Airbus parent brands itself "American," plans more work in U.S.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

As for the comet; what are you talking about they stopped making them because of severe design flaws.

- Actually this is wholly untrue.
The Comet was an excellent design with one new serious flaw, a flaw then unknown throughout the entire world of aviation.
In fact every plane manufacturer in the world and every passenger owes de Havilland and the British government a debt.
They (along with the Royal Aircraft Establishment) researched the then unknown phenomenon of metal fatigue due to high altitude flight with a pressurised cabin.

.....and then gave the results of their work for free to the rest of the world.

Hogwash; Boeing already had their designs at the time. Who do you think you are kinding

Unfortunately, the Comet was the victim of a number of tragic accidents, and BOAC suspended flights within two years. Engineers found that the planes suffered from metal fatigue, especially around rivet holes, due to the need to repeatedly pressurize and depressurize the aircraft. In 1952, Pan American Airways had already put in an order for the new 76-seat Comet 3, but the crashes of the earlier Comet put the contract into doubt. By this time, domestic U.S. companies had begun their own programs to build jet airliners. Several factors, such as improved jet engines, now convinced these companies to reconsider their initial reluctance to build commercial jet planes.

www.centennialofflight.gov...

As you can see they already had begun their own programs which shoots your theory all to hell.




[edit on 1/20/2005 by shots]

In Mexico Mexicana had 57 Boeing 727 and I love them, then they switched to A 320 and A319, AreoMexico always had Douglas DC( Md 83 and DC-10, and now it has an all boeing fleet og 737-800 757-200 and 767 300ER, I fly in them all the time been to the cockpit a lot of times and Pilots regard the 757 as a Great plane but out side that one even Aeromexico pilot like the A320 a lot.
The A380 will be a success because long range planes ar always full to maximum TOW, so a plane that carries 600 to 700 cheaply from. lets say L.A. to Taiwan or Beijing will be always making profit, look at Singapore airlines flight from NY to Beijing it takes less than 300 passengers and its always full and making money.....why wont a twice filled plane will not?

Even Jet blue with an allA320 fleet is giving other airlines headaches.......

The tankers will never be airbus, this is only a charade of the pentagon to buy Boeing again.... nevertheless, Boeing will be number 2 builder for a long time to come...

Starting a project and haveing a design on the board are two diffrent things.

Also designs change due to new avionics.

Originally posted by shots
Hogwash; Boeing already had their designs at the time. Who do you think you are kinding

Unfortunately, the Comet was the victim of a number of tragic accidents, and BOAC suspended flights within two years. Engineers found that the planes suffered from metal fatigue, especially around rivet holes, due to the need to repeatedly pressurize and depressurize the aircraft. In 1952, Pan American Airways had already put in an order for the new 76-seat Comet 3, but the crashes of the earlier Comet put the contract into doubt. By this time, domestic U.S. companies had begun their own programs to build jet airliners. Several factors, such as improved jet engines, now convinced these companies to reconsider their initial reluctance to build commercial jet planes.

www.centennialofflight.gov...

As you can see they already had begun their own programs which shoots your theory all to hell.

- "Hogwash"!?

Shots how determind do you have to be to think the avaition world was not informed by the successful investigation into the Comet disasters?

The idea is as wilfully dumb as it is patently wrong.

Are you really trying to say that the results of the investigation (made public internationally) were ignored in the US?!

(one could get into the whole story about how the avaition industry the world over was stunned and completely unable to see the cause of the losses.
How the world-wide stress-test standards showed the aluminium metal - still used today - should not have failed or how the fabrication methods were common-place and should not have failed etc etc.

.....but whats the point, you think you know it all and it's all a story of the good ol' US)



Wise up.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Is the UK france now?

No but it is a mistake to not treat EU as a collective.

Well, Boeing aint exactly employing many Americans are they?

Here in Boeings home, where most of Seattles industry greatly depended on them, they caused a huge recession in this state by closing down #loads of factories, laying off thousands, and moving headquarters to Seattle.

