Cpt.Caveman

You are real good at dodging the subject and trying to insert and reply to remarks that I have never made , implied or suggested. I never professed imminent doom. I have only expressed the truth about the actions of certain militant groups killing innocent victims and displaying it on internet or tv. Guess what? - you do feel safe because you are not there. If you were I beet you'd cringe in a gunfight and shit your pants but that's another story. You are not a hero by spouting your beliefs or values on the internet to gather a following. Bombings a few hundred miles away might as well be a few thousand miles away. It is not the same as battle nor is it something to make you an expert in such actions or experiences.

It's no surprise to me... You can't reason with fanatics like that.

What people like you don't understand is that some of the people the "war against terrorism" is fought against will execute your ass on a whim. I guess you didn't notice the recent fad in abductin innocent people and threating to execute them going on in Iraq for instance. What a tard.. You can't have peace with someone that executes with such extreme prejudism unless they die or you do.

What pisses me off obout the current Iraq war is that the neocon "Support the Troops" crowd wants people to believe that if you don't support the war, you don't care about the troops. Rubbish. What does that have to do with my remark? Nothing.

Hi Jim - I said "Here's some interesting reading. It's pretty good evidence to suggest that the government failed not the military. " It's right up there still - I didn't even edit it. Come on dude learn to read for crying out loud. You are as bad as someone with selective hearing.

Got your panties in a bunch because your name was called out? Don't feel bad

Hi Jim- I never said that was convincing evidence. Also if you passed reading comprehension in school you would note that I strictly stated that I was not going to supply any. Suggesting that maybe you should read more books.

Just the brown coil on the noggin.

To be frank about things I would call this spray forum a virtual cesspool of circle jerking special olympian champions for the left wing. Some notable members- jgowans dave schuldt doug jim

Just pick up some books and read. Instead of watching movies. Anyway the point isn't that. Here's some interesting reading. It's pretty good evidence to suggest that the government failed not the military. http://www.vwam.com/vets/equal.html "But during our quarter-century involvement in Vietnam, no president--not Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon or Ford--ever issued such clear-cut instructions to their military commanders in Vietnam. In 1974, Brigadier General Douglas Kinnard did a survey and found that "almost 70 percent of the Army generals who managed the war were uncertain of its objectives." "The anti-war movement likes to take credit for it--why anyone would want to take "credit" for the resulting massacre of some three million Cambodians, the consignment of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese to forced-labor camps, and the suffering of over a million Indochinese boat people is beyond me--but I believe they're wrong. The turnaround was more pragmatic than ideological. It was the fall of 1967 when polls showed that for the first time more Americans were against the war than in support of it. And I think that shift took place because of public suspicion that the government didn't know what it was doing. When the Tet Offensive hit several months later it merely confirmed that suspicion--especially when President Lyndon B. Johnson gave up on the war. " The bottom line is all the protestors that were spitting on veterans and creating the hippie cool scene fad due to cowardism should be the ones under the microscope.

It's funny. Some of those political protestors think that the entire crowds are behind them. When in fact there are masses of angry, confused kids that still have not grown up yet and would protest anything they could. There is more than enough convincing evidence that if the war would have continued much longer without withdrawals then the NV would probably have started to crumble rapidly.

The modern m16 with normal length barrel can regularly shoot out to 300 meters extremely accurately. This is common knowledge... Also if the dillweed behind the gun cannot shoot or see or both then well of course the maximum effective range is reduced... In fact there are numerous 300 meter targets on the 40 target exposure set of BRM. Also it is possible to sight and hit targets "semi" accurately out to 550 meters with automatic fire according to some "official" military sources. Also the front sight post - you should post a photo to debate. Reason is because if it wasnt raised up about one inch I would suggest it could be modified beyond standard expectations for one reason or another.

Hello, Climbed same route via snow creek yesterday. Saw same healthy goat. Gave him some yourine to drink. Saw the rap bolting.

Hey watch that spelling!

You seem upset Jim. I think I can decide what I want to do with my wealth... Anyway - is there a point to this that directly relates to the topic?

"We should throw off the pretense that we care about anything other than our "national interests" (good code words those) and just take what we want and the hell with what other countries think. " The pretense is all fluff and buff. It always has been. I thought everybody knew that?

I'm not arguing that part either. I only posted a photo and asked if there was already a thread on this. I have not used these new toys myself and am not in a hurry to buy one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supplement

IceIce- If you read on their web page it made it seem like to me that this screw would supplement their existing 360.

Hello- I have been to this SOA in person. Have you? Anyway - back AGAIN to the point - where is the proof in this situation - > It's not out yet. And while atrov is not direct but implies that above might be evidence - it really isnt.

Although I am pessimistic - I can't see any evidence in your dead fish theory because it is obviously flawed. I dont suppose you would make an honest juror for instance. Anyway - it is an interesting story. And before I would bark up trees claiming our govt is at fault or behind such an action I would probably let the story bake for a while and see more info come out. It really sounds like your panties are in a bunch and you just want to complain. Which is fine. But it's really just gibberish at this moment.

Back to the point- Where is the evidence someone in our government is \ was pressuring another govt to commit such an action?

I never called it a "War on Terror" -> You brought that wording up and are the one criticizing it.

First of all - in case you didn't get it - Terrorism is equal to War. If people want war we should take sides and do that thing called oy yeah WIN. Second - where's the info coming from? And where does the evidence say that the pres pardoned or asked for it. Smells like a bunch of NPR radio jive bullshit to me. Fuck Castro anyway. It's about time.