The Iraq Thread

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Dec. 04 2002,02:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">another forum mud slinging. <span id='postcolor'>

Oh I so tire of these same ol' misinformed arguments, so I will make only a few points in order from your post.

1-The convoy WAS in combat. The convoy was leaving ("retreating from") an OCCUPIED country. Just because they got their jaw popped and were turning tail doesn't suddenly give them a "go home free" card. They attacked, they occupied, they got kicked out. The cease-fire WASN'T in effect. I'm glad you weren't in charge during Desert Storm, otherwise that large column who you make a peacenik assumption that they "just wanted to go home," would most likely have wheeled around and bitten you in the ass. You never let your enemy regroup or re-organize.

So what if it was moving in "loose order." That to me says more of a combat stance then anything. You don't bunch up when you are going into battle after all. And if they wanted to surrender so bad, they should have stayed in Kuwait where Allied forces were advancing, but instead they looted as much as they could, set the oil caps afire, and tried to high-tail it. They got caught.

That column was a fair target. None of your "human killings" rhetoric will change the fact that the convoy was A-In a war zone, B-mostly soldiers, C-Armor and APCs were present, and D-loaded down with looted material.

B- Massacres not know by Iraq?? What highly misinformed world are you living in?? Remember when Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds? Remember when Saddam massacred thousands of Iranian troops and his own in the Iraq-Iran War (a war HE also started)? What the HELL are you talking about?? Iraq is KNOWN for these massacres! Do your homework before making an assinine statement like that.

C- Where is your proof of this? Were you there, seeing the Iraqis come out, white flag waving and get gunned down? No? I didn't think so. NO ONE was except the pilots and the Iraqis. So please spare us your accepted assumptions from misinformed sources.

D- Your brilliant tactical mind fails to take into account the war and fighting were STILL on going at this time, and that ground units were needed for this fighting. Your grandiose plan also fails to take into account the Iraqi counter-attack that had penetrated Saudi Arabian territory. It also fails to take in account ground force dispositions, locations, SoR's, and if they were engaged or not (which they likely were). Your wonderful plan also fails to take in account the number of ground forces needed to cover and capture such a large convoy or the danger of sending in ground troops to a convoy filled with troops, armor and APCs (and Mercedes Benz's). Your plan would have ammounted to nothing but Allied casualities and the majority of the column escaping into Iraq to most likely wheel around and as I said, bite you in the ass.

E- Jesus. NO army is a "minor" threat. Especially one as large as Iraq's. Plus they had T-72's, Mig-29s and Su-35s, as well as Hind's. That doesn't seem as "outdated as hell" to me. A standing army as large as Iraqs, with the amount of NOT outdated equipment they had, plus having a despot with apparently the political will to use this army is a LARGE threat. Get it straight.

F-I'll give you that one.

G- Your misinformation comes to a head by your assertation that the "Morgentau Plan" was the "original US plans" for Germany. You mistake a plan set forth by a FEW individuals as US policy. The fact is that was NEVER considered US policy nor was it even seriously considered. If you want I can give you a few good links about it and set you straight.

H-I'll give you that one too. People's reactions are unpredicatable. No one can say for sure how any large group of people will react to any given situation. Chaos Theory.

I-And what makes you think they want Saddam? The only way for the people to choose is get rid of Saddam. Face it. A "puppet" government will have to be set up to keep order until the election can be organized.

J-People need to stop assuming they know how the Iraqis are going to feel. Read "H" above. But my guess is that under a different form of government (other than despot) the people will flourish and prosper.

K-We will have to wait and see. I DO NOT forsee large popular uprisings. And I certainly don't see the town to town house to house fighting that you invision. That is highly unlikely.

L- The Afghanis have known nothing but war and upheaval for the last 60 years or so. The government isn't accepted? That is a BROAD generalization. There are those that accept it and embrace it and there are those that don't accept it at all. You have that in ANY country. Why don't the people that dislike YOUR government overthrow it? Because every government is propped up by military force, not JUST popular acceptance. So should YOUR government be overthrown? No. But the Afghanis have the equipment and the will and 60 years of upheaval to take down what they don't like. Tribal leaders who want power for themselves are the only ones that ar causing trouble. That and Taliban and Al Queda supporters.

