Plimer and Silicon Chip

"KR" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4662fb75-9e37-49c2-9e3f-c6a06b9355d9@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
The only problem was the cost involved in building/maintaining it when
compared to traditional nuclear power stations.
Click to expand...
Partly why they said the Chinese were still preparing to build dozens of
conventional reactor power plants.

MrT.
 
"Davo" <Dave@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4acec021$1_6@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
It's only the deterrent effect of having America standing behind us that
Australia hasn't been invaded by other countries. Australia wouldn't
stand a chance on its own. It's cool to be anti-establishment but
totally unrealistic to think we don't depend on America for our
security. China would be here in a flash otherwise.
Click to expand...
Bollocks. New Zealand pissed off the yanks when they banned nuclear war
ships and reduced military co-operation. Nobody invaded them.
(Australia continued to be "invaded" by New Zealanders though :)

MrT.
 
"Davo" <Dave@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aceca78_6@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
So could China beat us or not?
Click to expand...
Any time they wanted to.

MrT.
 
"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:hammm4$kia$2@news.eternal-september.org...
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:30:33 +0800, Davo wrote:

So could China beat us or not?

At home, probably not.
Click to expand...
Why on earth would you think that?
With over a Billion expendable people, *and* nuclear weapons, *and* their
own aircraft and ship building facilities, what makes you think we'd last a
week?

MrT.
 
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:haou2p$5ip$2@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Your politicians have effectively disarmed the populace!!!!!!!! Silly
buggers.
Click to expand...
Single shot rifles are no match for nuclear weapons in any case.

MrT.
 
"Jasen Betts" <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:haps18$vj6$1@reversiblemaps.ath.cx...
The you don't seem to get is the other allies made greater sacrifices.
Click to expand...
Maybe he should instead be thanking those allies who helped the yanks fight
wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan they had no real interest in,
(at their own expense, and largely with equipment bought and paid for from
USA companies I might add!) especially when even the UN was against the US
invasion of Iraq.
So the allies are still paying for any perceived war "debts" it would seem
to me. I think it's the USA who should be grateful now.

MrT.
 
"keithr" <keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4acef66b$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Not to mention THE bomb.

Largely developed by dissident german scientists.
Click to expand...
Don't confuse him with facts.

MrT.
 
On Oct 11, 3:33 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
"Davo" <D...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4acec021$1_6@news.peopletelecom.com.au...

It's only the deterrent effect of having America standing behind us that
Australia hasn't been invaded by other countries. Australia wouldn't
stand a chance on its own. It's cool to be anti-establishment but
totally unrealistic to think we don't depend on America for our
security. China would be here in a flash otherwise.

Bollocks. New Zealand pissed off the yanks when they banned nuclear war
ships and reduced military co-operation. Nobody invaded them.
(Australia continued to be "invaded" by New Zealanders though :)

MrT.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, NZ hasn't got a defense force at all.

Im told that its an extremely hard place to invade to start with
 
"KR" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa81d355-a13e-4db8-9b59-a5c83f177837@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 11, 3:33 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
"Davo" <D...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4acec021$1_6@news.peopletelecom.com.au...

It's only the deterrent effect of having America standing behind us
that
Australia hasn't been invaded by other countries. Australia wouldn't
stand a chance on its own. It's cool to be anti-establishment but
totally unrealistic to think we don't depend on America for our
security. China would be here in a flash otherwise.

Bollocks. New Zealand pissed off the yanks when they banned nuclear war
ships and reduced military co-operation. Nobody invaded them.
(Australia continued to be "invaded" by New Zealanders though :)

MrT.


AFAIK, NZ hasn't got a defense force at all.

Im told that its an extremely hard place to invade to start with
Click to expand...
**Nope. There's just no point.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell Retarded Looney "
The Russians, using American built planes and supplies.
** The Yanks supplied Russia with inferior fighter planes ( P39s) that no
American wanted to fly against the Japanese or Germans. Gave a few of
them
to black US pilots to fly too.

You think they deserved better planes?
** The Russians built and flew their own planes against the German
vasion - tens of thousand of them.

Your claims are utter crap.

