billytran

Nogova did have armed forces. In one of the scenes you hear over the radio that the President has ordered the military to lay down its weapons. I'm guessing that the Resistance got its T-55's from the Nogova military, since they had been out of Russian service for quite a while. An Mi-17 could flatten one or two cities, but the Su-25's could flatten the entire island. Mi-17's had rockets, the bombers had napalm. Guba didn't know the exact location of the camps, so he couldn't strike at them. Also, when they found out Resistance had AA they were afraid of losing the choppers. I don't think a satchel charge can put a crater in the runway, you need something much bigger. Besides, the engine doesn't support it.

Nogova did have armed forces. In one of the scenes you hear over the radio that the President has ordered the military to lay down its weapons. I'm guessing that the Resistance got its T-55's from the Nogova military, since they had been out of Russian service for quite a while. An Mi-17 could flatten one or two cities, but the Su-25's could flatten the entire island. Mi-17's had rockets, the bombers had napalm. Guba didn't know the exact location of the camps, so he couldn't strike at them. Also, when they found out Resistance had AA they were afraid of losing the choppers. I don't think a satchel charge can put a crater in the runway, you need something much bigger. Besides, the engine doesn't support it.

I put like four mines in the bottleneck part in the forest, another four in the road about halfway to base, and the rest all around the entrance. Then you get an RPG or AT-4 (from dead soldier) and sit up on the hill overlooking the road from the East.

I've never cried in a movie before. But, the scene in Saving Private Ryan where Wade died in that field with everybody around him was very intense. Also in Black Hawk Down, when the guys tried to save Smith in the Somali house. The talk that the Delta guy gave to Eversmann afterwards was intense.

I like the urban areas most, they are a huge improvement. I can just imagine all the possibilities... RPG's from the rooftops, snipers, etc. The desert in the SW corner is also cool. I can imagine making missions where I blow up the hangars or something as a black op.

I want the Colt 1911 most, but here are some others: -Sig p226 -HK USP -Beretta 93 (92 w/ a three round burst) -Glock 18 (full auto Glock 17) w/ 33 rd. magazine -MAC-10 But whatever you do, don't make the pistols be held sideways, this isn't OFP: Gang Wars.

Driving is really easy after about a month or so of practice. The hard stuff is parallel parking, but it only takes an hour or so of practice to get right. Also, driving a stick is kind of tricky. First, you have to figure out where the clutch disengages. After that you have to figure out downshifting, which I had some trouble with. I get my real license in about three weeks, can't wait

