Re: russian jet pilots in korean war?

[ville terminale]

Michael P. Reed > wrote in message >...
> In message >, gayboy wrote:
>
> > how good were they against american pilots?
>
> They were better than the Chinese pilots, and if you believe Soviet claims,
> they shot down near the entire production run of F-86s. <g>


of course they are nonsense. an american pilot was probably 5 times
as good as the best russian pilot.

[john]

"ville terminale" > wrote in message
om...
> Michael P. Reed > wrote in message
>...
> > In message >, gayboy
wrote:
> >
> > > how good were they against american pilots?
> >
> > They were better than the Chinese pilots, and if you believe Soviet
claims,
> > they shot down near the entire production run of F-86s. <g>
>
>
> of course they are nonsense. an american pilot was probably 5 times
> as good as the best russian pilot.

Just out of curious how do you come out with the claim the American pilot
was 5
time as good as the best russian pilot, I think you are talking rubbish.

[Stinky Pete]

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ville terminale" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Michael P. Reed > wrote in message
> >...
> > > In message >, gayboy
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > how good were they against american pilots?
> > >
> > > They were better than the Chinese pilots, and if you believe Soviet
> claims,
> > > they shot down near the entire production run of F-86s. <g>
> >
> >
> > of course they are nonsense. an american pilot was probably 5 times
> > as good as the best russian pilot.
>
> Just out of curious how do you come out with the claim the American pilot
> was 5
> time as good as the best russian pilot, I think you are talking rubbish.
>
>

One thing we do know...the Mig 15 was pretty useless unless it had the
British Rolls-Royce engine in it...which BTW, the design was stolen from a
German prototype. The Mig 15 wasn't really a Russian aircraft, it was much
more German in its origins.

[Stinky Pete]

id est..the design for the engine was stolen from the Brits. The design for
the aircraft was stolen from the Germans.


"Stinky Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ville terminale" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Michael P. Reed > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > In message >, gayboy
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > how good were they against american pilots?
> > > >
> > > > They were better than the Chinese pilots, and if you believe Soviet
> > claims,
> > > > they shot down near the entire production run of F-86s. <g>
> > >
> > >
> > > of course they are nonsense. an american pilot was probably 5 times
> > > as good as the best russian pilot.
> >
> > Just out of curious how do you come out with the claim the American
pilot
> > was 5
> > time as good as the best russian pilot, I think you are talking rubbish.
> >
> >
>
> One thing we do know...the Mig 15 was pretty useless unless it had the
> British Rolls-Royce engine in it...which BTW, the design was stolen from a
> German prototype. The Mig 15 wasn't really a Russian aircraft, it was much
> more German in its origins.
>
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"Stinky Pete" > wrote in message
...
> id est..the design for the engine was stolen from the Brits.

Not so much stolen as given away. The post war UK
government sold a small number of engines to the
USSR hoping for a larger order. All they did was
copy it.

Keith

[Michael P. Reed]

In message >, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
>
> "Stinky Pete" > wrote in message
> ...
> > id est..the design for the engine was stolen from the Brits.
>
> Not so much stolen as given away. The post war UK
> government sold a small number of engines to the
> USSR hoping for a larger order. All they did was
> copy it.

To bad the SCO Group was not around then, eh?

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

[ville terminale]

"john" > wrote in message >...
> "ville terminale" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Michael P. Reed > wrote in message
> >...
> > > In message >, gayboy
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > how good were they against american pilots?
> > >
> > > They were better than the Chinese pilots, and if you believe Soviet
> claims,
> > > they shot down near the entire production run of F-86s. <g>
> >
> >
> > of course they are nonsense. an american pilot was probably 5 times
> > as good as the best russian pilot.
>
> Just out of curious how do you come out with the claim the American pilot
> was 5
> time as good as the best russian pilot, I think you are talking rubbish.

better training, diet, morale, spirit, and better jets.

[David Thornley]

In article >,
Michael P. Reed > wrote:
>In message >, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
>>
>> Not so much stolen as given away. The post war UK
>> government sold a small number of engines to the
>> USSR hoping for a larger order. All they did was
>> copy it.
>
>To bad the SCO Group was not around then, eh?
>
Good thing for the Russians they didn't pirate software...or music CDs.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[john]

"ville terminale" > wrote in message
om...
> "john" > wrote in message
>...
> > "ville terminale" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Michael P. Reed > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > In message >, gayboy
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > how good were they against american pilots?
> > > >
> > > > They were better than the Chinese pilots, and if you believe Soviet
> > claims,
> > > > they shot down near the entire production run of F-86s. <g>
> > >
> > >
> > > of course they are nonsense. an american pilot was probably 5 times
> > > as good as the best russian pilot.
> >
> > Just out of curious how do you come out with the claim the American
pilot
> > was 5
> > time as good as the best russian pilot, I think you are talking rubbish.
>
> better training, diet, morale, spirit, and better jets.
None of the above are necesarily true at that time.

[Raymond Chuang]

"ville terminale" > wrote in message
om...

> of course they are nonsense. an american pilot was probably 5 times
> as good as the best russian pilot.

The Russian pilots acquited themselves well flying the MiG-15 in combat over
Korea but the fact they couldn't communicate in Russian and the problem of
the MiG-15 suffering from yaw instability problems above Mach 0.87 limited
the success of the plane. Indeed, a couple of Russian pilots tried to
outdive the F-86 but the MiG-15 ended up breaking up in the air instead.

--
Raymond Chuang
Sacramento, CA USA

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Raymond Chuang wrote:

> "ville terminale" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>
>>of course they are nonsense. an american pilot was probably 5 times
>>as good as the best russian pilot.
>
>
> The Russian pilots acquited themselves well flying the MiG-15 in combat over
> Korea but the fact they couldn't communicate in Russian and the problem of
> the MiG-15 suffering from yaw instability problems above Mach 0.87 limited
> the success of the plane. Indeed, a couple of Russian pilots tried to
> outdive the F-86 but the MiG-15 ended up breaking up in the air instead.
>
The US forces were in Korea as a part of the United nations peace
keeping forces defending South Korea.
Why were there Russian pilots flying for North Korea?
Why was Russia, still a member of the UN, clandestinely fighting
against the UN?

