F-35... destined for greatness?

[Bandit LOAF]

North Korea does belong to the the United Nations (it's the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" on a list of member states).

I don't think anyone - except for possibly MSNBC - expects there to be a war with North Korea... but there will be greater economic sanctions.

 

[TankGunner]

North Korea does belong to the the United Nations (it's the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" on a list of member states).

Ok, I was wrong, but I wasn't too sure about it in the first place.

I don't think anyone - except for possibly MSNBC - expects there to be a war with North Korea... but there will be greater economic sanctions.

Well, the current sactions don't allow any trading with them anyway, the only 'trading' is the food and medical aid the west, and especially S. Korea sends. If they stop, then we get the images of the starving N. Koreans on the media, and might give the Madman a reason to try to attack (secure a source of food).

Also Loaf, the Korean War is technically still ongoing, there never was a treaty to end the first war in 1953.

 

[t.c.cgi]

Also Loaf, the Korean War is technically still ongoing, there never was a treaty to end the first war in 1953.

Technically the Korean War was never declared. It was a UN "police action."

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Well, the current sactions don't allow any trading with them anyway, the only 'trading' is the food and medical aid the west, and especially S. Korea sends. If they stop, then we get the images of the starving N. Koreans on the media, and might give the Madman a reason to try to attack (secure a source of food).

North Koreans are starving right now -- Kim Jong Il clearly isn't interested in feeding his people in so much as he is retaining control over them... that's the reason a military dictatorship needs to provoke us as North Korea is now. Regardless of how funny it is that the missile failed, Kim Jong Il can now stand in front of his country and be applauded for helping to defend the state against evil Imperialists... which he needs to do in a more and more visible manner as it becomes more and more apparent to the population that places like South Korea and even China are doing a heck of a lot better with different forms of government.

Also Loaf, the Korean War is technically still ongoing, there never was a treaty to end the first war in 1953.

Eh, people say this, but I'd argue against it as anything but an interesting cocktail party fact (if that) -- there was an agreed upon armistice, which is enough to say that the war ended. We don't argue that the Civil War is still going on because there wasn't a peace treaty with the Confederate government.

(Heck, if we want to talk legalities instead of practicalities, the United States didn't declare war in the first place... so it can't *still* be at war with North Korea.)

 

[TankGunner]

Technically the Korean War was never declared. It was a UN "police action."

That was a war. Talk to anyone who survived, it was war. I've seen enough to know. Police Action is when the cops pull me over for driving through a stopsign.

Yeah, it is splitting hairs about the end of the war, but consider this; if the war is over, why do American and S. Korean soldiers constantly guard the DMZ and other sites against N. Korean saboteurs and infiltrators, who still attack the forces on the DMZ.

North Koreans are starving right now -- Kim Jong Il clearly isn't interested in feeding his people in so much as he is retaining control over them... that's the reason a military dictatorship needs to provoke us as North Korea is now.

Yeah, the N. Koreans are always starving, but if we don't feed them the media will subject us to those images in order to make us all feel so guilty about living in a sucessful nation like the US. Like we cause them to support a meglomaniac like Kim Jong II. Whose actions Loaf assessed perfectly.

 

[Frosty]

That was a war. Talk to anyone who survived, it was war. I've seen enough to know. Police Action is when the cops pull me over for driving through a stopsign.

This is a stupid response. You can't correct someone based on a technicality (you clever fox, you) and then reject responses for being precisely that which you would hold validates your initial claim. Nobody likes a smug little bastard.

Yeah, it is splitting hairs about the end of the war, but consider this; if the war is over, why do American and S. Korean soldiers constantly guard the DMZ and other sites against N. Korean saboteurs and infiltrators, who still attack the forces on the DMZ.

Right, because the only guarded borders exist between countries at war.

Yeah, the N. Koreans are always starving, but if we don't feed them...

But we don't feed them.

Like we cause them to support a meglomaniac like Kim Jong II.

Kim Jong Il doesn't derive what power he has from the support of North Korea's citizenry. If I robbed you at gunpoint, it would take a remarkably stupid observer to believe that you gave me your wallet because you liked me that much.

 

[TankGunner]

This is a stupid response. You can't correct someone based on a technicality (you clever fox, you) and then reject responses for being precisely that which you would hold validates your initial claim. Nobody likes a smug little bastard

First, there is no need to insult me. I was no trying to correct anyone (and I apologize to T.C. Cgi for the patronizing tone, I didn't intend that), I was stating
my views and opinions so they could be considered by the other members. I also was not trying to 'reject' anyone's response.

But we don't feed them

From what I could quickly locate, the US donated 50,000 tons of food to N. Korea as of July 2005. This food was distributed through the World Food Program. The program was stopped in December of 2005, but the point remains that we do provide them food. Does anyone know more about 2006 aid?

