Paratrooper

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Sep. 02 2002,20:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Sep. 02 2002,026)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ralph, We host the UN, Isn't that enough?<span id='postcolor'> It is for you to decide if you want out of the UN, but you agreed to pay your share, so it's too late now for excuses.<span id='postcolor'> Quite, I am always amazed by American's hostility towards such a benign institution as the UN.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AMDOpteron @ Sep. 02 2002,21:35)</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">15. Explain Le Chateliers Principle of Dynamic Equilibrium -OR- spell your name in BLOCK LETTERS. <span id='postcolor'> In 1888 Henri-Lewis Le Chatelier (1850 - 1936) a French industrial chemist made the observation: "Any change in one of the variables that determines the state of a system in equilibrium causes a shift in the position of equilibrium in a direction that tends to counteract the change in the variable under consideration." Perhaps it would be better to have a less direct quote. Simply put, Le Chatelier's Principle states that a system in equilibrium responds to any stress by restoring the equilibrium. This, of course, implies that we're dealing with a dynamic equilibrium. In chemistry we are dealing with reactions, and at equilibrium, the forward and reverse reaction rates are equal. Let's consider a simple reaction below: CO + H2O <======> CO2 + H2 If the reaction is in equilibrium, the two rates are equivalent. Notice I'm using the symbol <=====> as the double arrows that indicate equilibrium. If we were to inject some more CO into the reaction mixture, the rate of the forward reaction would go up, while at least at first, the rate of the back reaction would be constant. CO and H2O would be used up producing CO2 and H2. At some point in time, the concentrations of CO2 and H2 will have increased slightly, and the concentrations of CO and H2O will have decreased so that the rates of the forward and reverse reactions are again equal. Hence, the system will have come back to equilibrium. We could illustrate this by the plot of concentrations below. At some time we inject the CO and note the changes in concentration over time of the various reactants. When the concentration changes are complete, the ratio [O2]]H2] / [CO][H2O] will be the same that it was in the beginning. We can also describe the process we've looked at above as "shifting" the equilibrium. If we add one reactant, such as CO, we cause a shift in concentrations until the whole system is back in equilibrium. We can describe this in a table as shown below. I'm going to use some bogus initial concentrations for the various reactants since I don't have a clue as to the actual value of Keq in this case. LeChatelier's Principle Compounds CO H2O CO2 H2 Initial 3.0 M 3.0 M 2.5 M 2.5 M Addition add 0.5 M no addition no addition no addition New Conc 3.5 M 3.0 M 2.5 M 2.5 M New Equilib 3.5 M - x 3.0 M - x 2.5 M + x 2.5 M + x Notice that I've kept this example very simple. I've assumed that we initially put 5.5 M of both CO and H2O into the container and that 2.5 M of both CO2 and H2 were formed when the system came to equilibrium, leaving 3.0 M of the reactants. At some time we add 0.5 M of CO to the mixture. This causes the rate in the forward direction to increase. Since the stoichiometry of the equation requires that we use up one H2O for every CO, and that we produce one CO2 and one H2 for every CO, we can use x to symbolize the amount of these compounds formed or used up. Since you know the concentrations in the initial equilibrium mixture your should be able to solve for Keq, and then, once you know this value, you should be able to use some algerbra and actually solve for x. You'll have to use a quadratic equation to get to this. One of the most important applications of LeChatilier's Principle comes in the manufacture of ammonia.<span id='postcolor'> Some mighty fine copy and pasteing there!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (vitoal125 @ Sep. 02 2002,19:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ok, here's another one: The Army Rangers are on a training exercise with the Marines. Â The Platoon of rangers comes up to a hill and they spot a Marine just standing on top of the hill. Â The ranger lt. sends two of his men up to get the marine. Â The marine disappears behind the hill and the two rangers follow. Â A few minutes later after hearing some noise of a scuffle, the Marine once again stands on the hill. Â This time, 5 rangers are sent. Â A few minutes later, he's on the hill again. Â This time, the enraged ranger lt. sends the rest of the platoon after the devil dog. Â This time there's a bunch of screaming and scuffling and the lt. sees one of his rangers crawling back to him. Â The lt is about to call in another platoon for support when the returning ranger crys out, "stop.... wait... its a trick.... Â there's two of them!!!!" Â <span id='postcolor'> Thats an old joke reworked. I heard it about Romans and Scots men.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 02 2002,19:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"The Palestinian Arabs had at present no will of their own. Neither have they ever developed any specifically Palestinian nationalism. The demand for a separate Arab state in Palestine is consequently relatively weak. It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan." - Count Folke Bernadotte, To Jerusalem, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1951), p. 113.<span id='postcolor'> That doesn't reflect modern realities though does it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 02 2002,17:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (zverushka @ Sep. 02 2002,18:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What ******* oil? There's no oil in chechnya, it's a small mountainous country.<span id='postcolor'> Care to reconsider? From InfoPlease: Grozny or Groznyy , city (1989 pop. 400,000), capital of Chechnya, SE European Russia, in the northern foothills of the Greater Caucasus. It is the center of Russia's oil fields, linked by pipelines to Makhachkala on the Caspian Sea, to Tuapse on the Black Sea, and to Horlivka in Ukraine. Grozny has oil refineries, chemical plants, and machinery factories. One of Russia's oldest oil-producing areas (production began in 1893), Grozny was a major strategic goal of invading German armies in World War II. Soviet troops halted the German advance just short of the city. Fighting between the Russian army and Chechen separatists devastated the city in the mid-1990s and again in 1999.<span id='postcolor'> There may be oil there but it is not unique in Russia nor is it vital to Russia. The war is about Russian prestige and sending a signal to the rest of the huge Federation that dissent against Moscow is not an option. Far more valuble than oil!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Sep. 02 2002,17:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tell me since Isreal owned the land, and now they come back for it why it is not thiers.<span id='postcolor'> They don't own any land outside of Israel. They didn't "own" it untill it was ceded to them by Britain under UN mandate. Palestine is not part of Israel!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Sep. 02 2002,16:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I voted the third option.<span id='postcolor'> That is my personal preference also. But I'm not saying it is suitabe for all countries and situations.

