F-22 crash

[Usenet Account]

Ouch!

http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/Plane-Crash-On-US-98-Near-Tyndall-AFB-179557981.html

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <k83upl$s79$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
Usenet Account <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Ouch!
>
> http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/Plane-Crash-On-US-98-Near-Tyndall-AFB-17955
> 7981.html

The pilot ejected and is safe.

[dumbstruck]

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:55:26 PM UTC-10, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> The pilot ejected and is safe

any pilot given a nearly half billion dollar toy to play with should have made a pledge to commit suicide if crashing it, even if due to fault of mechanic or designer. the country is wounded beyond measure for any loss of f22 or b2 because we can never ever afford to replace even one. the time is past to wear the wing spars out doing mock combat, thats just joyriding, endangering the priceless. keep pilots on any crappy kind of simulator except one short orbit around the runway four times a year. bring on the drones.

p.s. youtube has a 2012 part one crash compilation showing a gun camera or heads up display view from a crippled fighter gently gliding to a stop on the ground. then you see the ejected pilot slam down brutally on pavement just in front, maybe breaking many bones. i propose disabling all ejection seats, and reassigning pilots who dont concur.

[Keith W]

Troll rating 7/10

A good effort spoilt by exageration.

Keith

[dumbstruck]

bad call by you. i am a flyer myself, soloing before of an age legal to drive cars. chased military airshows and museums in usa and europe at great sacrifice. have lived in a military airbase or near an air guard airbase for decades. hated to see the inferior f22 win over the elegant f23, but now am tormented daily by the stupendous f22 thunder of (i assume) part time air guard buzzing my home needlessly for their adolescent thrill seeking, more like a reckless paris airshow where i have seen crashes than any reasonable practice.

f22 tips over the limit of brutal cost for small value. keep them on ice for some future urgent need maybe 30 years out. no casual pilots should get the honor of risking something approaching the cost of a battlecruiser. if you get in the seat, be prepared to give your life like a captain goes down with his ship, because you sunk the life savings of a hundrd thousand taxpayers

[Halmyre]

Captains don't *really* go down with their ships you know.

--
Halmyre

[Keith W]

dumbstruck wrote:
>
> bad call by you. i am a flyer myself, soloing before of an age legal
> to drive cars.

Model aircraft dont count.

Keith

[Vaughn]

On 11/16/2012 5:33 AM, dumbstruck wrote:
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:50:45 PM UTC-10, Keith W wrote:
>>
>> Troll rating 7/10
>> A good effort spoilt by exageration.
>>
>> Keith
>
> bad call by you.

Wrong again!

[Dean Markley]

Your personal experience is irrelevant as are your trolling attempts.

[David E. Powell]

1. I am very glad the pilot bailed out and no one else was injured. This is the main thing.

2. For the person who suggested they never be flown except in emergencies or battle use, simulators are good but nothing will beat actual stick time for the fliers.

3. Yes one did crash, that happens in training and every day duty with just about every type of aircraft imaginable. Much like risking an aircraft and crew in war it is why we build them. Crews training in everyday conditions take risks that we don't always appreciate.

4. The military budget is a very small fraction of our national spending.

[Dean Markley]

Agree with all except that last.

[Moramarth]

On 16 Nov, 12:10, Halmyre <flashgordonreced...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Captains don't *really* go down with their ships you know.

Sadly, Robin Walbridge appears to have honoured the tradition..
>
> --
Cheers,
> Halmyre

[D.W.]

dumbstruck wrote:
> bad call by you. i am a flyer myself, soloing before of an age legal to drive
>cars. chased military airshows and museums in usa and europe at great sacrifice.

like the name says ..... dumbstruck

[Halmyre]

Dumbfuck, more like.

--
Halmyre

[Halmyre]

On Nov 16, 6:24 pm, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16 Nov, 12:10, Halmyre <flashgordonreced...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Captains don't *really* go down with their ships you know.
>
> Sadly,  Robin Walbridge appears to have honoured the tradition..
>

Not voluntarily, I'd hazard a guess...

--
Halmyre

[Usenet Account]

Iran claims to have shot the F-2 down ;)

--

[Keith W]

Usenet Account wrote:
> Iran claims to have shot the F-2 down ;)

An interesting claim given that the last F-2 in US service was
retired in 1959.

Keith

[dumbstruck]

Another needless, crippling f22 crackup just happened today at a pearl harbor comemoration formation flight... one of umpteen needless ceremonial flights these priceless assets are wasted on. The pilot should be put in lifetime imprisonment, as well as whoever ok'ed the flight.

This is like not like aircraft of the past.. now they are irreplaceable, infinitely precious assets for the long term future. No longer the age for gonzo pilots to learn by making mistakes in half billion dollar rides... we need to only use whitebearded elders at the helm, like responsible ocean liner captains of long ago.

It started with that stupid photo flight where a f104 jockey took down an irreplaceable b70. It continues with b2 and f22 crashes. Wake up and see this is a permanent, unrecoverable loss for our now broke country. All involved should know that risking these assets will lead to max punishment. I know the lust for flight will still keep pilots lining up to go, but maybe more sustainably!

[150flivver]

On Saturday, December 8, 2012 1:11:37 AM UTC-6, dumbstruck wrote:


> Another needless, crippling f22 crackup just happened today at a pearl harbor comemoration formation flight... one of umpteen needless ceremonial flights these priceless assets are wasted on. The pilot should be put in lifetime imprisonment, as well as whoever ok'ed the flight.

> ...

Scraped tail on landing--hardly a "crack-up." If anything, indicative of a lack of proficiency due to limited flying time. You need to fly to get good and stay good.