Ralph, Are you saying that Reagan messed up the economy too? Uh, he saved it. Reagan came in after Carter had completely screw our economy. The Reagan Expansion between 1983-89 the economy grew by 3.2% compared to 2.4% for Clinton. And Reagan's expansion included a recession too. Unemployment and inflation also fell. The good economy helped the computer industry really grow too. The Clinton growth was merely a continuation of the Reagan growth. The Republicans made Clinton agree to a balanced budget and welfare reform. Another thing that helped with the Clinton growth was the fact that Clinton could cut defense spending. In fact, the only reason why Clinton could reduce the defense budget is because Reagan was able to defeat the Soviet Union. And are you also saying that you're a better judge of economic practice than the SEC? Please, Bush did nothing wrong... face it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 18 2002,05:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">billytran: BUSH MESSED UP THE WHOLE ECONOMY! Excuse me? So Clinton ordered executives to start cooking books? Even Bush himself is currently in hot waters for inconsistencies in his stock selling before whatever that company got in financial trouble. During Clinton's administration, US economy had drastic increase, while Bush Sr. had depression.<span id='postcolor'> No, the corporate criminals messed up the economy. Clinton didn't order them to cook books, but if it started under his watch he should take responsibility. The blame certainly doesn't go to Bush for what the CEO's and other executives did. I blame Clinton because all of our economic problems started under him. The small recession started as Clinton was leaving office, you can't blame that on Bush. The cooking of books was not Bush's fault, it started under Clinton's watch. So, what exactly are you saying Bush did to mess up the economy? By the way, the SEC already investigated Bush and found no evidence of wrongdoing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 18 2002,04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Third of all you only got your liberty because the British decided that you were not worth the effort.<span id='postcolor'> Did you figure that one out all by yourself? That was part of Washington's strategy; to win by wearing down you enemy. We could have gained independence solely through military victory (with a little French help, of course), it was just easier to make Britain think it wasn't worth it. That's called intelligence. As for the EU-nics they have no authority to tell the US what to do. That stuff about "good parenting" is all BS. It's the US that is a parent to the rest of the world. We send troops, aid, etc. all over the freaking place. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. In WW2, Britain and France's appeasement policy brought the whole world into the war. The US, like a good parent, bailed them out and then helped rebuild the continent. When was the last time that the US relied on foreign aid? We are the parents. When you guys say that europe needs to parent the US and give guidance, what the hell are you talking about? Guide us in what? Then there's the socialism BS that people like to cheer. I'm sorry, but I can't condone stealing peoples money. The government pays for crackheads (generic term for bums, loser, and other scun) with babies popping out three at a time, which in turn keeps people from getting cancer treatment that they need. It's happened in every single country with socialized health care. Canada is not a better place to live than the US, I'm sorry. Their health care system blows. You have to wait a few months while cancer eats away at you, so that the government can afford to pay for crackheads. And the crackheads don't even pay their fair share, they sit at home all day collecting welfare checks. Socialism results in an impaired society. The Soviet Union's economy collapsed because socialism was so bad. Cuba used to have a great economy, then Castro came when with his idealism BS and screwed it all up. Capitalism always beats socialism. I think this quote sums it up: "America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages adn cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way." (Ayn Rand) Okay, next topic. The EU-nics turn everything in the UN into a bunch of petty politics. They booted the US, the country with the greatest human rights record, of of the council on human rights!!! Why in the hell did they do that unless to punish the US. Do you really think that things will be different in the ICC? They're going to use it like they use everything else to punish the US. Europe expects us to send our troops all over the world to babysit, and then they want to subject them to the review of the ICC (aka the court of international political opinion). After the whole thing in Kosovo, one UN review board took months to clear the US of war crimes charges. And what did they do about the warlords who killed people? Oh they got a few, but two of the biggest are still at large. And finally: To the person who said, "I want Clinton back," WTF is your major malfunction? All of the coroporate corruption (Enron, Worldcom) started under his administration. It's his fault.

You cannot have an objective international governing body. Politics and a whole bunch of other BS will screw it up. That's why the US was booted off the human rights council in favor of China and Syria. The whiny EU-nics were trying to hurt the US. Do you think that the same thing wouldn't happen in the ICC?

You can get delta force soldiers, little birds, and SOAR helos. Just look around at ofpeditingcenter.com

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 13 2002,08:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 13 2002,08:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your view of "democracy means nothing you must live" works for war torn Europe, not America.  And thats why we're better.<span id='postcolor'> LMAO. That just shows that you know nothing about the real world. Unfortunately that goes for a lot of your politicians and citizens. Being willing to die for democracy is no better then being willing to die for a religion on nazism or any other theoretical ideology that has very little to do with the real world. Your view of defending democracy at every cost is just as bad as Al-Quedas view of defending Islam at any cost. Yes, democracy is very nice if you feel that your human needs for security, food..etc are guaranteed. My point is that you have to accept either that you are under no threat and stop bitching and bombing around the world  or you can accept that you are under a theret and take the measures required to achieve the safety and stop bitching about loosing your rights. When a robber points a gun at you on the street, you won't be debating your constitutional rights with him. Welcome to the real world, I can only say.<span id='postcolor'> First, America isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. Second, the constitution doesn't grant rights, It recognizes fundamental human rights. You need to realize that freedoms can give you all the security you need. As someone said before, when a robber points a gun at you, you use your second amendment right to pull out your gun and stop him. I see no reason to ever restrict rights except in extreme cases. I think the US government and military is strong enough to continue allowing people to exercise their freedoms. We bombed Afghanistan because they presented a threat. We will probably go after Saddam Hussein because he is a threat (by developing chem. weapons and nukes). We shouldn't have bombed Kosovo, that was a stupid decision by Clinton. You're talking about how America is a bad place because we have a lot of freedom and there are very few wars in our part of the world. So, are you saying that europe is a better place because they have fewer freedoms and have been at war for about 500 years? Welcome to the real world, where freedom makes for a much better quality of life.