I seriously dont care who makes what, so long as Americans get back to work.

If Boeing wont do it, then let Airbus.

Shots, I'm glad to see that others beat me to it when correcting you. Nobody claimed that De Havilland designed the 707 for Boeing or anything like that, of course the 367-80 was under development in its own right, the point was that the painstaking investigation into the Comet crashes, with results given up to the whole aviation world, made certain that no other high flying jet liner went the same way. The reason the Comet ended up selling relatively few was not because of 'serious design flaws' as you put it, it was because by the time this investigation was complete jet engine technology had advanced far enough to allow bigger faster and longer ranged airliners to be built and the Comet had run out of time, Comets remained in commercial service, carrying passengers not freight, until 1980 and the Comet is the airframe upon which is based the Nimrod (in the same way that the P-3 Orion is built around the L-188 Electra airframe), the MRA.4 variant of which has just flown near the end of 2004. How on earth is that NOT a success?

When you get on about Concorde not being an achievement. Do you not consider an airliner successfully carrying 100 passengers and all their luggage at twice the speed of sound (the speed of an F-15 - and not in short bursts as a fuighter does but for prolonged cruising) every day for nearly 30 years an achievement? Factor in the fact that the only accident suffered by the type in all that time was actually caused by a DC-10 and it is even more remarkable. The only reason the type was retired was because the youngest airframe was built in 1979 and the costs and risks of operating such old airframes on long range high performance commercial flights was heading for the point where it would become unacceptable, no plane is age-proof.

Also, since when were the Convair 880 and 990 and McDonnel 119 NOT jets????

In fact, considering this mistake and your hopelessy jaundiced view of 'non-US' aircraft, do you actually know anything about aviation or do you just like a good argument?

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
"our pan-European aero-industry" -- Fabrique en France

Actually the largest percentage of the A380 prototype in particular and all Airbus' with Rolls Royces engines in general is manufactured in the UK.

Sure the assembly hall is in France but so what, it has to be somewhere. Althought here is a second assembly hall for the A320 in Germany. Airbus is not French.

Originally posted by shots
Now if the Concorde was such a technical achivement why is not still flying rather then hanging in museums?

The Concorde stopped flying because Rolls-Royce refused to extend a contract supplying spare parts for the Secoma Olympus engines. This is normal during the life of an aircraft, and what usually happens is the airlines go to a third party manufacturer who builds non origional parts - exactly the same as when you buy a non Honda part for your Honda car.

Unfortunately, because so few Concordes were flying, this proved costly, and thus Concorde was withdrawn from service.

Basically, your statement there is as stupid as saying 'Now, if the SR-71 was such a technical achievenment why is it not still flying rather than hanging in museums?'. Keeping one flying for NASA does not mean its in service.

Planes quite often are withdrawn before they outlive their technical achievements. Name one civilian aircraft flying today that outdoes the Concorde for luxury, speed, status and looks. There isnt one.

Boeings SST was never a serious thought.

Originally posted by shots
Yeah you have a track record alright. Caravel (sp?), Comet and Concorde come to mind real fast here............

[edit on 1/20/2005 by shots]

British Airways and Air France together have more supersonic flight hours than all of the air forces in the world combined.

And they did it with 14 aircraft.

I'd call that a stunning success.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well it is over 20 years old

Actually Concorde could have flown for another 30-40 years.

Because of the height it flew at, it would undergo more uniform wear and the lack of moisture in the stratosphere meant that the airframes were degrading at half the speed of a normal airliner.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Cjwinnit]

Originally posted by FredT
I will expect the United Sttes to give the same care and due course when considering buying tanker aircraft that Airbus gave when selecting the engine choice for the A400M transport aircraft.

1) Boeing will be allowed to see the Airbus bid if they come up short
2) Term like comparable technical merit will be bandied about
3) Politicians will use terms like "an USAF tanker should be made in America"

This is exactly how the engine bid for the A400M went against Canada. Now how is it unfair if Boeing and the US government use a page from the Airbus playbook?