[Jim Wilkins]

"150flivver" <timot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33ce1b5e-93ad-4411...@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, December 8, 2012 1:11:37 AM UTC-6, dumb#uck wrote:
> Another needless, crippling f22 crackup just happened today at a
> pearl harbor comemoration formation flight... one of umpteen
> needless ceremonial flights these priceless assets are wasted on.
> The pilot should be put in lifetime imprisonment, as well as whoever
> ok'ed the flight.
> ...

-Scraped tail on landing--hardly a "crack-up."
-If anything, indicative of a lack of proficiency
-due to limited flying time. You need to fly to
-get good and stay good.

The combat performance of third-world air forces shows what happens
when the planes are considered too valuable to risk in training.
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/mar-apr/segal.html
"AFTER nearly five years of fighting, the Iraqi Air Force has finally
come into its own as an important-some say decisive-factor in the Gulf
War with Iran. It now shows a previously unseen effectiveness in
ground support and tactical operations and has undertaken its first
real strategic bombing campaign with at least moderate success."

[dumbstruck]

I am fully aware of the proficiency issue, but nobody seems to see the new issue at hand. Leading edge manned fighters and bombers are at an end in this country and we have to make the few ones we have last for 100 years. We cant afford to burn them up to keep up readiness all the time... maybe 75 years out there will be a building serious threat for which we can ramp up readiness at that time. Meanwhile limit the f22 and b2 flights to a few touch and gos per month by cautious pilots, just to check the mechanical condition.

The root cause is that although the usa won the battle against communism, it lost the war against the eurosocialism. Social spending will suck military aviation dry until disaster hits. Meanwhile capitalist china will advance manned warbird programs... and maybe if we are lucky, will sell affordable fighters to usa to upgrade, like the israelies do with US aircraft.

[Peter Stickney]

dumbstruck wrote:

> Another needless, crippling f22 crackup just happened today at a
> pearl harbor comemoration formation flight... one of umpteen
> needless ceremonial flights these priceless assets are wasted on.
> The pilot should be put in lifetime imprisonment, as well as whoever
> ok'ed the flight.

More like a minor incident, without sunstantial damage of injury.

Display flybys like this are actually slotted into and budgeted from
the normal proficiency training for the unit.
(As in a cross-country navigation exercize, for example.)
The airplane was going to be flying no matter what, whether people
were going to be looking at it or not.

> This is like not like aircraft of the past.. now they are
> irreplaceable, infinitely precious assets for the long term future.
> No longer the age for gonzo pilots to learn by making mistakes in
> half billion dollar rides... we need to only use whitebearded elders
> at the helm, like responsible ocean liner captains of long ago.

I've been to a World's Fair, a Picnic, and a Rodeo, and that's the
stupidest thing I've seen come across my screen in a long time.
In order to maintain proficiency, Pilots, and airplanes, need to fly.
(Airplanes sitting on the ramp develop all sorts of problems as seals,
wiring connectors, pumps, and actuators dry out and aren't exercized.)
It's generally considered that to just maintain proficiency, a
fighter/attack pilot need at least 200 flight hours per year.

>
> It started with that stupid photo flight where a f104 jockey took
> down an irreplaceable b70. It continues with b2 and f22 crashes.
> Wake up and see this is a permanent, unrecoverable loss for our now
> broke country. All involved should know that risking these assets
> will lead to max punishment. I know the lust for flight will still
> keep pilots lining up to go, but maybe more sustainably!

The "F-104 Jockey" was one of the most experienced and capable Test
Pilots in the world at that time, NASA's Chief Test Pilot, in fact.
The cause of the collision was the wingtip vortices from the B-70
whippng the F-104 from under the lowered wing tip of the B-70 and
whipping it up around the wingtip and through both vertical
stabilizers of the B-70.
(The formation photo part of the mission was already completed.)

The fact is, if you fly anything, be it a Wright Flyer, a Curtiss
Jenny, a DC-3, or a Space Shuttle, you're going to crash it.
I suggest that you go over to the the USAF Safety Center's website and
take a look at the Statistical Data - especially the Historical Data
here:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/organizations/aviation/aircraftstatistics/index.asp

You'll see that it's absolutely established that flying in the USAF
is safer than it's ever been.
(Especially check out the stats on the F-84 and F-86)

And, guess what? Airplanes cost, especially these days.
An A380 (When Airbus can sell one) goes for a For Real half a billion
Dollars US. A new 777 is a bit over 300 million. Even the 45 year old
(And thus its development costs are fully amortized) 747 sells for
350 million dollars these days.
An F-22,even with its development costs factored into its limited
production numbers, goes for 150 million (About the same as a new
small airliner, like a 737) even an old tech airframe, like the
F-15Ks being built for South Korea are going for 100 million a pop.

--
Pete Stickney
From the foothills of the Florida Alps

[Jim Wilkins]

"Peter Stickney" <p_sti...@verizon.net> wrote...

>
> An F-22,even with its development costs factored into its limited
> production numbers, goes for 150 million (About the same as a new
> small airliner, like a 737) even an old tech airframe, like the
> F-15Ks being built for South Korea are going for 100 million a pop.
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> From the foothills of the Florida Alps

The US population is over 300 million, so one F-22 costs each of us 50
cents.
jsw

[Dean Markley]

There's a saying "Ships in port are safe but that is not what ships are for."

[dumbstruck]

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 2:37:21 AM UTC-10, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Peter Stickney" wrote...

NO! The 150 million is only flyaway marginal production cost, and is anyway completely irrelevant since no more will ever be build. From wikipedia, the under 200 f22s were built for $67 billion total, which means a third of a billion per aircraft (not being able to spread devel costs by making more).

