3/4 mile kill with .308 in Iraq

georges said:
Barretts are expensive, I don't know how much they cost in second hand plus you have to own a class III license and 50BMG grade match is very expensive.

Well at least in most places you don't need to have a class III license YET, unless you live in California. Unless they have changed the laws recently, that is. I try to keep up on it but I don't know. I haven't been paying quite as much attention to that. It's been awhile since I have had the money to make a major purchase anyway. If they have changed it then I am screwed because that would mean that they put them in the same class as fully automatic weapons.

I find all sport shooting to be a little expensive, but yes buying the cases, bullets, powder, and primers for .50 BMG would get expensive even if you hand loaded it yourself. I hope by the time I get one(if I am still allowed by that point:mad: ) that Norma will start making brass for it. It would be costly but I would like to use the brass more than two or three times before it is junk. That is not counting the scope you have to put on it which is probably another 1,000+. In any case I would never buy a used gun unless I knew the person and why they were selling it. Not that I think they are trying to do anything, but if it wasn't good enough for their needs and they are getting rid of it; it definitely isn't going to be up to my standards. Nobody I know gives up or sells a prized highly accurate rifle. Most of them would rather starve first.
 
youlneverstopme said:
USA invaded Iraq without UN backing and, what's more USA is using illegal napalm derivatives in there - USA are just a bunch of scumbag war criminals.

Moron. What weapons and munitions that are "legal" in warfare is regulated through conventions -- like the Hauge convention that bans expanding bullets etc. -- which are appliccable between the signatory powers only.

Since neither al-Qaeda nor the insurgents in general are signatories of these conventions you can kill them or treat them in pretty much any manner that you please as they are, for all practical purposes, outside the law. So you could shoot them with dum-dums, burn them with napalm, gas them with VX and hang them by their entrails without breaking any laws per se.

And, oh yes, it is perfectly OK to use any kind of torture or pressure technique that seems fit despite any claim that Amnesty would make to the contrary.
 
Hmmmm...just to make an analogy or two if I may?

The U.N.-Andy Taylor (Mayberry Sheriff)
George Bush- Barney Fife
Staff Sgt. Gilliland-A hero
Smart,Diplomatic President-Ronald Reagan
Iraq-Ungrateful bastards
 
Wow, that whole scene is VERY familiar to the scene near the end of the movie "Jarhead". I didn't think it was all they great of a movie (didn't have enough bedwetters calling the USA a bunch of "War Criminals") but that scene was pretty intense.
 
Actually the best sniper in the fictional realm is Sgt. Mack Bolan of the US Army Special Forces assigned to Pentration Team Able in Vietnam. He racked up 97 confirmed kills.
He is better known as 'The Executioner' in the longstanding book series started in 1969 and still going strong today.http://www.mackbolan.com
 
LOL! I read one of those "Executioner' books once! It was fun to read and it felt like I was in 2nd grade again (but then again, I always had a good grip on reading - hence my literature degree lol). It was fast-paced and full of uber-masculine dialogue and terrible writing, but fun to read as a story!

Good fun! :nanner: :thumbsup:


JiDoKwan said:
Actually the best sniper in the fictional realm is Sgt. Mack Bolan of the US Army Special Forces assigned to Pentration Team Able in Vietnam. He racked up 97 confirmed kills.
He is better known as 'The Executioner' in the longstanding book series started in 1969 and still going strong today.http://www.mackbolan.com
 
Ovidius said:
Moron. What weapons and munitions that are "legal" in warfare is regulated through conventions -- like the Hauge convention that bans expanding bullets etc. -- which are appliccable between the signatory powers only.

Since neither al-Qaeda nor the insurgents in general are signatories of these conventions you can kill them or treat them in pretty much any manner that you please as they are, for all practical purposes, outside the law. So you could shoot them with dum-dums, burn them with napalm, gas them with VX and hang them by their entrails without breaking any laws per se.

And, oh yes, it is perfectly OK to use any kind of torture or pressure technique that seems fit despite any claim that Amnesty would make to the contrary.

Ovidius,

Sadly, it just might be you who is the moron - ever heard of human rights?

You have no evidence that many of the people killed in Iraq were members of Al Quaeda, and many prominent lawyers worldwide have declared the USA/UK invasion illegal.

