billytran

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Aug. 06 2002,17:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You keep mentioning it was for the good of America and the American people, but how much loss did America suffer for the duration of the war? Its not like they were at breaking point.<span id='postcolor'> What are you saying? That America should have suffered to make things easier on the enemy? That's not how war works. Also, Japan had shown no signs of surrender and we gave them an ultimatum.

KingBeast, Let me get this straight... it's okay for three or four millions of soldiers to die, but not for three hundred thousand civilians? The president did the right thing. Those soldiers had families who were depending on Truman to bring them home. Why don't you blame the Japanese emperor, who brought all of this on his people. Blame him for turning down the ultimatum, blame him for just sitting around after Hiroshima.

America dropped pamphlets on Hiroshima and Nagasaki announcing that they would drop a powerful bomb on them. So, the people did have a chance to get out. Denoir, what might your solution to the war have been? The next step would have been a full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland, which would've hundreds of thousands of Allied lives and twice as many Japanese lives. Dropping the bomb was a terrible thing but it had to be done. It saved millions. It was not a war crime.

I think Stalin and Hitler were by far the worst world leaders of the 20th Century. As for US leaders: Bill Clinton: Encouraged corruption with the incredibly bad example he set for the nation. He bombed Kosovo into oblivion. Responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Somalia. Tried to put a socialized health care system in place. Signed a bill that banned scary-looking (but otherwise normal) guns. Jimmy Carter: Really screwed over the econonmy and hurt the military (remember Desert One?).

The Daily Show, Jon Stewart is freaking hilarious.

My favorite leader of the 20th Century..... Ronald Reagan. He really improved the economy, won the Cold War, and had the best personality of any president. My thoughts on the dictators mentioned: Stalin was awesome at industrialization. However, things would've gone a lot more smoothly if he hadn't killed so many people. It really ended up costing him in WWII. Hitler gets too much credit. A lot of people could've gotten control of Germany, they were a desperate people. Joseph Goebbels is the one who got people to love Hitler, he was a genius at propaganda. Himmler was the one who was really big on killing all the Jews, Hitler just went along with him. And militarily, Hitler was a blundering idiot. He should have left his army in the control of his generals.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Aug. 03 2002,23:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">M249 M9 M240b M4A1 M16A2 (better model?) AT4 M3 MAWS (just rename the Carl Gustaf ) M24 M40 M60E3 Dragon, M14, and Colt should be optional for addon maker (unless you want to truly simulate the 1980's. Â If so, those weapons would be important.<span id='postcolor'> The M9 and the M16A2 are already in the game. You're probably thinking of the M16A3. I think it's got a semi/burst/full trigger setting.

Pilots should have silenced Berettas, just my opinion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 02 2002,19:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 02 2002,18:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We didn't lose Vietnam. Â Our objective was to maintain the independence of South Vietnam. Â We won every single battle (most major battles ended with about 200-300 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead NVA/VC). Â And when we finally got tired of it we pulled out of the coutry, with the independence of South Vietnam intact. Â A few years later the North Vietnamese invaded. Â We just stopped caring, we didn't lose.<span id='postcolor'> That is typical american rationalization. Paint it however you like it. The NVA managed to inflict heavy enough casualties on the US Armed Forces that US public opinion basically scuttled the war effort. Â And if that isnt losing..I dont know what is.<span id='postcolor'> When you lose a war, one side surrenders and comes under control of the other. That didnt happen. We withdrew all of our combat troops about three years before the NVA overran Saigon. Did the NVA defeat the US? No, they beat the South Vietnamese. They had no victories against the US. Our people just stopped caring, mostly because of the way the politicians ran the war.

We didn't lose Vietnam. Our objective was to maintain the independence of South Vietnam. We won every single battle (most major battles ended with about 200-300 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead NVA/VC). And when we finally got tired of it we pulled out of the coutry, with the independence of South Vietnam intact. A few years later the North Vietnamese invaded. We just stopped caring, we didn't lose.

