100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Obama & Guns
|
|
He can have my gun,
bullets firs, 165 grains at a time |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Texas
|
|
They need to abolish death penalty. 
so how come the "prolife" crowds never show up to protest these events?? or is it the life of a condemned man isnt as important as an unborn fetus...? are they not all "god's children"?? Those two examples are not even in the same ballpark. The condemed man chose to do his deed, the unborn child chose nothing. Your statement is nul and void |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Texas
|
|
This reminds me of one of my favorite sayings, you may have read the book it from.
"Who so ever sheds mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Hoooaaaaaa Texas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
in south carolina
|
|
I say dont give them the death penalty. Just put them in general population lockup in a max security prision and print what they did no there clothing so all the inmates can see. Sit back and watch the fun begin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Russia Threatens
|
|
So what? The tanks of the German Army during WWII were far more sophisticated than the Sherman hunk of Junk the Allies used. Their fighters were way ahead of ours at first, as were their bombers, and about everything else they had! Their problem was sustainability and numbers. We had more because ours were cheaper, we were able to sustain our numerical superiority because of that and could sacrifice 4 Shermans for every one Tiger, among other reasons! The Soviet Union does have a very good Tank, Ive been in them (not the new T-80 but the T-72) as Im sure the Canadian Army Troops like Karma have. It may not be as sophisticated as the Abrams but it is a hell of a lot cheaper and they can field 12 for every one Abrahms that we have! Their fighters are very good, and once again can out number ours. They are not Iraq and as I have feared Americans have grown to be cocky and sure from our successes in Iraq. They now think we are invincible. A few months of conventional war with the well trained and well armed Russian Military would force us to use Nukes, Biological, and Chemical Weapons. Probably in the reverse order though. Building up to a result that no one in the world wishes to see and no one can win! You seem to take me for a ill informed fool. Believe me I dont just regurgitate facts I sit down and do the head work and compare the weapons myself. I weigh the merrits and drawbacks and then draw a conclusion. Yes the germans did have better tanks and what happened Their tanks ripped right through ours. There is one difference though you had to be fairly close to the enemy tank to hit them with a sherman or tiger, compared to the abrams, where as the abrams can hit an enemy tank before they even know we are there. The t-80 has excelent range also but the simple fact that we can spot them first is what will give you the kill shot. Finaly I am aware that russia is not the poorly trained rabble we ripped through in iraq. Russia would be a very tough adversary. I have stated this at least once before. There is a reason that the US has opted for quality over quantity. I wasnt thinking that way, but the more you post I am. You read! Ive trained to fight them (Infantry, 3rd ID, VII Corps). I was in Europe, stationed for 28 months 80 km from the border. Many times, for weeks at a time, I have studied the Soviets through Binoculars while hiding behind a wall or a bush, writing down notes. What they wore, what time they changed guards, when they ate, what they ate, how many times they **** or pissed, what weapons they carried, how many I saw, drawing sketches of insignia they wore, etc. etc, etc. Hours upon hours upon hours. I spent years studying and testing, being able to recognize every vehicle, airplane, and tank, they possess. Learning their tactics and practicing to be as proficient and deadly with their weapons as mine. Did your books and web sites let you experience that? Did your books and web-sites let you experience the Cold War from a soldier's point of view who participated in it's experiences! I doubt it! I am finished argueing with you. You are still trying to make me out to be some idiot that thinks russia would be an easy fight. In all of my posts on this thread NEVER DID I SAY THIS. In fact I have openly stated the oposite. So think of me what you will, that still does not change the facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Lord Bless Charlie Mops
|
|
I love that part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Russia Threatens
|
|
So what? The tanks of the German Army during WWII were far more sophisticated than the Sherman hunk of Junk the Allies used. Their fighters were way ahead of ours at first, as were their bombers, and about everything else they had! Their problem was sustainability and numbers. We had more because ours were cheaper, we were able to sustain our numerical superiority because of that and could sacrifice 4 Shermans for every one Tiger, among other reasons! The Soviet Union does have a very good Tank, Ive been in them (not the new T-80 but the T-72) as Im sure the Canadian Army Troops like Karma have. It may not be as sophisticated as the Abrams but it is a hell of a lot cheaper and they can field 12 for every one Abrahms that we have! Their fighters are very good, and once again can out number ours. They are not Iraq and as I have feared Americans have grown to be cocky and sure from our successes in Iraq. They now think we are invincible. A few months of conventional war with the well trained and well armed Russian Military would force us to use Nukes, Biological, and Chemical Weapons. Probably in the reverse order though. Building up to a result that no one in the world wishes to see and no one can win! You seem to take me for a ill informed fool. Belive me I dont just regurgitate facts I sit down and do the head work and compare the weapons myself. I weigh the merrits and drawbacks and then draw a conclusion. Yes the germans did have better tanks and what happened Their tanks ripped right through ours. There is one difference though you had to be fairly close to the enemy tank to hit them with a sherman or tiger, compared to the abrams, where as the abrams can hit an enemy tank before they even know we are there. The t-80 has excelent range also but the simple fact that we can spot them first is what will give you the kill shot. Finaly I am aware that russia is not the poorly trained rabble we ripped through in iraq. Russia would be a very tough adversary. I have stated this at least once before. There is a reason that the US has opted for quality over quantity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Russia Threatens
|
|
Russia is bada$$ no doubt about that. As a matter of fact every soldier I talk to say that russia is one of the countrys they would hate for us to go to war with. As far as the statement of if we have it so do they. Ok you show me their abrams tanks, cobra and apache gunships, f-35/f-22 fighters, not to mention all the crew served weapons that the plants are in the US and their for they couldnt have large amounts of these weapons, ie the m134 minigun, and various other weapons. But you are right that they can produce massive amounts of what they have on short notice. This is why I possed the question of which would be better massive ammounts of old tech or smaller ammounts of new more accurate tech. You are right though it would most likely turn into another cold war.