 

[t.c.cgi]

That was a war. Talk to anyone who survived, it was war. I've seen enough to know. Police Action is when the cops pull me over for driving through a stopsign.

Please don't assume that I'm ignorant to the conflict. I have studied the Korean War at least cursory, enough to know that there was never a state of declared war. The term "police action" (which I continue to put in quotes because it's not what I'd call it) is the political term used the describe it. The United States hasn't been in a state of declared war since, I believe, World War II.

Yeah, it is splitting hairs about the end of the war, but consider this; if the war is over, why do American and S. Korean soldiers constantly guard the DMZ and other sites against N. Korean saboteurs and infiltrators, who still attack the forces on the DMZ.

The US, France, and Britain posted armed gaurd all over the communist border in Germany during the cold war. I don't recall there being a state of declared war or a "police action" with them prior, or a treaty signed when the Berlin Wall fell. It is one of the jobs of the military to dissuade aggression by presence, isn't it?

 

[TankGunner]

Please don't assume that I'm ignorant to the conflict. I have studied the Korean War at least cursory, enough to know that there was never a state of declared war. The term "police action" (which I continue to put in quotes because it's not what I'd call it) is the political term used the describe it. The United States hasn't been in a state of declared war since, I believe, World War II.

I didn't mean to imply that you were ignorant of the history of the war. I just react kind of strong to the term "police action". To me, it demeans the memories of the soldiers that fought then.

War hasn't been declared in the traditional sense since WWII, but Congress has passed 'Authorizations of Force' which is basically the same thing.

True, Deterrance is one of the goals of the military, but I was stating that N. Korea uses irregular forces and special operations forces to occasionally attack targets in S. Korea, and has been know to attack forces along the DMZ. France never sent forces to conduct border security, since France removed their force from NATO command in 1966. Not that that was a big loss....

 

[Quarto]

I didn't mean to imply that you were ignorant of the history of the war. I just react kind of strong to the term "police action". To me, it demeans the memories of the soldiers that fought then.

War hasn't been declared in the traditional sense since WWII, but Congress has passed 'Authorizations of Force' which is basically the same thing.

I don't think calling Korea a "police action" demeans the memory of the soldiers who fought there at all. It's simply calling a spade a spade. No declaration of war was ever made by any of the countries involved, so it wasn't a war. It might seem like a fairly abstract distinction - but it isn't, when you consider that American Constitution (and virtually every other constitution in the world) is very specific about which branch of the government has the power to declare war. If it was all the same, then the president would also have the power to declare war - but he doesn't.

 

[Death]

On the other hand, when you're one of those being shot at, the distinctions kinda tend to blur.

 

[Maj.Striker]

Good point. If someone pointed a 37mm flare gun point blank at my face and said, "Don't worry, this isn't classified as a dangerous weapon." I don't think I'd really give a crap what it's classified as...

 

[Quarto]

On the other hand, when you're one of those being shot at, the distinctions kinda tend to blur.

Hehe, but then again, in this day and age, you really don't need to be in a warzone to be shot at .

 

[TankGunner]

Getting back to the subject, anyone else see this? Looks like they went with the Lockheed version over Boeing's, and gave it the name 'Lightning II'. Wasn't that going to be the original name for the F-22 before they named it 'Raptor'?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060707/pl_nm/arms_lockheed_fighter_dc;_ylt=AlnVMWwIGr_zgHj58YBxM52tOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NGRzMjRtBHNlYwMxNjk5

On the other hand, when you're one of those being shot at, the distinctions kinda tend to blur.

Blur?!? There are no distinctions when you're in contact.

 

[Wedge_B5]

Shouldn't that be Lightning III, theres the P38 and the BAE Lightning that i know of from memory. Any others?

 

[Death]

The BAE lightning was never in the US inventory, so it doesn't count as far as US naming convention goes.

 

[powell99]

Getting back to the subject, anyone else see this? Looks like they went with the Lockheed version over Boeing's, and gave it the name 'Lightning II'. Wasn't that going to be the original name for the F-22 before they named it 'Raptor'?.

The F-22 goes back and forth all the time on names. I have books a couple of from when I was a kid. They were Raptor, Lightning II, and Rapier.

 

[TankGunner]

The F-22 goes back and forth all the time on names. I have books a couple of from when I was a kid. They were Raptor, Lightning II, and Rapier.

Yeah, I've read that too. Wonder if the guy coming up with names was a WC 1 fan?

 

[Quarto]

Yeah, I've read that too. Wonder if the guy coming up with names was a WC 1 fan?

I'm quite certain it wasn't one guy.

...And had he been a WC1 fan, his first choice would have been Scimitar .

 

[RogueBanshee]

I'm quite certain it wasn't one guy.

...And had he been a WC1 fan, his first choice would have been Scimitar .

Why would a WC fan's first choice be the name of the series worst human fightercraft?