However, a normal hard-flying attrition rate out of such a few aircraft results in an exponential rise in the investment per remaining plane... not a program that can carry us 60+ years with massed force like the b52. For B-2's we spent 45 billion for 21... er, make that now 19 uncrashed airplanes... over a couple billion each and rising as we wear it out.

If we insist on burning up our last ever manned aircraft, we had better hope the drone replacements will be outstanding. The problem is our opponents may have just as good drones and software; our hard-to-reproduce edge has been pilot training rather than software.

Wake up, these are new times. Look at our air control software which is decades behind the times and has proved resistant to replacement. Just try and hire a good programmer... they have to look overseas half the time.

[Dean Markley]

Your cost analogy is ridiculous. If you bought a dozen eggs for $12, they are $1 each. Now if you eat 2, that doesn't make the 10 left $1.20 each. Your name seems fitting.

[dumbstruck]

On Saturday, December 8, 2012 6:59:53 PM UTC-10, Peter Stickney wrote:

> The "F-104 Jockey" was one of the most experienced and capable Test
> Pilots in the world at that time, NASA's Chief Test Pilot, in fact.
> The cause of the collision was the wingtip vortices from the B-70
> whippng the F-104 from under the lowered wing tip of the B-70 and
> whipping it up around the wingtip and through both vertical
> stabilizers of the B-70.
>
> (The formation photo part of the mission was already completed.)

You're entirely missing the point of cutting out frivilous risk of irreplaceable priceless aircraft. It has nothing to do with punishing for wrong technique... it's the depravity of judgement by whoever ok'ed a photo flight and by the F104 pilot for needless proximity. What on earth is the digression about wing tip vortices... is that supposed to be a surprise? Was that pilot so unaware of this effect you can even see in certain humid conditions, and maybe he thought ground effect was do to "compressing" air near the ground rather than supressing vortices?

Anyway it doesn't matter how well known were b70 particular vortex size... its common sense to keep well away from such an infinitely precious technological gem which was never going to be replaced. Likewise, the readiness argument is moot for end of the line B2 and F22. The ONLY priority is to preserve them, lowering readiness and increasing caution, until a need arises to ramp up.

Its like the task of carrying a baby from A to B rather than a sack of potatoes. For potatoes you rush to B while trying not to drop them, but for the baby your entire sacred purpose is to not drop it while secondarily giving a try to leave A. Not reaching B is not a failure, dropping the baby is.

Surely you know the mentality of pilots flying leading edge aircraft... there is a flight lust and trophy hunting that normally can be overlooked because 1) it makes more skillful cannon fodder, and 2) the battered aircraft will be obsoleted and can be replaced in a decade or two. But that is no more.. we need to save the last manned aircraft because self inflicted attrition is our worst enemy.

Surely you know how often this trophy lust is abused under false pretenses of training for the future. Just recently a book author talked about getting checked out in the f22 just before his retirement, and I don't believe he was gonna stay in the reserve. A nasa test pilot that I slightly knew got checked out in one of the last flights of tandem SR71 at the end of his short career when I don't believe he was expected to use the experience. During the flight he told the other pilot that even if they blew up right now, this would still be the best day in his life... a recognizable lust that many flyers can identify with, so we should be the first to put a stop to the dysfunctional consequences of it.

[dumbstruck]

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 4:04:12 PM UTC-10, Dean Markley wrote:
> Your cost analogy is ridiculous. If you bought a dozen eggs for $12, they are $1 each. Now if you eat 2, that doesn't make the 10 left $1.20 each. Your name seems fitting.

No! The f22 analogy should be if you bought a warehouse of MRE's which were the only meals the military could eat during all forseeable conflicts. It could perhaps carry you thru a couple medium size wars. But instead of keeping these safely warehoused, you practice all the time shipping these around. Stacking them onto trucks, driving to and fro, and off the side of muddy roads, and ruiing some.

Now your readiness is needlessly cut back to one war or less. With half of the meals spoiled, the outlay the taxpayer made per meal is doubled. NOTICE $ isn't a detail of replacement... it is irreplaceable. It is just one way to measure the squandering of money, because remember the very reason the expenditure was stopped forever was because the original per unit cost had reached unbearable levels. Now you are needlessly giving worse than unbearable costs per surviving unit.

[Keith W]

dumbstruck wrote:


>
> However, a normal hard-flying attrition rate out of such a few
> aircraft results in an exponential rise in the investment per
> remaining plane... not a program that can carry us 60+ years with
> massed force like the b52.

The USAF built 744 B-52's

The number left in service is 85 with 9 in reserve

Military aircraft are like naval vessels built to go
in harms way. Those nations that failed to learn that
lesson last badly in actual combat.

Keith

[Keith W]

dumbstruck wrote:
> On Saturday, December 8, 2012 6:59:53 PM UTC-10, Peter Stickney wrote:
>
>> The "F-104 Jockey" was one of the most experienced and capable Test
>> Pilots in the world at that time, NASA's Chief Test Pilot, in fact.
>> The cause of the collision was the wingtip vortices from the B-70
>> whippng the F-104 from under the lowered wing tip of the B-70 and
>> whipping it up around the wingtip and through both vertical
>> stabilizers of the B-70.
>>
>> (The formation photo part of the mission was already completed.)
>
> You're entirely missing the point of cutting out frivilous risk of
> irreplaceable priceless aircraft.

No aircraft is priceless, in the case of the F-22 we know rather
exactly what the cost of building new aircraft is. In 2009 the
cost per aircraft for another 75 was stated to be $70 million per unit.

To put that into perspective US Government spending in 2012
was over $ 3.5 trillion so such as expenditure would be trivial

If you think the USAF doesnt have enough get on to your
congresscritter about it and stop whining here.