I agree, especially with point #3. I'm against outsourcing anything pertaining to our military hardware, and when it comes to most of the EU, that distrustful sentiment increases tenfold.

What if we need to undertake another operation like in Afghanistan or Iraq (*cough*Iran*cough*), and we need some extra tankers. Do you think that they would honor such contracts with us, or in predictable fashion, make like the useful stooges of our most disgusting of enemies and stop selling us the tankers in protest when we they're urgently needed by our pilots?

Even if the EU government intended to honor the contracts, that would'nt stop any lower level dissent beyond their control, like a vital parts manufacturers staff going on strike in protest of the conflict or something even more lame. I would'nt put it past them, and I have heard and seen little from their officials that would convince me otherwise.

I can't remember the source, but I do recall the British having shortages of handgrenades in the offset of the Iraq invasion because they were importing them from Sweden or somewhere like that, and their government refused to resupply them in protest despite having a contract to do so.

And speaking of taking pages from the Airbus/EU playbook, here's one they can keep and wipe their smarmy a$$es with.

news.scotsman.com...

Tsunami-hit Thais told: Buy six planes or face EU tariffs

FRASER NELSON
POLITICAL EDITOR


TSUNAMI-struck Thailand has been told by the European Commission that it must buy six A380 Airbus aircraft if it wants to escape the tariffs against its fishing industry.

While millions of Europeans are sending aid to Thailand to help its recovery, trade authorities in Brussels are demanding that Thai Airlines, its national carrier, pays £1.3 billion to buy its double-decker aircraft.

The demand will come as a deep embarrassment to Peter Mandelson, the trade commissioner, whose officials started the negotiation before the disaster struck Thailand - killing tens of thousands of people and damaging its economy.

Personally, little things like this make me not mind if our Gov. wants to economically play dirty against the likes of the Eurocrats. Besides, was'nt there alot of criticism coming from over there about our need to lower our trade deficit not too long ago (particularly from France and Germany)? I wholeheartedly agree. We, as concerned Americans should seek to balance out our trade deficit with central Europe, and redivert the a large portion of the trade imbalance to other nations that really do need the money and developement. A Cuba liberated from their good pal El Fidel comes to mind.

Originally posted by Crazyhorse

I agree, especially with point #3. I'm against outsourcing anything pertaining to our military hardware, and when it comes to most of the EU, that distrustful sentiment increases tenfold.

What if we need to undertake another operation like in Afghanistan or Iraq (*cough*Iran*cough*), and we need some extra tankers. Do you think that they would honor such contracts with us, or in predictable fashion, make like the useful stooges of our most disgusting of enemies and stop selling us the tankers in protest when we they're urgently needed by our pilots?

Look, noone complained about Afghanistan - not even France. But Iraq? Next time you contemplate doing a completely stupid and idiotic move like that, make sure you have CONVINCING EVIDENCE that you PRESENT TO THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL. France didnt just 'object' for the sake of objecting, France et al objected BECAUSE TEH EVIDENCE YOU PRESENTED WAS SH*TE. Regardless of the accusations being thrown around that France had ulterior motives, the UK and US evidence for WMD jsut was not in this universe.

Guess what? France was right.

I can't remember the source, but I do recall the British having shortages of handgrenades in the offset of the Iraq invasion because they were importing them from Sweden or somewhere like that, and their government refused to resupply them in protest despite having a contract to do so.

Nope, what happened was Sweden was supplying another country at the time, the UK-Sweden contract had expired 6 motnhs previous and they tried to procure more from Sweden, but they had no spare capacity.

Its not Swedens fault, its the UK MoD - our troops had a less than 50% chance of getting body armour as well.

And speaking of taking pages from the Airbus/EU playbook, here's one they can keep and wipe their smarmy a$$es with.

news.scotsman.com...

