America is the most powerful nation EVER!!!

reply to post by darkmaninperth



Hit them at 30,000 feet?..........If your talking about hitting them on the ground,and I am assuming you are,you do know all our small planes are docked in concrete/blast retardant hangers.

Also the is now way ANY fighter FROM ANY COUNTRY can defeat a f-22(well maybe by luck 1 outa 1000 engagements)


Al the f-22 has to do(if it needs to run)is engage "supercruise"which is when it sustaines mach 1.6 flight speed w/o afterburners.(mach 1.6 is something around 1200mph(la to ny in about two and a half hours)

If it is in a fight-which is unlikely since it utilizes "first look,first kill"technology which allows it to detect,netrualize the threat before the enemy fighter knows it is there.But if it does it has "thrust vectoring"technology which alows for unprecidented maneuvers(sp?)
as well as "classified"elcetronic counter measures......not to mention its state of the art missile system.

Dont believe me ?Just go to wikipedia-f/22 raptor.

Oh yea it is also stealth............

reply to post by elysiumfire


Its Justin Krog.......and the comparison mistake was a typo(do you know what that means?)I love you members who can find no valid argument and *inmaturely*I might add bash on spelling mistakes.

Also your "Cloverfield" statement was out of context and had no relivence to this thread-How can comparing a monster attacking New York to a invasion on the US relate?You shoulda choose a much better comparison,like 9/11,Pearl Harbor,..................but A FICTIONAL MOVIE ABOUT A MONSTER ATTACKNG NEW YORK???

Hey why not compare the US invading Tokyo with "Godzilla"...........WTF......LOL

Did it take you that long to conjure up the words to support your poorly place comment?

Context is a notion used in the language sciences (linguistics, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, pragmatics, semiotics, etc.) in two different ways, namely as

verbal context
social context
Verbal context refers to surrounding text or talk of an expression (word, sentence, conversational turn, speech act, etc.). The idea is that verbal context influences the way we understand the expression. Hence the norm not to cite people 'out of context'. Since much contemporary linguistics takes texts, discourses or conversations as its object of analysis, the modern study of 'verbal context' takes place in terms of the analysis of discourse structures and their mutual relationships, for instance the coherence relation between sentences.

Traditionally, in sociolinguistics, social contexts were defined in terms of objective social 'variables', such as those of class, gender or race. More recently, social contexts tend to be defined in terms of the social identity being construed and displayed in text and talk by language users.

In his new multidisciplinary theory of context, Teun A. van Dijk rejects objectivist concepts of social context and shows that relevant properties of social situations can only influence language use as subjective definitions of the situation by the participants, as represented and ongoingly updated in specific mental models of language users: context models.

The influence of context parameters on language use or discourse is usually studied in terms of language variation, style or register (see Stylistics). The basic assumption here is that language users adapt the properties of their language use (such as intonation, lexical choice, syntax, and other aspects of formulation) to the current communicative situation. In this sense, language use or discourse may be called more or less 'appropriate' in a given context. It is the language or derigitave terms surrounding set paragraph, novel or article.

Wikipedia


Now read that carefully,ok????






EDIT to add:Im not going to get drawn into a irrelevent argument with you about grammer and vocabulary,nor spelling.

[edit on 4/21/2008 by jkrog08]

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by darkmaninperth

 

Hit them at 30,000 feet?.

Of course not, you silly boy

.........If your talking about hitting them on the ground,and I am assuming you are,you do know all our small planes are docked in concrete/blast retardant hangers.

They have to come out of their concrete/blast retardant hangers sometime.

What you have to realise is, with any freedom fighting, there are risks involved. Take a history note from World War 2, the resistance to the German occupations had the ability to do so much damage, but lots of it was limited due to retributions from the Americans...oops, sorry Germans. For example, if they (the resistance) kidnapped a high ranking official from the Bush administration..oops, German administration, then whole villages would be wiped out in retaliation.

Imagine what the Americans would do if one of their shiny new F22s were destroyed on the run way by Iraqi freedom fighters.

Sorry, I keep getting America of today and Nazi Germany confused - they are so similar you know.

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by elysiumfire

 

I love you members who can find no valid argument and *inmaturely*I might add bash on spelling mistakes.

It is spelled immature. At least do everyone the courtesy of at least spell checking your text before posting. Makes it so much easier to understand your ramblings without having to resort to deciphering it.

reply to post by darkmaninperth


Fair enough...............(about the spelling).......alot of times I see the mistake but am to lazy to correct it,or its a typo.

