It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


SCO Demands US And Its Allies To Name A Date To Leave Central Asia

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 03:53 PM

Firs of all the Mexican constitution forbids the deployment and residence of foreign troops on its soil. Next the Canadians are our allies and they would not let either Russia or China place bases on their soil.

It was just a hypothetical example to make a point.
The chances of it actually happeining anytime in the forseeable future are about zero

posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 04:14 PM
I am thoroughly enjoying reading your sarcastic witty ripostes Xmotex, keep up the counterattack--the enemy doesn't know when they are outnumbered by a party of one.

posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 04:23 PM
SCO Demands US And Its Allies To Name A Date To Leave Central Asia

Oh well.
Seems their 'wish' was not granted.
U.S. Rejects Setting Central Asia Withdrawal Date

Oppss....better luck next time SCO.


posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 04:36 PM
See Russia& friends asked nicely but looks like Russia's ganna have to as they say "Step it's game up!" and show USA out, see the real reason USA& friends are in MiD-East and eastern Europe has less to do with terrorism and more to do with that 'ol black gold and the more interesting

posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 04:42 PM

Oppss....better luck next time SCO.

I somehow doubt they really expected us to just pack up and go because they asked nicely.

posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 04:48 PM
I think you are quite correct, xmotex.
As such, they did place the demand.
Interesting that they did, despite knowing the answer themselves, eh?


[edit on 9-7-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 04:56 PM
Actually youre getting in wrong thier askin you nicely before they BLOW YOU OUT!!

posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 05:05 PM

Always good to see your rhetorical postings, SiberianTiger.
Your creative writings skills are always quite a treat to read.

Thank you for your continued contributions.

Have a good weekend.


[edit on 9-7-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Your so AMPED UP in your pethetic attempt to DIS-credit Rus that you'l told about 3 MAJOR LIES in your post kid,

Your drivel amuses me, Ivan! Unlike the commie I dont lie, if I were a Soviet i would have lied like the cowards Stalin & Lenin, I am sure you know this.

since I have pity for the ignorant/Ivan I would like to present the facts.

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
1. You stated Sadams scuds were blown up, listen up KID ONLY 2 SCUDS were EVER intersepted in Gulf War 1= (GF1) the other 28 hit thire target,

Obviously, your commie Putin has been telling you a lot of lies because he knows that you commies are fools anyway to believe whatever he says.

Firstly, the Scuds missile that the commies gave him were so bad that most of them blew up on rentry, while a majority of them failed even to launch.
Secondly, the Patriot system had an effeciency of nearly 80% in Saudi Arabia while the Isrealis showed that the Patriots had efficiency of 50%. This is because, read carefully Ivan this is written in English not the weak tounge Russian;
The Patriot was intially an anti-aircraft weapons system that was converted to stop ballistic missiles and moreover Iraq was its first Engagement. Also the Patriot effeciency measured in SA was taken as every missile that the Patriot sytem was able to either deflect or destroy. While the Isrealis calcuted it on the basis of failure as every missile that hit the ground whether diverted or not. Another very important factor was the fact that the Russian Sucds that Saddam had, the Al-Hussani, were so unreliable that most of the Scuds were inable to even make the reentry into the atmosphere whithout breaking up into fragments, this fragmentation effected the tergetting system on the Patriots and the Patriots were faced with Fragments after they were launched but the radar on the ground had targetted them to a proper missile, i guess we didnt have the foresight to take into consideration Russian unreliability. The Scuds thus ended up falling as peices of metal instead of complete missile. Although this was the case, most patriots were able to hit the rocket motor of the scuds which followed the warhead thus diverting the Scud into the desert.
Performance of the Patriot in Desert Storm
If you call hitting the Desert as a succesfull strike, then i can imagine what you expect from your bunch of conscripts that build this stuff.