Yes, as reported it does suck bigtime. What most people miss is the fact that the negotiations were started as long ago as August 2004, and trade tarrifs that came into force were implmeneted in October 2004. In last weeks Sunday Mail (a UK newspaper) this was covered, along with the fact that the EU will NOT charge the extra money under the tarifs, which will be removed as soon as the matter can be passed in the EU Parliament. But of course noones covered that, because it destroys the entire story....

Personally, little things like this make me not mind if our Gov. wants to economically play dirty against the likes of the Eurocrats. Besides, was'nt there alot of criticism coming from over there about our need to lower our trade deficit not too long ago (particularly from France and Germany)? I wholeheartedly agree. We, as concerned Americans should seek to balance out our trade deficit with central Europe, and redivert the a large portion of the trade imbalance to other nations that really do need the money and developement. A Cuba liberated from their good pal El Fidel comes to mind.

If America wants to start a trade war, guess what - it cant win. Your Dollar is spiralling out of control, which puts you VERY weak in a trade war, plus with our current relations with China (lifting the Arms Embargo etc), the US has the potential to loose a massive trading partner. The US economy isnt geared up for any sort of hostile intentions.

Currently the US has a $60billion USD trade deficit, and a $7trillion USD national debt, $3.3billion of which is outside the US Governments control with a lot being owed to foreign banks and countries. Any hostile moves made now, and you run the risk of having your country bankrupted.

Whatcha going to do then? Invade the EU? How you going to pay for it?

The U.S. went into Iraq over oil and to overthrow Saddam, as he was too unstable for the region. And he did have plans to start a WMD program.

The entire U.N. looked at the same evidence as the United States; France was against Iraq because they had contracts over oil there, which they lost. Now the sovereignty of that oil is in the hand of U.S. and British corporations and there isn't a damn thing the French can do about it.

But the U.N. regardless had given Saddam an ultimatum. Invading Iraq wasn't stupid at all. It got rid of a tyrant who in the future was probably going to be a serious threat (or his sons would), and also showed that the U.S. isn't into sucking up to the U.N. The U.N. is nothing. They are just a bunch of appeasers.

As for tankers, even if Airbus gets the contract, they would not supply the U.S. with the tankers directly; the tankers would be built in the United States. Anything related to national defense like that, if from a foreign corporation, is licensed out so that the $$$ goes to the European corp., but the actual product is homemade.

And France can do what they want with China. The day someone becomes a severe threat to them again and they cry for help, maybe they will be left on their own. It is because of the United States that the French even still speak French, it is because of the U.S. that France was rebuilt immediately after WWII, and it was the U.S. that went into Vietnam when France got its butt kicked there.

And I wouldn't say the dollar is "spiraling out of control," it is just in a battle with the Euro right now.

[edit on 23-1-2005 by Broadsword20068]

Firstly, let me answer this:

Well I have always been and always will be of the stance that any major vehicles utilized by the U.S. military should be designed and made in America.

Indeed, if only you knew. Harrier anyone?

Look at where the parts for your M1A2 comes from..... FCS is Canadian, Gun is German, the Armour a british invention....... hmmm...... Anyway.....

The U.S. went into Iraq over oil and to overthrow Saddam, as he was too unstable for the region. And he did have plans to start a WMD program.

No he didn't.....end of, stop trying to pass off your cock and bull stories as fact. You went to war based on a lie, and the sad thing is, even after all the evidence which shows it is a lie, you still believe it.

Your own Iraq Survey group has vindicated the stance of those opposed to the war!!

But the U.N. regardless had given Saddam an ultimatum. Invading Iraq wasn't stupid at all. It got rid of a tyrant who in the future was probably going to be a serious threat (or his sons would), and also showed that the U.S. isn't into sucking up to the U.N. The U.N. is nothing. They are just a bunch of appeasers.

He wouldn't ever have been a threat due to his military being so dillipated, and his country was bankrupt.