--
Rostyk

[Ron]

>The US forces were in Korea as a part of the United nations peace
>keeping forces defending South Korea.
>Why were there Russian pilots flying for North Korea?
>Why was Russia, still a member of the UN, clandestinely fighting
>against the UN?
>
>--
>Rostyk

Because according to North Korean and Soviet history, it was they who were
defending DRPK against those evil South Korea, US, and UN invaders, who started
the war by first invading North Korea :)

It is that same history, that allowed Soviet pilots to shoot down each of our
F-86s, multiple times each, to achieve their incredible kill numbers.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[George Z. Bush]

If you knew your history, or were around at the time, you'd know without being
told that the only reason the US was in that "police action" at all was that the
Soviet Union, during those relatively early UN Security Council days, took a
walk during one of their political snits when the subject came up for
discussion. The SC, in their absence, approved UN intervention in behalf of
South Korea; had the Soviet ambassador been present during that SC discussion,
they could easily (and undoubtedly would have) vetoed it, since they had the
right to do that as all original members of the Security Council could.

So, to answer your question, they fought in behalf of North Korea because North
Korea was one of their client states to whom they furnished all kinds of
military equipment and supplies, as well as the training in their use. They
fought for the NKs because they did not want the world to think their MIG
aircraft, in the hands of relatively green NK pilots, couldn't be competitive
with US military equipment. If they could have turned back the clock, there
wouldn't even have been a war, because they'd have prevented it from happening.
That's it, in a nutshell.

George Z.

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
...
> Raymond Chuang wrote:
>
> > "ville terminale" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >
> >>of course they are nonsense. an american pilot was probably 5 times
> >>as good as the best russian pilot.
> >
> >
> > The Russian pilots acquited themselves well flying the MiG-15 in combat over
> > Korea but the fact they couldn't communicate in Russian and the problem of
> > the MiG-15 suffering from yaw instability problems above Mach 0.87 limited
> > the success of the plane. Indeed, a couple of Russian pilots tried to
> > outdive the F-86 but the MiG-15 ended up breaking up in the air instead.
> >
> The US forces were in Korea as a part of the United nations peace
> keeping forces defending South Korea.
> Why were there Russian pilots flying for North Korea?
> Why was Russia, still a member of the UN, clandestinely fighting
> against the UN?
>
> --
> Rostyk
>

[Cub Driver]

>Why was Russia, still a member of the UN, clandestinely fighting
>against the UN?

Russia had walked out of the Security Council some time prior to the
North Korean invasion of the south. That (and only that) made possible
the UN's decision to send troops to Korea. Otherwise Russia would have
exercised its veto.

Given that the war had been started--literally--behind its back,
Russia presumably felt no obligation to abide by the UN's decision,
any more than China did.

("Communist China" in 1950 was not a member of the UN, Security
Council or otherwise. The Chinese seat was held by "Free China" aka
Taiwan, when Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT had removed themselves the
previous year.)

Russia never again made the mistake of walking out on the Security
Council.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

George Z. Bush wrote:

> If you knew your history, or were around at the time, you'd know without being
> told that the only reason the US was in that "police action" at all was that the
> Soviet Union, during those relatively early UN Security Council days, took a
> walk during one of their political snits when the subject came up for
> discussion. The SC, in their absence, approved UN intervention in behalf of
> South Korea; had the Soviet ambassador been present during that SC discussion,
> they could easily (and undoubtedly would have) vetoed it, since they had the
> right to do that as all original members of the Security Council could.

Common knowledge.

>
> So, to answer your question, they fought in behalf of North Korea because North
> Korea was one of their client states to whom they furnished all kinds of
> military equipment and supplies, as well as the training in their use. They
> fought for the NKs because they did not want the world to think their MIG
> aircraft, in the hands of relatively green NK pilots, couldn't be competitive
> with US military equipment. If they could have turned back the clock, there
> wouldn't even have been a war, because they'd have prevented it from happening.
> That's it, in a nutshell.
>
> George Z.

So you explain, interpret, this as an expression of
simple commercial interests ? ;-)

[George Z. Bush]

Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> George Z. Bush wrote:
>
>> If you knew your history, or were around at the time, you'd know without
>> being told that the only reason the US was in that "police action" at all
>> was that the Soviet Union, during those relatively early UN Security Council
>> days, took a walk during one of their political snits when the subject came
>> up for discussion. The SC, in their absence, approved UN intervention in
>> behalf of South Korea; had the Soviet ambassador been present during that SC
>> discussion, they could easily (and undoubtedly would have) vetoed it, since
>> they had the right to do that as all original members of the Security
>> Council could.
>
> Common knowledge.
>
>>
>> So, to answer your question, they fought in behalf of North Korea because
>> North Korea was one of their client states to whom they furnished all kinds
>> of military equipment and supplies, as well as the training in their use.
>> They fought for the NKs because they did not want the world to think their
>> MIG aircraft, in the hands of relatively green NK pilots, couldn't be
>> competitive with US military equipment. If they could have turned back the
>> clock, there wouldn't even have been a war, because they'd have prevented it
>> from happening. That's it, in a nutshell.
>>
>> George Z.
>
> So you explain, interpret, this as an expression of
> simple commercial interests ? ;-)

Only in part. I thought it obvious that everybody would assume that they would
stand up for their ideological bedfellows, and so I didn't think that part of it
was worth mentioning.

(^-^))))

George Z.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"George Z. Bush" > writes:
> If you knew your history, or were around at the time, you'd know without being
> told that the only reason the US was in that "police action" at all was that the
> Soviet Union, during those relatively early UN Security Council days, took a
> walk during one of their political snits when the subject came up for
> discussion. The SC, in their absence, approved UN intervention in behalf of
> South Korea; had the Soviet ambassador been present during that SC discussion,
> they could easily (and undoubtedly would have) vetoed it, since they had the
> right to do that as all original members of the Security Council could.

