USA is a global bully

[ID2002]

..its the most powerful nation in the world, but it acts like a spoiled kid with a handgun!
It holds up other countries while it fills its pockets!
It pushes people around!
It blows up its neighbours!
(ie. Canada)
....sometimes I wonder why Canada even takes the USA's abuse!

...your reaction?

"Not all Americans are bad people...some reallize their country is in need of MAJOR changes!"

[yuriandropov]

the USA isn't that strong a nation. its isn't as strong now as we were in the late 70's after the afghanistan invasion. it is only strong because there are no other major powers to confront it. and those that are sort of powers (britain, france etc) are in its back pocket.
the only way USA's power could be threatened would be a united states of europe or the reconstruction of the soviet union. or both! either way, no country holds on to the spot of number 1 superpower for too long. just ask britain, germany and italy (rome).

[oldman]

We take it because its kind of like living beside a sleeping beast. There are more people in the state of NewYork than in Canada.

Although now with bush in power Chretien and his staff have realised that they can't rely on this moron for anything, we had a good relationship with Clinton though.

Its ok we'll fuck them real good in 10-15 years when the U$ is scheduled to run out of fresh water, hahaha that'll teach them good. Maybee they can invade some more third world countries and take their water, or they can drink their damn money!

They would never have the balls to invade canada,
1 its too damn cold for them, 2 what the hell are they going to bomb, toronto, good, they're pretty much americans already, fuck them

[LeonardoDaVinci]

Quote: from oldman on 11:32 pm on May 16, 2002

Its ok we'll fuck them real good in 10-15 years when the U$ is scheduled to run out of fresh water, hahaha that'll teach them good. Maybee they can invade some more third world countries and take their water, or they can drink their damn money!


They can drink Coca Cola. Hehehehee

[SU37]

If America runs out of water they will most likely kill ever water source on Earth,and there responce would be"if we can't have water,no one can".I agree America is a bully,America can never keep that fat ugly Capitali$t noise out of other countries wars,problems.Big brother America is just gotta stick there noise in everything.Also I love winter,-10degree weather is my favorite.

(Edited by SU37 at 8:19 pm on May 16, 2002)

[ID2002]

yes...the balance of power is shifting*

[Capitalist Imperial]

They would never have the balls to invade canada,


LOL,LOL,LOL WE WOULD WIPE THE FLOOR WITH YOU ASSES FASTER THAN WE DID THE IRAQI'S, PLEASE, WE TRAIN IN ALASKA AND THE NORTH PLAINS, COLD IS NOT A CONCERN FOR US

[Capitalist Imperial]

Oh, and if we really want your water, we'll take it, besides, we'll have inexpensive desalination in 10-15 yrs, leave it to us, we'll do it, the people that brought you electricity, nuclear power, the televison, the radio, the assembly line, the computer, the internet, the airplane, freakin blue jeans, the USA!!!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from oldman on 11:32 pm on May 16, 2002


They would never have the balls to invade canada,



LOL, LOL, LOL, I just had to read it again!!! LOL

[SU37]

LOL,LOL,LOL WE WOULD WIPE THE FLOOR WITH YOU ASSES FASTER THAN WE DID THE IRAQI'S, PLEASE, WE TRAIN IN ALASKA AND THE NORTH PLAINS, COLD IS NOT A CONCERN FOR US
Ever canadian in Canada would rise up with guns and start a winter war with US troops.Canadians know the land better, they have a more likely chance of winning.Canadian Military would be helped most likely by the Russians.The Canadians would be armed with T-72's , T-80u"s ,and T-90's,MIG-29SMT's would be Canada's first line of defense and F-14's.Canada does have the H-bomb and would drop on New York City or Washington if America was invading.

[Capitalist Imperial]

LOL, COME ON, SU37, you know T-72's and T-90's cant match M1 abrhams, you know mig 29 cant beat US f-14,f-18,f-15ACTIVE and you know Canadian air force cant not even come close to ours, they have and I on't even talk about navy, and their citizens can't ownn guns, we both know that, get serious

[Capitalist Imperial]

Besides, russia can't help, russia does not have enough $$$ to wage war with the US

[SU37]

Looks like someone did't learn a lesson from vietnam.

(Edited by SU37 at 11:03 am on May 18, 2002)

[SU37]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:43 am on May 18, 2002
LOL, COME ON, SU37, you know T-72's and T-90's cant match M1 abrhams, you know mig 29 cant beat US f-14,f-18,f-15ACTIVE and you know Canadian air force cant not even come close to ours, they have and I on't even talk about navy, and their citizens can't ownn guns, we both know that, get serious
T-72's are updated and T-80u' are the newest of the T-80 family.T-90MBT's are can with stand a M-1 hit and can returen fire in about 7 seconds.M-1 will not move but stay it its orginal position.T-90 can carry APDS rounds.

[SU37]

T-90 armor can with stand APFSDS to Heat rounds.T-90 is got bad enginee but makes up for that in other parts of the tank.Auto loading makes the turret smaller ,less stress on the crew and fast loads.APS are not 100% affective but gives the tank a better chance of not getting hit by a ATGM.T-90 has ATGM jammers. M-1A1 only has 105mm main gun,T-90 has 125mm main gun.

[Guest]

m-1 abrhams faster, more ,manueverable, good armor,, 105 mm smooth bore just as good as 125mm, and has better laser range finder and optics, fires 8 mile range, and vietnam is what every anti american uses against the USA, but it was just a police action, we chose to leave, instead of escalate or bomb the north, it was lucky for them, actually, what about every other war we fought, we won decisively, remember iraq? those were abrhams blowing the shit out of soviet t-72's, how about the taliban? besides, it looks like soviets didn't learn anything from afghanistan, that war helped the soviets fall apart, because of american weapons, the stinger missle!!!!

[Guest]

....oh, this is CI

[Moskitto]

Yeah, you might have the technology, but it also helps having soldiers who aren't dumb fucks and shoot at their allies like in WW2 and the Gulf War. Yeah and American rations are bad.

And Americans owning guns are actually useless in a modern war, infact it increases US casualties to hundreds of millions because when the invading army discovers that everyone's shooting at them they generally decide to forget invasion and instead spray your country with HCN gas thus eliminating the threat from the armed local populous. It's not nice, but it's the way that anti-american fanatics would want to fight you.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Hey, moskitto,its obviously you thats dumb because american forces actually have the lowest instances of friendly fire out of any country, from WWII to now, the world just likes to put us under a microscope when we make a mistake, oh, and I don't know where you are from, but if you want to have an inferior military but have good rations, then be my guest

[Capitalist Imperial]

Oh,and I would like to know what country would be able to invade the US??? Not 1 nation on earth would even come close to getting past the US navy in a defensive posture

[SU37]

Quote: from Guest on 5:07 pm on May 18, 2002
m-1 abrhams faster, more ,manueverable, good armor,, 105 mm smooth bore just as good as 125mm, and has better laser range finder and optics, fires 8 mile range, and vietnam is what every anti american uses against the USA, but it was just a police action, we chose to leave, instead of escalate or bomb the north, it was lucky for them, actually, what about every other war we fought, we won decisively, remember iraq? those were abrhams blowing the shit out of soviet t-72's, how about the taliban? besides, it looks like soviets didn't learn anything from afghanistan, that war helped the soviets fall apart, because of american weapons, the stinger missle!!!!
The 125mm gun on the T-72 is a smoothbore.125mm is a hell lot more powerul then a 105mm main gun.Also those T-72's in the Gulfwar were beat up and rusted and they were peice of shit,plus the crew that operted them were poorly trainned.Also Russian T-72's are updated with the same gear as the T-90's with ATGM jammers and other gear and heavy ERA armor.T-72's in the GulfWar were orginal type A T-72's and only had light weight regular armor which was rusted.Updated T-72's carry G2ERA and other gear. Also The M-1 weights about 60tons and T-72 which is updated about 42tons.Also a 125mm main gun is got more powder, force ,and rang then a 105mm.Also the T-72's in IRAQ didn't have ATGM's.Today Russia's T-72 have armed with 1 ATGM and heavy G2ERA armor and can fire the same rounds a M-1A2 can fire.

(Edited by SU37 at 5:36 pm on May 18, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

That sounds pretty inpressive, but m-1 abrhams weighs 18 more tons mostly because of heavier armor and larger gas turbine engine, and ATGM jammer won't help against laser range finder and digital targeting array, maybe against leapord or british tank, not abrhams

[SU37]

Its spelled Abrams not "abrhams".Also the updated T-72 does a have laser warning system to warn a crew of a updated T-72 when they are being lased.

