Sec. of State Rice warns Russia about Bombers off Alaska

On Aug 20, 12:06*am, Dan wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Aug 19, 9:02 pm, george wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:35 pm, Tiger 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 ****ing 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 ****er 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

* *"Rouge nations?" Max Factor? Cover Girl?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Don't ask, don't tell...

You know the ones, just look at their dress uniforms.

Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:44 am, Vincent wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Aug 19, 9:02 pm, george wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:35 pm, Tiger 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 ****ing 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 ****er 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.

I have nothing against shooting attacking bears

The ludicrous suggestion is that it somehow takes "balls"
to "aim and shoot the ****er dead".

everyone who wants to shoot first assumes they are behind the trigger
in a risk free environment

Vince

frank wrote:
On Aug 20, 12:06 am, Dan wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Aug 19, 9:02 pm, george wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:35 pm, Tiger 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 ****ing 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 ****er 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
"Rouge nations?" Max Factor? Cover Girl?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Don't ask, don't tell...

You know the ones, just look at their dress uniforms.

or undress uniforms

Vince

In article , says...
wrote:

I'm sorry you have to subject yourself to such a sad
experience. You must live a sad, bitter life.

no, quite the opposite. you must be judging by yourself, while i'm
pretty capable of rising above the circumstances.


So, what's keeping you here among the unwashed heathens? I
mean, more money and better conditions....are you a masochist?

you see, my life is quite a lot more than "money and conditions". i'm
afraid you won't understand, not programmed to.

there's even a bit of charitable purpose of me being here. your see, as
i said before, usa today is like an neanderthal with a grenade. me and
people like me, by our very presence we kind of "average up" the general
iq of this backwards country, essentially rising it from the level of a
neanderthal tribe to the level of, say, fifteenth century village, thus
reducing the probability of that neanderthal pulling out the pin
inadvertently. many intelligent people come here from different parts of
the world with this specific thought in mind. so far the civilized world
hasn't found a better solution to the problem of usa possessing nukes.

but in any case, it is a lot more than that

No, it's just beyond me that anyone would choose to live where
they hate. If you have the job skills to work internationally, I'd
assume that means you have the ability to pick and choose. If you have
"good offers" where you'd prefer to be.......

as i said, i'll definitely do it at the first good opportunity. it is
not that simple, again. the very fact that i have to explain this is a
good indication that i'm trying to have a conversation with a not very
advanced (artificial?) intelligence... are you fimiliar with the
concepts of "family", "friends", "house", "ties", "getting settled down"
in some place? somehow i don't think so....


Can you afford a keyboard with a working shift key?


Mark Borgerson

Mark Borgerson wrote:
as i said, i'll definitely do it at the first good opportunity. it is
not that simple, again. the very fact that i have to explain this is a
good indication that i'm trying to have a conversation with a not very
advanced (artificial?) intelligence... are you fimiliar with the
concepts of "family", "friends", "house", "ties", "getting settled down"
in some place? somehow i don't think so....

Can you afford a keyboard with a working shift key?

and how do you think i type question marks and quotation marks?
copy-paste from other texts?

Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:44 am, Vincent wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Aug 19, 9:02 pm, george wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:35 pm, Tiger 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 ****ing 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 ****er 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

On Aug 20, 1:12 pm, Dan wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:44 am, Vincent wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Aug 19, 9:02 pm, george wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:35 pm, Tiger 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 ****ing 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 ****er 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=...&ct=image&cd=1

On Aug 20, 6:44�am, Vincent wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Aug 19, 9:02 pm, george wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:35 pm, Tiger 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 ****ing 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 ****er 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.

Rob Arndt wrote:
On Aug 20, 6:44�am, Vincent wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Aug 19, 9:02 pm, george wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:35 pm, Tiger 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 ****ing 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 ****er 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.

Where is the treaty or pact that requires or allows USAF involvement?
For that matter, if you feel so strongly why aren't YOU volunteering?
It's easy for you to accuse servicemen of being cowards since you you
are safe behind your modem.

Tell us how USAF involvement beyond what is currently going on would
change things. Would it make you happy for the USAF to shoot down
Russian aircraft?


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.

It has been determined the Comfort isn't needed at this time, genius.
Turkey hasn't said she would allow the Comfort to pass anyway.

Are you aware the USAF is making several flights a day into Georgia
with relief? I guess that doesn't count because you'd prefer war.

Where are your heroes the Germans? Hiding under their beds?

For that matter, have you ever said anything positive about the U.S.
and when did you say it?

Amazing how someone who has never had to face any risk in her life
insults those who do it every day, isn't it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article fba49d69-3a49-472c-a447-02211c5d9d00
@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, says...
On Aug 19, 10:17?pm, Dan wrote:
tankfixer wrote:
In article , says...
eyeball wrote:
lol "john pumpkin from dumb****, ga warns solar system"
You live in Moscow, komrade?
this question is actually deeper than you might know, sonny ))

live? well, i work in oregon. of course, i have to kind of "live" there.
or, more precisely, i "reside" there, since applying the word "live" to
anywhere in the usa is like the greatest insult to life ever. nobody
lives in the usa.

i do in fact live in moscow when i go there about once a year on vacation.

We can help you get to stay there...

? ?So how come he can afford to go visit Moscow annually yet can't
afford to move there? I think the fool is lying through someone's teeth.


Cost of living's higher in Idaho.


About a day's drive too....


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