Think that is all I have to say right now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 10 2002,10:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">B- Massacres not know by Iraq?? What highly misinformed world are you living in?? Remember when Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds? Remember when Saddam massacred thousands of Iranian troops and his own in the Iraq-Iran War (a war HE also started)? What the HELL are you talking about?? Iraq is KNOWN for these massacres! Do your homework before making an assinine statement like that.<span id='postcolor'>

I think Balschoiw considers the Iraqi actions less devastating than the U.S. ones.

He never said Iraq is not guilty of anything ever.

What can be expected after the war? Millions more people will be opressed. More resistance to the US world wide? Nothing good will come after it I don't think.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">J-People need to stop assuming they know how the Iraqis are going to feel. Read "H" above. But my guess is that under a different form of government (other than despot) the people will flourish and prosper<span id='postcolor'>

Do you mean how they would feel after the US has saved them?

I am not assuming something, i've seen whole crowds saying this. A lot of the people in Iraq hate the US, yes that's right, they are what some people think some of our forum members are. They don't dislike the US, they HATE the US. Don't ask me why because i dunno why. But sad enough it is true, a lot of them would rather have Saddam as their leader than see an invasion. You also have to admit that not everyone hates Saddam. A lot of people who live in Iraq love that man, why? Have you ever seen how many times you see Saddam every day in Iraq?

Every night he's on TV, all over the country you can see his picture, at night, there are TV shows with songs in it about how wonderful Saddam is. The kids can sing these songs while reading the text on their TVs. A lot of the civilians in Iraq have been raised this way. We call that brainwashing, because of this brainwashing a lot of people actually adore Saddam, they think he's wonderful.

Do not try to think everyone hates Saddam and everyone likes the US, this sounds like the perfect situation but sad enough, the word 'perfect' is a word that actually can not be reached...

The american pilots were humans,naturally,and several of them had 'mixed feelings' about what they had to do.They called it a turkey shoot in a grim manner,not an enthusiastic one.

Iraq had some modern equipment,but very little,most was just export versions witout improvements or without decent instruments/avionics.

And for most islamic countries,they'll choose any lesser bad than americans occupying them(the masses do overwhelm the better informed opinions).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Dec. 10 2002,11:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">J-People need to stop assuming they know how the Iraqis are going to feel. Read "H" above. But my guess is that under a different form of government (other than despot) the people will flourish and prosper<span id='postcolor'>

Do you mean how they would feel after the US has saved them?

I am not assuming something, i've seen whole crowds saying this. A lot of the people in Iraq hate the US, yes that's right, they are what some people think some of our forum members are. They don't dislike the US, they HATE the US.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, there is no assumption here, the vast majority (almost all) of Iraqi people do not want U.S. help with Hussein. What they fear most is the US, what they hate most now is the U.S.... this is how it is, not an assumption.

It is sickening to see U.S. foreign policy now, and U.S. media are full of shit, what better way to stop TERRORISM than be an ass on the international scale.

Now I'm wondering when th U.S. is going to release or charge those people they are holding captive without proper reasons.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 10 2002,16:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 10 2002,10:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">B- Massacres not know by Iraq?? What highly misinformed world are you living in?? Remember when Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds? Remember when Saddam massacred thousands of Iranian troops and his own in the Iraq-Iran War (a war HE also started)? What the HELL are you talking about?? Iraq is KNOWN for these massacres! Do your homework before making an assinine statement like that.<span id='postcolor'>

I think Balschoiw considers the Iraqi actions less devastating than the U.S. ones.

He never said Iraq is not guilty of anything ever.

What can be expected after the war? Millions more people will be opressed. More resistance to the US world wide? Nothing good will come after it I don't think.<span id='postcolor'>

Less devestating than gassing an entire unarmed village or his own people?

Then he needs to get his priorities straight.

I also have no doubt that ANYTHING the US does will cause more anti-US feelings. Its the way that it is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> They don't dislike the US, they HATE the US. Don't ask me why because i dunno why. But sad enough it is true, a lot of them would rather have Saddam as their leader than see an invasion. You also have to admit that not everyone hates Saddam. A lot of people who live in Iraq love that man, why? Have you ever seen how many times you see Saddam every day in Iraq?