But back to topic:I dont see how you can compare NAZI Germany with America.........not even close.

Its Justin Krog...

Never! Is that really a name, or a wikipedia description of an affliction?

I'd considered the 'typo' excuse before you used it, but seeing as you make a lot of 'typo' errors, and do not correct them, I concluded that you can't write...just copy and paste words out of context from error-filled wiki. Do you always run to wiki to do your thinking for you?

Er...it's not 'inmaturely', but 'immaturely'. If you 'pm' me I'll happily give you all the correct spellings...proper English, too!

Ok! Seeing as how the context of the paragraph regarding 'Cloverfield' has flown way over your head faster than a f-22 being chased by a Typhoon, I shall clarify the said issue.

The first line of the paragraph reads...

Take a minute aside, here, for a little anticipatory imagination.

...it sets up a qualification for the metaphorical use of the destruction imaged in the film 'Cloverfield'. The point of the metaphor is the use of the word 'destruction', and is not predicated on what causes it. In fact, I don't even mention or use the term 'monster', you do. I suppose I could've used the movie 'The Day After', but Cloverfield brings a more visual and aural gritty realism (borrowing from images and sounds of 911). There...context should now be concrete, even unto you...and no doubt, you are right now tapping your forehead with a slap from your palm, exclaiming...doh! of course!

Best wishes and happy wiki-ing.

reply to post by elysiumfire


Like I said I am not going to argue with you about your poor choice of words.

Ill tell you what though-you get that "Cloverfield"monster ready and send him over with Iran and China's army,okay?


ROFLMA

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by darkmaninperth

 

But back to topic:I dont see how you can compare NAZI Germany with America.........not even close.

It is not quite there, yet. But it is getting close. I guess it is people outside of the US that can see it more.

Have a read of this article by Naomi Wolf That points out th 10 steps to fascism. What is transpiring now in America is almost a carbon copy of what happened elsewhere in history where Democracy has been eroded into dictatorship.

Oh I guess this website is false too?Thought I would post a non-Wiki source for ya: (Its even pronounced for you,so you can understand it better)

Main Entry: con·text
Pronunciation: \ˈkän-ˌtekst\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, weaving together of words, from Latin contextus connection of words, coherence, from contexere to weave together, from com- + texere to weave — more at technical
Date: circa 1568
1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs : environment, setting
— con·text·less \-ˌtekst-ləs\ adjective
— con·tex·tu·al \kän-ˈteks-chə-wəl, kən-, -chəl, -chü-əl\ adjective
— con·tex·tu·al·ly adverb [/quote
Merriam-Webster Dictionary


[edit on 4/21/2008 by jkrog08]

reply to post by darkmaninperth


I semi-agree..........I never said America wasn't or isn't going downhill..............All I stated is right now-today we are the most powerful nation economically and militarly.

Oh I guess this website is false too?

You really must like making yourself look totally stupid. Why are we back to context, again!

Firstly, I never said wiki was false, but error-filled. Contextually, both wiki and the other website you have used are actually 'real' websites (not false)...so we can now add an absence of 'comprehension' to your growing list of flaws. Whatever you do, don't take up the subject of Astrophysics...its subject matter is really way over your head.

Secondly (to qualify the 'firstly'), never mind...I'm going to bed. I shall dream of mountains and banjos and Krogs...no! scratch that, I shall dream of my green and pleasant land. Goodnight junior...have a nice day!

I never said America wasn't or isn't going downhill

That is right, you did not. You stated:

I dont see how you can compare NAZI Germany with America.........not even close.
..............All I stated is right now-today we are the most powerful nation economically and militarly.

But then you said :

I semi-agree..........

but you semi-agree. Make your mind up. You know, sometimes, it is hard to understand you. English is not your first language, is it champ?

reply to post by elysiumfire


"whatever you do, don't take up the subject of Astrophysics...its subject matter is really way over your head"

Actually I probably know more than you about it......I do intend to minor in theoretical astrophysics............So once again you prove you dont know what the hell you are talking about.Do not reply to me again unless you have something to say that relates to this thread.......Thanx

reply to post by darkmaninperth


English is my first language.........I can speak some Spanish aswell.

To clarify my "semiagree"(I know made up a word)I was trying to say that I kagree on SOME points............but I disagree with others as far as the US going downhill.

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by darkmaninperth


but I disagree with others as far as the US going downhill.

Really?

