VF-1 in Top Gun?

[Final Vegeta]

more people are wounded per death because less people are dieing!  we are careing for the troops better than ever.

LOL, I've saw your budget for Military Medical/Trauma Care Technology as planned in 1999:

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2000/D...2E-R-1%2318.pdf

But I think I am mistaking something...

Anyway, stupidity is thinking a plane can destroy a tower. In my country it didn't happen. Did you wonder why so many rescuers died after 9/11?

FV

[F-ZeroOne]

Now that low radar cross sections and stand off weapons are the preferred method of dealing with enemy threats concerns over paint should not as important, unless we get in a mess with Russia, China, or heaven forbid the EU.

Truth is it's not likely we'll ever again see air-to-air combat. The Russians can't pay their pilots, the EU is chicken

I feel I have to quote here from one of the most famous politicians of a certain EU member country which is, in some parts of the World, in it as much as yourselves:

"Some chicken!"...

Edited August 31, 2004 by F-ZeroOne

[HWR MKII]

i am in the USAF. our cluster bombs do self destruct. we do not use napalm anymore. fuel air explosives are a special order weapon and are not a common use item and carpet bombing in civillised areas and cities has not been done in almost 40 years. in the gulf war we even dropped concrete GBU 24 bombs in restricted target areas to destroy gun emplacements and not damage the surrounding structures. i work with these weapons on a daily basis. if anyone is getting info from the internet or news media i would highly suggest you treat such info as biased and tainted by public opinion. just trying to ease any arguments and keep the thread on track. maybe it could be closed or locked before it turns into a nasty debate on what weapons and processes are used now in warfare than the commonalities on Macross and Top Gun.

[Macross_Fanboy]

If you look closely, you can sorta make out a VF-1 in the background of this poster.

The Froating Head strikes again!

[HWR MKII]

must obey the froating head.

[Final Vegeta]

if anyone is getting info from the internet or news media i would highly suggest you treat such info as biased and tainted by public opinion.

No offense, but while forums, chats and newsgroups may spread urban legends, usually internet has a form of counter-culture TV won't give you. And when all the world is telling the same things, I think it's not CIA doing its usual misinformation and terrorism.

Forgotten History, the real history of US foreign policy.

And you'd better see this, the first plane

FV

P.s.: well, I agree this will ruin the thread. Anyway, I can give any URL you want to demonstrate my arguements. Maybe I can find even something in Italian.

Edited September 1, 2004 by Final Vegeta

[HWR MKII]

I think it's not CIA doing its usual misinformation and terrorism.

did i mention the fact im a weapons loader in the air force. im speaking from first hand knowledge and the fact i get disgusted at the misinformation on tv and the bashing on the internet. the CIA has nothing to do with what the news reports or where they get their info. hell movie companies cant get even the most common things correct like the designation of a munition correct and they have the same advisors as the news and internet(in independance day will smith says he launches an amraam AIM 120 missile yet the only thing the acft are carrying are harpoon anti shipping missiles)all im saying is that first hand knowledge counts alot more than i heard it on the news or read it on the internet. when that is said it turns into the i heard from a friend who heard from a friend who saw it from a mile away.

[Final Vegeta]

did i mention the fact im a weapons loader in the air force.

I am one that likes to make a lot of suppositions and jokes about Macross, but I know when I am just having fun. I don't claim I own the truth, and even I ignore lot of facts happened around the world. In this case though my sources are not "friends of friends", they are journalists.

Do you load the weapons of all the army, and you have loaded them since the beginning of the war in Iraq?

Do you think that a pilot knows he is not bombing a terrorist building but a school, a hospital or simply a civilian house?

How good your first-hand information can be?

I gave up with links, I will directly paste it here.

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

The Independent on Sunday (U.K.) ^ | 08/10/03 | Andrew Buncombe

American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war.

The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

A reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald who witnessed another napalm attack on 21 March on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill, close to the Kuwaiti border, wrote the following day: "Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. 'I pity anyone who is in there,' a Marine sergeant said. 'We told them to surrender.'"

At the time, the Pentagon insisted the report was untrue. "We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on 4 April, 2001," it said.

The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war.

"Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon," said Robert Musil, director of the organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility. "It takes up an awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds." Mr Musil said denial of its use "fits a pattern of deception [by the US administration]".

