NationStates Jolt Archive

The success of the Indian air force against American fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may soon be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top Air Force general said Wednesday.

“We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we thought we were,” said Gen. Hal M. Hornburg, the chief of Air Combat Command, which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings.

The U.S.-India joint exercise, “Cope India,” took place in February near Gwalior in central, India. It pitted some F-15C Eagle fighters from the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, in mock combat against Indian MiG, Sukhoi and Mirage fighters.

The F-15Cs are the Air Force’s primary air superiority aircraft. The Indian fighters, of Russian and French design, are the type of planes U.S. fighters would most likely face in any overseas conflict.

Hornburg, speaking to reporters, called the results of the exercise “a wake-up call” in some respects, but he declined to provide details, other than to suggest the Indian air force scored several unexpected successes against the American planes.

For the last 15 years, the U.S. military has enjoyed almost total command of the air during conflicts. A few fighters and fighter-bombers have gone down, usually victims of surface-to-air missile fire, but in general, American planes have been able to target enemy ground forces at will.

Still, new tactics, better Russian fighters like the Su-30, and a new generation of surface-to-air missiles mean that U.S. dominance could be ending, said Loren Thompson, who follows military issues for the Lexington Institute, a Washington think tank.

“The United States has grown accustomed to having global air superiority, yet we haven’t put much very much money in the last generation into maintaining that advantage,” he said, noting the F-15 first flew in the 1970s.

“So, of course, the rest of the world is finally starting to catch up,” he said.

Hornburg said the exercise shows the need for some new Air Force fighters, particularly the F/A-22 Raptor, which is intended to replace the F-15C. But critics deride the aircraft as too expensive and built to counter a threat that hasn’t existed since the Soviet Union collapsed.

Another reason not to cut the military budget. Once the world catches up to where we were 30 years ago, its clear that we need to get another 50 or so ahead.

Actually the F-15 will soon be replaced by the F-22 raptor si I'm really not that worried. 8)

Well they still don't have those stealth planes and boats.

I feel kind of bad for posting here so fast. We should have at least let the Anti-Americanites have a chance to celebrate before they were brought back to earth. :cry:

sounds to me like the airforce grasping at straws to find some way to argue that we need to invest much more money in new planes

maybe we need a pre-emptive nuclear strike on india because years from now they might shoot down an american fighter jet.

Actually, Russian and French equipment isn't as poor as the US seems to think. Especially if they can close in, both are typically much more maneuverable, and the US design of the AIM-9X is even based on Russian technology.

Well, you know there's always that lucky chance that the military actually has an UFO hidden away somewhere. Plus that Space Ship One thing just succeeded. Then again, the only people that might have a chance of taking away our air superiority anytime soon is the Israeli air force.

...

Or....maybe ..just maybe we should strenghten our foreign policy so that we dont NEED to fight these people?

Or....maybe ..just maybe we should strenghten our foreign policy so that we dont NEED to fight these people?

Or just remove Bush and let the foreign policy strengthen itself.

What would Kerry do different?

Well, he'd attack Iraq less often. Besides, did I say Kerry would do anything? All I said is that Bush has no respect for international law, treaties, etc. The war in Iraq was illegal and there is no loophole (except completely ignorance and denial) that will say otherwise. We are the founders and a member of the United Nations. The United Nations charter (lots of people need to read it) (especially people in the NS UN) states that war is not tolerated except or in legitimate self-defense after a country has been attacked or if the Security Council deems it necessary. Did either happen? Oh...

I do know that Clinton was a master of foreign affairs and I can't say the same for Bush. Bush has tore down everything the US has built up since 1945...

Nice misleading title. "Indian threatens US world domination", hardly.



Or....maybe ..just maybe we should strenghten our foreign policy so that we dont NEED to fight these people?

IE: We shouldn't prepare for a possible conflict against enemies that may utilize this same equipment. The USA isn't going to be going to war with India anytime soon, that's fairly certain. We may in the future, however, face adversaries who possess the same type of equipment, and maybe even similar degrees of training. A few Indian aircraft scoring unexpected successes against aircraft whose design cycles started in the late '60s doesn't equate to the entire American Air Force being suddenly defeated in battle. However, it does point out the need to replace our rapidly againg equipment. It's a little known fact that the US military currently dominates the world with decades-old equipment. Much of our equipment was designed in the '50s and '60s, and have since had various components upgrade. The B-52 was designed 50 years ago, with slide rules and grease pencils, for Christ's sake.