And why are you moaning about the UN? Whomakes up the UN? Go away and think about what it is you are complaining about.

It is because of the United States that the French even still speak French

Really? I wasn't aware that the Germans put in place a mass re-education of the French people, and planned to have them all Goosetepping and asking for a Stein of beer by 1950. The Germans didn't even want to control France.

If they had won the war, I guarantee that they would have left a puppet government in place, and left the French alone to speak whatever the smeg they wanted.

The day someone becomes a severe threat to them again and they cry for help, maybe they will be left on their own

Not likely. The reasons are too numerous to put here, but here are a few:

1) The Entente Cordial
2)The EU
3) France has nukes.

Three very good reasons why no-one will mess with France, and if they do, they will most likely get burnt.

and it was the U.S. that went into Vietnam when France got its butt kicked there.

Thats just a classic statement! LOL! When France got its butt kicked?

What the hell happened to you guys then? You got kicked from here to last wednesday!! And you where stupid enough to stay there for over a decade!

And I wouldn't say the dollar is "spiraling out of control," it is just in a battle with the Euro right now.

Indeed. One it will most likely come off as second best.

[edit on 23/1/05 by stumason]

lol, someone who doesn't fully know what he is talking about.

The Harrier was concieved and designed in Britain, then the design was improved upon by an American corporation, and the current Harriers were jointly built by both British and American corporations.

Those parts of the M1A2 were DESIGNED by different countries, but they are BUILT in the United States. And not all of the parts are foreign.

Most of the rifles (except the M16) in the U.S. military are foreign-designed too, but built in the U.S.

Saddam WAS unstable for the region, and like I said, OIL. The U.S. needs oil, so that was another reason.

Germany wanted to control the world (or the Nazi party did anyhow); France would have been placed under German control ultimately; saying that France would've been speaking German is a statement meaning France wouldn't have been France anymore, it would've been a part of Germany's empire. Germany took on Europe and Russia, and had plans to invade the United States later on as well.

Uhhhh, and yes, France did get its butt kicked in Vietnam. The French Army was slaughtered when it went in there.

The U.S. could have slaughtered the Vietnamese. The U.S. won the first battle there; the reason Vietnam was so screwy was because the Johnson administration literally would not allow the U.S. military to bomb the Vietnamese installations; the Vietnamese literally could attack, retreat, regroup, re-arm, and then attack again. The American soldiers couldn't. Because of this, thousands of American soldiers were killed, all because the Johnson administration "felt sorry" for the Vietnamese over there.

Also, the Air Force did not give the Army the full air support it needed. Had the military been used properly, the United States would have thrashed Vietnam. Johnson ultimately went insane because he knew he was responsible for so much slaughter in the end as well.

Those are the facts to Vietnam. The truth is that the U.S. could have went in, slaughtered, won, and gotten the hell out, which is why the gov't was so despised for that war.

The U.N. is comprised of lots of countries, but it would be nothing without the United States. The United States supplies the majority of $$$ for the U.N., and the majority of the U.N. military power. Without the U.S., the U.N. would be nothing.

[edit on 23-1-2005 by Broadsword20068]

lol, someone who doesn't fully know what he is talking about.

The Harrier was concieved and designed in Britain, then the design was improved upon by an American corporation, and the current Harriers were jointly built by both British and American corporations.

You are the one who stated that all US equip should be designed and made in the US, when no matter what you may claim, the Harrier is a British invention.

Those parts of the M1A2 were DESIGNED by different countries, but they are BUILT in the United States. And not all of the parts are foreign.

Again, your point is moot, as you claimed all US equipment should be designed and made in the US, which it clearly isn't.

Saddam WAS unstable for the region, and like I said, OIL. The U.S. needs oil, so that was another reason.

What kind of reason is that? With that reasoning, Germany has valid claims for its plans during WW2, as with Japan. You cannot on the one hand claim that if it wasn't for the US then France would be speaking German, then on the other say that the US needs oil so can invade countries willy nilly!

