Ethics of pilots fighting for the sides in WWII

[Theshark888]

The West should and must do more to give Palestine its freedom

Come on now...the PLO had it's chance when Clinton was in office with the Oslo peace accords. So close...it is really a shame. Remember the West does support Palestine. Also remember that the USA did not create Israel or be the cause of it's creation either;)

What you have stated sounds a lot like appeasement to me! Did you not learn from the history of Europe in the 1930's??:!::!: The USA sure did and that is why we land up being the world's policeman:-)

[Splitter]

But why are people plotting? You can kill individuals, destroy towns anhilate an entire region but defeating an 'idea' is impossible. The state of Israel was borne from 'terrorism' with acts of terrorism plotted and carried out not least against the British Army. 'Terrorism' is a tactical strategy to a political end. Israeli, IRA, Basque separists, French Resistance, Al-Quaeda, Taliban, etc use subversive tacitcs that we brand as 'terrorism' and essentially for the same reasons.
The West should and must do more to give Palestine its freedom and, make no mistake, the Taliban will be offered some political control over Afghanistan. It is already recognised that we cannot defeat them militarily but to continue the hostility and try to force them into the political arena.

So you would advocate for capitulation.

I would say it is a fallacy that an "idea" cannot be beaten. The superiority of the Aryan race was an idea that was defeated. The superiority of the Japanese people and their "destiny" to rule Asia was an idea that was defeated. "Death to non believers" is an idea that can be defeated.

Thank you for your views on Israel, they are telling. Thank you also for legitimizing the use of terror tactics as a logical means to an end. Again, that is telling. The moral equivalencies you see are chilling, but I thank you for your honesty.

BTW, the Palestinians will never have a homeland that would satisfy those who hate Israel. The only solution that would satisfy people of that mind would be to wipe out Israel....hmmmm....sounds chillingly familiar. As long as Israel exists (and let's face it, that means as long as the Jews have a homeland, right?) the Palestinians will continue to be used as pawns by those who would seek to destroy Israel and, thus, the Jews.

Or....we all make such a mindset untenable.

Splitter

[WTE_Galway]

The superiority of the Aryan race was an idea that was defeated. The superiority of the Japanese people and their "destiny" to rule Asia was an idea that was defeated. "


You really need to study the facts more.

Eugenics and racial superiority was a tenant of National Socialism.

The issue in Japan was the rise of Militarism. In particular the principle that civilians had no right interfering in military affairs. There was also the belief that if a country/culture had the strongest army that was proof that the morals and philosophy of that country were superior.

They are quite different.

Whilst often accused of Fascism, of the two, the 21st century United States is far closer to the views of Japanese Militarism than it is to National Socialism.

[Splitter]

No Galway, apparently you need to study the facts more. Or take the blinders off. I'm not sure which prompted your response, you are usually not like that. You know that eugenics and racism were not exclusive to the Nazis. Heck, I am sure you are itching to point out how the US sent Japanese to concentration camps (without the torture, starvation, ovens, and gas chambers but still, admittedly, racist).

First hint is chancorro. A very similar term was used by the Nazis. I think we could agree that racism was practiced by the Nazis leading up to and during WWII, yes?

This term and a perversion of the practice of Shinto (normally a very peaceful religion) led to the atrocities committed by the Japanese military. These atrocities were every bit as sickening as what was done in the Nazi concentration camps.

Now....you call it militarism. It was used and encouraged by the military, but the bottom line is that it was a belief in racial superiority. It was a view that the Japanese were superior as a race and anything done to the the lesser races was fine because they were "chancorro". The Japanese were created by the Sun Goddess (or God, I forget which). I am fairly sure that is symbolized by the rising sun, but don't quote me on it.

Your last barb made me lol. (c'mon, you're better than that)

Splitter

[swiss]

"Death to non believers" is an idea that can be defeated.