Keith

[Jim Wilkins]

"dumbstruck" <dumb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f5e9449d-0bf5-40a0-a542-
>...You're entirely missing the point of cutting out frivilous risk of
>irreplaceable priceless aircraft.

Your argument depends on the insanely idiotic argument that we have
somehow lost the ability to design, tool up and build new aircraft.
Even if we had destroyed all the plans and CNC programs an airplane
can be reverse-engineered at far less cost than its development
required, for example the Soviet B-29 copy. More likely it would be an
improved upgrade that fixes problems discovered in service and
incorporates later developments from the F-35.
jsw

[Jim Wilkins]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HJixs.310481$kX.1...@fx18.am4...

> dumbstruck wrote:
>> However, a normal hard-flying attrition rate out of such a few
>> aircraft results in an exponential rise in the investment per
>> remaining plane... not a program that can carry us 60+ years with
>> massed force like the b52.
>

> Military aircraft are like naval vessels built to go
> in harms way. Those nations that failed to learn that
> lesson last badly in actual combat.
> Keith

The investment is in the advance of technology, not in the aircraft
themselves.

[Dean Markley]

I retract what I said. You name is not fitting until you remove the "struck".

[dumbstruck]

Think of Admiral Jellicoe who missed victory in WW1 Jutland by prematurely withdrawing Britains mighty fleet. While I think he was a little too timid, many historians defend him by saying he was the only person that could lose the war for Britain in a day, by losing the battleships needed to blockade Germany.

Therefore there are times where wiser heads need to rein back the warrior spirit, even in the training mode. F22 and B2 programs are unique, because the spirit of recent elections and ongoing fiscal negotiations have taken a permanently anti military turn. They are truely the end of the line, and we will live in a glass house after using them up. We can handle current threats with F15 and B1 readiness, and should throttle back on F22 and B2 readiness until threats ramp up or the other fighters wear out more.

I'm not timid about crashes... I welcomed pushing the notorious V22 into service, and look forward to a V23. I've witnessed military crashes and lost friends and neighbors to them, and had a couple close calls myself without being overly concerned. It's all about the unique position of the end of the line birds. Or maybe it is because they torment me with their noisey antics... NO, I am sure I am playing the role of a wise Billy Mitchell trying to beat into the heads of conventional thinkers that the chessgame of aviation has changed!

[Grantland]

These fellows don't realize that the US is utterly bankrupt, a la FUSSR, as will shortly become apparent.

Grantland

[Keith W]

dumbstruck wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2012 12:22:29 AM UTC-10, Keith W wrote:
>> dumbstruck wrote:
>>>
>>> However, a normal hard-flying attrition rate out of such a few
>>> aircraft results in an exponential rise in the investment per
>>> remaining plane... not a program that can carry us 60+ years with
>>> massed force like the b52.
>>
>>
>> The USAF built 744 B-52's
>>
>> The number left in service is 85 with 9 in reserve
>>
>>
>> Military aircraft are like naval vessels built to go
>> in harms way. Those nations that failed to learn that
>> lesson last badly in actual combat.
>>
>
> Think of Admiral Jellicoe who missed victory in WW1 Jutland by
> prematurely withdrawing Britains mighty fleet. While I think he was a
> little too timid, many historians defend him by saying he was the
> only person that could lose the war for Britain in a day, by losing
> the battleships needed to blockade Germany.
>

Except for the minor fact he did no such thing. In fact the
Grand Fleet was reported as being ready for action the
next day.

> Therefore there are times where wiser heads need to rein back the
> warrior spirit, even in the training mode.

Well in 1916 the German fleet followed your advice and ran for
home. The only futher part they played in the war was to
lead the revolution which cost Germany WW1

You seem to prefer losers.

Keith

[Dean Markley]

Exactly Keith. The Royal navy remained in control of the North Sea. They were the victors of the battle of Jutland.

I'm not sure why dumbstruck brought that up in reference to his rantings about B-2s and F-22s.

[Jim Wilkins]

"dumbstruck" <dumb...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:9ad7a334-4d0f-4cdc...@googlegroups.com...
,>...because the spirit of recent elections and ongoing

>fiscal negotiations have taken a permanently anti military

>turn. ...

Whatever the planes cost, they don't carry the money onboard, it
already circulated back into the wages of the people who designed and
built them.

Think of military spending as make-work stimulus for the skilled
rather than the losers and liberal arts majors. The government creates
an artificial demand for production above and separate from what the
market can sustain, to boost employment and advance US technical
know-how. It's only 'waste' if you aren't good enough to participate.
The Left does the same thing but for a different subset of the
population.

Recent US elections have swung sharply both ways, they reflect only
disgust with failure, not mandates for promised policies. The fiscal
limitations of the Depression didn't hinder the WW2 buildup; on the
contrary Germany had used military deficit spending to pull out of it,
though the inevitable inflation dragged them into an unsustainable
command economy that became an industrialized variant of Sparta's
nationalistic socialism.

Historically the US attitude turns toward preparedness when some
opportunistic dictator overestimates our normal pacifism. Right now
China is sneaking toward offensive military capacity though they have
no reason to fear attack.

We are a historical anomaly as the only militarily powerful nation
with no imperialist ambitions. Who else would have worked so hard to
subdue oil-rich Iraq and then freely let them go?
jsw

[Grantland]

He was correct at not risking the fleet by penetrating the cleverly-laid smokescreen, behind which might lurk a dispersed (laterally and depth-wise) enemy fleet ready and waiting - each correctly ranged on the inner screen-boundary - ; and being subjected to a withering, accurate bombardment well before being capable of effective response.

He was incorrect at not sending an expendable scout - destroyer - through the screen to see what was up.

So he blew it, in short. He held back while the outgunned German fleet raced away to escape.

