jkm2500

does this sound like a wedding ceremony? http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/19/iraq.main/index.html The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

The way that we know who is who on the battlefield is through marking that can be read through NVGs or through IR goggles. So unless the wedding participants want to wear IR vests it will be pretty hard to distiguish them. The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

Bill, It is easy for you to make that call as an arm chair quaterback. But lets be completely honest in our observation, you have no idea what you would do placed in that situation, until you have been in that situation. The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

Bill, Its obvious that you have never been put in a situation where you have to defend your own life. We are not in suburban america here where your neighbor might shoot a couple of rounds into the air. When Iraqi's shoot into the air it is not done by a 9mm pistol. It was more than likely several (read 10 or more) automatic weapons firing tracers into the night sky for several minutes at a time. Oh, and BTW can you tell the difference between a religious ceremony and a group of armed soldiers at 3AM from several hundred feet away, especially when both groups are carrying Ak-47s? Show me how..... The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

To address your questions.... When I was there....we made sure to enforce the curfews, that way we did not have worry about the innocent ones getting hurt or killed. The only people out at 3 IN THE MORNING are the people that are going to do us harm anyway. And for your information, if they would not have been firing their weapons into the air, they would not have been engaged by the helicopter. Put yourself in their situation before judging their actions. If you get shot at every night, you shoot back. make sense? If not, let us put you out there in a hostile situation, you can win the war by giving hugs and love to those people who are trying to KILL YOU. The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

It is probably true however look at the circumstances that this happened. Plus take the liberal spin into consideration. Imagine you are a helicoper pilot you are flying around in hostile territory on patrol. It is 3AM, and somone fires an AK-47, or severl someones fire AK-47s into the air.....your general direction. What do you do? That right, shoot back. It is tragic, but the rules and regulations have been laid out to help the people over there, and to distingiush between the friendlies and the hostiles. These peole were in violation of the curfew that was established, and were firing their weapons into the air(also not allowed). When it comes at you from all different directions, you shoot back. Get over it, if these people were following the rules in the first place we wouldn't be there. It isn't the US's fault.....not in the slightest. The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

I agree with Bill on this one. It amazes me that people expect to be safeguarded. There are way too many people who believe that. Which is why in the world today we have little league games that don't keep score, and less and less activities in the high schools. People want way too much equality, but the world is made up equally. We need to teach our children that winning isn't everything(it is great motivation), and that losing isn't that bad. They will be more successful in life with these ideas firmly embedded in their brain. Kids also need to learn that being a Jock doesn't make them cool, and being an intellectual doesn't make you a dork. Just accept yourself.... The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

You are correct, but my example was one that was on the far outside. These two kids that did this horrific event, were trying to make the same statement....."I will not take it anymore!" That was the motivation, thus the comparison. I didn't mean for people to think that I was comparing the two different circumstances directly....just by motivation. I think that them asking if they believe in God before shooting them was just a way of rationalizing the power that they had attained through their siege. They didn't know how to deal with the sudden rush of emotions from being the outcasts to being the ones that held power. By saying "do you believe in God?" it was also another way of exerting power over their victims. Just throwing that out there. The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

Like I said in my earlier post, it is a situation of the children rejecting the values that the parents have taught them. Another answer is: The chidren felt it was more beneficial to do the act and suffer the consequences than to continue with whatever humiliation/abuse is going on. It is the same reason that abused women kill their abusers, and abused kids kill their abusers. They arent willing to suffer the humiliation/abuse one more time.... The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

Kallend, I can agree that scientifically there have been studies that show that these areas of the brain mature later on in life. But I have a question for you, why don't all children lie, cheat , and steal? It is because of morals that have been taught to them since day one. They believe in consequences either good or bad for the action that they are about to take part in. Now that being said, I would hold the parents responsible if the child that took part in the act did not know wrong from right. However, these kids knew what they were doing was wrong, therefore the parents did their social duty in teaching their children the the difference between right and wrong. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold knew that there would be consequences for their actions, hence the suicide. Therefore, they knew what they were doing is wrong, they made the decision to do it, and then instead of facing the consequences of the action they killed themselves. That doesn't sound to me like they didn't know what they were doing. It sounds like they were in complete control of all their faculties. Don't you agree? The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

