The Captain: 25 new messages in 12 topics

sci.military.naval
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval?hl=en

sci.military.naval@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I Served... ET1 Benjamin F Stair Jr, Vsm
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/6aec4f1587b51eb6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 9:27 am
From: Otis Willie PIO The American War Library

I Served... ET1 Benjamin F Stair Jr, Vsm
U.S. Navy

Ben''s Authorizations and Acknowledgements:

Battle (Navy) E Ribbon
Cold War Medal
Enlisted Promotion
Good Conduct Medal
Honorable Service Lapel Pin
Honorable Discharge
National Defense Medal
Ocean Crossing Acknowledgement
Sea Service Ribbon
Ship/Boat Service
Vietnam Campaign Medal
Vietnam Civil Action Medal
Vietnam Cross of Gallantry, Unit Ribbon
Vietnam Cross of Gallantry, Indiv Medal
Vietnam War Era Appreciation
Vietnam Naval Service Ribbon

VETERAN'S DAY AND MEMORIAL DAY ARE EVERYDAY. A VETERAN LIVES AS LONG AS HE OR
SHE IS REMEMBERED.

Military Medal Issue Regulations
http://www.amervets.com/isr.htm
Personnel Database and Registry
http://www.amervets.com/library.htm
Individual's 201-A Military Award Report
http://www.amervets.com/13105320634/orc.htm

-- Otis Willie (Ret.)
Military News and Information Editor (http://www.13105320634.com)
The American War Library, Est. 1988 (http://www.amervets.com)
16907 Brighton Avenue
Gardena CA 90247
1-310-532-0634

Military and Vet Info-Exchange/Discussion Groups
http://members.aol.com/amerwar/share.htm

Public Information
http://www.13105320634.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Russian General Staff: NATO warships will enter Black Sea in August
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/7ec3ccc3e78a01ee?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 9:29 am
From: "Ken S. Tucker"

Hi Buff.

On Aug 20, 5:25 am, buff82driver <buff82dri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Russia the worlds greatest superpower? Hmm and were is there
> blue water navy? Modern/heavily upgraded intercontinental
> bombers? Professional infantry? How are they a superpower?> Currently Russia is the worlds greatest superpower,
> > what's important however, is using our influence to
> > settle the problem to create the best future, with the
> > least damage.
> > Russia and West have too much in common to let
> > this incident fracture us.
> > I think the US over-played placing missiles in Poland,
> > for strange ideas, what's next, how would the US
> > react if canux allowed a Russian missile base in
> > Manitoba, because we need to protect Vancouver
> > from North Korean missiles and the Ruskies were
> > the lowest bidder for that ABM system?
> > Ken
>
> How did we overplay our hand? Everyone really knows who those
> missiles are to defend against and thats Iran but perhaps they could
> help out in a "spiff" with Russia but I doubt that. Russia has far to
> many missiles
> to be stopped by this shield and it may be easier to sneak in a bomber
> undetected. If we
> really wanted to neuter Russia we would use the Cold War era idea/
> system? of using space based lasers
> and Brilliant Pebbles. Using ground based missiles for the foundation
> of BMD never will make sense. Using SAMs
> for terminal defense and as a backup for space based defenses is ok
> but as the primary shield is and always will be
> cost-prohibitive.

I think the good spirit of the Gorby-Reagan INF deal
was to minimize military systems in East Europe,
and that should stand. If the EU thinks it needs
an ABM system then they should talk to Russia
about it. It's a grand strategy outlook that the US
needs to formulate and use.
Ken

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 11:30 am
From: "Ken S. Tucker"

On Aug 20, 9:29 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> Hi Buff.
>
> On Aug 20, 5:25 am, buff82driver <buff82dri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Russia the worlds greatest superpower? Hmm and were is there
> > blue water navy? Modern/heavily upgraded intercontinental
> > bombers? Professional infantry? How are they a superpower?> Currently Russia is the worlds greatest superpower,
> > > what's important however, is using our influence to
> > > settle the problem to create the best future, with the
> > > least damage.
> > > Russia and West have too much in common to let
> > > this incident fracture us.
> > > I think the US over-played placing missiles in Poland,
> > > for strange ideas, what's next, how would the US
> > > react if canux allowed a Russian missile base in
> > > Manitoba, because we need to protect Vancouver
> > > from North Korean missiles and the Ruskies were
> > > the lowest bidder for that ABM system?
> > > Ken
>
> > How did we overplay our hand? Everyone really knows who those
> > missiles are to defend against and thats Iran but perhaps they could
> > help out in a "spiff" with Russia but I doubt that. Russia has far to
> > many missiles
> > to be stopped by this shield and it may be easier to sneak in a bomber
> > undetected. If we
> > really wanted to neuter Russia we would use the Cold War era idea/
> > system? of using space based lasers
> > and Brilliant Pebbles. Using ground based missiles for the foundation
> > of BMD never will make sense. Using SAMs
> > for terminal defense and as a backup for space based defenses is ok
> > but as the primary shield is and always will be
> > cost-prohibitive.
>
> I think the good spirit of the Gorby-Reagan INF deal
> was to minimize military systems in East Europe,
> and that should stand. If the EU thinks it needs
> an ABM system then they should talk to Russia
> about it. It's a grand strategy outlook that the US
> needs to formulate and use.
> Ken

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty
Ken

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Cut & Runners
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/5f8b43a305714f00?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 9:31 am
From: "D. Spencer Hines"

...And Syria predictably sides with Russia...

The Times of London simply calls this "the new Cold War".
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor

Fear of new Mid East 'Cold War' as Syria strengthens military alliance with
Russia

James Hider, Middle East Correspondent
The Times

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad headed to Moscow today to discuss an
expansion of his pariah state's military cooperation with Russia.

The trip is raising fears that the new Cold War that has erupted in the
Caucasus will spill over into the Middle East, long a battleground between
East and West, and crush tentative hopes for peace.

"Of course military and technical cooperation is the main issue. Weapons
purchases are very important," said Mr Assad. "I think we should speed it
up. Moreover, the West and Israel continue to put pressure on Russia."

Israel, like its main sponsor America, has developed close military ties
with Georgia in recent years, with defence contractors supplying training
and equipment to the small, US-backed state.

As Syria renews its Soviet-era close ties with Moscow, many here fear that
the Middle East could once again become a theatre for the two great powers
to exert their spheres of influence, militarily and politically, in the
volatile region.

And with Israel and the US providing military backing to Georgia, Russia
appears set to respond in kind by supporting Syria.

Already, Israeli observers worry that the chaos in the Caucasus may disrupt
gas supplies to Europe and Turkey from the Caspian Sea region, creating a
greater energy reliance on Iran and its vast reserves. The crisis could in
turn allow Tehran to exploit splits in the international community and use
Russia as a powerful backer to advance its controversial nuclear programme.

In a sign of warming ties, Mr al-Assad – a wily political operator keen to
play regional powers off against each other – said he fully backed Russia's
pursuit of its "legal interests" in its fight with Georgia.

