CLEAR WARThe EU has already stated that it won’t demand an independant Kosovo :rolleyes:
Oh yeah, just like the last two times, right? In 1995, when we mowed through any FRY fighter that took off, and 1999, when we completely owned the skies, for example?
1. 95 scott ogrady was captured, but U.S. paid a lot of $ for Serbs not to say anything and make it look like he was in the Forest for all that time, but thats hear say, we believe, he sure didn’t look like he was in the forest eating bugs for all those days. 😀 2. Serbs will do NATO/EU in just like they did the NAZI’s. 2. EU know whats good for thier so called soilders thats why they changed thier mind about Kosavo.
CLEAR WAROh, you mean Carlo Kopp’s incessant rantings about how China is going to conquer southeast Asia and try and move into Australia? Yeah, that certainly qualifies as a valid export order :rolleyes:
You do know that he’s not in the government, right? Do you?
2. you’ve got the F-22 and the F-35 confused.
1. Who’s Carlo Kopp? 2. I read that in other places that Austrailia wants F-22.
CLEAR WARGet over yourself. Serbs vs. Nazis is on a totally different level, technologically and tactically, than Serbs vs. NATO. Pull your head out of your bias.
So? They were killing each other before NATO even got involved. It was okay for Serbs to kill civillians, so it must have been okay for NATO to do the same, right? Anything that happened, they ultimately brought it upon themselves.
Serbs never did that, ahven’t you read all the documents that till this day U.S. doesn’t show on it’s CNN that the so called Sarajvo Bombing was not done by Serbs, do you see a pattern of U.S. saying ATROCITIES ATROCITIES everywere we need to get involved, these are lies so that the Americans who don’t even kniow thier Constitution will think it’s LAWFULLY o.k. for U.S. to go to war in Europe, because we are helping the guys being killed, but in reality U.S. goes to war for OIL/ GOLD Dimonds, descised as “Stopping Atrocities”
CLEAR WARRemember this?
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=197133&postcount=1
Well, here’s part two in what I am now going to post as a continuing series. So, here goes:
Don’t read this.
You won’t like it.
If you do read this, know that you drove me to do this 😀
There are two schools of thought in the world right now. No, these are not the ONLY 2 schools of thought. These two schools of thought pertain to a specific issue, so don’t be expecting any help with the meaning of life or anything like that. Monty Python sorted that out already anyway. The issue in question, by the way, will not be named as to not offend the party that got militarily embarrassed. Who will also not be named.
-School of thought one: Country A beat the ever-living crap out of Country B and consequently won the air war.
-School of thought two: Country B beat the ever-living crap out of Country A but managed to be composed, militarily, of complete and total idiots and lost the air war anyway.
Now, the question is, which school of thought is graduating, per se, intelligent individuals? Logic would make us turn towards S1 (that’s “school of thought one” for the abbvreviation impaired. Make sure your brains don’t blow up trying to comprehend S2 when it appears in a minute). After all, Country B can’t be composed of total failures so blatantly incompetent that they could use their “superior” (we’ll get to that, trust me) hardware to blast Country A into submission yet still manage to end up as losers, right? At this time it needs to be noted that yes, Country B is a bunch of losers, regardless of S1 or S2 (did your brain just blow up?). Not losers personally, of course, but militarily.
Anyway.
If logic turns us towards S1, what could turn us towards S2? A number of factors. Internet idiots who propagate obvious propaganda. Misinformed or biased media sources and outlets (yes, biased media sources do exist). Nationalistic idiots from Country B, suffering from something akin to penile deficiency during the glorious and monumental beatdown handed upon them by Country A, trying to make it look like they were operating with something regarding competence on some subliminal level. Not to mention a total and complete lack of evidence to substantiate the completely hilarious and outlandish claims made by Country B. But around here, evidence is secondary to nationalistic opinion, we’ve proven that in Part 1 of this series already. Let’s get back to the “complete and total idiots” facet of the argument. Country B sees a target on a screen. They fire a missile at said target. Two dots on the screen, on for the missile and one for the target, intersect. That must be a kill! Get real. Something died, sure, but was it:
A. A combat aircraft
B. An air-launched decoy like the ADM-141
C. A towed decoy like the thing that comes out of them retarded looking things on the back end of the B-1B
D. A cruise missile
E. A UAV
F. A chaff cloud
G. A bunch of oxygen moleculesHow do you determine what just died? That’s easy. You go out and look. You find parts. You put said parts on TV to demonstrate your apparent superiority over a sixty-second period of that given day.