Maybe i am wrong but there is a certain point in a juveniles life when the parents are no longer responsible for what their juveniles are doing. One of the killers was 17 the other 18. These are young men capable of a lot worse. These are true psychopaths. To hold their parents responsible would be kind of ridiculous IMO. The 2 were old enough to be held accountable as adults in a court of law. My parents didn't know what I was out doing when I was 17 and 18 years old. I didn't want them to know, and therefore they didn't. It isn't hard to hide stuff from your parents if you really want to. I say this also considering that most parents are trying to give their kids more trust at that age. Place the blame where it is due. On Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. They are the ones that made the conscientious decision to commit that heinous crime in the first place. Now, after saying that I will concede that if the parents had done a better job of instilling morals and values into their children as they were being raised it probably wouldn't have happened. However I am sure that it has been taken into consideration that people can reject the values directed by their parents. I think that by the age of 18 they are able to make decisions that either allow them to be a part of society, or the make decisions that make them a menace to society. Either way it is personal responsibility. I don't see us holding parents of gang bangers and other miscreants responsible for the way that they raised their kids, nor for not making some last second intervention. However, by the time that the event occurred, there was literally nothing that the parents could do. So if you are expecting some last second intervention by the parents, you are making an error in judgement. The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

I have returned to the good ol' USA, and I am glad to be home. Thanks to all of you out there that support the troops. The good news is that I have been able to get current again since returning to the states. I am hoping for more air time this weekend. Have a good weekend every one, and Blue Skies!! The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

Prayers and Vibes headed your way. I hope that your cousin is found. {{{{{{{{{{MAJOR VIBES}}}}}}}}}} Josh The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

Ripped Fuel may work for you. I know people that have taken it, it is mainly caffiene. All it does is get your heart rate up, thus improving metabolism. That is why you end up with the "cut" effect. If you are trying to gain mass forget the stuff. There are plenty of other supplements that will help you gain mass. More protien, lift more weight, you will see more gains. If you just want to tone up, protien, and lots and lots of reps. Aggiedave can help a lot. PM him. Josh The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

I had PB&J for the first time in a while yesterday. I got some bread from the chow hall, and some good old fashioned Army PB, and strawberry jelly. It was delicious compared to the T-rats that we are eating until we get back to Kuwait. My son loves the super chunk. I don't normally eat the stuff. He loves the grape jelly too. Josh The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

Dude, I am afraid of heights. I hate the first 1000 feet up in the airplane. I don't like being on a tall building, the world starts spinning. I would rather be in an airplane a 13,500 ft. I hate extension ladders even worse than heights. I have a sincere respect for them. I would hate to be 10 feet off the ground to fall flat on my back. I know what your feeling.... Josh The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

Imagine growing up in a house watching super 8mm movies of your parents jumping out of airplanes. I always had some kind of toy that dealt in one way or another with parachutes. I even made a parachute out of a huge silk scarf. That was by far the best one, depending on how high you could get it into the air. It isnt only you brother..... One of these days I am going to get my Dad back in the air. The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

Benny, I was trying to point out the flawed thought process......it appears that you have the same thought process. Point is: What I am getting from you is that I don't need an AR-15, so therefore I shouldn't have one. I used the example: I don't feel people need to own a Ferrari, so the thought process you (I am assuming here) are using says that because there is no need, no one should be able to own one. I guess that my thought process is different than yours. I feel that if people act responsibly, then they should have more freedom to do what they want to do, not less. Therefore if you are a responsible gun owner, then there should be less limitations on what you should be able to own. Let us also remember that it has been illegal to own a machine gun since 1932(I believe). I also feel that if you are a responsible car owner then it shouldn't matter what car you want to drive. Josh The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

What I find funny is that people are so willing to make generalized statements about others beliefs. I am a Republican, and I don't care what you listen to on the radio. I don't care what you watch on TV. I don't care who you marry or don't marry. Those are your god-given rights. (yes, I said god-given). Take that into consideration next time. Oh, and by the way I think that gun laws are made up by people who fear guns. I don't think that anyone who has had a gun pointed at them would walk away from the incident still wanting guns taken out of the hands of the common man......Why? because then you would have no way to defend your self. I know, I brought up the whole idea of defend your self. (I can hear the voices right now, we wouldn't need to defend ourselves if there were no guns....) Do you honestly think that the criminals are going to wake up one morning and say, "it's against the law to use a gun in a crime, maybe I shouldn't do it?" If you honestly believe that the criminals will change their minds and stop breaking the law, just because you added another law to the books you are deluded. You might want to change your method of thinking. The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

