US still main threat to stability in European eyes, page 2

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 08:55 PM

link

Redmage you make a great point in the above post!

Of course I am one of those people against pre-emptive wars, and also feel the Iraq war right now was trumped in the intelligence to try to seed democracy. And my feeling is democracy under the gun is not a great start. And if you are going to invade, then Rumsfield should have listened to the military commanders, and had many many many more troops on the ground for security after the major hostilites ended to get things started right.

I know the USA took a major hit with 9/11, and this changed America's policy of waiting to get hit in the mouth with something from somebody, to taking it to the percieved trouble makers first even though they might have not punched you yet. And this is where I feel we have lost a moral edge that we had over people committing evil. I agree things are more complicated now, since nations can fund terrorists, and hide behind them quietly and unseen; and try not to accept responsibility.

So now you have to try to stop people who want to top a 9/11 attack. And the US said ok we are taking the fight to you.
Right or wrong that is what is happening.

masterp

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 07:18 AM

link

Originally posted by redmage
Did you really just put Vietnam in the "last few years" category?!?

In historical terms, it is 'last few years'.

Afghanistan (not the Soviet/Afghan war of the 80's) had great support worldwide due to 9-11. As did Gulf War I, due to Iraq invading Kuait.

That's what your media is telling you. Reality is different.

I see this as more of a reflection on the current situation in Iraq, and the fact that we are now engaging in wars of "choice" (not necessity) based on what many feel are blatent false pretexts.

This hypocrisy is what makes people fear USA ("oh, the gulf war? needed because Saddam invaded Kuwait"...as if it was ever possible that would affect USA in any way. Have you forgotten that you chose to stay out of WWII until Perl Harbor? Europe was in trouble with Hitler but you said "nooo, we are not gonna play, it is not our game").

danwild6

posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 09:48 PM

link

Originally posted by devilwasp
Thanks dan and Xphiles, nice to see our "close" ally the US doesnt think we're just here to scrounge off them

Face it! You were for the better part of 50yrs and still as recently as Bosnia and Kosovo in the 90's helpless in regards to threats to europe from inside europe. The US footed 90% of the bill for the Kosovo campaign.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Remind me again why we're still in the JSF program?

You'd prefer to be working with the French? Oh thats right the last time you tried to get together with the French they wanted everybody to pay them to design and build the plane and then demanded to produce it entirely themselves.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Ah yes thats right....so americans can cancel british contracts.....

Well if the Rolls-Royce engine actually worked it may not have been cancelled. But as I said before just team up with Jaques.

RetinoidReceptor

posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 10:13 PM

link

That's what your media is telling you. Reality is different.

There was a lot of opposition to the war in Afghanistan and Gulf War 1?? Wow our media must be pretty good, especially since I watch CNN, BBC, and CCTV.

This hypocrisy is what makes people fear USA ("oh, the gulf war? needed because Saddam invaded Kuwait"...as if it was ever possible that would affect USA in any way. Have you forgotten that you chose to stay out of WWII until Perl Harbor? Europe was in trouble with Hitler but you said "nooo, we are not gonna play, it is not our game").

It isn't the hypocrisy that makes people fear the US, it is the hypocrisy that makes people angry at it. What makes people fear the US, has basically only been enormously evident in the past 6 years with Bush.

By the way, in WW2, America was vastly different. We were mostly an isolationist society, and did not want to get involved in Europe's affairs because Europe had a lot of problems, that is why we weren't part of the League of Nations.

If anything we (the rest of the world) should allow everyone else to arm up and keep Europe from arming up anymore, afterall that continent had the worst colonialism for hundreds of years, 2 World Wars started there, and some of the worst dictators ever

In any case, I do not really care if Europeans dislike America. I don't like this government and never voted for them. But I do know, that if Europeans knew more about what China and other countries were doing, the votes would be somewhat different.

devilwasp

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 06:52 PM

link

Originally posted by danwild6
Face it! You were for the better part of 50yrs and still as recently as Bosnia and Kosovo in the 90's helpless in regards to threats to europe from inside europe. The US footed 90% of the bill for the Kosovo campaign.

One question, why should we be the worlds policeman?
Why is it OUR duty to play defender?
BTW, british troops where the first on the ground in bosnia, but hey that doesnt matter does it because you guys had a pilot shot down and rescued him so that makes you the heroes.

You'd prefer to be working with the French? Oh thats right the last time you tried to get together with the French they wanted everybody to pay them to design and build the plane and then demanded to produce it entirely themselves.

Atleast the french havent bombed us yet, atleast the french havent made us paint our APC's orange to stop the mighty and precise USAF from blowing them to pieces.

Well if the Rolls-Royce engine actually worked it may not have been cancelled. But as I said before just team up with Jaques.

Did the plane fly? Yes , I would say it works from an engineering stand point, but hey what does an officer cadet know huh?

danwild6

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:27 PM

link

Originally posted by devilwasp
One question, why should we be the worlds policeman?
Why is it OUR duty to play defender? BTW, british troops where the first on the ground in bosnia, but hey that doesnt matter does it because you guys had a pilot shot down and rescued him so that makes you the heroes.

I'm not suggesting Britain should take over the role of global enforcer. First of all you couldn't do it financially. You don't want to play global policeman fine believe me I wish my country would just quit the position. My main problem with it is that it has resulted in people thinking the US is more dangerous than Iran or North Korea.

Now I'd like to ask a question or two. Do you believe the US is more dangerous than Iran or North Korea ? If so why?

Who made it possible for the Brits to just walk in. The aerial campaign spearheaded by the USAF. And yeah Scott Grady got shot down and we got him back. He got shot down trying to keep the peace in Bosnia because evidently the RAF(or anyother European Air Force)wasn't able to do it alone.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Atleast the french havent bombed us yet, atleast the french havent made us paint our APC's orange to stop the mighty and precise USAF from blowing them to pieces.

