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.


China's Geo political strategy

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:13 PM
LOL AGAIN, you post irrelevant material on Fairtax...

So what if it brings $10 trillion of investment back home... does it state ANYWHERE there that it will help pay back the deficit? NO.

Nowhere does it state fairtax pays back our insane debt... you obviously cannot find any source or links that state so, SO you start putting up irrelevant material in support of fairtax... our discussion is not fairtax... its the debt and how we fix it.

It's simple logic.... I'm amazed at how you cannot even understand that.

OH, you wanna use that source? Well, according to the source you posted:

"However, critics argue that it could be difficult to collect, having challenges with an underground economy (avoiding the tax),[4][3] and that it may not yield enough money for the government, resulting in cuts to governmental programs, increased deficit, or a higher tax rate."

*Yawn* Owned?

posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:16 PM
Okay, now I see... i've owned you enough so you take back that Fairtax is a solution to our deficit and deny you ever saying Fairtax is a solution to our deficit problem... One of many solutions? WHAT OTHER SOLUTIONS HAVE YOU PROPOSED? NONE.

THAN HOW DARE YOU call me unAmerican, and insult me when I propose a solution... whereas YOU DO NOT PRPOSE YOUR OWN SOLUTION.

That is beyond ludicrous....

[edit on 24-12-2006 by k4rupt]


posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:32 PM
a 9 trillion dollar debt cannot just be paid back in a snap, it will take years. but what you are completly ignoring is that the US is 9 trillion in debt with no solid industrial or exporting base and high paying jobs constantly being outsourced being replaced by minimum wage crap jobs along with taxing the hell out of the average american who already works his ass off for his money only for it to get robbed halting investment into the economy and spending will not solve this deficit problem, it would only make it worse, more jobs will continue to be outsourced, our industrial base will continue to weaken and more poverty level people would rely on the government even more.

what will reverse all of this is the fair tax plan, somthing you obviously have not reviewed, a strong industrial base along with a strong domestic and foriegn investment base along with a strong economy and becoming the leading exporter again will in time get a grip on the defecit as our wealth as a nation would be unprecedented, of course you obviously have not thought all of this out you just expect a debt to be payed bvy taxing the hell out of people which is flawwed, it is a flawwed part of our current system and is counter productive, our current system actually enables wastefull spending to be covered by a smoke screen created by politicans, fair tax would clear this smoke screen.

like my man killah priest said, 1 step, 1 flesh 1 breath.

take it 1 step at a time, this will be no immediate solution to this debt, but becoming a strong industrial nation and major exporter again will help in the long run. deny ignorance buddy.


posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:34 PM
why do you keep saying you owned me? you didnt own anything, TAKE A LOOK back at what i originally said, i said it is a solution and one of many to help get a grip on this problem, you are taking my words and twisting them a true sign that i infact have won this debate. only democrats do what you do man. democrats usually have a globalist agenda and are for bigger government.

I suggest you stop what you are doing because it will get you banned.

fair tax and fiscal responsibility are the 2 main solutions in my opinon, if you would actually read the material you would realise fair tax enables to9 american citizen to se ehow the revenue they generate and give to the government is being spent, and how if for or against their best interests, of course if you actually read the material you would know this.

[edit on 24-12-2006 by ape]

posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:36 PM

Of course it takes time, and just building a strong economy with a strong industrial base DOES NOT PAY BACK THE DEBT. WOWOWOOW, I'm appalled at such remarks coming from somoene who insults people as being "uneducated."

So what if our economy becomes ultra strong? Does that mean the deficit will go away?

Look at our history ape, the strongest economics points in our history also was when our deficits began reaching peak points...

Jeez... I don't know how to continue.

You obviously don't have ANY solution to our deficit, I proposed the only clear-cut way in doing so, and you call me UnAmerican?

You know whats UnAmerican? It's leaving a big FAT debt for our children and grandchildren to slave and suffer through.


posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:39 PM

why do you keep saying you owned me? you didnt own anything, TAKE A LOOK back at what i originally said, i said it is a solution and one of many to help get a grip on this problem

Solution and one of many? You HAVEN'T LISTED ANY SOLUTIONS AT ALL. And you attack me for listing the only possible solution.

, you are taking my words and twisting them a true sign that i infact have won this debate. only democrats do what you do man. democrats usually have a globalist agenda and are for bigger government.

Actually, I'm conservative and vote GOP... HAH. You obviously don't know much about politics... Here's a lesson for ya: The core conservative principle means NOT putting debt for the future generations to pay off. That's one of the main, basic principles of conservatism. If anything, ignoring the debt is a liberal thing... so you completely put in an wrong label...