"On this issue we fully support Russia... Georgia started this crisis, but
the West is blaming Russia," said the Syrian leader, who will meet with
Dmitri Medvedev, the Russian president, during his two-day visit.

Syria and Israel recently confirmed they had been holding indirect talks to
reach a peace deal after decades of hostility. Part of Syria's motivation
was to break the international isolation it has suffered for its strategic
alliance with Tehran, and which has wrought serious damage on its economy. A
closer alliance with a resurgent Russia, flush with petro-dollars, could
afford Mr al-Assad a way out of any binding commitment. Some Israeli
analysts even fear it could encourage Syria to try to take back the Golan
Heights, captured by Israel in 1967, by force.

Moscow is expected to propose a revival of its Cold War era naval base at
the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean, with some Russian reports
even saying Moscow is already deepening it to accommodate a fleet of war
ships. Russia may have similar ambitions for the port of Latakia, using
Syria – which is in need of a powerful global backer – as a bridgehead for
extending its regional influence.

The conflict in Georgia already sparked a mocking speech by Sheikh Hassan
Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, over the performance of Israeli-trained
Georgian forces. One of the main Israeli military advisers there was reserve
Brigadier General Gal Hirsch, who commanded a division in Israel's
inconclusive war with Hezbollah in 2006, and who resigned his commission
afterwards

"The entire front line of the army's brass stepped down because of the war.
Gal Hirsch, who was defeated in Lebanon, went to Georgia and they too lost
because of him," taunted the Shia leader. "Relying on Israeli experts and
weapons, Georgia learned why the Israeli generals failed -- what happened in
Georgia is a message to all those the Americans are seeking to entangle in
dangerous adventures." ******

That Cold War rhetoric was echoed by Mr al-Assad, who also used the Georgian
crisis as a stick to beat Israel. "I think that in Russia and in the world
everyone is now aware of Israel's role and its military consultants in the
Georgian crisis," he told the Russian newspaper Kommersant. "And if before
in Russia there were people who thought these forces can be friendly then
now I think no one thinks that way."

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 11:01 am
From: James Hogg

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:04:02 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>On 19 Aug, 19:25, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

>> Said little rampant pogues actually foolishly and gullibly believe that a
>> person must belong to a COMMUNIST PARTY and openly profess beliefs in
>> Marxist-Leninist COMMUNISM in order to be a true COMMUNIST.

>> Putin believes dissolution of the Soviet Union was one of the greatest
>> tragedies of the 20th Century...
>>
>> And he wants to reconstitute it...
>>
>> Under Russian Rule and Marxist-Leninist [sic] Principles.

>Er ... how many times in the past have you told us that the US had
>already won the Cold War - WWIII etc. - remember?

Yes, and World War IV is the ongoing global war on Islamofascist
Terror, so this new war on Marxist-Leninism (without the Marixsm)
must be World War V according to the idiosyncratic Hinesian
count.

>Twit!

I am twitting him as much as time permits.

James

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 11:01 am
From: John Kane

On Aug 19, 4:04 pm, Vincent <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
> > John Briggs wrote:
> >> Andrew Swallow wrote:
> >>> John Briggs wrote:
> >>>> Vincent wrote:
> >>> [snip]
>
> >>>>> The Iranians were paranoid religious lunatics and the USA was simply
> >>>>> not on the ball in dealing with it.
>
> >>>> It didn't have to be like that - this was a country with a huge
> >>>> educated pro-Western middle class. A bit like Iraq, really...
>
> >>> That education made Iran dangerous. We have no problem killing
> >>> uneducated arabs in large numbers.
>
> >> The Iranians aren't Arabs.
>
> > They are still Muslims.
>
> So are Turks.
>
> What is your claim?
>
> Vince-

So are a lot of Americans

Keep your head down Vince

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

==============================================================================
TOPIC: BAE to build 155mm Naval gun
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/72d5bf51b67f5cd4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 9:31 am
From: Andre Lieven

On Aug 20, 7:25 am, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca> shat:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:08:21 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
> <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >On Aug 19, 8:57 pm, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:32:10 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
> >> <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> >On Aug 19, 7:02 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> >> ><dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> >> >> Raymond O'Hara ha scritto:
>
> >> >> [6" guns]
>
> >> >> > obsolete? all an "obsolete" gun needs is a new mount.
> >> >> > the U.S. got great mileage out of the old 3'50. from the main gun on early
> >> >> > destroyers to an anti-tank/tank destroyer gun to a crew served AA to a twin
> >> >> > auto AA. same barrel different mounts
>
> >> >> there's another problem with old RN BL's:
>
> >> >> RN firing charges have the major defect of igniting easily and in a
> >> >> rather spectacular manner.... and the current RN ship have nothing in
> >> >> the passive protection department; a baddie's RPG, even an HMG/AMR
> >> >> bullet, in the wrong place of a ship retrofitted with 6" BL can have
> >> >> rather unpleasant consequences (and a casualty rate in the 98%-100%
> >> >> range, whose today is considered more than unacceptable in the West)
>
> >> >And, heres more idiocy that ASSumes that the current RN has learned
> >> >NOTHING since 1915... (proklyatiya kretinii kusok)
>
> >> The 6" of WWII vintage used bagged powder of the type that
> >> exploded in Barham's magazine (and was simillar to that in Hood).
>
> >You are about to make a own goal statement, since the 6 inch guns
> >in Barham's casemates (Guns that had been entirely replaced on
> >the rebuilt QE and Valiant.) were of WW *One* vintage, going
> >back all the way to Barham's first construction during WW1.
>
> Is the concept of bagged powder alien to you Andre?

Not at all, and I am also conversant with the fact that propellents
that burned off were well worked out before the end of WW2.

So, you're still trying to squeeze in 70 year old history on a topic
of a FUTURE gun system.

> Don't you
> realize that the RN extended its changes to propellant to all its
> ships between the wars?

None of which is relevent to a FUTURE gun system...

> >So, no soup for you, as you flubbed this topic.
>
> Nope.

Yep.

> >Further, even if Hood was due to the 4 inch ammo, thats still gear
> >thats well obsolete a generation ago.
>
> Those 4" used fixed ammunition. I'd tend to think they are
> irrelevant here. Let's go with the most likely explanation, shall
> we?

Far more learned people than you include the Hood's 4 inch magazine
being involved. I'll take their considered professional opinions
over your factless whinging.

> >> Your desire to be rude has lead you to make a stupid statement.
>
> >Own Goal. Try again, this time, with actual real naval facts.
>
> I did. The dott. may have had a point, you were rude to him in a
> stupid way.

No proof ever offered ? Factless loon claim always fails.

