Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Bearkiller72

  1. Good pilot! And insane ider!

    ...and this one surely got grounded for some time... http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=ApM_f-jBlP0&...feature=related And the crew on this one surely had one helluva ride! http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=OowzP5280mQ&...feature=related
  2. Overall: Biplanes, especially those of the 30's Stearmans, Tiger Moths, Stampes, Stieglitzes, He-51's, Gladiators, etc.etc.. I can't really say why, but it's a compassion that has been with me since my childhood, their looks, their sound, I don't know what... Era specific, I'd go for these: 1914-18: can't say, except the aforementioned; 1918-39: see above ; 1939-45: now we're really talking ;-) 1st (shared) FW-190 "Dora" & Spit Mk.IX, for their handling, manouverabilty, speed & "decent" armament; the Spit for being the most beautiful & elegant fighter ever built, the "Dora" for it's sleek line and the Jumo engine, giving it enough bite to stay on a Mustang's tail 2nd P-38 Lightning, "the fork-tailed-devil", nothing more to say, creative design, coupled with kick-a$ power; 3rd (shared) Ju-88, Mosquito, for their outstanding versatility, MRCA's when nobody knew that term, followed sharply by the B-25 Mitchell, USAAF's workhorse! 1945-1953: 1st Sea Fury, fell in love with it when I played CFS2. The last real piston-engined fighter, and a beauty too! 2nd (shared) MiG-15 & F-86, the first for it's power, the latter for it's beauty... 1953-1960: 1st Hawker Hunter, beutiful and versatile, pure elegance. 2nd Avro Vulcan, never seen one in flight , but stood under it in Hendon , my favourite cold-war bomber; 1960-1975: 1st (shared) F-4 Phantom II (especially the Spey powered versions, even more vicious looks ), benchmark for a whole generation of fighters and that look! As if Frankenstein made an aircraft (Igor! It's flying, it's flying, HAHAHAHAAA! )! F-106 Delta Dagger, wow! What a lady! USADC's mainstay for decades, sleek & fast, quite the opposite of the F-4 in looks... 2nd (shared) E.E. Lightning, the "king of the climbrate", even F-16's had their problems with them in manouevers , I really dig those unconventional Britsh designs! Mirage III. Unconventional as well, but I have to say, much more elegant... 3rd A-7 Corsair II, no other single engined fighter bomber could carry more than the SLUF, amazing! 1975-today: I'd say the Su-3X "Flanker" series. Outstanding power and manouverabilty. Too bad the Russians aren't up to state-of-the-art electronics. Typhoon (Eurofighter). A lot of my tax money and that of my dad has been blown into this, so I better like it! Thanx for the poll!
  3. France may rejoin NATO

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p1BseAzgS4 "I'm Palpat and I approve this video". [/endquote] And we, the beariest of the Bearkiller's say: some really interesting points, this man has. Some have to be proven, some are already true, I sadly admit. But he makes one mistake: the S.U. was a militia governed, totaliaristic state, similar to the 3rd Reich. The E.U. is not, all it's member states are democratic. "We, the people", have the ability, the means and the chance, to change a few major things, something people in the U.S.S.R. couldn't. But I'm afraid, "we, the people", won't change anything, because getting politically active has gotten out of fashion since 1980. Well, not true. Only the numbers have shrunk, Parka's are out of fashion and if you're getting active in the political field nowadays, you do so because of the bucks you'll get. Nothing more, nothing else (matters). Like German comedian Ingo Appelt once said: "Whoah, there they are, half a million young people, gathering on the streets of Berlin and you think, wow, this is revolution! Frak! Love Parade! Butskbutskbutsk! Revolution just gets you out of beat! Love Parade! Pah!" The scary alternative is, and that's where you and the Russian gentleman are absolutely right, a "Big-Brother" state, like in "1984". But if you look around the globe you will see, that other states are going the same direction, legitimizing this by pointing to the danger of terrorism (this does not apply to the U.S.A. exclusively, the Russians and the Chinese have similar terms, if not the same. "Goldstein" is all around") There is, of course, a real threat from terrorists all over the world, but who can say whether the bomb some cop found is really signed with Osama's signature... I'll stop here, else I lose myself in my more deeper fears of a global "Oceania"... Anyway, it's been a pleasure having this discussion with you, let's hope for the best and expect the worst, for our future! ^S! and all the best for you, Bearkiller72!
  4. France may rejoin NATO

