Soviet weapons and Nato rounds good concept. If you overun the enemy let them provide the ammo.
Did the US military consider the same strategy? In WW2 allied forces could not fire all the 9mm ammo the germans left behind.
Have we considered the spoils of war in equiping our armies?
Laird
On denying rights to LGB groups
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
The old 'Eastern Bloc' did just the opposite... they outlawed civilian possession of military weapons and ammo. To make it difficult to use 9mm 'NATO' (9x19mm, also known as 9mm Luger) they came up with the 9mm Makarov, which is 9x18mm, for the standard sidearm. No interchangibility at all. There is also the common .380 as used by the Walthers PPK. The .380 is actually another 9mm variant that is also known as the 9x17mm or the 9mm Kurz.
The Soviets also designed morter tubes to be 1mm larger than NATO's. The result is that a NATO 81mm tube cannot use a captured Russian 82mm round, but a NATO 81mm round will work in the Russian tube. More fun and games.
Currently, US Army personell are allowed to acquire and use captured AK variants in Iraq. Ammo is plentiful and cheap, plus the AK works well in the nasty environment. Watch closely during the evening news reports and you might see US soldiers armed with AKs.
Rich
The Soviets also designed morter tubes to be 1mm larger than NATO's. The result is that a NATO 81mm tube cannot use a captured Russian 82mm round, but a NATO 81mm round will work in the Russian tube. More fun and games.
Currently, US Army personell are allowed to acquire and use captured AK variants in Iraq. Ammo is plentiful and cheap, plus the AK works well in the nasty environment. Watch closely during the evening news reports and you might see US soldiers armed with AKs.
Rich
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!
I meant this Rich:
Scalia and Co believes that the Constitution only says exactly what it means--or rather, meant, to the authors. That's the sentiment you're echoing here, and I'm not saying its crazy. But what it means is that if someone challenged slavery on Constitutional grounds in 1860, those people would say, tough, sir, you're a slave and you have no rights. Whereas most people today would say that while the Founders may have meant that, they were in error, and the spirit of the document they wrote is timeless, and would grant the slaves their freedom. Without having to wait until someone amended the thing to say that specifically.
So what would you say to a slave, before the amendment granting the slaves their freedom, if that slave said slavery was against the Constitution?
Would you say, sorry, you have to wait for an amendment, because the framers didn't mean to free you when they wrote it?
Interesting turn of discussion on the munitions, folks, but can we turn this back to the burning question?
Namely can anyone justify amending the oldest Constitution in the known universe, one which thusfar has only been amended to increase freedom and not to decrease it (with the exception of the failed experiment in prohibition) to deny a group of people and their dependents the same rights enjoyed by every other couple in the country just because their genders don't match up with tradition?
Scalia and Co believes that the Constitution only says exactly what it means--or rather, meant, to the authors. That's the sentiment you're echoing here, and I'm not saying its crazy. But what it means is that if someone challenged slavery on Constitutional grounds in 1860, those people would say, tough, sir, you're a slave and you have no rights. Whereas most people today would say that while the Founders may have meant that, they were in error, and the spirit of the document they wrote is timeless, and would grant the slaves their freedom. Without having to wait until someone amended the thing to say that specifically.
So what would you say to a slave, before the amendment granting the slaves their freedom, if that slave said slavery was against the Constitution?
Would you say, sorry, you have to wait for an amendment, because the framers didn't mean to free you when they wrote it?
Interesting turn of discussion on the munitions, folks, but can we turn this back to the burning question?
Namely can anyone justify amending the oldest Constitution in the known universe, one which thusfar has only been amended to increase freedom and not to decrease it (with the exception of the failed experiment in prohibition) to deny a group of people and their dependents the same rights enjoyed by every other couple in the country just because their genders don't match up with tradition?
--Ian
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
-
benzocaine
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
- Location: St. Thomas
To add a little humor to this.. there are many people who would beg to differ that marraige is "freedom".Namely can anyone justify amending the oldest Constitution in the known universe, one which thusfar has only been amended to increase freedom and not to decrease it
Once again I say let people marry who they want. If their marraige is lousy let them go through the pain of divorce. Marraige is a serious thing.
