Kevin Elliott wrote:
2) rifled muskets were not effective because of the ponderous reload
time (I don't have precise figures, but the number 1/6th-1/10th the
rate of fire of a smoothbore musket comes to mind)
There isn't that much difference in reload times - say 30 seconds for a
Kentucky
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 01:48 pm, Kevin Elliott wrote:
Well, there nuggets and the larger truth... Rifles were widely used
as sniper rifles by the Americans. They were commonly available
(though expensive) because they are a far superior hunting tool than
a smoothbore
At 14:06 -0700 on 11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote:
The british got VERY upset with us because of a tendency
to shoot officers which was considered very bad form. I believe it
was common practice to hang anyone found armed with a rifle for what
amounted to war crimes. But again, very poor rate
As to dangerous, I find that most of the people using violence in this
country are anti-drug, not pro.
Can't exactly agree with ya' here. Just watch COPS...most of those actually
committing stupid crimes are apparently pro-Alchohol.
Pot? We can't have THAT be legalized now, or the CIA will lose
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Mike Diehl wrote:
Granted. I wish we could go back to isolationism, but as the worlds only
remaining Super Power, that seems unlikely. No matter what we do, we simply
can't win.
Life isn't a football game, quite 'trying to win' and I think you'd find a
lot of issues
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Tyler Durden wrote:
Well, they have enough non-central leadership to all be against Israel and
the US. And to have been at war against the Israelies since Bible times...
OK, Mike, this is a good example of the kind of facts that lead to fairly
easy (though erroneous)
MD == Mike Diehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MD And the middle east is the only place we meddle? I think not.
MD But the middle east is the only place who has overtly attacked
MD us.
A minor point about grammar and logic: places don't attack, overtly or
covertly, neither are they
All of your comments are very reasonable. I agree with most of them.
However, I have to take issue with your comments on drugs and employment, and
how we have hurt the Afghan people.
As to drugs and employment. I'm glad to see that you recognized that a
programer, like myself, has far fewer
If we left them alone, we'd be in constant
fear of various types of terrorism funded by many governments in that
region. We'd always be a hostage to OPEC.
These are probably the same arguments used by our state department, and I
have to take exception with them. US involvement with the middle
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 08:26 am, Tyler Durden wrote:
If we left them alone, we'd be in constant
fear of various types of terrorism funded by many governments in that
region. We'd always be a hostage to OPEC.
These are probably the same arguments used by our state
Granted. I wish we could go back to isolationism, but as the worlds only
remaining Super Power, that seems unlikely. No matter what we do, we
simply can't win. When faced with a game I can't win, I either decide to
not play, or I cheat. For the US, the first isn't an option.
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 10:59 am, Tyler Durden wrote:
Granted. I wish we could go back to isolationism, but as the worlds
only remaining Super Power, that seems unlikely. No matter what we
do, we simply can't win. When faced with a game I can't win, I
either
At 13:14 -0700 on 11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote:
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 01:02 pm, Kevin Elliott wrote:
Correction in the interest of historical accuracy. The idea that we
succeeded in the revolutionary war by inventing a new form of
warfare. The reality is that the british
At 10:37 -0700 on 11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote:
Unfortunately, terrorism is probably a predictable response by people
who want to be able to control their own destinies, select their own
leaders and forms of goivernment and so on.
Yes, it's just a new form of warfare. During the
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 01:02 pm, Kevin Elliott wrote:
Correction in the interest of historical accuracy. The idea that we
succeeded in the revolutionary war by inventing a new form of
warfare. The reality is that the british were marching in formation
for very, very
--
On 19 Nov 2002 at 12:02, Kevin Elliott wrote:
If you read between the lines of US history, you'll discover
that America did not begin to succeed in the war until late
in the war when the troops had become better trained and
disciplined.
This is not my interpretation. Rather, the
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 05:41:55PM -0500, Steve Furlong wrote:
On Thursday 14 November 2002 12:16, Harmon Seaver wrote:
It's all relative -- what Dubbya and Asscruft have done to destroy
freedom in the US is far worse than anything Saddam has done. Iraq
had no freedom to lose.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 11:13:06AM -0500, Mike Diehl wrote:
Dubbya has only been in office about a year and a half, and in that time, he
has destroyed Freedom in this country? I don't think so. I'm still able to
practice my religion freely.
How wonderful for you. Many of us sincerely
On Thursday 14 November 2002 11:29 pm, Harmon Seaver wrote:
How wonderful for you. Many of us sincerely wish we could practice
our religion freely as well.
And just who is stopping you? And what religion is it?
I can criticize my government and stay out of
prison.
On Thursday 14 November 2002 12:16, Harmon Seaver wrote:
It's all relative -- what Dubbya and Asscruft have done to destroy
freedom in the US is far worse than anything Saddam has done. Iraq
had no freedom to lose.
So...When Iraqis are tortured to death, it's not really that bad because
On Thursday 14 November 2002 12:16 pm, Harmon Seaver wrote:
It's all relative
Ya, very relative.
-- what Dubbya and Asscruft have done to destroy
freedom in the US is far worse than anything Saddam has done. Iraq had
no freedom to lose. Is Saddam really any different
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 11:31:23AM -0500, Ken Hirsch wrote:
Harmon Seaver wrote:
I don't see that Saddam is any less moral than Dubbya and Asscruft.
What can you possibly mean by saying this? You lose all credibility for
real criticism when you utter such inanities. It's like
[A edited copy of a piece I published Oct 4th in the International
Relations list. steve]
I think that most Western nation leadership will eventually support the U.S.'
military action against Iraq. However, they may do so not because they
necessarily think Bush is right that Saddam's weapons
Hmm, interesting -- how come the original of this came never came thru
lne.com? And I think there's been at least a couple of others lately that I only
saw in someone quote -- wasn't 100% sure about them, but I am this one.
Gary Jeffers writes:
The purpose of the coming Iraq war is
How can anyone claim that the U.S. or Israel or corporations or rich
Americans are morally worse than the likes of Hussein?
Can't answer that directly, aside from pointing out that theUS is largely
responsible for Hussein's rise to power. I could be argued that oil in our
hands has created many
Gary Jeffers writes:
The purpose of the coming Iraq war is to steal their oil. After we get
Iraq oil, which arab country is next? If U. State can get away with the
theft of Iraq, then why not just keep on stealing?
The beneficiaries of this war are:
1. United State:
2. Corporations,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:10:13AM +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Gary Jeffers writes:
The purpose of the coming Iraq war is to steal their oil. After we get
Iraq oil, which arab country is next? If U. State can get away with the
theft of Iraq, then why not just keep on stealing?
The
[ I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but there might be someone out there who could
benefit from this. ]
Tyler Durden wrote:
Aside from this is the issue of continued American dependence on oil, a dependence
that could be greatly reduced if we put our minds to it, but we seem to be so
28 matches
Mail list logo
