CI please read. - The Facts and Nothing but the Facts.

[Invader Zim]

This is to clear up some small ideas that seam to have lodged in your head. All these are facts i have found in ensyclopidias and library refrence material.

1. The war of 1812

According to the Hutchinson Encyclopidia. The war was a stalmate. Britain incontrol of the sea, usa incontrol of the land. However the USA paid Britain compensation for its temporary loss of trading routs.
I was partialy wrong here but so were you.

2. Britain has lost only 2 wars in the last 1000 years. I said 1 but i forgot about William the conqueror. However he did form the state so do you count that.
I feal i must clear this up. We did not lose against the Zulus ect. We lost battles but not wars. There is a huge differance. Which is why a very large preportion of the world is in the Common Wealth.

3. The USA
A. The USA has not got the largest army in the world. China Does.
The USA does not spend the most per soldier on training GB does.
The US does not have the most efficiant special forces, GB and Israil do.

B. The US air force is not the largest in the world, again China's is.
The most spent on training per Pilot is S Korea, (according to the Hutchenson encyclopedia any way).

From what i saw you believe that the F16 is better than a Tornado and harrier. An F16 is a Tornado, and the Harrier is reputed to be one of is not the best fighter around.

4. Korea. You got beaten by the Chinese. They drove the US troops all the way back to the origional borders. Not very good you understand.

5. The USA is not the greatest empire of all time.
A. size of empire. GB was controling aproximatly a 1/4 of all land and popualation on earth. The USA has not got that far (yet...).
B. Economics. The British empire has had the largest company ever as Moskitto pointed out.

Thank you for your time.

[timbaly]

I don't know much about planes but I thought the F-16 is the fighting falcon and the tornado is the GR.1 "MIG EATER", I believe thats the nic-name.

[Thine Stalin]

Amerika has a stronger economy than england did, and there were also other world powers to check england, amerika has noone, thusly it seems more powerful in comparision, because power is all relative for the time, the romans were the most powerful empire during their time, but compared the U.S now, they are weak.

Sorry, the united states is the most powerful right now. And soviet Union was before, and before that germany, and before that england and france and so on. But you cannot deny capitalist imperial, western EUROPE has been the countries that have had the greatest empires, france, italy (under rome), greece.

[Blibblob]

How dare you.

Theres a boycott, dont debate with him, he just *****es back.

[Thine Stalin]

Boycott on who and who the hell are you?

[Anonymous]

They want to "boycott" threads in which Capitalist Imperial has supposedly made "idiotic statements". Its all rather stupid if you ask me. Especially since they're the only ones doing it.

[Anonymous]

i must say i haveto suport this boycott...

after i heard CI saying something like "blacks were bether in the slave system of america than when they were inthe wild of africa"....... i lost all the interess in debating with him....
´

now i just like to ***** around and flamme at you cappitalist morons.....

[Som]

From what i saw you believe that the F16 is better than a Tornado and harrier. An F16 is a Tornado, and the Harrier is reputed to be one of is not the best fighter around.

The F-16 is the Falcon. The Tornado is a different european made jet. The harrier is not a great fighter either, Its good at what its made for, being able to take off and land nearly anywhere, but that gives it an awkward design, so that its not much of a fighter. Its not meant to be a fighter, its used mostly as a support for ground troops.
The F-16 is easily more agile than both of them.

CIs arguments are weak enough, this isn't the first time you've used horribly wrong information.

[Thine Stalin]

Quote: from the anarchist on 11:29 pm on Jan. 23, 2003
i must say i haveto suport this boycott...

after i heard CI saying something like "blacks were bether in the slave system of america than when they were inthe wild of africa"....... i lost all the interess in debating with him....
´

now i just like to ***** around and flamme at you cappitalist morons.....


I stand with the capitalists on disliking you 'the anarchist'.

If all you do is flame then you're no better than CI, who is a TERRIBLE represenative for the capitalists here and I reccomend that Norman and Dark Capitalist cease associating with him.

[Bored of Education]

Yes the War of 1812 ended in a stalemate. It was mostly waged on the seas with our newly-formed military, started by the current president (think it's Madison but not sure).

CI does on the whole present weak arguments, but at least he's someone to debate with. It would be rather boring if we all agreed on certain issues now wouldn't it?

[Blibblob]

fine then screw CI, and i will disagree with everything, everybody hates me anyways.

[Anonymous]

So the "boycott" is over I take it?

[IHP]

Yet another time wasting "chit-chat" style thread. Nothing but childish insults, and conjecture about a 'boycott'

Seriously guys....

--IHP

[Moskitto]

Moskitto and AK47 from school---

actually, this has been relatively insult free, well, at least compared to other threads.

and the harrier can stop in midair and stop persuing cruise missiles, but that's not really that important, also it has an 11/1 kill ratio against any other planes it's faced.

and AK47 says this---

The Falcon is a very similar model to Tornado. It was designed by the same people, the only alteration between them is a minor differance to the wing span.