Not surprised however.

[edit on 24-12-2006 by k4rupt]


posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:43 PM
you are infact owning yourself right now, why dont you realise checked government spending (fiscal responsibility ) and a doubled in growth economy with a strong industrial base with higher paying jobs and more investment foriegn and domestic ( something that is hampered very bad right now ) would all happen due to fair tax, the solution you proposed was continuing our current situation and continue outsourcing the american industry along with jobs and tax the american even more and ignore social security and medicare and all of those problems, man please you are just insulting the integrity of the website now.

in the long run with the plans i proposed ( fair tax and smart fiscal responsibility) would in the long run eventually make the US a creditor nation again and control spending while building an economy and industry the world has never see before.

see what you're doing right now is attempting to bait me into getting out of line and it isnt going to work, you are trying very hard to get me banned and it's very difficult to hold back from responding to your ignorance in the fashion that I want but i like this website and rspect the rules, you however are treading the line with your current behaviour.

not once did i say fair tax was the sole solution without fiscal responsibility which would be automatic with fair tax installed, we need to check our spending and clarify on what exactly is being spent and what is being wasted etc. another solution would be to elect politicans who are actually smart.

keep digging the hole deeper for yourself buddy, you have really shown your true colors on this forum.

posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:47 PM
Wow buddy... talk about "digging a deeper hole."

I think you've got to understand basic economics before you can argue... LOL.

Okay, buddy, you know what, lemme ask you: how wuold having a strong economy solve our $9 trillion deficit problem?

You do realize, that when our economy was at it's highest peak, our deficit was as well.

When President Bush came in, our economy was heading towards a recession, but he turned it around, and in 2005 he claimed our economy was the envy of the world... He was right, our economy was strong and only getting stronger. The Dow Jones hit a record high. BUT, guess what else ape? That's right, our deficit went from 5 trillion to 9 trillion dollars. SO WHAT DOES THIS LITTLE LESSON ALL MEAN? A strong economy IS IN NO WAY TIED TO BRINGING DOWN OUR DEFICIT.

You've got to be joshing me man, how many times do I have to lecture you?

[edit on 24-12-2006 by k4rupt]


posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 11:27 PM
thats a very bad example because using a repulican congress who spent money like ravage beasts for the past decade has lead to this deficit and the only thing keeping the US alive is economic growth and investment which is seriously threatened right now, yet you sit here and lecture me proposing solutions that would only worsen our situation. comparing econmic growth with federal spending and saying economic growth leads to deficit spending is one of the most insane arguments I have ever heard, you dont need to spend like ravage beasts when you have a roaring economy. what that example you gave was the GOP monopoly spending like maniancs not practicing fiscal responsibility, fair tax would get a grip on all of this.

not to mention federal spending would become more beneficial because of fair tax, we have alot of people on federal funded programs like welfare and section 8 housing, with fair tax there would be no excuse to be on these programs as the opportunity for advancement has just increased 20x over which means less government waste and more productive investment of revenue spending in regards to our medicare and social security crisis which contributes to our deficit, so with funding diverted from welfare and section 8 and unemployment more money can be invested into social security and medicare reenforcing the establishment even more and benefiting americans young and old.

once again please get a clue, i suggest a new years resolution for you would be to deny ignorance.

what im saying is even how good our (americans ) economy is now it could be 10x better along with our GDP, we could also become a creditor nation again, we dont need to spend when we have strong economic growth, thats our( americans ) own fault for electing people who did this to us without us recognising it, well we ( americans ) are waking up.

[edit on 24-12-2006 by ape]

posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 12:29 PM
Your whole post had NOTHING to do with solving our $9 trillion deficit.

You have ignored it long enough, and I'm sick and tired of you personally attacking me and my proposals whereas you propose NOTHING.

Taxing is not a great thing, but it's better than allowing a huge burden to throw upon our children and grandchildren... by that time, the debt would be uncontrollable.

That whole post, all you wrote was how our economy should be stronger.... I already STATED that a strong economy has nothing to do with paying back our debt... I SHOWED YOU and PROOVED TO YOU... yet you ignored it and continued ranting about how we should be a creditor nation and how our economy should be stronger. So, I ASKED YOU: HOW DOES A STRONG ECONOMY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WIH PAYING BACK $9 TRILLION OF DEBT? You do realize that the strongest points of our economy also ties in with the highest peaks of our deficit and deficit spending... Show me, otherwise that proves your point? If you cannot, I suggest you not call it "insane." You do know what's insane? "Fairtax can absorb the deficit in 10 years." LOL!!!!! Wow, talk about educated.

