My dear teenage buddy, did you forget that you were originally responding to one who said that Su-30 pilots were getting 300 hrs? Su-30 pilots do not represent all.

kiddo, your a funny guy

I originally responded this this comment.
“180 hours is for mig-21 kiddos. The Su-30 and mirages are on the 240-300 hour schedule.”

Su-30 in particluar?. nope not in particular. Didn’t even outline if i believed the figure or not.

Then i responded to this
“The Indian fighter pilots said they’ve been getting as many as 300 flying hours per year and that the majority of those hours was spent in full-up combat training.”

Which states indian fighters, I didn’t even meniton the Su-30 that time ethier. I just did not believe indian fighter pilots were getting 300hours hours each, Cope india also includes Mig-21 pilots which you have contridicted yourself by saying 240 hours for a average pilot

Harrison, You have some explaining to do :diablo:

This is for Chinawhite, 😀 :diablo:

yeah yeah yeah… With inidas defence budget being that size, How does it train Allpilots to fly 300 hours. This is most likey the core units not the average training time

And thanks for linking to article that basicly states We Need More Raptors

if you meant 1962. well even indian sources clearly state that the ‘invasion’ was far from the ‘unprovocked sneak attack’ many indians like to pretend it is. go read some of the articles regarding the war in rediff.com for examples. it you want to talk about that war more, you can go start another threat on it and PM me. other then that, nothing more need be said about it in this thread.

Plawolf.

If they start one PM me about it. You game indians? 🙂

PLAAF pilots are trained to Indian standards is a ridiculous statement. So how many’s Su’s have they crashed yet? If like Mirage-3 says 100 hours is the average norm then yes no Indian is ever going to worry about chinese AF.

Accodring to FAS,

India
Flying Hours: 180+

China
Flight Hours: H-6 80; J-7 and J-8 130; Su-27/Su-30 180

This looks like a good forum to do this topic.

Indian chinese border

The whole indian claim rest on the McMahon Line. A line drawn up by the british themselves during their colonial time in india. This was suppose to have been signed at the Simla Conference.

The only reason the chinese attended the Simla Conference was because it was acknowledged that it had sovernity over tibet during the conference. The british presented china with a treaty to sign (McMahon Line included) and they refused. Later they secretly they forced the tibetians to sign in exchange for their independece.

This breached the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906, in which Britain was to “engage not to annex Tibetan territory,” but also of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. which made a treaty that acknowledged chinese soverity over tibet

Their is no legallity with only tibetian representives signing without the chinese signing since they (the chinese) had sovernity over tibetian affairs. You might later say the chinese manchu empire was gone and tibet was soverign but it is not true according to the secession of states theory. Why did the british again approch chian in 1919 to have another tripartite conference again?

Why did the british want to have a large boundary of land which was useless to them? Because of their greedy intentions to have a buffer at the chinese and tibetians expense. They tried to do the same in afganistan but the russians were there

No one during this time acknowledged tibet as a soverign country and NO country gave tibet diplomatic recognition. Only after the 1959 rebellion (with the help of india and the CIA) did the tibetians start telling the world that they were independent.

If they were so independent why did tibetian representatives go in 1947 to watch the drafting of a new constitution for the ROC?. If they weren’t part of china why would they need to be there. Again they signed a treaty with china in 1951 which they had full knowledge of what they were signing why did they sign? Or why did the tibetians accept the gold jiang jieshi gave the dalai lama for being chosen to be the next dalai lama which all chinese empires had to do to, which the tibetians accept to acknowledge that they were under chinese rule. the cermony is called “sitting on the bed”. That is a rough translatio of what it means

Now most if not all of you guys dont know what system the tibetians had before the chinese occupation. It was based on land owners and serfs which are slaves to the lamas. This system was roughly similar to pre-communist russia(Tsar) and againest every priciple agaienst communism. When the chinese tried land reform in the country the lamas rebelled againest chinese rule.

Why is western media saying that is was a general rebelion againest chinese rule? why would the slaves rebell againest a system which set them free. Claims that tibet was a peacful country. Not every was a monk. Who was making the food

Now with that written what is the basis of the indian claim which is legal?