First, I ordered all my men to hide behind the forest to the East of town. I got all of the mines I can, and put them on and around the road where it passes the empty BMP and T-55. Then I went up the road toward the town and put the satchels about 100-200m north of the mines. After that I got all of the RPG's I could carry, and hid the BMP at the port. Then I got on top of the tallest building in town. The mines took a bunch of tanks, and the satchels took two more. Then I ordered one group to head directly south into town, I told the other group to head south, down the road that runs between the two forests. I told them to flank the enemy. As my men were engaging the enemy, I used up all my RPG's and then started sniping. After that, I went down to the BMP and used that to finish off the remaining infantry.

I thought you could drink at 18 if you're in the military.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Aug. 02 2002,00:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">some of this really makes me chuckle. yanks don't realize it much, much less hollywood, but in normandy they really were't up against germans (them were fighting in the east), but against mostly polish and french as well as HJ youth (german hitler youth  between 15 and 18) as well as other help-troops who were about as whole hearted in this thing as the kamikaze who flew 50 missions. fact ist that the germans wanted to be conquered by the yanks. most had relatives in the us. patton, when he cut so decisively through the shadow that was the western wehrmacht, thought the same way many germans did: now that we're here, lets just go on and blast ivan. my german grandma had to house gis in her native bavaria after the conquest. they liked that much better than the rapine, pillage and plunder other germans reportedly experienced at the time by the red hands of russia. get it, guys. america needs emotional support in these post 911-days. that's why they clothe their past victories in the shows they do now. so: our distinguished european colleagues: get a grip and stop the gripe. everybody knows this is prose.<span id='postcolor'> Band of Brothers, Black Hawk Down, We Were Soldiers, and all of the other war movies that have come out recently were all started before 9-11. After the huge success of Saving Private Ryan a whole bunch of studios jumped on the bandwagon because war movies are popular again. And while the US was up against French, Polish, and other non-Germans, we faced a whole lot of pretty strong German units. The men of E Company (the company portrayed in BoB) fought SS and paratrooper regiments in Normandy. The Atlantic Wall was manned by some tough German troops. E Company also fought some of Germany's best at the Battle of the Bulge and in Operation Market-Garden.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ Aug. 01 2002,17:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Bastogne episode of BoB was pretty disappointing (although it's probably historically accurate) - I was expecting massive urban combat scenes - instead they sat in the trenches whining while being intermittenly shelled by the Germans.<span id='postcolor'> That's how the Bastogne fighting was. Imagine sitting in trenches for days in the coldest weather you've ever experienced in your life while having to deal with all kinds of shelling. I just finished the book (haven't seen the movie yet) and it says that some of the guys had the temptation to shoot themselves in the foot to get off the front lines. My favorite war movies are Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down. I really didn't like Apocalypse Now, it was just too unrealistic. Everything was over-exaggerated, like the bridge scene. I felt like the writer of Full Metal Jacket didn't know what he was trying to say with the movie. The boot camp portion was a deep psychological look at Pvt. Pile's insanity, and then you've got the other half which is just a bunch of crap slopped together.

I'm running Resistance on a pretty weak machine: -Celeron 466 -192mb RAM -ATI Xpert 128 w/ 16mb Some missions can be a real slideshow, but it is very much playable at 800x600 w/ a lot of stuff set on low. I'm upgrading as soon as I can, though.