Hey man fratricide is apart of war and always has been, oh except for the Americans they have to be perfect don't they. Thats the kind of crap I hate so much about peoples attitudes towards Americans. We can't make mistakes and if we are criticized as if we had done it on purpose. But I'm sure a Brit hasn't ever made a tragic mistake during the heat of battle.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Did the plane fly? Yes , I would say it works from an engineering stand point, but hey what does an officer cadet know huh?

Yeah with a Pratt and Whitney engine.

devilwasp

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 04:58 AM

link

Originally posted by danwild6
I'm not suggesting Britain should take over the role of global enforcer. First of all you couldn't do it financially.

Yes because we realised about WW2 that : Wait this is getting expensive why not actually spend it on something for the country?

You don't want to play global policeman fine believe me I wish my country would just quit the position. My main problem with it is that it has resulted in people thinking the US is more dangerous than Iran or North Korea.

But IT IS!
The US has the fire power to cause untold death and destruction across the globe, the US military has a global strike ability and not a good record with A2G attacks when it comes to hitting thier targets.

Now I'd like to ask a question or two. Do you believe the US is more dangerous than Iran or North Korea ? If so why?

I do believe it is more dangerous for one reason: most american military lead operations and influence have caused the major wars in the last century.

Who made it possible for the Brits to just walk in.

I would think NATO but then again NATO is really USAF in american eyes...right?

The aerial campaign spearheaded by the USAF.

Yes and?

And yeah Scott Grady got shot down and we got him back. He got shot down trying to keep the peace in Bosnia because evidently the RAF(or anyother European Air Force)wasn't able to do it alone.

So because the RAF cant bomb the crap out of a country we werent at war with means we're weak?
How about this: Europe could do it but didnt.

Hey man fratricide is apart of war and always has been, oh except for the Americans they have to be perfect don't they.

How many times have you seen british warplanes bomb american tanks?

Thats the kind of crap I hate so much about peoples attitudes towards Americans. We can't make mistakes and if we are criticized as if we had done it on purpose. But I'm sure a Brit hasn't ever made a tragic mistake during the heat of battle.

Britain makes mistakes but come on, the american ROE record is rubbish from korea to iraq the american armed forces have a outshone themselves as the side that hits EVERYBODY in the engagement including their allies.

Yeah with a Pratt and Whitney engine.

Yes my mistake although you havent listed yet that they have only built 12 of them so far for ground testing and it wont be made for another 2 years, how can you say it doesnt work if it hasnt been flight tested?

danwild6

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 03:49 PM

link

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yes because we realised about WW2 that : Wait this is getting expensive why not actually spend it on something for the country?

Good for you

Originally posted by devilwasp
But IT IS! The US has the fire power to cause untold death and destruction across the globe, the US military has a global strike ability and not a good record with A2G attacks when it comes to hitting thier targets.

You've got to be kidding me! Compare how many incidents of friendly fire with the total A2G strikes that the USAF has made from Operation Desert Storm to Deny Flight, Desert Fox, Kosovo, Afghanistan and finally Iraq and you'll see how ludicrous your statement was.

And as far as being able to cause destruction across the globe a number of other nations could do this as well Russia and China come to mind. And thanks to France and Russia Iran will soon join the club. Not to mention North Korea which is even more disturbing.

Originally posted by devilwasp
I do believe it is more dangerous for one reason: most american military lead operations and influence have caused the major wars in the last century.

How do you figure that? Was it American influence that caused WWI or WWII or the Korean War. The only war in the 20th century that the US is truely guilty of being the bad guy in was Vietnam. If you can name others I'm all ears.

Originally posted by devilwasp
I would think NATO but then again NATO is really USAF in american eyes...right?

Well since that by far the bulk of NATO's airpower is drawn from the USAF than yes. And I think that is perfectly legitimate.

Originally posted by devilwaspYes and?

And what? Are you claiming some supporting role here?

Originally posted by devilwasp
So because the RAF cant bomb the crap out of a country we werent at war with means we're weak?

lol: Man where were you educated? We didn't carpet bomb Bosnia or Kosovo or Afghanistan or anyone else. We didn't even carpet bomb the Germans during WWII(the RAF however did and did it alot). Whenever the USAF has used strategic bombers they've been overwhelming been used in a tactical role against dug in enemy forces(Normandy breakout, Ho Chi Minh trail those kind of things).

Originally posted by devilwasp
How about this: Europe could do it but didnt.

You know why I don't buy that. Because if you could've you would've. When the Bosnian war erupted European leaders told both the Russian and American governments to butt out. They wanted to handle it. They wanted to show the world that Europe was all grown up and could handle their own problems. They tried a peaceful solution Milosevic and Tudjman weren't hearing it. And what did Europe do? They begged and pleaded to no avail they couldn't end the conflict with a peaceful resolution they had to end it by force. And who did you call?

Originally posted by devilwasp
How many times have you seen british warplanes bomb american tanks?

How many times has an American tank wandered into an RAF kill box? Maybe you should've informed the USAF that you had troops in the area.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Britain makes mistakes but come on, the american ROE record is rubbish from korea to iraq the american armed forces have a outshone themselves as the side that hits EVERYBODY in the engagement including their allies.

Then get the hell out of he way!!! You don't want to get smoked by the enemy or possibly your own forces allied or otherwise then desert or avoid the draft or don't sign up in the first place. Like I said before fratricide is and has been apart of war since the beginning of war. Why do you expect the USAF or the USN or anybody not to make mistakes.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yes my mistake although you havent listed yet that they have only built 12 of them so far for ground testing and it wont be made for another 2 years, how can you say it doesnt work if it hasnt been flight tested?

