m.ileduetsOriginally posted by Srbin
With his type of thinking we will just become puppets of enemies.
It’s telling that you still think of the Western world as an “enemy”.
Face it: If S&M doesn’t want to become a country like Albania used to be – namely isolated, poor, and paranoid – they’d better open up to Europe and the West and stop thinking of them as enemies.
m.ileduetsThe Russians are no doubt the second best on Earth when it comes to space, but to trivialize the task through nationalistic hot air is “probably” the stupidest thing to come from a leader…
Well said. I completely agree.
What Bush does is not much better though: The USA might be the best space explorers, but to launch such a costly program just to regain some questionable popular support for his re-election is just plain stupid, too.
He won’t have to pay the bill, as others have pointed out. And there would be more pressing things to be done on our mother planet. How about saving some endangered species here by investing a little more in environmental protection instead of looking for some unlikely new ones in space?
m.ileduetsThanks for this post, GrM. With a few people thinking like you there’s still hope that this self- destructive nationalism will come to an end in S&M eventually, even though you might still be part of a minority, considering the last election.
I know this also asks for “westerners” like me to reconsider our attitude towards S&M and maybe to get rid of some of our stereotypes. Yet this is sometimes hard if these stereotypes get reinforced time and again by for example some posts above. It will probably take a lot of time for mutual trust to be re-established, but we will get there, eventually.
And there’s not just either- or: S&M can re-establish good ties with the EU/ Europe without losing Russia as a partner. Russia is in the same process of slowly becoming part of Europe again, too.
m.ileduetsWell, Phantom,
again I agree partially. People should probably treat the subject a little lighter, as you correctly pointed out. It’s just a discussion. The title of the thread is probably a little misleading, but we can still treat the subject light There’s no need getting so upset, this concerns you, too.
People didn’t always put words in your mouth. It was for example you who stated:
And flex…….you again…….did you even stop to think that perhaps Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, etc. are some of the primary reasons all of Europe isn’t speaking German at this point.
This is ridiculously absurd. So stop whining when we make a little fun of your educational background concerning WWII.
And stop claiming:
For example…..at what point did I say that the use of atomic weapons is the reason Germany lost the war? I’m sure that the idea of Americans learning that in school is something you people get kicks at , but it’s certainly not the case.
or you make a fool of yourself even more. It was probably some minor memory slip, but you could admit it.
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by Arthur
The RAF did take part in the raids on Kassel and Dresden, so i think we owe them just as much as the USAAF that nobody is speaking German there anymore :rolleyes:
You might be disappointed to hear that, but people are still speaking German in Dresden and Kassel, despite the heavy bombing by RAF and USAAF 😉
In earnest: It was not the bombing of European inner cities that decided the war. It might have shortened (but also intensified) it. I wonder where people keep finding these theories…
The war was decided on the Russian front in 1941 when the Red Army managed to turn the tide in Stalingrad and at the gates of Moscow and Leningrad, and the USA entering the war.
England, Russia and the USA combined just had too much economic- and manpower for the axis to overcome. Germany collapsed mainly because it lacked economic ressources (oil, metals, rubber, manpower…).
The role of the Sovjet Union shouldn’t be belittled (for example by contributing a decisive role to the bombing efforts of the USA and Great Britain) : After all they suffered the biggest losses and contributed the most to the defeat of the Germans by far.
In Japan the bombing didn’t win the war either. The USA turned the tide long before. It was the final blow however and it probably saved quite a few lives of GI’s (at a high price of civilian casualties).
But the world wouldn’t speak Japanese either if they wouldn’t have done it.
m.ileduetsIf the Swiss AF could get their hands on new F/A-18C/Ds I’m sure they would consider limiting themelves to one airframe.
Yet they are not produced anymore.
Yet even if they would consider, it would be likely that the government bought a second airframe anyway: We don’t want to rely on one supplier for spares and upgrades. There has always been more than one airframe in Switzerland so far. In the case of the F/A-18 we’ve experienced a shortage of spares keeping the planes in the bunkers. Luckily there were still F-5Es around to fill in the gap in air policing.