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
i CAN SHOW 17 U.S. airforce crashes that happened between 1996-1998 so don't even start with me about crashes, why don't you yanks just post in chronilogical order how many Rus/ Sukhoi's-MiGs crashed between 91 and now and campare in chronilogical order US crashes between 1991 and now (2004-2005) you'll see it's almost EXACTLY the same amount, U.S. lost 37 planes in Gulf War 1

If you could type properly I would be amazed forget about showing me proof about you fantasy!
Here is a nice quote:

During this period(1999-2000) of time Russian air forces lost 17 aircraft, including(+) 4 ground strike planes and 9 helicopters(=30). Eight of these aircraft were lost due to enemy action and the rest - due to technical problems. Seven more aircraft have been seriously damaged, including one attack helicopter and six transport helicopters. Five of these aircraft were damaged by enemy fire and the rest were damaged in accidents due to various technical malfunctions. Some 28 servicemen, including eight pilots, have been killed in aircraft crashes.
This is just the Russian AF losses in one year over Chechnya, not to mention others that were lost outside the theater and the ones lost by other countries like India, China, Libya, Iraq, N.Korea, and the other nations who see Russian equipment as cheap and disposable.
Also in the Gulf War the US lost only 27 in combat operations and not 35. Moreover the Iraq which at the time was the fourth largest military in the world and the coalition finished them in less than 100 days, unlike you Russians who cant even fight against the chechyans and keep Chechnya!
Another very important fact is that the weak Russian AF was involved in no active conflict in the whole period, except with the chechyans who destroyed 30 aircraft, that is pathetic, it is good that the weak Russian AF did not take part as it would have been an embaressment and probably they knew it. Without taking part in any major conflict you still have the same amount of losses that the USAF has which is bigger and more active than the small weak Russian airforce, this proves that the Russian AF is made up of aircraft that can barely fly, Also remember the Paris Air Show where the Russians made a fool of themselves!.

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
you claim Iraq has more AAA than Rus , your a lier now proove me now, and don't give me that US news crap show Rus Military saying we don't have as much as Iraq

Here is the quote which says that the Iraqi IADS equalled and higer density than Soviet IADS:

The Iraqi IADS was a composite system which integrated European and Soviet search and acquisition radars, and a range of Soviet and European SAM and AAA systems, all tied together with a French built Kari C3 (Command/Control/Communications) network. While smaller than the now defunct Soviet system in central Europe (Western TVD), the system had a respectable capability and comparable if not higher density of SAM and AAA systems, with considerable redundancy in communications links and hardened C3 facilities.

It is well known that the Commies gave Saddam their standard equipment yet it was trashed like garbage by the coalition, also the Iraqi SAMs incorporated European technology that made them superior to the Russians.

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
You said "don't even get you started about our SAM in Vietnam," read carefully KID "GET STARTED," we can even start a whole new thread if ya want?

The Russian SAMs in Vienam were so bad that the Vietnamese themselves stopped using it and instead started using their rifles which were more effective than you SA-2's!
So much for your SAMs, most of the losses were due to ground fire and operational losses so you cant claim anything IVAN.
Atleast in Vietnam we fough an army and suffered losses while you lost against a small group of children with AK's defeated the whole Soviet Army, imagine if you had to face the US! The Kremlin might have been waving the American Flag, haha!

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
us will nuke us if we did have a war cuz they know now and for ever they can't take us on in a Conventional war, plus we see your nukes coming before they hit and we'll strike you DEAD, we have more nukes and ours have been and still are WWWAAAYYY more powerful than your, wanna debate that also?????

Is this a joke, Putin cant even piss if we dont want him too! All your nukes are maintained by the US IVAN and if we dont want you to have them we can take away all you nukes and you will be stripped dry. Heck we finance your country because it is too weak and too poor to maintain its old horse army, so we protect the nukes from falling into terrorist hands because you are too weak to do it! And you say you have more nukes than us!

The US has nearly 11,000 nukes while Russia has barely 5000 that are serviceable of which only a handfull are in anystate of preparedness, 11,000 nukes on highly advanced delivery platforms Vs 5000 old decaying weapons on obsolete platforms- it is a no brainer, the US would turn Russia into Glass befeore you can say Vodka. Also recently the Bush Administration has resumed the manufacture of more nukes as a credible deterent to incommin nuclear ICBMs. So that just tipped Ivans part heh!
About Russia being able to detect American nukes before they are launched, the Russians cant detect their own planes properly forget about stealth nukes, more over most of the nukes would be launcehd byt the SSBN's and B-2s so What ever thing you Commies call a radar is useless, making detection impossible.
Conventionaly you cant even fight with the chechyans. Even countries like China and India now are more powerfull than Russia even though Russia supplies them weapons!
The fact is that these countries can defeat Russia in a conventional war because their armies are better trained adn more well equipped with your weapons, so you have made them stronger while you have become weaker. If youcant defeat these nations how can you hope to defeat the USA in a conventional war when you dont have enough money to pay teh Kremils elctricity bill even!
world nuclear weapons
This is fact not soem commie tale so debates are useless, especially if I cant understand what in Lenins grave you are saying with that fist pounding on the keyboard you call typing!