The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh 510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel.

Officials said that if journalists had asked about the firebombs their use would have been confirmed. A spokesman admitted they were "remarkably similar" to napalm but said they caused less environmental damage.

But John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that uses it." Marines returning from Iraq chose to call the firebombs "napalm".

Mr Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction between the weapons was outrageous. He said: "It's Orwellian. They do not want the public to know. It's a lie."

In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Corps Maj-Gen Jim Amos confirmed that napalm was used on several occasions in the war.

If you want internet users, this is what they think:

To: Pokey78; SAMWolf

Whatever they want to call it, we used it and good for us.

Does the reporter think we should feel sorry for the enemy?

Like the Marine said, "We told them to surrender".

Now that I think better of it, I don't remember Americans feeling sorry, at least that's what history says. US people seems to lack sense of guilty.

To: snippy_about_it

Makes sense to me to use this on positions located on bridge approaches. You wouldn't want to use HE and accidently damage a bridge you want to take intact.

There is no treaty prohibiting this weapon that the U.S. is a party to. War is hell and there are few pleasant ways of dying in combat.

These hypocrites want to pin an unjust "war crimes" label on the U.S. while ignoring Iraq's refusal to adhere to the Geneva Convention.

This user vastly ignores US international situation.

5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, 1998. Set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Concluded in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was signed by 120 countries. Although President Clinton signed the Treaty in December 2000, he announced that the U.S. would oppose it, along with six others (including China, Russia, and Israel). In May 2002, the Bush administration announced it was "unsigning" the Treaty, something the U.S. had never before done, and that it would neither recognize the Court's jurisdiction nor furnish any information to help the Court bring cases against any individuals. In July 2002, the ICC went into force after being ratified by more than the required number of 60 nations, including Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain-Russia now having signed, but not ratified.

Throughout 2002 and 2003, the U.S. worked to scuttle the Treaty by signing bilateral agreements not to send each other's citizens before the ICC. By mid-2003, the U. S. had signed 37 mutual immunity pacts, mostly with poor, small countries in Africa, Asia, Central America, and Eastern Europe. Threatened with the loss of $73 million in U.S. aid, for example, Bosnia signed such a deal. In July 2003, the Bush administration suspended all military assistance to 35 countries that refused to pledge to give U.S. citizens immunity before the ICC.

6. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969. The U.S. signed but did not ratify. In May 2002, as the U.S. was unsigning the ICC Treaty, it simultaneously announced that it would not be bound by the Vienna Convention, which outlines the obligations of nations to obey other treaties. Article 18 requires signatory nations not to take steps to undermine treaties they sign even if they do not ratify them.

7. The American Servicemen's [sic] Protection Act, 2002. The Bush administration has been working overtime to nullify the ICC. In November 2002, the president signed this Act, which not only bars cooperation with the ICC and threatens sanctions for countries that ratify it, but authorizes the use of "all means necessary" to free any U.S. national who might be held in The Hague for trial before the ICC.

18. State-sponsored terrorism. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague held the U.S. in violation of international law for "unlawful use of force" in Nicaragua, 1986, through its own actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The U.S. refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction. A 1988 UN resolution that "urgently calls for full and immediate compliance with the Judgment of the International Court of Justice of June 27, 1986 in the case of 'Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua' in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations" was approved 94-2 (U.S. and Israel voting no).

23. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. The U.S. finally ratified in 1988, adding several "reservations" to the effect that the U.S. Constitution and the "advice and consent" of the Senate are required to judge whether any "acts in the course of armed conflict" constitute genocide. The reservations are rejected by Britain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Mexico, Estonia, and others.

24. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1987. Ratified by the U.S. in 1994. In the UN Economic and Social Council in July 2002, the U.S. tried to stop a vote on a protocol to reinforce the Convention. The protocol would establish a system of inspections of prisons and detention centers worldwide to check for abuses. The U.S. claimed that the new plan would allow monitors to gain access to American prisoners and detainees-including, presumably, those held in U.S. detention camps in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and now Iraq.

25. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocols, 1963. The U.S. is a long-time violator, by detaining foreign nationals and failing to notify their governments. In 1999, two German citizens, Walter LeGrand and his brother Karl, were put to death in an Arizona gas chamber. When arrested in 1984 for the murder of a bank teller, the LeGrands were not informed of their right to contact the German embassy and German officials were unable to provide legal aid. In 1998, the World Court (the ICJ) ruled that the U.S. had violated international law in the case and asked the U. S. Supreme Court to stay the execution. The Supreme Court dismissed the request. In 2002, Mexico petitioned the ICJ to grant stays of execution for 54 Mexicans held on death row in the U.S., arguing that U.S. municipal and state officials are violating the Vienna Convention. In August 2002, Mexican President Vicente Fox cancelled a meeting with President Bush at his Texas ranch to protest Alabama's execution of Mexican citizen Javier Suarez Medina, who was denied the right to seek help from his government when arrested in 1988.

After September 11, 2001, U.S. violations of the Convention multiplied, with more than 600 "unlawful combatants" detained in Guantanamo and elsewhere without charges, denied all legal rights, and held for possible trial before closed military tribunals.

By law US cannot commit such things as "war crimes", even if other countries call them that way.

Among other interesting treaties, there were:

15. World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, September 2001. Convened by UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and the UN High Commission for Human Rights. It brought together 163 countries. The U.S. withdrew from the Conference, alleging anti-Israel and anti-Semitic politics on the part of many delegations. The final declaration of the conference expressed "concern about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation" and "recognized the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and...the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel."

19. Optional Protocol, 1989, to the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Aimed at abolition of the death penalty, it contained a specific provision banning the execution of those under 18. The U.S. has neither signed nor ratified and exempts itself from the latter provision, making it one of five countries that still execute juveniles (with Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, and Nigeria). China abolished the practice in 1997, Pakistan in 2000.

20. UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979. Ratified by 169 nations. President Carter signed CEDAW in 1980, but the Senate blocked it. The only countries that have signed, but not ratified, are the U.S., Afghanistan, Sao Tome and Principe.

21. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989. It protects the economic and social rights of children. The U.S. has signed, but not ratified. The only other country not to ratify is Somalia.

To: chookter

Where is the problem here?

Our enemies get unlimited free Press Time.

Strange, 6 men own all media of US. How many anti-war opinions do you hear (is it true that in US talk shows you see mostly white males?)? And isn't Holliwood starting the trend of war movies?

To: Pokey78

Good. I'm glad that this is out. It gives adequate notice to those that would harm America. When we say "shock and awe," WE MEAN IT.

Is this guy nuts? Are Americans all like him? This is why I started thinking Americans are scary.

To: Threepwood

How is napalm worse than a bomb full of ordinary explosive? I wasn't aware there was a controversy over its use.

Oh yes there is. To the lefty democrats and press such as the New York Times, using napalm is 1000 times worse than the "benign" Khmer Rouge Pol Pot regime which slaughtered millions in the late 70's.

Does this guy knows Pol Pot was funded by US (and China)? And does he know US and China also insisted that Pol Pot, responsible for killing an estimated one in every five Cambodians, had the right to name Cambodia's legitimate representative at the UN, just because Cambodia was liberated by Vietnamese?

To: hayfried; SAMWolf; ALOHA RONNIE

[...]With the blood and sacrifice of our armed forces, we have gained power and influence in the world, for the good of mankind.

[...]

In their minds they ask, "Why would we ever need to use these weapons if America is the greatest country in the world?" That is how they think. They actually believe that we have no serious enemies. They believe that our advantages are impregnable. They believe that we are done fighting and now we should go around taking care of the world like so many caretakers.

[...]

When you believe our nation could never be threatened, when you believe our force is immoral, and when you believe the future is assured, it's no surprise that you might come to the conclusion that napalm or nuclear weapons are wrong. I believe that these same arguments are being used against our second amendment rights. The elite center and near left seriously believe that American superiority is endless, and western civilization will always be free.

What does "for the good on mankind" mean? There is nothing who has gained so much from wars like corporations. US bankers had even connections with Nazis.

Also worth noting is the paranoia that brainwashed Americans. The threat of terrorism is smaller than that of committing suicide. Lastly, this guys ignores that his right seriously believe that American superiority should be endless, and the world should be slave of US (new American century).

