NOYB wrote:
"Thom" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:53:33 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

I would be more inclinded to believe that if the crews and missiles
were Syrian it was to test the missiles' abilities against the best we
have and or to give Bush a message as to what happens to the M-1 if he
does cross the border. The Syrians also have superior Sukhoi aircaft
but I doubt very seriously if they have the pilot skills to press the
weapon system to best advantage though like the Indonesians (now with
the SU-30) they may have been trained in Russia.


Then why didn't the Syrians use those "superior" SU-30's to go after the
American-made F-16's that buzzed Assad's palace? Afterall, you claim that
the Syrians have all of this superior weaponry, and the Israelis are using
decades old American-made stuff.

Perhaps the Syrians don't want to tip their hand...the US isn't all that
capable in the world of intel...


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Thom" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:53:33 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

I would be more inclinded to believe that if the crews and missiles
were Syrian it was to test the missiles' abilities against the best we
have and or to give Bush a message as to what happens to the M-1 if he
does cross the border. The Syrians also have superior Sukhoi aircaft
but I doubt very seriously if they have the pilot skills to press the
weapon system to best advantage though like the Indonesians (now with
the SU-30) they may have been trained in Russia.


Then why didn't the Syrians use those "superior" SU-30's to go after the
American-made F-16's that buzzed Assad's palace? Afterall, you claim
that
the Syrians have all of this superior weaponry, and the Israelis are
using
decades old American-made stuff.

Perhaps the Syrians don't want to tip their hand...the US isn't all that
capable in the world of intel...

Bzzzzzt. The correct answer: Israeli would have wiped 'em off the map in a
few days. Syria has 30 SU-30's.

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Thom" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:53:33 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

I would be more inclinded to believe that if the crews and missiles
were Syrian it was to test the missiles' abilities against the best we
have and or to give Bush a message as to what happens to the M-1 if he
does cross the border. The Syrians also have superior Sukhoi aircaft
but I doubt very seriously if they have the pilot skills to press the
weapon system to best advantage though like the Indonesians (now with
the SU-30) they may have been trained in Russia.


Then why didn't the Syrians use those "superior" SU-30's to go after the
American-made F-16's that buzzed Assad's palace? Afterall, you claim
that
the Syrians have all of this superior weaponry, and the Israelis are
using
decades old American-made stuff.

Perhaps the Syrians don't want to tip their hand...the US isn't all that
capable in the world of intel...

Bzzzzzt. The correct answer: Israeli would have wiped 'em off the map in a
few days. Syria has 30 SU-30's.



Now you think you understand the IDF?

Puh-lease.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:41:47 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Sun, 19 Sep 2004 09:04:38 GMT in
misc.survivalism :

Pragmatic uses of capitalist tools to earn hard currency doesnt make
them Capitalists, when their core Dilectic remains Communist, any
more than my shooting a 1891 Mosin Nagant makes me Communist.

Of course not. Using a 1891 Mosin Nagant would make you a Tsarist
Imperialist. :-) It is using a 1938 Mosin Nagant which makes you a
communist. (or a 1930 or 1944 model).

Why would you want to shoot Mosin Nagant?

Later,

Tom
-----------
"Angling may be said to be so
like the mathematics that it
can never be fully learnt..."

Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:58:38 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Thom" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:53:33 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

I would be more inclinded to believe that if the crews and missiles
were Syrian it was to test the missiles' abilities against the best we
have and or to give Bush a message as to what happens to the M-1 if he
does cross the border. The Syrians also have superior Sukhoi aircaft
but I doubt very seriously if they have the pilot skills to press the
weapon system to best advantage though like the Indonesians (now with
the SU-30) they may have been trained in Russia.


Then why didn't the Syrians use those "superior" SU-30's to go after the
American-made F-16's that buzzed Assad's palace? Afterall, you claim
that
the Syrians have all of this superior weaponry, and the Israelis are
using
decades old American-made stuff.

Perhaps the Syrians don't want to tip their hand...the US isn't all that
capable in the world of intel...

Bzzzzzt. The correct answer: Israeli would have wiped 'em off the map in a
few days. Syria has 30 SU-30's.

That sounds about right but it also has a lot of Mig-25's which we
haven't been able to shoot down. Again, the issue of the airborne
command posts comes in.

Again, we could probably win but at what cost?