Well, you know there's always that lucky chance that the military actually has an UFO hidden away somewhere. Plus that Space Ship One thing just succeeded. Then again, the only people that might have a chance of taking away our air superiority anytime soon is the Israeli air force.

Not if our politicians would stand up to their lobby and stop giving them half of ours. Of course then our taxes would go down and the majority of people who hate us wouldn't anymore, but who wants that?

What would Kerry do different?
Present America's posterior for the use of any who might wish to do so.

Well, he'd attack Iraq less often. Besides, did I say Kerry would do anything? All I said is that Bush has no respect for international law, treaties, etc. The war in Iraq was illegal and there is no loophole (except completely ignorance and denial) that will say otherwise. We are the founders and a member of the United Nations. The United Nations charter (lots of people need to read it) (especially people in the NS UN) states that war is not tolerated except or in legitimate self-defense after a country has been attacked or if the Security Council deems it necessary. Did either happen? Oh...


So your only coherent argument against Bush is that some irrelevant anti-American organization with delusions of grandeur did not authorize our foray into Iraq? Sad.

Diferent? Yes.
Better? The chances of that are slim to none. :roll: Neither of the choices are really topflight, however it would be bad to switch Presidents at this time. Once Bush is out of office four years from now, we will probly be stuck with Hillary Clinton anyway. That I consider a step down.

So your only coherent argument against Bush is that some irrelevant anti-American organization with delusions of grandeur did not authorize our foray into Iraq? Sad.

Eh...if we don't want to abide by UN Charter, we don't need to be in the UN. The word coherent in that statement is pointless; you make it seem as if I type incoherently. I don't. You also shouldn't assume that the only argument presented is the only argument I have. I hold back my arguments because psycho-GOP-heads flame on anything and everything and distract from the subject of the thread.

Nice misleading title. "Indian threatens US world domination", hardly.



Or....maybe ..just maybe we should strenghten our foreign policy so that we dont NEED to fight these people?

IE: We shouldn't prepare for a possible conflict against enemies that may utilize this same equipment. The USA isn't going to be going to war with India anytime soon, that's fairly certain. We may in the future, however, face adversaries who possess the same type of equipment, and maybe even similar degrees of training. A few Indian aircraft scoring unexpected successes against aircraft whose design cycles started in the late '60s doesn't equate to the entire American Air Force being suddenly defeated in battle. However, it does point out the need to replace our rapidly againg equipment. It's a little known fact that the US military currently dominates the world with decades-old equipment. Much of our equipment was designed in the '50s and '60s, and have since had various components upgrade. The B-52 was designed 50 years ago, with slide rules and grease pencils, for Christ's sake.
The indians were'nt using American aircraft. They were using planes made by Russia and China.

Nice misleading title. "Indian threatens US world domination", hardly.



Or....maybe ..just maybe we should strenghten our foreign policy so that we dont NEED to fight these people?

IE: We shouldn't prepare for a possible conflict against enemies that may utilize this same equipment. The USA isn't going to be going to war with India anytime soon, that's fairly certain. We may in the future, however, face adversaries who possess the same type of equipment, and maybe even similar degrees of training. A few Indian aircraft scoring unexpected successes against aircraft whose design cycles started in the late '60s doesn't equate to the entire American Air Force being suddenly defeated in battle. However, it does point out the need to replace our rapidly againg equipment. It's a little known fact that the US military currently dominates the world with decades-old equipment. Much of our equipment was designed in the '50s and '60s, and have since had various components upgrade. The B-52 was designed 50 years ago, with slide rules and grease pencils, for Christ's sake.
The indians were'nt using American aircraft. They were using planes made by Russia and China.

France, you mean :wink: India and China don't get along well

So your only coherent argument against Bush is that some irrelevant anti-American organization with delusions of grandeur did not authorize our foray into Iraq? Sad.