For political considerations it’s highly likely that a European product will be chosen, and it’s likely to be a sort of hi/lo mix with F/A-18’s and Gripens described above, as money is an issue even here.
m.ileduetsdid you even stop to think that perhaps Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, etc. are some of the primary reasons all of Europe isn’t speaking German at this point.
Well, this can hardly be true speaking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At that time Germany was defeated for a while already 😉
You’re partially right. What you’re asking for is to rephrase the title. You’re probably looking for sth. like “What bad taste and wrong concepts have done to aircrafts”.
But the thread asks for worst crimes done to aircrafts. I think -even though the crime committed against the aircraft is more of a side effect- one can still argue that intentionally crashing them into skyscrapers is far worse for the plane than for example painting them in a dull gray.
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by Billy Bishop
I disagree with milduets, the serbian arms industry is fighting for its very survival, and this means they have to sell to absolutely anyone they can. Only when they gain a more secure footing, will they be able to be picky about who they sell to.In case anyone is interested, here are the military budgets of the top 50 countries for the latest year:
Don’t you think this is very problematic? What client comes after Burma – Bin Ladin?
Is an increase in arms production really that important? If you want to go to war again- then yes. There’s no countries around Serbia & Montenegro that pose a serious threat to their security currently. There are plenty of countries of similar size without or with just a small arms industry. Why not produce agricultural equipment? Chemicals? Concentrate on tourism? Belgrade is a beautiful city. Sad as it is, S&M have a little image problem in Europe, and I don’t think selling arms to dictatorships like the one in Burma (which sadly has a very bad human rights record) will improve it. It’s probably this image problem that hurts them the most economically at the moment, so they better try to get rid of it.
m.ileduets[QUOTE]Originally posted by kev35
[B]Wrong. They are committed by people against people. The aircraft is just the tool.
Right. I give you that. It should have been “people using tools like aircrafts against people.”
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by SerbPVO
In the context of this “Modern Military/Aviation” forum, what exactly do you mean?That, instead of focusing on our own arms industry, we should be buying European & American weapons?
And what is all this about “civilized” world…I don’t get what you meant to say.
Well, howitzer exports to Burma don’t have anything to do with modern military aviation, so there’s no context to the forum in your postings to start with.
By stating that rebuilding the defense by selling arms to anybody willing to buy them -no matter how their human rights record looks like- should be first priority, I assume that you have your priorities pretty messed up. This just doesn’t fit into a civilized world.
But it’s probably asked too much for you to understand this under given circumstances.
m.ileduetsThis sounds a little sad.
Your country has been to war for a decade, tremendously bleeding economically (among other), and your first priority is rebuilding your defence industry and exporting “B-52s” to countries like Burma?
It might be true that you have a good know-how now when it comes to arms and that there’s countries and organizations craving for them wherever they can get them from, yet do you think this will help you become part of the civilized world again? Don’t you think you should reconsider your priorities?
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by milavia
kamikaze! intentionally crashing your aircraft!
Even worse, 9-11: intentionally crashing somebody else’s aircraft into civilian target
m.ileduetsThe Lasta is a little long overdue (First prototype 1985!!) and it isn’t quite a PC-21, but it doesn’t look too bad. The way Belgrade kept and keeps isolating itself, they probably need it.
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by flex297
Hmm, from this point of view I can remember having more pics of armed PC-7s, not just Iraqi ones…Flex
That’s right, they were not the only ones. The Iraq transformation wiht gas dispensers is just the most horrible one. In Central America they were armed as well. Pilatus made it easy originally by offering them with hard points. Nevertheless they were exported to very questionable governments, declaring them “for non- military use”. Dirty business, as usual. It was stopped by Swiss legislature eventually, but far too late.
m.ileduetsUnlike in the cases you described the PC-7 had to be altered. It was built as a training aircraft and turned into an instrument to kill civilians. The B-17s, B-24s, B-29s, Heinkels, Ju-87s etc. were bombers from the start.
But true: The worst crimes are generally not committed against aircrafts, but by aircrafts against people.
Sign In