Actually the F135 is a derivative of the F119 that powers the F-22. The F135 uses the proven core of the F119. The F136 being codeveloped by rolls-royce and general electric has been experienceing technical difficulties and the F135 has been performing fine apparently and was developed from a proven design.

devilwasp

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 01:26 PM

link

Originally posted by danwild6
Good for you

Thanks high praise from america is hard to get once there on the high moral horse.

You've got to be kidding me! Compare how many incidents of friendly fire with the total A2G strikes that the USAF has made from Operation Desert Storm to Deny Flight, Desert Fox, Kosovo, Afghanistan and finally Iraq and you'll see how ludicrous your statement was.

You mean like the deaths of 4 canadian soldiers because they where in a TRAINING exercise with a 250 kiloton laser guided bomb?
www.cbc.ca...
Or during the latest operation in iraq left one soldier dead, 3 more wounded and two clearly marked recon vehicles destroyed.
news.bbc.co.uk...
Mabye we should go further back to say I dunno WW2 where 16% of all US casualties where caused by blue on blue or friendly fire.
During the vietnam war 14% of all US casualties where caused by friendly fire.
During the gulf war this level rose to 35% of all US casualties where caused by friednly fire.
(Those are just US service men in the stastics above)
In gulf war 1 the UK lost 9 men and 12 more where injured when they where fired on by US thunderbolts.
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2003/01/06/nirq06.xml
No offence but the evidence speaks for itself.

How do you figure that? Was it American influence that caused WWI or WWII or the Korean War.

US was involed in WW1 and WW2 which BTW sparked off the cold war (remember berlin 1945?)
They didnt cause the wars but they sure as hell influenced them enough to start others.

The only war in the 20th century that the US is truely guilty of being the bad guy in was Vietnam. If you can name others I'm all ears.

In iraq both the US and the UK got sadamm into power (causing several wars, not including genocide and 2 wars which the US took part in) hell the US even assisted the iranians in thier coup!
Afghanistan was caused by america backing the taliban (remember those nice shiny stingers?) when they where fighting the russians.

Well since that by far the bulk of NATO's airpower is drawn from the USAF than yes. And I think that is perfectly legitimate.

So much for the "Hear felt" thanks of the US when britain spilt blood alongside it in nearly every war but hey you dont care about us do you?

And what? Are you claiming some supporting role here?

I qoute:

The British Royal Air Force operated the Harrier GR7 and Tornado fighter jets as-well as an array of support aircraft.

en.wikipedia.org...

lol: Man where were you educated? We didn't carpet bomb Bosnia or Kosovo or Afghanistan or anyone else.

I never said carpet bomb, are you denying that the US has that ability?

We didn't even carpet bomb the Germans during WWII(the RAF however did and did it alot). Whenever the USAF has used strategic bombers they've been overwhelming been used in a tactical role against dug in enemy forces(Normandy breakout, Ho Chi Minh trail those kind of things).
[/'quote]
Why are you talking about strategic bombers?

You know why I don't buy that. Because if you could've you would've.

Why?

And who did you call?

So your saying that europe went BEGGING to you?
No I think you'll find we went in with NATO because that already included most of europe and therefore was a good starting point to a coalition.

How many times has an American tank wandered into an RAF kill box?

I dont know but then again we dont know if british tanks wandered into these "kill boxes" or if thats just the phrase used to describe US gunsights.

Maybe you should've informed the USAF that you had troops in the area.

Mabye they did AND they had massive markers on the top and a massive union flag flying from the back of it ?

Then get the hell out of he way!!!

Get the hell out of the way?
You mean like on hill 282 where the americans hit the british on a mountain they had radioed from?
Or like when US shot down a tornado inside a safe zone?

Why do you expect the USAF or the USN or anybody not to make mistakes.

I expect them not to shoot at my countrys troops with that bad a show of ROE, come on when was the last time you seen a US jet get shot down by a rapier SAM?

Actually the F135 is a derivative of the F119 that powers the F-22. The F135 uses the proven core of the F119. The F136 being codeveloped by rolls-royce and general electric has been experienceing technical difficulties and the F135 has been performing fine apparently and was developed from a proven design.

So because it worked in one plane its little brother should work fine so we dont need another engine to test ?

danwild6

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 02:29 PM

link

Originally posted by devilwasp
Thanks high praise from america is hard to get once there on the high moral horse.

What can I say I like to give credit where credtit is due.

Originally posted by devilwsp
You mean like the deaths of 4 canadian soldiers because they where in a TRAINING exercise with a 250 kiloton laser guided bomb? Or during the latest operation in iraq left one soldier dead, 3 more wounded and two clearly marked recon vehicles destroyed. Mabye we should go further back to say I dunno WW2 where 16% of all US casualties where caused by blue on blue or friendly fire.
During the vietnam war 14% of all US casualties where caused by friendly fire.
During the gulf war this level rose to 35% of all US casualties where caused by friednly fire.

No offence but the evidence speaks for itself.

Yeah man and the evidence says *explative happens in war. I was aware of the tragedy in Afghainstan involving the Canadians thats what it was a tragedy I highly doubt we attacked the Canadians on purpose. And yeah maybe you Brits would do better job protecting against fratricide. IMO you probably would given your superiour commitment to training.

Originally posted by devilwasp
US was involed in WW1 and WW2 which BTW sparked off the cold war (remember berlin 1945?)

Yeah we were involved like Britain, France, Russia, Italy and Germany. But it wasn't US political, military or economic influence that started them was it. But it was US military and economic power that ended them.

Originally posted by devilwasp
They didnt cause the wars but they sure as hell influenced them enough to start others.

Okay I'm all ears.