I never said America wasn't or isn't going downhill

I think you should stick to your minor theoretical astrophysics hobby.

reply to post by jkrog08


the ufo thing was actually directed more towards West Coast

yea i saw you stared ufo posts, but i'm sure in your head that fuels the idea that we as americans have the upper hand, due to alien tech

but we are not the only ones with it

anyway, get a hold of yourself man! your losing all your composure

what were loosly strung thoughts and points you were trying to make have broken down to innate ramblings

if you wanna say something, take a breath and concentrate

Who told you our small planes are all in protected areas?

Google Earth our bases and you'll see 90% of our jets are not protected in any way.

We have nearly 100 A-10's on my base and not a single one of them is protected. Our hangars aren't reinforced, and their normal parking spots are covered with sunshades at a maximum. The only time they're even remotely protected is at live load and not from above.

I could put in a call to a friend of mine at Nellis and ask about their 22's, or another at Langley and ask the same. But I can tell you for sure that our CONUS 15's and 16's are housed similarly to our A-10's.

This is something you could learn by looking at pictures of any base's flightline or a satellite shot of a base.

I have a few ideas on how to plan a successful invasion of the US that would cripple us, but even knowing what I do know, there's probably enough out there that I don't which could put a stop to any invading force. At least I hope there is.

edit: just realized maybe you were talking our jets in the desert, but it still stands, they're only semi-protected if at all.

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Sovereign797]

Subject: F-22

Very impressive plane. If you get a chance to see it do its demo routine, do it. It's pretty amazing stuff.

We like to play up our new technology, we always do. It's just good propaganda. The F-22 isn't the only new fighter jet out there, do a search on chinese or russian fighters.

The 22 is still limited by its missile's range. Thrust vectoring would be totally useless if there was no way to avoid it's missiles. Guns would be useless as well. But it has them.. so we're well aware that it's possible for an enemy to get close to it.

Classified countermeasures? All Electronic Warfare is classified. That happens to be my field.

Not too much else to say about it, since the jet is so damn sweet by its look and its performance. But it's not invincible.

Subject: Defeating America

1 country could do it, if they really really wanted to. They'd have to stage out of mexico and attack north through Arizona, NM, and Texas with combined air and ground, and take the navy into the gulf of mexico to hit the coastlines there.

Hitting the southern U.S. would destroy a lot of our capability. They would then have to drive north on both the east and west coasts before moving in to the middle of the country.

Fortunately for us, even though I believe we're extremely vulnerable in the South, if surprised, our country is so big, and our bases hidden off in some out of the way places, we'd have plenty of air and ground power to stop any invasion right there.

It's not like we're not vulnerable. To think that because we're the world superpower now we can't be defeated is just a false sense of security. We have technology, the highest defense budget in the world, the best training, but we're not unstoppable. Any country with enough manpower and commitment could force us to rely on our last resort (nukes) to ultimately win.

There are plenty of countries with those kinds of numbers. We don't have the largest military, roughly 2% of our population is in the military. We could easily be overwhelmed by numbers.

I would say open your eyes, at this moment in time we're the most vulnerable we've ever been, and it's that kind of attitude that weakens us further. We can't be beaten, nobody would ever mess with our military might. Yet we have our forces spread all across the globe, Japan, Korea, Germany, Britain, Guam, Iraq, Afghanistan, just to name a few.

So, yes, we're the world super power, we're the best, strongest military in the world, as long as no conventional army is willing to step up to us.

You know guys, ATS members should be well above attacking people over their grammatical errors when they have no other means of defense.


The fact some people don't spell or piece sentences together perfectly, doesnt mean they are not well educated on a subject. Ive seen this countless times across the net. A guy who knows his stuff is attacked just because his spelling and grammar isn't perfect. Very Very ignorant if you ask me!



[edit on 4/22/2008 by AndrewTB]

Originally posted by Sovereign797


It's not like we're not vulnerable. To think that because we're the world superpower now we can't be defeated is just a false sense of security. We have technology, the highest defense budget in the world, the best training, but we're not unstoppable. Any country with enough manpower and commitment could force us to rely on our last resort (nukes) to ultimately win.

Really win a war with nuclear weapons ??? There are simply no winners in a nuclear war. There are only large losers. It would put the involved nations directly back into the stone age. With innocent civilians probably facing the largest losts.

A war can't be won with nuclear force. There are several nuclear weapons based on submatines. Some of those submarines would really go through the naval defenses (you can't detect any submarine in any ocean) if you like it or not. The firing of just a couple of nuclear warheads would already be desastrous for any country.

A nuclear war is the enemy of everything humans beeings, the world or the US has ever achieved...