Come back when you are more MAN/ IVAN,
I do not waste time with the weak!

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 01:58 AM

Originally posted by IAF101
You underestimate America, we practically let Russia have nukes, we maintain them, we secure them and we tag their scientists.

Right at the end of the cold war, Yeltsin allowed the US to help them secure nuclear weapons at far flung bases. Do you still believe that US scientists are still in russia and still "maintaining" their nukes? would Putin allow this?

What makes you say that the US doesnt have knowledge of all their nuclear sites? Also the moblie launchers need to be in working order to be effective, with present state of Russian military, even finding a working model launcher ready to go will be suprising.

You really do grossly underestimate the russians.

Did I say anything about the UCAVs and the UAV's? They are also part of the information network

UAVs are only applicable in open sky battlefield such as the middle east.
Given fuel constraints and the huge russian landmass, UAVs will not be able to maintain a full surveillance of all possible mobile launcher hiding spot. Not to mention mobile launchers are camouflaged so as not be easily spotted. IR sensors on UAVs will be able to detect them only if heat is emitted (during motion or launching). Bases along the periphery of russia would aid in launching/refueling UAVs but they most certainly not be able to cover the entire russian heartland.

With the US military the most effectively integrated military in the world, I cant see why we cant track and shoot down a missile as soon as it has been lauched. That confidence is what is key to building an effective missile sheild, that is why the US is pursuing setting up a sheild along those lines. That would be the first tier which would be followed by many more localised layers and finally supported by spacebased and other nonconventional weapons. Another thing, you dont nuke an already launched missile, that would be a waste, instead the shoot it down with fighter intercept or PAC-3 and other KE weapons.

Shoot down a missile as soon as it had been launched? You assume that fighter interceptors are already ruling the russian skies. You also assume
that the fighter can reach on time before the missile has reached altitudes beyond the reach of jets. The US is developing weapons that can destroy missiles in its boost phase and perhaps as it is cruising. Weapons that can destroy the missiles during reentry is NOT yet available.

About those subs, do you think that 60 of Americas finest subs will be at port when the fireworks start, with nearly 15 years after the cold war's end the USN has moved beyond the envolope, transformed submarine warfare to near perfection. The development of projects in the USN is being carried out at rapid pace.

Do you also think that all Russian and Chinese subs are sitting at port all time? Perfection in submarine warfare? The US navy is powerful (most powerful indeed) but you exaggerate too much. If you mean trailing soviet subs during the cold war then that is not actual warfare. The US has not engaged in full scale naval combat (including full submarine force) since WW2.

it is mostly in aircraft and missile related technology that they concentrate while the USA looks to the future and has a more holistic approach to the military which is driven by strong financial support.


If it were to occur now, Russias missiles will have only a 40-50% chance of making it past the poles and another 30-40% chance of getting past NORAD and THAAD without notice and 10-15% chance of hitting their targets sucessfully given the renowned Russian efficiency!

I would take that as a joke. If indeed you are serious in what you claim, 10-15% is far too low. Again you grossly underestimate the Russians.

The Chinese have to get past the Aegis and the carriers off taiwan, also their navy is mostly littoral and cannot sustain a prolonged blue water conflict, their entire strategy is to make the enemy go as close to theri shore as possible and then swarm him with fire, no great military plan really, some of the chinese subs can take to the blue waters but they are mostly Russian cold war memorabilia that have been given fresh coats of paint . These "chinese junks" will mostly be used in semi- terrorist like strikes against the Carrier groups that are busy launching Tomahawk after tomahawk, to which the cali class subs should provide suffecient deterence. Also the Chinese air force cannot possibly break the cordon set up by nearly 6 CSGs.
Their classic " Sun Tsu- hit and hide" policy is no good if they are attaked first and more over by suprise.
Also with the B-2s and the B-52s their should be enough bombers for all chinese cities dont you think? Also not to mention the black projects that migh be called up in this rare time, I dont know what they are but I am sure they exsist.