Grantland

[Dean Markley]

The problem was not so much what Jellicoe did or did not do. In 1916, he essentially had no real idea where anyone was due to the technology (or lack of). If any fingers can be pointed it is those RN dreadnought captains who saw the High Seas Fleet pass by and did not fire because they did not have permission. A little initiative would have certainly cost Germany another battlecruiser or two and possibly a few dreadnoughts.

[Keith W]

Dean Markley wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:53:45 AM UTC-5, Grantland wrote:
>>
>> He was correct at not risking the fleet by penetrating the
>> cleverly-laid smokescreen, behind which might lurk a dispersed
>> (laterally and depth-wise) enemy fleet ready and waiting - each
>> correctly ranged on the inner screen-boundary - ; and being
>> subjected to a withering, accurate bombardment well before being
>> capable of effective response.
>>

There was of course no such smokescreen, apart from the inevitable
result of hundreds of coal burning ships in the area.

Even had there been one there was certainly no dispersed enemy fleet
ranged on the inner screen boundary

The simple reality was the Battle Cruiser force lead the German High
Seas Fleet onto the main RN force. It was the Germans who turned
and ran for home at that point.

The German torpedo boats launched a concentrated torpedo attack
to cover the retreat and Jellicoe briefly turned his ships 90 degrees
to comb their tracks.

After that the pursuit continued throughout the night in a series
of confused actions until the Germans entered the minefields
protecting their coastal waters.

>>
>>
>> He was incorrect at not sending an expendable scout - destroyer -
>> through the screen to see what was up.
>>

Incorrect he detached cruiser and destroyer screens which engaged
units of the German fleet throughout the night.

>>
>>
>> So he blew it, in short. He held back while the outgunned German
>> fleet raced away to escape.
>>

In short as usual you have no idea what happened.

Keith

[Grantland]

Of course you're right Keith. I wonder whether you might know anything about:

What threat does Syria pose to NATO?

Why is a years-long maelstrom of warring radical factions followed by extremist Islamist rule preferable to a benign, moderate dictator offering genuine negotiation and elections?

Why is the declared aim of the slaughter of Alawite, Christian and other minorities (over 20% of the population) by the NATO-supported rebels not a concern?

How did Libya work out?



What the fuck is going on??

Grantland

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> writes:

> We are a historical anomaly as the only militarily powerful nation
> with no imperialist ambitions. Who else would have worked so hard to
> subdue oil-rich Iraq and then freely let them go?

I'm a bit slack-jawed after reading that.
--
Gernot Hassenpflug
Aunkai

[Grantland]

I laughed so hard I had to consult a physician.

Grantland

[Keith W]

Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:
> "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> We are a historical anomaly as the only militarily powerful nation
>> with no imperialist ambitions. Who else would have worked so hard to
>> subdue oil-rich Iraq and then freely let them go?
>
> I'm a bit slack-jawed after reading that.

As you might be given the history of the 19th century USA
with its failed land grab against Canada in 1812 and its
aggressive war against Mexico that resulted in the
annexation of California and most of the American
South West. Then there was the seizure of Hawaii.

The fashionable phrase of the time was
that it was the 'manifest destiny' of the USA to rule
the North American continent.

Keith

[Daryl]

The 1812 was a failure not because the US lost, it was because
hey captured the Canadian Heating Bill and abandoned the idea.


--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:wsXxs.1248488$it2.3...@fx22.am4...

When colonialism was the fashion we were reluctant to participate, and
backed away completely after WW1.
http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/fists.html
http://countriesquest.com/north_america/usa/history/imperialism/open_door_policy_in_china.htm
"The European powers seemed eager to carve up China, but Hay persuaded
them to accept compensation to cover their losses."

Almost all of the foreign interventions listed on this hostile site
were brief peace-keeping missions. You may argue over which side we
supported, but not that we stayed wherever we gained a toehold.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
All it can show is that we acted the way the UN should have. Others
may protest our ability to project power but they are unwilling to pay
to provide their own.
jsw

[Keith W]

Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:wsXxs.1248488$it2.3...@fx22.am4...
>> Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:
>>> "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> We are a historical anomaly as the only militarily powerful nation
>>>> with no imperialist ambitions. Who else would have worked so hard
>>>> to
>>>> subdue oil-rich Iraq and then freely let them go?
>>>
>>> I'm a bit slack-jawed after reading that.
>>
>> As you might be given the history of the 19th century USA
>> with its failed land grab against Canada in 1812 and its
>> aggressive war against Mexico that resulted in the
>> annexation of California and most of the American
>> South West. Then there was the seizure of Hawaii.
>>
>> The fashionable phrase of the time was
>> that it was the 'manifest destiny' of the USA to rule
>> the North American continent.
>>
>> Keith
>
> When colonialism was the fashion we were reluctant to participate, and
> backed away completely after WW1.

JamesPolk, 11th President of the USA was far from reluctant
and the US congress overwhelmingly supported his actions.
The fact is the USA was busy establishing contol over the
territories from Atlantic to Pacific and chanced its arm more
than once over Canada. Polk had to scale back his original
demands in the north west which included what is now
British Columbia when the British government made it clear
that while they were prepared to cede claims to Oregon,
Washington and Idaho they would fight to hold on to BC

> http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/fists.html
> http://countriesquest.com/north_america/usa/history/imperialism/open_door_policy_in_china.htm
> "The European powers seemed eager to carve up China, but Hay persuaded
> them to accept compensation to cover their losses."

Interesting that you didnt mention the US miliary expedition
to suppress the boxer rebellion or quote this part of that article.

"The quest for an overseas empire in the late 1890s thus led to substantial
American gains. The United States annexed Hawaii in 1898, conquered
the Philippines and Guam from Spain in 1899, turned Cuba in effect
into an American protectorate in 1901, and kept China opened to
American traders and missionaries."