Every night he's on TV, all over the country you can see his picture, at night, there are TV shows with songs in it about how wonderful Saddam is. The kids can sing these songs while reading the text on their TVs. A lot of the civilians in Iraq have been raised this way. We call that brainwashing, because of this brainwashing a lot of people actually adore Saddam, they think he's wonderful.<span id='postcolor'>

However... do not judge the Iraqi people like that, if they love Hussein maybe they have a right to, like people love Bush who is on U.S. TV hundreds of times per day. (I do call that brainwashing) U.S. media is full of it, example; today it is in the news that Carter got the Nobel peace prize and he spoke out for PEACE while recieving it, yet on CNN they omit the PEACE part and insert how he helped with the Israeli conflict. Why not skip the news we don't like, right...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> But sad enough it is true, a lot of them would rather have Saddam as their leader than see an invasion.<span id='postcolor'> I think you will change your mind about that if you think about it at all... do you actually know what an invasion does to Iraqi civilians, remember that thousands of Iraqis are now dying monthly due to oil for war program, which will soon halt if American diplomats can't make it more restrictive.

Basically, if you punish the Iraqi government, you will end up punishing the civilians. The U.S. will be haunted by problems decades from now if they install their regime there. Lets just sit back and watch the warmongers first.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Dec. 10 2002,17:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">J-People need to stop assuming they know how the Iraqis are going to feel. Read "H" above. But my guess is that under a different form of government (other than despot) the people will flourish and prosper<span id='postcolor'>

Do you mean how they would feel after the US has saved them?

I am not assuming something, i've seen whole crowds saying this. A lot of the people in Iraq hate the US, yes that's right, they are what some people think some of our forum members are. They don't dislike the US, they HATE the US. Don't ask me why because i dunno why. But sad enough it is true, a lot of them would rather have Saddam as their leader than see an invasion. You also have to admit that not everyone hates Saddam. A lot of people who live in Iraq love that man, why? Have you ever seen how many times you see Saddam every day in Iraq?

Every night he's on TV, all over the country you can see his picture, at night, there are TV shows with songs in it about how wonderful Saddam is. The kids can sing these songs while reading the text on their TVs. A lot of the civilians in Iraq have been raised this way. We call that brainwashing, because of this brainwashing a lot of people actually adore Saddam, they think he's wonderful.

Do not try to think everyone hates Saddam and everyone likes the US, this sounds like the perfect situation but sad enough, the word 'perfect' is a word that actually can not be reached...<span id='postcolor'>

You completely missed what I was saying.

I don't think everyone loves the US that is for damn sure. But then again I don't think everyone hates the US either. The same for Saddam.

Remember all those pictures the media loved to flash off the Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11? Well it turned out that was a SMALL number of people. I mean SMALL. Remember the anti-Saddam protest that popped up in Bagdad in front of reporters and was quickly dispersed by Iraqi police?

Did you read the article I posted about the two Iranians that were jailed because they released a survey that said a majority of Iranians wanted to make up with and have closer ties with the US?

THAT is why I said people need to stop assuming. To assume the Iraqis would resent a US invasion is as dangerous as assuming that they would not. To assume anything about a people is dangerous. There are too many variables and factors to take in.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 10 2002,11:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To assume the Iraqis would resent a US invasion is as dangerous as assuming that they would not. To assume anything about a people is dangerous. There are too many variables and factors to take in.<span id='postcolor'>

They are making it clear they resent and will resent any invasion. What do you mean?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 10 2002,17:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 10 2002,11:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To assume the Iraqis would resent a US invasion is as dangerous as assuming that they would not. To assume anything about a people is dangerous. There are too many variables and factors to take in.<span id='postcolor'>

They are making it clear they resent and will resent any invasion. What do you mean?<span id='postcolor'>

Really?

Have you talked to everyone of them? Have you gone there and found out yourself?

Or are you going by media, newspapers, and what Saddam says?

Of course there will be those that fight. But there will be those that will help and guide as well.