On a tank's main gun, the bore is either rifled or smooth. The original M1 Abrams tank had a smaller, rifled bore. The M1A1/A2 have larger smoothbore guns. I know that rifling makes the round spin, thus increasing range. So, I'm guessing that the advantage of smoothbore guns is a greater punch, am I correct?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 29 2002,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Turn 21 on Friday. Legal alchol abuse here I come! Â <span id='postcolor'> I thought you could legally drink at 18 if you're in the military

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 28 2002,01:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ July 28 2002,01<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're trying to make it sound like the EC is a system designed to only put Republicans in office, which it is definitely not.<span id='postcolor'> Actually, I was trying to point out that you seemed to disparage the system in Democratic states, but lauded it for the states Republicans win. As has been pointed out, you have an elected congress and senate, with representation based on population. Â And so why would it be bad to have your president decided by truly democratic means?<span id='postcolor'> Sorry if I sounded like I was disparaging it. I really don't care if republicans don't vote in solidly liberal states. The fact is, there presidential vote wouldn't matter anyway. If a state is democratic, it's votes should go democratic. The electoral college works just fine in places like California. What I was trying to say is that the popular vote is misunderstood, since the EC system can skew the popular vote. The purpose of a president elected by all of the states is so that you don't end up with a president who only serves the interests of a few states, and ignores the little ones.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 28 2002,00:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Gore had more than 50% of the votes cast. Â It's why the whole 'electoral college' thing is being called into question. Secondly: Everyone who cared about the election DID vote. Â If people care about the election and dont vote, then they are morons. Woops..perhaps they would have voted republican then . Â There is no excuse for apathy...if you care vote. Â If you dont care enough to vote, no matter what you think the outcome, then you have no right to whine about the results. Â Trying to say that 'if more people had voted, I am sure they would have voted Bush' is totally flawed logic. Thirdly: you say 'This is done to keep states with huge populations (i.e. California, all of New England) from having too much say in the presidential election' in one paragraph, then 'The millions of republicans in the state didn't vote because it was pretty much worthless.' Which sounds like you believe in the EC system in states where it works in your favour, but not in states where it doesnt. Â You cant have your cake and eat it too, m'man!<span id='postcolor'> Look here. It shows that Gore had about 48.4% of the popular vote. I support the EC system wholeheartedly. If places like New York, California, and the like want Gore then that's fine, they can cast their electoral votes in his favor. They are solidly liberal, so it wouldn't matter if Republicans had voted. You say that EC doesn't work in California, but it does. California is a democrat state, and it's votes went to the democratic candidate. What I don't want is the states with huge populations dictating to small states who their president is. If all of our states are equal, then why should the bigger ones have all the say in the presidential race? If we only went by the popular vote, then smaller states would have absolutely no say in who becomes president. Is that fair? You're trying to make it sound like the EC is a system designed to only put Republicans in office, which it is definitely not.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 27 2002,20:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ July 27 2002,19:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">YOur rigth, but we could get them alot quicker than they could get us.<span id='postcolor'> What good would that do? All real nuclear nations would be pretty much equal in a major war.<span id='postcolor'> China doesn't have anywhere near the nuclear capabilities of America. They've got 20 ICBM's, and 24 SLBM's (submarine launched ballistic missiles). They have only one sub from which to launch nukes, and it is obsolete. In a war, our submarines would put that one sub out of business pretty quickly because China's navy is nowhere near as advanced as ours. We could probably take out all of the ICBM's too, using smart bombs from B2 or F-117 stealth bombers. Or, we could use a special ops team to take them out.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 27 2002,05:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that Bush kind of lost his right to say anything about the Cuban form of government since he was losing the 2000 election until he persuaded the supreme court to stop the recounts on grounds that recounts are unconstitutional. Not to say that even without the recounts a majority of the US voters voted for Gore. So much for democracy <span id='postcolor'> [sarcasm]Yeah... Bush was losing when the recounts were stopped.[/sarcasm] The last time I checked he was up by about 500 votes in Florida, and that was after several recounts. Gore just wanted them to keep recounting until he could twist the results enough to claim victory. Gore didn't have a majority either. A majority would be more than 50% of the votes. Gore did have about 500,000 more votes than Bush, however. But we don't go on a popular vote system. The states elect the president, not the people. This is done to keep states with huge populations (i.e. California, all of New England) from having too much say in the presidential election. if you'll look at a county-by-county map you'll see a whole hell of a lot more red than blue. The US is not a democracy; democracy is a "mob rule" type situation. We are a republic, which makes all states equal. Furthermore, a lot of people didn't vote because they knew they knew that Bush had no chance in solidly liberal states. Take California, for example. The state is divided about 60/40 for democrats and republicans. The millions of republicans in the state didn't vote because it was pretty much worthless. The situation is the same in a lot of states in New England too. Had everyone who cared about the election voted, it would have been much closer. Bush probably would have had more votes than Gote.