God, you still have no clue do you. Fairtax is not a solution to our deficit. You have failed to show ANY sources or links that prove so... and yet you continue arguing. Let me ask you, what the hell are you arguinga bout?

Our entire discussion was on how to fix our $9 trillion deficit. You attack me for putting up the only proposal... you call me UnAmerican for fixing our problem now so our future generations don't have to suffer even worse.

You have wandered far from the discussion in trying to hide that you have been owned.

So I'm going to ask for the last time: Prove to me that Fairtax is indeed a solution to our $9 trillion deficit... NO, not a solution to ADDING ON TO THE DEFICIT, but a solution TO THE DEFICIT.

You're too good at denying ignorance buddy.

[edit on 25-12-2006 by k4rupt]


posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 10:58 PM
CONSIDERING that you dont know how the american system works as you have obviously displayed by showing your ignorance in regards to welfare funding etc, I mean take a look at the ignorance rampage you you conducted the last 2 pages and then ask yourself if you're educated enough to even engage in discussion with me yet alone even comprehend all of the benefits that fair tax would bring including getting a better control of the deficit and clearing up the smoke screen politicans puts up in regards to spending, it makes it all simple for everyone instead of thd current system, if you would actually take time to read the material you would understand. but then i think back on the last 4 pages and you still cannot even seem to comprehend so if I were you I wouldnt even bother reading it because you would not understand it.

haha you didnt even know who funds welfare and how the system works yet you sit here and lecture me, get a clue you're not even an american tax payer.

what exactly have you proven other than you're a liar and a manipulator??, I have caught you many times in this thread being dishonest and twisting words along with making things up, you only have proven what everyone knows which is the GOP monopoly spending like wild dogs, well DURRRRR, if they practiced smart fiscal responsibility this wouldnt of happened, they are taking advantage of the american worker and economy, with fair tax like i have pointed out a dozen times would clear the smoke so we can see whats actually being spent andwhats being totally washed down the tube. basically the benefits of fair tax is a doubled in size GDP and economy plus good fiscal responsibility will get a handle on any deficit, but of course you cannot understand as you have proved on this thread you dont know jack about how the american system works, probably because you dont invest,pay taxes or live in this country.

I have also provided plenty of information I dont need to prove any further especially to someone who obviously cannot grasp common sense, inc2006 got it right away you seem to be the one who is agenda driven here, putting your fingers in your ears stomping your feet sceaming deficit when you dont even have the slightest clue on how to solve this , increaded taxes? continued outsourcing?? someone needs to take economics 101.

[edit on 25-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 25-12-2006 by ape]

posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 11:12 PM

I have also provided plenty of information I dont need to prove any further especially to someone who obviously cannot grasp common sense, inc2006 got it right away you seem to be the one who is agenda driven here, putting your fingers in your ears stomping your feet sceaming deficit when you dont even have the slightest clue on how to solve this , increaded taxes? continued outsourcing?? someone needs to take economics 101.


So, you cannot find any links or source to support your "Fairtax is a solution to our deficit problem" dream eh?

USE simple logic ape. If Fairtax were indeed a clearcut solution to our deficit, don't you think the supporters of Fairtax would be gloating over it like mad? Wouldn't you think would have it on the front of the site in big caps: F"AIRTAX, SUPPORT IT: IT REDUCES OUR DEFICIT!"

God, it's simple logic. It would be one DAMNING argument for instating Fairtax if it did... I'm sure supporters would be using it as their main campaign slogan for Fairtax if it did.

You cannot even find any sources or links that remotely SAY that Fairtax helps pay back our deficit. You know why you can't find any? BECAUSE IT ISN'T!

You are getting way off topic: Our discussion is Fairtax and how it is a solution to our deficit spending...


our discussion is: Fairtax and how it is a solution to our deficit problem. Post a link that even remotely STATES fairtax is one.

I have posted, from the source you gave me, that many believe Fairtax will in fact RAISE the deficit.

Sigh... don't post anything unless it's a link that states clearly how fairtax and the deficit intermingles.