Eh...if we don't want to abide by UN Charter, we don't need to be in the UN.
Why's that? The UN will continue to serve as a vehicle through which anti-American vitriol will be disseminated. We need to stay in the UN so as to limit its utility in that regard, until such time as it completely collapses, which probably will be sooner rather than later. Furthermore, your imperative that we should resign from the UN for alleged infractions of the UN Charter represents circular logic. Why exactly should the alleged infractions of the UN Charter by the USA compel America to leave the UN?


So your only coherent argument against Bush is that some irrelevant anti-American organization with delusions of grandeur did not authorize our foray into Iraq? Sad.

Eh...if we don't want to abide by UN Charter, we don't need to be in the UN.
Why's that? The UN will continue to serve as a vehicle through which anti-American vitriol will be disseminated. We need to stay in the UN so as to limit its utility in that regard, until such time as it completely collapses, which probably will be sooner rather than later. Furthermore, your imperative that we should resign from the UN for alleged infractions of the UN Charter represents circular logic. Why exactly should the alleged infractions of the UN Charter by the USA compel America to leave the UN?


cThe word coherent in that statement is pointless; you make it seem as if I type incoherently. I don't. [/quote]
Your statement regarding the UN was your only true attempt at an argument, your other purported 'arguments' against Bush were anything but, they were simply statements of opinion.

You also shouldn't assume that the only argument presented is the only argument I have.
Exactly when did I say that? Don't presume to put words in my mouth, so to speak.

I hold back my arguments because psycho-GOP-heads flame on anything and everything and distract from the subject of the thread.
Perhaps others withhold arguments for the fear of being flamed by psycho-liberal-neohippy-Democrats? Furthermore, how is this statement pertinent to the discussion? It appears to be a cleverly disguised dig at the Republican Party, a tactic for the use of which you ought to be commended.


The word coherent in that statement is pointless; you make it seem as if I type incoherently. I don't.
Your statement regarding the UN was your only true attempt at an argument, your other purported 'arguments' against Bush were anything but, they were simply statements of opinion.

You also shouldn't assume that the only argument presented is the only argument I have.
Exactly when did I say that? Don't presume to put words in my mouth, so to speak.

I hold back my arguments because psycho-GOP-heads flame on anything and everything and distract from the subject of the thread.
Perhaps others withhold arguments for the fear of being flamed by psycho-liberal-neohippy-Democrats? Furthermore, how is this statement pertinent to the discussion? It appears to be a cleverly disguised dig at the Republican Party, a tactic for the use of which you ought to be commended.

The indians were'nt using American aircraft. They were using planes made by Russia and China.
Exactly when did I say any differently?

Once Bush is out of office four years from now, we will probly be stuck with Hillary Clinton anyway. That I consider a step down
Agreed. Expect to see in 2008 a campain by feminazis that women who do not vote for H. Clinton are "traitors to their gender!" or other such.

So your only coherent argument against Bush is that some irrelevant anti-American organization with delusions of grandeur did not authorize our foray into Iraq? Sad.

It's a little known fact that the US military currently dominates the world with decades-old equipment. Much of our equipment was designed in the '50s and '60s, and have since had various components upgrade. The B-52 was designed 50 years ago, with slide rules and grease pencils, for Christ's sake.
Actually, the supposed older aircraft still has great potentals, and the USAF has just decided to keep them. The B-52 for example, not only that the USAF is planning to have it in service well beyond the beginning of the 32st century, but they are also adding new capabilities onto them (electric warfare and percision ground strike with more powerful computers). The B-1 still has a long way to go even when proposals of future unmanned "global strike platforms" are surfacing.
Although the US Army is phasing out their M16s for the new XM8 (a new assault rifle based on the German H&K G36), you still would see the M2 .50cals (which are designed almost 100 years ago) in service for many years.

Older doesn't always mean that it is inferior. It's a fact that there aren't a small number of modernized older equipments based on older designed can be equal to newer equipments with newer designs.

They are also phasing out M4s eventually...and the XM8 will drop the X and become the M8 when the Army officially adopts it. And not only that, the M8 won't be used for very long as another, newer gun, the XM29 OICW is currently being developed...the XM8 is only an interim (ick, there's that word again...) weapon for the Army.