Germany wanted to control the world (or the Nazi party did anyhow);

Not exactly accurate there. They wanted Leibensraum for the german people, and to make Germany great, not necessarily wanting to fight the Great Powers, and most certainly didn't want to fight the British Empire, as Hitler attempted on more than one occasion to make peace.

Germany took on Europe and Russia, and had plans to invade the United States later on as well.

Care to show proof of this. I know after the US entered the war, the Germans where looking at an intercontinental bomber, but there is no way on earth Germany could have hoped to stage a massive ground invasion of the US unless the had managed to destroy the Royal Navy, the US Navy and respective air power also, not too mention the vast distance across the Atlantic.

Uhhhh, and yes, France did get its butt kicked in Vietnam. The French Army was slaughtered when it went in there

I wasn't disputing this. What i found ironic was the comment that the French got pasted and you had to go in.....and got your butts kicked too!

The U.N. is comprised of lots of countries, but it would be nothing without the United States. The United States supplies the majority of $$$ for the U.N., and the majority of the U.N. military power. Without the U.S., the U.N. would be nothing.

How wrong you are, the US contributes only 1% of all peacekeepers. You may end up giving more money as you have a much higher GDP than most others (thats if you do actually pay you dues to the UN)..... I quote this too you:

The United Nations Charter stipulates that to assist in maintaining peace and security around the world, all Member States of the UN should make available to the Security Council necessary armed forces and facilities. Since 1948, close to 130 nations have contributed military and civilian police personnel to peace operations. While detailed records of all personnel who have served in peacekeeping missions since 1948 are not available, it is estimated that up to one million soldiers, police officers and civilians have served under the UN flag in the last 56 years. As of June 2004, 97 countries were contributing a total of more than 56,000 uniformed personnel—the highest number since 1995.

Despite the large number of contributors, the greatest burden continues to be borne by a core group of developing countries. The 10 main troop-contributing countries to UN peacekeeping operations as of June 2004 were Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ghana, India, Ethiopia, South Africa, Uruguay, Jordan and Kenya. About 10 per cent of the troops and civilian police deployed in UN peacekeeping missions come from the European Union and one per cent from the United States.

The largest contributers were from Pakistan (8,652), Bangladesh (8,211) and Nigeria (3,577). The biggest contributer from a western country is Poland with 739 peacekeepers on a 19th place. The USA ranks 26th with 430 peacekeepers. The EU combined have 4,532 peacekeepers.

UN peacekeeping

Peacekeeping is a bit different; and you seem to have ignored what I wrote in regards to Vietnam; the French got slaughtered in Vietnam after trying unsuccessfully for years to hold their interest there; the United States got slaughtered there because the gov't literally would not allow them military to attack the Vietnamese the way it should have. Thus the U.S. never really fought the Vietnamese the way it could have.

Peacekeeping doesnt involve near the military might to fend off a true enemy would. All of Europe could unite and it still would not match the U.S. for military power at the moment; thus, for peacekeeping, the U.N. without the U.S. is fine, but in terms of squashing a major threat (like another Soviet Union or another Hitler), the U.N. wouldn't be much without the United States.

But I was typing too fast last time, as the United States, while it probably could handle something like another Hitler, it would need the U.N. most definitely for handling like another Soviet Union, so both need each other. But the U.N. I do not like because they want to form a one-world gov't and they want sovereignty over the U.S. They do not like that the U.S. doesn't suck up to their every wish anymore, the way Bill Clinton did, and because they are against Americans having freedom, I am against them. What the U.N. is supposed to stand for, and what it really wants, is a joke.