For me it's a tie between Clear and Present Danger and Red Storm Rising. They both have the most action of Clancy's books. The Bear and the Dragon could have been so much better if they had just put in some action in the first 700 pages. The last couple hundred were as good as Red Storm Rising. Rainbow Six could have been better if it wasn't so corny. I swear, if I heard the phrase "pure vanilla" again I was gonna puke. The action was awesome, though.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 13 2002,06:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the idea of more air marshalls is a great idea. I think giving pilots guns isnt. Why? Because the training would likely be VERY basic. Â And the last thing you want is some half trained pilot going off half cocked. Or worse..imagine if those two drunken pilots in Florida a few weeks back had had guns and gotten into a fight <span id='postcolor'> Two weeks is enough to know how to defend a cockpit. Air Marshalls need to know a lot more. They have to be able to coordinate their actions, they need the skills to clear the plane of any threat. A pilot would have a very simple responsibility: If a terrorist goes through the door, shoot him. Two weeks is enough to train someone for that, isn't it? In the case of those drunken pilots, the system worked. The screeners noticed that the men were drunk, and alerted the proper people. There might have been a few problems (it took a while for them to get the pilots off the plane), but that can be fixed with better communication among the screeners.

Synchronize the helo's "load" waypoint with the unit's "get in" way point. Then the helo won't take off until the men have gotten in. If you've already synchronized it, I think you might have to order all of your men to get in, and then get in last.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 13 2002,05:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I firmly believe that so long as people genuinely believe that man is inherantly evil, we really wont ever see peace on a world scale...or an end to things like poverty.<span id='postcolor'> World peace is nothing more than a dream. We will never reach it. There will always be neo-nazis who want to kill all blacks/jews/arabs. There will always be Muslim Fundamentalists who want to see the complete destruction of Israel and America. We won't end povery until people stop being lazy. And do you know why people are lazy? Because they know they can depend on hardworking taxpayers and that wonderful income redistribution (Read: SOCIALIST) program of welfare. And things like socialized health care aren't helping either. These things promote laziness. Big government bureacracies screw things up. Just look at government run social security. Look at how foreign aid gets squandered. If you stop relying on big governments, a lot of problems will disappear. We can go a lot farther to helping the impoverished if we cut out all government programs and relied on charities. So, what does this have to do with airline security? It's simple, government screeners are going to suck. Why? Because of the bureacracy. Private companies can provide a better product if you let them. They could have better quality screeners and it wouldn't put a burden on the taxpayer.

Espectro, First off, your whole thing about keeping guns off planes ignores the fact that air marshalls have guns. In fact, they let FBI agents, DEA agents, Customs agents, and other federal law enforcement employees carry guns onto a plane. Now, you might think that is okay. After all, these are highly trained professionals, right? Well postal inspectors, museum curators, and Department of Agriculture inspectors can have guns too. So you're point about "guns aren't getting on planes" is invalid. Right now, pilots are instructed to stay in the cockpit and land as soon as possible. If they had guns they would still be instructed to stay inside the cokpit. So, guns or no guns, a pilot will still have to resist the urge to open the door. That means that a terrorist must break down the door. Now, here's the situation: You are a passenger on a plane where the pilots don't have guns. Five terrorists armed with box cutters have taken control of the passenger area of the plane. They demand that the pilot open the door or they will start killing people. The pilots do not open the door, so the terrorists start killing people. They kill two stewardesses and the pilots are still keeping the door shut. Three of the hijackers decide to bust down the door. Now, what will your thoughts be: A. Thank God that those pilots don't have a gun up there. B. I wish they had something to defend the cockpit with. What is wrong with a simple two week training program for pilots so that they can know how to defend the cockpit? If you do that, they'll have roughly the same amount of firearms training as an air marshall and will be perfectly capable of defending the cockpit. Just think of what a deterrent it would be if just 75% of the pilots had guns and the training to defend the cockpit. I'm willing to bet that there would be no more hijackings. The simple threat of having to deal with a gun would stop someone from trying to hijack the plane. It's like concealed carry permits. When you provide people with the means to defend themselves, criminals get scared off.

