dark light

Arthur

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 6,211 through 6,225 (of 6,424 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Should we interfere in other countries affairs? #1977007
    Arthur
    Participant

    RE: Should we interfere in other countries affairs?

    For me this is something of a dilemma (not for a small part because i have some philosofical doubts about the practical usefulness of the nation state). It makes perfect sense if countries are not allowed to purposely mingle in another country’s business – simply because they don’t have jurisdiction outside their own territory. The other side of the very same medal is that actions of country A should then have no influence whatsoever on people in country B, since that could be an intervention in country B’s affairs.

    Some foreign interventions really worked well. The Vietnamese invasion into Cambodia, and the Tanzanian attack on Uganda (both in the late 1970s) put an end to a lot of human suffering. Yet on the other hand there are plenty of interventions which made matters a whole lot worse.

    I think one of the first requirements for a direct physical intervention (like an invasion) should be that the intervening country has a decent grasp of the situation in the country which is intervened, both in the short and long run. It appears that neighbouring countries generally know more about a certain situation then a country halfway across the world. One can think of more recent cases like Timor (Australian-led) or Albania (Italian). Of course nearby interventions also often enough go astray (Soviets in Afghanistan, Americans in post-Batista Cuba) yet i think those are generally more sucessful and have a higher degree of acceptability then halfway-across-the-world interventions. Countries which like to perform the latter should reconsider the jurisdiction under which they can act like that… perhaps the whole world should go voting somewhere in early November 2004?

    in reply to: General Discussion #403376
    Arthur
    Participant

    RE: Funny pics 2

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 27-10-02 AT 09:49 PM (GMT)]The Russians have upgraded their Lun Ekranoplan a bit, should be capable of short-takeoffs now… (credit to beeldbub Fer here at work!)

    Attachments:
    http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3dbc5f1e65594b04.html
    http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3dbc5f58658074a3.jpg

    in reply to: Funny pics 2 #1977200
    Arthur
    Participant

    RE: Funny pics 2

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 27-10-02 AT 09:49 PM (GMT)]The Russians have upgraded their Lun Ekranoplan a bit, should be capable of short-takeoffs now… (credit to beeldbub Fer here at work!)

    Attachments:
    http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3dbc5f1e65594b04.html
    http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3dbc5f58658074a3.jpg

    in reply to: XV474 #2102472
    Arthur
    Participant

    RE: XV474

    Sad thing about the AAM U-2: when it was still at Alconbury, it was still a U-2CT dual with a second cockpit added behind the normal one (a bit like the Tu-22U). For display purposes, it was thought better to make it look like a ´real´ U-2 in stead of a much rarer U-2CT trainer.

    This is what it looked like in it´s more exotic days…

    http://www.blackbirds.net/u2/u2_photo_gallery/u2_pics/56-6692-b.jpg
    Photo through Blackbirds.net

    in reply to: General Discussion #404772
    Arthur
    Participant

    RE: The Washington Sniper

    Would be an ideal scenario for Al Qaida´s next move… have some 40 snipers in various large cities plinking away pedestrians…

    in reply to: The Washington Sniper #1977909
    Arthur
    Participant

    RE: The Washington Sniper

    Would be an ideal scenario for Al Qaida´s next move… have some 40 snipers in various large cities plinking away pedestrians…

    in reply to: XV474 #2102520
    Arthur
    Participant

    RE: XV474

    The CFE treaty simply limits the number of conventional weapons a country can have, split into an enormous array of categories. One of which is of course ´combat aircraft.´ Somewhere around 1990 the regulations got into service, and since most (if not all) countries which had signed had more aircraft available than allowed by CFE standards, aircraft had to be scrapped. The sickening thing is that even withdrawn aircraft fell under CFE ´jurisdiction´ so it was pretty convenient for most airforces to scrap only those aircraft which were withdrawn, or were going to be withdrawn.

    As the RAF was already in the process of retiring it´s Phantom fleet that aircraft (together with the Buccaneer) bore the brunt of RAF´s race to comply with the treaty. The same happened in Italy with their G91s, and in the former Soviet Union with almost everything nice (Yak-28, Su-15… 🙁 )

    WARNING! SHOCKING CONTENT BELOW!