And you seem to misunderstand my point on U.S. equipment; it is my opinion that all VEHICLES should be homemade and home-designed because that is simply safer for national defense. I did not say that was literally the full case. There are some things Europe does better, especially the French (they are damn fine engineers). But the major military equipment itself should be U.S.-designed and made; minor stuff can be foreign-designed, U.S. made. By "major military equipment," I mean the actual aircraft and tanks should be home-designed and built, but parts of them can be foreign-made. For example, the French are very good at avionics and aircraft engines. So a lot of Coast Guard aircraft utilize French engines, and the U.S. tanker fleet utilizes engines made jointly by an American and French corporation; they are among the most successful aircraft engines ever built.

Also, Apache attack helicopters utilize French avionics I believe. American fighter aircraft are American-designed and American-made, and powered by American engines. The Abrams tanks are designed and built here, and the engines for the tanks are also home-designed.

It was decided long ago that it was just plain cheaper to let the Europeans (primarily the Germans) design the rifles and guns, since they are so good at it, and just build them here, since this way was cheaper and more effiecient (this is actually kind of ironic as it was America that invented the submachine gun, but the weapon didn't sell too well.....by WWII, Germany had made superior designs). Hence, practically every rifle and pistol utilized in the American military is of foreign-design, except for the M-16 rifle. Germany also designs the rifle for the Abrams battle tank. A Canadian corporation designed the Fire Control System for it as stated above, and the armor was originally a British invention (as stated above).

I just mean the major vehicles, like fighter aircraft, helicopters, battletanks, etc.....those should be American-designed and American-made, as they are the major portions of the military. The other parts of these vehicles can be home-designed as well, but if a European company can do a better design, and they can just license the design and build it here, it is better to use the European design.

Which is why I am against Airbus having the tanker contract.

The Harrier was a British invention, but the modern Harrier is a product of both American and British design.

And yes, you can say that if the U.S. need oil, it can invade other countries. We are trying to establish a democratic gov't over there. But in order for the U.S. remain the dominant world power, it must have oil; otherwise, it cannot isolate itself and expect to remain powerful. If it is not powerful, then future Soviet Union or Hitler type threats could arise again; no one knows. Yes, it is a pain in the butt to have to go into other countries to take their oil, but in the end, it keeps the world safe, as it keeps America the most powerful.

If America did not go in after oil, either China or Russia or some other countries eventually would, and the world would be at the mercy of the "communism" or fascism of said country.

America does not want to conquer the world; it wants to make damn sure no one else does (well I am sure some American politicians would love to conquer the world, but I mean America as a people, not the U.S. gov't solely).

Germany on the other hand went into France just because Hitler wanted to conquer Europe. Japan went into Korean and China and literally did its best to destroy the cultures of both of those countries; true, Japan needed China for resources, but it wanted China for resources to expand the Japanese Empire, not to keep the world safe from threats.

America in general is not too interested in conquering other peoples; it goes into where it needs to so that it can maintain its power. Otherwise, it keeps out. That is just the way things are. When America went into the island areas near the U.S. coast early on, and "conquered" those areas, a lot of that was mainly to keep out the Europeans from establishing land bases and such near the United States; it was not to display the "might of the 'American Empire' " or anything like that; how the U.S. tried to "Americanize" those peoples though was very wrong, and how we treated the Native Americans when we are supposed to be about freedom was wrong too, but no country is absolutely perfect.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Broadsword20068]

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Broadsword20068]

Broadsword, congratulations for the highest number of contradictions in a single post I have ever seen.

So you cannot see the similarity in Germany, or even Britain if you include our empire, invading sovereign nations in order to take over that nations resources and America wanting to invade Iraq for oil?

Iraq has never been a threat to the USA militarily and as for Saddam being a tyrant, well of course that is true but why stop at one? What about the rest of them? What about the ones who are known for a fact to posses nuclear weapons and are just about mad enough to use them? Mr Bush has precious little to say on that subject. I'm sure the lack of oil in the region combined with the ability to fight back is just a co-incidence.

