BroadwayPhil

I am particularly interested in soft-skinned vehicles and artillery pieces, broken down by type/model. I do not need US figures: the complete War Department list is on-line.

I know when they were built and all about their post-WW II career. I am only interested in any usage during 1944-45, or a definitive source that says they were not used in WW II.

A decade-by-decade breakdown would be particularly helpful. I wish to correlate this with other data. (A source for this information would certainly be welcome.)

I'm interested in what they took to France, also all-wheel drive trucks sold to the Allies. I know that FWD was one American manufacturer.

Soriano turned an extra-base hit into a single by watching his "home run" instead of running; Bueno was ejected for "punishing" Soriano by throwing at his head.

Okay, Britney fans and Britney haters, here is your chance to shine! The answer that reads most like Simon gets the points. Of course in the unlikely event that the real Simon Cowell answers (verified by the moderators), he gets the points. Remember, for all his acerbic wit, he does offer constructive criticism most of the time.

The War Crimes Act (1996) makes violation of various Hague, Geneva and Nuremburg protocols and treaties a United States federal offense. Who, then, can bring American war criminals to trial in a U.S. court? Please limit your answer to American courts! International tribunals cannot enforce U.S. law and do not have any jurisdiction over U.S. citizens, nor can they impose the death penalty, which is authorized by the War Crimes Act. While U.S. military personnel are subject to the UCMJ, a different federal law that also outlaws war crimes, that law does not apply to civilians. Note that the present Attorney General believes that the War Crimes Act does apply to officials of the U.S. government, but if the Justice Department will not proscecute them, who else can bring charges? If a federal grand jury can bring charges, how can ordinary citizens cause such a grand jury to be empaneled? I repeat, international tribunals are irrelevant to this question; do not bother mentioning them.

The War Crimes Act (1996) makes violation of various Hague, Geneva and Nuremburg protocols and treaties a United States federal offense. Who, then, can bring American war criminals to trial in a U.S. court? Please limit your answer to American courts! International tribunals cannot enforce U.S. law and do not have any jurisdiction over U.S. citizens, nor can they impose the death penalty, which is authorized by the War Crimes Act. While U.S. military personnel are subject to the UCMJ, a different federal law that also outlaws war crimes, that law does not apply to civilians. Note that the present Attorney General believes that the War Crimes Act does apply to officials of the U.S. government, but if the Justice Department will not proscecute them, who else can bring charges? If a federal grand jury can bring charges, how can ordinary citizens cause such a grand jury to be empaneled? I repeat, international tribunals are irrelevant to this question; do not bother mentioning them.

It is a federal offense for Americans to commit war crimes. The War Crimes Act (1996) places various Hague, Geneva and Nuremberg protocols within U.S. law and authorizes the death penalty (also lesser penalties) for war criminals. The Justice Department clearly can proscecute, but would not be likely to charge government officials with war crimes. So who else can bring charges under this law? If a federal grand jury, can one be called without recourse to the Justice Department? (There are other tribunals for foreign war criminals such as the Taliban and al-Qaida, and their leaders.) In short, who can bell the cat?

Okay, this is nuts. The mighty Mariners, languishing in last after a 0-11 road trip, win two of three from the Steinbrenners and sweep the Red Sox. The White Sox do a little pounding on the Tigers. who are in a bit of a slump, then get pounded on by Cleveland. The Twins are surging. The Brewers are doing some serious winning. The Reds are real competition for the Cardinals. The Marlins have won seven straight. The Braves are doing barely better than the Mariners. Have things gone insane, or is this just baseball?

I need either the dialogue (complete) for that day's strip or a link to that particular day's strip itself (it's not on the 9 Chickweed Lane website). This is the one where Juliette shows Amos's wind-chill data for her hips to Elliott. It's for a story I'm writing based on that sequence. Thanks.

The mighty Mariners have been mighty inconsistent of late, dropping five in a row and looking very bad against the Angels. So...do they recover (thank goodness they don't face Verlander), or do they continue their slide? Is there any hope that they will catch Oakland?

Suppose Ares hadn't whisked Xena and Gabrielle away to those ice coffins at the end of the episode "Looking Death in the Eye" and Xena's plan had succeeded. Would Gabrielle have eventually married Joxer? Why or why not? Assume Xena and Gabrielle are NOT lesbians, as the question is meaningless otherwise. [Please don't answer if you don't know the program.]

With five interleague games to go, the Seattle Mariners are 11-2 against the NL West (2-1 vs Dodgers, 3-0 vs Giants, 5-1 vs Padres, 1-0 vs Diamondbacks). Weak Mariners bats are suddenly red-hot. Richie Sexson is off the Mendoza Line. Kenji Johjima is outhitting Albert Pujols. The Mariners are back to .500 after floundering for months. Is this some weird alignment of the planets, or is Seattle for real? Or are the Mariners fattening up on the worst division in baseball? The acid test will be if the Mariners can now take on good AL teams like the Red Sox, Tigers, White Sox, Athletics and Steinbrenners: can they, or is their interleague performace a fluke?

That's right, it's a fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians accept evolution as part of God's plan for creation. As for "intelligent design," this is a religious, not a scientific theory, which I first heard some 40 years ago in a religion class (and was not posited to conflict with evolution, either). Get an easy ten points if you answer this question correctly and well.

Please answer only if you have the information or have an interest in the subject. I wore this particular jersey (the actual jersey, not a reproduction) in a 1986 production of the musical "Damn Yankees." It still had the 1969 "100th Anniversary" patch on the sleeve, so it is safe to assume that whoever wore it that year was the last person to wear it before the Senators became the Texas Rangers. It was owned by the late Pat McKernan, then the owner of the Albuquerque Dukes AAA team, who had worked for the Senators, staying with them when they became the Rangers.