That's not entirely so, G.Z. U.S. troops moved from Japan to Korea
before the U.N. debates, and U.S.A.F. airplanes were shooting down
airplanes and dropping bombs pretty much from Day One. The North
Koreans crossed teh 38th Parellel on June 24, 1950, The U.S. comiited
Air and Naval forces to supporting the ROK Army on Jume 26. The
U.N. Resolution authorizing force was passed on the evening of June
27. (Remember, we're talking about MacArthur, here.)


> So, to answer your question, they fought in behalf of North Korea because North
> Korea was one of their client states to whom they furnished all kinds of
> military equipment and supplies, as well as the training in their use. They
> fought for the NKs because they did not want the world to think their MIG
> aircraft, in the hands of relatively green NK pilots, couldn't be competitive
> with US military equipment. If they could have turned back the clock, there
> wouldn't even have been a war, because they'd have prevented it from happening.
> That's it, in a nutshell.

Well, the NKPA Air Force dissolved in the first month. The MiGs that
first appeared were Soviet, flown by Soviet Pilots. (151st Guards
Fighter Aviation Division) They first appeared in November, 1950,
about 3 weeks after the U.N. had reached, and the Chinese crossed the
Yalu. The Chinese were getting pretty badly beaten up by
U.S. tactical airpower, which consisted of F-80s, F-51s, and B-26s
(The Douglas ones) at that time.
None of them could, however, compete with the MiGs. The Chinese
didn't start flying their own MiGs in combat until late 1951. The
North Koreans didn't start flying theirs until they got some pilots
trained in late 1952 - whether any made it into combat is a matter of
some dispute.

Now, mind you, they _did_ go to great lengths to hide their
involvement.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Han Kim]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >Why was Russia, still a member of the UN, clandestinely fighting
> >against the UN?
>
> Russia had walked out of the Security Council some time prior to the
> North Korean invasion of the south. That (and only that) made possible
> the UN's decision to send troops to Korea. Otherwise Russia would have
> exercised its veto.
>
> Given that the war had been started--literally--behind its back,
> Russia presumably felt no obligation to abide by the UN's decision,
> any more than China did.
>

The Soviets (not the Russians to be precise) walked out of the Security
Council thinking that the US would not be able to push through a vote.
While many historians had thought that the Soviets were reluctant
supporters duped by a unruly client, the declassified archives show
otherwise. The Soviets were doing their share of instigating and
were quite active in supporting the North Korean plans
to start a conventional attack on the South. The Korean War was
certainly not started behind Stalin's back.

Han

[Cub Driver]

>(Remember, we're talking about MacArthur, here.)

Actually, we're talking about Harry Truman. MacArthur did not move
without instructions from Washington, MacArthur got his orders on
Monday morning, Tokyo time (Sunday evenign in Washington).

As previously noted, Russia had walked out of the Security Council
BEFORE the invasion (because of an unrelated argument over the seating
of "Communist China"). The vote on the intervention was 7-1, with
Yugoslavia voting against. Since Yugoslavia was not a permanent
member, it did not have the veto.

Had Russia not walked out, as a permanent member, it could have vetoed
the "police action".

It is amazing how people can rewrite history for buttress their
beliefs.

(This of course is not to say that Truman would not have intervened on
his own. But MacArthur had neither the authority nor the philosophy
that would have enabled him to join battle in Korea without the
president's direction. To suggest so is to misunderstand both men.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Mike Marron]

>Cub Driver > wrote:

[political rant snipped]

>It is amazing how people can rewrite history for buttress their
>beliefs.

Same goes for how people can ignore the truth and attack
the messenger to buttress their beliefs, or trot out the ol'
"killfile" threat...

KILLFILE
(To the tune: "Rawhide")

Losin’, losin’, losin’,
Trolls we’re disapprovin',
Keep them trolls a-movin', killfile.
Don't try to understand 'em,
Extinguish fires, don’t fan them.
Soon you'll see quiet far and wide.
You’ll miss out on their baitin',
Their arguin’ and ravin',
They’re waitin' to be in your killfile.

Move 'em in, turn ‘em off,
Turn ‘em off, move 'em in,
Move 'em in, turn ‘em off, killfile!
Tune 'em out, put 'em in,
Put 'em in, tune 'em out,
Tune 'em out, put 'em in killfiles!

Trollin', trollin', trollin',
Killfiles all are swollen,
Keep them filters growin', killfile.
Wherever trolls should blather,
Ignore ‘em altogether,
Try it, you’ll have some peace and quiet.
The things that you’ll be missin',
The moanin’ and the ****in',
Are gone if you just kiss ‘em goodbye.

Move 'em in, turn ‘em off,
Turn ‘em off, move 'em in,
Move 'em in, turn ‘em off, killfile!
Tune 'em out, put 'em in,
Put 'em in, tune 'em out,
Tune 'em out, put 'em in killfiles!

[D. Patterson]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> > George Z. Bush wrote:
> >
> >> If you knew your history, or were around at the time, you'd know
without
> >> being told that the only reason the US was in that "police action" at
all
> >> was that the Soviet Union, during those relatively early UN Security
Council
> >> days, took a walk during one of their political snits when the subject
came
> >> up for discussion. The SC, in their absence, approved UN intervention
in
> >> behalf of South Korea; had the Soviet ambassador been present during
that SC
> >> discussion, they could easily (and undoubtedly would have) vetoed it,
since
> >> they had the right to do that as all original members of the Security
> >> Council could.
> >
> > Common knowledge.
> >
> >>
> >> So, to answer your question, they fought in behalf of North Korea
because
> >> North Korea was one of their client states to whom they furnished all
kinds
> >> of military equipment and supplies, as well as the training in their
use.
> >> They fought for the NKs because they did not want the world to think
their
> >> MIG aircraft, in the hands of relatively green NK pilots, couldn't be
> >> competitive with US military equipment. If they could have turned back
the
> >> clock, there wouldn't even have been a war, because they'd have
prevented it
> >> from happening. That's it, in a nutshell.
> >>
> >> George Z.
> >
> > So you explain, interpret, this as an expression of
> > simple commercial interests ? ;-)
>
> Only in part. I thought it obvious that everybody would assume that they
would
> stand up for their ideological bedfellows, and so I didn't think that part
of it
> was worth mentioning.
>
> (^-^))))
>
> George Z.
>
>

Stalin and the Soviets planned, trained, and equipped the North Koreans to
prepare for the invasion as an instrument of Soviet foreign policy.