[SU37]

Also a T-72M1 can withstand direct hits from a 105mm main gun of a Abrams M-1

[Capitalist Imperial]

Yes, and M1 can withstand 1 hit from 125mm, and sealed from nuke radiation/bio/chemical, but which can withstand the most multiple rounds?

[Capitalist Imperial]

"The computerized fire control system and laser range-finder, coupled with the newAgave gunner's thermal sight, permit the T-90 to engage targets while on the move and at night. However, this first generation system is probably not as capable as current Western counterpart systems."

www.fas.org, military analysis site

[SU37]

A test was done in Germany with a T-72 fitted with heavy ERA armor.M1A2's smoothbore could'nt pentrat the T-72M2's heavy G2EAR amor.Also the rounds there were used by the M1A2 were APFSDS rounds.Heavy G2ERA amor is effective against M1A2 smoothbore APFSDS.

[Fabi]

"Most people think Henry Ford invented the automobile. But in fact, the modern automobile was invented in Germany by Karl Benz in 1885. The first American cars were made by the Duryea Brothers in 1892. In 1896, Ford produced an inexpensive assembly line car, the Model T. "

source: http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0873323.html

BLUE JEANS
Levi Strauss (1829-1902) was an entrepreneur who invented and marketed blue jeans. Trained as a tailor in Buttenheim, Bavaria, Germany, Strauss went to San Francisco, USA from New York in 1853. Strauss sold dry goods, including tents and linens to the 49ers (the people who came to the California gold rush, which began in 1849). In 1873, Strauss and Jacob Davis, a Nevada tailor, patented the idea (devised by Davis) of using copper rivets at the stress points of sturdy work pants. Early levis, called "waist overalls," came in a brown canvas duck fabric and a heavy blue denim fabric. The duck fabric pants were not very successful, so were dropped early on. His business became extremely successful (and still is), revolutionizing the apparel industry.

BUNSEN BURNER
The laboratory Bunsen burner was invented by Robert Wilhelm Bunsen in 1855. Bunsen (1811-1899) was a German chemist and teacher. He invented the Bunsen burner for his research in isolating chemical substances - it has a high-intensity, non-luminous flame that does not interfere with the colored flame emitted by chemicals being tested.

BICYCLE
The earliest bicycle was a wooden scooter-like contraption called a celerifere; it was invented about 1790 by Comte Mede de Sivrac of France. In 1816, Baron Karl von Drais de Sauerbrun, of Germany, invented a model with a steering bar attached to the front wheel, which he called a Draisienne. It has two wheels (of the same size), and the rider sat between the two wheels, but there were no pedals; to move, you had to propel the bicycle forward using your feet (a bit like a scooter). He exhibited his bicycle in Paris on April 6, 1818.

GEIGER COUNTER
The Geiger counter (sometimes called the Geiger-Muller counter) is a device that detects ionizing radioactivity (including gamma rays and X-rays) - it counts the radioactive particle that pass through the device. The German nuclear physicist Hans Wilhelm Geiger (Sept. 30, 1882- Sept. 24, 1945) developed the device from 1908-12. At that time, Geiger was an assistant to the British physicist Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937). [Geiger's work helped Rutherford discover that radioactive elements can transform into other elements and that atoms have a nucleus]. In 1928, the Geiger counter was improved by the German physicist E. Walther Muller.

GUTENBERG, JOHANNES
Johannes Gutenberg (the 1300's-1468) was a German craftsman, inventor, and printer who invented the first printing press with movable type in 1450. This invention revolutionized printing, making it simpler and more affordable. Gutenberg produced dies (molds) for easily producing individual pieces of metal type that could be made, assembled, and later reused. Gutenberg's new press could print a page every three minutes. This made printed material available to the masses for the first time in history. Religious materials were the majority of the early printed materials. The use of printing presses began the standardization of spelling.

ROENTGEN, WILHELM VON
X-rays were discovered in 1895 by Wilhelm Konrad von Roentgen (1845-1923). Roentgen was a German physicist who described this new form of radiation that allowed him to photograph objects that were hidden behind opaque shields. He even photographed part of his own skeleton. X-rays were soon used as an important diagnostic tool in medicine. Roentgen called these waves "X-radiation" because so little was known about them.

MAYONNAISE
Mayonnaise was invented in France hundreds of years ago, probably in 1756 by the French chef working for the Duke de Richelieu, The first ready-made mayonnaise was sold in the US in 1905 at Richard Hellman's deli in New York. Hellman sold his wife's mayonnaise in open wooden boats. In 1912, he sold the mayonnaise in large glass bottles; the type he called "Hellman's Blue Ribbon Mayonnaise" was very popular and is still sold today (it is now owned by Best Foods).

PARACHUTE
A parachute is a device for slowing down one's descent while falling to the ground. Parachutes are used to skydive from airplanes, to jump from very high places, and to help slow down the descent of spacecraft. Parachutes are also used to slow down some race cars. The early parachutes were made from canvas (a strong cotton cloth). Light-weight (but very strong) silk cloth was then introduced for parachutes. Modern-day parachutes use nylon fabric.
The idea of using a parachute to fall gently to the ground was written about by Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519). The first parachute was demonstrated by Louis-Sébastien Lenormand in 1783 of France - he jumped from a very tall tree carrying two parasols (umbrellas). A few years later, some adventurous people jumped from hot-air balloons using primitive parachutes. The first person to jump from a flying airplane (and survive the fall) was Captain Albert Berry, who jumped from a U.S. Army plane in 1912. Parachutes were first used in war towards the end of World War 1.

PASTEUR, LOUIS
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was a French chemist and inventor. Pasteur studied the process of fermentation, and postulated that fermentation was produced by microscopic organisms (other than yeast), which Pasteur called germs. He hypothesized that these germs might be responsible for some diseases. Pasteur disproved the notion of "spontaneous generation " which stated that organisms could spring from nothing; Pasteur showed that organisms came form other, pre-existing organisms. Applying his theories to foods and drinks, Pasteur invented a heating process (now called pasteurization) which sterilizes food, killing micro-organisms that contaminate it.
PENCIL
The "lead" pencil (which contains no lead) was invented in 1564 when a huge graphite (black carbon) mine was discovered in England. The pure graphite was sawn into sheets and then cut into square rods. The graphite rods were inserted into hand-carved wooden holders, forming pencils. They were called lead pencils by mistake - at the time, graphite was called black lead or "plumbago," from the Greek word for lead (it looked and acted like lead, and it was not known at the time that graphite consisted of carbon and not lead).
In 1795, the Nicholas Jacques Conte (a French officer in Napoleon's army) patented the modern method of kiln-firing powdered graphite with clay to make pencils of any desired hardness.


SEWING MACHINE
The first functional sewing machine was invented by the French tailor Barthélemy Thimonnier in 1830. Other tailors feared for their livelihood, and burnt his workshop down. Elias Howe was American inventor who patented an improved sewing machine in 1846. Howe's revolutionary machine used two separate threads, one threaded through the needle, and one in a shuttle; it was powered by a hand crank. A sideways-moving needle with its eye at one end would pierce the fabric, creating a loop of thread on the other side; a shuttle would then push thread through the loop, creating a tight lock stitch. Earlier sewing machines used only one thread and a chain stitch that could unravel. Howe's business did not thrive. Others, like Isaac M. Singer made slight modifications in the machine and built successful businesses. Howe sued those who had infringed on his patent and won royalties on all machines sold (he was paid $5.00 for each sewing machine sold). Howe died the year his patent expired.


BAIRD, JOHN LOGIE
John Logie Baird (1888-1946) was a Scottish inventor and engineer who was a pioneer in the development of mechanical television. In 1924, Baird televised objects in outline. In 1925, he televised human faces. In 1926, Baird was the first person to televise pictures of objects in motion. In 1930, Baird made the first public broadcast of a TV show, from his studio to the London Coliseum Cinema; the screen consisted of a 6-ft by 3-ft array of 2,100 tiny flashlamp bulbs. Baird developed a color television in 1928, and a stereo television in 1946. Baird's mechanical television was usurped by electronic television, which he also worked on.