Come on folks! It's not like people choose their sexuality (a whole other thread maybee).. like anyone would choose to be treated as a second class citizen. Or willingly be such a target for contempt.
Thanks guys.
Since some people find it relevant (particularly conservatives who believe LGBs made a choice and therefore COULD be made accountable although they usually don't provide a rationale for doing so), no, it's not a choice. It's a spontaneous realization, or for some, something they understood for as long as they can remember, just as it is for heterosexuals. I've known enough people who've been raised in strongly disapproving environments without knowing any LGB people who fought their feelings as hard as they could for years before realizing there was nothing wrong with them.
Since some people find it relevant (particularly conservatives who believe LGBs made a choice and therefore COULD be made accountable although they usually don't provide a rationale for doing so), no, it's not a choice. It's a spontaneous realization, or for some, something they understood for as long as they can remember, just as it is for heterosexuals. I've known enough people who've been raised in strongly disapproving environments without knowing any LGB people who fought their feelings as hard as they could for years before realizing there was nothing wrong with them.
--Ian
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
No. This is wrong. The ones who should shut up and go home school are the ones who seek to capture and indoctrinate everyone in their beliefs, by forcing us to pray or revere their God, or what have you. Sorry, but we do not force individual religions upon people, and nor should we. Equal rights for all, which means no one is forced to allegiance to any God or gods they do not believe.As for religion in schools, a little christianity goes a long way. If the majority wants a prayer in school they should have one. Much of the deterioration in our society's mores began as God was driven out of education. The whining minority should shut up and home school if they are so offended by a moment of silence or the Pledge of Allegiance phrase 'under God'.
Perhaps "the whining minority" should just shut up if we harken back to the days before the Bill of Rights, when Jews and Catholics were prohibited from holding public office in Massachusetts?
What else should "the whining majority" just shut up about? What rights and liberties should they just shut up about when the "mob rule majority" takes away their rights?
What else shoud the majority get if they want over the rights of "the whining majority"?
Perhaps the "mob rule majority" prefer it in England, where it is prohibited for the reigning monarch to be Catholic, or be married to one?
Perhaps the "mob rule majority" prefer it in Russia, where Catholic archbishops are forced to leave the country, as the Russian Orthodox Church has great sway over the government?
Perhaps the "mob rule majority" prefer it in China, where Christians who do not belong to state approved churches are persecuted?
And what does the majority think about Marine Cpl. Kemaphoom Chanawongse?
Killed on the battlefields in Iraq, he was the first Buddhist buried at Arlington National Cemetery
Go ahead. Tell us please that, as a non-Christian, he had "deteriorated mores"....
Gene
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
Go ahead. Tell us please that, as a non-Christian, he had "deteriorated mores"...
Gene: You read me wrong, but I will rephrase my intent: Substitute the word religion for christian. I'll step back and say that the mores of our society have deteriorated as 'religion' is pushed out of education.
However, my personal feeling is that Judeo-Christianity is not causing all of the problems in the world. The hard line followers of Islam have stunted the growth of their societies. The people who want to blow us up want to live in the stone age, complete with a totally repressed female population. Most of the major advances in technology and medicine come from where?
As for the whining majority, unfortunately it is the silent majority that is allowing the special interest groups to dictate their version of 'PC' upon us.
Rich
Gene: You read me wrong, but I will rephrase my intent: Substitute the word religion for christian. I'll step back and say that the mores of our society have deteriorated as 'religion' is pushed out of education.
However, my personal feeling is that Judeo-Christianity is not causing all of the problems in the world. The hard line followers of Islam have stunted the growth of their societies. The people who want to blow us up want to live in the stone age, complete with a totally repressed female population. Most of the major advances in technology and medicine come from where?
As for the whining majority, unfortunately it is the silent majority that is allowing the special interest groups to dictate their version of 'PC' upon us.
Rich
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
One of the questions being asked in this thread is along the lines of if topic X is morally correct should it be implemented even if the majority of people do not believe it to be morally correct.