Andre

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 9:59 am
From: richardcasady@earthlink.net (Richard Casady)

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:26:04 -0700 (PDT), guy
<guyswettenham@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On 20 Aug, 15:05, richardcas...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:37:39 -0700 (PDT), guy
>>
>> <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >If you are shooting at a bunch of pirates in a camp a 4.5
>> >will probably be as unnerving as a 155mm and if you are shooting in a
>> >situation where the big shell
>>
>> The 155 has submunition ammo in production. Anti personnel mines or a
>> smaller number of antitank mines. The US made 70 ton yield nukes for
>> the 155.[also the 8in] but they got rid of them.
>>
>> Casady
>
>And

Point is, that there is a wider selection of ammo available off the
shelf compared to 4.7 or 5 inch. Grenades are handy, so is smoke,
phosphorus, flares. If you can fit a 6 inch gun into a 4.7 inch mount,
you are almost getting something for nothing. Recoil would double, but
if the ship is beefy around that area, it might work OK as is.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 10:10 am
From: guy

On 20 Aug, 17:59, richardcas...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:26:04 -0700 (PDT), guy
>
>
>
>
>
> <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >On 20 Aug, 15:05, richardcas...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:37:39 -0700 (PDT), guy
>
> >> <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >If you are shooting at a bunch of pirates in a camp a 4.5
> >> >will probably be as unnerving as a 155mm and if you are shooting in a
> >> >situation where the big shell
>
> >> The 155 has submunition ammo in production. Anti personnel mines or a
> >> smaller number of antitank mines. The US made 70 ton yield nukes for
> >> the 155.[also the 8in] but they got rid of them.
>
> >> Casady
>
> >And
>
> Point is, that there is a wider selection of ammo available off the
> shelf compared to 4.7 or 5 inch. Grenades are handy, so is smoke,
> phosphorus, flares. If you can fit a 6 inch gun into a 4.7 inch mount,
> you are almost getting something for nothing. Recoil would double, but
> if the ship is beefy around that area, it might work OK as is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes but it costs money, weight, redisign... that could go elsewhere.
As for a wider selection of ammo, that is undoubtedly true, but,
bluntly, all you want for a gun on a warship is something that goes
'bang'. If you need more, you should not be using a gun.

Guy

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 11:16 am
From: richardcasady@earthlink.net (Richard Casady)

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:31:56 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
<andrelieven@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>Far more learned people than you include the Hood's 4 inch magazine
>being involved. I'll take their considered professional opinions
>over your factless whinging.

What do you think of the speculation that an eight inch from Prinz
Augen might have done it. Would an eight penetrate at that range?
I would think they might glance off from lack of steepness, but I
don't actually know.

My understanding from studying tank warfare, is that it is nearly
always the powder that catches fire from a hit. The fixed case ammo
cooks off slowly enough that sometimes the crew gets out. So fixed
case ammo in bulk, in those large sizes, will burn completely. Small
arms ammo doesn't do that.

Casady

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Senator Joe Lieberman To Speak At GOP Convention
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/b418273342467072?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 9:58 am
From: "D. Spencer Hines"

Excellent!

Joe Lieberman is one of the best and smartest Democrat Senators -- perhaps
THE best.

Yale '64, Yale Law School '67.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor

Sen. Joe Lieberman to speak at GOP convention

By ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press Writer

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party's vice presidential
candidate in 2000 and now an independent who is one of John McCain's
strongest supporters, will speak at the Republican National Convention, an
official said.

Lieberman will deliver a speech when Republicans gather in St. Paul, Minn.,
to nominate McCain for president, a party official told The Associated Press
on Wednesday. The official requested anonymity because a formal announcement
had yet to be made.

Asked during a visit to Georgia whether he would be speaking at the
convention, Lieberman smiled and said: "it's quite possible, but I'll let
them announce it."

Lieberman, 66, caucuses with Senate Democrats, though has been a strong
supporter of the Iraq war and is a staunch backer of McCain's presidential
bid, traveling often with the Arizona senator and campaigning on his behalf
during the GOP primary in states like Florida that have large numbers of
Jewish voters. *****

McCain might be able to capture as much as 40% of the Jewish vote
nationwide. He probably won't get the vote of Pogue Gans, but that's to be
expected. -- DSH

As he weighs potential running mates, McCain is believed to be seriously
considering choosing Lieberman, whom he counts among his closest friends,
for the GOP ticket. Lieberman's convention speaking slot doesn't indicate
either way whether McCain ultimately will choose his friend for the No. 2
slot.

Republican officials say top McCain advisers have been reaching out to big
donors and high-profile delegates in key states to gauge the impact of
picking an abortion-rights supporter like Lieberman. Conservative activists,
in turn, are waging an increasingly vocal campaign against the move, raising
the prospect of acrimony at the convention.

There's also lingering questions of whether Republican National Committee
rules would allow someone who is not registered as a Republican to be the
vice presidential nominee, or whether they would need to be changed - a
process that could incite a right-flank revolt.

Some Republicans speculate that Lieberman's name simply is being floated to
make a Republican abortion-rights backer, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom
Ridge, seem more acceptable to conservatives. Ridge, too, is believed to be
under serious consideration, along with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt
Romney and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, both Republicans and abortion-rights
opponents.

As Al Gore's running mate in 2000, Lieberman became the first Jewish vice
presidential nominee. His campaign for the Democratic presidential
nomination in 2004 failed.

After a surprising loss to Ned Lamont in Connecticut's 2006 Senate primary,
Lieberman defied Democratic leaders and ran as an independent in the general
election. Top Democrats backed Lamont, a political newcomer, and Lieberman
won support from the GOP, including his friend McCain.

Lieberman tends to vote with Democrats on most issues and is a longtime
supporter of abortion rights, a stance that would rankle conservatives if he
were McCain's running mate.

Not only has Lieberman campaigned for McCain, he has criticized Democratic
candidate Barack Obama. Senate Democrats have been tolerant of his political
straddling because he holds their slim political majority in his hands.

Lieberman departed Tuesday for a trip to the Republic of Georgia, Poland and
the Ukraine. He is expected to return to Washington on Thursday night.

In 2004, former Sen. Zell Miller, a Georgia Democrat, praised President Bush
and mocked the Democratic ticket as weak on defense in a speech at the GOP's
national convention.
___

Associated Press writers Liz Sidoti in Washington and David Rising in
Georgia contributed to this report.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 11:21 am
From: "Raymond O'Hara"

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:o3Yqk.914$AB3.2183@eagle.america.net...
> Excellent!
>
> Joe Lieberman is one of the best and smartest Democrat Senators -- perhaps
> THE best.

he's a man who puts the concerns of another country ahead of those of his
own country.

he's shown he will betray the voters who elected him in connecticut who
expected him to remain with the democrats as he promised when he ran.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sec. of State Rice warns Russia about Bombers off Alaska
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/40d80f770df6af61?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 10:12 am
From: Dan