Discussions about China vs Us in the pacific is already covered in many previous thread so I will no longer comment on this but I agree that China is not yet capable of handling the US forces in a pacific war.

What i mean is very simple to understand, to the reasonably adept it would mean exactly what it says, which is , that if the US sees that an imminent confict with the Chinese and the Russians is ineviatable, then the US wont wait to find out what the Russian were cooking after the Cold war, it would most likely be a swift and unrelenting suprise attack, to declare war is foolsih as more would die leaving all sides struggling after the war, so to minimise casualities and the impact on humanity as a whole the US would see it as would most that the most logical choice would be to attack them First

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt but you had just reinforced your apocalyptic "NUKE em all to glass to maintain US hegemony on the globe" view.

and that too hard because in the end people would die and it can either be be both of us or some of us and all of them, the latter would be the most logical military step as it would not only reduce the pressure on the world economy, of which America plays a very significant part and also on humanity as we can be assure that the spirit of freedom, liberty and justice prevail as the fundamental tennants of all humanity.

although i agree that the basis of nuclear warfare is to destroy as soon as possible all of the opposition before they could get to you.

Your reason why to preemptively nuke Russia and China is radically extremist.
- To reduce pressure on world economy = nuke em (China) to reduce competition. IS THAT REALLY HOW YOU VIEW THE WORLD, NUKE SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY ARE COMPETING ECONOMICALLY?

- Good for humanity because the spirit of Freedom, Justice and Liberty will prevail.

2 of those things (liberty and freedom, i think they are basically the same)are western concept of human rights and are not universal in every humans. At that they are NOT AN INHERENT TRAIT IN HUMANITY but rather an adapted one. claiming that they are fundamental in all humanity disreagrds all cultures and beliefs of every other civilization. and BTW, justice exists in all civilizations, they just dont follow the western way.

I would like to debate with you somewhere in this site about this topic further as soon as i create a thread for it... Hope to see you there

1. Thus your assumption that the Russians and their more mendacious protege the Chinese will be hard pressed when the fireworks start.

2. These "chinese junks" will mostly be used in semi- terrorist like strikes against the Carrier groups that are busy launching Tomahawk

Mendacious means a "habitual liar" or "addicted to rhetoric", You would most probably refer to the 1st one given your propensity to hurl insinuations.

Along with your:

3. "cheap chinese DVD players"


4. "throwaway Chinese goods"

I am of chinese descent and i resent your continual derogatory insinuations against us chinese. I suggest you stop using those terms in our civilize discussion.

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 04:34 AM
Hey IAI you forgot to mention that in Chechnya we didn't loose real important planes like MiG 25's MiG 29's-31's or Su 27's, we lost only low flying Su-24/25's and helecopters, unlike USA which lost planes which were the heyday figthers of the day in the 60's (445 F-4's, 397 -105's) Hey everyone did you see his TACTIC of trying to make everyone forget about those statistics, did you notice the famous/usual American DIS-info tactic he used by saying the Vietnamies used thier rifles because our SAM's didn't work, hahahahaah now you know he was too embarressed to talk about these so he just brushed it over by making some "FANTASTIC" CHILDISH CLAIM LIKE "THEY USED RIFLES, HAHAHA WHAT DO YOU GOT TO SAY ABOUT THOSE vietnam stats hu, it's your ouw American sites addmitting it, haha, what him come with some more "FANTASTIC" excuses on why YOU shouldn't believe Wikipedia. You constantly don't like to CLEARLY mention what type of planes we lost in Chechnya, (Insignifigant ones) but just like your fellow yanks you try and Imply we lost our Signifigant type of planes to Chechens, which we didn't not in the Afgahnistan War nor in both Chechnyan Wars did we EVER lose MiG 25's/29's/31's nor Su-27's EVER to any enemy action using US SAM's AAA Helecopters/ Tanks, Su-24's/25's YA we did and aint got no shame about addmitting it cus that ain't no REAL loss, but lossing 445 F-4's 397 F-105's to the "so called" weak Soviet SAM's HHHAAAAA, what do you gotta say about that in front of the ATS community hu, are you saying right now that those planes fell because on vietnamies Rifles hu? and we know that not all 445 F-4's and 397 F-105's were shot down with SAM's we already know a some of them were shot down with AAA, so don't cha even try and turn the subject around by trying to have us focussing on that some of those planse were broght down by other means excuse, haha, so I'm waitin are you saying Wikipeadia is lying hu?????? Every one compare our Su 24/25 and helecopter losses to USA's F-04 and F-105 losses (remember those were the fighters of the day in vietnam) which is comcidered a bigger loss 2u-24's of F-4/105's. Oh and BTW that stat on Rus, USA's nuke arsenal is not acurate Rus has More nukes than USA and I'll be back with the US LINKS that ADDMIT it, one more thing we wipped the chechens the only thing they can do now is terrorist attacks here and there were Rus Army isn't present, unlike US in Iraq which US is LOSSING, and if you weren't I assure you 1000% US Military would have pulled out and let the iraqis handel it by now 2005. ONE MORE THING, YEA FELLAS didn't I and Mr.Vialls tell you US always uses media trickery to make people in the world beleive US is better than Russia, didn't you notice how US was always saying the F-15 has never been lost in combat yet in that site two 15's were lost, later on out of embarresment US now All of a sudden changes what they "supposedly" ment by saying "oh what we ment is the F-15 has never lost in a Dog Fight." HHHHAAAHHAHAHAHAHAH UNTIL NEXT FELLAS NEXT TIIIIMMMMEEEEE out SIBERIAN!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 11-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 04:53 AM
Too bad your list is misleading. Not all of those planes were shot down by SAMs or guns, or even shot down. The 2 SR-71s weren't even over Vietnam when they were lost. They're on the list because they were lost supporting the war. That list is every plane LOST, due to shoot downs, accidents, or other causes. NOT just shootdowns.