[David Thornley]

In article >,
Han Kim > wrote:
>
>The Soviets (not the Russians to be precise) walked out of the Security
>Council thinking that the US would not be able to push through a vote.

As I understand it (and without going back and rereading the UN
charter), there was a difference of opinion about the role of
permanent members of the Security Council. The Soviets at that
time interpreted it as meaning that action required the positive
votes of all five permanent members, and therefore that by walking
out they were disabling the SC. The US maintained that action
required no negative votes of the permanent members, and whatever
the charter actually says this interpretation was accepted.
(Corrections by people who know more than I do about this willingly
accepted.)

>While many historians had thought that the Soviets were reluctant
>supporters duped by a unruly client, the declassified archives show
>otherwise. The Soviets were doing their share of instigating and
>were quite active in supporting the North Korean plans
>to start a conventional attack on the South. The Korean War was
>certainly not started behind Stalin's back.
>
I believe that the poster meant that the UN intervention was
started behind Stalin's back, and one implication is that Stalin
did not feel bound by it. (Not that Stalin would have necessarily
followed a UN resolution if he didn't agree with it.)

There is the possibility that the US could have intervened on
behalf of South Korea, without direct UN auspices. Again without
looking it up, I believe the UN charter allows the use of military
force in defense, and not only defense of one's own country.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[Christopher Morton]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 12:33:54 GMT, "Stinky Pete"
> wrote:

>id est..the design for the engine was stolen from the Brits. The design for

Not stolen, GIVEN.

--
More blood for oil... in my name!

[Christopher Morton]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:06:14 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>So, to answer your question, they fought in behalf of North Korea because North
>Korea was one of their client states to whom they furnished all kinds of
>military equipment and supplies, as well as the training in their use. They

They also "furnished" the president of North Korea, Kim Il Sung, who
had been an artillery officer in the Soviet Red Army during WWII.

--
More blood for oil... in my name!

[Stinky Pete]

"D. Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> > > George Z. Bush wrote:
> > >
> > >> If you knew your history, or were around at the time, you'd know
> without
> > >> being told that the only reason the US was in that "police action" at
> all
> > >> was that the Soviet Union, during those relatively early UN Security
> Council
> > >> days, took a walk during one of their political snits when the
subject
> came
> > >> up for discussion. The SC, in their absence, approved UN
intervention
> in
> > >> behalf of South Korea; had the Soviet ambassador been present during
> that SC
> > >> discussion, they could easily (and undoubtedly would have) vetoed it,
> since
> > >> they had the right to do that as all original members of the Security
> > >> Council could.
> > >
> > > Common knowledge.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> So, to answer your question, they fought in behalf of North Korea
> because
> > >> North Korea was one of their client states to whom they furnished all
> kinds
> > >> of military equipment and supplies, as well as the training in their
> use.
> > >> They fought for the NKs because they did not want the world to think
> their
> > >> MIG aircraft, in the hands of relatively green NK pilots, couldn't be
> > >> competitive with US military equipment. If they could have turned
back
> the
> > >> clock, there wouldn't even have been a war, because they'd have
> prevented it
> > >> from happening. That's it, in a nutshell.
> > >>
> > >> George Z.
> > >
> > > So you explain, interpret, this as an expression of
> > > simple commercial interests ? ;-)
> >
> > Only in part. I thought it obvious that everybody would assume that
they
> would
> > stand up for their ideological bedfellows, and so I didn't think that
part
> of it
> > was worth mentioning.
> >
> > (^-^))))
> >
> > George Z.
> >
> >
>
> Stalin and the Soviets planned, trained, and equipped the North Koreans to
> prepare for the invasion as an instrument of Soviet foreign policy.
>
>

Yes! Let's make it perfectly clear! The Soviets trained and equipped a five
piece brass band as an instrument of Soviet foreign policy!

[Stinky Pete]

If you post your credit card number, I'll be happy to fill up at the pump in
your name!


"Christopher Morton" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 12:33:54 GMT, "Stinky Pete"
> > wrote:
>
> >id est..the design for the engine was stolen from the Brits. The design
for
>
> Not stolen, GIVEN.
>
> --
> More blood for oil... in my name!

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

D. Patterson wrote:

> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
>>
>>>George Z. Bush wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you knew your history, or were around at the time, you'd
>>>> know without being told that the only reason the US was in that
>>>> "police action" at all was that the Soviet Union, during those
>>>> relatively early UN Security Council days, took a walk during
>>>> one of their political snits when the subject came up for
>>>> discussion. The SC, in their absence, approved UN intervention
>>>> in behalf of South Korea; had the Soviet ambassador been
>>>> present during that SC discussion, they could easily (and
>>>> undoubtedly would have) vetoed it, since they had the right to
>>>> do that as all original members of the Security Council could.
>>>
>>>Common knowledge.
>>>

>>>> So, to answer your question, they fought in behalf of North
>>>> Korea because North Korea was one of their client states to
>>>> whom they furnished all kinds of military equipment and
>>>> supplies, as well as the training in their use. They fought for
>>>> the NKs because they did not want the world to think their MIG
>>>> aircraft, in the hands of relatively green NK pilots, couldn't
>>>> be competitive with US military equipment.
>>>>
>>>> If they could have turned back the clock, there wouldn't even
>>>> have been a war, because they'd have prevented it from
>>>> happening. That's it, in a nutshell.
>>>>
>>>>George Z.
>>>
>>>So you explain, interpret, this as an expression of
>>>simple commercial interests ? ;-)
>>
>>Only in part.
>> I thought it obvious that everybody would assume that they would
>> stand up for their ideological bedfellows, and so I didn't think
>> that part of it was worth mentioning.
>>
>>(^-^))))
>>
>>George Z.
>
> Stalin and the Soviets planned, trained, and equipped the North Koreans
> to prepare for the invasion as an instrument of Soviet foreign policy.
>
Yes. That's the much more important point to keep in mind, and explore,
for soc.culture.russian readers. Rather than to have major wrangles
over trivia such as which now obsolete airplane was superior, or which
ace had how many kills.
What is important is the mind set and culture of the Russian leadership
caste, including the administrative apparatchik bureaucracy

[Cub Driver]

>>id est..the design for the engine was stolen from the Brits. The design for
>
>Not stolen, GIVEN.