THAT is what I am saying.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 10 2002,18:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have you talked to everyone of them? Have you gone there and found out yourself?<span id='postcolor'>

heh ? did you ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Dec. 10 2002,18:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 10 2002,18:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have you talked to everyone of them? Have you gone there and found out yourself?<span id='postcolor'>

heh ? did you ?<span id='postcolor'>

Nope...but I'm not making sweeping generalizations about "everyone".

All I'm sayin' is that people are different and you can't lump them all into a group.

I'll wait to see what happens, and save analysis for after.

That so many are blocking for poor old Saddam shows how much of a US bashing thread this has become.

i haven't seen any thread about the "photocopy" fuck up . when the US officials at the NATO council took the decision on of their own and three hours to make photocopies of the paper report about iraq's WMDs .....

-edit- and the US officials (were they really officials ?) did it without the prior consentement of the other countries' representants and delegations

and you got lots of time in your hands to falsificate a report , even if it's more than 10000 pages long in 3 hours

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 10 2002,17:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Less devestating than gassing an entire unarmed village or his own people?

Then he needs to get his priorities straight.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, no civilized country would ever bomb unarmed villages *caugh*Vietnam*caugh*. (Don't worry, I won't continue on that line)

Nobody ever said that Saddam was democracy embodied, however he has done many good things for Iraq. He reminds me very much of the European renaissance princes: Very agressive politically, expansive, highly intelligent, brutal with the highest goal of making himself, his country and his people more powerful. He knows his Machiavelli.

When he attacked Kuwait, he didn't do it for himself; he is wealthy enough to have any life he pleases. It was for Iraq - for the benifit of the country. He has in the past modernized the entire country making life much better for the average Iraqi citizen.

Ok, I've tried to keep quiet, but I can't resist...

My guess is that the Iraqi people will not be as unhappy with a US invasion like most people in here seem to think.  This is providing that the US actually follows through and dont leave the opposition holding their **** again just to be crushed by Saddam like in 1991.  More US anti-sentiment probably comes from that fact rather than from the support for Saddam.

I think the international community will be more pissed off than the Iraqi people if the invasion becomes reality. Everyone who views the US as a money/power hungry superpower intent on ruling the world will use the invasion as a prime example of this conspiracy.  I can't say I really blame them for thinking tnis way... BUT, it is a shame that liberating a clearly oppressed people from a ruthless dictator will be viewed as somekind of globalization attempt in the interest of the US.  I don't think this has anything to do with it.  The UN will be the only winner in this Desert Storm II.  UN resolutions can be taken seriously again while the US takes the brunt of the political shit storm that is sure to follow.  The world should be grateful that we have a leader who is stupid enough to stick our neck out for the UN like this.

Despite of what the hippies in the European governments think, a serious show of force is the only language Saddam understands, NATO is the only force capable of these threats, and the US is the only nation with enough balls to see it happen.  Its working well, after ten years of defying the UN, Saddam is finally cooperating with the UN even though he's bitching about it every minute.  Perhaps this will be enough? Who knows?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lazarus_Long @ Dec. 10 2002,19:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Despite of what the hippies in the European governments think, a serious show of force is the only language Saddam understands, NATO is the only force capable of these threats, and the US is the only nation with enough balls to see it happen.  <span id='postcolor'>

I entirely agree that you can only remove Saddam by force. The question is if there is really any urgent need to. There are far more oppressed people in the world then the Iraqi. Also, just becasue you have a dictator it doesn't mean that you are oppressed. Why don't you go and invade Saudi Arabia instead? They are both politically and religiously oppressive towards their people. Saddam is at least no religious fundamentalist.

You have to have some faith in the abilities of other cultures and their choices. Not everything should be forced to be the American/European way. Cultural as well as political diveristy is a good thing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 10 2002,19:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I entirely agree that you can only remove Saddam by force. The question is if there is really any urgent need to. There are far more oppressed people in the world then the Iraqi. Also, just becasue you have a dictator it doesn't mean that you are oppressed. Why don't you go and invade Saudi Arabia instead? They are both politically and religiously oppressive towards their people. Saddam is at least no religious fundamentalist.