Act like a civilized country. If they don't act like that, why treat them like one? A threat of a DEFENSE shield, does Russia want one as well and are having a fit because they are a country that has fallen so behind to what they had once been?
You think Russia would truly threaten the entire European Union because of a missile DEFENSE shield? They aren't stupid. They will stand by and will do nothing besides wave around their outdated weapons and through nostalgic war parades. American / Soviet miniguns http://world.guns.ru/machine/minigun-e.htm Video of Soviet MBT http://www.metacafe.com/watch/284208/modern_russian_tanks_best_tanks_in_2007/ Soviet attack helicopters Ka-50 A single-seat attack helicopter. The Ka-50 is a good performer, but it is thought that the single-seat layout imposes a very high workload on the pilot. Type: Ka-50 Function: attack Year: 1982-84 Crew: 1 Engines: 2 * 1618kW Isotov TV3-117 Wing Span: 14.5 m Length: 16m Weight: 10800 kg Max Speed: 350km/h Ceiling: 4000m Range: Armament: 1*g30mm 2A42, AT missiles, AS rockets. MI-28A/N Havoc Attack Helicopter Seen by many as the Russian answer to the Apache, the MI-28 Havoc attack helicopter is a sophisticated tank-killer. The MI-28 'Havoc' has had a long and difficult development history, beginning in the early 80s when it competed, and lost, to the KA-50 in Soviet procurement trials. The design lived on into the mid 90s in the form of the Mi-28N, a more sophisticated variant, kitted out with advanced sensors (notably a radar / flir pod mounted above the main rotor) and fire control systems. The MI-28N is now in active service within the Russian military and is available for export. The Havoc can carry a range of weapons into battle. A 30mm 2A42 cannon is mounted beneath the nose and can pivot through 200 degrees. The MI-28's stub wings include counter measure pods stuffed with infra-red and electronic jammers, flare/chaff launchers and contain hardpoints for a variety of air-to-surface ordinance. Typical loudout includes unguided folding-fin rockets of various calibers in underslung pods and Shturm radio-guided and/or Ataka radar-guided anti-tank missiles. As with most modern gunships, crew survivability is paramount and the Havoc 's cockpits are heavily armored. The Mi-28N's fire control system includes a helmet-mounted target designator which is slaved to pilot's line of sight. Sensors include narrow/wide field-of-view optical and video. A microwave radar fitted in a pod over the rotor can detect, target and anti-tank guide missiles. Other sensors include a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) system. Soviet fighter that can cause real problems (video) http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/05/russian-fighter-jet.html Another Soviet fighter MiG-35 / MiG-29M OVT / Fulcrum F http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-35.htm ....................................... Not really that backwards are they, or outdated? First of all the tank in that video is a t-80. Let me leaborate my fealings with an emoticon or two The marits of these two tanks have already been compared by analists and the abrams won hands down, and please tell me when the last time a abrams was lost to enamy tank fire, I will answer my own question. NEVER, although we have lost a few to anti tank mines. Our abrams have been shot with pretty much every tank killing munition there is and it still survives. The chopper yea I forgot about the havoc. But as you said it is nothing more than the russian equivelint to the apache. This would come down to pioleting. The plane is interesting but from the info that I have found except the ability to fall tail first without stalling the f-35 still has this plane beat. The russian machine gun on your link was nothing more than the russian equivelent to the gau-8. In shear amout of fire power the american m134 is far superior. In terms of penetration, thats what we have the gau-8 for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Russia Threatens
|
|
The simple fact of the matter is they have us out numbered and we have them out gunned. What no one seems to realize is that, when it commes to nuclear missiles, we have missile deffence systems that can detect a missile as it is launched and shoot it down at even super sonic speeds at "short" range. Our tech is much better than theirs but they have alot more of their tech. So begs the question which is better, alot of old tech or smaller ammounts of more effective tech. No!! If we have it most likely Russia does too! They may not get it at the same time, but it doesn't take them long to get it! They do skimp a little on their hardware like tanks, but unlike Iraq, they will stand in the face of massive casualties rather than surrender, adapting to changing tactics as they emerge! They also have huge manufacturing facilities that can be geared quickly to manufacture military hardware as the war proceeds. We are hardly able to take all of these out. Every plane we send up over their territory would be met by a sophisticated and high number of anti-air defenses and outnumbered by fighters familiar with our tactics and aircraft! If somehow we could keep the war conventional, which would be the goal at first, we and our allies(forget going at them alone) would suffer extreme casualties! A full scale draft of the WWII magnitude would be necessary. It would be us who would probably escalate the use of Nukes, and then there would be no winner. Esp the Europeans, but also the US mainland and the rest of the world. There would be no 45 day victory over an insignificant and inept military with few casualties like the two Gulf wars. It would be massive with high casualties on both sides. It would be ugly