Neither stolen nor given, but bought.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Stinky Pete]

No. Stolen. They bought a very small number from the Brits. They then copied
the design illegally, i.e. stolen.



"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >>id est..the design for the engine was stolen from the Brits. The design
for
> >
> >Not stolen, GIVEN.
>
> Neither stolen nor given, but bought.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (requires authentication)
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[William Black]

"Stinky Pete" > wrote in message
t...
> No. Stolen. They bought a very small number from the Brits. They then
copied
> the design illegally, i.e. stolen.

I thought they were given them rather than any purchase.

The Whittle design was done while he was a serving officer and so any
rights, patents, etc. rest with the Crown.

The UK government of the day didn't make an issue of it, and the person
responsible, the then President of the Board of Trade, is now dead, so we
can't ask him.

I should add that as he went on to become Prime Minister it obviously didn't
do his political career any harm either...

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

[Keith Willshaw]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stinky Pete" > wrote in message
> t...
> > No. Stolen. They bought a very small number from the Brits. They then
> copied
> > the design illegally, i.e. stolen.
>
> I thought they were given them rather than any purchase.
>

Incorrect they were sold a number of Nenes and Derwents, RR
and the board of trade were hoping for large orders but the
Soviets simply copied them

> The Whittle design was done while he was a serving officer and so any
> rights, patents, etc. rest with the Crown.
>

Incorrect, the initial patents were indeed lodged in 1930 when he was
an RAF officer but they were allowed to lapse in 1936 when
Air Ministry decided NOT to pay the fee of £5 required to renew them

Whittle got permission from the Air Ministry to found a company,
Power Jets which raised further patents under its control and funded
the development that made the engine workable. At this point the
Government stepped in, handed Whittles work and control of the
project to Rolls Royce and nationalised Power Jets leaving Whittle
with nothing.



> The UK government of the day didn't make an issue of it, and the person
> responsible, the then President of the Board of Trade, is now dead, so
we
> can't ask him.
>

It was the height of the cold war by the time it was realised
what had happened and it was scarcely in the Governments
interest to let the country know the truth by making a fuss.

> I should add that as he went on to become Prime Minister it obviously
didn't
> do his political career any harm either...
>

Indeed.

Keith

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:36:44 GMT, "Stinky Pete"
> wrote:

>No. Stolen. They bought a very small number from the Brits. They then copied
>the design illegally, i.e. stolen.

You don't know what you're talking about. "They" didn't buy any
engines from the Brits. The U.S. was given one Whittle Unit that
wasn't airworthy, which GE modified into a working engine.

This engine powered the Bell Airacomet, but had no further
application. Postwar, a $4 million payment was negotiated with the
British government in settlement. The British govt awarded Whittle
100,000 quid and a knighthood, but he was sufficiently annoyed by the
whole thing that he relocated to the United States, where he was
better appreciated (and paid).

www.warbirdforum.com/whittle.htm

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Keith Willshaw]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:36:44 GMT, "Stinky Pete"
> > wrote:
>
> >No. Stolen. They bought a very small number from the Brits. They then
copied
> >the design illegally, i.e. stolen.
>
> You don't know what you're talking about. "They" didn't buy any
> engines from the Brits. The U.S. was given one Whittle Unit that
> wasn't airworthy, which GE modified into a working engine.
>

He was talking about the Soviets.

> This engine powered the Bell Airacomet, but had no further
> application.

Hardly, Whittle derived engines powered the P-80 amongst other aircraft

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng44.htm

> Postwar, a $4 million payment was negotiated with the
> British government in settlement. The British govt awarded Whittle
> 100,000 quid and a knighthood, but he was sufficiently annoyed by the
> whole thing that he relocated to the United States, where he was
> better appreciated (and paid).
>

He moved to the USA in 1976 , this was almost 30 years later.

Keith

[D. Patterson]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:36:44 GMT, "Stinky Pete"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >No. Stolen. They bought a very small number from the Brits. They then
> copied
> > >the design illegally, i.e. stolen.
> >
> > You don't know what you're talking about. "They" didn't buy any
> > engines from the Brits. The U.S. was given one Whittle Unit that
> > wasn't airworthy, which GE modified into a working engine.
> >
>
> He was talking about the Soviets.
>
> > This engine powered the Bell Airacomet, but had no further
> > application.
>
> Hardly, Whittle derived engines powered the P-80 amongst other aircraft
>
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng44.htm
>
> > Postwar, a $4 million payment was negotiated with the
> > British government in settlement. The British govt awarded Whittle
> > 100,000 quid and a knighthood, but he was sufficiently annoyed by the
> > whole thing that he relocated to the United States, where he was
> > better appreciated (and paid).
> >
>
> He moved to the USA in 1976 , this was almost 30 years later.
>
> Keith
>
>

During the war and in the postwar era he spent much of his time consulting
and working in the United States, even though his home of record was in
Britain. He finally changed that final detail with his divorce.