What is a 'vasion'? They only buit a small percentage of the planes,
when compared to what the US supplied.
Click to expand...
The Russians built 36,163 IL2 and IL10 aircraft, are you saying that the
US gave them more planes than that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2
 
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell Retarded Looney "
The Russians, using American built planes and supplies.
** The Yanks supplied Russia with inferior fighter planes ( P39s) that no
American wanted to fly against the Japanese or Germans. Gave a few of
them
to black US pilots to fly too.

You think they deserved better planes?
** The Russians built and flew their own planes against the German
vasion - tens of thousand of them.

Your claims are utter crap.

What is a 'vasion'? They only buit a small percentage of the planes,
when compared to what the US supplied.
Click to expand...
I found these figures for lend-lease items given to Russia on the
internet, accuracy not guaranteed

Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Non iron metals.....................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs

On that basis, the Russians built far more aircraft than the US gave them.
 
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
terryc wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 06:25:22 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:29:07 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell Retarded Looney "

The Russians, using American built planes and supplies.
** The Yanks supplied Russia with inferior fighter planes ( P39s)
that no American wanted to fly against the Japanese or Germans. Gave
a few of them to black US pilots to fly too.
Women flew them, too. Big deal.
So you are confirming that USAian males think their women are lesser
people.
See? You have to attack everything. That was not what I said.
But it is. Someone suggested the the planes SOLD, not given, to the USSR
were substandard planes in the view of white pilots, but black pilots
were still required to fly them. To which you joined they were also
"flown" by women. Now you are attempting weasel out by saying you ddn't
mean flown (as in fighting), but "flown" as in transfer flights.

The point was that they were flown by more than the Russians.
You still have to provide that evidence.


Prove that they weren't. Our pilots were trained in anything that
flew, including crop dusters to free up the best planes for use
overseas. The planes sent to Russia were a lot better than what was
used to train our pilots. Some leaned to fly in patched together
biplanes
Click to expand...
The vast majority of WWII pilots of all nations trained in biplanes.

I guess that you have no concept of not giving your most
advanced weapons to other armies, so they can't be used against you?
Please, I've seen the crap you share with the Australian army.


Maybe we should just keep it and replace what our troops are using.
A lot of US military units in Iraq & Afghanistan are using equipment and
weapons that were to be scrapped.
Click to expand...
 
On Oct 10, 8:33 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:

 "Michael A. Terrell Retarded Looney "

** The Russians built and flew their own planes against the German
invasion   - tens of thousand of them.

   Your claims are utter crap.

  What is a 'invasion'?  They only buit a small percentage of the planes,
when compared to what the US supplied.

 ** Massive  FUCKING   lie  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 Go eat shit you vile,  septic  MOTHERFUCKER  !!

   Are you ever going to grow up and admit your mistakes?  You changed
the word from 'vasion' to 'invasion'.  You don't fool anyone, except
yourself.  You and Bill Slomanmake Australians look like raving fools.
Click to expand...
Since Michael Terrell obviously doesn't know about the Stormvik ground
attack aircraft,

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_stormovik.html

of which the Russians built 36,000 - more than the 21,000 planes they
got from the USA - he would seem to be a better candidate for the
raving fool position.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385548/posts

His claims about the absence of high octane aviation fule in Europe in
WW2 are also represent another area of ignorance on his part - he
obviously doesn't know about "cracking" heavy crude to produce lower
molecular weight hydrocarbons to be sold as gasoline - a process that
was originally invented before 1900, and was in general use before
WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_(chemistry)

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4ad161a7$0$3253$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:haou2p$5ip$2@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Your politicians have effectively disarmed the populace!!!!!!!! Silly
buggers.

Single shot rifles are no match for nuclear weapons in any case.
Click to expand...
**Nor is anything in the hands of the most rapid gun nutter. American gun
nutters fail to recognise this simple point. Against the most ancient
technology, still in active service in the US military (B-52 Bombers - ca
1952), civilans have zero defence. Hell, even some very well equipped
military forces have no defence against them.

Guns, in the hands of civilians are simply no match for a well equipped,
well trained military force.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
terryc wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:26:13 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Oh, you want me to point to "the truth" as written by the USA armed
forces? Hell, even your own WWII veteran piss all over "the official
history".