    Typical for CFE-scrapped aircraft is that they are chopped up into three pieces (forward, central and rear fuselage with often the wings chopped of as well) and then left for a while. This to ease inspection, either by sattelite or inspection teams (the latter also check operational aircraft. Those guys really are planespotters by profession). Only after some three months are the remains allowed to go to the smelter – although Italy has shown the courtesy to weld a bunch of Ginas back together again for display purposes (of course the separate parts often were part of different aircraft 😛 ). IIRC something similar was tried with an RAF Phantom as well, but those were chopped up in such locations that making a complete bird was structurally almost impossible.

    Oh, and when RAF Wildenrath was cleared a bunch of Phantoms was simply blown up (more horror: the few Lightings remaining there as decoy or for BDRT were horridly overrun by shovels).

    in reply to: XV474 #2102679
    Arthur
    Participant

    RE: XV474

    I could well be wrong,but I’m lead to believe that all UK
    Phantoms are affected by the SALT II treaty.The treaty
    states that all US built/funded aircraft in the UK and other
    countries have to be scrapped/permenantly decommissioned at
    the end of thier service lives.

    You’re mixing up a few treaties here. SALT II is the second Strategic Arms Limitations Talk-document, and this deals only with long-range bombers and strategic missiles. It has nothing to do with fighters.

    The treaty which states that all US-funded aircraft need to be rendered unflyable after service is part of the Mutual Defense Assistance Program, in which the US paid for military equipment for NATO countries, mostly during the 1950s. Aircraft delivered under those conditions were either to return to the US after service, or scrapped. The British Sabres were part of this deal for example, but also the French Mysteres which served as decoys and BDRT hulks at USAFE bases like Bentwaters/Woodbridge, Upper Heyford and Bitburg.

    The RAF Phantoms however were scrapped under the CFE treaty, which deals with bringing down the conventional weapons in the joined countries.

    in reply to: General Discussion #405533
    Arthur
    Participant

    RE: PLEASE STOP THE MARQUEE TAG!!!

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 21-10-02 AT 08:35 AM (GMT)]Thanks Kabir, (and others of course).

    in reply to: PLEASE STOP THE MARQUEE TAG!!! #1978277
    Arthur
    Participant

    RE: PLEASE STOP THE MARQUEE TAG!!!

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 21-10-02 AT 08:35 AM (GMT)]Thanks Kabir, (and others of course).

    in reply to: General Discussion #406036
    Arthur
    Participant

    RE: PLEASE STOP THE MARQUEE TAG!!!

    It will sure keep me out of the Airliner forum, if that´s what your goal is.

    in reply to: PLEASE STOP THE MARQUEE TAG!!! #1978540
    Arthur
    Participant

    RE: PLEASE STOP THE MARQUEE TAG!!!

    It will sure keep me out of the Airliner forum, if that´s what your goal is.

    in reply to: General Discussion #406070
    Arthur
    Participant

    RE: PLEASE STOP THE MARQUEE TAG!!!

    A moving avatar, like a waving flag, doesn´t ´draw` your eyes away from reading the text as a marquee´d banner does (remember that a marquee-tagged item moves in the opposite direction from reading!). Also, avatars are limited in size so they are inherently less visible than wallpaper-sized animated GIFs.

    Luke, if you really want to be annoying you should make random spots of a very pale yellow in your postings. Makes your stuff definately unreadable 😀 Seriously, i can understand you like to show off your expertise in building animated GIFS with 3000 layers, but i personally think those have a better place to be shown than here.

    in reply to: PLEASE STOP THE MARQUEE TAG!!! #1978567
    Arthur
    Participant

    RE: PLEASE STOP THE MARQUEE TAG!!!

    A moving avatar, like a waving flag, doesn´t ´draw` your eyes away from reading the text as a marquee´d banner does (remember that a marquee-tagged item moves in the opposite direction from reading!). Also, avatars are limited in size so they are inherently less visible than wallpaper-sized animated GIFs.

    Luke, if you really want to be annoying you should make random spots of a very pale yellow in your postings. Makes your stuff definately unreadable 😀 Seriously, i can understand you like to show off your expertise in building animated GIFS with 3000 layers, but i personally think those have a better place to be shown than here.

    in reply to: General Discussion #406161
    Arthur
    Participant

    RE: PLEASE STOP THE MARQUEE TAG!!!

    T5,

    My kind of humour in that reply, very nice. That animated GIF btw… grrrrr

Viewing 15 posts - 6,211 through 6,225 (of 6,424 total)