Iraqis take the UN to task

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Hey Toad,

My Ruger M-77 in 6.5x55 Swedish will put three 129 grain Hornady Light Magnum rounds inside a half inch at 100 yards.  What have you got and what will it do?  Just curious.

Regards, Shuckins

I suppose you mean besides the intercontinental missiles that'll melt mountains and vaporize lakes?

[Scootter]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Hey Toad,

My Ruger M-77 in 6.5x55 Swedish will put three 129 grain Hornady Light Magnum rounds inside a half inch at 100 yards.  What have you got and what will it do?  Just curious.

Regards, Shuckins

He may borrow mine

http://www.savagearms.com/10fpxple.htm



Did not buy the scoped package as I had the scope from model 700 Remington in 30-06 when I rescoped it.


.45 group at 100 yds with 168gr Hornady Match Moly Coated handloads 2980 fps loaded with IMR 4064 powder.

with

Leupold 6X16X40 Target scope
http://www.4scopes.com/leupold_vxii_scopes.htm




see ya at the range

[Toad]

Being the antique that I am, I only have two "big bore" rifles.

I have a "deer & coyote" rifle, a Winchester 770 in .270 with an old Weaver 4x. Shooting my handloads or Federal Premiums, it'll put two in the same hole at 100 yards and then the third will be about 3/8 high and 1/4 right of those two. That's shooting without waiting, just reloading, resettling the sights and shooting. Box stock too; I've never changed a thing on the rifle since the day I bought it and mounted the scope. Some fool once asked why I didn't rebed it to get rid of that third "flyer".

I also have an "elk rifle", a Weatherby Mark V in .300 WM. I shoot 180g handloads in it and it'll shoot about 3/4". I did restock it in a glass/kevlar stock; the Weatherby wood just moved around too much with climate changes. Plus is was a 1"+ rifle when it was in the wood stock. It shoots about the same with 200g bullets, maybe a hair wider. I like the 180's though, always worked well for me.

[Zippatuh]

Originally posted by straffo


In fact they just get ride of the kind because he was not a god boy.

My god ... so much ignorance.

People were dying of hunger all around France when the king was spending is time f**king, eating and going to war from time to time for his own pleasure

Notice  that don't make the revolutionnary like Robespierre or Napoléon better ...

Your statements make little to no sense.  If you have something to add then enlighten me.  Ignorance, huh.

So the king did what he wanted.  How and in what way does that compare with the rule Saddam had?  It doesn’t, they don't compare is the point I'm making.  What exactly is yours?

[JBA]

Lets get back on point. Gun talk has been done elsewhere.

The Iraqi console is mad as hell at he UN. As they should be, not to mention the rest of the world. The UN is comprised of 2/3 dictators and despots, and is and always will be useless. It's high time for them to fade away and leave the heavy lifting to those that do it best. The USA and its most trusted Allies like the UK.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by JBA
It's high time for them to fade away and leave the heavy lifting to those that do it best. The USA and its most trusted Allies like the UK.

Yeah... let's skip past isolationism and go straight on to unilateralism. We can handle it. We've got all of our present enemies under control and we can handle some more, no problem.

[JBA]

According to the lauded expert on the War and how it should have been fought and to answer why we don’t need the UN involvement.



http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/12/18/making_a_distinction_over_iraq_kosovo/


Clark also drew differences between the diplomatic run-up to both wars, criticizing the United States for intervening without bringing key allies on board. But when asked why the UN war crimes tribunal's two most wanted men, Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, are still at large today, Clark acknowledged that working with allies posed some obstacles to their capture. The hunt for Karadzic, in particular, "required a degree of cooperation with other powers that proved difficult for some in the US government to accept," Clark said. "There remained rumors of some kind of French connection, rumors that have been denied vigorously by Paris."

[straffo]

Originally posted by Zippatuh
Your statements make little to no sense.  If you have something to add then enlighten me.  Ignorance, huh.

So the king did what he wanted.  How and in what way does that compare with the rule Saddam had?  It doesn’t, they don't compare is the point I'm making.  What exactly is yours?

You need to re-read your own post :

Maybe under different technology the French monarch may have been able to do something about his demise and rule with even greater influence.

Do you really think they were powerless ?
When they were able to kill someone at their own will anytime for any reason (or without any reason).

The only difference threis between past French monarch, nobless and Saddam is the technologie they were using.
They were not different in their behaviour,just compare Versailles and Saddam's Palaces for exemple.

[Zippatuh]

Originally posted by straffo
You need to re-read your own post :

 

Do you really think they were powerless ?
When they were able to kill someone at their own will anytime for any reason (or without any reason).

The only difference threis between past French monarch, nobless and Saddam is the technologie they were using.
They were not different in their behaviour,just compare Versailles and Saddam's Palaces for exemple.

Ok… I see what you are saying now, it was a little thin before, but you are getting at what I am basically.  I never meant to imply they were powerless just that they, he, didn’t have as much power due to communication.

I agree.  Given the technology it could have been just as "ruthless" and ever lasting as Saddam’s rule was.  But, the technology wasn’t there so the people could rise up and do something about it.  They had more breathing room and time.

The Iraqi people couldn’t.  That’s what I’m trying to get across.  Saying that they should have helped themselves and didn’t require any outside assistance is incorrect.

[JBA]

When 60% of the residents say that Saddam executed one of their family members, do you expect them to rise up?  I don’t. I bet they were scared sh**less all day every day. Waiting for the knock on the door.

“We’ve come to rape your daughter and kill your son because we think we heard you say or look or do something we don’t like”

[Sandman]

Originally posted by JBA
When 60% of the residents say that Saddam executed one of their family members, do you expect them to rise up?

Yes.

[lord dolf vader]

i would have to second that.


shootin at soldiers is a american tradition.

was literaly raised for it. why the hell else would they give me a rifle at 8.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Zippatuh
Ok… I see what you are saying now, it was a little thin before, but you are getting at what I am basically.  I never meant to imply they were powerless just that they, he, didn’t have as much power due to communication.

I agree.  Given the technology it could have been just as "ruthless" and ever lasting as Saddam’s rule was.  But, the technology wasn’t there so the people could rise up and do something about it.  They had more breathing room and time.

The Iraqi people couldn’t.  That’s what I’m trying to get across.  Saying that they should have helped themselves and didn’t require any outside assistance is incorrect.

I agree fully.