[Dazuixia]

(David Thornley) wrote in message >...
>
>In article >,
>Han Kim > wrote:
>>While many historians had thought that the Soviets were reluctant
>>supporters duped by a unruly client, the declassified archives show
>>otherwise. The Soviets were doing their share of instigating and
>>were quite active in supporting the North Korean plans
>>to start a conventional attack on the South. The Korean War was
>>certainly not started behind Stalin's back.
>>
>I believe that the poster meant that the UN intervention was
>started behind Stalin's back, and one implication is that Stalin
>did not feel bound by it. (Not that Stalin would have necessarily
>followed a UN resolution if he didn't agree with it.)
>
>There is the possibility that the US could have intervened on
>behalf of South Korea, without direct UN auspices. Again without
>looking it up, I believe the UN charter allows the use of military
>force in defense, and not only defense of one's own country.
>

Yes and No.
UN charter Article 51 says:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the
United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to
maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in
the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to
the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and
responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take
at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or
restore international peace and security. "

"the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed
attack occurs" is the right of all countries. The UN general secretary Annan
specially mentioned this article before US, UK by-lateral barbaric
invasion to Iraq in 2003. He meant that the US, UK invasion of cause
does not belong to this category and could not be classified as
legal defense according to UN charter. It is of cause a barbaric OFFENSE
invasion to an weak independent sovereign country.

According to this article, any country could help another country who is
invaded by the FOREIGN imperialists. For Example: France, UK declare war
against NZ Germany AFTER Hitler invaded Poland, China helped NK AFTER
US invaded Korea in 1950, US led Allies fought with Iraq AFTER Iraq
invaded Kuwait. Does USA army entering Korea belong to this category?
No. It was the Korea CIVIL WAR before USA invasion. USA army was
the FIRST FOREIGN army entered Korea CIVIL WAR. In 1950, including USA saw
Korea as a whole country. Both Korea governments also thought this way.
In late 1940s, USA initiated a resolution in UN to hold an election in
WHOLE Korea and the resolution was passed. So clearly Korea was viewed
by both USA and UN as an SINGLE independent country rather than two separate
countries. However, the elections were hold separately and two governments
were elected. So, before USA army invaded Korea, there was Korea CIVIL
WAR and the aggressor in the CIVIL war was NK. It is the internal affairs
of Korea and UN charter clearly prevent FOREIGN forces to intervene
the internal affairs of an independent country, especially military
invasion intervention. So it is crystal clear that USA intervention
was an invasion to Korea. Korea future should be decided by Korea people
and army rather than by foreign invasion army. If the Korea were two
separate countries and if both Korea governments, the world thought that
way, yes, USA could legal help country SK against country NK aggressive
attack. Same rules apply to the Vietnam war and so called protection to
Taiwan province of China against mainland Chinese government.

USA also had a famous civil war. If in this war any other country sent
army into US to fight either side, it clear was an imperialist invasion.
The fate of USA should be decided by the people of US rather than any
other nations' army.

But in the world, when some countries feel they are really strong, then
they ignore the international laws, the sovereignty of those weak
countries. In the last two centuries, we see a lot of this kind of
examples, e.g. western colonist history, NZ, JIA, the wars fought
in the second half of 20th century, Korea war, Vietnam war, invasion to
Panama in 1982, 1968 Prague Spring, USSR invasion to Afghanistan,
etc... Unfortunately, in the 21st century, we still see this kind of
invasion. The preemption conducted by JIA, NZ become official policy
of some countries though it clearly violate the international laws and
sovereignty of other countries. What a pity!

Have a nice weekend!

Dazuixia




>
>--
>David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
>http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[Cub Driver]

>It was the Korea CIVIL WAR before USA invasion.

North Korea's army, under the direction of its government in
Pyongyang, invaded South Korea across an internationally recognized
border or demarcation line.

If the Republic of Ireland sent its army into Northern Ireland. would
that represent civil war (and nobody's business)?

If Israel occupies the West Bank, is that civil war?

If the Federal Republic of Germany had invaded East Germany (DRG),
would that be a civil war?

If Poland invaded Ukraine to recover the territory that was Polish in
1939, is that civil war?

The eastern seaboard of the United States once consisted mostly of 13
British colonies. If Britain invades them, is that civil war?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dazuixia]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
>
>>It was the Korea CIVIL WAR before USA invasion.
>
>North Korea's army, under the direction of its government in
>Pyongyang, invaded South Korea across an internationally recognized
>border or demarcation line.

I have answered this questions in the statements right after the statement
you are commenting. You know I was right and then you delete them.
Here I re-quote:
" USA army was
the FIRST FOREIGN army entered Korea CIVIL WAR. In 1950, including USA saw
Korea as a WHOLE country. Both Korea governments also thought this way.
In late 1940s, USA initiated a resolution in UN to hold an election in
WHOLE Korea and the resolution was passed. So clearly Korea was viewed
by both USA and UN as an SINGLE independent country rather than two separate
countries. However, the elections were hold separately and two governments
were elected. So, before USA army invaded Korea, there was Korea CIVIL
WAR and the aggressor in the CIVIL war was NK. It is the internal affairs
of Korea and UN charter clearly prevent FOREIGN forces to intervene
the internal affairs of an independent country, especially military
invasion intervention. So it is crystal clear that USA intervention
was an invasion to Korea. Korea future should be decided by Korea people
and army rather than by foreign invasion army. If the Korea were two
separate countries and if both Korea governments, the world thought that
way, yes, USA could legally help country SK against country NK aggressive
attack. Same rules apply to the Vietnam war and so called protection to
Taiwan province of China against mainland Chinese government."

Hope this time you could read the whole paragraph before you jump into
the discussion. 38th parallel whatever you call it, was NOT a border
of two countries, and the world including USA, both Korea governments
thought the Korea was a whole country. That is why USA initiated the
resolution in UN to hold ONE election in WHOLE Korea rather than two
elections in two separate countries.

>
>If the Republic of Ireland sent its army into Northern Ireland. would
>that represent civil war (and nobody's business)?

No. Of cause not. You pretend you do not know the difference or you
intentionally try to confuse the netters? Republic of Ireland and
"United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" are two different
countries. This is recognized by both countries and the world. So if
"Republic of Ireland" sent its army to a FOREIGN country "United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", she was the invader as USA sent
her army to Korea. If "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
sent her army from England Island to Northern Ireland of her own territory
as NK of Korea sent her army to SK of Korea, it is not the business of
any other countries. That is exactly current case. UK was fighting
with Ireland republican army in Northern Ireland. It is not the business
of any other countries.