Or, going back to the penile deficiency facet of the argument, you can just assume everything hit a combat aircraft, and just claim that you’re racking up great kill rates. After all, it’s easier that way. You can even claim you’re blowing up really big airplanes too! They’ve gotta be easier to hit right? What are the benefits of just making things up? You don’t have to get your boots dirty looking for blowed up airplane parts that may or may not be there. You can satisfy your bosses by feeding them good numbers so they leave you in charge for another week (they probably wouldn’t have noticed anyway; they were engaged in fierce theological and ethnical debates at the time and probably wouldn’t have cared if you hit anything, as long as every once in a while one of your blowed up SAMs landed in the middle of a debated area). And you can make it look like you actually do have some ability to defend yourself in the air. Logically, making things up seems ot be the best bet, given the massively underwhelming number of blowed up airplane parts that were shown on TV and whatnot.
So, we’re left with one of two realistic options. Either S1 is correct, and S2 is a bunch of fools, or S2 is correct, but it’s because S2 is a bunch of fools. That makes sense, but you have to read it sideways.
So, once again, who cares. Who cares if S1 is right. Who cares if S2 is right. There is one constant factor behind both schools of thought: Country C can make SAM systems that are first-rate. But their aircraft are cannon fodder for Country A. Constantly. Country A gets itself into all kinds of wars. Country A blows up all kinds of airplanes. Funny little factoid of the day: most, if not all of them, were built by Country C! Now what does that tell you? You can draw one of two logical conclusions. Either the products from Country C that Country A has faced in combat are pretty much ineffective when compared to what Country A brings to the fight, or the export users of Country C’s hardware are incompetent when compared to Country A. One of them has to be correct. And if you believe the latter, then by default you must therefore acknowledge the logic behind school of thought one.
Remember, I told you not to read this. So if you feel irritated or offended, guess what, you brought it upon yourself. Maybe you need to relearn reading comprehension 😀
TRUST me very soon you’ll see Russian in ww3 when NATO trys to make KOSAVO independant, Serb troops will move in and after NATO troops are defeated NATO will use mass bombs to destroy Sebian Troops and that when Rus destroys NATO, SO LET WAIT AND SEE IS NATO is telling the truth about Russia wont do a thing because its not as good as us, Serbs wont fight us making KOSAVO independant because we defeated it and they (Serbia) know not to do a thing again, let’s wait and see, BTW remember after the Kosavo war Russia made a Military pact with Serbia. 😀 😀 😀
CLEAR WAR[QUOTE=SOC]Nice try. The F-22 hasn’t yet been officially cleared for export, so nobody can be ordering them. They can want, but as of yet they can’t order.
Austrailia has been wanting them for about 4 years now, what ARE YOU talking about? 😎
QUOTE]
CLEAR WARWhat a load of BS. What does that have to do with getting embarrased by the modern US military? Nothing.
are you saying it never happend?, it shows Serbs are capable of defeating NATO, NATO was bombing civilian sites and causeing Ecological damage thats why Milosivic pulled out of KOSAVO, n=and NATO dropped thier RAMBUET Demand.
CLEAR WARComing from you, that’s hilarious.
Remind me how many MiG-29s, SMT standard and higher, have been sold again? I count a handful to Yemen, and maybe a few to Algeria. For such a high-tech and world-class machine, being comparitively inexpensive on the fighter market, it’s been a complete failure on the export market. Now why is that?
aRE YOU MEANING BECAUSE IT HASN’T BEEN SOLD TO MANY NATIONS IT CAN’T BE THAT GOOD, BCAUSE IF THAT WHAT YOU MEAN THE f-22 HASN’T BEEN SOLD TO MANY NATION TOO AND SOME HAVE BEEN ORDERING THEM SCINCE THE 90’s, so I guess F022 is not Good right? 😀
CLEAR WARKeep trying. Like Berlusconi says, let’s see you provide the evidence you say is necessary to substantiate a combat kill.
Wait…hold on…
That’s right, you won’t find any.