Now a good "topic x" fill in the blank is capital punishment. In this case, states have prevailed in their right to decide this on a state-by-state issue.
Unfortunately during the Civil Rights era, the term "states' rights" was used in a very high profile way by many states and politicans that sought to limit the freedoms of black americans. So sometimes when I hear "states' rights" I get that queasy feeling in my stomach that feels like racism. But that's my subjective response.
States should and do have the right to establish their own laws. The federal goverment should step in when the fundamental rights of the people as established in the constitution are getting tromped on by a state that is acting beyond what we've all agreed to as how we want our society to be. That's kind of how the system is set up? Y/N
But this system used to have the support of a more homogenous society that was mostly judeo/christian. At least - if you count the folks that had the right to vote. Now we don't have the same support for the system. And the system is struggling to work without that support. I think Rich has rightly pointed out that the decline in the population of people who actively identify as practicing organized religion has left a gap in our society.
But I don't think that filling that gap back up with a certain religion is a good idea. Understanding how a plurality of religious and spiritual beliefs can fill that gap seems to me to be a very good idea.
As the sermon said in church this sunday - it's about AND instead of OR
judeo-christian AND Islam AND buddist AND wicca AND aetheist AND humanist...
And the more people engage in dialogue like this, the more likely we are to improve the system and its supports.
Is it right that gay people can't get married? - that depends on who you ask. Is it wrong to limit and individual's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness? Well - didn't we all agree to that already?
Now a good "topic x" fill in the blank is capital punishment. In this case, states have prevailed in their right to decide this on a state-by-state issue.
Unfortunately during the Civil Rights era, the term "states' rights" was used in a very high profile way by many states and politicans that sought to limit the freedoms of black americans. So sometimes when I hear "states' rights" I get that queasy feeling in my stomach that feels like racism. But that's my subjective response.
States should and do have the right to establish their own laws. The federal goverment should step in when the fundamental rights of the people as established in the constitution are getting tromped on by a state that is acting beyond what we've all agreed to as how we want our society to be. That's kind of how the system is set up? Y/N
But this system used to have the support of a more homogenous society that was mostly judeo/christian. At least - if you count the folks that had the right to vote. Now we don't have the same support for the system. And the system is struggling to work without that support. I think Rich has rightly pointed out that the decline in the population of people who actively identify as practicing organized religion has left a gap in our society.
But I don't think that filling that gap back up with a certain religion is a good idea. Understanding how a plurality of religious and spiritual beliefs can fill that gap seems to me to be a very good idea.
As the sermon said in church this sunday - it's about AND instead of OR
judeo-christian AND Islam AND buddist AND wicca AND aetheist AND humanist...
And the more people engage in dialogue like this, the more likely we are to improve the system and its supports.
Is it right that gay people can't get married? - that depends on who you ask. Is it wrong to limit and individual's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness? Well - didn't we all agree to that already?
Last edited by Dana Sheets on Tue Feb 03, 2004 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Did you show compassion today?
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
Good input Dana.
Gene said: 'Go ahead. Tell us please that, as a non-Christian, he had "deteriorated mores"...'
You have implied I said that if someone is not a Christian, they must be bad. No, I did not say that at all. That must be your thought pattern, not mine.
Rich
Gene said: 'Go ahead. Tell us please that, as a non-Christian, he had "deteriorated mores"...'
You have implied I said that if someone is not a Christian, they must be bad. No, I did not say that at all. That must be your thought pattern, not mine.
Rich
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!
"As for religion in schools, a little christianity goes a long way. If the majority wants a prayer in school they should have one."
Gene inferred you were speaking about Christianity because you suggested a "little christianity," and then referred to the "majority," which is Christian. maybe not what you meant, but not off the wall.
Here's a fundamental point: I don't want my civil rights up for a goddamned vote. Especially in some posturing, far right pandering election year full of vacuous soundbites about the traditional family. This isn't a popularity contest. If the question is, "Is it right that gay people can't get married?" the answer is not "that depends on who you ask," just like the answer to the question, "is it right that all the black people are owned like property?" isn't "that depends on whom you ask."