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On Aug 20, 9:44 am, Vincent <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>> Rob Arndt wrote:
>>> On Aug 19, 9:02 pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 19, 6:35 pm, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Rice warns Moscow about its bomber runs off Alaska
>>>> As if that's never happened before.
>>>> Unless they encroach upon US airspace there's not a lot can be done.
>>>> Unless Conny wants to start WW3
>>> So what? Sounds like Condi has more fucking balls than you do. What do
>>> you do when a hunter with a rifle encounters a hostile bear? Drop his
>>> gun and get into the fetal position hoping it will just sniff around
>>> you and leave? No, you aim and shoot the fucker dead.
>>> People like you make me sick; you know, the ones that always wanna
>>> negotiate peace with terrorists, rouge nations, dictators, and
>>> anything of Slavic origin.
>>> Rob
>> Lets assume its a Grizzly and and you have a .22
>>
>> That is what takes balls
>>
>> Vince
>
> On the other hand we have people who are still alive to testify as to
> the efficacy of shooting versus some other solution.
>
> The Traveling Hunter
>
> Grizzly Defense
> What's the best way to defend yourself if you run into a grizzly while
> hunting--or if a grizzly tries to run into you?
>
> Nearly all authorities on the subject agree that the first two words
> to memorize in this regard are "pepper spray." I'm fully aware that
> some hunters associate pepper spray with politically correct, granola-
> eating, New Age, tree-hugger crapola. "Just give me my gun," these
> guys brag, "and I'll drop any charging griz like a sack of rocks."
>
> Other hunters are less fanatical on the subject, but simply have
> serious (and understandable) doubts about the efficacy of a spray can
> to stop one of the largest and most dangerous animals in North
> America. Doesn't it just make sense that a high-caliber bullet is more
> potent, and more effective in a life-or-death situation?
>
> It's a reasonable question, and by no means should hunters dismiss the
> power and value of their firearms, as we'll discuss later. But as is
> so often the case when it comes to bears, the answer is more complex
> than it might first appear.
>
> Studies by biologist Stephen Herrero and others indicate that pepper
> spray works on charging bears about 90 to 96 percent of the time. Mark
> Matheny, a hunter who was seriously mauled by a grizzly several years
> ago while deer hunting north of Yellowstone Park, and who subsequently
> began a career devoted to bear self-defense and the manufacture of
> UDAP pepper spray, explains how a mere blast of cayenne aerosol can
> stop an angry griz:
>
> "First, with a charging bear the loud hissing and billowing cloud
> startles them, lessening or turning their aggressive intentions into a
> state of surprise or even defensive evasion. When a bear hits the wall
> of fog and breathes it in, his sense of smell is instantly shut down,
> which confuses any animal. Chemically, pepper spray is an inflammatory
> agent, an irritant, that gets into the bear's mucus membranes, causing
> temporary blindness, choking, and difficulty breathing. In many cases,
> they go off hacking and coughing."
>
> For those who believe a gun is still a better bet to stop a bear,
> Matheny adds:
>
> "Some people think a .44 magnum or large-caliber rifle is going to
> have the 'power' to stop a bear. But you're talking about a bullet not
> much wider than a writing pen hitting a vital area. That's assuming
> you even get a bullet off. Most times when someone with a firearm is
> attacked, they don't get a shot off. You've got to get the gun up,
> aim, and fire. With pepper spray, you can fire right from the holster,
> putting up a wide stream, even a fog, of deterrent. You can respond
> instantly and the likelihood of hitting the bear is much greater."
>
> Another compelling reason for the use of pepper spray instead of
> bullets is that many grizzly charges are not full "attacks," but are
> only attempts by the bear to discourage and intimidate human
> intruders. For instance, if you surprise a grizzly feeding on an elk
> carcass (possibly your elk carcass), the bear might charge without
> intending actual contact, its purpose being to simply drive you away.
>
> Of course, for those who aren't expert at reading bear behavior, it's
> fair to ask, "How am I supposed to know whether the bear means
> business or is just bluffing?" Which is precisely why pepper spray is
> a better alternative to a bullet in most situations. With the spray,
> you can very likely discourage the bear without worsening the
> situation or elevating it to an irreversibly deadlier level. If the
> bear breaks through the spray blast, and you're an armed hunter, you
> still have your gun as a last resort. But if a sprayed bear veers off,
> the encounter is over. No one is hurt. Conversely, if your first line
> of defense is a gunshot, and you shoot at the bear, the results will
> almost always be more severe. If the bear was only bluffing, you've
> now either killed or wounded a bear unnecessarily. Also possible is
> that by wounding it you've turned a bluffing bear into a seriously
> enraged one, intent on killing you. Another scenario: You shoot at an
> attacking bear and--because they come so fast, unbelievably fast if
> you've never experienced it, often catching you in utter surprise--you
> simply miss. The bear is on you. What you missed with bullets you
> could have easily hit with deterrent spray.
>
> But aren't there times when you should shoot, or perhaps must shoot?
> While pepper spray is generally considered the best primary, first-
> choice bear defense, you wouldn't want to make the same mistake as the
> hunter in Wyoming's Bridger-Teton National Forest who, when charged by
> a sow grizzly with three yearling cubs, allegedly threw his high-
> powered rifle at the bear and pulled out a can of pepper spray, which
> by that time failed to stop the attack. The hunter was mauled until
> his partner shot and killed the 475-pound animal. Later, from his
> hospital bed, the hunter said he didn't want to shoot the bear because
> he feared going to jail (for killing an endangered species) and losing
> his hunting privileges.
>
> The reality is, if a grizzly attacks, sometimes you have to shoot,
> and, further, you would be foolish not to. That is why I think of
> pepper spray as "the first line of defense, when feasible." If
> there's no time to hit the spray button (and with the canister mounted
> pistol-fashion on your belt, you can aim and fire from the hip in mere
> seconds), or if you spray and the bear keeps coming, you have little
> choice but to shoot. With a grizzly still far enough away to dissuade,
> you can try a shot into the air or into the ground near the animal,
> hoping the muzzle blast or bullet noise will stop or turn the charge.
> But with a close, fast-incoming bear, don't waste time with a warning
> shot. Aim for the deadliest point you can find. On a close-in,
> charging bear, this will probably be the face or upper chest. Often
> full-attack grizzlies lower their heads as they come in, so that's
> about all you have to aim at. More than one Alaskan guide of my
> acquaintance suggests aiming for the snout--a high shot goes into the
> upper skull or even over the top, into the neck or spine; and if the
> bear hops or you shoot low, you have a chance at the throat, chest, or
> even a shoulder or leg, all of which can stop the animal, if only long
> enough for you to aim and shoot again.
>
> Although this is legitimate self-defense, it clearly is not a
> desirable outcome. That is why Mark Matheny likes to tell hunters,
> "Spray 'em, don't slay 'em." He points out that too many close-
> encounter grizzlies are killed unnecessarily; which is not only bad
> for the bears, but also for hunting's already precarious social image.
> Long-time bear biologist Chris Servheen agrees, calling the
> unnecessary killing of grizzlies by sportsmen nothing less than "a
> threat to hunting."
>
> In the end, the ideal is to protect yourself while sparing the bears,
> whenever that's possible. --Anthony Acerrano
>
>
>

What about the right to keep and arm bears?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 10:28 am
From: Jack Linthicum