So i conclude that they are the same, Falcon is just the US name for the Tornado.

PS you gave moskitto a web page to visit. Minor detail its crap it proves nothing. Below is the total data i found about the treaty of Ghent from this web page. On a different page i found 3 pages of info here i found:-

"On December 24, the Treaty of Ghent is signed ending the war. The war in the field continues until mid-February."

[PaulDavidHewson]

The anarchist has a rather surprising and rather confusing signature:


END THE HATE!SMASH THE STATE!
ALL POWER TO THE SOVIET!


Something wrong with that signature, can't put my finger on it yet though.......... :P

[Invader Zim]

The anarchist has a rather surprising and rather confusing signature:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

END THE HATE!SMASH THE STATE!
ALL POWER TO THE SOVIET!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Something wrong with that signature, can't put my finger on it yet though.......... :P


Yes ive wondered about that, Anarchist surly smashing the state will cause more hate than before.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Actually the best plane at the moment is the Sukhoi-35.

Western governments are very interrested in it. It can do manouvres wich only the sukhoi-27.29,35 and mig-29 can. Most experts agree that it could put down the current fighter planes and even F-22( If they are close to each other)

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/dvdynamics/su-35.jpg

http://mustangman5.netfirms.com/rplanes.html



(Edited by CCCP at 5:27 pm on Jan. 24, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CCCP on 5:19 pm on Jan. 24, 2003
Actually the best plane at the moment is the Sukhoi-35.

Western governments are very interrested in it. It can do manouvres wich only the sukhoi-27.29,35 and mig-29 can. Most experts agree that it could put down the current fighter planes and even F-22( If they are close to each other)

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/dvdynamics/su-35.jpg



(Edited by CCCP at 5:24 pm on Jan. 24, 2003)


It's nice yes, rather like the new Euro fighter.

http://www.thaitechnics.com/aircraft/tg2/ef2000.jpg

[Capitalist Imperial]

The SU-35 is just a dogfighter, the F-22 would down it before the SU-37 could even see it.

The f-22 is an interceptor, not a dogfighter.

At close (dogfight) ranges, the SU-35 would have the edge.

At long to medium distance,the F-22 would dominate.

The Mcdonnel Douglas F-16 Falcon is NOTHING like the slow, heavy Tornado. They are totally different planes.

The f-16 is a multirole fighter for ground attack and air superiority. The tornado is just an attack and close air support plane, very little air-to-air ability. The tornado has variable swing-wing dynamics, the f-16 has a static wing.

They are in no way even close.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from AK47 on 10:27 pm on Jan. 23, 2003
This is to clear up some small ideas that seam to have lodged in your head. All these are facts i have found in ensyclopidias and library refrence material.

1. The war of 1812

According to the Hutchinson Encyclopidia. The war was a stalmate. Britain incontrol of the sea, usa incontrol of the land. However the USA paid Britain compensation for its temporary loss of trading routs.
I was partialy wrong here but so were you.

2. Britain has lost only 2 wars in the last 1000 years. I said 1 but i forgot about William the conqueror. However he did form the state so do you count that.
I feal i must clear this up. We did not lose against the Zulus ect. We lost battles but not wars. There is a huge differance. Which is why a very large preportion of the world is in the Common Wealth.

3. The USA
A. The USA has not got the largest army in the world. China Does.
The USA does not spend the most per soldier on training GB does.
The US does not have the most efficiant special forces, GB and Israil do.

B. The US air force is not the largest in the world, again China's is.
The most spent on training per Pilot is S Korea, (according to the Hutchenson encyclopedia any way).

From what i saw you believe that the F16 is better than a Tornado and harrier. An F16 is a Tornado, and the Harrier is reputed to be one of is not the best fighter around.

4. Korea. You got beaten by the Chinese. They drove the US troops all the way back to the origional borders. Not very good you understand.

5. The USA is not the greatest empire of all time.
A. size of empire. GB was controling aproximatly a 1/4 of all land and popualation on earth. The USA has not got that far (yet...).
B. Economics. The British empire has had the largest company ever as Moskitto pointed out.

Thank you for your time.


Well, some of these are not really facts in any way, but I'll still address them.

As for 1812, I would read this before you suggest who dominated the sea:

http://www.multied.com/1812/

As for the US army:

Yes, china has a larger standing army, but that is such a small part of the picture. YThe US has more $$$ to fund the troops they have, and their equipment is somuch more soophisticated, and they can actually employ a larger force over sustained combat operations than china!! Don't you understand this, AK? As for the chinese airforce, I will have to look at #'s when it comes to inventory, because I think the US has more, but anyway the Chinese are still using aircraft from the 60's!!! Their airforce in no way compares to the US airforce in any way, shape, or form. Especially when it comes to pilot training. Us pilots are better trained, AND in better planes.

Neither the Harrier nor Tornado can compare to any American fighter in service right now, bar none.