Originally posted by devilwasp
In iraq both the US and the UK got sadamm into power (causing several wars, not including genocide and 2 wars which the US took part in) hell the US even assisted the iranians in thier coup!

No Saddam got himself in power we helped him stay there. Again we(US or UK weren't the ones ordering the gasing or the executions. And as far as the Iranian coup if you are refering to the 1952 counter coup that returned the Shah to power that was a joint CIA MI-6 operation.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Afghanistan was caused by america backing the taliban (remember those nice shiny stingers?) when they where fighting the russians.

Actually we aided the Mujahadden who's leader would later lead fight against the Taliban(he was assassinated on 9/9 just two days before the terror attacks).

Originally posted by devilwasp
So much for the "Hear felt" thanks of the US when britain spilt blood alongside it in nearly every war but hey you dont care about us do you?

Oh come off it m8. You love bitching at us and we love you as our friend(you're the last one we have). If you want to now how Americans really feel come on over say a couple words in your debonaire Scottish accent(just don't get pissed if at first someone asks you if your english)and I believe you'll find out how greatful Americans are to our last true friend.

Originally posted by devilwasp
I never said carpet bomb, are you denying that the US has that ability?

No we do but the USAF has long realized that massed targeting of civilian targets i.e startegic bombing doesn't have the effect that was first theorized between WWI and WW2

Originally posted by devilwasp
Why are you talking about strategic bombers?

When you said bomb the hell out of a country I thought you were suggesting the indiscriminate bombing of civilians targets which has never been apart of USAF doctrine.

Originally posted by devilwasp
So your saying that europe went BEGGING to you?
No I think you'll find we went in with NATO because that already included most of europe and therefore was a good starting point to a coalition.

Where did I say you begged us? My point was you asked us for help because the EC's attempts at a peaceful resolution had failed so blatently and repeatedly that their was no other choice you couldn't end the war on your own. And yes it was the NATO alliance which the US has commited itself to the defense of Europe since its founding in 1949.

Originally posted by devilwasp
I dont know but then again we dont know if british tanks wandered into these "kill boxes" or if thats just the phrase used to describe US gunsights.

No my friend its the term given to USAF pilots to describe an area east by westnorth by south where their shouldn't be anyone but the enemy.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Mabye they did AND they had massive markers on the top and a massive union flag flying from the back of it ?

Maybe they did maybe they didn't(either way someone covered their arse well) thats called the fog of war. And I've heard the story of the company flying the Union Jack whether it was observable to the pilot I just don't know.

Originally posted by
Get the hell out of the way?
You mean like on hill 282 where the americans hit the british on a mountain they had radioed from?

Honestly I really don't have an answer for other than the US troops weren't properly trained.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Or like when US shot down a tornado inside a safe zone?

A gittery Pat-2 crew again with out adequate training.

Originally posted by devilwasp
I expect them not to shoot at my countrys troops with that bad a show of ROE, come on when was the last time you seen a US jet get shot down by a rapier SAM?

Again probably thanks to the MODS emphasis on training. I wish the DOD would take a leaf out of the Brits book on that

Originally posted by devilwasp
So because it worked in one plane its little brother should work fine so we dont need another engine to test ?

Can you give me a reason it wouldn't. It by far wouldn't be the first time this has been done in fact its rather commonplace to use a proven engine as a starting point for a new development. Just think Rolls-Royce kestrel and merlin

devilwasp

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link

Originally posted by danwild6
Yeah man and the evidence says *explative happens in war.

Yes its a part of war, but I'd expect it not to happen as much as it has considering your troops are supposed to be top of the line.

I was aware of the tragedy in Afghainstan involving the Canadians thats what it was a tragedy I highly doubt we attacked the Canadians on purpose.

Then how did the bomb hit them if it wasnt being aimed at them by a laser?

And yeah maybe you Brits would do better job protecting against fratricide. IMO you probably would given your superiour commitment to training.

We DO, the only challenger to die from an engagement was from another challanger during a dust storm.

Yeah we were involved like Britain, France, Russia, Italy and Germany. But it wasn't US political, military or economic influence that started them was it.

No I never said they did.

But it was US military and economic power that ended them.

Yes along with the UK acting as a staging point for an invasion and the russians beating hitler.

Okay I'm all ears.

American bankers bank rolled the nazi party during WW2, the US distrusted the USSR (along with the entire western world) and helped create the 2 armed camps.
The US fear of spread of a communism lead it into korea and into vietnam.

No Saddam got himself in power we helped him stay there.

Not acording to these links:
www.mtholyoke.edu...
www.muslimedia.com...
www.representativepress.org...

Again we(US or UK weren't the ones ordering the gasing or the executions.

No but we sure as hell gave him the parts and data to make along with satalite pictures:
en.wikipedia.org...

And as far as the Iranian coup if you are refering to the 1952 counter coup that returned the Shah to power that was a joint CIA MI-6 operation.

Yes it was a joint operation but it changes nothing.

Actually we aided the Mujahadden who's leader would later lead fight against the Taliban(he was assassinated on 9/9 just two days before the terror attacks).

Yes but who was a large supporter and expert stinger missile operator of those engaged in that war ?
Mr Usama bin Laden , a large supporter , finacer and fighter of the taliban thank you CIA for training him.

Oh come off it m8. You love bitching at us and we love you as our friend(you're the last one we have).

Last time I checked we only love to bitch because you guys kill ours....kinda doesnt set a good image, no?

If you want to now how Americans really feel come on over say a couple words in your debonaire Scottish accent(just don't get pissed if at first someone asks you if your english)and I believe you'll find out how greatful Americans are to our last true friend.