On Aug 20, 1:12 pm, Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 9:44 am, Vincent <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> >> Rob Arndt wrote:
> >>> On Aug 19, 9:02 pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 19, 6:35 pm, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Rice warns Moscow about its bomber runs off Alaska
> >>>> As if that's never happened before.
> >>>> Unless they encroach upon US airspace there's not a lot can be done.
> >>>> Unless Conny wants to start WW3
> >>> So what? Sounds like Condi has more fucking balls than you do. What do
> >>> you do when a hunter with a rifle encounters a hostile bear? Drop his
> >>> gun and get into the fetal position hoping it will just sniff around
> >>> you and leave? No, you aim and shoot the fucker dead.
> >>> People like you make me sick; you know, the ones that always wanna
> >>> negotiate peace with terrorists, rouge nations, dictators, and
> >>> anything of Slavic origin.
> >>> Rob
> >> Lets assume its a Grizzly and and you have a .22
>
> >> That is what takes balls
>
> >> Vince
>
> > On the other hand we have people who are still alive to testify as to
> > the efficacy of shooting versus some other solution.
>
> > The Traveling Hunter
>
> > Grizzly Defense
> > What's the best way to defend yourself if you run into a grizzly while
> > hunting--or if a grizzly tries to run into you?
>
> > Nearly all authorities on the subject agree that the first two words
> > to memorize in this regard are "pepper spray." I'm fully aware that
> > some hunters associate pepper spray with politically correct, granola-
> > eating, New Age, tree-hugger crapola. "Just give me my gun," these
> > guys brag, "and I'll drop any charging griz like a sack of rocks."
>
> > Other hunters are less fanatical on the subject, but simply have
> > serious (and understandable) doubts about the efficacy of a spray can
> > to stop one of the largest and most dangerous animals in North
> > America. Doesn't it just make sense that a high-caliber bullet is more
> > potent, and more effective in a life-or-death situation?
>
> > It's a reasonable question, and by no means should hunters dismiss the
> > power and value of their firearms, as we'll discuss later. But as is
> > so often the case when it comes to bears, the answer is more complex
> > than it might first appear.
>
> > Studies by biologist Stephen Herrero and others indicate that pepper
> > spray works on charging bears about 90 to 96 percent of the time. Mark
> > Matheny, a hunter who was seriously mauled by a grizzly several years
> > ago while deer hunting north of Yellowstone Park, and who subsequently
> > began a career devoted to bear self-defense and the manufacture of
> > UDAP pepper spray, explains how a mere blast of cayenne aerosol can
> > stop an angry griz:
>
> > "First, with a charging bear the loud hissing and billowing cloud
> > startles them, lessening or turning their aggressive intentions into a
> > state of surprise or even defensive evasion. When a bear hits the wall
> > of fog and breathes it in, his sense of smell is instantly shut down,
> > which confuses any animal. Chemically, pepper spray is an inflammatory
> > agent, an irritant, that gets into the bear's mucus membranes, causing
> > temporary blindness, choking, and difficulty breathing. In many cases,
> > they go off hacking and coughing."
>
> > For those who believe a gun is still a better bet to stop a bear,
> > Matheny adds:
>
> > "Some people think a .44 magnum or large-caliber rifle is going to
> > have the 'power' to stop a bear. But you're talking about a bullet not
> > much wider than a writing pen hitting a vital area. That's assuming
> > you even get a bullet off. Most times when someone with a firearm is
> > attacked, they don't get a shot off. You've got to get the gun up,
> > aim, and fire. With pepper spray, you can fire right from the holster,
> > putting up a wide stream, even a fog, of deterrent. You can respond
> > instantly and the likelihood of hitting the bear is much greater."
>
> > Another compelling reason for the use of pepper spray instead of
> > bullets is that many grizzly charges are not full "attacks," but are
> > only attempts by the bear to discourage and intimidate human
> > intruders. For instance, if you surprise a grizzly feeding on an elk
> > carcass (possibly your elk carcass), the bear might charge without
> > intending actual contact, its purpose being to simply drive you away.
>
> > Of course, for those who aren't expert at reading bear behavior, it's
> > fair to ask, "How am I supposed to know whether the bear means
> > business or is just bluffing?" Which is precisely why pepper spray is
> > a better alternative to a bullet in most situations. With the spray,
> > you can very likely discourage the bear without worsening the
> > situation or elevating it to an irreversibly deadlier level. If the
> > bear breaks through the spray blast, and you're an armed hunter, you
> > still have your gun as a last resort. But if a sprayed bear veers off,
> > the encounter is over. No one is hurt. Conversely, if your first line
> > of defense is a gunshot, and you shoot at the bear, the results will
> > almost always be more severe. If the bear was only bluffing, you've
> > now either killed or wounded a bear unnecessarily. Also possible is
> > that by wounding it you've turned a bluffing bear into a seriously
> > enraged one, intent on killing you. Another scenario: You shoot at an
> > attacking bear and--because they come so fast, unbelievably fast if
> > you've never experienced it, often catching you in utter surprise--you
> > simply miss. The bear is on you. What you missed with bullets you
> > could have easily hit with deterrent spray.
>
> > But aren't there times when you should shoot, or perhaps must shoot?
> > While pepper spray is generally considered the best primary, first-
> > choice bear defense, you wouldn't want to make the same mistake as the
> > hunter in Wyoming's Bridger-Teton National Forest who, when charged by
> > a sow grizzly with three yearling cubs, allegedly threw his high-
> > powered rifle at the bear and pulled out a can of pepper spray, which
> > by that time failed to stop the attack. The hunter was mauled until
> > his partner shot and killed the 475-pound animal. Later, from his
> > hospital bed, the hunter said he didn't want to shoot the bear because
> > he feared going to jail (for killing an endangered species) and losing
> > his hunting privileges.
>
> > The reality is, if a grizzly attacks, sometimes you have to shoot,
> > and, further, you would be foolish not to. That is why I think of
> > pepper spray as "the first line of defense, when feasible." If
> > there's no time to hit the spray button (and with the canister mounted
> > pistol-fashion on your belt, you can aim and fire from the hip in mere
> > seconds), or if you spray and the bear keeps coming, you have little
> > choice but to shoot. With a grizzly still far enough away to dissuade,
> > you can try a shot into the air or into the ground near the animal,
> > hoping the muzzle blast or bullet noise will stop or turn the charge.
> > But with a close, fast-incoming bear, don't waste time with a warning
> > shot. Aim for the deadliest point you can find. On a close-in,
> > charging bear, this will probably be the face or upper chest. Often
> > full-attack grizzlies lower their heads as they come in, so that's
> > about all you have to aim at. More than one Alaskan guide of my
> > acquaintance suggests aiming for the snout--a high shot goes into the
> > upper skull or even over the top, into the neck or spine; and if the
> > bear hops or you shoot low, you have a chance at the throat, chest, or
> > even a shoulder or leg, all of which can stop the animal, if only long
> > enough for you to aim and shoot again.
>
> > Although this is legitimate self-defense, it clearly is not a
> > desirable outcome. That is why Mark Matheny likes to tell hunters,
> > "Spray 'em, don't slay 'em." He points out that too many close-
> > encounter grizzlies are killed unnecessarily; which is not only bad
> > for the bears, but also for hunting's already precarious social image.
> > Long-time bear biologist Chris Servheen agrees, calling the
> > unnecessary killing of grizzlies by sportsmen nothing less than "a
> > threat to hunting."
>
> > In the end, the ideal is to protect yourself while sparing the bears,
> > whenever that's possible. --Anthony Acerrano
>
> What about the right to keep and arm bears?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I understand it is the "keeping" that the difficult part

often called "The Tall Pig"