The people on the other side of the border are mongolia type people. that means looks chinese/tibetian and have been tradtional tibetian areas. Find any map before the drawing of the McMahon line and you will see that none of the areas india claims have been originally indian

Why do the indians think that the McMahon line is the boundary? Because they think that what the british said they were entitled to. The PRC doesn’t reconize the Mahon line the ROC doesn’t reconize the McMahon line only the indians do.

When chian started to build a major road through askin chin it took the indians two years to realize what happened. This incident only shows how much the indians cared about the region

Hamburger,

Is that hungrey jacks/burger king?.

Thats what burger king look like in oz. We got the meat pattie. raw onions, mayo, cheese but no lettuce? whats with the spinkle bum?

To Chinawhite, You still didnt get it. Austrailian current sosiety and culture was born from immigrants

You dont get it

I never said aboriginals but i said immigrants also. Not all of the european immigrants. Now anyone in australia tell me something cultrally similar between australia and europe. You enter a country your that nationality. You are still ethnic whatever but you are now australian. You have never lived nor been here i dont think you know what it is to be or live in australia while you assume that australian culture is linked to european culture

well my apoligeses as i know the answer to this guestion and I try to dig the answer from you guys also.

Are we going to debate or chit chat. Get to your point or you have already lost this. There is no smoking gun in a debate you present you point and we debate the issue.

What is your answer. Spunik already gave us a good article and i think it outlines it perfectly. Consider me out if you dont get to the point since i already posted my issue while you dont answer but divert the question.

Well never Have I heard that When i told someone that im Communist that Im lying.

Because you voted for the Finnish Green/enveriomantal party candinate. Whatever. Doesn’t sound like a communist to me.

“Political power comes from gunbarrel” What it is more than simpledons way of summing up the revolutions political impacts orginally composed by Lenin himself, thougth saying it so simple gives an exucuse for anarchy that proved its power in idiotic campaings as cultural revolution. make up an another thread or PM but lets not ruin this topic any more, shall we?

And is this the communist which claimed that communist thought was from the russians?. now he knows everything about Maosim

Nope. here is fine with me. Since you brought up the cultral revolution who did Maos eariler work affect the cultral revolution?. The whole point on the cultral revolution was trying to reach the final stage communism. All classes were equal and that BS.

Leninism is different from maosim. Wheres Leninism is about social upheaval in the worker society it still leads to the urban proletariat. Wheres Mao is dircting aimed at the peasants, and much later in his writing you will find it more edvident. In lenins book or any of his theories is armed resistance meant to be used but a general strike and then throw back of the Bourgeoisie through economic means not military means. Maosim has a different structure as to how the revolution and differnt way revolution is implemented. It was a never ending cycle of change and re-change. Constant revolution vs change than implement

Peoples war are all complety differnt from Marxism-Leninism

adcsputnik, Inferioty complex?.

Oh please, Im not compensating for anything, Maybe its the one that replied to me that feels insecure by a confindent asian?

The most basic being our system of law and governance; the rules of law, seperation of powers, responsible government, representative government, common law, etc which are strong western concepts.

Yes yes yes, What country of the commonwealth doesn’t, South africa a western country, india a western country, malaysia a western country?. We are discussing the cultral difference not the system of power. that does not have a big effect on the culture

Now what is culturally european in australia?.

http://people.brandeis.edu/~cerbil/RoadtoRiches.html
Gives a pretty good summary and suggestion as to the reasons for Western success.

Damn good link . While that explains it for me

“The question is ferociously debated by economic historians: there is no consensus on the factor that played the single most important role. But there is pretty wide agreement that three broad and overlapping things, between them, made the difference: values, politics and economic institutions.The bases of progressEconomic growth is a process of economic change. So an appetite for change, or at least a willingness to live with it, is essential if a society is to get richer (except by conquest). This helps to account for China�s falling behind. Its elite valued stability above all. New ideas, especially foreign ones, were suspect. Until the 15th century, the social order could accommodate technological progress reasonably well. The faster and deeper changes required in the early stages of industrialisation were another matter. China�s rulers often blocked change: in the 15th century they ended long-sea trade ventures, choking off commerce and shipbuilding alike. “