Been there , done that and bought the T shirt that says: Americans dont get taught geography. BTW my friend got stopped in america while eating his breakfast by an old lady to say thanks that our troops where in iraq fighting along side hers and she would say a prayer of thanks to them.

No we do but the USAF has long realized that massed targeting of civilian targets i.e startegic bombing doesn't have the effect that was first theorized between WWI and WW2

Yes and this has to do with your ability to do it how?

When you said bomb the hell out of a country I thought you were suggesting the indiscriminate bombing of civilians targets which has never been apart of USAF doctrine.

I never suggested it was, I simply said you had the ability to lay waste to any country you wished, except britain and any other nuclear power.

Where did I say you begged us?

Ahem you said called.

My point was you asked us for help because the EC's attempts at a peaceful resolution had failed so blatently and repeatedly that their was no other choice you couldn't end the war on your own.

And how do you know we couldnt end it on our own?
We had more than enough resources and more than enough training in situations such as that.

And yes it was the NATO alliance which the US has commited itself to the defense of Europe since its founding in 1949.

Actually NATO is an alliance designed to defend all parties involed , kind of like the entente but just bigger.

No my friend its the term given to USAF pilots to describe an area east by westnorth by south where their shouldn't be anyone but the enemy.

East by westnorth by south?
Is that even a navigational saying in the USAF?
Well why didnt they look at the targets before firing?

Maybe they did maybe they didn't(either way someone covered their arse well) thats called the fog of war. And I've heard the story of the company flying the Union Jack whether it was observable to the pilot I just don't know.

Its not a jack unless its on a warships jackstay.
A massive red , white and blue flag cant be seen by someone who is flying close enough to actually see the people?

Honestly I really don't have an answer for other than the US troops weren't properly trained.

Eh?
Then why do they get sent to war?

A gittery Pat-2 crew again with out adequate training.

Yet again why not trained?

Can you give me a reason it wouldn't.

The fact that the F-22 engine wasnt designed to take off vertically a good answer?

It by far wouldn't be the first time this has been done in fact its rather commonplace to use a proven engine as a starting point for a new development. Just think Rolls-Royce kestrel and merlin

Yes but its a bit diffrent from using a past helicopter engine on another helicopter.

danwild6

posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yes its a part of war, but I'd expect it not to happen as much as it has considering your troops are supposed to be top of the line.

American soldiers may be the best equipt army but they're not the best trained.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Then how did the bomb hit them if it wasnt being aimed at them by a laser?

What I meant was I don't believe he knew they were Canadian when he dropped his payload.

Originally posted by devilwasp
We DO, the only challenger to die from an engagement was from another challanger during a dust storm.

Well here's to that

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yes along with the UK acting as a staging point for an invasion and the russians beating hitler.

The UK's strategic position was essential for the liberation of western europe. And the Russian by far took the badest beating from Hitler and then gave it back ten fold

Originally posted by devilwasp
American bankers bank rolled the nazi party during WW2, the US distrusted the USSR (along with the entire western world) and helped create the 2 armed camps.
The US fear of spread of a communism lead it into korea and into vietnam.

American bankers are like bankers from anywhere on the planet they are greedy and know no loyalty except to their pocket book. However I don't see how you can tie the US military or the government to unlawful activities that don't even serve their own interests. And as far as the US being the bad guy during the Cold War please. Stalin before he knew the power of the A-Bomb informed his generals to prepare to attack the west by 1947.

And as far as Korea the US full filled its UN obligations and held free-elections the Soviet backed North however declined and promptly invaded the South. The US then went to the UN security council and with UN approval led a policeing action to throw the Communists out of the Republic of Korea.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yes it was a joint operation but it changes nothing.

Just showing we weren't the only ones using our "influence"

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yes but who was a large supporter and expert stinger missile operator of those engaged in that war ? Mr Usama bin Laden , a large supporter , finacer and fighter of the taliban thank you CIA for training him.

Actually their isn't an ounce of evidence to support that the CIA directly supported Bin Laden but guilt by association is quite common in todays world.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Last time I checked we only love to bitch because you guys kill ours....kinda doesnt set a good image, no?

Or how we're handling the latest crisis in the mid-east or on debt relief or trade etc....

Originally posted by devilwasp
Been there , done that and bought the T shirt that says: Americans dont get taught geography. BTW my friend got stopped in america while eating his breakfast by an old lady to say thanks that our troops where in iraq fighting along side hers and she would say a prayer of thanks to them.

Alot of americans feel that way. You can take a pole of Americans on what nation they respect the most and I guarantee Britain will always top the list. Doesn't mean we have to agree on everything bbut we do respect you.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Ahem you said called.

Oh sorry I guess thats a difference between American English and Scottish English. When we say called usually that refers to picking up a phone(diplomatic line what have you)and asking for assistance. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Originally posted by devilwasp
And how do you know we couldnt end it on our own?
We had more than enough resources and more than enough training in situations such as that.

Then why didn't you? why did you call on the US to lead the campaign and through the credability of the EC-EU in the toilet in regards to being able to solve regional issues alone.

Originally posted by devilwasp
East by westnorth by south? Is that even a navigational saying in the USAF?
Well why didnt they look at the targets before firing?

I was attempting to illustrate that a kill box is a sector of a battlefield assigned to warplanes to dominate and deny the enemy its use.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Its not a jack unless its on a warships jackstay.
A massive red , white and blue flag cant be seen by someone who is flying close enough to actually see the people?

He may not have made visual identification he may have used either thermal or radar detection. If that was the case your flag wouldn't have been visible.

Origginally posted by devilwasp
Eh? Then why do they get sent to war?

Because you go to war with the army you have not the army you want.

Originaly posted by devilwasp
Yet again why not trained?

Probably because the USAF prefers to spend their money on reverse engineering alien spacecraft. In other words they had other priorities.