BERNERS-LEE, TIM *(british guy)
Tim Berners-Lee (1955- ) invented the World Wide Web. His first version of the Web was a program named "Enquire," short for "Enquire Within Upon Everything". At the time, Berners-Lee was working at CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory located in Geneva, Switzerland. He invented the system as a way of sharing scientific data (and other information) around the world, using the Internet, a world-wide network of computers, and hypertext documents. He wrote the language HTML (HyperText Mark-up Language), the basic language for the Web, and devised URL's (universal resource locators) to designate the location of each web page. HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol) was his set of rules for linking to pages on the Web. After he wrote the first browser in 1990, the World Wide Web was up and going. Its growth was (and still is) phenomenal, and has changed the world, making information more accessible than ever before in history. Berners-Lee is now a Principal Research Scientist at the Laboratory for Computer Science at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and the Director of the W3 Consortium.


INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULB
The first incandescent electric light was made in 1800 by Humphry Davy, an English scientist. He experimented with electricity and invented an electric battery. When he connected wires to his battery and a piece of carbon, the carbon glowed, producing light. This is called an electric arc.
Much later, in 1860, the English physicist Sir Joseph Wilson Swan (1828-1914) was determined to devise a practical, long-lasting electric light. He found that a carbon paper filament worked well, but burned up quickly. In 1878, he demonstrated his new electric lamps in Newcastle, England.

The inventor Thomas Alva Edison (in the USA) experimented with thousands of different filaments to find just the right materials to glow well and be long-lasting. In 1879, Edison discovered that a carbon filament in an oxygen-free bulb glowed but did not burn up for 40 hours. Edison eventually produced a bulb that could glow for over 1500 hours.

In 1903, Willis R. Whitney invented a treatment for the filament so that it wouldn't darken the inside of the bulb as it glowed. In 1910, William David Coolidge (1873-1975) invented a tungsten filament which lasted even longer than the older filaments. The incandescent bulb revolutionized the world.


REFRIGERATOR
The first method of refrigeration (cooling air by the evaporation of liquids in a vacuum) was invented in 1748 by William Cullen of the University of Glasgow, Scotland; Cullen did not apply his discovery to any practical purposes. Michael Farady, an English physicist liquefied ammonia to cause cooling (in the 1800's). Faraday's idea would eventually lead to the development of compressors, which compress gas to liquid form, a process which absorbs heat. The American inventor Oliver Evans designed the first refrigeration machine in 1805. In 1844, John Gorrie, an American doctor from Florida made a device based on Evans' invention that would make ice in order to cool the air for feverish yellow fever patients. The first electric refrigerator was invented in 1803 by Thomas Moore. The first commercial refrigerator designed to keep food cold was sold in 1911 (by the General Electric Company) and in 1913 (invented by Fred W. Wolf of Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA); these model consisted of a unit that was mounted on top of an ice box. A self-contained refrigerator (with a compressor on the bottom of the cabinet) was invented by Alfred Mellowes in 1915. Mellowes produced this refrigerator commercially (each unit was hand made), but was bought out by W.C. Durant (the president of General Motors) in 1918, who started the Frigidaire Company in order to mass-produce refrigerators in the USA.


WATT, JAMES
James Watt (1736-1819) was a Scottish inventor and engineer. In 1765, Watt revolutionized the steam engine, redesigning it so that it was much more efficient and four times as powerful as the old Newcomen steam engines. Watt's engines did not waste steam (heat), and had a separate condenser. Watt partnered with the businessman and factory owner Matthew Boulton in 1772, helping to promote Watt's ideas commercially. Watt also invented a method for converting the up-and-down piston movement into rotary motion (the "sun-and-planet" gear), allowing a greater number of applications for the engine. Watt produced this rotary-motion steam engine in 1781; it was used for many applications, including draining mines, powering looms in textile factories, powering bellows, paper mills, etc. It helped power the Industrial Revolution. Watt coined the term "horsepower," which he used to convey the power of his engines; Watt calculated how many horses it would take to do the work of each engine. One horsepower equals 33,000 foot-pounds of work per minute; it is the power required to lift a total of 33,000 pounds one foot in one minute. Parliament granted Watt a patent on his steam engine in 1755, making Watt a very wealthy man. In 1882 (long after Watt's death), the British Association named the unit of electrical power the "watt."


http://www.enchantedlearning.com

there..... yeah, right...the US invented everything... ;)
i dont really care who did what.. blablabla...

[Fabi]

COMPUTER HISTORY
History for 1600's

Year Event
1617 John Napier introduced a system called "Napier’s Bones," made from horn, bone or ivory the device allowed the capability of multiplying by adding numbers and dividing by subtracting.
1622 The circular slide rule is invented by William Oughtred.
1623 The first known workable mechanical calculating machine is invented by Germany’s Wilhelm Schickard.
1642 France’s Blaise Pascal invents a machine, called the Pascaline, that can add, subtract, and carry between digits.
1674 Germany’s Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz creates a machine that can add, subtract, multiply and divide automatically.



So who invented the computer?
There are many different views on which aspects of the modern computer are the most central or critical.
Some people think that it's the idea of using electronics for calculating --- in which case another American pioneer, Atanasoff, should be credited.

Other people say it's getting a computer actually built and working. In that case it's either the tiny prototype at Manchester (1948), on another Scrapbook Page,
or the EDSAC at Cambridge, England (1949), that deserves greatest attention.
But I would say that in 1945 Alan Turing (british guy) alone grasped everything that was to change computing completely after that date: the universality of his design, the emphasis on programming, the importance of non-numerical applications, the apparently open-ended scope for mechanising intelligence. He did not do so as an isolated dreamer, but as someone who knew about the practicability of large-scale electronics, with hands-on experience.

The idea of one machine for every kind of task was very foreign to the world of 1945. Even ten years later, in 1956, the big chief of the electromagnetic relay calculator at Harvard, Howard Aiken, could write:

If it should turn out that the basic logics of a machine designed for the numerical solution of differential equations coincide with the logics of a machine intended to make bills for a department store, I would regard this as the most amazing coincidence that I have ever encountered.
But that is exactly how it has turned out. It is amazing, although we now have come to take it for granted. But it's not a mere coincidence. It follows from the deep principle that Alan Turing saw in 1936: the Universal Turing Machine.

[BOZG]

Nice work Fabi.

Now we just wait to see the "intelligent" reply of CI.

[Fabi]

it's not that i really care.... and i forgot to `reveal' my last source...: www.turing.org.uk/turing/scrapbook/computer.html

no plagiarism intended... sorry folks.. ;)

[BOZG]

I don't care either but I'd like to see his comeback after thinking AmeriKKKa created everything.

[Fabi]

Eight-ball pool was invented in America shortly after 1900 as just one of a number
of American Pool games.

cause we dont wanna be biased and one-sided....


1. What was aeronautics/air travel like before the invention of the airplane?


The only air travel prior to the airplane was by balloon and dirigibles. These were mainly flown as exhibits and not for means of travel. In 1783, two Frenchman, Joseph and Etienne Montgolfier, were the first to get a hot-air balloon off the ground. They inflated the balloon by burning straw and wool beneath it, ultimately lifting it by the smoke. This basically set the air race into motion. Soon after, Dr. J.A.C. Charles, also a Frenchman, came up with the idea of a hydrogen balloon. After experiments with these, many people turned toward building heavier-than-air machines of all different (and bizarre) designs. None of these were ever successful. There were also attempts at gliding. Sir George Cayley, in the early 1800's, was the first person to really think of a heavier-than-air machine with realistic proportions and logical dimensions. He carried out many experiments with gliders and also published essays in the field. Others, such Octave Chanute and Samuel Langley, later experimented with other machines sometimes having as many as 6 wings. None of these designs were ever successful, that is, until the Wright brothers entered the scene.

2. What lead up to the Wright Brother's invention of the airplane?


When the Wright brothers were young, their father brought home a rubberband-powered toy helicopter that sparked their interest. They would later attempt to build larger models of this toy, but the larger the models the less it flew. In 1896, the brothers also heard of Otto Lilienthal's death. He was a famous German experimenting with gliders who was killed when one of his machines crashed. The Wright brothers later pinpointed that time as being the time when they got actively interested in the question of flight. Soon after, they started reading up on the subject and building their own kites and gliders.