You really believe that?
(Well, maybe, I'll get to it later)



BTW, the Palestinians will never have a homeland that would satisfy those who hate Israel

Maybe - maybe not. I think it's worth a try.
There two problems which have to be solved.
1st:
Stop building Jewish construction on conquered land.
(If you did that my country I'd bomb you too)
http://www.leedspsc.org.uk/?page_id=23


2nd:
Solve economical problems.
If you let them develop some level of prosperity, their interest to fight the Jews next door will decrease too.
(Yes I now, the Palestinians, and Israelis, involved in the back market will actually fight this idea)
- Make sure they get a working trading harbor
- Give them access to an airport, maybe build them a small one
- a "land bridge" to the gaza strip wouldn't hurt either


And: Make sure they learn to read and write. illiterates are way easier to manipulate than ppl who can fall back to different sources of information.
First ones have to believe all the crap you tell them.
This last point would also serve in Afghanistan and Afrika. In Afghanistan they are at least trying.
This way, maybe, you can also fight the "death to infidels" ideology.


Sure you can. That guy plotting in his basement is probably alone, probably unstable, and probably doesn't have access to chemical, biological, or radioactive weapons. Take away his conduit to those resources and the damage he can do is probably limited.

Seriously, you really think they are stockpiling "chemical, biological, or radioactive weapons" in their f***ing caves?


If you really want to cut their resources, you'll have to stop using oil, that's where the big money comes from. The opium in Afghanistan probably can only finance their domestic operations.

We see, we cant cut their money flow off, concerning their ABC weapons you'll have to rely on intel.
(waterboarding is ok as far as I am concerned, personally I'd go even further)

[moilami]

Sure you can. That guy plotting in his basement is probably alone, probably unstable, and probably doesn't have access to chemical, biological, or radioactive weapons. Take away his conduit to those resources and the damage he can do is probably limited.

BTW....just how should we go after and find that guy plotting in his basement? Should we do nothing? Is capitulation the answer?

It's easy to criticize, much harder to come up with solutions.

Splitter

You have finally realized there is nothing much you can do against modern querilla warfare? It took long. I bet it would had helped if you first asked Germans about French underground movement and RAF, Spanish about ETA, Italians about Mafia, British about IRA, and Israelis about PLO.

You Americans have this problem that you think you can just declare a war and get what you want. However you failed in War against drugs, you failed in Vietnam, and you fail in Afghanistan and Iraq.

No, this is not "hindsight". I have said this 10 years ago. I said also it was anyway clever move by you to begin to cry for help by stating "if you are not with us, you are against us" or whatever bullshit it was. Governments around Europe felt the need to show how "terrorism is not tolerated" in addition to begin to be colonialism wannabees in the name of "international co-operation". However anyone who has read Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern knew modern querilla warfare would move to Europe as a result, and therefore EU should not participate on a fight it can't even engage with conventional warfare.

So, you got the oil and we got the xxxx. Things went as planned. Bush also got his second season as your president, weapon companies and military got more money and relevant shareholders become richer. Talk about who won the war. But who lost the war? Common people around Europe, USA, Iraq, and Afghanistan, to name a few. Yeah, that is you.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I personally can’t see this thread leading anywhere positive. It is has gone off topic and degenerated into something nasty. I think it should be locked.

That being said, I work on a daily basis with adolescents, many who come from refugee backgrounds (from all over the world). Some of these children come from families that fled the atrocities inflicted upon the Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein. In the last year or so there have been a couple of these families that have gained the confidence to return to their homeland and rejoin their people.

If anyone is the winner from the Iraqi conflict it is people like these families.

Was the conflict in Iraq worth it? Only time will tell.

Would it have been better for the Coalition to have done nothing? I doubt it. Hussein was a butcher! http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

The worst thing that could possibly happen for Iraq would be for the Coalition to pull out before the Iraqi Government is able to maintain law and order.

With the deadline for the US withdrawal of its troops fast approaching, it will be interesting to see in two years time if the US is going to be condemned for leaving Iraq too early!

[SEE]

I never mentioned the USA nor did I advocate the use of terrorism in my post. I have poltical views but I don't believe forums are for discussing complex political issues. However, what I will say is that 'terrorist' acts are, and will continue to be carried out, in the absence of a 'conventional' military option or a recognised political platform.

We are told to be worried of a new and equally subversive 'terrorist' threat - 'Cyber Terrorism'! Iran, China, the USA, WIKI Leaks, etc, either engaging in or being victims.

So, who are these terrorists? Who are they attacking and why?
Simple questions but answering them is riddled with complexities brought about by the lies, popular misconceptions and political agendas of all involved.

You have to address the 'causes' that radicalise people and not confuse poltical agenda's with the basic instincts of self determination and its this idea that you cannot change or destroy. Rightly or wrongly, the current state of affairs in Palestine, the wests involvement in the Middle East has radicalised many Muslims - that is the point I am making and most accept that point of view.

Poltical agenda's are fluid and complex- the Taliban along with the Mujahadeen were given arms and miltary support when Russia invaded Afghanistan, Saddam HUssein was supported as 'our son of a bitch' when he engaged in war against Iran..........there are two edges to every sword and which edge you consider the most threatening depends on........?

[moilami]

We are told of a new and equally subversive terrorist threat - 'Cyber Terrorism'! Iran, China, the USA, WIKI Leaks, etc either engaging in or attacked.

Is Wikileaks now considered to be a "terrorist organization" :lol: :lol: :lol:

This is going to be absurd par excellence, and I can say I have already laughed very big time as I watched some news about the panic on different governments regarding Wikileaks. They did not even know what exactly was leaked - yet panicked totally. 'nuff said.

Anyway for me it is all the same what we discuss here. I could not care less because nothing will change for good as a result.

[moilami]

Alright, as my last words I say "the coalition" would had got better results in Iraq by educating 1000 Iraquese women in Universities in USA, Sweden, and Finland in feminist studies and after that sending them back to Iraq :lol: :lol: :lol:

And as funny and ridiculous as that may sound, there is no reasonable doubts about it being by far much bigger win for the world than this "war against terrorism" xxxx.

(Note I totally deny being a feminist.)


Edit: Some may not get the strategy so I explain. The 1000 iraquese feminists would start a change where at first they would get free marriages for women. After that men would have to begin to please women in islamic countries, which would lead men begin to reinterpret the Koran in a way women want. The rest would be history.

Edit: Some may argue it is against Geneve rules of "fair play" and comparable to terrorism to send 1000 feminists to Iraq, but oh well, don't blame me, I am just specialized in creative solutions and someone asked for better solutions :lol:

[Sven]

Alright, as my last words I say "the coalition" would had got better results in Iraq by educating 1000 Iraquese women in Universities in USA, Sweden, and Finland in feminist studies and after that sending them back to Iraq :lol: :lol: :lol:

And as funny and ridiculous as that may sound, there is no reasonable doubts about it being by far much bigger win for the world than this "war against terrorism" xxxx.

(Note I totally deny being a feminist.)


Edit: Some may not get the strategy so I explain. The 1000 iraquese feminists would start a change where at first they would get free marriages for women. After that men would have to begin to please women in islamic countries, which would lead men begin to reinterpret the Koran in a way women want. The rest would be history.

Edit: Some may argue it is against Geneve rules of "fair play" and comparable to terrorism to send 1000 feminists to Iraq, but oh well, don't blame me, I am just specialized in creative solutions and someone asked for better solutions :lol:

Or those 1000 Iraquese women would be jailed or killed when criticising the Koran in Iraq. I dont think Islam would modernize anywhere in the near future in the Middle East, even in my home country they wont do so, the most that is.

[moilami]

Or those 1000 Iraquese women would be jailed or killed when criticising the Koran in Iraq. I dont think Islam would modernize anywhere in the near future in the Middle East, even in my home country they wont do so, the most that is.

No they would not. Remember I talked about University quality feminist studies students. They would not cross the line. Or maybe some would but it would make the rest of the "sisters" even more dedicated and careful.

[Sven]

Going so softly into the Islamic culture just isnt going to help in a short while, will take at least a 100 years if you slowly and carefully want the Islam to modernize that way.

I don't really care about the people who are following the Islam in the middle east in the way they do it, let them be, the only thing that annoys me that they wont change in my country, but that has little to do with Ethics of Pilots during WW2 isnt it?

Where were we, oh yeah, shooting shutes, right, if my superior would have forbidden me to do so I wouldn't shoot anyone on a shute, clear. If however my superior allows it, my instinct would rise up and say to me, if he lands walks back to base and kills you the other day, it would be better to end his life, or shoot off both arms so he cant fly any more, but that would be too cruel. If however the pilot you just shot down was clearly over your lines I think the ground troops would enjoy his presence by putting him in jail.

[moilami]

Going so softly into the Islamic culture just isnt going to help in a short while, will take at least a 100 years if you slowly and carefully want the Islam to modernize that way.

I don't really care about the people who are following the Islam in the middle east in the way they do it, let them be, the only thing that annoys me that they wont change in my country, but that has little to do with Ethics of Pilots during WW2 isnt it?

Where were we, oh yeah, shooting shutes, right, if my superior would have forbidden me to do so I wouldn't shoot anyone on a shute, clear. If however my superior allows it, my instinct would rise up and say to me, if he lands walks back to base and kills you the other day, it would be better to end his life, or shoot off both arms so he cant fly any more, but that would be too cruel. If however the pilot you just shot down was clearly over your lines I think the ground troops would enjoy his presence by putting him in jail.

By the way I have been thinking.

Could it be possible that I could fly with your squadron in Ostfront? I have a squadron though, but I would like to contribute in your efforts. It could happen that one other pilot from my current squadron could come help too.

[Triggaaar]

Where were we, oh yeah, shooting shutes, right, if my superior would have forbidden me to do so I wouldn't shoot anyone on a shute, clear. If however my superior allows it, my instinct would rise up and say to me, if he lands walks back to base and kills you the other day, it would be better to end his life, or shoot off both arms so he cant fly any more, but that would be too cruel. If however the pilot you just shot down was clearly over your lines I think the ground troops would enjoy his presence by putting him in jail.
Same here. But then I guess you knew that :)

[Theshark888]

So, you got the oil and we got the xxxx.

Please check your facts as to where most Middle East oil goes to. If we were trying to control the ME oilfields, how come the price of fuel in the USA has doubled? How come we still pay for Iraqi oil?

[moilami]

Please check your facts as to where most Middle East oil goes to. If we were trying to control the ME oilfields, how come the price of fuel in the USA has doubled? How come we still pay for Iraqi oil?

You didn't even got oil then? What a fail :lol:

[Triggaaar]

Western governments don't get the oil, but the huge oil contracts go to western companies, and corrupt officials (*cough* bush) get massive payouts. The $millions make it easier for people like Blair and Bush to sleep and forget about the soldiers they've sacrificed for their greed.

[moilami]

Same here. But then I guess you knew that :)

I wish SoW would be released soon so Chute Shooters Club could do some Friday Night Specials :lol: SoW hopefully brings a new generation of not so emo pilots. Though I still guess how it goes in TS.

- omg they picked our server
- woot
- chute shooters
- lol i pwn them

<time passes and chute shooting happens>

- omg
- nooooo
- kick and ban them!!!


:lol: :lol: :lol:

I know I will be hated because of this, but it is ok :lol: Virtual Air Warfare needs some more passion and less "yay we all are friends k". It is supposed to be war and not some tea and bisquit party.


Edit: Seriously, this is simulation. I would expect Japanese to chute shoot me, if that happened in real for American pilots. I fly only for Axis though now, but in SoW I hope Polish squadrons will chute shoot me, if they did that in real. Will be more entertaining to watch what happens after I am forced to bailout.

[Theshark888]

Western governments don't get the oil, but the huge oil contracts go to western companies, and corrupt officials (*cough* bush) get massive payouts. The $millions make it easier for people like Blair and Bush to sleep and forget about the soldiers they've sacrificed for their greed.

What's the difference between a "corrupt" western corporations or a state run dictatorship "corrupt" corporation?

The USA is not large/rich enough so our president (Bush) attacked Iraq in order to make billions of dollars and settle down on his ranch and write a book? And Blair joined along to gain wealth also? :o Do you realize how foolish your conspiracy theories actually sound? Don't you think there are easier ways for a corporation or president for that matter, to make billions of dollars instead of going to war?

[Theshark888]

You didn't even got oil then? What a fail :lol:

That's the American way I'm afraid:-) The evil country that we are:evil::evil:

[moilami]

That's the American way I'm afraid:-) The evil country that we are:evil::evil:

Lol, I will someday travel in America and talk with people...just to see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc4FXHunHMw

:lol:

Seriously, I will see someday "real America" and meet real American people.

[Splitter]

Sorry, not all American women look like that :). Sadly, I don't even have to watch the video to remember that there is this one gal in there in a blue bikini, dark Rayban shades....yeah, when I was young I saw it a few times <cough>.

Apparently Bush was really bad at the whole making money in war thing because his net worth is about $25 million. Of course, that's before his number one selling book. Now, that's comfortable, even very wealthy. But....it pales in comparison to many past presidents.

To believe that presidents go to war for money, you have to believe that:
1) they are evil. You must bring yourself to believe that they are eager to sacrifice lives for money, even American lives ('cause wouldn't it make sense that, given their evilness, they only value American lives?).
2) they are really bad at turning a profit because we always end up spending a lot more than we take in.

Feminism: Actually, over 2 million little girls are now in school in Afghanistan. They were prohibited from being educated under the Taliban. I think the Afghan constitution even calls for 25% of the governing body to be female. It would be hard for anyone to put that genie back the bottle (thank goodness).

PS...I am not a huge Bush fan. I have read his book and I am still not a huge fan. But now I understand why he made some of the decisions he did. If you have an opinion on the wars, you should read what the source has to say and then decide for yourself.

Splitter

[moilami]

Sorry, not all American women look like that :).

Lol I know. And I am not looking for that kind of girls. I would have nothing in common with them and they are uninteresting except as art of the nature, that is in pictures.

PS...I am not a huge Bush fan. I have read his book and I am still not a huge fan. But now I understand why he made some of the decisions he did. If you have an opinion on the wars, you should read what the source has to say and then decide for yourself.

Lol Bush has published a book? I wonder who wrote it for him :lol: Anyway it is a must to read.

(I don't by the way argue with you about politics. I have got enough of it. Will just soon continue conquering France with Bf 109. I wonder by the way what are the differences between FW-190 and Bf 109 in IL-2 the game? Should start a thread for that and call for pilot opinions. I am rather undecided between those two planes.)

[swiss]

Don't you think there are easier ways for a corporation or president for that matter, to make billions of dollars instead of going to war?

Not for defense companies.

It also serves all kind of government programs.

If you have ever served, maybe you had the chance to check an inventory list.
All of the sudden, a standard toilet seat worth $20, is worth $150.
Where does this money go?

Oh, btw, you did get the oil, or at least some of it:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html



Apparently Bush was really bad at the whole making money in war thing because his net worth is about $25 million.

talk about fringe benefits, lol

[Richie]

Lol I know. And I am not looking for that kind of girls. I would have nothing in common with them and they are uninteresting except as art of the nature, that is in pictures.



Lol Bush has published a book? I wonder who wrote it for him :lol: Anyway it is a must to read.

(I don't by the way argue with you about politics. I have got enough of it. Will just soon continue conquering France with Bf 109. I wonder by the way what are the differences between FW-190 and Bf 109 in IL-2 the game? Should start a thread for that and call for pilot opinions. I am rather undecided between those two planes.)

Oh my....Lots of differences. With the early 109s up to the G2s if you know how to fly them well you can dogfight with almost anything. I've made a Spitfire IX stall into the sea with an F4 in a turning fight and I've done the same thing with P-40s. On the other had Spitfire Vs are very very hard. An F4 is much faster than a Spitfire V, with your rads closed and downward trim you can almost get 500 kms out of her. But I wouldn't turn with a V. With a 190 you always have full control in dives at high speed making it an ultimate zoomer boomer. 190s take a long time to over heat also but then so to early 109s especially Daimler Benz 601s. One thing that needs to be corrected in IL-2 is the speed of the K4. It should be faster than a 51. That would be a problem in some missions for the Allies LOL. Late model 109s aren't bad but they are more difficult. They are heavier and need more attention. They aren't fast at all at ground level..only on boost. You need to get 5, 6 k then you start to move. I would take a G6/AS, G-10, G14/AS. The only thing you'll have problems with in a dogfight is the Spitfire. 51s are always a problem until he's dumb enough to dogfight. If the 109 pilot knows his 109 the 51 won't win. I don't really fly 190s at all but the early ones can dogfight if you know them well. I liked the A6. If you dive a 109 fast and you have to make a turn to shoot forget it. Like the books say it does get awful stiff. You can dive it faster than most people think though and it has great exhileration in the dive. Franz Stigler in interviews was saying all of this stuff about 109s wings flying off under the slightest stress was nonsense. Sure don't dive with a P-47 that thing is built like a tiger tank. Last thoughts are simple.. They are tricky and need time to master but both are great aeroplanes.

[swiss]

wrong thread?

[Richie]

wrong thread?


Ethics?...moilami was wondering the difference between the two. A 109 and 190?

[Splitter]

lol, he was "rich" before he entered office. As was Clinton and as is Obama.

BTW, the whole "war for money" thing must also apply to Obama because we are still there and even doing a troop surge in Afghanistan. Now, I guess since Obama is only worth about $10 million, he needs the money too :).

Splitter

[moilami]

Oh my....Lots of differences. With the early 109s up to the G2s if you know how to fly them well you can dogfight with almost anything. I've made a Spitfire IX stall into the sea with an F4 in a turning fight and I've done the same thing with P-40s. On the other had Spitfire Vs are very very hard. An F4 is much faster than a Spitfire V, with your rads closed and downward trim you can almost get 500 kms out of her. But I wouldn't turn with a V. With a 190 you always have full control in dives at high speed making it an ultimate zoomer boomer. 190s take a long time to over heat also but then so to early 109s especially Daimler Benz 601s. One thing that needs to be corrected in IL-2 is the speed of the K4. It should be faster than a 51. That would be a problem in some missions for the Allies LOL. Late model 109s aren't bad but they are more difficult. They are heavier and need more attention. They aren't fast at all at ground level..only on boost. You need to get 5, 6 k then you start to move. I would take a G6/AS, G-10, G14/AS. The only thing you'll have problems with in a dogfight is the Spitfire. 51s are always a problem until he's dumb enough to dogfight. If the 109 pilot knows his 109 the 51 won't win. I don't really fly 190s at all but the early ones can dogfight if you know them well. I liked the A6. If you dive a 109 fast and you have to make a turn to shoot forget it. Like the books say it does get awful stiff. You can dive it faster than most people think though and it has great exhileration in the dive. Franz Stigler in interviews was saying all of this stuff about 109s wings flying off under the slightest stress was nonsense. Sure don't dive with a P-47 that thing is built like a tiger tank. Last thoughts are simple.. They are tricky and need time to master but both are great aeroplanes.

Ok thanks, I think I will fly tens of missions with each Bf 109 variant before beginning to study 190.

[Triggaaar]

I wish SoW would be released soon so Chute Shooters Club could do some Friday Night Specials :lol: I don't shoot chutes in IL2. You don't get anything for it and it's annoying for the other players - and it's against the rules in the servers I use. I a real war you do get something for it, you save the lives of real people on your side.

What's the difference between a "corrupt" western corporations or a state run dictatorship "corrupt" corporation?Choice of drink?

The USA is not large/rich enough so our president (Bush) attacked Iraq in order to make billions of dollars and settle down on his ranch and write a book? And Blair joined along to gain wealth also? :o Do you realize how foolish your conspiracy theories actually sound? Don't you think there are easier ways for a corporation or president for that matter, to make billions of dollars instead of going to war?It's not about how wealthy a country is, it's about the leaders. Bush, for example, was a fine puppet, put into power by very wealthy industry men, who need their slice. Blair proposed to our MPs that the oil revenues be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN, and that the UK should get a Security Council Resolution guarantying the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Good idea we'd think, but did that happen? Hell no! Instead the US and UK sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. Now the US and UK don't actually take the oil, but they have been trying to force Iraq into agreeing 30 year deals with our oil companies, from which there will kick backs.

Do I believe that Bush would take his country to war solely for money - no. Bush and Blair are somewhat religious warmongers, believing their cause. They took us to war on the premise of eradicating WOMD, but they had no proof that there were any such weapons or the ability to produce them. So what exactly did they take us to war for?

[Triggaaar]

PS...I am not a huge Bush fan. I have read his book and I am still not a huge fan. But now I understand why he made some of the decisions he did.Oh go on, this'll be good - what's his latest reason for sending us to war? (and please don't take that as anti US, I blame my own PM as much as Bush, and as posted earlier the reasons for France and Russia oppossing the war was just as bad IMO).

[Splitter]

Oh go on, this'll be good - what's his latest reason for sending us to war? (and please don't take that as anti US, I blame my own PM as much as Bush, and as posted earlier the reasons for France and Russia oppossing the war was just as bad IMO).

I don't want to quote the book directly, but here are a few reasons he gives as I recall (make up you own mind about them):

In 1999 and 2000 Saddam's regime had fired 700 times on aircraft patrolling the UN sanctioned "no fly zone".
Saddam had already invaded two of his neighbors.
He had violated 16 UN sanctions.
He paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
He had issued a statement praising the 9/11 attacks.
He protected Abu Nidal in Iraq.
He tried to assassinate a former US president (turns out it was Bush I).
He had tortured his people and dumped tens of thousands into mass graves.
He had used WMD's on both his own people (about 5000 dead Kurds in one incident I remember vividly) and on Iran.
Diplomacy had failed, he was still not working with UN inspectors and even kicked them out.
Saddam had also passed on an offer to go into exile with a boat load of money put up by another Middle East country whom I cannot remember.

Lastly, and most controversial, was WMD's. Nearly every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had WMD's. I think what Bush wrote was something along the lines of, "No one was lying, we were all just wrong".

Here is a publicized excerpt from a presidential address:

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

...

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

Oh wait....that was Bill Clinton in December of '98. This speech was made after he gave the order for airstrikes on Iraqi WMD facilities. Yes, the Brits joined in the operation.

But yeah, Bush took us to war for oil :).

Don't take my word for anything, reading the book will allow you to decide for yourself.

Splitter

[SEE]

.....bit too old for fairy stories........but if you like them.........OK by me!

[Richie]

ok thanks, i think i will fly tens of missions with each bf 109 variant before beginning to study 190.

s~ :)

[Theshark888]

Not for defense companies.


If you have ever served, maybe you had the chance to check an inventory list.
All of the sudden, a standard toilet seat worth $20, is worth $150.
Where does this money go?

Oh, btw, you did get the oil, or at least some of it:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html







talk about fringe benefits, lol

Defense industries make much more by selling there goods to other countries. They can tack on training costs, etc. I have worked for the evil military complex and the reason why so much of the military goods cost so much is simply a supply and demand issue. Because the military is a government run organization, the powers that be cannot just take a toilet seat off the shelf. They must design a complete new one, with special military options and then they order 500. That toilet seat at the store was made in quantities of 10,000 or more and it's a simple cost per unit issue. Happens all the time...no conspiracy here.

We still "buy" Iraqi oil, we should have taken over their oil industry and sent the oil home for free to pay for ther war. We could even give the Europeans a discount:)

Bush was more in line with domestic matters and was probably over his head when 9/11 happened. He did what he thought best and the country was with him up to a point. Obama is the same, he probably has more book smart than Bush (don't really know as Obama is hiding his records) but has no foreign affairs or real leadership credentials....he is the one to be afraid of.

[swiss]

Because the military is a government run organization, the powers that be cannot just take a toilet seat off the shelf. They must design a complete new one, with special military options and then they order 500.

That would be correct if it was so.
The products I'm talking about are standard ones you could buy everywhere.
standard(!) toilet seat, or even a normal ($40!) 500gr hammer.

And yes, I know of those special gov. needs: The Swiss felt need for their F18 to have a Titanium frame for prolonged service use.

I mean, just a thought, the F18 is made for carrier use - but the Swiss still think the cell is too weak?
wtf.

[Skoshi Tiger]

And yes, I know of those special gov. needs: The Swiss felt need for their F18 to have a Titanium frame for prolonged service use.

I mean, just a thought, the F18 is made for carrier use - but the Swiss still think the cell is too weak?


I am pobably wrong, but don't they earmark sections of autobarns/major roads for use as airfields as part of their contingency plans? This would require a fairly robust airframe. I wonder if they use arrestor wires for 'short' strips ?

Also when operating in very mountainous area having dual engines would be an advantage.