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.colusi.org/linked/photos/bear_flag.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.colusi.org/linked/html/photo/bear_flag.htm&h=322&w=510&sz=60&tbnid=_dtZGb0uOIYJ::&tbnh=83&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbear%2Bflag&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=3&ct=image&cd=1

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 10:37 am
From: Rob Arndt

On Aug 20, 6:44�am, Vincent <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 9:02 pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >> On Aug 19, 6:35 pm, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Rice warns Moscow about its bomber runs off Alaska
> >> As if that's never happened before.
> >> Unless they encroach upon US airspace there's not a lot can be done.
> >> Unless Conny wants to start WW3
>
> > So what? Sounds like Condi has more fucking balls than you do. What do
> > you do when a hunter with a rifle encounters a hostile bear? Drop his
> > gun and get into the fetal position hoping it will just sniff around
> > you and leave? No, you aim and shoot the fucker dead.
>
> > People like you make me sick; you know, the ones that always wanna
> > negotiate peace with terrorists, rouge nations, dictators, and
> > anything of Slavic origin.
>
> > Rob
>
> Lets assume its a Grizzly and and you have a .22
>
> That is what takes balls
>
> Vince- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Bad analogy. If hunter is US vs Russian Bear the gun is anything from
a .50 cal rifle to a 40mm Grenade launcher to a flame thrower.

Where is the vaunted USAF which is able to defeat any foe, anwhere?
Apparently not over Georgian skies but in hiding or under repair.

Same for US ground and naval forces- former has no troops to send
anyway as it cannot even manage Afghanistan nor Iraq nor US borders
and the latter would be ineffectual.*

Rob

* Bush won't even send a hospital ship to the Black Sea.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Odyssey Marine Exploration Welcomes Peru's Filing In "Black Swan" Case
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/1082e258cad0060f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 10:24 am
From: Jack Linthicum

Didn't the Spanish expect the Peruvian claims?

Odyssey Marine Exploration Welcomes Peru's Filing In "Black Swan" Case

Last update: 9:35 a.m. EDT Aug. 20, 2008
TAMPA, Fla., Aug 20, 2008 - Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. the
world leader in the field of deep-ocean shipwreck exploration,
announced today that the Republic of Peru filed a motion in federal
court in one of the company's pending admiralty cases. As anticipated
after numerous statements in the media, Peru formally filed a Verified
Conditional Claim in the "Black Swan" admiralty case, which was
originally filed by Odyssey Marine Exploration. The case is currently
pending before the U.S. District Court in Tampa, Florida.

"Odyssey's position is to encourage every appropriate claimant to
present its potential claims in a case like this, so we welcome Peru's
filing, even as the Company reserves its legal position. If the court
does not find that the property was abandoned, we believe that the
property in the "Black Swan" case would be handled under the
traditional law of salvage," said Greg Stemm, Odyssey Chief Executive
Officer.

The nature of a salvage award is that the award to the salvor is not
dependent upon the number of claimants. Claimants other than the
salvor must either enter into an agreement amongst themselves to split
the owner's percentage of a find or submit their individual claims to
the court for adjudication. For instance, in the case of the Central
America, an award of 92% of the cargo was made to the salvor, and the
remaining 8% was held in trust while various insurance companies were
given the opportunity to present their respective claims.

"We believe that Peru's filing raises a significant and timely
question relating to whether a former colonial power or the colonized
indigenous peoples should receive the cultural and financial benefit
of underwater cultural heritage derived from the previously colonized
nations. Odyssey would be pleased to involve Peru in the study and
archaeological investigation of any property that is found to have
originated in Peru, without regard for whether Peru has any legal
rights to the property. We would also be pleased to extend the same
courtesy to any other sovereign government, indigenous people,
relatives or descendants who might have a legitimate claim or interest
in property discovered on any of Odyssey's shipwrecks," Mr. Stemm
added.

Odyssey Marine Exploration, uses innovative methods and state-of-the-
art technology to conduct extensive deep-ocean search and
archaeological recovery operations around the world. Odyssey
discovered the Civil War era shipwreck of the SS Republic(R) in 2003
and recovered over 50,000 coins and 14,000 artifacts from the site
nearly 1,700 feet deep.

In May 2007, we announced the historic deep-ocean treasure recovery of
over 500,000 silver and gold coins, weighing 17 tons, from a Colonial
era site code-named "Black Swan." Odyssey has several shipwreck
projects in various stages of development around the world.

Odyssey offers various ways to share in the excitement of deep-ocean
exploration by making shipwreck treasures and artifacts available to
collectors, the general public and students through its webstore,
exhibits, books, television, merchandise, and educational programs.
JWM Productions is currently filming Odyssey expeditions for an 11-
part primetime series for Discovery Channel, which is scheduled to air
worldwide in 2009. Odyssey's "SHIPWRECK! Pirates & Treasure" exhibit
is currently on display at the Detroit Science Center, after being
showcased in Tampa at the Museum of Science & Industry and in New
Orleans.
For more detailed information on Odyssey, please visit www.shipwreck.net
or contact Natja Igney, Odyssey's Manager of Corporate Communications,
at 813-876-1776 x 2553.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: NATO Won't Let Russia Succeed In Georgia: Rice
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/6d1a87d54ce1eadd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 10:28 am
From: am05@hotmail.com