64-17969 (SR-71A) Lost on 10 May 1970 during an operational mission from Kadena, Okinawa against North Vietnam. Shortly after air-refueling, the pilot, Major William E. Lawson initiated a normal full power climb.Stretching before him was a solid bank of cloud containing heavy thunderstorm activity which reached above 45,000'. Heavy with fuel, the aircraft was unable to maintain a high rate of climb and as it entered turbulence both engines flamed out. The RPM dropped to a level too low for restarting the engines. Pilot and RSO, Major Gilbert Martinez ejected safely after the aircraft stalled. The plane crashed near Korat RTAFB, Thailand.

64-17974 (SR-71A) This aircraft was lost on 21 April 1989 over the South China Sea and is the last loss of any Blackbird as of December 1991. Pilot Lt Col Dan House said the left engine blew up and shrapnel from it hit the right-side hydraulic lines, causing a loss of flight controls. House and RSO Blair Bozek ejected and came down safely in the ocean. They had been able to broadcast their position before abandoning the Blackbird, and rescue forces were immediately on the way. However the crew were rescued by native fisherman. The local chieftain's new throne is Colonel House's ejection seat! .

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 01:33 PM
Yes we know very well that there were planes lost do to accidents, but count all the planes in is 3298 not even half of them were lost to accidents the over whealming majority WAS to AAA SAM's and thats fact, you see fellas do you see what Zap58 was trying to "IMPLY" he wanted evry one to avoid looking at the site by trying to say scince the site contains planes lost do to accidents/ nalfunctions and it doesn't say which ones were malfunctions the site should be avoided, hahahahaah that's an OLD tactic we Russians have notice Yanks always use to avoid "EMBARESSMENT", now let me put you MORE on the spot light Zap ARE YOU saying here to avoid embarresment on that the majority of the 3298 planes lost were do to malfunctions? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAAH Wait I gotta hear this one.

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 03:12 PM
All this inter-nationalist sniping is quite unnecessary.

Russia, China, and the US (not to mention France and the UK) are each quite capable of inflicting totally unacceptable losses on any of the others, whatever the performance charactericts of any given specific weapons system may be. Nobody, at least as far as any of us know, has anything that can stop an ICBM. They are simply going too damn fast. BTW I think India could probably join this club too, but they have no strategic reason to develop SLBM's or ICBM's, given that their primary threats are right next door.

That is the nature of the modern world.

Assuming a Russian/Chinese alliance were to become concerned enough about US hegemony that they were willing to start a nuclear war (possible, not likely), they would have to do it knowing that the US has enough retaliatory capability to hurt them pretty bad, however effective their first strike might be.

Instead, after further reflection, I expect a Cold War type scenario is more likely, with the Russians and Chinese exerting pressure on the Khazaks et al. to "disinvite" the US from it's Central Asian bases. Up to and including attempting the overthrow of the .gov's in question. But in all probability not initiating direct conflict (even purely conventional) with the US itself.