US and Canadian Inventors and Inventions

ADHESIVE TAPE
Richard G. Drew (1886-1956) invented masking tape and clear adhesive tape (also called cellophane tape or Scotch tape). Drew was an engineer for the 3M (Minnesota Mining) company.
Drew's first tape invention was a masking tape made for painters in 1923 (this tape was designed to help painters paint a straight border between two colors). This early masking tape was a wide paper tape with adhesive on only the edges of the tape - not in the middle. Drew made an improved tape called Scotch ™ Brand Cellulose Tape in 1930. This tape was a clear, all-purpose adhesive tape that was soon adopted worldwide. The first tape dispenser with a built-in cutting edge was invented in 1932 by John A. Borden, another 3M employee.

AEROSOL SPRAY CAN
The forerunner of the aerosol can was invented by Erik Rotheim of Norway. On November 23, 1927, Rotheim patented a can with a valve and propellant systems - it could hold and dispense liquids.
The first aerosol can (a can than contains a propellant [a liquefied gas like flurocarbon] and has a spray nozzle) was invented in 1944 by Lyle David Goodloe and W.N. Sullivan. They were working for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and were trying to find a way to spray and kill malaria carrying mosquitos during World War II for the soldiers overseas. The "clog-free" spray valve was invented by Robert H. Abplanal in 1953.

The first spray paint was invented by Edward H. Seymour in 1949. Seymour's wife Bonnie had given him the idea of an aerosol applicator for paint. The first spray paint he developed was aluminum colored. Seymour formed the company, Seymour of Sycamore, Inc. of Chicago, USA, which is still in operation.

AIRPLANE
The first working airplane was invented by, designed, made, and flown by the Wright brothers, Wilbur Wright (1867-1912) and Orville Wright (1871-1948). Their "Wright Flyer" was a fabric-covered biplane with a wooden frame. The power to the two propellers was supplied by a 12-horsepower water-cooled engine. On December 17, 1903, the "Flyer" flew for 12 seconds and for a distance of 120 feet (37 m). The flight took place at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, USA.
ANDERSON, MARY
The windshield wiper was invented by Mary Anderson in 1903 to help streetcars operate safely in the rain. In 1905 she patented her invention, which allowed the car operator to control the external, swinging arm wipers from within the car. Windshield wipers became standard equipment on cars a decade later. Anderson was from Alabama, USA.
APGAR SCALE
The Apgar scale is a standardized scale that is used to determine the physical status of an infant at birth. This simple, easy-to-perform test was devised in 1953 by Dr. Virginia Apgar (1909-1974), a professor of anesthesia at the New York Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center. The Apgar scale is administered to a newborn at one minute after birth and five minutes after birth. It scores the baby's heart rate, respiration, muscle tone, reflex response, and color. This test quickly alerts medical personnel that the newborn needs assistance.
APGAR, VIRGINIA
Dr. Virginia Apgar (1909-1974), a professor of anesthesiology at the New York Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, devised the Apgar Scale in 1953. The Apgar scale is a simple, easy-to-perform, standardized scale that is used to determine the physical status of an infant at birth. The Apgar scale is administered to a newborn at one minute after birth and five minutes after birth. It scores the baby's heart rate, respiration, muscle tone, reflex response, and color. This test quickly alerts medical personnel that the newborn baby needs assistance.
ASSEMBLY LINE
Primitive assembly line production was first used in 1901 by Ransome Eli Olds (1864-1950), an early car-maker (he manufactured the Oldsmobile, the first commercially successful American car). Henry Ford (1863-1947) used the first conveyor belt-based assembly-line in his car factory in 1913-14 in Ford's Highland Park, Michigan plant. This type of production greatly reduced the amount of time taken to put each car together (93 minutes for a Model T) from its parts, reducing production costs. Assembly lines are now used in many manufacturing processes.
BAEKELAND, L.H.
Leo Hendrik Baekeland (November 14, 1863 - February 23, 1944) was a Belgian-born American chemist who invented Velox photographic paper (1893) and Bakelite (1907), an inexpensive, nonflammable, versatile, and very popular plastic.
For more information on Baekeland, click here.

BAKELITE
Bakelite (also called catalin) is a plastic, a dense synthetic polymer (a phenolic resin) that was used to make jewelry, game pieces, engine parts, radio boxes, switches, and many, many other objects. Bakelite was the first industrial thermoset plastic (a material that does not change its shape after being mixed and heated). Bakelite plastic is made from carbolic acid (phenol) and formaldehyde, which are mixed, heated, and then either molded or extruded into the desired shape.
Bakelite was patented in 1907 by the Belgian-born American chemist Leo Hendrik Baekeland (November 14, 1863 - February 23, 1944). The Nobel Prize winning German chemist Adolf von Baeyer had experimented with this material in 1872, but did not complete its development or see its potential.

Baekeland operated the General Bakelite Company from 1911 to 1939 (in Perth Amboy, N.J., USA), and produced up to about 200,000 tons of Bakelite annually. Bakelite replaced the very flammable celluloid plastic that had been so popular. The bracelet above is made of "butterscotch" bakelite.

BAND-AID®
Bandages for wounds had been around since ancient times, but an easy-to-use dressing with an adhesive was invented by Earle Dickson (a cotton buyer at the Johnson & Johnson company). Dickson perfected the BAND-AID® in 1920, making a small, sterile adhesive bandage for home use. Dickson invented the BAND-AID® for his wife, who had many kitchen accidents and needed an easy-to-use wound dressing. Dickson was rewarded by the Johnson & Johnson company by being made a vice-president of the company.
BAR CODE
Bar codes (also called Universal Product Codes or UPC's) are small, coded labels that contain information about the item they are attached to; the information is contained in a numerical code, usually containing 12 digits. UPC's are easily scanned by laser beams. UPC's are used on many things, including most items for sale in stores, library books, inventory items, many packages and pieces of luggage being shipped, railroad cars, etc. The UPC may contain coded information about the item, its manufacturer, place of origin, destination, the owner, or other data. The first "bullseye code" was invented by Norman Joseph Woodland and Bernard Silver, from work which they began in 1948. On October 20, 1949, they patented their bullseye code (a series of concentric circles that were scannable from all directions, using regular light). Woodland and Silver patented a new UPC in October 1952; the UPC was also improved and adapted by David J. Collins in the late 1950's (to track railroad cars). UPC's were first used in grocery stores in the early 1970's.
BASKETBALL
The game of basketball was invented by James Naismith (1861-1939). Naismith was a Canadian physical education instructor who invented the game in 1891 so that his students could participate in sports during the winter. In his original game, which he developed while at the Springfield, Massachusetts YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association), Naismith used a soccer ball which were thrown into peach baskets (with their bottoms intact). The first public basketball game was in Springfield, MA, USA, on March 11, 1892. Basketball was first played at the Olympics in Berlin Germany in 1936 (America won the gold medal, and Naismith was there).
BATHYSPHERE
A bathysphere is a pressurized metal sphere that allows people to go deep in the ocean, to depths at which diving unaided is impossible. This hollow cast iron sphere with very thick walls is lowered and raised from a ship using a steel cable. The bathysphere was invented by William Beebe and Otis Barton (around 1930). William Beebe (1877 - 1962), an American naturalist and undersea explorer, tested the bathysphere in 1930, going down to 1426 feet in a 4'9" (1.45 m) diameter bathysphere. Beebe and Otis Barton descended about 3,000 ft (914 m) feet in a larger bathysphere in 1934. They descended off the coast of Nonsuch Island, Bermuda in the Atlantic Ocean. During the dive, they communicated with the surface via telephone.
BELL, ALEXANDER GRAHAM
Alexander Graham Bell (March 3, 1847, Edinburgh, Scotland - August 2, 1922, Baddek, Nova Scotia) invented the telephone (with Thomas Watson) in 1876. Bell also improved Thomas Edison's phonograph. Bell invented the multiple telegraph (1875), the hydroairplane, the photo-sensitive selenium cell (the photophone, a wireless phone, developed with Sumner Tainter), and new techniques for teaching the deaf to speak. In 1882, Bell and his father-in-law, Gardiner Hubbard, bought and re-organized the journal "Science." Bell, Hubbard and others founded the National Geographic Society in 1888; Bell was the President of the National Geographic Society from 1898 to 1903.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I never said that the US invented the auto (nor did Fabi accuse me of such). I did say, though, that he (Henry Ford, American) revolutionized the auto industry and the industial age itself with the invention of the assembly line (a development whose contrbution tho the world can't be emphasized enough). Interesting submission on the computer, I will have to research myself and see. It is a good question, though, as to when the moderd "computer" came to being. Most of the world does credit the US, though, for the PC.