Uh... ok... why would the US attack Russia? They are becoming a part of NATO. We would have fought them during the Cold War, had they made a move on Europe. As for Afghanistan and Vietnam, they were very similar. In Vietnam the US lost about 50,000 troops and the NVA/Vietcong lost millions. In Afghanistan the Soviets lost 15,000 and killed about a million Afghans. In both cases they were facing a guerilla opponent backed by larger, more powerful countries. And in both cases I believe the Soviets and Americans won every major battle. The major difference was that the US was actually fighting another country (North Vietnam). And in the end, both countries decided it wasn't worth it and pulled out.

Something to try with a motorcycle: 1. Go to the church that overlooks the bridge on Nogova, it's slightly Northwest of the bridge and is situated on a steep cliff. 2. Use a satchel charge to blow off the railing. I recommend the side facing east, as it gets the best jumps. 3. Get in the motorcycle, back it up a little bit, and then hit the accelerator. 4. Fly over the edge; usually you'll survive. If not, the deaths are pretty funny. If you want to see some pretty funny looking motorcycle falls run over the cliffs in the North.

My story.... The mission was First Strike. I had just taken the town of Modrova in the previous mission, and the Soviets wanted it back. So, they send a whole bunch of tanks (about ten T-80's and T-72's) along with about two BMP's full of troops. My attempts to get them in the field failed miserably, mainly because the AI tanks wouldn't follow my troops. Retry. So, I hide all my tanks behind the woods to the East of town. I plant all these mines around the road leading to the town, and then some satchels in the entrance to the town. I hide a BMP down at the docks for my personal use. Then I get on top of the tallest building in town with a Dragunov and as many RPG's as I can carry. The tanks come in force, but my mines and satchels cut their numbers down. I order 2's tank platoon to head south into the town, and 3's platoon to head around to flank the enemy. My men fight well, but it's not enough and soon I'm the only one left. There's two T-72's, one badly damaged T-80, a BMP, and about fifteen infantry. I take out the T-80 with an RPG. All the enemy spots me and starts firing at my rooftop perch. I manage to take out a T-72 with two RPG's. I start sniping with the Dragunov, but I only have one mag so I'm doing it very carefully. I take out eight infantry and decide to save my last two bullets. With my last RPG, I disable the gun on the last remaining T-72. Now it's time to haul ass. I climb down the ladder and see a soldier in the courtyard outside my building. With my last two shots I take him out. However, this alerts the enemy and I have to dodge fire to get his AK. I shoot another three soldiers, then run like hell down to the docks. I jump in my BMP and slowly drive it into town. I spot an RPG soldier quickly enough that I have just enough time to jump in the gunner's seat and get him with the machine gun. Using an AT missile, I destroy the BMP. Then, I drive up to the disabled T-72 and blow it away with a sabot round. The rest of the infantry were taken care of with the coax machinegun. Mission Completed.

Abortion - You bet I'm against it. It's nothing more than killing an innocent human being. A fetus is not a lump of cellular jelly it is a living, thinking, human being. If you don't want a baby, fine, put it up for adoption. All the pain of childbirth is not worth killing a baby for. If you were raped, that doesn't give you the right to kill your baby. Just go through with the birth and put it up for adoption, there are plenty of people out there willing to adopt. Death Penalty - I'm for it. It's not against the Ten Commandments, because they say "Thou shalt not do murder." Also, it's an incredibly big deterrent of crime. Just look at how low the crime rate in Texas is, people are afraid of getting the death penalty.