No nation has ever conquered another because it wanted to rule its people, that was always just a consequence of the act of invasion. It is not different just because it is America doing it, it is exactly the same if the reasons given for the action in the first place are false. Remember Germany tried to claim that Poland attacked them first.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by waynos]

What contradictions? I just explained that you CANNOT maintain your status as a world power without going after the resources you need; the U.S. HAS to remain a world power to keep itself from being threatened by other nations; the British, German, etc....empires were different. Britain wasn't threatened in the same way and didn't need near the amount of colonies it took. Britain openly said it was the "finest people" on the face of the Earth. The Germans also thought the same. The Japanese tried to destroy the cultures of the nations they went into.

The United States does not do that. It also only goes where it NEEDS to go. Without oil, the U.S. would be weak, and if weak, it would never have been able to stand up to threats like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and the Japanese Empire.

Traditionally, America has been an isolationist country, not caring to go invade other people and establish colonies. Where the U.S. goes, it doesn't tax those countries' people. It only goes into places for natural resources if it needs them for itself in order to remain powerful to keep the world safe from real threats. And also to keep those threats from obtaining said materials (thus making them very very forceful).

And yes, Saddam was a tyrant, so going into Iraq and overthrowing Saddam was just a bonus thing. It is not the U.S.'s job to go into EVERY country with a dictator or who has nukes and overthrow that dictator.

But when huge threats rise up that threaten the very peace and stability and freedom of the entire Western World itself, the U.S. must be powerful enough to help fend those threats off.

It's a little bit different than conquering lands for their gold or diamond mines (as such things are mainly of $$$ value, not military value).

Peacekeeping is a bit different; and you seem to have ignored what I wrote in regards to Vietnam; the French got slaughtered in Vietnam after trying unsuccessfully for years to hold their interest there; the United States got slaughtered there because the gov't literally would not allow them military to attack the Vietnamese the way it should have. Thus the U.S. never really fought the Vietnamese the way it could have.

So bombing the living daylights out of the entire SE Asia region, slaughtering thousands of civilians, using chemical weapons to destroy thousands of hectares of forest, poisoning the people and engaging in the most vicious Jungle warfare seen for decades wasn't what you could have done?

Damn right it wasn't what you could have done.........

Peacekeeping doesnt involve near the military might to fend off a true enemy would. All of Europe could unite and it still would not match the U.S. for military power at the moment; thus, for peacekeeping, the U.N. without the U.S. is fine, but in terms of squashing a major threat (like another Soviet Union or another Hitler), the U.N. wouldn't be much without the United States.

Hmmm.... I would openly dispute that. If the entire EU (if it actually wanted to waste huge amounts of men and materials on futile warfare) banded together, we could more than match the US for military power. We choose not too, as there is no need to waste such massive amounts of cash on tanks and guns, when we can spend it on schools and hospitals......

But the U.N. I do not like because they want to form a one-world gov't and they want sovereignty over the U.S.

Do they? Must have missed that part of the UN charter...i'll go read it again....

They do not like that the U.S. doesn't suck up to their every wish anymore, the way Bill Clinton did, and because they are against Americans having freedom, I am against them. What the U.N. is supposed to stand for, and what it really wants, is a joke.

Who is this "they" when you refer to the UN? The UN is the member countries, of which the US is the biggest financial contributor, so if there is a problem, perhaps you should get you Government to fix it, rather than whining about it......

As for your whole point on vehicles being US designed and made, you where so all over the place and contradictory i am not sure how (and if I can be bothered) to reply.

The Harrier was a British invention, but the modern Harrier is a product of both American and British design.

At least that is correct. The latest versions (AVB8 etc) are manufactured under license by Boeing (McDonald Douglas). However, the British versions are made by BAe.

As for your whole piece about the US and only invading to be a force for good, i still fail to see how this is any different to any other power in history seizing natural resources for itself, regardless of its stated intentions.

The British, Romans, Spanish etc all claimed to spreading civilisation/freedom/word of God/fill in the blank, but at the end of the day it is all the same.....

Just this time round you are doing it to spread "Democracy" apparently.......