You have to have some faith in the abilities of other cultures and their choices. Not everything should be forced to be the American/European way. Cultural as well as political diveristy is a good thing.<span id='postcolor'>

In a way I agree with you. In theory, a dictatorship is better than a democracy providing that the leader is benevolent and does everything in the best interest of his people. I don't think this is the case with Saddam Hussein though... I mean come on!

There are certainly many other oppresive governments in the world too, like you said Saudi our freakin allies!! Oh well, I know this makes the US look like a bunch of hypocrites, but the situation is different with Iraq. Understand that it's less about liberation and more about enforcing UN resolutions. If UN decisions becomes something that does not have to be taken seriously, the voice of international opinion will be lost. The world needs the UN, we've come too far to let it break down now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 10 2002,12:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nobody ever said that Saddam was democracy embodied, however he has done many good things for Iraq. He reminds me very much of the European renaissance princes: Very agressive politically, expansive, highly intelligent, brutal with the highest goal of making himself, his country and his people more powerful. He knows his Machiavelli.

When he attacked Kuwait, he didn't do it for himself; he is wealthy enough to have any life he pleases. It was for Iraq - for the benifit of the country. He has in the past modernized the entire country making life much better for the average Iraqi citizen.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, he fits in very well with the history upon history of European dictators.  I can't believe you are defending him!  Did you read that human rights guide by the Brits on him?? This guy models himself after Stalin.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lazarus_Long @ Dec. 10 2002,13:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In a way I agree with you.  In theory, a dictatorship is better than a democracy providing that the leader is benevolent and does everything in the best interest of his people.  <span id='postcolor'>

BS.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lazarus_Long @ Dec. 10 2002,13:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, I've tried to keep quiet, but I can't resist...

My guess is that the Iraqi people will not be as unhappy with a US invasion like most people in here seem to think.  This is providing that the US actually follows through and dont leave the opposition holding their **** again just to be crushed by Saddam like in 1991.  More US anti-sentiment probably comes from that fact rather than from the support for Saddam.

I think the international community will be more pissed off than the Iraqi people if the invasion becomes reality. Everyone who views the US as a money/power hungry superpower intent on ruling the world will use the invasion as a prime example of this conspiracy.  I can't say I really blame them for thinking tnis way... BUT, it is a shame that liberating a clearly oppressed people from a ruthless dictator will be viewed as somekind of globalization attempt in the interest of the US.  I don't think this has anything to do with it.  The UN will be the only winner in this Desert Storm II.  UN resolutions can be taken seriously again while the US takes the brunt of the political shit storm that is sure to follow.  The world should be grateful that we have a leader who is stupid enough to stick our neck out for the UN like this.

Despite of what the hippies in the European governments think, a serious show of force is the only language Saddam understands, NATO is the only force capable of these threats, and the US is the only nation with enough balls to see it happen.  Its working well, after ten years of defying the UN, Saddam is finally cooperating with the UN even though he's bitching about it every minute.  Perhaps this will be enough? Who knows?<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with this post.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Dec. 10 2002,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lazarus_Long @ Dec. 10 2002,13:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In a way I agree with you.  In theory, a dictatorship is better than a democracy providing that the leader is benevolent and does everything in the best interest of his people.  <span id='postcolor'>

BS.<span id='postcolor'>

No its not.

A lot of countries would be shitholes nowadays if it hadn't been for some sort of dictatorship at some point in their past.

There are many examples:

Napoleon

Stalin

Castro

Tito

People like them did an awful lot of good for their respective countries.

Is the good they did good enough to outweigh the bad stuff they did? That depends on a case-to-case basis.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Dec. 10 2002,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lazarus_Long @ Dec. 10 2002,13:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In a way I agree with you.  In theory, a dictatorship is better than a democracy providing that the leader is benevolent and does everything in the best interest of his people.  <span id='postcolor'>

BS.<span id='postcolor'>

I said "In Theory".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Dec. 10 2002,14:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A lot of countries would be shitholes nowadays if it hadn't been for some sort of dictatorship at some point in their past.

There are many examples:

Napoleon

Stalin

Castro

Tito

People like them did an awful lot of good for their respective countries.

Is the good they did good enough to outweigh the bad stuff they did? That depends on a case-to-case basis.<span id='postcolor'>

How about Hitler?