On Aug 20, 9:42 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> On Aug 20, 9:07 am, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 8:20 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 20, 8:17 am, Benjamin <pb5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yesterday, CNN reporter showed a statute of Stalin, many still
> > > > standing, in Georgia. While Russia in the past several years removed
> > > > statutes of Stalin and Lenin, Georgia still admires Stalin and
> > > > maintain Stalin statutes in many locations.
> > > > So much for U.S. propaganda about the "democratic" Stalinist Georgia.
> > > > May be the Russians are right about the current Georgian leader.
> > > > For the past several years, the U.S. and Israel reserved the right to
> > > > invade, attack, bomb, and threaten other nations: Haiti, Iraq,
> > > > Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, and Pakistan. They set the bad bully
> > > > examples for Russia and China to follow. The Chinese intimidated
> > > > Vietnam and cracked down Tibetans. And now the Russians follows the
> > > > footstep of U.S., Israel, and China. What goes around comes around.
> > > > The genie is out of the bottle, this a bad Karma that cannot be
> > > > reversed.
> > > > If the U.S. take actions to stop Russia in Georgia, Russia can
> > > > retaliate and take actions to stop the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan,
> > > > Iran, and Pakistan. Like the Vietnam war, all the Russians need is to
> > > > send sophisticated weapons to help militia groups in these nations. If
> > > > the U.S. could not even stop the success of a rag tag army of North
> > > > Vietnam, how could it stop the Russians?
>
> > > > D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> > > > > Brava Condoleezza!
>
> > > > > But Pogue Gans WANTS Russia to succeed in Georgia -- just so he can say "I
> > > > > told you so" and make President Bush [and Rice too] look bad.
>
> > > > > Gans WANTS the United States to look weak, feckless and impotent on the
> > > > > World Stage -- just so he can Blame It On Bush.
>
> > > > > Just as Gans says we have lost in Iraq and should pull out immediately, he
> > > > > doesn't want to WIN in Georgia either -- because that would make him look
> > > > > foolish, pig-ignorant, wimpy-wussy and redound to Bush's and Rice's credit.
>
> > > > > SO, Gans...
>
> > > > > Blames America First.
> > > > > --
> > > > > DSH
> > > > > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> > > > > Vires et Honor
> > > > > Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > > NATO won't let Russia succeed in Georgia: Rice
>
> > > > > Aug 18, 2008
> > > > > By MATTHEW LEE
> > > > > Associated Press Writer
>
> > > > > BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday
> > > > > that Russia is playing a "very dangerous game" with the U.S. and its allies
> > > > > and warned that NATO would not allow Moscow to win in Georgia, destabilize
> > > > > Europe or draw a new Iron Curtain through it.
>
> > > > > On her way to an emergency NATO foreign ministers meeting on the crisis,
> > > > > Rice said the alliance would punish Russia for its invasion of Georgia and
> > > > > deny its ambitions by rebuilding and fully backing Georgia and other Eastern
> > > > > European democracies.
>
> > > > > "We have to deny Russian strategic objectives, which are clearly to
> > > > > undermine Georgia's democracy, to use its military capability to damage and
> > > > > in some cases destroy Georgian infrastructure and to try and weaken the
> > > > > Georgian state," she said.
>
> > > > > "We are determined to deny them their strategic objective," Rice told
> > > > > reporters aboard her plane, adding that any attempt to recreate the Cold War
> > > > > by drawing a "new line" through Europe and intimidating former Soviet
> > > > > republics and ex-satellite states into submission would fail.
>
> > > > > "We are not going to allow Russia to draw a new line at those states that
> > > > > are not yet integrated into the trans-Atlantic structures," she said,
> > > > > referring to Georgia and Ukraine, which have not yet joined NATO or the
> > > > > European Union but would like to.
>
> > > > > Rice could not say what NATO would eventually decide to do to make its
> > > > > position clear but said the alliance would speak with one voice "to clearly
> > > > > indicate that we are not accepting a new line."
>
> > > > > At the same time, she said that by flexing its military muscle in Georgia as
> > > > > well as elsewhere, including the resumption of Cold War-era strategic bomber
> > > > > patrols off the coast of Alaska, Russia was engaged in high-stakes
> > > > > brinksmanship that could backfire.
>
> > > > > This "is a very dangerous game and perhaps one the Russians want to
> > > > > reconsider," Rice said of the flights that began again with frequency about
> > > > > six months ago. "This is not something that is just cost-free. Nobody needs
> > > > > Russian strategic aviation along America's coast."
>
> > > > > At Tuesday's meeting, the NATO ministers will consider a range of upcoming
> > > > > activities planned with Russia-from military exercises to ministerial
> > > > > meetings-and decide case-by-case at the meeting Tuesday whether to go ahead
> > > > > or cancel each.
>
> > > > > They will also discuss support for a planned international monitoring
> > > > > mission in the region and a package of support to help Georgia rebuild
> > > > > infrastructure damaged in its devastating defeat at the hands of the Russian
> > > > > armed forces.
>
> > > > > And, she suggested that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who signed an
> > > > > E.U.-backed cease-fire brokered by the French, may be unable to exert power
> > > > > behind the scenes against his powerful predecessor, Prime Minister Vladimir
> > > > > Putin, or the Russian military.
>
> > > > > YES, THAT IS A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY. -- DSH
>
> > > > > She said she thought the French would be seeking "an explanation from the
> > > > > Russians for why the Russian president either won't or can't keep his word."
>
> > > > > "It didn't take that long for the Russian forces to get in and it really
> > > > > shouldn't take that long for them to get out," Rice said.
>
> > > Bigger bombs bigger targets
>
> > > So now we have hereditary guilt? There are people in Missouri who
> > > think Jesse James was a good guy, same with Pretty Boy Floyd. Depends
> > > on who wrote the book.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > There is a slight but (hopefully) clear difference between Jesse James
> > and Stalin so your comparison is not very convincing. I strongly
> > suspect that there would be rather nasty comments if somebody tried to
> > erect Hitler's statue in Germany or Austria.
>
> Don't count on it.

Don't count on what exactly?

>I presume when Stalin shot someone in the back it
> was political reasons and not for personal amusement.

Am I right in my assumption that based on this principle Uncle Joe
should qualify as a nice guy? Anyway, what you wrote does qualify as a
difference. :-)

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 10:59 am
From: John Kane

On Aug 20, 8:17 am, Benjamin <pb5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yesterday, CNN reporter showed a statute of Stalin, many still
> standing, in Georgia. While Russia in the past several years removed
> statutes of Stalin and Lenin, Georgia still admires Stalin and
> maintain Stalin statutes in many locations.

http://www.monumenthouse.com/richmond/monument/3062

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ronald Reagan - assumptions!!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/18d6840b94dcd038?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 10:30 am
From: "a425couple"

"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote ...
> "a425couple" <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :"frank" <dhssresearcher@netscape.net> wrote ..
> :> Hey jarhead,
> :> half the deaths in Vietnam happened on Nixon's watch.
> :> Look it up.
> :
> :Frank, your credibility as a poster (or as a 'researcher')
> :is now zilch, with you spewing the above total lie.
>
> NOW zilch? You thought he had credibility before?

I'll admit I generally do not remember names,
and I do not know if I ever dealt with him before.
I'm generally regarded as having a forgiving
spirit, and (until proven otherwise) try to take
people at their word (with reasonable precautions
to protect self etc.).

Thank you Fred, for your post.
(and here is an example, I believe Fred and I have
expressed differences of opinion before - but can
still respectfully communicate with each other.)

> "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
> soul with evil." -- Socrates

Your tag line is very true and relevant.
I wish you a good day.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Freemen, Fighting For The Blessings Of Liberty For Ourselves & Others
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/76fe6e326a5cd561?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 10:37 am
From: tankfixer

In article <SvSqk.299699$7f3.22035@newsfe23.ams2>, john.briggs4
@ntlworld.com says...
> tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <qvcla45o76hqp4potd6de8r92huj9ul7u3@4ax.com>,
> > skeltonp@cogeco.ca says...
> >> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:37:20 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
> >> <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
> >>> news:K5KdnVPjY6ULtTfVnZ2dnUVZ8sHinZ2d@giganews.com...
> >>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> >>>>> "William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:g8coeg$4fh$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> >>>>>> It is sad that you don't seem to realise that the American
> >>>>>> revolutionaries were fully aware of the Putney Debates and 'The
> >>>>>> Agreement of the People' and knew exactly what 'Liberty' was.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> right, why weren't we happy to bow and scrape to our betters, to
> >>>>> say "yes mi'lord"
> >>>>
> >>>> Because you wanted to create a different set of "betters" to
> >>>> scrape to.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> anybody can be a better here, one is not born into it.
> >>>
> >> That would be something of a shock to the Bush's, Kennedys,
> >> DuPonts and so on.
> >
> > Yeah, somebody better tell Bill Gates and Steven Jobs.
>
> William Henry Gates III (recte IV)?