Older doesn't always mean that it is inferior. It's a fact that there aren't a small number of modernized older equipments based on older designed can be equal to newer equipments with newer designs.

I know that. However, if we're going to bother using equipment for this long, we need to restart the production lines instead of constantly retrofitting ancient airframes. There's little point in replacing highly effective infantry weapons, but in aerospace technology we must remain as far ahead as possible. The USA doesn't even seem very committed to maintaining our aging equipment, maintenance in many areas is deplorable. Additionally, we've been maintaining a rather low number of bombers, it's quite sad. At some point, the planes need to be completely replaced. The last B-52H to be delivered was built more than forty years ago! http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52.htm When aircraft get extremely old, it starts to make more sense to either replace them with new aircraft of the same model, or replace them with new aircraft of a different make. The B-52 production line isn't likely to be reopened, so I suppose we'll continue flying airframes that are half a century old..

Older doesn't always mean that it is inferior. It's a fact that there aren't a small number of modernized older equipments based on older designed can be equal to newer equipments with newer designs.

I know that. However, if we're going to bother using equipment for this long, we need to restart the production lines instead of constantly retrofitting ancient airframes. There's little point in replacing highly effective infantry weapons, but in aerospace technology we must remain as far ahead as possible. The USA doesn't even seem very committed to maintaining our aging equipment, maintenance in many areas is deplorable. Additionally, we've been maintaining a rather low number of bombers, it's quite sad. At some point, the planes need to be completely replaced. The last B-52H to be delivered was built more than forty years ago! http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52.htm When aircraft get extremely old, it starts to make more sense to either replace them with new aircraft of the same model, or replace them with new aircraft of a different make. The B-52 production line isn't likely to be reopened, so I suppose we'll continue flying airframes that are half a century old..

I'm sure they'll start using the B-1's once the B-52's start making creaking, groaning and cracking sounds upon take-off.

There's little point in replacing highly effective infantry weapons
Uh, actually there is point in replacing it considering the types of wars we fight tend to be only against poorly equipped nations anyway...all the fighting is infantry skirmishes...

There's little point in replacing highly effective infantry weapons
Uh, actually there is point in replacing it considering the types of wars we fight tend to be only against poorly equipped nations anyway...all the fighting is infantry skirmishes...

Well, handheld weapons technology takes a very long time to mature. They all require skill to aim and use effectively, and training is a bigger factor in such situations, and is more important than any technological upgrade, apart from reliability.

There's little point in replacing highly effective infantry weapons
Uh, actually there is point in replacing it considering the types of wars we fight tend to be only against poorly equipped nations anyway...all the fighting is infantry skirmishes...
Umm, our infantry weapons work extremely well. At any rate, we'll go to war with a major power again. The primary reason that we haven't within the last few decades is that we've got such a powerful military. We tend to whip these poorly equipped nations with little more than a sweat, at any rate. Should we diminish our capabilities?

As for the B-52s creaking and groaning, that won't be allowed to happen. However, the price of such is going to be HUGE. There is a point for every piece of equipment at which it makes much more long-term financial sense to replace rather than repair.

There's little point in replacing highly effective infantry weapons
Uh, actually there is point in replacing it considering the types of wars we fight tend to be only against poorly equipped nations anyway...all the fighting is infantry skirmishes...
Umm, our infantry weapons work extremely well. At any rate, we'll go to war with a major power again. The primary reason that we haven't within the last few decades is that we've got such a powerful military. We tend to whip these poorly equipped nations with little more than a sweat, at any rate. Should we diminish our capabilities?

As for the B-52s creaking and groaning, that won't be allowed to happen. However, the price of such is going to be HUGE. There is a point for every piece of equipment at which it makes much more long-term financial sense to replace rather than repair.
A lot of the reason major nations haven't gone to war is that 'ineffectual anti-american' body we helped create to avoid such conflicts...

Actually, we already have the prototypes for many advanced aircraft availible, we just have no reason to use them. For now, at least, our air force is more than sufficient to counter any foe, and until that changes it doesn't make sense to upgrade our equipment because that is a very expensive and lengthy process. Keep the new designs on the back burner until they are needed!