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 6:54 pm on May 20, 2002)


(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 6:59 pm on May 20, 2002)

[Fabi]

i just watched episode 2... it sucked.... ;)
off-topic, but CI's avatar made me think of it....

[Capitalist Imperial]

i HEARD IT WAS REALLY GOOD... whoops, sorry about caps

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 9:55 pm on May 20, 2002)

[oldman]

The U$ would never invade Canada because

1 the last time they did it it didn't work out so well, a lot of those nice buildings in Wa$hington were kinda torched

2 Every country in the world would stand up to the states if they had the chance, well maybee not the I$ralie$ but fuck them

3 the U$ would never be able to fight a war this close to home, the last war on U$ territory was in late 1700's, (Forget the civil war that was just dumb hicks not wanting to pick their own cotton, fags! Americans killing Americans, meh, natural selection) the public would never support a war so close to home

[Valkyrie]

CAPI Quote: "I never said that the US invented the auto (nor did Fabi accuse me of such). I did say, though, that he (Henry Ford, American) revolutionized the auto industry and the industial age itself with the invention of the assembly line (a development whose contrbution tho the world that can't be emphasized enough)


HA HA HA! The Assembly Line!?!!? A Big contribution of a shitload of automatron mindless morons. No more, no less.




(Edited by Paris at 2:47 am on May 21, 2002)

[Valkyrie]

Remote Control
(Strummer/Jones)

Who needs remote control
From the Civic Hall
Push a button
Activate
You gotta work an' you're late

It's so grey in London town
With a panda car crawling around
Here it comes
Eleven o'clock
Where can we go now?

Can't make a noise
Can't get no gear
Can't make no money
Can't get outta here

Big business it don't like you
It don't like the things you do
You got no money
So you got no power
They think you're useless
An' so you are - puuuuuuunnnnnk!

They had a meeting in Mayfair
They got you down an'
They wanna keep you there
It makes them worried
Their bank accounts
That's all that matters
And you don't count

Can't make no progress
Can't get ahead
Can't stop the regress
Don't wanna be dead

Look out' those rules and regulations

Who needs the Parliament
Sitting making laws all day
They're all fat and old
Queuing for the House of Lords

Repression - gonna start on Tuesday
Repression - gonna be a Dalek
Repression - I am a robot
Repression - I obey



R

[peaccenicked]

One of the things about modern imperialism is globalisation. It is the hegemony of commercial values over indigenous cultures. This is the essence of neoliberalism-ultimately the destruction of communities,
the making of tourism in the ashes of de-industrialisation. To plasticise and clutter public space with adverts and privatised fantasies about art and heritage. This is the cultural genocide of the world's cultures.
The dominance of the dollar as the universal exchange rate is also about the dominance of american pop art hollywood, madonna, britney,macdonalds,coca cola etc
It is about the dominance of a money culture which is outstripping local cultures as it is trying to grab the youth and turn them into what we call in Britain ''Thatchers children". The planet is being poisoned by the short termism of the money culture.
The rebellion which takes on many forms environmental, national, cultural, socialist, anarchist and peace campaigning is still at the margins.
If we don't push it to the centre stage of the world arena, and it will be pushed and pulled both ways in the coming years and decades, the problems that future generations will inherit will be bigger. Lets get on with the job.
'Forever till victory' Che

(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:21 am on May 21, 2002)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:22 am on May 21, 2002)

[Nateddi]

well said, peace

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from oldman on 2:13 am on May 21, 2002
The U$ would never invade Canada because

1 the last time they did it it didn't work out so well, a lot of those nice buildings in Wa$hington were kinda torched

2 Every country in the world would stand up to the states if they had the chance, well maybee not the I$ralie$ but fuck them

3 the U$ would never be able to fight a war this close to home, the last war on U$ territory was in late 1700's, (Forget the civil war that was just dumb hicks not wanting to pick their own cotton, fags! Americans killing Americans, meh, natural selection) the public would never support a war so close to home


LOL, LOL, LOL, this is the second time you've posted this BS, oldman, c'mon, get serious, if we wanted to, we would take your country for our own (its pretty much ours anyway, your whole economic and political existence is reliant on us), probably easier than we decimated the Iraqis, and if your weak military tried to resist, we would wipe the maple leaf with your asses faster than you could say "Oh Canada!" LOL, LOL, give me a break, man, look at what you're saying, LOL,LOL!!!

[Capitalist Imperial]

PS, oldman, if you are going to employ darwinist theory (natural selection), don't forget about the dominance theory, where the dominant entity rules over subservient, weaker members (ie, US over Canada). Also, it looks like the US has been "naturally selected" as the worlds most powerful empire. What is canadas claim to fame? (oops, sorry, loaded question, that assumes you have a claim to fame, LOL, LOL,LOL)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 1:38 am on May 22, 2002
[quote]Quote: from oldman on 2:13 am on May 21, 2002
in Wa$hington were kinda torched

2 Every country in the world would stand up to the states if they had the chance, well maybee not the I$ralie$ but fuck them



Yhey have the chance, what's stopping them? I'll tell you what is, they wouldn't dare, and they are quite happy being our subservient ally, c'mon, man, get real!!!! LOL, LOL

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from oldman on 2:13 am on May 21, 2002
The U$ would never invade Canada because

1 the last time they did it it didn't work out so well, a lot of those nice buildings in Wa$hington were kinda torched

2 Every country in the world would stand up to the states if they had the chance, well maybee not the I$ralie$ but fuck them

3 the U$ would never be able to fight a war this close to home, the last war on U$ territory was in late 1700's, (Forget the civil war that was just dumb hicks not wanting to pick their own cotton, fags! Americans killing Americans, meh, natural selection) the public would never support a war so close to home



LOL,LOL, I had to read it again, what moronic drivel! LOL, LOL Someone get this guy off the LSD

[Unknown]

At every couner you have an excuse or theory something to make you belive you are superior.

i dont know much im not smart, but i do know that at every turn the rebels will be there, from the begining of time facist major powers have wanted more and more and the rebels have always been there to fight them.

we rebels could be weaker with worse "guns" but you cant hide the oppresion of the american government forever when people stop buying clothes and gel and start to realize then we will have the most powerful weapon of them all the power of the people

bush will be left with a stick and no army or guards then were will american superiority be....


P.S. What dose it matter which country invented which thing as long as they are used corectly

[Fabi]

"P.S. What dose it matter which country invented which thing as long as they are used corectly"

that's what i said, too... ;)

[Smoking Frog II]

YES.
YOu ARE FUCKIN [censored] right.

smokingfrogiiisthelastaztecemperorbutiwasgonnachan gretosocialsim

[Anonymous]

yeh war on the U.S.A.

[oldman]

Right on Unknown,

hey maybee the darth vader thing represents the cappis' evil empire

[Capitalist Imperial]

The usual commie drivel

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Fabi on 10:47 am on May 22, 2002
"P.S. What dose it matter which country invented which thing as long as they are used corectly"

that's what i said, too... ;)


Oh, ok, when it comes to the USA's shortcomings, we all want to put them under a microscope and pick them apart, but when it comes to American contributions society, they "don't matter", ok, great critical thinking, guys.

[Hattori Hanzo]

Listen up Capitalist Imperial-
You said that the world wouldn't fight the US because they wouldn't dare. This is not true. The world will foght the usa. Your problem is that the world to you is Sharon, Arafat, Blair, Fox, Bush, Chirac, etc. THAT world IS weak. THAT world WILL NOT fight the US. However, that is the world that the united states has created. But there is another world beneath the one the US has created, the common oppressed workers. WE CAN AND WILL FIGHT THE U$A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 10:50 pm on May 22, 2002
Listen up Capitalist Imperial-
You said that the world wouldn't fight the US because they wouldn't dare. This is not true. The world will foght the usa. Your problem is that the world to you is Sharon, Arafat, Blair, Fox, Bush, Chirac, etc. THAT world IS weak. THAT world WILL NOT fight the US. However, that is the world that the united states has created. But there is another world beneath the one the US has created, the common oppressed workers. WE CAN AND WILL FIGHT THE U$A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL,LOL, LOL, get real,man, look at what you're saying, what nations of "workers could realy engage in a war with the USA???

[SU37]

CI sounds like a snoty rich capitali$t asshole.Capitali$m is good for rich snots a.k.a FAT CATS.Capitali$m kills workers that are trying very hardly to feed there familys and pays little.Why don't ya go stick all that cash up your ass Capitali$t Imperial!