To: Pokey78

What is with this BS! "The us used it both against CIVILIANS and military targets in Vietnam". THey make it sound like we indescrimently targeted civilians with napalm in NAM. THAT IS SUCH A FREAKING LIE! Hey BRIT libs, if you werent there shut your pie holes!!!

2-4 million of casualties among civilians in Vietnam... there is a probability that napalm caused some of these deaths. After all it was banned before it killed indiscriminately even civilians.

Another thing that Americans should read is what Iraqi people thinks of them:

Iraq's soccer squad is perhaps the surprise of the entire Olympics, advancing to this weekend's quarterfinals despite the war and occupation that has gripped their country for the last 17 months. Yet amidst cheers and triumph, they were infuriated to learn that Bush's brain, Karl Rove, had launched campaign ads featuring their Olympic glory as a brilliant by-product of the war on terror.

The commercial, subtle as a blowtorch, begins with an image of the Afghani and Iraqi flags with a voice over saying, "At this Olympics there will be two more free nations -- and two fewer terrorist regimes."

Bush has also been exploiting their exploits in stump speeches. Much more comfortable talking sports than foreign policy or stem-cell research, Bush brayed with bravado in Oregon, "The image of the Iraqi soccer team playing in this Olympics, it's fantastic, isn't it? It wouldn't have been free if the United States had not acted."

This has compelled the Iraqi soccer team, at great personal risk, to respond. Mid-fielder and team leader Salih Sadir told Sports Illustrated, "Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign. He can find another way to advertise himself."

Sadir has reason to be upset. He was the star player for the professional soccer team in Najaf. Najaf has in recent weeks been swamped by US troops and the new Iraqi army in an attempt to uproot rebel cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr. Thousands have died, each death close to Sadir's heart.

"I want the violence and the war to go away from the city," said Sadir, "We don't wish for the presence of Americans in our country. We want them to go away."

Sadir's teammates were less diplomatic.

Midfielder Ahmed Manajid, told Wahl angrily, "How will [bush] meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women? He has committed so many crimes."

Manajid understands Sadir's pain because he is from another Iraqi city that has been in a state of siege, Fallujah.

Manajid told Wahl that his cousin Omar Jabbar al-Aziz, who was a resistance fighter, was killed by the US, as were several of his friends. Manajid even said that if he were not playing soccer he would "for sure" be fighting as part of the resistance.

"I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists? Everyone [in Fallujah] has been labeled a terrorist. These are all lies. Fallujah people are some of the best people in Iraq."

Usually when there is political unrest on Olympic teams, the coach tries to be a mitigating force with the media. But not here and not now. Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad also went public to Sports Illustrated saying, "My problems are not with the American people, They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq."

To be clear, Iraq's team is not pining for former Olympic head Uday Hussein, notorious for torturing athletes that under performed. Yet they don't feel their choice has to be between Uday's way and the bloodbath that has been visited upon their country. As Hamad said, "What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?"

The ideas expressed by the Iraqi soccer team are by all counts commonplace in Iraq yet find little expression in the mainstream media here at home. It is critical that their words find ears.

Twenty years of living under Saddam and after ninety days of living under the Americans Iraqi people want Saddam back. This is "good of mankind"?

I have read "Dude, where's my country?" of Moore, and I have also seen his "Bowling for Columbine". He may have bias, but he is as good as others as giving an overall image of US... and his image at least looks not so bad. Moore just cannot hate US, he really loves it. Seriously, there is something wrong with US no matter how you joke about it.

You say US didn't use napalm in Iraq and Pentagon does. In the first gulf war Bush senior said there were Iraqi forces near Saudi Arabia, and in the second gulf war Bush junior said Saddam had WMDs. It didn't stop there. Bush paid Texan veterans to slander Kerry, at least that's what my TV said.

I am not sure my TVs says the same things of your TVs, I am not even sure if we know the same things. Even Moore says Kosovo was a big bombing when in Laos US dropped two million tons of bombs (and Laos by Geneva convention was neutral and demilitarized). Other things just looks unbelievable - is it true the anti-French hysteria? The africanized bees and the French Kerry? The Dead Peasant policy (when you die at work you company takes money, not your relatives)?

Well, with the many lies they've told, who can trust Americans now?

I trust Moore. He says that Americans have good heart. I want to believe that, I want to believe Americans are good even when they are not watched, and they are stressed under fighting for their lives. The vast majority of Americans, according to his polls, believe in racial diversity.