The US Government enforced this last by deploying US warships
on the Chinese river system. Remember the Panay ?

The last US Warships only left the Yangtze Patrol when the
communist Chinse captured the territory and threw them out

>
> Almost all of the foreign interventions listed on this hostile site
> were brief peace-keeping missions. You may argue over which side we
> supported, but not that we stayed wherever we gained a toehold.

Almost is not all and certainly doesnt justify the pious preaching
the newgroup was treated to. Fact is a sizable percentage of
the current USA was forcibly incorporated by waging aggressive
war.

Overseas the USA fought a long and bloody war in the Phillipines to
establish it as a United States territory which it remained until 1935.
That war cost over 4,000 American and 20,000 Phillippine lives.
This was hardly a 'brief peace-keeping mission'

I already mentioned Hawaii to which you can add American Samoa
and those pacific islands that were previously German and Japanese
colonies including Guam , the Northern Marianas and the US
Virgin Islands and which remain US territories to this day.

Keith

[David E. Powell]

Polk is one of the least taught about American Presidents (In the US) as well as one of the most influential.

Served one term, he made several campaign promises and famously kept them all, so he said he had no need to run again. Stabilizing the borders was on that list, and he certainly did that on his watch.

As for the Boxer rebellion, it reminds me that Japan was also involved in the relief expedition to Peking. Japan's coming out as a modern nation, which was a tremendous leap for a nation that went from feudalism and less technology to very modern, happened during the latter half of the 19th. Century. The lessons Japan would have taken about how modern nations go about protecting their interests would have been shaped by that period, as they were by other nations that united and came into being as unified states in that time period. Italy, Germany, etc.

America's big "Mahan Moment" was the Spanish-American War, before that we were mostly involved in stuff in our own neighborhood. The US came rather late to having a steel fleet, a rather fascinating period in our history. We made up rather admirably for lost time I think. How we went about that and why are topics well worth a historical debate. I find it interesting that much of our revisionist movement and our interest in looking at our history anew is in regards to our domestic policies, the foreign ones of the late 19th. Century and early 20th. make for interesting stufy as well. In the book "Flyboys" the US war against the Guerrillas in the Phillipines got some attention, for instance.

Theodore Roosevelt gets some credit for the US having the Phillipines as he apparently took advantage of the Secretary of the Navy being out of his office one day during the buildup to send a cable to the US Asiatic Fleet to go hit the Phillipines if there was war. No Presidential order had been given to that effect from Then-President McKinley, nor anything from the Secretary of the Navy. He resigned after sending the cable and by the time Washington figured out what was going on in the Pacific, T.R. was off to lead the Rough Riders in Cuba. At least that's how I read it back when I was studying T.R., I'll have to dig my BA's thesis stuff out sometime. That dealt with T.R.'s final years, after he was President, but it is fascinating stuff.

One of many reasons I believe the USS Olympia is so important a piece of US and World history and should definitely be preserved. From her decks the action began that made America a nation truly capable of fighting a two ocean war against a foreign power. The story of that ship and Admiral Dewey is rather epic. It would make a good movie, actually. It has all the ingredients, going independent, even against orders (Or at the very least known desire on the part of the higher ups in the chain of command) fighting an established power, and one heck of a commander who basically had waited his whole life for that kind of ship, that kind of fleet and that kind of moment.

One book I really want to get my hands on is called something like "The Imperial Cruise" and is basically about a ship voyage one of President Theodore Roosevelt's advisers took when T.R. was president that basically set US Policy trends for about 50 years to come. (T.R. was brilliant but one of the things I disagree with was him letting Korea go under as an independent nation, though under realpolitik guidelines Bismarck would have approved. He is easily one of the most influential Presidents, not just in his actions but his impact on the general American mindset.)

[smharding]

Keith W wrote:
> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
>>"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:wsXxs.1248488$it2.3...@fx22.am4...
>>
>>>Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>We are a historical anomaly as the only militarily powerful nation
>>>>>with no imperialist ambitions. Who else would have worked so hard
>>>>>to
>>>>>subdue oil-rich Iraq and then freely let them go?
>>>>
>>>>I'm a bit slack-jawed after reading that.
>>>
>>>As you might be given the history of the 19th century USA
>>>with its failed land grab against Canada in 1812 and its
>>>aggressive war against Mexico that resulted in the
>>>annexation of California and most of the American
>>>South West. Then there was the seizure of Hawaii.

"Land grab against Canada"? Canada was essentially Britain,
our mortal enemy until well into the 20th century (it wasn't
a sure thing the US would fight WWI on the British side!).

We are currently celebrating the 200th anniversary of the
War of 1812 here in the US. Most Brits probably don't even
know about it. It was a side show to the much more important
Napoleonic Wars. But it is also called our second war of
independence, and the primary threat to the country came from
Britain at sea and Britain from Canada. Land grab for a purpose
and both sides were playing the game!

The Mexican War was a mixed bag in the US. Lots of people,
primarily the more intellectual types (Abe Lincoln for one)
really didn't approve. But most people did. The government
didn't have a difficult time maintaining war fever.

Still, the US paid Mexico $15 million *after victory*!

Sure, "guilt money" some might say, but how many imperialist
powers have done such a thing after *winning* a war?

For that matter, how many other powers have actually paid for
some of their territory? The Gadsden purchase: $10 million and
Alaska: $7 million. Some land was also actually bought from
Indians. Not really very imperialist behavior to my mind.