[Fabi]

i wouldnt put it as insultive (did i just make up that word? ;)) as SU37, but CI, i think that was quite unfair..... cause you should know that i dont look at it THAT one-sidedly... (did i make that up, too? ;))

peace, everyone...

[Capitalist]

The USA is the strongest nation. If Europe wants to sit on the sidelines, than let them. We don't need them anyway. Bunch of snooty idiots who think they should be #1 without working for it. President Bush and Collin Powell need to quit catering to Europeans and Saudi Arabia and just give the O.K. to kick Hussein's Ass and deliver the freedom his father promissed those Iraq 12 years ago.

We've brought freedom to Afgahnistan, it is time to bring freedom to Iraq.

Rid these people of the Religous Zealots and Bloody Tyrants that rule their countries.

[SU37]

Quote: from Capitalist on 10:04 pm on May 23, 2002
The USA is the strongest nation. If Europe wants to sit on the sidelines, than let them. We don't need them anyway. Bunch of snooty idiots who think they should be #1 without working for it. President Bush and Collin Powell need to quit catering to Europeans and Saudi Arabia and just give the O.K. to kick Hussein's Ass and deliver the freedom his father promissed those Iraq 12 years ago.

We've brought freedom to Afgahnistan, it is time to bring freedom to Iraq.

Rid these people of the Religous Zealots and Bloody Tyrants that rule their countries.America doesn't bring freedom,it bombs the citizens and kills them and beats them.So much for bringing freedom.

[Hattori Hanzo]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 1:39 am on May 23, 2002

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 10:50 pm on May 22, 2002
Listen up Capitalist Imperial-
You said that the world wouldn't fight the US because they wouldn't dare. This is not true. The world will foght the usa. Your problem is that the world to you is Sharon, Arafat, Blair, Fox, Bush, Chirac, etc. THAT world IS weak. THAT world WILL NOT fight the US. However, that is the world that the united states has created. But there is another world beneath the one the US has created, the common oppressed workers. WE CAN AND WILL FIGHT THE U$A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL,LOL, LOL, get real,man, look at what you're saying, what nations of "workers could realy engage in a war with the USA???


YOU IDIOT CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT IT IS THE WORKERS NOT THE GODDAMN NATIONS THAT WILL FIGHT?

Sorry, just had to blow off some steam.

The nations of the world are headed by the leaders of the world which are of course very rich, influencial people. Through your ravings you have made it apparent that (you believe) all other countries in the world other than the US suck. Therefore, these few rich men leading the nations of the world must be suported by the workers they rule, and have arisen in one way or another from them, most likely dishonestly. So, the capitalism has created a few rich people, and a lot of poor people. This capitalism has spread from the US. On another point this would technically make the US suck for creating such a crappie world (of nations). As Capitalist said, much of the world's leaders are tyrants or religious zealots. obviously not like the US. Capitalism will be stopped be the oppressed, exploited workers of the world. CAPITALISM will be stopped, not the US directly

[Hattori Hanzo]

Oh, and for all you people that say that "Communism" failed just because the USSR collapsed, many, many, many more capitalist nations have failed than nations claiming to be "communist"

[Capitalist Imperial]

Hattori, those last 2 posts were complete generalizations, not facts. Hattori, capitalism is not failing, the vast majority of emerging markets are capitalist/democratic, communism has failed in russia, and east germany, and is choking china. If you ever noticed, American "capitalist" workers live better than communist "workers"? thats because in capitalism, almost everyonwe has a better standard of living, also, in democratic nations, you can speak out against the government, protest, and do what you want with your life. You're not controlled by the fovernment in what you can say and do, like in china, where they crush protesting students with tanks!!!

[SU37]

Quote: from Capitalist on 10:04 pm on May 23, 2002
The USA is the strongest nation. If Europe wants to sit on the sidelines, than let them. We don't need them anyway. Bunch of snooty idiots who think they should be #1 without working for it. President Bush and Collin Powell need to quit catering to Europeans and Saudi Arabia and just give the O.K. to kick Hussein's Ass and deliver the freedom his father promissed those Iraq 12 years ago.

We've brought freedom to Afgahnistan, it is time to bring freedom to Iraq.

Rid these people of the Religous Zealots and Bloody Tyrants that rule their countries.
America doesn't need Europe,America need Great britain and Soviet Union in ww2 to fight hitler.America could have never fought Japan and Germany by its self.England is America's ally.England and America pack of steel.Europe made the type of armour thats on those M1A2's that America is proud of.The main gun on a M1A2 is a smoothbore which was created in Europe.No one needs Europe right? America didn't bring freedom to Afgahnistan,it brought bombs to destroy there homes and kill people.America just wants to put up a puppet goverment controled by Bush.The Afgan king does the talking and the White House pulls the strings.Bush is a puppet controled by his Daddy and dick there.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from SU37 on 1:53 pm on May 24, 2002
America doesn't need Europe,America need Great britain and Soviet Union in ww2 to fight hitler.America could have never fought Japan and Germany by its self.[/b][/quote]

Actually, SU37, you know that soviets and england needed our help, not the other way around. And we did fight the japaneze pretty much by ourselves (a little help from china and australia, but not much like the allies in europe), where was USSR and UK when USA fighting in the pacific???. They never helped us in the pacific. The USA contributed heavily in europe, US B-17's and mustangs did more damage to berlin factories and nazi war machine than anyone, US bombers conducted the only night raids in europe, no one else had the capability. USA lead D-day, battle of the bulge. All of this while we fought japan by ourselves. The USA only country to fully committ and fight in 2 theatres at once!!!

[Fabi]

yeah... but only cause the others were half-dead already...
it doesnt matter who needed whose help... neither of them could have done it themselves....
at least it seems like that to me...

[SU37]

I was talking about Europe ,You moron CI!If England was never in the war and USSR.Afther peral harbor, America would have fallen to Germany and Japan.I didn't say England was in the pacific,Also China did fight about 25% in WW2 against Japan.Plus America only was fighting Half of Japan's army,the other half was stuck in China fighting the Chinese.Also Japan didn't have oil,America cut it off.And America wanders why Japan attacked them!

(Edited by SU37 at 12:28 pm on May 24, 2002)

[SU37]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 5:14 pm on May 24, 2002

Quote: from SU37 on 1:53 pm on May 24, 2002
America doesn't need Europe,America need Great britain and Soviet Union in ww2 to fight hitler.America could have never fought Japan and Germany by its self.

. The USA contributed heavily in europe, US B-17's and mustangs did more damage to berlin factories and nazi war machine than anyone, US bombers conducted the only night raids in europe, no one else had the capability.
[/quote]Britain was the first to conducted night raids on Germany,also American air raids over Germany were in the day,most B-17's didn't come back,the ones that came back were in flames and couldn't be repaired and shot up and flak damage.The only heavy loses the Americans made on Germany was when they bombed a ball-barring factory with the British,British were the ones that thought up the attack.Mustanges didn't shot at factory,there were there to protect the B-17's from ME109E fighter's.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I know you were talking about europe, you idiot, su37, and chinese not helping usa 25%, please, that is an exagerated #, US navy ony navy fighting japanese, battle of midway, coral sea, guadal canal, marianis turkey shoot, all US vs Japan exclusively, at the same time USA fighting in europe and doing more damage to nazi war machine than uk or ussr, i'm saying usa only country to fight in 2 theatres, we helped uk/ussr in europe, but they did not help is in the pacific!!! typical ussr, only help themselves. besides, the russian military was weak, most of hitlers losses in eastern europe due to his bad choice to advance in the winter, not due to the delapidated soviet military

[Guest]

Japanese lost Midway couse they made a made choice of not keeping up there fighters,not because the US navy was stronger.