And yet I see those supposed Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq who abduct journalists and ask something as irrilevant as abolish the law against the veil in France - these same terrorists who IIRC never abducted an American, and are so patriotic they never talk about the liberation of Afghanistan, their home land - and I think they will kill the two French, but they have waited so long. When Al Qaeda got its hands on those 12 Nepalese they were killed immediately. You know what, Al Qaeda is so racist it can only mean there is CIA behind it.

Now, I am only worried for my country, I don't want to be offensive, take my remarks just as a positive critic. Like Moore says

14. We must immediately disavow Bush’s preemptive war policy. We need to slam shut this insane Pandora’s box Bush and Cheney have opened—the notion that it is ethical to kill people in case they want to attack us is not the way to relax the rest of the world when they see the Stars and Stripes.

You see, I am just nervous. It may sounds strange, but elections in a foreign country are interesting me more than elections in my country.

15. Stop acting like a thief who says “stick ’em up, hand over your weapons, and okay, now hand over your oil.” Just go straight for the oil and cut out the bullshit about nation building or democracy. Sure it would be wrong, but it would be cheaper and more honest—and we wouldn’t have to blow random civilians to smithereens.

That's why I like this guy. With a twisted humour you really could laugh of these times. I dream of some fifty years in the future, when the world is peaceful, and we joke about how Bush II to get re-elected (he failed) in the last months of 2004 finally presented us with Osama Bin laden and his dialysis machine. Because, you know, Osama's kidneys stopped working some years ago.

Just some hystorical hints:

Hitler was elected because he not only blamed Jews, he also blamed communists, and he kept saying Russia was gonna invade Germany. Hitler capitalized on the fear of common Germans. He obviously knew how to act resolute, at first he didn't believe his own lies so he didn't have any fear.

German invaded Poland because Nazi S.S. members, dressed in Polish military uniforms, attacked a German customs post near Hohelinden (Hochlinden), so Germans started hating Poland and, when Hitler told them so, they invaded it.

If we finally want to say something about Macross, like all anime it lacks such subtleties. This because of history.

Roosevelt launched secret military and economic operations against the Japanese Empire, obstructing its only access to oil, rubber, and other strategic resources, then he concentrated the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii as never before, where it would be seen as an imminent threat by Japanese generals.

This is how Japanese viewed the war. Of course, they have already invaded China, but Western invaders' image stuck in their mind, and that's why we have Macross.

Also, something that Macross won't show is that a war is not clean and self-contained - at least when Americans are involved. 200,000 Vietnam veterans died due to Agent Orange. Even if the war in Iraq stopped now, DU has yet had a slight chance of affecting Iraq veterans.

Who do you trust?

A United States defence official has said moves to ban depleted uranium ammunition are just an attempt by America's enemies to blunt its military might.

or

Brief accidental exposure to high concentrations of uranium hexafluoride has caused acute respiratory illness, which may be fatal.

Third point:

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger

of State and corporate power. Benito Mussolini

This is another thing you won't see in Macross. UN-Spacy may run all, but it won't wage a war to gain wealth for its leaders. At least, not in the Macross I think I saw. Dunno what Japanese know of fascism, though.

FV

[KingNor]

HWR MKII:

isn't it amazing how people will beleive an anti-military press who's got a track record of activly trying to make the military look bad, rather than listen to someone who actually works in the system.

it doesn't get much more direct than someone who actually inspects/loads the weapons on the plane, but that REPORTER over there, behind the guard rails and without any type of clearence must have the "real" story.

don't give yourself a heartatack trying to convince these guys hwr, it doesn't work.

they're more inclined to beleive internet conspiracy therorists and fuzzy pictures than beleive the people who actually know what's going on.

[Coota0]

He resurrected this thread after it was clearly dead. He's muckraking, just trying to cause a fight.

[HWR MKII]

thank you king. and actually the thread died a few pages ago when it switched from VF1 in top gun to which units were active or beconing deactivated or where they were stationed or what they were flying.

[David Hingtgen]

And you'd better see this, the first plane

I'll at least respond to this:

If someone's going to make such a detailed analysis, it'd help to use the right plane. Nice Seven *FIVE* Seven drawings there. Of course 757 drawings don't match up to 767 impact holes...