>>>The fashionable phrase of the time was
>>>that it was the 'manifest destiny' of the USA to rule
>>>the North American continent.
>>>
>>>Keith
>>
>>When colonialism was the fashion we were reluctant to participate, and
>>backed away completely after WW1.
>
> JamesPolk, 11th President of the USA was far from reluctant
> and the US congress overwhelmingly supported his actions.
> The fact is the USA was busy establishing contol over the
> territories from Atlantic to Pacific and chanced its arm more
> than once over Canada. Polk had to scale back his original
> demands in the north west which included what is now
> British Columbia when the British government made it clear
> that while they were prepared to cede claims to Oregon,
> Washington and Idaho they would fight to hold on to BC

There were forces in the US itself not wanting another war
with Britain. A willingness to fight is always a good
bargaining point, and there were certainly people in the US
and Britain/Canada willing to do so, but I think neither side
really wanted yet another war, and compromise prevaled.

I might add that this compromise morphed into the longest non-militarized
border between nations in the world. I doubt such a thing could
happen if one side of the line was a rabid war dog.

>>http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/fists.html
>>http://countriesquest.com/north_america/usa/history/imperialism/open_door_policy_in_china.htm
>>"The European powers seemed eager to carve up China, but Hay persuaded
>>them to accept compensation to cover their losses."
>
> Interesting that you didnt mention the US miliary expedition
> to suppress the boxer rebellion or quote this part of that article.

The US was part of a sort of "United Nations" force as I recall. Not
entirely certain what we got out of it beyond relief of our own diplomatic
mission safety. Maybe more trading rights, but I recall the US settlement
was quite generous compared to other participants.. I think part of
the peace settlement went toward Chinese education in the US. Not
very imperialistic.

> "The quest for an overseas empire in the late 1890s thus led to substantial
> American gains. The United States annexed Hawaii in 1898, conquered
> the Philippines and Guam from Spain in 1899, turned Cuba in effect
> into an American protectorate in 1901, and kept China opened to
> American traders and missionaries."

The Spanish-American war was our big imperial venture. We acted
like Europeans.

Puerto Rico was also in the bargain I believe. Maybe to become our 51st
state, although I doubt Republicans will go for it right now, as it would
almost surely be another solidly Democratic state such as my own
(Massachusetts). Not very imperial-like behavior there!

> The US Government enforced this last by deploying US warships
> on the Chinese river system. Remember the Panay ?

Don't know that this counts as "imperial" behavior. The ship was
there to protect American lives and property in the absence of a
forceful Chinese government. You might recall China wasn't exactly as
powerful then as it is today, and the Panay was sunk by Japanese
who were carving out their own spheres of influence in far more
forceful ways than the US ever did.

> The last US Warships only left the Yangtze Patrol when the
> communist Chinse captured the territory and threw them out
>
>>Almost all of the foreign interventions listed on this hostile site
>>were brief peace-keeping missions. You may argue over which side we
>>supported, but not that we stayed wherever we gained a toehold.
>
> Almost is not all and certainly doesnt justify the pious preaching
> the newgroup was treated to. Fact is a sizable percentage of
> the current USA was forcibly incorporated by waging aggressive
> war.

Well, *all* of Europe was so decided territorially. In fact, that's
generally the way territorial bounds are determined. We may be
treated to a new exhibition of such methodology in the boundary
disputes between China and just about everyone in the Yellow
Sea/South China Sea, etc. "Possession is 9/10ths of the law" as
they say.

I think the US has been overall different than most other nations
in its actions over the past couple centuries.

No doubt, the US has been very aggressive at times to its neighbors.
It seems we've fought just about every country in the world at one
time or another over the past 200 years (and especially last 70 or
so).

But we've also set new standards for national behavior in wars,
after wars and in peace that the *real* (European) imperial powers never
showed or would have entertained (paying off a defeated enemy??!!).

I don't think it's necessarily piety. I think there are elements
of truth to it. We aren't imperial. But perhaps you can say we
exercise imperial pretentions in non-classic imperial ways. I think
only the Confederacy and various Indian tribes have faced an
imperial US that was willing to "go Roman" on them.

Now those guys *really* knew the meaning of imperial!

> Overseas the USA fought a long and bloody war in the Phillipines to
> establish it as a United States territory which it remained until 1935.
> That war cost over 4,000 American and 20,000 Phillippine lives.
> This was hardly a 'brief peace-keeping mission'

I think it was pretty much a three or four year thing. A guerilla
war with all the nasties that go with it. Surely the US would be
centured by the UN for its actions in the Philippines if it occurred
today.

But I wonder?

Is a short, brutal war better than a long, drawn out "civilized" war?

The various Indian wars generally never lasted more than a year or
two at a time. Generally, quite brutal.

The Philippines somewhat similar. Ambush a US patrol and the local
village is destroyed in retaliation. Almost Nazi in some cases.

However, it was eventually finished, and the Philippines became a very
close ally of the US. The US still has a very close relationship with
that country. That's not been the case with other such brutal "conquests".
Kurds and Turks? Armenians and Turks? French and Germans? Koreans and
Japanese? Irish and Brits?

> I already mentioned Hawaii to which you can add American Samoa
> and those pacific islands that were previously German and Japanese
> colonies including Guam , the Northern Marianas and the US
> Virgin Islands and which remain US territories to this day.

I think British, French, Dutch, and even Swedish have "possessions"
in Caribbean and Pacific that were obtained as "mandates" from
League of Nations or UN. I think some US possessions were obtained
in such a way. Nothing particularly unique to the US. You may recall
French and British found themselves in control Palestine/Syria etc. for
similar reasons after WWI.

Furthermore, Guam, Marianas, Samoa are free to be independent nations
if they wish. They only need vote for it, as Cuba and Philippines
so desired. That's not very imperial.

How many votes did inhabitants of British East Africa, French West Africa,
Spanish Sahara, Dutch East Indies, etc get? Not until well after the US
set the standard.