Korea: The US objective in Korea was to keep the south free. That was our only objective.

Anf that is exactly what we did. History states that we won that war, sir.

The American/Chinese kill ratio was 15:1, and that was with a force that was not even expecting chinese involvement.

Those are the "facts", AK.


And you can't compare the british empire of 400 years ago to the USA today. It is apples and oranges.

BTW, TO EVERYONE, NO FLAMMING OR INSULTS HERE, I WILL STOP IF YOU DO!!! MY INFLAMMATORY COMMENTS ARE MERELY REACTIONARY, NEVER UNPROVOKED!!!


(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 7:07 pm on Jan. 24, 2003)


(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 7:15 pm on Jan. 24, 2003)

[Moskitto]

As for 1812, I would read this before you suggest who dominated the sea:
http://www.multied.com/1812/

that website lists 4 navel battles in the war, in reality there were about 30, of which no one really dominated.

of course, Great Britain was also fighting in Europe, South America, Africa, Asia against far more worthy foes, such as France and Spain, no one cared about America at the time.

[Moskitto]

And you can't compare the british empire of 400 years ago to the USA today. It is apples and oranges.

we're not talking about 400 years ago, more 150 years ago. 400 years ago the United Kingdom didn't even exist, learn some real history before making a fool of yourself.

Also, History is taught very badly in America, America resembles a dictatorship in the way history is taught, you must be born in America to teach history in most states, what they teach is monitored closely. In other countries, actually what happened is taught.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Moskitto on 8:11 pm on Jan. 24, 2003

And you can't compare the british empire of 400 years ago to the USA today. It is apples and oranges.

we're not talking about 400 years ago, more 150 years ago. 400 years ago the United Kingdom didn't even exist, learn some real history before making a fool of yourself.

Also, History is taught very badly in America, America resembles a dictatorship in the way history is taught, you must be born in America to teach history in most states, what they teach is monitored closely. In other countries, actually what happened is taught.

England existed 400 years ago and was expanding its empire at that time

[Som]

The F-16 falcon:

http://fdmc.aticorp.org/graphics/f-16.jpg

The tornado:

http://www.crakehal.demon.co.uk/aviation/t.../tornado/zk.jpg (http://www.crakehal.demon.co.uk/aviation/tornado/zk.jpg)

As you can see, they are completly different planes. The F-16 is american made by Lockheed Martin, The tornado is European made. They aren't similiar at all.

Yes, the harrier can stop in midair, eventually. But if your suggesting that as a manuevering technique, thats just wrong, It doesn't work that way, you can't go from a few hundred miles per hour to zero automatically, and the thrusters can't move forward to help this.
It can stop persuing missiles no better than any other plane can, using flares and the like, the same as any other plane. (mind you, 'cruise missiles' wouldn't come after any plane).
I dont know where you got that 11 to 1 number, seems off as the harrier isn't really a fighter anyway.

CI is right about the F-22, While the Su-35 is easily the most manueverable plane in the world, It doesn't matter if it can't find the F-22.
Though the Su-47/S-37, something in the works, is far more maneuverable and has some stealth technology to it, (all i can find on it is quite vague, and all I can really find is that it 'incorporates low-obvservable' technologies)

[Invader Zim]

I have the great pleasure of laying the ace of trumps on you CI look at this and weep: -

The F16
http://www.avitop.com/interact/images/f16buttom.gif

and the Tornado
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tornado/images/tornado5s.jpg
Under view
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tornado/images/tornado6s.jpg
A side View
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tornado/images/tornado9s.jpg
The Undercaridge
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tornado/images/tornado1.jpg
As you can clearly see from the Cockpit, the wings and the positioning of the undercaridge it the same plain!!!!!!!!!
Just a little background info to explain where you probably went wrong.

The Tornado multi-role aircraft is operational in five different forms: Tornado GR 1 interdictor/strike aircraft for close air support; counter air attack and defence suppression; GR 1A tactical reconnaissance aircraft; Tornado GR 1B long-range maritime attack aircraft; and Tornado F3 long-range air defence fighter. The GR 4 is a mid-life update of the GR 1. The Tornado entered service in 1980 and ceased production in 1998. The Tornado was manufactured by Panavia, a consortium of BAE Systems, EADS (formerly Daimler-Chrysler Aerospace) and Alenia.

TORNADO GR 1 INTERDICTOR/STRIKE AIRCRAFT
Tornado GR 1 Interdictor/Strike (IDS) aircraft are in service with the German Air Force and Navy (290), Italian Air Force (90), UK Royal Air Force (186) and the Royal Saudi Air Force (96). The aircraft is equipped with an advanced sensor and defensive aids suite for low-level, deep-penetration missions in all weathers by day and by night.

The aircraft is fitted with two 25mm cannons on each side of the fuselage. The aircraft is equipped with a wide range of weapons. For close air support and interdiction, the aircraft is typically equipped with iron bombs, cluster bombs and laser-guided bombs. In the defence suppression role, it is equipped with anti-radar missiles.