Depressurization is not an issue!!! If it were, then why would the air marshalls have guns? There are pre-fragmented bullets that break apart when they hit something. Nobody's going to shoot through an engine. And if the bullet accidentally hits a passenger, so what? That's better than the plane crashing into the US Capitol Building or having an F-16 shoot the plane down, killing everyone on board. As I said before, the pilot will stay in the freaking cockpit. The example of the movie Con-Air makes no sense. The pilot will not leave the cockpit, no matter what. There is only one scenario is which the pilot will use a gun, and that is if someone breaks down the door and enters the cockpit. If that happens, the pilot will shoot the hijacker. He won't ask questions, he won't try to subdue him, he will shoot the mofo. Air marshalls can not be on every flight. Do you have any idea what that would cost? They can't even get them on 20% of the flights. As far as the examples of pilots killing the copilot, they don't need guns to do it. They could strangle him or bludgeon him to death. What if Al Quaeda started recruiting air marshalls? There's little you could do to stop them. If you were on a flight, and a group of hijackers slits the throats of the stewardesses and ties everyone up, what will you be thinking when they go to break down the cockpit door. Could you honestly say, "Thank God those pilots don't have guns?" Do you really want the last line of defense to be an F-16?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ July 11 2002,22:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm I can count at least three that were given, potential damage to plane/equipment from stray bullets, possibility of hijackers getting hold of the gun, thus going from say box cutters to having a firearm, international issues with countries that have strict firearms laws, see there's three So what would be the good reasons for giving a pilot a firearm? Other than the fact it will be of benefit to Hollywood producers if they can have a hero pilot running around a jumbo jet shooting terrorists <span id='postcolor'> Potential Damage: The plane is not going to depressurize and cause a great catasrophy. As I said before, that only happened in the movie Goldfinger. One or two stray bullets will not bring down a plane, but do you know what will? That F-16 with sidewinders under the wings. There is a one in a million chance that a stray bullet will do serious damage. I think a pistol is a better tool than an F-16. Hijackers Getting Gun: I guess police shouldn't have guns either because a criminal can take an officer's gun and shoot people. There isn't much of a chance that a hijacker will get the gun. If the hijacker gets into the cockpit, the pilot will shoot him. A pilot won't start wrestling with a terrorist, he is going to shoot him. The whole thing about bad guys taking guns away from good guys is only in the movies. International issues: Okay, so maybe they can't take guns to Germany or the UK. I'm sure that the US could try to work out deals with other countries to have pilots with guns. If the US can only work it out with a few countries it is still worth it. BTW, the pilot won't go running around a plane shooting people. He stays in the cockpit. The gun is there to defend the cockpit.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ July 11 2002,21:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's a bad idea on many levels, it's a typical kneejerk reaction which hasn't been thought through properly, which coming 10 months after Sept 11th is a smidge strange.<span id='postcolor'> I think it's a bad idea to just shoot an airliner out of the sky without even giving the pilot a chance to defend the plane. A complete restructuring of the plane so as to make the cockpit inaccessible would coast a hell of a lot of money. You have to figure in the cost of strong doors, the addition of a bathroom in the cockpit, and a whole lot of other things. Can someone please give me a good reason that we should not allow pilots to have guns in the cockpit? So far your arguments have consisted of calling it a "kneejerk reaction."

First of all, a bullet hole in the side of a plane will not cause it to suddenly depressurize and suck everyone out or blow up the plane. The only time that has ever happened is in the movie Goldfinger. If depressurization was such a big deal, why would they have air marshalls with guns? Second, pepper spray/tasers are highly over-rated and their effectiveness is doubtful. Guns in the cockpit are a good thing. Some people say things like "But the pilot needs to be focused on flying the plane!!!" These people are idiots. Just how in the hell are you supposed to fly a plane when a terrorist gets into the cockpit and slits your throat? And as for a bullet accidentally killing someone, that's better than an F-16 shooting the airliner out of the sky, isn't it? If a terrorist somehow manages to get into the cockpit, do you want the last line of defense to be an F-16? I'd rather have a pilot with a gun. As far as air marchalls go, they can't get one on every plane can they? They're not even on twenty percent of flights right now. If the TSA had something like a two week training program for pilots with guns, that would be a hell of a lot more effective than air marshalls.

It might only have one firing, but it's meant to simulate two. Thereal one fires both at once at around 3000 rpm, which gives a total of about 6000 rpm coming out of both guns.

Well, since there are two miniguns on the chopper, I think you should put it up to 6,000 rpm because they both fire at once. And new sounds please!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kermit @ July 08 2002,17:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cheeky monkey @ July 07 2002,19:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Glock Seventeen holds seventeen rounds in a mag<span id='postcolor'> No, the factory default magazine holds ten rounds. Â You can buy additional magazines. Â There is the common one which hold seventeen rounds and, if you don't mind having the magazine hanging down from the mag well (in short, not flush), a less common one that holds twenty or twenty one rounds. Â I forget.<span id='postcolor'> That's the American export version. Since it's illegal for new magazines to hold more than ten rounds, all new Glock 17 mags sent to America hold only ten rounds (except the ones for law enforcement). There are also magazines with 33 rounds too.