[edit on 25-12-2006 by k4rupt]


posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 12:33 AM
one only needs common sense to realise fair tax would make the US a creditor nation again, infact you will find these facts and how it would help solve our current deficit in the links I provided, as I have mentioned well over a dozen times now. it's very obvious you have not read 1 single link I have posted. I suggest you stop making yourself look even more ignorant and actually read through all of the material i provided.

once again one only needs common sense to realise how this would benefit the american citizen and worker ( something you're not ), I laugh how you're embarassed to state your current status.

lets take a look here companies and busniesses outsource because of the insane taxes they have to deal with here, this means less american industry and jobs which means the average american who is smart but not always in a situation where he/she can better his/herself with higher education we have to rely on companies like wal mart and ralphs and utilities ( utilities pay well ), this is simply unrealistic if if you want to comepete as a nation in the 21st century, all of these foriegn countries are benefiting from our outsourcing and are taking american jobs, I already stated my link that princeston uni did a study that concluded 400 foreign companies are ready to come over to the US and creat plants and factories and move corporate headquarters to the US, do you realise how this would impact out current industry who would also come back to the US ? we would become the worlds wealthiest nation 10x over and would become a creditor nation again.

now im not just hardping fair tax stuff, alan greenspan and several other HIGHLY RESPECTABLE figures have endorsed this plan and want it to go through, so much so a letter from all of these people was sent to the prez.

now the fact that you cannot comprehend unprecedened economic and investment growth and how this would help the Us instead of hurt the US more in regards to the deficit is really beyond me.

your solution was to raise the already draconian income tax law on the US worker only to hurt the economy and the average/poverty level in regards to progression, and would incread government spending for section 8 and welfare and unemployment, it would also really hurt small busniess which create alot of jobs, I suggest you actually research this. not only that your 'solution' solves nothing in regards to outsourcing and american industry which would still continue, now I am very well aware now that you know nothing of how the american system works becausew you have displyed such brilliant knowledge about federal welfare funding and social program funding so im not sure any of this typing is actually going to do anything for you because after all of this wasted time I have come to the conclusion that you are BSing me, because I have made this very clear and this would only reenforce my opinion about a globalist outsourcing agenda.

for someone who doesn't pay taxes you sure do have alot of nerve, young one.

This will bring us back to my founding father’s original tax plan with its checks and balances controlling the reckless spending and borrowing of Congress.

this is what you will also find if you can even understand it

"Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all DUTIES, IMPOSTS and EXICSES shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States" hence a more clear view on who in the hell wants to waste and spend my damn money, the only way such a major overhaul can come to pass is if the people themselves demand it. While a growing number of politicians support it each year, most politicians will still fight it because it reduces their power and their greedy nature those damn stupid fools. So the people have to push this one through.

this specifically forbids direct taxation on the general public by omission. the vast majority of federal taxes were meant to be indirect, like fuel taxes. They're a specific charge, on a specific commodity, to pay for a specific gubbamint service. the same would/could go (as an example) for weapons and ammunition sales to support the military and other federal expenses etc that are more clear and more in the interest of the US citizen. POWER TO THE PEOPLE ! down with big government and liberal socialist taxation policies!!!

remember i said fiscal responsibility and fair tax would solve this deficit, aside from the fact yoy twisted my words to all hell. 1 step at a time, with fair tax installed the amount of money the US spent would become irrelevant in the long haul of things because we would actually be spending money we have instead of money we dont ;-(. like what we are doing right now ;-( damn republicans.

[edit on 26-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 26-12-2006 by ape]

posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 01:03 PM
Once again, you post irrelevant material ON Fairtax that HAS NOTHING to do with how it would be a solution to our deficit.

I will ask ONE MORE TIME: Post a source or link that shows that Fairtax is indeed a solution to our deficit.

THINK ABOUT IT. It's common logic and common sense: IF FAIRTAX were indeed a solution to our deficit, wouldn't you think there would be some sort of news or link or at least an article that would state so?

Sigh... how many times do I have to ask this? it's quite obvious there isn't any and it's quite obvious you're tip toeing around what I asked because you cannot find any...

If you cannot, I suggest you not post here anymore... because then, what the hell are you arguing about?

[edit on 26-12-2006 by k4rupt]

posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 02:18 PM

Originally posted by ape
stellar the f-86 sabre had a 7-1 kill ratio on the mig 15, im not sure what sources you're referencing.

Well the allies lost about 3000 aircraft against the Soviet/North Korean forces which lost according to official sources anywhere between 400-600 ( and thousands according to allied pilots) Mig-15's.

What i have trouble believing is the almost 1000 of those 'losses' were ground accidents or ground fire but i'll leave that there for now.