We can't make animals and such because we can't make custom animations.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Sep. 02 2002,14:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 02 2002,14:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 02 2002,11:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You defeinitly have a point on the round cap, it only takes one shot to kill. Im not agasint people having guns, but they should not be handed out to just anyone.<span id='postcolor'> Thats what I think, I am quite surprised to see option 1 clearly in from of option 3 now. I know people in here like guns but not guns at any price!<span id='postcolor'> You could read the current results also as 40% pro free weapons and 60% for restricted weapon access.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, but there is a difference betwene restricted and banned. All the same an interesting poll.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 02 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I mentioned earlier, Israel has to go a new approach. Currently they say 'End terrorist attacks and we will withdrawl'. The terrorists are not going to do that. Israel has to be open and they need to be the one to seek peace. If they are willing to withdrawl without any demands, it would dawn a new era. They would see terrorist attacks go down somewhat and with time some peace could be achieved.<span id='postcolor'> That has got to be the first step, there can be no peace so long as Palestine is occpied.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 02 2002,11:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You defeinitly have a point on the round cap, it only takes one shot to kill. Im not agasint people having guns, but they should not be handed out to just anyone.<span id='postcolor'> Thats what I think, I am quite surprised to see option 1 clearly in from of option 3 now. I know people in here like guns but not guns at any price!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cheeky monkey @ Sep. 01 2002,22:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Walther WA2000, FN MAG, SA80, L86A1, SIG P226, SIG 550, SIG 550 sniper version, AT4, OICW.<span id='postcolor'> Yes I want all those. I want the SIGs as I have persuaded Skaven to do a Swiss army pack when he has time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 02 2002,05:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll give you MY reason why i think the US gets knocked so much. It is as Paratrooper/Artillery Gunner said.<span id='postcolor'> Officer! I am not a gunner! Well officer cadet anyway. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If my country can create conditions under which i can live however i need to be happy, then i love my country. <span id='postcolor'> I agree with this to a great extent but I also feel that patriotism is a less rational state of mind, we just love our countries.