Have you ever talked to any US W.W.II Veterans?

Yes, that is why I could make the comment.
Click to expand...

Once again, you snipped most of the message. You'r more like Phil,
the wanabe SS Trooper every day.


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
 
"Mr.T" wrote:
"Jasen Betts" <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:haps18$vj6$1@reversiblemaps.ath.cx...
The you don't seem to get is the other allies made greater sacrifices.

Maybe he should instead be thanking those allies who helped the yanks fight
wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan they had no real interest in,
(at their own expense, and largely with equipment bought and paid for from
USA companies I might add!) especially when even the UN was against the US
invasion of Iraq.
So the allies are still paying for any perceived war "debts" it would seem
to me. I think it's the USA who should be grateful now.
Click to expand...

Anything else you'd like to toss out? The UN is a bunch of morons.
They can't even fly a plane without hitting a mountain.

<http://english.cctv.com/program/newshour/20091011/102143.shtml>


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
 
keithr wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell Retarded Looney "
The Russians, using American built planes and supplies.
** The Yanks supplied Russia with inferior fighter planes ( P39s) that no
American wanted to fly against the Japanese or Germans. Gave a few of
them
to black US pilots to fly too.

You think they deserved better planes?
** The Russians built and flew their own planes against the German
vasion - tens of thousand of them.

Your claims are utter crap.

What is a 'vasion'? They only buit a small percentage of the planes,
when compared to what the US supplied.


The Russians built 36,163 IL2 and IL10 aircraft, are you saying that the
US gave them more planes than that?
Click to expand...

I said we BUILT MORE PLANES than Russia. They wouldn't have taken
planes through the Lend Lease program if they could buiild everything
they needed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2
Click to expand...

--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
 
keithr wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell Retarded Looney "
The Russians, using American built planes and supplies.
** The Yanks supplied Russia with inferior fighter planes ( P39s) that no
American wanted to fly against the Japanese or Germans. Gave a few of
them
to black US pilots to fly too.

You think they deserved better planes?
** The Russians built and flew their own planes against the German
vasion - tens of thousand of them.

Your claims are utter crap.

What is a 'vasion'? They only buit a small percentage of the planes,
when compared to what the US supplied.

I found these figures for lend-lease items given to Russia on the
internet, accuracy not guaranteed

Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Non iron metals.....................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs

On that basis, the Russians built far more aircraft than the US gave them.
Click to expand...

Russia wasn't the only country supplied though that program.


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
 
keithr wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
terryc wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 06:25:22 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:29:07 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell Retarded Looney "

The Russians, using American built planes and supplies.
** The Yanks supplied Russia with inferior fighter planes ( P39s)
that no American wanted to fly against the Japanese or Germans. Gave
a few of them to black US pilots to fly too.
Women flew them, too. Big deal.
So you are confirming that USAian males think their women are lesser
people.
See? You have to attack everything. That was not what I said.
But it is. Someone suggested the the planes SOLD, not given, to the USSR
were substandard planes in the view of white pilots, but black pilots
were still required to fly them. To which you joined they were also
"flown" by women. Now you are attempting weasel out by saying you ddn't
mean flown (as in fighting), but "flown" as in transfer flights.

The point was that they were flown by more than the Russians.
You still have to provide that evidence.


Prove that they weren't. Our pilots were trained in anything that
flew, including crop dusters to free up the best planes for use
overseas. The planes sent to Russia were a lot better than what was
used to train our pilots. Some leaned to fly in patched together
biplanes

The vast majority of WWII pilots of all nations trained in biplanes.
Click to expand...

And you think the warplanes the US supplied were worse?

I guess that you have no concept of not giving your most
advanced weapons to other armies, so they can't be used against you?
Please, I've seen the crap you share with the Australian army.


Maybe we should just keep it and replace what our troops are using.
A lot of US military units in Iraq & Afghanistan are using equipment and
weapons that were to be scrapped.
Click to expand...

--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
 
"Mr.T" wrote:
"keithr" <keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4acef66b$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Not to mention THE bomb.

Largely developed by dissident german scientists.

Don't confuse him with facts.
Click to expand...

Confuse who? It is a well know fact in WW-II history.


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top