Except for a brief period of US imitation of Europe (late 19th early
20th centuries), the US has largely lacked imperial ambition. Certainly
less than that displayed by Europe.


SMH

[Keith W]

smharding wrote:
> Keith W wrote:
>> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>
>>> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:wsXxs.1248488$it2.3...@fx22.am4...
>>>
>>>> Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We are a historical anomaly as the only militarily powerful
>>>>>> nation with no imperialist ambitions. Who else would have worked
>>>>>> so hard to
>>>>>> subdue oil-rich Iraq and then freely let them go?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a bit slack-jawed after reading that.
>>>>
>>>> As you might be given the history of the 19th century USA
>>>> with its failed land grab against Canada in 1812 and its
>>>> aggressive war against Mexico that resulted in the
>>>> annexation of California and most of the American
>>>> South West. Then there was the seizure of Hawaii.
>
> "Land grab against Canada"? Canada was essentially Britain,
> our mortal enemy until well into the 20th century (it wasn't
> a sure thing the US would fight WWI on the British side!).
>

Well they didnt invade Surrey did they ? Canada was a recognised
political entity and the USA did in fact invade it. As for
WW1 the USA fought on its own side when it became clear
that Germany was encouraging Mexico to attack the USA
and was offering military support.

> We are currently celebrating the 200th anniversary of the
> War of 1812 here in the US. Most Brits probably don't even
> know about it. It was a side show to the much more important
> Napoleonic Wars. But it is also called our second war of
> independence, and the primary threat to the country came from
> Britain at sea and Britain from Canada. Land grab for a purpose
> and both sides were playing the game!
>

Well now if you think Britain was planning to invade
the USA from Canada I have a bridge across the East River
you may want to buy. Fact is the genuine grievance on
impressment of US sailors was conceded before the war
began and the relatively small British Army was rather
busy in Spain. The entire British Army garrison in Canada
consisted of around 6,000 soldiers spread along the frontier.
This was about half the size of the US Army of the period

This was not lost on those who wished to acquire Upper Canada
and they, including President Madison expected a walkover.
Unfortunately for their plans the settlers in Canada resisted invasion
attempts rather robustly and when in 1914 Napoleon abdicated
much of the peninsular army became available for combat in
North America.

The rest as they say is history.

Keith

[smharding]

I think several issues causing the war were largely settled before
the outbreak. British impressment of US sailors and general contempt
for US ships (e.g. The Chesapeake Affair) and support for Indian
attacks along the western US borders were big issues. Land boundaries
were not very well defined either.

Invasion from Britain via Canada was of great concern. The US
Army attacked first in Michigan because they had a jump on
knowledge of the war before the British did.

Incompetent generalship on the US side kept the US out of Canada
and on the defensive for a good part of the war.

Commodore Perry's victory on Lake Erie stopped any further threat
of attack by the British as control of the waterways was absolutely
crucial to any land strategy.

One source of military threat to the US both during the revolution
and again in 1812 was always from Canada.

And yes, land grabs were in the cards for western Americans in
particular. Still pretty nervy of the US to declare war on the
most powerful nation on earth, especially considering what the US
had been willing to put up with in trade relationships with Britain
(essentially becoming a colonial dependency again in return for
access to the British market) in the years between wars with Britain.

I think the US has never fully understood why Canada remained loyal
to Britain. You'd think at least the Quebecois would jump at the
chance to separate, but perhaps they understood they'd be no more
independent in the American union as in the Canadian federation.


SMH

[Andrew Chaplin]

smharding <smha...@verizon.net> wrote in news:kal613$7il$1...@dont-email.me:

> I think the US has never fully understood why Canada remained loyal
> to Britain. You'd think at least the Quebecois would jump at the
> chance to separate, but perhaps they understood they'd be no more
> independent in the American union as in the Canadian federation.

In the 18th century, it was largely because of attitudes expressed in the
former 13 Colonies to both Roman Catholicism and the place of the French
language in any union. By the 19th century, the Québécois élite had, for the
most part, been co-opted by the British and then English-speaking interests
in the rest of Canada, albeit through concessions on language and religeous
rights, and on the form of law (Civil Code rather than the common law). That
subversion held up by and large until weakened by the conscription crises of
the two World Wars and labour unrest in the 1950s and was utterly done in
during "la Révolution tranquille" of the 1960s.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[smharding]

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> smharding <smha...@verizon.net> wrote in news:kal613$7il$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>
>>I think the US has never fully understood why Canada remained loyal
>>to Britain. You'd think at least the Quebecois would jump at the
>>chance to separate, but perhaps they understood they'd be no more
>>independent in the American union as in the Canadian federation.
>
>
> In the 18th century, it was largely because of attitudes expressed in the
> former 13 Colonies to both Roman Catholicism and the place of the French
> language in any union. By the 19th century, the Québécois élite had, for the
> most part, been co-opted by the British and then English-speaking interests
> in the rest of Canada, albeit through concessions on language and religeous
> rights, and on the form of law (Civil Code rather than the common law). That
> subversion held up by and large until weakened by the conscription crises of
> the two World Wars and labour unrest in the 1950s and was utterly done in
> during "la Révolution tranquille" of the 1960s.

I never considered Catholicism in the issue, but that makes
perfect sense.

New England, especially, was about as intolerant towards
Catholics as one might find in the colonies and US (except
for Maryland I suppose).

Everyone paid a tithe to the state of Massachusetts to help
maintain the Congregational Church until the 1830's I believe,
and when the Italians imigrated in large numbers to the US in
the late 1800s/early 1900s, the "no catholics need apply"
signs came out in businesses looking for employees.

A lot of people were convinced that a catholic US President
would be taking orders from the Pope during the 1960 election!


SMH