Originally posted by devilwasp
The fact that the F-22 engine wasnt designed to take off vertically a good answer?

The F-35 uses a lift fan designed by Rolls-Royce for its vertical thrust. We didn't cancel that contract despite being over budget and fan being over weight

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yes but its a bit diffrent from using a past helicopter engine on another helicopter.

Actually the Merlin powered the Hurricane, Spitfire, Mustang fighters and Lancaster heavy bomber. And it was done with jet aircraft through the cold war. Here's something you can be proud of.

Rolls-Royce Avon

devilwasp

posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link

Originally posted by danwild6
American bankers are like bankers from anywhere on the planet they are greedy and know no loyalty except to their pocket book. However I don't see how you can tie the US military or the government to unlawful activities that don't even serve their own interests.

I never said unlawful activities and that did serve thier intrests at the time because they wanted a strong ally in the west.

And as far as the US being the bad guy during the Cold War please. Stalin before he knew the power of the A-Bomb informed his generals to prepare to attack the west by 1947.

I never said they where the bad guys because frankly both where.
Stalin may have ordered his troops to be ready but did the US president and military order and train thier troops to specifically to kill russian forceS?

And as far as Korea the US full filled its UN obligations and held free-elections the Soviet backed North however declined and promptly invaded the South. The US then went to the UN security council and with UN approval led a policeing action to throw the Communists out of the Republic of Korea.

But why?
America would not have become interested in korea at all if it didnt fear communism.

Just showing we weren't the only ones using our "influence"

No but you were no inocent party.

Actually their isn't an ounce of evidence to support that the CIA directly supported Bin Laden but guilt by association is quite common in todays world.

Ahem:

He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Or how we're handling the latest crisis in the mid-east or on debt relief or trade etc....

The UK does not complain about US actions in the middle east if there is nothing to complain about ie: civilian casualties.
The rest I havent heard british public whine about.

Alot of americans feel that way. You can take a pole of Americans on what nation they respect the most and I guarantee Britain will always top the list. Doesn't mean we have to agree on everything bbut we do respect you.

Still they cant even find britian on a map of europe for crying out loud (atlest florida camera men cant)

Oh sorry I guess thats a difference between American English and Scottish English. When we say called usually that refers to picking up a phone(diplomatic line what have you)and asking for assistance. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Called = begged
One is the extreme of the other, I havent heard of european leaders asking the US for assistance but if I'm wrong please link me.

Then why didn't you?

Why should we?
[qoute]
why did you call on the US to lead the campaign and through the credability of the EC-EU in the toilet in regards to being able to solve regional issues alone.

To be honuest I dont know why the NATO leaders wanted US involvement but then again we wont know what happens in NATO meetings will we?

I was attempting to illustrate that a kill box is a sector of a battlefield assigned to warplanes to dominate and deny the enemy its use.

But isnt the term: Look before you leap or ask questions before you shoot a good idea?

He may not have made visual identification he may have used either thermal or radar detection. If that was the case your flag wouldn't have been visible.
Or the large makrings on the side, I find it a bit bad that they fired without checking.

Because you go to war with the army you have not the army you want.

If you dont have the men trained then how can they fight?
I mean come on!

Probably because the USAF prefers to spend their money on reverse engineering alien spacecraft. In other words they had other priorities.

But having a man able to use equipment IS the highest priority.

The F-35 uses a lift fan designed by Rolls-Royce for its vertical thrust. We didn't cancel that contract despite being over budget and fan being over weight

No you didnt cancel that project because boeing doesnt have a replacement.

Actually the Merlin powered the Hurricane, Spitfire, Mustang fighters and Lancaster heavy bomber. And it was done with jet aircraft through the cold war. Here's something you can be proud of.

Rolls-Royce Avon

Oh....right sorry I thought you meant the helicopter...

danwild6

posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link

Originally posted by devilwasp
I never said unlawful activities and that did serve thier intrests at the time because they wanted a strong ally in the west.

There is a common misconception of the US that we've had our hand in global affairs since our inception. This is totally untrue. Pre-1941(that is pre attack on Pearl Harbour)the US generally didn't give a crap about what went on outside the western hemisphere even when the second world war erupted. It was only after the the war that we became more involved in global affairs(i.e supporting nasty people outside the Americas).

As far as Nazi Germany the US did establish economic ties(as did many other nations including Britain and France). But to say that this is a leading contribution or even a contribution at all to Germany's ability to successfully rearm for war is IMO ludicrous. I think you should look more closely at Germany's neighbors and their unwillingness to confront Hitler on his flagrent violations of the treaty of Versailles.

Originally posted by devilwasp
I never said they where the bad guys because frankly both where.
Stalin may have ordered his troops to be ready but did the US president and military order and train thier troops to specifically to kill russian forces?

Trained to kill specifically Russian forces? Do you have to shoot Russians in a particular way?

Originally posted by devilwasp
But why? America would not have become interested in korea at all if it didnt fear communism.

When did I say that? Just pick up a history book or watch an old news reel and you'll see just how terrified of the Russians we were.

Originally posted by devilwasp
No but you were no inocent party.

Never claimed innocence. Who's innocent anyways in regards to any government. I believe my government has been on the right side of history more often than not.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Ahem:

He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.

An unsubstantiated claim doesn't fit my idea of evidence.

Originally posted by devilwasp
The UK does not complain about US actions in the middle east if there is nothing to complain about ie: civilian casualties. The rest I havent heard british public whine about.