>If Israel occupies the West Bank, is that civil war?

Israel from beginning was created by FOREIGN imperialists to occupy the
Palestinian's land and to control the oil of middle east. How can
Jews minority had the right to rob most of Palestinian lands of
British Palestine, i.e. the 55% lands against the will of majority
people of Palestine lands? Most of Jews in Israel was moved to the
area AFTER Israel robbery. Israel still refuse the right of Palestine
refugees to return to their OWN lands and want to move more Jews (1 million
more) to the area to enhance their robbery. You may support the robbery
but I do not. Learn the real history and FACTS before you comment on some
thing you do not know, OK?

>
>If the Federal Republic of Germany had invaded East Germany (DRG),
>would that be a civil war?

May be not. the Germany was the criminal of WWII. The Allies and UN had
resolution to co-occupy the German and this occupation continued.
Both countries were UN members. Both governments
and UN agree they are two separate countries created after WWII.

Korea was occupied by Japan in 1895 and
Annexed in 1910. After USSR started to attack Japan in North-East
China USSR Aug. 9th, 1945, she declared she would enter Korea to
fight Japan. USA really want to share the occupation of Korea with
USSR but the nearest USA troops were in Okinawa which is thousands
miles away from Korea. USA had no chance to send her troops to Korea
before USSR took the whole Korea. Then a USA colonel was required to
create a share plan at night of Aug. 10th, 1945. He even had no Korea
map in his office, but a world map. So it is impossible for him to
divide Korea according to Korea administrative region, then he found
38th parallel divide Korea even. Then he made the suggestion and the
telegraph was sent to Moscow next day. Stalin accepted the suggestion
and Red Army stopped at 38th parallel. Only 20 days after, USA army
reached 38th parallel from South.

On December 31st, 1948, all USSR troops withdrew from NK. On June 30th,
1949 because feel shame, all US troops withdrew from SK.
Now Korea should only up to Korea people to decide who should govern.
USA suggested an election in WHOLE KOREA in UN and the resolution was
passed. However, the election were conducted separately and NK, SK
elected their own governments. Both think they represent the whole
Korea. Communists countries led by USSR recognize NK, and western
countries recognized SK.

Unlike Germany, Korea was not the criminal country of WWII. The occupation
of Germany continued, or the foreign troops keep stay in the Germany
according to an agreement, but
not Korea. The world including US and Korea governments saw Korea as
a whole country but that was not the case in Germany. It is true 38th line
had her international affair history and that is not the case of Taiwan.
Taiwan is more a pure internal affair of China but the cowboy of U.S. of A.
still shamelessly claim US would use whatever methods to protect
Taiwan province of China from China. As I said in last post:
"Unfortunately, in the 21st
century, we still see this kind of invasion. The preemption conducted by JIA,
NZ become official policy of some countries though it clearly violate the
international laws and sovereignty of other countries. What a pity!"

>
>If Poland invaded Ukraine to recover the territory that was Polish in
>1939, is that civil war?

No. Both countries are UN members. Both governments and UN accepted current
borders are borders of two separate countries.

>
>The eastern seaboard of the United States once consisted mostly of 13
>British colonies. If Britain invades them, is that civil war?

Yes, when they were British colonies, it was civil war. The USA revolutionary
war could be called as a Civil war of UK. After USA defeated UK and found
her own country, especially after UK accepted this independence, if
UK invaded USA, it is an invasion.

Any more question? I am glad to answer. Learn the FACTS first, you will
be much smarter. It is better for you to take logic 101 before you post.

Have a nice day!

Dazuixia

[B2431]

>From: (Dazuixia)