F9F-2s, F9F-3s and F9F-5s served with distinction in the Korean War, downing six Mikoyan MiG-15s with one F9F loss. The first MiG-15 downed was on 9 November 1950 by U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander William (Bill) Amen of VF-111 "Sundownders" Squadron flying an F9F-2B. Three more were downed in November 1951, and the other two were downed on the 18 November 1952. The type was the primary Navy jet fighter and ground-attack plane in the Korean conflict.

According to this source 163 were lost ( to all causes)...

The Thunderjet had a distinguished record during the Korean War. Although the F-84B and F-84C could not be deployed because their J35 engines had a service life of only 40 hours, the F-84D and F-84E entered combat with 27th Fighter Escort Group on 7 December 1950. The aircraft were initially tasked with escorting the B-29 Superfortress bombers. The first Thunderjet air-to-air victory was scored on 21 January 1951 at the cost of two F-84s. The F-84 was a generation behind the swept-wing Soviet Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 and outmatched, especially when the MiGs were flown by Soviet pilots, and the MiG counter-air mission was soon given to the F-86 Sabre. Like its famous predecessor, the P-47, the F-84 switched to the low-level interdiction role at which it excelled.

The F-84 flew a total of 86,408 missions and dropped 111,171,000 pounds (50,427 tons) of bombs and 12,258,000 pounds (5,560 tons) of napalm. The USAF claimed that the F-84s were responsible for 60 percent of all ground targets destroyed in the war. Notable F-84 operations included the 1952 attack on the Sui-ho Dam. The F-84 pilots were credited with 8 MiG-15 kills at a loss of 64 aircraft in air combat. The total losses were 335 F-84D, E, and G models. During the war, the F-84 became the first USAF fighter to utilize aerial refueling in combat.

According to the same source as earlier 234 were lost 'due to all causes'.

The longest-serving F-80 unit in Korea was the 8th Fighter-Bomber Wing, which began missions from Japan in June 1950. Its 35th, 36th, and 80th Fighter-Bomber Squadrons flew F-80's until May 1953, when the wing converted to the F-86 Sabre. Its primary base from 1951-53 was at Suwon. The 49th Fighter-Bomber Group and its 7th, 8th, and 9th Fighter-Bomber Squadrons deployed to Taegu, Korea from Japan in September 1950 and continued fighter-bomber missions in the F-80C until the spring of 1952, when it converted to the F-84 Thunderjet. The 51st Fighter-Interceptor Wing (16th and 25th FIS) operated F-80Cs from Kimpo and Japan from September 1950 to November 1951, when it transitioned to F-86s. The 35th Fighter-Interceptor Group and two squadrons, the 39th and 40th FIS, went to Pohang, Korea, in July 1950, but converted to F-51 Mustangs before the end of the year.

Of the 277 F-80s lost in operations (approximately 30% of the existing inventory), 113 were destroyed by ground fire and 14 shot down by enemy aircraft. [1] Major Charles J. Loring, Jr. was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions while flying with the 80th Fighter-Bomber Squadron, 8th Fighter-Bomber Wing on November 22, 1952.

275 lost to all causes...

The squadron arrived in Korea equipped with the P-51D Mustangs. They did their conversion training at Iwakuni, Japan and returned to Korea in April 1951 with around thirty F 8s and T 7s, the squadron moved to Kimpo in June and was declared combat-ready the following month. There was some apprehension, as the F 8 was clearly inferior to the MiG-15 and better only in rate-of-climb and acceleration to the F-86 Sabre.

The squadron flew its first Meteors on a combat mission on 30 July 1951. Mainly trained for ground attack the squadron had difficulties when assigned to escort duty at sub-optimum altitudes. On 29 August, eight Meteors were on escort duty in "MiG Alley" when engaged by six MiG-15s, one Meteor was lost and two damaged for no Chinese casualties. On 27 October, the first "probable" was achieved, a feat twice repeated six days later.[2] On 1 December, during a clash between 12 Meteors and some 40 MiG-15s, the squadron had its first two confirmed victories — Flying Officer Bruce Gogerly made the first kill. However, this occurred at the cost of four Meteors destroyed. As a result, bomber escort was taken over by the USAF and No. 77 Squadron was tasked to ground attack duties. The Meteor performed well but proved vulnerable to ground fire, as the rocket sights required a long level run to operate effectively.

By the end of the conflict, the squadron had flown 4,836 missions, destroying six MiG-15s, over 3,500 structures and some 1,500 vehicles. About 30 Meteors were lost to enemy action in Korea — the vast majority of these were shot down by anti-aircraft fire while serving in a ground attack capacity

42 ...