Is it your contention he got his piles of money because he has a "III"
behind his name ?

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 10:39 am
From: tankfixer

In article <45vna4lhffpdcnqg7v9ubndfhm940r0bol@4ax.com>,
skeltonp@cogeco.ca says...
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:39:56 -0700, tankfixer
> <paul.carrier@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> >In article <qvcla45o76hqp4potd6de8r92huj9ul7u3@4ax.com>,
> >skeltonp@cogeco.ca says...
> >> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:37:20 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
> >> <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
> >> >news:K5KdnVPjY6ULtTfVnZ2dnUVZ8sHinZ2d@giganews.com...
> >> >> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> >> >>> "William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:g8coeg$4fh$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> >> >>>> It is sad that you don't seem to realise that the American
> >> >>>> revolutionaries were fully aware of the Putney Debates and 'The
> >> >>>> Agreement of the People' and knew exactly what 'Liberty' was.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> right, why weren't we happy to bow and scrape to our betters, to say "yes
> >> >>> mi'lord"
> >> >>
> >> >> Because you wanted to create a different set of "betters" to scrape to.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >anybody can be a better here, one is not born into it.
> >> >
> >> That would be something of a shock to the Bush's, Kennedys,
> >> DuPonts and so on.
> >
> >Yeah, somebody better tell Bill Gates and Steven Jobs.
>
> You don't know much about Gates background do you? One could make
> a case for Jobs coming for a humble background (it is less
> advanced that Gates, his dad could probably not have protected
> him from the consequences of Gates act with CDC, for example) but
> not after he was adopted.
>

He came from one of the old money families ?

Last time I checked he made his piles of money on his own.

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 11:00 am
From: Jack Linthicum

On Aug 20, 1:39 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> In article <45vna4lhffpdcnqg7v9ubndfhm940r0...@4ax.com>,
> skelt...@cogeco.ca says...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:39:56 -0700, tankfixer
> > <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> > >In article <qvcla45o76hqp4potd6de8r92huj9ul...@4ax.com>,
> > >skelt...@cogeco.ca says...
> > >> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:37:20 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
> > >> <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
> > >> >news:K5KdnVPjY6ULtTfVnZ2dnUVZ8sHinZ2d@giganews.com...
> > >> >> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> > >> >>> "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >> >>>news:g8coeg$4fh$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> > >> >>>> It is sad that you don't seem to realise that the American
> > >> >>>> revolutionaries were fully aware of the Putney Debates and 'The
> > >> >>>> Agreement of the People' and knew exactly what 'Liberty' was.
>
> > >> >>> right, why weren't we happy to bow and scrape to our betters, to say "yes
> > >> >>> mi'lord"
>
> > >> >> Because you wanted to create a different set of "betters" to scrape to.
>
> > >> >anybody can be a better here, one is not born into it.
>
> > >> That would be something of a shock to the Bush's, Kennedys,
> > >> DuPonts and so on.
>
> > >Yeah, somebody better tell Bill Gates and Steven Jobs.
>
> > You don't know much about Gates background do you? One could make
> > a case for Jobs coming for a humble background (it is less
> > advanced that Gates, his dad could probably not have protected
> > him from the consequences of Gates act with CDC, for example) but
> > not after he was adopted.
>
> He came from one of the old money families ?
>
> Last time I checked he made his piles of money on his own.
>
> --
> Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
> Goode with Ketchup.

Yes, there are others who make their money the old fashioned way, they
borrow it from their parents. I seem to remember several others, like
Clint Murchison and other sons of oilianaires who "borrow" a million
or so and pretty soon its real money.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: U.S. Armed Forces Are Said To Be "Slightly At A Loss With The British"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/eff91bbc93040b96?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 11:14 am
From: Surreyman

On 20 Aug, 10:43, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> The Forces of Freedom, led by the United States, DID win The Cold War --
> World War III.
>
> Any fool, even one as dense as Surreyman, whose nation cut and ran from Aden
> and now wants to cut and run from Iraq as soon as possible without losing
> more face, should understand that.
>
> So, as I have previously clearly stated with respect to Russia, this is Cold
> War II, The Sequel.
>
> It's always subject to renaming as the game unfolds -- just as we had The
> Great War, later renamed to World War I.
>
> We are also currently fighting World War IV, the Global War On
> Islamofascist, Jihadist Terrorism.
>
> Pogue Surreyman needs to read FAR more and get himself a playbook if he
> intends to keep up with this international chess game.
> --
> DSH
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> Vires et Honor
> Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

No Hines. The above mental wandering is yours alone and used by no
other.

Twit!

Surreyman

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 11:15 am
From: Surreyman

On 20 Aug, 10:49, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> Pogue Surreyman continues to fret, fumble and fragment his thoughts -- an
> aging pensioner cultivating his own small garden in Surrey, with a
> bothersome, often ill wife -- a calcified Little Englander -- not even able
> to cut the mustard in Aden -- where his nation cut and ran.
>
> Now he advocates a Brit cut and run from Iraq -- just as he has been
> whinging about for years.
>
> Further, he is certainly not an Empire Loyalist -- just a poseur in such
> matters -- fantasizing about the British Raj...
>
> Sorrowfully looking at old English maps where so much of the globe was
> colored pink -- the color of the British Empire.
>
> Even the color pink has lost its respect and panache -- as it's been taken
> over by the Homosexual Lobbies, along with violet, and the Code Pink
> pacifist/feminist nuts in the United States.
> --
> DSH
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> Vires et Honor
> Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Oh dear. He gets worse and worse.

Surreyman

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Send a Message to JOHN F. BURNS Re: The US military is said to be "
slightly at a loss with the British".
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/be7a0435d824ea0d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 10:31 am
From: "Paul J. Adam"

In message <jdydnQcEeMTI0TfVnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@earthlink.com>, J A
<ae@re.com> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:seJBdTCYheqIFwOa@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> It's so much better than anything you've produced, isn't it?
>
>I've produced articles published by major news outlets.

And repeated them ad nauseam without any understanding or analysis.

>All you've got is pretense.

And the demonstrated fact that no US units were surged south to support
Charge of the Knights. Nobody knows which units were sent, when they
were called (other than, apparently, 'several days' into the operation -
leaving little time for movement, RSOI, briefing and deployment) or what
they did.

Feel free to counter any of that. Since you can't, you won't...

>Your anti-Americanism is well known,

To who? The little voices in your head?

>> Because I'm talking to *you* and laughing at your increasingly desperate
>> evasions.
>>
>> You're parroting rubbish you don't understand and even you realise it's
>> false now, which is why the only response you now have left is whining
>
>You 're one who is whinging and wriggling, instead of dealing with reality.

Sorry, but only one of us is desperately claiming that repeating
incorrect information over and over again makes it any more accurate.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides

paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sci.military.naval"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.military.naval+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

0 Comments: