Ethics of pilots fighting for the sides in WWII

[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]

Originally Posted by Splitter

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.

Originally Posted by Splitter

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 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.)

[Richie]

Originally Posted by moilami

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 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]

Originally Posted by swiss

wrong thread?

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

[moilami]

Originally Posted by Richie

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.

[Richie]

Originally Posted by moilami

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

s~

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Splitter

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]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

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!