The comprehensive suite of navigation equipment includes a Raytheon Systems terrain-following, ground-mapping radar, Decca Doppler Type 72 radar and BAE SYSTEMS FIN1010 three-axis digital inertial navigation system. Tornado has a multi-mode APFD AutoPilot and Flight Director from BAE Systems The aircraft's TACAN (Tactical Air Navigation) system is the AD2770 from BAE Systems or the Alcatel SEL AG Sector-TACAN. The instrument landing system is the Cossor.CILS75/76.

RAF TORNADO GR 4 MID-LIFE UPDATE
142 of the Royal Air Force GR 1 Tornados are being upgraded to Tornado GR 4 configuration by the year 2003, under the RAF Tornado Mid-Life Update programme. The first entered service in 1998 and the GR 4 received operational clearance in April 2001. 100 upgraded aircraft had been delivered by October 2001. The new systems are being developed by BAE SYSTEMS. The programme involves advances in systems, stealth technology and avionics. A digital avionics bus links the new systems and fully integrates the aircraft's improved defensive aids suite. The weapons bus is configured to control the release of a wide range of weapons and can adapt for future weapon types through the system's missile control and weapon programming units. The upgraded navigation systems, including a global positioning system (GPS), BAE SYSTEMS Terprom digital terrain-mapping system and Honeywell H-764G laser inertial navigation system (INS), are integrated into the aircraft's main avionics system.

The GR. 4 is fitted with a pilot's head-up display, multifunction head-down display and a digital map. The BAE SYSTEMS Thermal Imaging Laser Designator (TIALD) pod, which provides high-accuracy autonomous guidance for laser-guided weapons, is being integrated on the upgraded aircraft. The GR 4 is equipped with a forward-looking infrared (FLIR). The thermal image is projected onto the pilot's head-up and head-down displays.

The GR 4 has been cleared to carry Enhanced Paveway bombs, with GPS/INS (Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System) guidance and from 2002 will carry Brimstone anti-armour and Storm Shadow cruise missiles when these enter service.

The GR4 can also deploy the Goodrich Raptor reconnaissance pod which replaces the current Vinten VICON system. Raptor consists of the DB-110 reconnaissance system with CCD day sensor and mid-wave indium antinomide infrared sensor. It provides real-time day and night targeting with a range of 72km (electro-optic) and 36km (infrared). The pod received initial operating capability in September 2002.

TORNADO GR 1A RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT
The low-level, high-speed reconnaissance Tornado GR 1A is in service with the air forces of Germany, Italy and Saudi Arabia. The aircraft provides real-time reconnaissance, with facilities for in-flight review of reconnaissance data, recording for post-flight analysis and instant ground access to recorded imagery.

The electro-optical suite comprises three internally mounted infrared sensors linked to a video recording system, providing 24-hour, horizon-to-horizon surveillance coverage.

TORNADO GR 1B MARITIME ATTACK AIRCRAFT
The GR 1B Maritime Attack Tornado is in service with the Royal Air Force. The aircraft is equipped with up to four Sea Eagle anti-ship missiles. It can strike at a distance over 400 miles from base and is able to launch the missiles at stand-off range.

TORNADO F3 AIR DEFENCE
The F3 Air Defence Variant (ADV) Tornado is armed with short-range and medium-range air-to-air missiles. A typical weapons payload would include four Sidewinder short-range missiles and four Skyflash medium-range missiles. Tornado F3 aircraft are the first to be fitted with the short-range MBDA ASRAAM air-to-air missile which entered service in January 2001 and was declared ready for operational deployment in Spetember 2002. 100 RAF F3 Tornadoes are being upgraded to carry AIM-20 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, a Raytheon IFF 4810 SIFF (Successor Identification Friend or Foe) system and a Honeywell laser inertial navigation system. EADS selected I-Logix's Statemate MAGNUM as the systems engineering tool for RWE and the new computing facility. The upgrade programme is to be completed in 2003.

The aircraft is equipped with a BAE SYSTEMS Foxhunter radar, which provides long-range search capability and enables the aircraft to engage targets at beyond visual range.

-------
As you can see very informative

now for your rather biased rubbish about Korea.


Korean War FAQ
Copyright© Dongxiao Yue, 1998, All rights reserved.


21. How many casualties did PVA suffer?
Western sources gave assertions such as "it seems reasonable to assume that China cannot have lost less than half a million men" , "China suffered at least 900,000 casualties", etc. However, such numbers were based on arbitrary estimates which were greatly inflated.