I feel kind of bad for posting here so fast. We should have at least let the Anti-Americanites have a chance to celebrate before they were brought back to earth. :cry:

This is only the beginning!!
Soon all Central Asian nations will rise up and defeat the US!!!

Believe me if i say many of you would be very surprised by the resistance and succes of some enemies that you think have no chance against you.
Having a superior weapon does not mean you will automaticly win. (Ask the French, when they fought weaker outnumbered German tanks).

There's little point in replacing highly effective infantry weapons
Uh, actually there is point in replacing it considering the types of wars we fight tend to be only against poorly equipped nations anyway...all the fighting is infantry skirmishes...
Umm, our infantry weapons work extremely well. At any rate, we'll go to war with a major power again. The primary reason that we haven't within the last few decades is that we've got such a powerful military. We tend to whip these poorly equipped nations with little more than a sweat, at any rate. Should we diminish our capabilities?

As for the B-52s creaking and groaning, that won't be allowed to happen. However, the price of such is going to be HUGE. There is a point for every piece of equipment at which it makes much more long-term financial sense to replace rather than repair.
A lot of the reason major nations haven't gone to war is that 'ineffectual anti-american' body we helped create to avoid such conflicts...
Complete and utter bullshit. Present your proof for your assertion. The UN has never been anything more than a forum through which nations can collectively execute their normal practices, and it has of late become an anti-American propaganda machine. The real reason that major powers hasn't gone to war in the past few decades is that the risks far outweigh the possible benefits, especially considering that we now have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have, paradoxically, done more to guarantee peace than anything else.

Actually, since you're the one on the offensive, it's your job to prove that they ARE anti-american.

All this talk of the equipment, could it be that the Indian pilots were better?
Many (but not all) the pilots in India are British trained as are many of the air forces around the world. And British pilots have a very good record.
Not taking anything away from US pilots, but it is worth asking, if the equipment is ok is there a training need?

There's little point in replacing highly effective infantry weapons
Uh, actually there is point in replacing it considering the types of wars we fight tend to be only against poorly equipped nations anyway...all the fighting is infantry skirmishes...
Umm, our infantry weapons work extremely well. At any rate, we'll go to war with a major power again. The primary reason that we haven't within the last few decades is that we've got such a powerful military. We tend to whip these poorly equipped nations with little more than a sweat, at any rate. Should we diminish our capabilities?

As for the B-52s creaking and groaning, that won't be allowed to happen. However, the price of such is going to be HUGE. There is a point for every piece of equipment at which it makes much more long-term financial sense to replace rather than repair.
A lot of the reason major nations haven't gone to war is that 'ineffectual anti-american' body we helped create to avoid such conflicts...
Complete and utter bullshit. Present your proof for your assertion. The UN has never been anything more than a forum through which nations can collectively execute their normal practices, and it has of late become an anti-American propaganda machine. The real reason that major powers hasn't gone to war in the past few decades is that the risks far outweigh the possible benefits, especially considering that we now have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have, paradoxically, done more to guarantee peace than anything else.

The UN is not Anti American. You still have your undemocratic veto that doesnt let the UN interfere in conflicts such as Palestina. In fact its that undemocratic pro "big boys" BS that keeps the UN from being what it should be.

Nuclear weapons are nothing more than a threat to mankind. They should all be destroyed.

There are certain limits as to the amount of training a pilot can undergo in peacetime. Pilot-for-pilot, the Israeli air force is the best in the world, but that's because they take crazy risks in their training. It is far more dangerous to train to be an Israeli pilot than it is to be an American pilot. However, that is considered an unacceptable risk for most countries who do not live under the constant threat of violence. Current US training for its pilots is adequate for its needs. If the Indians choose to push the envelope in training, so be it, but they'd better be able to face the consequences.

All this talk of the equipment, could it be that the Indian pilots were better?
Many (but not all) the pilots in India are British trained as are many of the air forces around the world. And British pilots have a very good record.
Not taking anything away from US pilots, but it is worth asking, if the equipment is ok is there a training need?
Well, they always have to be prepared for a (possibly nuclear) war with Pakistan, so I'm sure they devote a lot of effort into training their fighter pilots, as aerial superiority is of the utmost importance. I wouldn't be surprised if they adopted their training regimen and doctrine from the Soviets. They were, after all, a client state of the USSR.