This link from Wikipedia confirms reports that ''The United States had reportedly been using incendiaries in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In August 2003, U.S. Marine pilots and their commanders confirmed the use of Mark 77 firebombs on people. 'We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches,' said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. 'Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect. These bombs contain a substance "remarkably similar" to napalm. This substance is made with kerosene, a polystyrene derivative, and other additives'.''
 
youlneverstopme said:
Ovidius,

Sadly, it just might be you who is the moron - ever heard of human rights?

There is no Humane way to kill somebody YNSM. Dead is Dead.

youlneverstopme said:
many prominent lawyers worldwide have declared the USA/UK invasion illegal.

When did lawyers start deciding who can attack who?
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Good, give him a fuckin' raise...he's probabaly underpaid and throw in a vacation...sounds overworked too. Hope he keeps up the good work us "wankers" over here in hillbilly country hate to loose!
 
kungfudude said:
When did lawyers start deciding who can attack who?
I'm afraid this ignorant remark sums up many so many people around the world despise the USA now.

The USA seems to think that, because it possesses the biggest military arsenal, it is above international law.

Sadly, this means that even sensible, liberal, progressively-minded USA citizens get tarred with the same brush as the red-necks.

The ''War On Terrorism'' is a misnomer because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and you can never beat fanatics.

Iraq has acted as a recruitment lightning rod for Al Quaeda, whose membership is now at record levels.

That means more 9/11s - it's just a matter of time.

Terrorists are murderers, no doubt of that, but countries which invade other countries without UN backing are also murderers.

Historically, terrorism is only ever defeated by compromise - like it or not most terrorists have a seed of legitimacy in their issues and it's only by acknowledging the seed and assuaging with it that you marginalise extremists and support for them falls away.

It will take a more thoughtful and intelligent US President than George Bush to achieve that.
 
Last edited:
Yes, we get it ...YOU hate the United States of America. .....Oh and EVERYONE else hate us too.

Is that about right? Did I miss anything?
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Maybe we should have launched a nuke or two. Does that take care of the "illegal invasions"...and all of the other things that the United States does? Maybe we SHOULDN"T give a rats ass about anybody else...of course everybody sems to want it...ON THERE TERMS of course.
 

SeraphiM

Retired Moderator
youlneverstopme said:
I'm afraid this ignorant remark sums up many so many people around the world despise the USA now.

The USA seems to think that, because it possesses the biggest military arsenal, it is above international law.

Sadly, this means that even sensible, liberal, progressively-minded USA citizens get tarred with the same brush as the red-necks.

The ''War On Terrorism'' is a misnomer because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and you can never beat fanatics.

Iraq has acted as a recruitment lightning rod for Al Quaeda, whose membership is now at record levels.

That means more 9/11s - it's just a matter of time.

Terrorists are murderers, no doubt of that, but countries which invade other countries without UN backing are also murderers.

Historically, terrorism is only ever defeated by compromise - like it or not most terrorists have a seed of legitimacy in their issues and it's only by acknowledging the seed and assuaging with it that you marginalise extremists and support for them falls away.

It will take a more thoughtful and intelligent US President than George Bush to achieve that.

:wtf:
Forgive my French, but this really struck a nerve.

People will always despise the US. As a US citizen I could truly give a shit. We cannot satisfy everyone. You have to draw the line somewhere. It was drawn in the sands of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US will not and never will need or seek permission to protect it's interests.

International law? Where the fuck was international law when the sons of bitch's flew three jet liners into buildings killing truly innocent civilians? The bastards attacked non-military targets and what did the UN do? Offer talks, compromises, sanctions bull shit! The invasion of Afghanistan was justified and in my mind was long over due.

As for Iraq, fuck Saddam Hussein and his regimen. The people of Iraq lived in constant fear of their dictator and his blatant violation of human rights. How many time did he disregard International Law? What did the UN do when he was kicking out UN inspectors? Not a damn thing!
I mean come on people. If you were making WMD's and I told you that on such and such date I was coming to check on you, what would I find? Not a damn thing. The UN is a joke! It has no real muscle to enforce anything it imposes.
The only mistake the US committed was freeing a people who did not seek it for themselves. Freedom that is given in never appreciated or cherished. The US fought for it's independence. Americans shed their won blood, loss their own sons. Had the Iraqi people fought and bled for their own freedom we wold see a different story in Iraq.