and expensive. Those high tech weapons of ours are very expensive and wouldn't last long against Russia. Most of the high tech stuff would become useless as Russia began to knock out our GPS satellites. That's why I said it would be us who escalated the conflict to a nuclear one. Russia is bada$$ no doubt about that. As a matter of fact every soldier I talk to say that russia is one of the countrys they would hate for us to go to war with. As far as the statement of if we have it so do they. Ok you show me their abrams tanks, cobra and apache gunships, f-35/f-22 fighters, not to mention all the crew served weapons that the plants are in the US and their for they couldnt have large amounts of these weapons, ie the m134 minigun, and various other weapons. But you are right that they can produce massive amounts of what they have on short notice. This is why I possed the question of which would be better massive ammounts of old tech or smaller ammounts of new more accurate tech. You are right though it would most likely turn into another cold war. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Someone Thinks Americans...
|
|
The problem is when we go to another country people want us to learn their language, but when they come to our country they dont want to learn ours. Plain and simple you want to go to a country you learn the language. That includes the US. If people dont want to speak our language to our citizens, THEN STAY OUT. I beg to differ..............Americans are known for being pompous and trying to stuff their language in other countries............what are you talking about when have you went to another country and you trully spoke their language........... Differ if you want that dosent make it any less true. Me personaly never, but I dont count becouse I haven went to another country yet. Still learning the language. When I do I intend to know the language enough that I can carry on a normal conversation. And if you read I was meaning the last sentence for the US also. So if you are a american you should learn the countrys language you are going to. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Russia Threatens
Edited by
rayne5
on
Thu 07/10/08 02:18 AM
|
|
The simple fact of the matter is they have us out numbered and we have them out gunned. What no one seems to realize is that, when it commes to nuclear missiles, we have missile deffence systems that can detect a missile as it is launched and shoot it down at even super sonic speeds at "short" range. Our tech is much better than theirs but they have alot more of their tech. So begs the question which is better, alot of old tech or smaller ammounts of more effective tech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Someone Thinks Americans...
|
|
The problem is when we go to another country people want us to learn their language, but when they come to our country they dont want to learn ours. Plain and simple you want to go to a country you learn the language. That includes the US. If people dont want to speak our language to our citizens, THEN STAY OUT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
What are you playing
|
|
What are you playing if you smack a cat with a tennis racket
badkitten
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Dismantle the ACLU
|
|
I think it's a bit arrogant for some govt. funded org to tell americans what rights they want us to have with their twisted interpretation of our GUARANTEED rights. I think it's time tax payer dollars cut them off. Especially in this economic & political climate. http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68695 The American Civil Liberties is getting blasted on its own blog site for holding onto the belief that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes a collective right for militias to have weapons, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the right applies to individuals. "Sorry ACLU you lost me," wrote SuperNaut. "I just took the money I had slated to re-up my lapsed ACLU membership and used it to re-up my NRA membership." Hundreds of comments have been posted in just the first few days of July, almost uniformly condemning the ACLU's explanation of its position on gun rights, which is that individuals don't have them. "The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller," the page started. "While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized." I am supportive of the ACLU, if you were ever in a pinch with the government denying you rights, you would want the ACLU on your side. As for guns, like I have said before, I hope all the idiots who have guns only shoot the other idiots who have guns and leave us innocent bystanders alone. Wow so your saying that everyone who owns a gun is an idiot...I guess that just shows how ill informed you are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So if they merge would it be chinussia or russina.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Diablo III
|
|
Its about time.
oh yea oh yea oh yea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are these people nucking futs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Wild Blue Or Hughes Net
|
|
they are called air cards if that helps in you search any
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
new 100mbsp cyber cafe
|
|
hi everyone i am busy busy busy getting thid cafe up amd running usind alienware computers tell me what you think alienware,....get ready for problems. you do know alienware was bought by dell. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Wild Blue Or Hughes Net
|
|
And yes satellite is fairly "new" and there are still alot of bugs to work out in the systems.
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