For example, US estimated that in the battle of Chosin reservoir, the Marines air power killed 10,000 Chinese and wounded 5,000, the numbers were artificially high and no evidence could be found to back up these claims. From western combat histories, PVA always cease the fighting at dawn and went to cover, and their white clothing made it very hard to detect even by the Marines at close distance let alone by aircrafts. US estimated that the Marines killed a total of 25,000 PVA troops and wounded 12,500 in the Chosin battle, one has to wonder that if the Marines alone could kill 20% and wound 10% of the entire PVA 9th Army Group, why did the X Corps have to abandon Task Force MacLean and put itself in such a vulnerable situation at the Hungnam beachhead, and then bug out North Korea. For another example, 2d division historian wrote that 2d division alone had "killed more than 65,000 enemy soldiers", this was based on figures from dividual regiments, such as 9th Infantry, which claimed "total enemy casualties to be 16505, of which 2200 were counted". In the "Wonju shoot" of February 14 1951, 2d division claimed killing 5000 PVA troops with artillery alone, and wounded 3 times more. For another example, Van Fleet claimed that UN had inflicted a communist casualty of 234,000 from August to October 1951 during which truce talks were in recess, such an estimate is considered "far too high" by western historians. There are a lot of such cases, when a western historian quoted communist casualty numbers, he had to qualify it with words such as "arbitrary", "far too high", etc.

From the overly inflated numbers, it seems that US generals are not accountable for their battle results, while in PLA, it is a serious misconduct to report false casualty numbers of either side, since such false reports would result in wrong calculations by the nation's leaders. On the US side, American statisticians calculated that in the 8 months ending June 25 1951, PVA suffered a casualty of 600,000 (which would imply that every PVA soldier entered Korea became a casualty), and UN suffered 290,000 (among which 78,800 were American), such gross miscalculations by Washington led to the illusion that US was winning and prolonged the war.

It is understandable that US could not get a accurate estimate of the communist casualties, UN forces were on the run for escape most of the time, they could not have the chance to count their kills.

From official Chinese sources, PVA casualty during the Korean war was 390,000. It breaks down as follows:
KIA: 110,400
DIED OF WOUNDS: 21,600
DIED OF SICKNESS: 13,000
CAPTURED & MISSING: 25,600
WOUNDED: 260,000

22. How many casualties UN suffered?
From reports published by PVA on August 15 1953, UN suffered a total casualty of 1,093,839, in which 397,543 were Americans, 667293 were ROKs, and 29,003 were others.

PVA's portion of the score was: kill and wound, 671,954; capture, 46088; pursuaded surrender, 435; total 718,477, in which 290,000 were Americans. PV destroyed or damaged 2,006 enemy tanks, 3,165 vehicles, 44 amored vehicles, 10,629 aircrafts, 583 artellery pieces; captured 245 tanks, 5,256 trucks, 51 amored vehicles, 11 aircrafts, 4037 artellery pieces, 73,263 small arms.

From western sources, UN combat casualty totalled 1 million. It breaks as follows: US 144,173, ROK 844,000 (415,000 killed, 429,000 wounded), Commonwealth 6000, others 8,800 (Hastings). US suffered another 20,000 or so fatality. From military history authored by ROK Defense Department, ROK total casualty was actually 984,400.

Detailed US casualty was: KIA 33,629, accidental death 20,600£¬wounded 103,248, captured and repatriated 3,746, MIA 8,142.

Casualties of other UN forces are listed here.

The total count from both sources matched very well, some historians acknowledged that PLA was very honest in their statistics. However, PVA counted 220,000 more US casualties, and about 200,000 less ROK. This discrepancy was partly due to the fact that many ROKs were serving as attachments to US armies and they were counted as US force by PVA.

Why did ROK suffer such a greater casualty? One of the reasons was that they were placed on the first line of defense in a lot of the cases, and they suffered the initial blows by PVA. Moreover, ROK had different fighting style: from PVA battle accounts, American usually withdraw all the way down to the foot of the hills after suffering a failed attack, but ROK only retreated to out of fire range to regroup and attack again immediately, which caused great difficulty for PVA, and of course greater casualty on ROK. However, western historians seldom mention ROK's positive contribution to the UN side.


23. Why did the truce talk drag for so long?
The truce talk began in July 1951 and took two year to conclude in July 1953, during the two years, both sides debated and fought over some wasteland, causing more casualties than the previous two years.

On July 1, 1951, Beijing responded to Ridgway's broadcast message regarding peace talks, Beijing's reply said "we agree to suspend military activities and to hold peace negotiations". China wanted to stop the fighting right there, however, Ridgway believed that the Chinese might play the treachery of using peace talks to buy time, he insisted to JCS that a suspension of hostilities "wholly unacceptable" and would "categorically reject" a cease-fire. For this reason, when JCS send a message to the Chinese to begin talks, it instructed Ridgway to continue the fighting.

From the beginning, Ridgway instructed UN delegates to negotiate in the toughest manner, he wrote to Washington that to deal with the "treacherous savages" as civilized people "is to deride one's own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery." However, such racist attitude reconfirmed the Chinese conviction that US is an imperialist that only understood the use of force, whenever the talks stalled, both sides would engage in meaningless battles only to show each other that no one could gain an upper hand in a positional war.