All this talk of the equipment, could it be that the Indian pilots were better?
Many (but not all) the pilots in India are British trained as are many of the air forces around the world. And British pilots have a very good record.
Not taking anything away from US pilots, but it is worth asking, if the equipment is ok is there a training need?
Well, they always have to be prepared for a (possibly nuclear) war with Pakistan, so I'm sure they devote a lot of effort into training their fighter pilots, as aerial superiority is of the utmost importance. I wouldn't be surprised if they adopted their training regimen and doctrine from the Soviets. They were, after all, a client state of the USSR.
I don't think you could ever describe India as a client state of the USSR, they are after all the world largest democracy.

The UN is not Anti American.
How so?

You still have your undemocratic veto that doesnt let the UN interfere in conflicts such as Palestina.
As if 'undemocratic' is automatically a pejorative, hah. Anyhow, Russia, China, France, and the UK also have this "undemocratic veto", so what are you moaning about?
In fact its that undemocratic pro "big boys" BS that keeps the UN from being what it should be.

Once again, there's your wanking-induced pejorative "undemocratic". Prove that this "undemocratic pro "big boys" BS" keeps the UN from being exactly what it "should be", whatever that may be. Face up to reality, the big boys will always run the world. Without even the semblance of patronage from the oh-so-evil "big boys", the UN would be even less relevant than it currently is.

Nuclear weapons are nothing more than a threat to mankind.
Bullshit, nuclear weapons were the only thing that stopped the USA and USSR from starting a Third World War. Nuclear weapons are currently the greatest stabilizing force in the world. The threat of nuclear war makes military conflict between major powers far less likely.
[quote="Vollmeria"They should all be destroyed.[/quote]
Why, because you can't think beyond typical liberal neo-hippy dogma?

They weren't a client state, but they did have some Soviet support. India was one of the leaders of the "Third World", ie it was neutral. India tried to play both sides, the US and the USSR, against each other, in order to get support from both to prevent them from deciding to support one or the other. So they were influenced by the Soviets (somewhat), but hardly controlled by them, no moreso than they were controlled by the US.

All this talk of the equipment, could it be that the Indian pilots were better?
Many (but not all) the pilots in India are British trained as are many of the air forces around the world. And British pilots have a very good record.
Not taking anything away from US pilots, but it is worth asking, if the equipment is ok is there a training need?
Well, they always have to be prepared for a (possibly nuclear) war with Pakistan, so I'm sure they devote a lot of effort into training their fighter pilots, as aerial superiority is of the utmost importance. I wouldn't be surprised if they adopted their training regimen and doctrine from the Soviets. They were, after all, a client state of the USSR.
I don't think you could ever describe India as a client state of the USSR, they are after all the world largest democracy.
So what if they're the world's largest democracy? How does that exclude them from having been a client state (in this case, I mean a major purchaser of military hardware) of the USSR? At any rate, they WERE during the Cold War a client state of the USSR, just as Pakistan was during the Cold War a client state of the USA. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself. Well, at least by my above-defined definition of "client state", so don't be pedantic jackasses.

All this talk of the equipment, could it be that the Indian pilots were better?
Many (but not all) the pilots in India are British trained as are many of the air forces around the world. And British pilots have a very good record.
Not taking anything away from US pilots, but it is worth asking, if the equipment is ok is there a training need?
Well, they always have to be prepared for a (possibly nuclear) war with Pakistan, so I'm sure they devote a lot of effort into training their fighter pilots, as aerial superiority is of the utmost importance. I wouldn't be surprised if they adopted their training regimen and doctrine from the Soviets. They were, after all, a client state of the USSR.
I don't think you could ever describe India as a client state of the USSR, they are after all the world largest democracy.
So what if they're the world's largest democracy? How does that exclude them from having been a client state (in this case, I mean a major purchaser of military hardware) of the USSR? At any rate, they WERE during the Cold War a client state of the USSR, just as Pakistan was during the Cold War a client state of the USA. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself.
No that makes them a customer or consumer if you like. During that time they also bought aircraft and equipment for the British, as well as training and advice. They have alway decided thier own policies and are very indipendant. They may have appeared to be siding with the USSR but that is more to do with the US paranoia that if you weren't for them you were agianst them.
India during the cold war took full advantage of the USSR and US to benifit themselves, and well done them!