The only scenario I can think of that really worries me WRT nuclear warfare is this: it is possible for some party, one with nuke-armed subs at it's disposal, to launch a decapitation attack (IE: vape everything "within the Beltway" - taking out DC, Langley, Fort Mead, the Pentagon) and entertain the possibility that they might get away with it - with the US leadership gone and the rest of us with no idea who to retaliate against. There is, AFAIK, no way to tell for sure what country the launching sub came from.

It could also be done with nuclear devices transported by truck or something, with the idea of passing it off as a terrorist attack.

[edit on 7/11/05 by xmotex]

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 04:49 PM
Russia doesn't need China to take on USA China is our enemy, China is hoping US A-Rus go to war so China can take Siberia and other parts of Russia, one thing US doen't like to metion or they just don't know is US military DRASTICALY cut scince the end of the cold war US troops are only 1/5 what they were Cold War 3Million now 2005 650,000. the hole RUS/US reducing our nukes is the BIGGEST lies botrh Rus and USA are lying to the world when we say we've reduced our nukes. and I didn't say that to be "Politicaly Correct" it's a real FACT both Nations destroyed Dummy Nukes in front on International observers, in the 1990's.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:28 PM
SiberianTiger Is correcting people? C'mon I though his ranting and imaginary weapons and theories were as bad as it got but now he is telling people they are wrong?

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:53 PM
What was that?! Imaginary weapons? hu? I cant hear you?! here's PBS also showing Rus/USA have such weapons, Looks like all this stuff about "Siberiantiger doesn't know what hes talking" is nonscense don't ya think? heheheheh

[edit on 11-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:59 PM
I never said that Russian SAMs didn't shoot down a lot of planes. I said that the list you provided makes it APPEAR that all of those planes were shot down, when they weren't. And not ALL the planes shot down in Vietnam WERE brought down by SAMs. A lot of them were brought down by AAA guns, some were brought down by a guy lying on his back shooting a rifle into the air, and hitting the pilot, and some were brought down by SAMs.

And for the record, it was ALWAYS that the F-15 has never lost a dogfight. I never once heard anyone say that no F-15s were ever shotdown. I always heard that none were shotdown in air to air combat. One of the first days of the Gulf War they started losing F-15s to SAMs. WHat do you expect when they were taking on SAM sites, and areas where there were lots of SAM batteries.

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 06:15 PM
The guy shooting the rifle must have been shooting at low flyin helecopters,cus if your trying to say these riflemen sucseeded in shotting down 445 F-4 Phantoms, and the other 3000+ US planes I tell you now YOU ARE ONE CRASY DUDE and stop smokin what ever it is your smokin. Multiple people US Military and US military officials on the "History Channel" and other shows and people here on ATS.COM have always said "No F-15 has ever been lost in combat" any ways this is for westpoint, this is the only site I can find in your English laungauge, ignor the Roman Catholic prophecies which appear in red writting, just read the other parts, and cross reference them and you'll see these we're articles written by your American Magasines back in the 70's, Enjoy.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 11-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 11-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 06:39 PM
Will you STOP putting words in my mouth you . I said that a FEW low flying planes were hit by guys with rifles. You lie on your back, listen for the sound, and when you think it's close you pull the trigger. WHEN did I say that they shot down ALL the planes in Vietnam that way. I said that A LOT were hit by AAA GUNS, BUNCHES were hit by SAMS, and some were hit by guys with rifles. THAT IS A DOCUMENTED FACT by the way. There were several pilots wounded by being hit with a simple rifle round fired by some guy that listend to when it got close and just pulled the trigger. if you can show me ONE TIME I said that most of the planes in Vietnam were shot down that way, or when I said that Russian SAMS didn't shoot down anything in Vietnam, or they suck then I'll admit that everything you posted is right and I'm wrong. But you CAN'T. You're so ready to attack me that you don't even bother to READ what I write. You just look for things you can use to jump all over me with.

Oh and as far as the F-15 goes, they say "in combat" because until the E came along, the only combat the F-15 did was air to air. There was a VERY limited bombing capability to the C model, but until the E came along with a dedicated bombing mission, they ONLY were used against other fighters, so in that sense, there WEREN'T any lost in combat.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Zaphod58]

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in