The default in this country is freedom. You want to limit someone's freedom? Have a simple, rational, important reason. The price you pay for YOUR ability to live life as you please is giving up the right to restrict everyone else's right to live the way THEY please. If Gary Bauer happened to live in some alternate country or planet where he was among a minority of Christian heterosexuals, and his right to marry his intended wife was flatly denied on the basis of a tradition of prejudice and discrimination and the notion that his marriage, if allowed, would threaten traditional homosexual unions (Gosh, doesn't that sound profoundly STUPID?), you can bet your a$$ he wouldn't suggest the majority decide his fate on the basis of whatever mood they were in that day.
He'd suggest he had a God given right to marry whomever he saw fit (among the pool of consenting adults, and consistent with his feelings and religious beliefs) and everyone who felt otherwise should just butt the heck out.
Here's for a little application of the Golden Rule.
Gene inferred you were speaking about Christianity because you suggested a "little christianity," and then referred to the "majority," which is Christian. maybe not what you meant, but not off the wall.
Here's a fundamental point: I don't want my civil rights up for a goddamned vote. Especially in some posturing, far right pandering election year full of vacuous soundbites about the traditional family. This isn't a popularity contest. If the question is, "Is it right that gay people can't get married?" the answer is not "that depends on who you ask," just like the answer to the question, "is it right that all the black people are owned like property?" isn't "that depends on whom you ask."
The default in this country is freedom. You want to limit someone's freedom? Have a simple, rational, important reason. The price you pay for YOUR ability to live life as you please is giving up the right to restrict everyone else's right to live the way THEY please. If Gary Bauer happened to live in some alternate country or planet where he was among a minority of Christian heterosexuals, and his right to marry his intended wife was flatly denied on the basis of a tradition of prejudice and discrimination and the notion that his marriage, if allowed, would threaten traditional homosexual unions (Gosh, doesn't that sound profoundly STUPID?), you can bet your a$$ he wouldn't suggest the majority decide his fate on the basis of whatever mood they were in that day.
He'd suggest he had a God given right to marry whomever he saw fit (among the pool of consenting adults, and consistent with his feelings and religious beliefs) and everyone who felt otherwise should just butt the heck out.
Here's for a little application of the Golden Rule.
--Ian
Side note:
I don't think judeochristianity is causing most of the world's problems either. Nor is Islam. And while the country may have had declines in some standards of behavior, overall things aren't that bad. What's more, a lot of other things changed during the time religious indoctrination left our schools, so changes can hardly be linked. They may be unrelated, or maybe the decline in morality led to the decline in teaching religion not the other way around. In any case:
--religion is a private matter and can be adequately taught at home and practiced freely without mandating prayers or moments of silence. Do conservatives honestly think a government beaurocracy called the school system should honestly be doing the parent's job of religious instruction? That's basically sacriligious.
--look at all the states that have religion at their center. It's not a uniform record of success, suffice to say. America is doing fine by those standards.
I don't think judeochristianity is causing most of the world's problems either. Nor is Islam. And while the country may have had declines in some standards of behavior, overall things aren't that bad. What's more, a lot of other things changed during the time religious indoctrination left our schools, so changes can hardly be linked. They may be unrelated, or maybe the decline in morality led to the decline in teaching religion not the other way around. In any case:
--religion is a private matter and can be adequately taught at home and practiced freely without mandating prayers or moments of silence. Do conservatives honestly think a government beaurocracy called the school system should honestly be doing the parent's job of religious instruction? That's basically sacriligious.
--look at all the states that have religion at their center. It's not a uniform record of success, suffice to say. America is doing fine by those standards.
--Ian
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
-
benzocaine
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
- Location: St. Thomas
Another thing to consider is the introduction of television to our society. Surely this has helped shape our countries mores.What's more, a lot of other things changed during the time religious indoctrination left our schools, so changes can hardly be linked. They may be unrelated, or maybe the decline in morality led to the decline in teaching religion not the other way around.