The UN is not Anti American.
How so?

You still have your undemocratic veto that doesnt let the UN interfere in conflicts such as Palestina.
As if 'undemocratic' is automatically a pejorative, hah. Anyhow, Russia, China, France, and the UK also have this "undemocratic veto", so what are you moaning about?
In fact its that undemocratic pro "big boys" BS that keeps the UN from being what it should be.

Once again, there's your wanking-induced pejorative "undemocratic". Prove that this "undemocratic pro "big boys" BS" keeps the UN from being exactly what it "should be", whatever that may be. Face up to reality, the big boys will always run the world. Without even the semblance of patronage from the oh-so-evil "big boys", the UN would be even less relevant than it currently is.

Nuclear weapons are nothing more than a threat to mankind.
Bullshit, nuclear weapons were the only thing that stopped the USA and USSR from starting a Third World War. Nuclear weapons are currently the greatest stabilizing force in the world. The threat of nuclear war makes military conflict between major powers far less likely.
They should all be destroyed.
Why, because you can't think beyond typical liberal neo-hippy dogma?

Why would the UN be Anti-American? Because they dont agree on your foreign policy? Then in that case there are many countries who are against the UN. America is Anti-UN, not allowing its criminals to be sent to The Hague, or do you have something to hide?

I dont want Veto's, not for the US and not for any of those 4 others, so what are you moaning about?

I dont have to prove that the pro big boys BS keeps the UN from being what it should. Look around you, Chechnia, Palestina, Iraq... Those problems could all be resolved through the UN. Right now the big boys just use their Veto and the fighting contues.
Are we back to the Stone age? survival of the fittest. Ok, then i'll go buy myself a Naziflag and become negationist.

The Cold war is a big scam, I've recently had the chance to read the work of a proffessor in 'International relations'. The only reason they didnt attack eachother was because they could gain more from the Cold War situation.
Do you really think you could stop a Soviet assault with the threat or use of a nuclear weapon? Dream on.
Or do you truelly believe you can launch a weapon at an enemy without being harmed? They dont even have to return fire to kill you, the results of the explosion will do that for them.

india will be airdropping care packages of food and medicine to the u.s. when the rest of the world is boycotting u.s. arms and tecnology shipments in a unanimous alliance of self defence against the u.s.'s former ambitions of world dictatorship after the collapse of the international automotive and petrolium based tecnolgy trade due to the final and irriversable depletion of international oil reserves.

=^^=
.../\...

Big friggin' woop. So we're not the mighty eagles of the sky anymore. No problem. Unlike India, we can afford (not really, but debt means nothing to us) the latest in military technology. Granted, technology can't cure all our problems, but with our good pilots, our stellar equipment, and what not, we will still dominate the sky. And even if we don't, we still have alot of troops, and tanks, and nukes (can't forget those bad bitchez), and I mean alot. If we really wanted, we could take out India, not that I'm saying we should. Infact, I think that the more wars we get into, and the more money we flush down the military toilet, the more we overlook all the stuff we could do to get us on good terms with the entire world. Like with all the money we spend on the military, we could build water treatment plants in China (well, only if they let us) so that they could get clean, disease free water, and maybe be able to grow enough crops to feed everyone there. Or we could give aid to the countries that really really need it, and help install DEMOCRATIC governments there. Help put educational facilities in poor countries like, Sudan, and Zaire (don't wanna spell out the whole name), not the ones WE want, but the ones wit hthings they want taught in them. Hell, we could improve our education system. The list is endless, and it can all be done withut violence. It can be done with flowers, and love, man! If we're gonna fight a war against a country to get rid of their non-existent WMD's, then we should get rid of our own. That's right! And maybe we should obey the laws of the UN. I don't give a flyin' fuck if their headquarters are on our soil, we should follow their rules, if we don't then what's the point of being in it? And we should also actually do what we say we do, and actually do something to further democracy. I don't think that endorsing mass murderer despots in Cambodia, or assasinating a democratically elected president in some Latin American country and replacing him with a brutal totalitarian regime. Maybe, jsut maybe, we should stop being a bunch of hippocrites, and do the crap we say we do. The US its self is slipping into a dictatorship of sorts, or at very least an oligarchy. We give up our precious rights, for protection from a alomst non-existent terrorist threat. All we have to fear really is the people who take away our rights, and I think we all know who I'm talkign about.