Superior American pilot training in comparison to that of North Koreans and the Chinese accounted for much of the F-86's success in achieving air superiority during nearly all of the hostilities. F-86 pilots also achieved a favorable kill ratio even over the Soviet piloted MiG-15s. Soviets piloted the majority of MiG-15s that fought in Korea, while inferior North Korean and Chinese pilots piloted the remainder[2][3]. The Soviets and their allies periodically contested air superiority in MiG Alley, a hotbed for air-to-air combat near the mouth of the Yalu River (the boundary between Korea and China). Some sources attributed the F-86E's all-moving tailplane to giving the Sabre a decisive advantage over the MiG-15. Far greater emphasis has been given to the training, aggressiveness and experience of the F-86 pilots. Despite rules-of-engagement to the contrary, F-86 units frequently initiated combat over MiG bases in the Manchurian "sanctuary".

Review of archived and previously classified documents released after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 disputes the numbers of claims by U.S. pilots, stating that the VVS lost only 345 MiGs. In turn the Soviets claimed to have shot down more than 1,300 U.N. aircraft including more than 650 Sabres. However, USAF records revealed that there were only about 660 Sabres deployed to the Korean theater in the entire war. This fact makes the Soviet claims highly dubious. USAF records also show 224 F-86s lost to all causes, including non-combat. Many air engagements are corroborated by both sides, but with conflicting claims of kills.


So basically while most sources admit that the Mig-15 were superior in most regards ( if not always or overall by any large margin) we are expected to believe that it were lost in such large numbers ( seven to one) against Sabre's or allied aircraft overall despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? I did not even include non jet fighters/ fighter-bombers on the allied side that could and did shoot back to say nothing of the over ONE HUNDRED B-29's that were 'written off' ( due to all causes obviously; whatever that means in double speak) so one wonders why the assumption is made that these were straight up 'duals' that the Mig's 'lost' against the Sabre's...

Considering the number of aircraf both sides employed it's hardly surprising that the allies managed air superiority and also a credit to the flying skills of the mostly soviet pilots to have done so much damage against such forces...


[edit on 26-12-2006 by StellarX]

posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 03:09 PM
What does the above have to do with "Peak Oil?"

posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
What does the above have to do with "Peak Oil?"

Not much as far as i can tell but when people ask questions i sometimes give them more than they asked for.
Peak oil has very little to do with reality anyways so it doesn't have much to do with anything!

Sorry for ruining this otherwise AWESOME thread with my off topic remarks!


posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 09:08 PM
according to this source

"The Sabre's combat record in Korea was, by any standards, impressive. Of the 900 aerial victories claimed by USAF pilots during the war, 792 were MiG-15s shot down by Sabres. The MiGs in their turn managed to knock down only 78 Sabres. American fighter pilots thus established a ten-to-one kill/loss ration in their favor.

Documented postwar research indicates there were actually only about 379 US victories. The Soviets claimed to have shot down more than 650 Sabres, while USAF records show 224 F-86s lost to all causes, including non-combat."

im just talkingg mig vs sabre here, I understand all the sources vary but most of the ones I have enountered have said the sabre have a superior kill ratio against the mig no matter if the mig had certain superior features and sabre still had some advantages of its own which they pilots utalized, obviously the better trained won.

this is another great breakdown of both planes

now i will end my post with this, we should both agree with chuck yager when we are discussing weaponry of different nations in that it's not the technoloy it's the pilots and the man in the cockpit =)

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 02:51 AM
Most of this thread has nothing to do with the topic, at all.

But to put down the naysayers...

Viewed alternately as a percentage of the GDP, the national debt rose sharply during World War II, reaching about 122% of GDP in 1946. As soon as the conflict ended, the debt began declining, reaching a postwar low of 32.6% of GDP in 1981. The debt then started rising again and peaked at 67.3% of GDP in 1996. It then dropped to 57.4% of GDP by 2001 but then began rising again, reaching 64.3% of GDP by 2005. It should be noted that the debt of United States is on par with the debt of other developed countries, such as Germany and France.

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:39 AM

Originally posted by crisko
Most of this thread has nothing to do with the topic, at all.

But to put down the naysayers...

And i remember posting a link to this fact on other threads with a actual link to the source material. Why do you think the fact that the US more debt fighting Nazi Germany can be related to the debt incurred from fighting a non entity such as OBL or the Iraqi's which never attacked the US? Can you explain why the dollar's buying power have declined by about 60% since 2001 and how that has impacted, and will impact in the future, the national debt?


<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in