How about climate change or US support for a lasting peace in the middle east(i.e not calling Israel off until hezbollah has been nuetralized). Tony Blair has supported us but the British public doesn't.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Still they cant even find britian on a map of europe for crying out loud (atlest florida camera men cant)

I can find Britain on a map and I'm sure most Americans can as well. As far as Florida cameramen theirs probably a good chance they don't even speak English or have drown their sorrows on South Beach(I wish I could). They're hardly representative of all Americans.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Called = begged One is the extreme of the other, I havent heard of european leaders asking the US for assistance but if I'm wrong please link me.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Why should we?

Why shouldn't you? Why shouldn't you end a horrible destabilizing war in your own backyard. Europe the champion of human rights failing to intervine and stop what were the worst human rights abuses in Europe since the holocaust.

Originally posted by devilwasp
To be honuest I dont know why the NATO leaders wanted US involvement but then again we wont know what happens in NATO meetings will we?

Probably because they couldn't launch a successfull air campaign without the USAF which is by far possess the main conventional stiking power of the NATO alliance.

Originally posted by devilwasp
But isnt the term: Look before you leap or ask questions before you shoot a good idea?

Force protection applies here. You look up if the enemy is their he'll probably be able to get a shot off. And in a slow moving A-10 that isn't a good thing.

originally posted by devilwasp
Or the large markings on the side, I find it a bit bad that they fired without checking.

I can empathize with you. With all the smart tech they have now you'd think we could stop things like this from happening.

Originally psted by devilwasp
If you dont have the men trained then how can they fight?
I mean come on!

Oh they can fight they just can't tell a Brit Tornado from an Iraq Scud or a Brit APC from an Iraqi tank.

Originally posted by devilwasp
But having a man able to use equipment IS the highest priority.

I think they should be taught when to use it. Take your finger off the trigger and look to see what your shooting at.

Originally posted by devilwasp
No you didnt cancel that project because boeing doesnt have a replacement.

Well actually its Lockheed and isn't that what replacements are for when something doesn't work you use the one that does.

And as far as I can tell the F136 hasn't been officially cancelled yet.

devilwasp

posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link

Originally posted by danwild6
Pre-1941(that is pre attack on Pearl Harbour)the US generally didn't give a crap about what went on outside the western hemisphere even when the second world war erupted. It was only after the the war that we became more involved in global affairs(i.e supporting nasty people outside the Americas).

Then why did the US supply food to the UK?

Trained to kill specifically Russian forces? Do you have to shoot Russians in a particular way?

Why the propaganda war against the russians if not to kill them?
I dont remember any propaganda against iran then.

When did I say that? Just pick up a history book or watch an old news reel and you'll see just how terrified of the Russians we were.

You didnt say anything about I said the US was frightened of the USSR and its capability (IE anti comunist propaganda?) why else would the US give a dam,m about SK?

An unsubstantiated claim doesn't fit my idea of evidence.

Yet its ok to go to war over with?

How about climate change or US support for a lasting peace in the middle east(i.e not calling Israel off until hezbollah has been nuetralized). Tony Blair has supported us but the British public doesn't.

Climate change?
Umm mabye because isreal has killed more civilians than enemy so far and the fact you use civilian planes and airports as refueling stations for planes carrying bombs.

I can find Britain on a map and I'm sure most Americans can as well.

I doubt it.

As far as Florida cameramen theirs probably a good chance they don't even speak English or have drown their sorrows on South Beach(I wish I could). They're hardly representative of all Americans.

Ummm he did speak english and most americans I talked to over there dont know that britain isnt a cluster of islands.

Why shouldn't you? Why shouldn't you end a horrible destabilizing war in your own backyard.

So because someone is doing bad we should play policemen and go in and stop the fighting huh?

Europe the champion of human rights failing to intervine and stop what were the worst human rights abuses in Europe since the holocaust.

Europe is not and has never claimed to be anything of the sort, if the US want to think of us as that then I'm happy with it. But frankly its none of our buisness what someone hundreds of miles away does is it?

Probably because they couldn't launch a successfull air campaign without the USAF which is by far possess the main conventional stiking power of the NATO alliance.

Your saying that europe has not go the conventional air power to do what the USAF done during the wars?
I highly doubt THAT.

Force protection applies here. You look up if the enemy is their he'll probably be able to get a shot off. And in a slow moving A-10 that isn't a good thing.

So your ok with americans shooting anything that moves because it MIGHT be an enemy?

Well actually its Lockheed and isn't that what replacements are for when something doesn't work you use the one that does.

Could you reprhase that a bit I'm sorry are you saying that lockheed has a replacement or?

And as far as I can tell the F136 hasn't been officially cancelled yet.

Yet we're at the stage that the US pres wont listen to his "strongest ally's" requests.

danwild6

posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link

Originally posted by devilwasp
Then why did the US supply food to the UK?

Many people didn't want to. They felt that the US sending supplies to Britain would lead the US into another european war. Just google America First Party. Fortunately we had a man like Roosevelt in office who after becoming very popular among the American people for his efforts to get the people back to work had enough clout to push hrough lend-lease and other programs.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Why the propaganda war against the russians if not to kill them?
I dont remember any propaganda against iran then.

Propoganda in general is used to gather support for politcial actions. In this case to win the US public's support for countinued involvement in europe. And back in the 40's and 50's Iran wasn't an Islamist nation openly supporting terrorist activities.

Originally posted by evilwasp
You didnt say anything about I said the US was frightened of the USSR and its capability (IE anti comunist propaganda?) why else would the US give a dam,m about SK?

We were!!! The general US public especially after Sputnik was terrified of the Soviet Union. And various political figures in the US took advantage of that fact.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yet its ok to go to war over with?

Come again? We went to war because Usama sposored a terrorist attack against the US that killled thousands. I'm sure you've heard of 9/11. Not because some mid-east journalist said we supported him 20yrs prior.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Climate change?
Umm mabye because isreal has killed more civilians than enemy so far and the fact you use civilian planes and airports as refueling stations for planes carrying bombs.