[SU37]

Thanks guest,who every you are! I was just going to say the same thing.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from SU37 on 5:36 pm on May 24, 2002
Britain was the first to conducted night raids on Germany,also American air raids over Germany were in the day,most B-17's didn't come back,the ones that came back were in flames and couldn't be repaired and shot up and flak damage.The only heavy loses the Americans made on Germany was when they bombed a ball-barring factory with the British,British were the ones that thought up the attack.Mustanges didn't shot at factory,there were there to protect the B-17's from ME109E fighter's.
[/quote]

SU37, read your history, USA did most of the night raids, british mostly by day, B-17's were shot down often early in U.S. campaign only because republic p-47 thunderbolt and supermarine spitfire not have range to escort b-17s all the way to nazi targets and back, so they were unprotected from 109's mor most of the mission. My grandma could shoot down an unprotected heavy bomber with a luftwafe fighter plane. When North american p-51 mustang entered, had range to escort b-17's all the way and back, then M-109's met their match, p-51 and US pilots dominated luftwafe fighters with mustang, after that almost all b-17's successfully bombed and then returned safely because of mustang escorts, and b-17's attacked more than ball bearing factory, b-17's dropped thousands of tons of bombs all over industrial nazi factories, B-17 Flying fortress most successfull and effective bomber of WWII

[SU37]

You sit there and rewrite history to fit you ass.British did a few by day and then they did the rest by night raids.British bombers bombed by night.American bombers did by day.Your facts most likely come from Bush's guide to ww2.ritish never did by day.B-17's were not protected against flak and fighters.Most ME109E's were shot down but flak did most of the damge.ME-109E's had 20mm cannons that had a better rang then the 50.cal guns on a B-17.I was a A student in history back in high school and best at it.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Guest on 5:46 pm on May 24, 2002
Japanese lost Midway couse they made a made choice of not keeping up there fighters,not because the US navy was stronger.


That is conjecture at best. What about all of our other victories in the pacific? Besides, the "reason" you gave could be stated thae same why as "the reason the US won the battle of midway was because they chose to keep their planes in the air". Wartime battles ultimately come down to choices, what is your point? The US navy was still stronger, both by the numbers and by historic events. Lets use critical thnking here, not excusues.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from SU37 on 6:08 pm on May 24, 2002
You sit there and rewrite history to fit you ass.British did a few by day and then they did the rest by night raids.British bombers bombed by night.American bombers did by day.Your facts most likely come from Bush's guide to ww2.ritish never did by day.B-17's were not protected against flak and fighters.Most ME109E's were shot down but flak did most of the damge.ME-109E's had 20mm cannons that had a better rang then the 50.cal guns on a B-17.I was a A student in history back in high school and best at it.


I don't dispute you were a good history student, but I am not rewriting history, i'm giving facts, m-109's met their match with p-51 mustangs, only allied planes with range to escort bombers all the way to targets and dogfight luftwafe, you know that is true. I don't dispute that defensive guns on b-17's not usually effective against fighters, that is why b-17's took early losses without escorts, but once the odds were even with p-51 escorts, m-109 lost effectiveness, more because of mustangs than flak, US pilots best in the world.

By the way, I saw a video of an airshow in europe, 2 russian mig 29's ran into each other during manuevers, what incompetance!! Luckily the piolts ejected, I am glad they survived, but russia can say goodbye to $100 million!!! If that is what we should expect from the russian airforce, I'm not worried about russian airforce, LOL, LOL. That would never happen with US pilots!!! LOL, LOL

[SU37]

Russia didn't lose millions,they got millions for those MIG-29's they sold to the british.Those MIG-29's are UK MIG-29's,those pilots were british air show pilots that are trainned notting like real Russian airfroce pilots.

[SU37]

One US airforce pilot did a move against a MIG-29 and his F-14 went into a spin and all most crashed. Also the Russian airforce is a threat.Russia as over 10,000 TU-95h's that are updated to almost up B-52 tech. TU-95H is a intercontinental bomber that can carry up to 50 regular bombs and 15 H-bombs.In the early 50's Americans were scared of a TU-95A's coming to bomb Norht American,most watched the skys looking for TU-95A's.

(Edited by SU37 at 1:41 pm on May 24, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

B.S.!!!! I saw the russian flag on their flight suits, admit it!!! UK does not buy russian planes, they produce harrier or buy US planes!!! You know it!!!! LOL, LOL

[Capitalist Imperial]

Just like chinese fighter pilot, had fast, manueverable fighter and tried to buzz big, sluggish US prop plane, and hit it??? Chinese fighter pilots are weak.

[SU37]

UK does have MIG-29's in service.UK doesn't buy all of America's garbage.

[SU37]

*edit wait my mistake I was think of the Ukarine.

(Edited by SU37 at 1:49 pm on May 24, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

TU-95 bear??? Yes, good bomber, counterpart to B-52. USA always had several B-52's loaded with nukes flying 24-hours/day just outside soviet airspace in patterns just in case of war breaking out, we would have immediate strike capability. Sometimes b-52's entered soviet airspace just to test soviet sensitivity. By the way, american warpalnes are worlds best, you know it.

[SU37]

Why don't you tell me what makes American war aircraft the best in the world!

[SU37]

If B-52's entered Russian airspace and dropped an H-bomb on sibera,Russian MIG-29's would be sent up and SU-27's and S-400 SAM's would be on the ready to blast the plane if it gets near any Russian city.Then TU-95H's would be loaded with H-bombs, lunched and would bomb Seatle and Alaska and California.

(Edited by SU37 at 2:09 pm on May 24, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

If russsian jets scramble, us f-15, f-16, f-14, f-18 scramble to intercept, even if russian jets get to b-52, it probably would have already fired air-launched cruise missle headed for moscow, tu-95 would be shot down by us fighters or SAMS launched from US navy ships (sea sparrow)

[SU37]

Not if Russia sends them in the 100's.TU-95H's can lunch crusie missiles with nuclear war-head.Russian airbases all over Russia some are even near Alaska.MIG-29's would lunch there R-27 guided missile and blow a hole right in the B-52's.

[Capitalist Imperial]

b-52 have air-launch cruise missle nukes, too, that is what i'm talking about. I know there are 100's of t-95's, but there are 100's of b-52's, we both know that if 1000's of planes and icbm's were launched at each other, it would be the end of the world

[Capitalist Imperial]

Besides, us has airbases and missle silos in alaska, and japan, and eastern wes europe, we had soviet union surrounded, with several b-52's in air 24 hrs/day, and satallite/us/sr71 survelliance, US had better chance at 1st strike capability

[SU37]

Germany is no ally of America,and many other nations hate America.American air men and soldiers will most likely fuck up like they do all the time.bunch of dumbfucks.Russia knows nuclear war ends the world,but America can't get that in there head.What the fuck is up with the fucking flags and god bless America singing shit.

(Edited by SU37 at 3:05 pm on May 24, 2002)

[Robin Hood]

Fun fun, a debate of tactical fun.
Ok, first of all, russia today have near nil resources to keep its airforce in the air. In an all battle with the US, quite unplausible as the world dont work like that, russia would probably taken quite a beating in the air.

Still, lets go to a scenario where russia has the resources of early 80s and lets add todays modern weapons.
Superior russian lowtech systems would easily take out the US. As I stated before, russian planes are built like tanks, US planes are built like fine watches.
Russian planes can be without major maintenence for a very long time, are easy to repair and cheap.
US planes are overcomplicated, a techies nightmare, need clean working runways, very expensive and EMP sensitive.

[Robin Hood]

Else there are very large differences between the two forces. Russia used a simple strategy based on a war tomorrow. The US had a more complex strategy balancing with its civilian economy.
Heck while the US invested like 5-10%...less Im sure, in the military. Russia was at like 40% or more.
No wonder Russia ruined itself.

[Moskitto]

a USSR pilot defected during the height of the cold war. When the US looked at his plane they discovered that there were no transistors, only valves, primitive compared to what the US had. The reason? During a nuclear war, the transistors would be fried, Valves would still function. The US fitted all their planes with valve backups.

I've heard from someone who knows someone in the navy, that the Russians have a titanium submarine which is virtually invisible.

[yuriandropov]

robin hood, soviet military spending was between 15-17% GDP which was a very lot. russian military spending these days is about half of what USA's is. russia still has best navy in the world today. it doesn't have the best air force (but it never did have, USA was always better), it does have the most tanks and does have more infantry but suffers from very low morale. USA, IMO, has better infantry. as for nukes, USA doesn't have more but the ones it does have are better stored than russia so the advantage would go to them in that department.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Robin Hood on 8:19 pm on May 24, 2002
Fun fun, a debate of tactical fun.
Ok, first of all, russia today have near nil resources to keep its airforce in the air. In an all battle with the US, quite unplausible as the world dont work like that, russia would probably taken quite a beating in the air.

Still, lets go to a scenario where russia has the resources of early 80s and lets add todays modern weapons.
Superior russian lowtech systems would easily take out the US. As I stated before, russian planes are built like tanks, US planes are built like fine watches.
Russian planes can be without major maintenence for a very long time, are easy to repair and cheap.
US planes are overcomplicated, a techies nightmare, need clean working runways, very expensive and EMP sensitive.