Venik and all the rest of the anti-Western/NATO propagandists can keep dreaming of a B-2 shootdown and multiple F-117 obliterations, but that’s all they’ll ever be: dreams, the creative meanderings of very uninspired and obviously undereducated individuals. You’d do well to not cast your lot in with those idiots, Flogger.
Regardless, the problem is that people want to believe that the big bad US of A got beat on by a sub-junior varsity military arm. That simply did not happen. Let’s see somebody actually come up with any single piece of evidence of, say, a B-2 combat loss. Or a second or third F-117A combat loss (an actual loss). Go for it.
History has proven the Serbs can and did defeat bigger better Armies, Serbs resqued 500 U.S. Airmen over Serbia 60,000 Serbs pushed the NAZi’s out of Serbia, so there is proof Serbs can beat U.S.A.
CLEAR WAR[QUOTE=Schorsch]In Vietnam the Americans didn’t lose, not in the air war over Vietnam. They did not manage to gain the level of superiority as desired, but at no stage of the campaign were the North Vietnamese able to keep the Americans out of the air space or to inflict unsustainable losses.
WHAT DID YOU SAY the U.S. didn’t have considerable losses? : 3200+ planes is’nt a lot? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War
QUOTE]
CLEAR WARThis proves that US uses its fighters according to the manual. The users of MiGs were seldom able of doing so, normally applying wrong tactics (Soviet manuals) with usual lack of pilot skill, CCC or just some kind of usable doctrine. It is not the figher, it is the system that proved to be useless.
Nope, won’t be better than F-16C, except that F-16C is flying (and produced) since early 80s. For a western air force a MiG-29 is as expensive as an F-16, normally even more expensive. Get an update of your numbers! MiG-29 sold to third world countries, excluding training, spares and always assuming no cost for manpower.
A MiG-29SMT is a reasonable aircraft but has no noticeable advantage over an F-16C. It is heavier, needs more fuel, has inferior range. It’s Russian and not American, maybe that is the biggest advantage
What drugs are you on?? The SMT is more advanced than a F-16 BLOCK 60, the MiG-29 M2 is even more advanced than the SMT, in AVIONCS/ RADAR, and Electronical Jamming Devices, you don’t hear/Read about these knew MiG’s that have been built scince the mid 90’s becauce you can’t read Russian, it been posted THOUSANDS of times on Russian sites. BTW it’s common knowledge that non- Russian MiGs and NON-U.S. F-16’s don’t have the same RADARS Tactics as RussianMiG’s and U.S. F-16’s so the Iraqi/ Serbian MiGs actions are not counted as proving U.S. F-16’s are better.
CLEAR WAR1) Because those planes weren’t fighting Serbian planes. They were bombing.
2) Iraq in 1991 had ten times as many aircraft as Serbia in 1999, and its air force & ground based air defences had not suffered several years of being run down due to sanctions & shortage of money. It was a far more formidable opponent.
3) NATO did not lose one UAV. The USA, France, Germany & the UK each lost several. Most of the planes claimed shot down by the Serbs were UAVs. Mostly fairly small, relatively (compared to manned aircraft) cheap ones, such as Phoenix & CL-289.
WRONG Again, if you know anything about Military planning and strategy, you’ll understand for NATO to use 160 planes against a nation with 79 planes and then increace the number between 200-300 planes, doesn’t look suspicious, but to increace by 840 planes, clearly shows that they (NATO) were lossing Hundreds of planes. Here some more reports you can “CROSS REFERANCE” : April 30 An F-117A of the 49th FW was damaged during strike mission by a nearby explosion of an SA-3 SAM, “…causing loss of part of the tail section, but the aircraft was able to return safely to Spangdahlem air base, Germany.” (source: Air Force Monthly, July 1999, p. 75)
This a aeronautics.ru has a link to an American report which you’l find interesting, I can give you dozens of Russian reports of multiple NATO planes shot down, but you Americans always use the excuse, “Thats a Russian report it’s bias, we wont believe it” http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/americanspectator002.htm heres an Agency France report: http://www.aeronautics.ru/natodownafp01.htm
CLEAR WAR1) Because those planes weren’t fighting Serbian planes. They were bombing.
2) Iraq in 1991 had ten times as many aircraft as Serbia in 1999, and its air force & ground based air defences had not suffered several years of being run down due to sanctions & shortage of money. It was a far more formidable opponent.