Oh come on! American tourists get heckled for the US stance of Kyoto. And the transport of weapons was never a problem until someone from europe no less realized they were going to there favorite wiping boy... Israel

Originally posted by devilwasp
Ummm he did speak english and most americans I talked to over there dont know that britain isnt a cluster of islands.

Well honestly it is Florida and the people you were talking too probably weren't interested in a geography lesson. If you were talking to me I would've probably said I didn't even know Britain still existed after King Arthur died and all not to be rude just so I could go back to chasing the babes on South Beach.

Originally posted by devilwasp
So because someone is doing bad we should play policemen and go in and stop the fighting huh?

Okay we're back to were we started. You don't want to play policeman well neither do I so lets leave it at that.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Europe is not and has never claimed to be anything of the sort, if the US want to think of us as that then I'm happy with it. But frankly its none of our buisness what someone hundreds of miles away does is it?

Okar fair enough.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Your saying that europe has not go the conventional air power to do what the USAF done during the wars? I highly doubt THAT.

Maybe they do now. Maybe they did then but from what I've read about the EC-EU involvement in the Balkan wars they wanted to handle it themselves and when they couldn't they needed the US to put troops on the ground and support the operation..

Originally posted by devilwasp
So your ok with americans shooting anything that moves because it MIGHT be an enemy?

Actually no I'm not okay with it. It make us unreliable as support for our allies and to incompetent as peacekeepers.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Could you reprhase that a bit I'm sorry are you saying that lockheed has a replacement or?

No I meant that Lockheed is building the JSF not Boeing.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yet we're at the stage that the US pres wont listen to his "strongest ally's" requests.

I think Bush is listening quite clearly

www.dapss.com...

devilwasp

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link

Originally posted by danwild6
Propoganda in general is used to gather support for politcial actions. In this case to win the US public's support for countinued involvement in europe.

I doubt that was the only reason.

Come again? We went to war because Usama sposored a terrorist attack against the US that killled thousands. I'm sure you've heard of 9/11. Not because some mid-east journalist said we supported him 20yrs prior.

Umm no I meant the current iraq war...
last I heard mr Usama hadnt had any connection with iraq concerning 9/11.

Oh come on! American tourists get heckled for the US stance of Kyoto.

HUh!
Where ??? What sad individuals do that?

And the transport of weapons was never a problem until someone from europe no less realized they were going to there favorite wiping boy... Israel

Or mabye not a problem until the public knew about it...?

Maybe they do now. Maybe they did then but from what I've read about the EC-EU involvement in the Balkan wars they wanted to handle it themselves and when they couldn't they needed the US to put troops on the ground and support the operation..

Well thats you take I'd say diffrently because frankly we had quite a force still after the cold war and more than enough with combined european forces to handle it.

No I meant that Lockheed is building the JSF not Boeing.

Yes sorry my wrong choice of companies.

I think Bush is listening quite clearly

I dont..

To no avail

www.dapss.com...

danwild6

posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link

Originally posted by devilwasp
I doubt that was the only reason.

Okay enlighten me.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Umm no I meant the current iraq war...
last I heard mr Usama hadnt had any connection with iraq concerning 9/11.

As I recall we were debating US support for Bin Laden in Afghanistan during the 80's.

Originally posted by devilwasp
HUh!
Where ??? What sad individuals do that?

Sorry didn't feel like chatting but I did inform them I'd take it up personally with Bushy(we're old drinking buddies)on my return home.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Or mabye not a problem until the public knew about it...?

Oh come on, its not like it was a secret or anything its just when the weapons were going to a jewish democratic allie that it became a problem.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well thats you take I'd say diffrently because frankly we had quite a force still after the cold war and more than enough with combined european forces to handle it.

Perhaps I guess we can agree to disagree on that subject.

And yes Bush and Blair may not get their way in Congress in regards to the F136 just one of those things you have to deal with.

devilwasp

posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link

Originally posted by danwild6
Okay enlighten me.

Possibly a reason to get support for a build up of arms home and abroad, because the americans feared comunism (more like the fall of capatilism) and to portray the many "comunist" countries and people as enemies to allow for political moves.

As I recall we were debating US support for Bin Laden in Afghanistan during the 80's.

As I recall we were debating a larger subject than that but if you want to focus on afghanistan then we shall.

Sorry didn't feel like chatting but I did inform them I'd take it up personally with Bushy(we're old drinking buddies)on my return home.

Idiots, I'm afraid only sad people come up and say : "Whats up with your country and not taking up the koyoto?"
Right choice of action you took.

Oh come on, its not like it was a secret or anything its just when the weapons were going to a jewish democratic allie that it became a problem.

Well I'm afraid most jo blogs down here didnt know it (I live like an hour and a half drive from the place...) and frankly it wasnt exsactly picked up by the media.

danwild6

posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link

Originally posted by devilwasp
Possibly a reason to get support for a build up of arms home and abroad, because the americans feared comunism (more like the fall of capatilism) and to portray the many "comunist" countries and people as enemies to allow for political moves.

Quite plausible

Originally postd by devilwasp
As I recall we were debating a larger subject than that but if you want to focus on afghanistan then we shall.

Not really we'd just be debating around in circles. You have your POV and I have mine I don't think we're going to change that.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Idiots, I'm afraid only sad people come up and say : "Whats up with your country and not taking up the koyoto?"
Right choice of action you took.

Thanks my whole trip was actually rather enjoyable apart from that.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well I'm afraid most jo blogs down here didnt know it (I live like an hour and a half drive from the place...) and frankly it wasnt exsactly picked up by the media.

Oh I know but my point was too people who did know it wasn't a problem until this most recent blow up in the mid-east.