    Right. I read your answers and have to say, I'm pleased to get such results! Originally I planned not to answer, but some things are better said... We are not the US, born in the hope of freedom and united for it.[/endquote] Right.We ain't. But we are an assembly of countries that has fought wars against each other for the last 10 centuries (that's more than thousand years, mind you!). Why shouldn't there be a time when we crazy dudes shake hands and recognize each other? Remember, that's something that's been going on since the late '40's! Something that would have been an impossibility 100 years ago! Remember Churchill (post-war), De Gaulle and Adenauer? There's a chance of a lifetime, let's roll and use it! Nowadays so-called "european idea" is just some dreams from statist technocrats whose main purpose is to limit more and more member states rights to govern themselves in the way they want.[/endquote] That is what's always going to happen in a union, that's what happened to the American states in 1776, to the French in 1789 and to the Germans in 1871. US states are more free within the Union that we are in the EU. And those people aren't even elected![/endquote] They aren't? That's something new to me... Are they something like Breshnew? Elected for life? What do you mean by that? And how do you define freedom within a union, please give an example. And please remember, the U.S. nowadays is a grown structure, the E.U. is still defining it's structure... as I said "toddler ages". The very fundations of the EU are bad. That would be Union would be nothing but some tyrannical supra-governement whose goal would be to suppress any national feeling in exchange for an artificial and progressist european ideal.[/endquote] That's rather short-sighted. Imagine yourself back in 1775, somewhere in Massachussetts, and somebody approached you and talked about the idea of having a self-governed state, not dependent on the British "Motherland". What would you have said? Perhaps this: "No way, governing all these states without the King's consent might end up in chaos!" And when I see suburbs of Paris burning, Spanish trucks block major highways, massed protesters going against the G8 summit in Germany, there is something burning in the soul of our people, a fire even the most conservatists in Bruxelles can't ignore. Don't you be too fast in your judgement... Something has changed around here, people realize that they are not only close to each other, they are depending... Parting this "Euro-Thing" is impossible, uniting it further takes time, but eventually will work out. Dude, take off your shades, this is the 21st century, something new is glooming on the horizon; I don't know if it's good or bad for the world, but I'm absolutely sure, it's gonna be amazing! Just give it time and let go of your cold-war resentments. Don't become a relic of the past... P.S. just for your relaxation: politicians are all the same, all over the world; they're selfish egomaniacs, no matter if they're Europeans, Americans, Asians or Arabs!
  5. France may rejoin NATO

    It's good also because it can help to slow down the build up of a so-called european army whose goals are to compete with the US, not stand by them.[/endquote] What's that supposed to mean? Why are you afraid of a "European Army"? You might not have noticed, but there is something of a "European Union" (and business competiveness against U.S. companies is almost at the all out war level). The E.U. might be still in it's toddler ages, but it will become mature and emerge as the "United States of Europe" some day in the not too distant future. So, why shouldn't we have our own armed forces? In the past 15 Years NATO members have only had the sole purpose to get their a$$es shot off for U.S. Gov' interests and to clean up the mess & rubble the GI's have left behind. Nato hasn't been 'just' a counter to the Warsaw Pact for almost 20 years. It's purpose has evolved beyond grouping member countries under an organisational umbrella to counter any mass eastern bloc assault.[/endquote] NATO was originally formed as a successor to "SHAEF", the high command of brit/U.S. troops invading Europe and Germany. Originally it was designed with the Germans as enemy in mind, but as history changed it's course, the enemies name did. Oh, and it wasn't just 20 Years, it was 45+ years Nowadays NATO to me seems somewhat outdated; the "commie" threat is gone, the cold war also. New enemies had to be spotted to keep the machine oiled and running, the cards have been shuffled again. There are new "major" players and the U.S. have proven that they are able to undertake large-scale operations on their own. So do we really need "NATO" anymore? Speaking as a proud supporter of the European idea, I'd say no and vote "Yes" for a European Army. (While of course our weak-kneed "Eurocrats", lacking of energy and imagination will care for the "slowing-down" process themselves. ) Hope I didn't insult anybody, Cheers!

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..