3) NATO did not lose one UAV. The USA, France, Germany & the UK each lost several. Most of the planes claimed shot down by the Serbs were UAVs. Mostly fairly small, relatively (compared to manned aircraft) cheap ones, such as Phoenix & CL-289.
WRONG Again, if you know anything about Military planning and strategy, you’ll understand for NATO to use 160 planes against a nation with 79 planes and then increace the number between 200-300 planes, doesn’t look suspicious, but to increace by 840 planes, clearly shows that they (NATO) were lossing Hundreds of planes. Here some more reports you can “CROSS REFERANCE” : April 30 An F-117A of the 49th FW was damaged during strike mission by a nearby explosion of an SA-3 SAM, “…causing loss of part of the tail section, but the aircraft was able to return safely to Spangdahlem air base, Germany.” (source: Air Force Monthly, July 1999, p. 75)
This a aeronautics.ru has a link to an American report which you’l find interesting, I can give you dozens of Russian reports of multiple NATO planes shot down, but you Americans always use the excuse, “Thats a Russian report it’s bias, we wont believe it” http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/americanspectator002.htm heres an Agency France report: http://www.aeronautics.ru/natodownafp01.htm
CLEAR WARaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
CLEAR WARYou mean the one that caused the Tunguska blast? The aliens came to take it back in ’47 but their ship crashed. :rolleyes:
tHE TRADITIONAL teaching is that a meteorite caused the blast, but thats not true because there would have been MASSIVE fireS, scince it was a forest that got hit, so the story that it was Tesla’s weapon, is more believable, than some Meteor. :rolleyes:
CLEAR WARThere is much evidence that no one went to the moon, 1. There’s no atmousphere on the moon, people would move around MUCH FASTER there then on earth, because of the lack of resistance, 2. Armstromg, jumped down from the ladder when he got off the modual, he said it was 3 feet till the moon ground, well on the moon he would weigh around 60 pounds but on earth he would have weighed 360 pounds, now do an experement, drop something from 3 feet that weighs 60 pounds and count how many seconds it takes to hit the ground, now on the moon you weigh 6x less then on earth, so it would take around 1 second for something at 60 pounds to hit the ground from 3 feet in the air on earth, well then on the moon it would take 6 seconds, but if you look at armstong he takes around 1.5 seconds to land on the moon, so thats more proof they weren’t on the moon, BTW scince the are supposedly on the moon they should have moved faster, but if one looks on ALL the footages from Appollo 11-17 they are always moving in a slow motion time of way, anyone with half a brain can take these images to any TV station to have them checked and you’ll see that ALL available footages from NASA from Appollo 11 to Appollo 17 have been slowed down in a slow motion way, to make it look like there moving slowly in space, when in fact you move slowly in water because of the MASSIVE resistance of the water, in space there is NO resistance. 3. Space is a Vaccum there is no hot or cold, only the suns rays that hit an object will get hot, now the reason the earth doesn’t heat up to 1000 degrees is because of the atmousphere that blocks out most of the sun’s rays, but in deep space way outside the VAN ALLEN BELT, you’d absorb the full blastt of the sun’s rays, now if you listen carefully you can hear/ read NASA’s slip ups in there speaches about the moon missions,they said that the Moduals have insolation to keep them warm from the cold of space, a cold that doesn’t exist, 4. Go to Hustan and look at the Module there’s no way those astroNUTS could have changed out of thier space suits in there, there’s no room, go look at it, you’ll be shocked, 5. Titainium/Tephlon space suits would still not have insolated them from the suns rays on the moon they would have been cooked on there. 6. The falg is a normaol nylon/cotton flag, it would desintagrate out side of the atmosphere of earth, there’s no way they could be on the moon, 7. ALL airforces test thier planes hundres of times before they certifiy a certin plane for exeptance into the airforce, NASA would have to have tested a REmote controlled Lunar module back and forth from the Moon Litteraly “THOUSANDS” of time before actually putting real humans on it and sending them to the moon, Nasa has NEVER did this, according to NASA they tested the modual 1 time sending it by it’s self to the moon and bringing it back, 1 time only, then all of a sudden NASA is ready to put hmans in one and send them.
Sign In