THOM

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:58:59 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Thom" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:53:33 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

I would be more inclinded to believe that if the crews and missiles
were Syrian it was to test the missiles' abilities against the best we
have and or to give Bush a message as to what happens to the M-1 if he
does cross the border. The Syrians also have superior Sukhoi aircaft
but I doubt very seriously if they have the pilot skills to press the
weapon system to best advantage though like the Indonesians (now with
the SU-30) they may have been trained in Russia.


Then why didn't the Syrians use those "superior" SU-30's to go after the
American-made F-16's that buzzed Assad's palace? Afterall, you claim
that
the Syrians have all of this superior weaponry, and the Israelis are
using
decades old American-made stuff.

Perhaps the Syrians don't want to tip their hand...the US isn't all that
capable in the world of intel...

Bzzzzzt. The correct answer: Israeli would have wiped 'em off the map in a
few days. Syria has 30 SU-30's.



Now you think you understand the IDF?

the IAF really needs to get new and better stuff. The best it has is
some newer F-151 THUNDERs. The F-151 is still older than the newest
Russian stuff though.

THOM

Puh-lease.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Q
wrote back on Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:05:00 -0500 in
misc.survivalism :
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:41:47 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Of course not. Using a 1891 Mosin Nagant would make you a Tsarist
Imperialist. :-) It is using a 1938 Mosin Nagant which makes you a
communist. (or a 1930 or 1944 model).

Or, would you have to multiply the result by .5? One of the designers
is innocent of all charges.

Hrmmm This leads into one of those odd conundrums which keeps me up
afternoons. When it comes time to shoot the neo-Nazis, should you use one
of the battle rifles of the Allies which defeated the Hitlerite Fascists
threat the first time (the Enfield, the M-1, or the Mosin Nagant 38/44? )
or can you use one of the battle rifles of the Third Reich, such as the
Mauser 38, or the various "MaschinePistolen"?
Or do you go for the complete Irony, and wax them with an Uzi or Galial
(the products of the Israelis Arm industry?)



--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 05:50:03 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Hrmmm This leads into one of those odd conundrums which keeps me up
afternoons. When it comes time to shoot the neo-Nazis, should you use one
of the battle rifles of the Allies which defeated the Hitlerite Fascists
threat the first time (the Enfield, the M-1, or the Mosin Nagant 38/44? )
or can you use one of the battle rifles of the Third Reich, such as the
Mauser 38, or the various "MaschinePistolen"?
Or do you go for the complete Irony, and wax them with an Uzi or Galial
(the products of the Israelis Arm industry?)

Use the one designed by the Canadian, say I.

To Pyotr:
Thank You

To some others:
Thank you for the fish -- as to the sourness, next time.

--
I/O

"Thom" wrote in message
...

Then why didn't the Syrians use those "superior" SU-30's to go after the
American-made F-16's that buzzed Assad's palace? Afterall, you claim
that
the Syrians have all of this superior weaponry, and the Israelis are
using
decades old American-made stuff.

no I didn't claim that. They have some SU-30's and are out numbered.
if I was the Syrian AF/CO I'ed use the 30's and their MiG-25's (and
remember we have never been able to shoot down a MiG-25, even Saddams)


Not true. Two MiG-25's were shot down by F-15's during the Persian Gulf
War. A third MiG-25 was shot down on 12/25/92 by an USAF F-15.


On 3/13/81, 7/29/81, and 8/31/82, the IAF (flying US-Made F-15's) shot down
3 MiG-25 Foxbats



How many F-15's have been defeated in combat? ;-)

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:31:40 GMT
in misc.survivalism :

That's why they laughed so hard when US newpapers portrayed
them as Chinese puppets!

The Vietnamese and Chinese have had a love/hate relationship for many
years.

Still doesnt refute my statements, and you still look like an utter
dickhead. As does Haywierd.

And the Vietnamese and the Chinese are still Communists.

My observation of events in that area in the late 1970s was that having
eliminated the running dog capitalists, it was time for the Fraternal
Socialists Brothers to get back to what has always been important: tribal
warfare. With the Viet trying to bring Civilization to the Khymer, and
the Chinese once again attempting to bring the benefits of the Mandate of
Heaven to their wayward 'little brothers'.

Never underestimate the ability for tribalism to express itself in_any_
perfect system.

Sat Cong!

What he said.

Gunner

p.s. just heard a variation on your observation about opinions. "Their
like armpits: everybody has a couple and they both stink!"

--
pyotr filipivich
Next Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them, Selecting a new Them