The first dispute was the truce line. On June 26 1951, Dean Acheson publicly repeated US government's willingness to settle the conflict at the 38th parallel, however, when Chinese and Korean delegates proposed to set the truce line on 38th parallel, they found that Americans had reneged on their earlier public declarations. On July 20, Chinese suggested a recess until July 25, so "each side could reconsider the views presented by the other side." On hearing this, Ridgway got suspicious and ordered an all out bombing of Pyongyang On July 25. On July 27, US delegate offered a truce line with a 20 mile DMZ bordered on the battle line which would gain 12000 square km land from communist control, this renegation on previous US positions shocked the communists delegates, and they reproposed a truce line along the 38th with a 20km DMZ. Both sides deadlocked on the issue, and Ridgway ordered another mass bombing of Pyongyang with 445 planes on July 30. After a series of meetings, the talks suspended and US armies spent 22000 casualties to gain some insignificant hills such as the Heartbreak Ridge. Then, Ridgway insisted to move the negotiation from Kaesong to elsewhere, since Kaesong was in PVA control, JCS agreed with him, fearing that UN delegates might be held hostage, however, the State Department felt Keasong site should be OK, but Ridgway threaten to disobey if he was ordered to return to Kaesong. After all these quarrels, the communists agreed to move the negotiation to Panmunjom. Now, communists gave up their insistence on 38th parallel, but US insisted that they wanted Kaesong (an ancient city) which was controlled by Chinese, the Chinese of course could not yield. After long arguments and simultaneous battles in the fields, US agreed to set the truce line along the battle line, but then both sides argued on whether the DMZ should be 20 miles or 20km wide.

The talks continued. US then aimed to prevent the rehabilitation of North Korea, such as roads, railroads and especially airfields. Truman was particular hard on this issues, but JCS decided that is "impracticable to keep all of Korea in a state of devastation", so US aim changed to forbid rehabilitation of airfields. But Chinese and North Koreans could not agree to such violation of the Korea sovereignty. After heated arguments and battles, US gave in on this issue.

Gaining nothing on key demands, US introduced unprecedented conditions in the exchanges of POWs, which "threw the negotiations into utter turmoil, led to bizarre twists and turns which enormously damaged the United States in the eyes of world, and ultimately prolonged the Korean war for another year and a half". (Blair).

24. How were Chinese and NK POWs treated by US?
"Western treatment of the Koreans and the Chinese was dictated by a deeply rooted conviction that they were not people like themselves, but near-animals..."( Hastings p307)

Well, let's see what the British say, since they did not guard the POW camps (US did), we can assume that they are more honest on this.

From "The Korean War" by Max Hastings

"Koje-do wasn't managed properly--there were far too many men in one enclosure. There was a lot of bronchitis, pneumonia, dysentery, pinkeye. TB was widespread. There were men with open wounds that were still draining. All of them had lice."

(POW rioted on Feb.18 and March 13, 1952, and UN guards fired into the POWs, killing 89 and wounded 166).

On May 7 1952, the POWs captured the camp commander Brigadier Dodd and tried him for brutality against POWs, and he signed a document that admitted the brutality by US guards, and agreed to cease immediately the "barbarous behaviour, insults, torture...[and] mass murdering" of POWs.

After the Dodd incident, Major D. R. Bancroft reported on Koje-do POW camp situation: "All US troops were apt to regard the PWs as cattle... They...handled them, including cripples who had been badly wounded, extremely roughly". When he questioned the Americans, "Their replay was invariably, 'Well, these people are savages' and on one occasion, 'Congress has never ratified the Geneva Convention anyway'".

In August 1952, British Foreign Office commented on Bancroft's report: "The report confirms other accounts we have had of the 'Hate Asia' attitude so freely displayed by Americans in the Far East. The harm which such behaviour does to our joint cause needs no emphasising."

From "Korea, the war before vietnam" by Callum A. MacDonald

"American medical officers estimated that 50 per cent of the POWs in Pusan were suffering malnutrition in January 1951".

"The POW command instituted a 'shoot to kill' policy. 'POW threw rocks at UNC personnel: POW shot dead', was considered a satisfactory incident report."

"6600 prisoners had died in UN captivity by December 1951".

25. How did Chinese treat POWs?
Contrary to western propaganda of communist brutality, Chinese took the policy of "treating POWs well".

Chinese had the tradition of treating POWs with humanity. 2000 years ago, in its 100 year war (200BC) with the Huns, the government forbid brutality against captives, one Hun captive even became the second highest official in the imperial court, a lot of Huns converted into Chinese. Similar principles were applied in other ancient wars with others. Even after the Sino-Japanese war, China did not use brutality against the Japanese POWs. During the civil war, PLA captured a lot of KMT (Guomingdang) soldiers, and most of them became PLA soldiers and fought against KMT.