All this talk of the equipment, could it be that the Indian pilots were better?
Many (but not all) the pilots in India are British trained as are many of the air forces around the world. And British pilots have a very good record.
Not taking anything away from US pilots, but it is worth asking, if the equipment is ok is there a training need?
Well, they always have to be prepared for a (possibly nuclear) war with Pakistan, so I'm sure they devote a lot of effort into training their fighter pilots, as aerial superiority is of the utmost importance. I wouldn't be surprised if they adopted their training regimen and doctrine from the Soviets. They were, after all, a client state of the USSR.
I don't think you could ever describe India as a client state of the USSR, they are after all the world largest democracy.
So what if they're the world's largest democracy? How does that exclude them from having been a client state (in this case, I mean a major purchaser of military hardware) of the USSR? At any rate, they WERE during the Cold War a client state of the USSR, just as Pakistan was during the Cold War a client state of the USA. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself. Well, at least by my above-defined definition of "client state", so don't be pedantic jackasses.
Ha! According to this "definition", UK is a client state of the French, since the French are building Britain's new aircraft carrier. And China is a client state of Russia, what with all those purchase of navy destroyers and fighter aircraft. Very sloppy, Mr Tuna.

The UN is not Anti American.
How so?

You still have your undemocratic veto that doesnt let the UN interfere in conflicts such as Palestina.
As if 'undemocratic' is automatically a pejorative, hah. Anyhow, Russia, China, France, and the UK also have this "undemocratic veto", so what are you moaning about?
In fact its that undemocratic pro "big boys" BS that keeps the UN from being what it should be.

Once again, there's your wanking-induced pejorative "undemocratic". Prove that this "undemocratic pro "big boys" BS" keeps the UN from being exactly what it "should be", whatever that may be. Face up to reality, the big boys will always run the world. Without even the semblance of patronage from the oh-so-evil "big boys", the UN would be even less relevant than it currently is.

Nuclear weapons are nothing more than a threat to mankind.
Bullshit, nuclear weapons were the only thing that stopped the USA and USSR from starting a Third World War. Nuclear weapons are currently the greatest stabilizing force in the world. The threat of nuclear war makes military conflict between major powers far less likely.
They should all be destroyed.
Why, because you can't think beyond typical liberal neo-hippy dogma?

Why would the UN be Anti-American? Because they dont agree on your foreign policy? Then in that case there are many countries who are against the UN. America is Anti-UN, not allowing its criminals to be sent to The Hague, or do you have something to hide?

I dont want Veto's, not for the US and not for any of those 4 others, so what are you moaning about?

I dont have to prove that the pro big boys BS keeps the UN from being what it should. Look around you, Chechnia, Palestina, Iraq... Those problems could all be resolved through the UN. Right now the big boys just use their Veto and the fighting contues.
Are we back to the Stone age? survival of the fittest. Ok, then i'll go buy myself a Naziflag and become negationist.

The Cold war is a big scam, I've recently had the chance to read the work of a proffessor in 'International relations'. The only reason they didnt attack eachother was because they could gain more from the Cold War situation.
Do you really think you could stop a Soviet assault with the threat or use of a nuclear weapon? Dream on.
Or do you truelly believe you can launch a weapon at an enemy without being harmed? They dont even have to return fire to kill you, the results of the explosion will do that for them.

In other words, you haven't any evidence. You haven't provided any support whatsoever for your outrageous claims, just circular logic and moronic accusations. Concession accepted.

Ha! According to this "definition", UK is a client state of the French, since the French are building Britain's new aircraft carrier. And China is a client state of Russia, what with all those purchase of navy destroyers and fighter aircraft. Very sloppy, Mr Tuna
You're right, I should have worded it better.