Yor are partly right, russian planes are built like tanks, they fall from the sky. Fast. (Being fasciciuos, of course, but I'm saying while structurally sound they were mechanically unreliable. And russian jets necessitated pretty much the same clean runway requirements that the US required. US planes could track and fire on more simultaneous targets at once (the f-14 could track 24, fire on 6 at once, from long range, and employed the phoenix air to air long range missle, which deployed @ mach 5+, all of these characteristics culminated in an air-to-air interceptor still unprecedebnted today), were more specialized for mission-specific roles (Example:A-10), and were actually quite reliable and wellmaintained. Russian fighters were built primarily for dogfighting, in an era when the long range interceptor would most likely dominate the skies, and dogfight were less likely to occur, so again the USA held the advantage. This is also illustrated in my next point. The navy is really the cornerstone of any military, the vast majority of military analysts and historians agree on this point. Now, even during the late 70's/early 80's, the soviet navy could never hold a candle to the US navy. Our subs were superior, our surface craft were superior, and the carriers?? Not even close. The russian carriers were never as large as the US platforms (not just marginally smaller, much smaller), and did not have the deck or catapults necessary to launch planes with large poayloads, i.e. attack planes. Check yourself, you will find that soviet carriers carried planes almost exclusively with loadouts for air-to-air fleet defense. Us carriers had the all time best fleet defense/air interceptor (f-14), as well as a full complement of capable strike aircraft capable of launching with a full strike package payload (f-4,f-18,a-6). This is a key advantage: a mobile, deployable strike capability from a carrier platform.. I believe US aircraft were far superior and any extra care required of them was well worth their technological sophistication and ability to engage more targets with greater precision from farther range, as well as having better all around surface attack capability in terms of both role-specific versatility and unsurpassed carrier based attack ability.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:06 pm on May 24, 2002
russia still has best navy in the world today.

Yuri, I would have to heartily disagree. The US has always had the superior navy, better surface ships, better subs, larger carriers, and more total ships. I think russia had an advantage in #'s in planes, ground forces, and land based air defense, but that is why the US developed systems that could be successful even when defending against greater than a 3-1 disadvantage, this ratio was the cornerstone of cold-war U.S. military planning, because the US knew that the Warsaw Pact nations would always enjoy a significant #'s advantage over NATO. The 2 empires thought of each other as the aggressor, and saw themselves as building primarily for defense (funny, eh?). Anyway, NATO weapons were designed for 1st strike, fire and forget, simultaneous targeting and firing capability, while warsaw weapons were designed for battlefield surviveability and low maintenence. What an interesting stand-off it would have been.

[SU37]

Russia is planning big things for its self to get back its front with America. Mig-29OVT is coming soon,its going to be better then F-18,F-16,F-14.

[yuriandropov]

the soviet navy could never hold a candle to US navy? what??? your subs were superior?? no way! up until kursk, the soviet navy was still held in very high regards and even today still is. the US air craft carriers may have been bigger and better but that is points for the air force in my opinion. soviet subs always outnumbered US subs and IMO are still better.
i'll give you the air force, i'll give you nukes, i'll even give you infantry but not navy. the red navy will always be number one.

[yuriandropov]

after reading you second post i would be faily inclned to agree with most of it.
about the navy, we could go round in circles talking about who has the better navy because as you say, the navy IS the cornerstone of any military. and bragging rights over who has the best military, is usually the same as bragging rights to who has the best navy. i'm sure if you would talk to an english man, he would claim his country still has the number 1 navy!
my overall opinion on the USSR vs USA military debate is the USSR's military was bigger, but the USA's was better. thats not saying USA would win, because it was lenin who said "quantity, has a quality all of its own".
i will try to post a to a site which you should find interesting. the site is basically the military strategy of the warsaw pact if the cold war would have turned hot. it is the actual strategy of the leaders and military advisor of the warsaw pact nations. as a westerner, it would provide an interesting look at to what you would of had to expect.

[yuriandropov]

here is the link:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/b2a3.htm

[Capitalist Imperial]

NO,NO,NO Yuri, I'll give you ground forces, tanks(before the abrams), ground based air defense(SAMS), I don't know about #'s of subs,or capability, I will check, but our navy is technologically superior amd also has more ships, and carriers are not air-force based, carrier planes are owned/operated by the navy, and a carrier with attack planes is very effective against an enemy warship

[Capitalist Imperial]

Ok, yuri, after reading your last post i agree, quality vs quantity, who knows who would win??? anyway, thanks for the site. I have a site which describes a little of NATO thinking and strategy during the cold war:

www.mas.org ...go to the military analysis are of this site, it is very interewsting!!!

[SU37]

You mean http://www.fas.org/man/index.html

(Edited by SU37 at 5:18 pm on May 24, 2002)

[Robin Hood]

Its quite irrelevant I think to say that for example the US is superior based on for example the F22 which by all means is a state of art fighter when a war is decided by all combined forces. Take out the airfields and carriers and any airforce is grounded. The airforce might be the most powerfull force but it is also the most vulnerable. The navy has mobility and the army has the protection of the land.
Technology doesnt win a war, more I would say its a hinder.
To this I base on the Afghan war, both by every modern nation that has invaded it and as ever, the good old Vietnam war.
The infanterist is in the end the one that rules the battlefield as its the onlyone to actually hold ground.

As for US planes have valvebackup, yes, but they are still far more vulnerable to EMP and mircowave just read all reports based on fighters having problems when flying near high electrical sources.

Another thing is nukes, so what who has more when less than 10% of any forces stockpiles is enough to obliterate.
Its kind of like with this brainless starwars system that the US managed to fool the russians with. In the end the russians actually managed to deploy some satelites which were astronnauticly expensive (sorry) before realising what a poor if usless system it is.
Why? If you destroy a nuclear missile in space it will disintigrate and you will have plutonium raining down on the planet, multiply with some hundred missiles and you get a quite polluted planet.
The US at best made some experimental systems for show that they lately gladly displayed to everyone, specially russia.
This is why Reagan has to be given the "honour" of winning the cold war.

Stand corrected on the russian spenditure which still was way higher than the american one.

As for carriers, carriers are a very sensitive target. In war they will be easy picking for subs, heck, even lowtech crap can take one out.

[Capitalist Imperial]

yes, yes, www.fas.org ... military analysis area

[Capitalist Imperial]

Hmmmm, carriers are susceptible to subs, true, but subs are susceptible to other subs as well as anti sub aircraft and helicoptors launched from hmmmmm, uh, aircraft carriers!!! (heh heh heh). I think that US anti-sub technology was/is far past that of the soviets/russians.

Point taken on airfields being somewhat vulnerable, though with good perimeter defense not that vulnerable. If the US would be on a theorhetical defensive, planes would probably have been scrambled before and enemy could reach a target airfield.

Tech won't win a war, nor will #'s, or any single constituent, but they sure help. The power of successfully employed airpower and technology as part of an overall strategy was exemplified beautifully in the gulf war. The US quickly and efficiently defeated what was the 4th largest standing army in the world, largely through effective air power and information technology.

Now, in vietnam, our government made bad choices. Our forces and weapons were actually quite effective, most battles were US victories. The problem was that the victories were in areas and over objectives that just didn't matter much. The technology wes effective, but not effectively employed. The congress was running a war the pentagon should have been running, and we were effectively fighting with 1 hand tied behind our backs (if we were allowed north, we would have decimated them easily). So, I guess it really comes down to decisions. The afghan war is actually going well. We have eradicated the taliban's stronghold on afghanistan, and we knew this operation would take a long time, our objectives dictate it will, but again, the technology is effective.


The missle defense shield was not designed for use VS russia or china and an all out attack, but ninstead against rogue nations firing 1 to a few missles. In this role, I am confident it will be an effective, legitimate investment, and who knows what can be developed in the future.

Of course, all of this discussion is based on conventional weapons/hardware, if we go to a nuclear war between US/USSR, it becomes academic as it will be the end of humanity as we know it.

Oh, and i agree it comes down to groud forces, but we make all of these arguements with the understanding that all military wartime operations ultimately lend themselves to the occupation of territory, be it on land or at sea. Nowadays, though, you need air, land, and sea power used in conjunction to acheive said territory.

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 11:11 pm on May 24, 2002)