From "Korea, the Untold Story of the War" by J. C. Goulden, "...the Chinese showed surprising compassion in their treatment of prisoners, especially the wounded. The Chinese,... in some instances put Americans on litters, carried them to the roadside, and then withdrew and held their fire so that UN medics could remove them."

Let's also quote some text from C. A. MacDonald's book:

-----

The Chinese POW policy (starting quote) "treated POWs as victims of the ruling classes, students who were to be educated and pointed towards the truth. Strict rules were laid down governing the treatment of prisoners. POWs were to be given food and medical treatment. They were to neither robbed nor abused. Instead they were to be led towards an understanding of the true nature of the war and their own societies. After such re-education, prisoners could be either be released at the front to rejoin and demoralise their old units, or held for longer-term indoctrination."

"At the beginning...POWs were given a meal and a political speech, before being released to their own lines. A group of Americans from Almond's X Corps, captured in November, were 'inspected by a Chinese officer who gave them cigarettes, a good meal of chicken, and told them they could rejoin their own forces. Then they were left to their own devices.' Others found themselves greeted by nurses who treated the wounded and distributed gifts of candy...In November/December 1950... Orders [from Pentagon] were issued to evacuate all released POWs through medical channels as quickly as possible."

"Unlike German and Japanese camps of World War Two, these [Chinese POW camps] were relatively open:'There was no barbed wire, no tiger boxes with machine gunes...and only a few guards stationed at strategic points. The Chinese hadn't bothered much about security."

"When repatriation became an issue, POWs were used in another propaganda role. Chinese 'lenient treatment' was contrasted to the brutality of the UN authorities at Koje."

"In February 1953, the [US] State Department noted: 'Defense is particularly concerned lest the Communists release a huge batch of prisoners who...would have to be allowed to go to their widely dispersed home towns, where have been converted, they could do immeasurable harm.'"

"For many returning [American] prisoners, repatriation was to become a 'March to Calumny'".

-----

In MacDonald's book, he implied that Chinese treatment of POWs was 'brainwashing', yes, Chinese were educating the POWs, but the latter had their free mind to discern the truth or falsity in what they heard, what is the problem?

In September 1950, MacArthur issued a directive:"Treatment of POWs shall be directed toward their exploitation for psychological warfare purposes". Indoctrination program were set up in the POWs camps to teach about the evil of communism, and when POWs refused to listen, torture and even murder would befall on them. In the truce talk later, Chinese and North Korean POWs were held hostage by US as the last chance to gain "honor" in the Korean war. Many POWs died in their fight to return home, and many were forced to go elsewhere.

Moskitto has argued the case against the 1812 war for me very well. If this is not enough evidence then nothing will be.

[Som]

As you can clearly see from the Cockpit, the wings and the positioning of the undercaridge it the same plain!!!!!!!!!
Just a little background info to explain where you probably went wrong.

My patience is wearing thin with this, Are you blind? Just look at them, they aren't the same at all.

For example, look at the air intake, the F-16 has one semi-circular intake on the bottom, the tornado has two square intakes, one on each side. The F-16 has a single engine, the tornado has two. The wings of the F-16 are fixed, the Tornados wings swing back and forth, for different situations.
Look at the overall large boxy shape of the tornado, and look at the small streamlined frame of the F-16.
In the pictures you put up, look at the clusters of missiles on the bottom of the plane, the F-16 only has one pilon there because thats where its landing gear is.
The tornado has a crew of two, with the exception of trainer aircraft, the f-16 only has one.
The wings are mounted near the center of the F-16, they are nearer to the top of the tornado. The nose of the tornado is fat and squared off, the nose of the F-16 is much more sleek, allowing more intake.

Squares and circles, this is simple.


Its very clear that they are different planes.

[Invader Zim]

However the real evidence about this is the wing movement. In both the F16 and the Tornado the wings can move back into a more acute angle allowing more speed but at a cost of manoverability and in the oppersit direction visversa. This is unique ability possesed by only a few other plains. They may have a few differences but thay are based on each other.

Compare the Euro fighter and see the huge differances.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/images/ef2000_12s.jpg
Now have a look at the F16
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f16/images/falcon4s.jpg
They are completely different.

---------------------

But which of these is a F16???
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f16/images/falcon10s.jpg
.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tornado/images/tornado3.jpg
Very similar yes, where as the eurofighter is notisbly different. I mean it's easy to tell which is different from a few notible signs such as the RAF emblem on the side of one of them...

[Invader Zim]

However the real evidence about this is the wing movement. In both the F16 and the Tornado the wings can move back into a more acute angle allowing more speed but at a cost of manoverability and in the oppersit direction visversa. This is unique ability possesed by only a few other plains. They may have a few differences but thay are based on each other.

Compare the Euro fighter and see the huge differances.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/images/ef2000_12s.jpg
Now have a look at the F16
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f16/images/falcon4s.jpg
They are completely different.

