? Hit them with flyswatters? The Taiwanese will fight to the death, EU will wring its hands and call on them to surrender. Russia could not do anything to help if it wanted to. What keeps them from coming across the strait tomorrow? They are foaming at the mouth!! Why did the PRC save N.Korea in 1950? They would be much better off to have a democratic Korea as a neighbor, don't you think? I guess you don't! Merry CHRISTmas! Tag

[KNac]

Originally posted by Tagwyn:

N.Korea and Iran are both ruled by lunatics and must eventually be freed.

What's up with some americans and their permanent attitude to "free" everyone and his mother? Please, learn some history and you will see that enforcing freedom NEVER works! Our hard earned "freedom" (I hardly believe our "democracies" are such things, but that's an other question) has come to a cost and a long process during a long time! The have to "earn" their freedom by theirshelves. One thing is preventing them of striking us with nuclear weapons, and other enforcing their "freedom" for us to have safe asses. If you want to prevent NBQ weaons danger just stop producing them all the way, all the nations. But off course, our politics won't do that, it's not interesting for their pockets and the groups of pressure or lobbies behind them. It's all bull****.

By the way, what will the USA do when the PRC tries to conquer Nationist China? Hit them with flyswatters? The Taiwanese will fight to the death, EU will wring its hands and call on them to surrender. Russia could not do anything to help if it wanted to. What keeps them from coming across the strait tomorrow?

Off course a nuclear strike will prevent them of doing no? Do you live in Alice's Donderland? Do you think there would be such an strike at all? Hold your horser sir! the economical and political cirscunstances hold more than any nuke such an attack. Funny enought such thing as cartoonish "Comunist" China is no more an agressive capitalist nation like USA other that with an aparent fanatical political control, the only difference with USA is that while on China the government mechanism of control is a supposed comunist ideology in USA is a fanatical religious and "patriotic" ideology.

[ December 16, 2005, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: KNac ]