One of my friend was working as a fireman foir the RAAF many years ago. One of our F/A-18's wen down in the outback and he was one of the men sent to recover the plane. They needed to separate one of the rudders from the plane which are held by titanium hinges so they got the 'Jaws of life' fromthe back of the firetruck and tried to cut the hinge. Unfortunately the hinge remained intact but the sheers of the jaws of life splayed open, destroying the tool. Titanium is tough stuff!
Cheers

[Theshark888]

That would be correct if it was so.
The products I'm talking about are standard ones you could buy everywhere.
standard(!) toilet seat, or even a normal ($40!) 500gr hammer.


Governments overpay for normal items all the time. This is not a military supplier only issue. Add in union contracts and the prices of items sold and installed by the government run 5 to 10 times the going rate...I know , I deal with this all the time. I don't know how you Euros can get anything done at a fair price:grin:

My whole point is that a President of the USA and his "military establishment buddies" have a whole range of ways to make money without creating a fake war in Iraq and then not keeping the oil for ourselves. If they were smart enough to carry this out and made up the WMD issue don't you think they would realize after we took over the country no weapons would be found. If they were that evil wouldn't they have created some fake storage facility with Iraqi WMD's?:grin:

Let me get this straight>>>>>>>The USA goes through this whole conspiracy to take over oil because of a fake WMD issue and then "forgets" to plant fake WMD's in the country and then "forgets" to get the free oil. All this to give some oil/military suppliers some government contracts????? See how silly this sounds:-P

Didn't know that about the titanium F-18's...good info.

[Splitter]

That would be correct if it was so.
The products I'm talking about are standard ones you could buy everywhere.
standard(!) toilet seat, or even a normal ($40!) 500gr hammer.



I don't know how the Swiss do it, but a government spec on something as simple as a switch or a desk can take up several pages. And in most instances, a contractor must charge the government less than its' largest commercial clients. When I sell to the government, I am usually making 10% gross profit, about half what I make off of any commercial entity.

Many times when you see these inflated prices the government pays, they were part of a package deal. Example: a contractor is tasked with keeping a machine running. The machine has 1,000 parts. The contractor bids $100,000 for the job. So each part costs $100 on average and that's what the government pays per part. Now, the part may actually cost $3,000 or it might cost $5 individually to the contractor, but the government is billed at the average cost of $100 per item.

The waste in government really comes from the 12 agencies that wrote the spec for each part. In each agency the spec was reviewed by dozens of people. They all have their opinions and they all write in their own little part of the spec. In the end, that little switch that cost the manufacturer $3 to make costs the government $20 to procure in quantity, more if they buy one or two.

I swear that government employees must get paid by the pound of paperwork they generate.

Oh....and once the spec is all but written, then the government does an environmental impact study on the switch lol.

No business could operate the way the government does.

Splitter

[swiss]

I don't know how the Swiss do it, but a government spec on something as simple as a switch or a desk can take up several pages. And in most instances, a contractor must charge the government less than its' largest commercial clients. When I sell to the government, I am usually making 10% gross profit, about half what I make off of any commercial entity.



Tell me...
We had a gov. Contract too, we made about 15% instead of >33%.
But we wanted the contract come hell or high water. Of course there was also a perspective for future contracts(which would more than make up for the discount) from other agencies and some media coverage.
It worked. :)


The waste in government really comes from the 12 agencies that wrote the spec for each part. In each agency the spec was reviewed by dozens of people. They all have their opinions and they all write in their own little part of the spec. In the end, that little switch that cost the manufacturer $3 to make costs the government $20 to procure in quantity, more if they buy one or two.



It gets really funny when they change the specs although they are already field testing the product.
One of those example is was the swiss development of the P16 Fighter-Bomber.
It was doomed - the wing however saw later use in the Learjet.
http://www.leica-geosystems.com/downloads123/m1/metrology/general/case%20studies/Duebendorf%20Aviation%20Museum_CS_en.pdf




No business could operate the way the government does.

Splitter


Not very long, lol.




I am pobably wrong, but don't they earmark sections of autobarns/major roads for use as airfields as part of their contingency plans?

No, you 're right
Germany has them too btw:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx7Meo7w-pY



They Swiss were last time tested in 1991.
The concept was abandoned 1995.



This would require a fairly robust airframe. I wonder if they use arrestor wires for 'short' strips ?
No sir.