Many happy returns.

They look great, which do you plan to make first?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Sep. 02 2002,01:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can't stop a person from thinking what they want, you can stop a person from doing what isn't right.<span id='postcolor'> That is the current American (and freinds) thinking but who decides what is right?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jamesia @ Sep. 02 2002,01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well, like. there maybe someone somewhere who doesn't get chance to vote.<span id='postcolor'> Well it has been well advertised, we don't have to bend over backwards for this.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 01 2002,23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if you want to talk about low participation, talk about Switzerland...40 percent...i think US was 60 percent in last election.<span id='postcolor'> I would be very wary of lauding American politics over Switzerland's!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 01 2002,23:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I see it the big problem is that the vast majority of so called 'Patriots' never put their money where their mouth is. Sure, talk is cheap and it is very easy to cram your 'love for your country' down other peoples throats. For every aspiring patriot out there I would like you to ask yourself what you have done for your country for it to be so great? This goes for every country, not just the US. The reason why the US is so often criticized for that is because you have the largest amount flag waving morons/capita while having record low participation in the elections.<span id='postcolor'> I disagree with the notion that one has to do something for the country to be able to love it and want what is best for it. Of course I think people should do things for their country if they really love it, service in the army for example, it may only be for a few years or even just the TAs.

The oxford dictionary defines Patriotism as a zeal for a countries prosperity freedom and rights. It defines nationalism as patriotic feeling, principles or efforts, or a policy of national independance.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Sep. 01 2002,22:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree with you Sam. Â Nationalism is foolish and it is something that we should leave in the 20th century. Â As should regionalism. Patriotism on the other hand, is just as residuum said, it's just like loving your home team. Â I see nothing wrong with Patriotism and I think it can actually be a good thing. Though there is a type of "Super Patriots" who are closer to Nationalists and that's bad. Â If any of you have read the Out of the Ashes series you'll know what I'm talking about.<span id='postcolor'> Well if you are going to say that how do you define nationalism? Perhaps we should define Patriotism and Nationalism first.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Sep. 01 2002,22:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think bogo, paratrooper,et al in their assessment of the current situation ignore or forget conveniently how the 6 day war came about and what happened after it. judge that fruit by its tree. or will we see you shift the blame again? (that said my remarks should not construe that I agree with every last thing israel does today.) (I hate political correctness. it makes men into hypocrites.) I say paradise won't break out in palestine when israel withdraws from the zones. learn from the past. its not in those people. it can't come out. another solution will be neccessary. e6hotel: you got some good (and even well conveyed) points.<span id='postcolor'> Come on! The Six Day War is not any kind of justification for 30 years of occupation!

Idiotism? Someone once said: Patriotism is desirable, nationalism is distasteful. I agree. I am a patriot and I am not ashamed to say so. I don't knock American patriotism just the mentality that so often goes with it: "America right or wrong".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jamesia @ Sep. 01 2002,21:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">sorry denoir. I didn't mean to spam. But people seemed to be avoiding answering my question.. I don't really like the way that not everyones opinion is being counted. Â Oh well.<span id='postcolor'> What do you mean?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bogo @ Sep. 01 2002,21:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 01 2002,22:15)</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">I can agree with your suggestion that ALL Palestinians be lumped together with respect to wanting their own state. Â There are probably very few who don't. Â However, I don't think it's fair to suggest that they ALL stand behind the same tactic (ie. terrorism). Â That just ain't true. Â It even sounds a bit racist, doesn't it? Â <span id='postcolor'> I don't know that it is racist, merely misinformed. The fact is that terrorism is a PRODUCT OF OCCUPATION, not some act of malice from the Palestinians.<span id='postcolor'> I coulden't agree more with you Paratropper.<span id='postcolor'> Thank you, are we all agreed that freedom for Palestine is the only real way towards peace?