Bill, The point of my argument was not to show the vast differences of two completely different subjects. It was to point out the thought process. But if we want to get onto a debate of which is worse. I know for a fact that there are more deaths caused by mixing alcohol and driving. Now, to use your argument.....Licensing, registration, insurance, that whole 9 yards isnt really wroking in that case is it? IF it was wouldn't there be zero deaths because of reckless behavior? I want to point out that the there are more deaths that fall under the "vehicular death" umbrella than the ones atributed strictly to driking and driving. I am sure that we can agree that not every one on the road should have a license. Or that their cars a road worthy. We have laws that are in place to protect the public from irresponsible car owners. In summation: Car owners are more likely to break laws concerning their cars then there are gun owners that are willing to break the laws about their guns. (disclaimer: this is an assumption) The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

Let me see if I can use your logic. So, it is ok for people to own specific types of guns. Are those guns any less deadly than the ones that you dont think people should have? I didn't think so. I am going to go out on a limb and say that most guns in the US are used in a law abiding way. If that is the case, why are we making it difficult for the law abiding to own guns. It is already a crime to commit murder. It is already a crime to attempt to commit murder. Any crime that someone uses a gun to commit is automatically a felony. Why do we need more laws on the books? Will it create less crime? No it won't. Let's use your logic in a different manner. I think that there are some cars that civilians should not be able to own. Why? well they have no need for them. Honestly does anyone need a ferrari? Speed limit laws in the US only allow people to go 75MPH? What does any one have the need to go 200+MPH for? They will just break the law with the car. The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

Bill, There are already laws out there that DO take away guns from irresponsible people. Do we need more laws on the books? The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

Beat his ass The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

This is a credible threat. Also, they are removing that tatoos by burnng. They take a piece of tire, light it on fire, then remove the tatoo. Doesn't that sound a little extreme? Just throwing this info out there to you. There have been plenty of people that have detained because of that tattoo. josh The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

Jeff, I appreciate your views on gun-ownership, I agree with them. I think that you do a great job of portraying your thoughts. I think that there is a more constructive way of saying what you mean. I think that you are offending some people with your wording. I am strictly pro-gun. I think that limiting the ability of the average citizen to have a tool to defend themselves with isn't very intelligent. The more that you limit the general populace, the more rampant the criminals will run. The gun bans in GB and Austrailia are good examples of this. Since we cannot take the guns away from the criminals, why would we take away the guns from the law abiding citizens? doesn't make sense. The best scenario that the anti-gunners should expect is what is happening right now. The more restrictions that are placed the more volatile the stiuation becomes. The issue is that there is no good solution to the problem at hand. The problem isn't gun-rights, or getting rid of guns. The problem is crime. Crime will occur, with and with out guns regardless of gun laws. These gun laws will not affect the criminals. They have already made the conciencious decision to use deadly force, prior to ever commiting a crime (I think that is a crime in itself). They will get the guns through different means, and most of them are not legal means. Therefore, since we cannot disarm the criminals, we must ourselves remain armed. If we could disarm the criminals, then the average citizen (in theory) would no longer need a firearm. (I am sure that people out there would still have a desire to own firearms for sporting purposes. Quade, I think that your comment about someone using an AR-15 (read civilian M-16) is inaccurate. What I wouls like to illustrate to you is that most combat arms in the military use the M-4 carbine (a shortened version of the M-16). Why? I am sure that the powers that be have decided that this is the best weapon for the job. Question for you.....Isn't a home defense situation a Combat situation? I think that it is. I also think that someone who wants to own a weapon designed for combat should be able to use that weapon in a home defense(read combat) situation. Something else that I would like to point out is that most of the combat arms guys that I work with out here have all kinds of neat gadgets on their weapons. For example: Laser sights, night vision devices, flash lights, etc. Why? Well it makes them more effective in combat. I personally think that an M-4 properly equipped, would be a better home defense weapon than most shotguns, and hand guns on the market. Why? Because with the extra toys attached they have a definite advantage, and the practical ability to put steel on target. The best scenario in a gunfight is a quick end. How is that accomplished? By nuetralizing the threat as quickly as possible, not by shooting 500 rounds down range. There was a reference made to the gunfight that occured in CA (cops vs. 2 AK-47 wielding assailants). If the state of CA would not have placed restrictions on the police force prior to this event happening, they would still have been carrying higher power hand guns (not the issue 9mm). They also changed thought processes after this was over and gave the police force (you guessed it) the AR-15, and surplus military M-16s. In the event that the situation should arise again in the future. Imagine the difference if the police force would have showed up with M-16s already in the cars. Have you noticed how that was a one time event? It hasnt happened again, I wonder why not....... To the anti-gunners out there: I want you to think about the root cause of the problems at hand. The root problem is crime and criminals, not law abiding citizens and gun ownership. I think that if we could remove either the criminal element from society, or remove the guns from the criminals then your arguments would hold more water. The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.