Hmmmm, light guns and very old tanks are killing our soldiers then. Even a stone can be deadly. Come on Fernando, they have a RANGE of very new highspeed weapons to extremely old not-maintained weapons depending on the unit. Our troops have already uncovered all types of weapons from the new still-in-the-box to the old and not maintained. By the way, the newest weapons they located were manufactured in France within the last year.


>Nicholas,
>
>>How many innocents lives are expendable to get the bad guy ?
>
>The title of your message touches in the exact point it should: Morality.
>
>Mr Bush said they needed to go war because Sadam was a threat, they had WMD etc etc. In those last few days what we could see was an unarmed Iraq, soldiers dressed in rags, no WMD used so far or even yet found (and the UN inspectors were incompetent...), Iraq's army just having light guns, and some very old tanks and the like.
>
>On the other side... well, everybody knows about the other side.
>
>Think the whole world now is thinking where the threat is (of course there are "some" exceptions).
>
>The question now is: "Who's(re) the next(s)?"
>
>This reminds me an old saying from my homeland (Rio Grande do Sul): "to stop a dog that eats lambs, just killing it" (cahorro que come ovelha, só matando), because after it (the dog) gets the lust for lamb's blood it will never stop. Of course it's just a saying and, please, I am not suggesting anything here! (I have to make this remark because somebody may rush and say that I'm suggesting that's the case in here).
>
>Fortunatelly in a democratic country there are means to stop dogs that like to eat lambs, without the need to kill them. Thanks God!
>
>Fernando
>
>PS. In my homeland folclore the dog (in this case) represents the one that has the power to take care (or watch) of the lambs and the lamb represents that one that should be taken care of, therefore having no power to fight against the dog. Interesting, isn't?