As for the bogus argument that terrorism is only ever defeated by compromise. Baloney! There is no seed of legitimacy in their issues. Killing civilians to spread terror is never OK. It's only by acknowledging that terrorism is an extremists last ditch effort to get his message out, by not bowing to such cowardly acts do you marginalize extremists. Support for them never falls away! Fine example is the situation between Israel and Palestine.
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
I agree with your excellent post Seraphim :yesyes:
 
''There is no seed of legitimacy in their issues.''

Some of the ignorance on this message board is truly frightening.

These problems did not start with terrorists killing people, they began with western interests plundering Arab oil without any regard for the religious beliefs or interests of those they were plundering.

There is no democracy in Saudi Arabia either - if there was, no non-Muslim would be allowed on Muslim soil.

USA does not respect the views of beliefs areound the world other than those indiginous to its own nation.

There are many evil dictators around the world, but USA is only interested in overthrowing those with oil.

If only the red-necks would stick to what they do best - eating burgers, drinking beer and going ten-pin bowling - and leave the voting to the less hard of thinking, USA might get a president with the brains to do something constructive about this mess.
 
kungfudude said:
Yes, we get it ...YOU hate the United States of America. .....Oh and EVERYONE else hate us too.

Is that about right? Did I miss anything?

Err...no, the United States is a country with over 200-300 million people living in it - some I like, some I don't.

But a lot of people do hate the USA now, and that ought to be a concern.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
youlneverstopme said:
''There is no seed of legitimacy in their issues.''

Some of the ignorance on this message board is truly frightening.

These problems did not start with terrorists killing people, they began with western interests plundering Arab oil without any regard for the religious beliefs or interests of those they were plundering.

There is no democracy in Saudi Arabia either - if there was, no non-Muslim would be allowed on Muslim soil.

USA does not respect the views of beliefs areound the world other than those indiginous to its own nation.

There are many evil dictators around the world, but USA is only interested in overthrowing those with oil.

If only the red-necks would stick to what they do best - eating burgers, drinking beer and going ten-pin bowling - and leave the voting to the less hard of thinking, USA might get a president with the brains to do something constructive about this mess.
First off...your an assclown. Secondly...you need a big steamin' hot cup of "shut the fuck up!" thirdly....get bent!!! So I'm a red-neck...I live in the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD...and I'm sure one day...we will come to rescue your sorry ass too.
 
revidffum said:
First off...your an assclown. Secondly...you need a big steamin' hot cup of "shut the fuck up!" thirdly....get bent!!! So I'm a red-neck...I live in the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD...and I'm sure one day...we will come to rescue your sorry ass too.

revidffum,

A cogent, persuasive argument.

Next time a country with no WMDs has a spot of oil going begging, I'll be sure to give you a call. :D
 

SeraphiM

Retired Moderator
youlneverstopme said:
''There is no seed of legitimacy in their issues.''

Some of the ignorance on this message board is truly frightening.

Frightening because we don't agree with your point of view? We wont hear typical other side of the coin arguments? There are and will always be other points of view.

youlneverstopme said:
These problems did not start with terrorists killing people, they began with western interests plundering Arab oil without any regard for the religious beliefs or interests of those they were plundering.

Plundering? Those bastards have made a fortune on selling that oil you claim we are plundering. The US hasn't plundered a damn thing.

youlneverstopme said:
There is no democracy in Saudi Arabia either - if there was, no non-Muslim would be allowed on Muslim soil.

You're right there isn't! If they want to be free, let them shed their blood in gaining their own freedom.

youlneverstopme said:
USA does not respect the views of beliefs around the world other than those indigenous to its own nation.

What? Respect? Huh? How do we not respect others beliefs around the world. Is it because we won't stand for anything that endangers our interests? We shouldn't have to.

youlneverstopme said:
There are many evil dictators around the world, but USA is only interested in overthrowing those with oil.

Was there oil in Germany? Oil in Japan? Oil in Italy? Oil in Panama? Oil in Grenada? Oil in Bosnia? Oil in Somalia? Nope not a damn drop!

youlneverstopme said:
If only the red-necks would stick to what they do best - eating burgers, drinking beer and going ten-pin bowling - and leave the voting to the less hard of thinking, USA might get a president with the brains to do something constructive about this mess.

Good line there, it about made me laugh. Then I saw that it was said with the intention of being an insult and as an insult I'll say this to you
"Forget you and the high polished horse you rode in on..."

Your argument grows tired and the US bashing grows old.
I am weary of this.
Goodnight.
 
Top