---------------------

But which of these is a F16???
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f16/images/falcon10s.jpg
.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tornado/images/tornado3.jpg
Very similar yes, where as the eurofighter is notisbly different.

I know it's easy to tell which is different from a few notible signs such as the RAF emblem on the side of one of them...

[Som]

Wrong again, the F-16s wings ARE FIXED IN PLACE, like I said. There are only a few planes with the sweeping wing, the tornado, the f-14, and the B-1. not the f-16.

The top one is the F-16 there, not because of the RAF signs, BUT BECAUSE THEY LOOK VERY DIFFERENT. They look about as similiar as half the other military airplanes in production around the world. Just because they don't look as different as the eurofighter, which in itself is a relatively unconventional looking plane, does not mean that they are the same plane at all.

I already pointed out to you alot of the physical differences, nevermind the technical things, if you refuse to see they are completly different planes, its just no use.

[Invader Zim]

Yes i do know about the engine differences
The F16 is powered by a single engine: the General Electric F110-GE-129 or Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-229. The fuel supply is equipped with an inert gas anti-fire system. An inflight refuelling probe is installed in the top of the fuselage.

But appart from that and as you pointed out the simple differences between squares and curves there is very little technical differences. Almost identical cockpit systems and control. Similar counter measures. Similar comms and Radar. But also very speed, movement and control. What more similaritys do you want. Other than the fact that the Blue prints to the Tornado are copies of the early F16 but with some agustments. You should visit the RAF Museum out side London if you ever go near here.

[Capitalist Imperial]

OMG, I can't believe that AK-47 himself posted the pictures of these planes, and still insists that they are similar in any way!!

The sizes are different
The fuselages are different
the # of engines are different
the # of intakes are different
the intake shapes are different
the design cues are different (boxy vs streamlined)
the wing shapes are different'
the wing functions are different (swing-wing vs static, the f-16 wings DO NOT move!)
the wing placements are different
the vertical stabilizer shapes are different
the vertical stabilizer sizes are different
the # of pilots is different
the cockpits are different
the weapons loadout is different (Tornado more undercarriage Falcon has wingtip pylons)

As a matterof fact, AK-47, what about these 2 machines are the same apart from them being combat aircraft?

As for the Korean war statistics, good cut and paste job. Still estimates, subject to interpretation, but good effort, seriously.

However, it does not deter from my original and only point about the Korean war:

THE U.S. OBJECTIVE IN THE KOREAN WAR WAS TO KEEP THE NORTH FROM ESTABLISHING TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY SOUTH OF THE 38TH PARALLEL AND KEEP SOUTH KOREA FREE. THE U.S. ACCOMPLISHED THIS.

THE DPRK OBJECTIVE IN THE KOREAN WAR WAS TO INVADE AND OCCUPY SOUTH KOREA SO AS TO EVENTUALLY ANNEX IT INTO IT'S COMMUNIST REGIME. THE NORTH FAILED.

THEREFORE THE USA WON THE KOREAN WAR.

[Som]

the engineering and technicalities of it are not the same in the slightest.
Since they are made completly different for different purposes, theyre engineering is different, for example, the F-16 was created to be very agile, to do this they deliberatly made the plane unstable in flight, the computers have to correct it by the second to keep it flying, if they computer were to turn off, the f-16 would plummet to the ground. The tornado is more inherently stable, as its not meant to be very agile, and instead is more of a support plane.
The cockpit and controls are completley different as well, This is obvious by the fact the the Tornado has a crew of two, and the F-16 has a single man crew, and of course since the planes were developed by different countries by different organizations.
The radar, com systems and counter-measures are likely similiar yes, BECAUSE EVERY MILITARY JET IN THE WEST HAS THEM.

Its like saying Rabbits and cats are the same animal because they both have legs, ears and whiskers.

[Moskitto]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 8:15 pm on Jan. 24, 2003

Quote: from Moskitto on 8:11 pm on Jan. 24, 2003

And you can't compare the british empire of 400 years ago to the USA today. It is apples and oranges.

we're not talking about 400 years ago, more 150 years ago. 400 years ago the United Kingdom didn't even exist, learn some real history before making a fool of yourself.

Also, History is taught very badly in America, America resembles a dictatorship in the way history is taught, you must be born in America to teach history in most states, what they teach is monitored closely. In other countries, actually what happened is taught.

England existed 400 years ago and was expanding its empire at that time


England existed yes, but Great Britain did not exist for annother 100 years, Scotland had a different king and parliament at that time, England had no colonies 400 years ago, these were only setup in the mid 17th century.

[Invader Zim]

Ok fine on this whole topic i know from very reliable sources that the British empire was far bigger than any other empire just look at any history page, and it will tell you. The largest company ever is the East India Trading Co, The British empire had a larger economy than the rest of the world put together. Ok if you wish to dispute this please show me a site or piece of evidence which disproves this. Can we talk about more interesting stuff now?