>
>Cub Driver > wrote in message
>...
>>
>>>It was the Korea CIVIL WAR before USA invasion.
>>
>>North Korea's army, under the direction of its government in
>>Pyongyang, invaded South Korea across an internationally recognized
>>border or demarcation line.
>
>I have answered this questions in the statements right after the statement
>you are commenting. You know I was right and then you delete them.
>Here I re-quote:
>" USA army was
>the FIRST FOREIGN army entered Korea CIVIL WAR. In 1950, including USA saw
>Korea as a WHOLE country. Both Korea governments also thought this way.
>In late 1940s, USA initiated a resolution in UN to hold an election in
>WHOLE Korea and the resolution was passed. So clearly Korea was viewed
>by both USA and UN as an SINGLE independent country rather than two separate
>countries. However, the elections were hold separately and two governments
>were elected. So, before USA army invaded Korea, there was Korea CIVIL
>WAR and the aggressor in the CIVIL war was NK. It is the internal affairs
>of Korea and UN charter clearly prevent FOREIGN forces to intervene
>the internal affairs of an independent country, especially military
>invasion intervention. So it is crystal clear that USA intervention
>was an invasion to Korea. Korea future should be decided by Korea people
>and army rather than by foreign invasion army. If the Korea were two
>separate countries and if both Korea governments, the world thought that
>way, yes, USA could legally help country SK against country NK aggressive
>attack. Same rules apply to the Vietnam war and so called protection to
>Taiwan province of China against mainland Chinese government."
>
>Hope this time you could read the whole paragraph before you jump into
>the discussion. 38th parallel whatever you call it, was NOT a border
>of two countries, and the world including USA, both Korea governments
>thought the Korea was a whole country. That is why USA initiated the
>resolution in UN to hold ONE election in WHOLE Korea rather than two
>elections in two separate countries.
>
>>
>>If the Republic of Ireland sent its army into Northern Ireland. would
>>that represent civil war (and nobody's business)?
>
>No. Of cause not. You pretend you do not know the difference or you
>intentionally try to confuse the netters? Republic of Ireland and
>"United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" are two different
>countries. This is recognized by both countries and the world. So if
>"Republic of Ireland" sent its army to a FOREIGN country "United Kingdom
> of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", she was the invader as USA sent
>her army to Korea. If "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
>sent her army from England Island to Northern Ireland of her own territory
>as NK of Korea sent her army to SK of Korea, it is not the business of
>any other countries. That is exactly current case. UK was fighting
>with Ireland republican army in Northern Ireland. It is not the business
>of any other countries.
>
>>If Israel occupies the West Bank, is that civil war?
>
>Israel from beginning was created by FOREIGN imperialists to occupy the
>Palestinian's land and to control the oil of middle east. How can
>Jews minority had the right to rob most of Palestinian lands of
>British Palestine, i.e. the 55% lands against the will of majority
>people of Palestine lands? Most of Jews in Israel was moved to the
>area AFTER Israel robbery. Israel still refuse the right of Palestine
>refugees to return to their OWN lands and want to move more Jews (1 million
>more) to the area to enhance their robbery. You may support the robbery
>but I do not. Learn the real history and FACTS before you comment on some
>thing you do not know, OK?
>
>>
>>If the Federal Republic of Germany had invaded East Germany (DRG),
>>would that be a civil war?
>
>May be not. the Germany was the criminal of WWII. The Allies and UN had
>resolution to co-occupy the German and this occupation continued.
>Both countries were UN members. Both governments
>and UN agree they are two separate countries created after WWII.
>
>Korea was occupied by Japan in 1895 and
>Annexed in 1910. After USSR started to attack Japan in North-East
>China USSR Aug. 9th, 1945, she declared she would enter Korea to
>fight Japan. USA really want to share the occupation of Korea with
>USSR but the nearest USA troops were in Okinawa which is thousands
>miles away from Korea. USA had no chance to send her troops to Korea
>before USSR took the whole Korea. Then a USA colonel was required to
>create a share plan at night of Aug. 10th, 1945. He even had no Korea
>map in his office, but a world map. So it is impossible for him to
>divide Korea according to Korea administrative region, then he found
>38th parallel divide Korea even. Then he made the suggestion and the
>telegraph was sent to Moscow next day. Stalin accepted the suggestion
>and Red Army stopped at 38th parallel. Only 20 days after, USA army
>reached 38th parallel from South.
>
> On December 31st, 1948, all USSR troops withdrew from NK. On June 30th,
> 1949 because feel shame, all US troops withdrew from SK.
> Now Korea should only up to Korea people to decide who should govern.
> USA suggested an election in WHOLE KOREA in UN and the resolution was
>passed. However, the election were conducted separately and NK, SK
>elected their own governments. Both think they represent the whole
>Korea. Communists countries led by USSR recognize NK, and western
>countries recognized SK.
>
>Unlike Germany, Korea was not the criminal country of WWII. The occupation
>of Germany continued, or the foreign troops keep stay in the Germany
>according to an agreement, but
>not Korea. The world including US and Korea governments saw Korea as
>a whole country but that was not the case in Germany. It is true 38th line
>had her international affair history and that is not the case of Taiwan.
>Taiwan is more a pure internal affair of China but the cowboy of U.S. of A.
>still shamelessly claim US would use whatever methods to protect
>Taiwan province of China from China. As I said in last post:
>"Unfortunately, in the 21st
>century, we still see this kind of invasion. The preemption conducted by JIA,
>
>NZ become official policy of some countries though it clearly violate the
>international laws and sovereignty of other countries. What a pity!"
>
>>
>>If Poland invaded Ukraine to recover the territory that was Polish in
>>1939, is that civil war?
>
>No. Both countries are UN members. Both governments and UN accepted current
>borders are borders of two separate countries.
>
>>
>>The eastern seaboard of the United States once consisted mostly of 13
>>British colonies. If Britain invades them, is that civil war?
>
>Yes, when they were British colonies, it was civil war. The USA revolutionary
>
>war could be called as a Civil war of UK. After USA defeated UK and found
>her own country, especially after UK accepted this independence, if
>UK invaded USA, it is an invasion.
>
>Any more question? I am glad to answer. Learn the FACTS first, you will
>be much smarter. It is better for you to take logic 101 before you post.
>
>Have a nice day!
>
>Dazuixia
>
So a country only exists if the UN recognizes it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw]

"Dazuixia" > wrote in message
m...
> Cub Driver > wrote in message
>...
> >
> >>It was the Korea CIVIL WAR before USA invasion.
> >
> >North Korea's army, under the direction of its government in
> >Pyongyang, invaded South Korea across an internationally recognized
> >border or demarcation line.
>
> I have answered this questions in the statements right after the statement
> you are commenting. You know I was right and then you delete them.
> Here I re-quote:
> " USA army was
> the FIRST FOREIGN army entered Korea CIVIL WAR. In 1950, including USA saw
> Korea as a WHOLE country. Both Korea governments also thought this way.
> In late 1940s, USA initiated a resolution in UN to hold an election in
> WHOLE Korea and the resolution was passed. So clearly Korea was viewed
> by both USA and UN as an SINGLE independent country rather than two
separate
> countries. However, the elections were hold separately and two governments
> were elected. So, before USA army invaded Korea, there was Korea CIVIL
> WAR and the aggressor in the CIVIL war was NK.

The UN decided otherwise. The force deployed in Korea was US led
but its intervention was mandated by the UN security council and
troops from many other nations took part.



> It is the internal affairs
> of Korea and UN charter clearly prevent FOREIGN forces to intervene
> the internal affairs of an independent country, especially military
> invasion intervention.

On the contrary the action in Korea was specifically authorised by
the UN resolutions 82,83,84 and 85 of 1950

Keith

[Cub Driver]

On 15 Mar 2004 21:36:40 -0800, (Dazuixia) wrote:

>You know I was right

Actually, I know you are wrong. The first foreign army to enter South
Korean was the In Min Gun. The Americans came along about a week
later.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dazuixia]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
>
>On 15 Mar 2004 21:36:40 -0800, (Dazuixia) wrote:
>
>>You know I was right
>
>Actually, I know you are wrong.

That is the reason you delete the FACTS I provided? FACT is that at 1950, USA,
both Korea governments, rest of the world all thought Korea was one
SINGLE independent country. Be coward and bury your head into sand
seems make you feel really good. What can I say!

>The first foreign army to enter South Korean was the In Min Gun.

Are you telling me first foreign army to enter the CSA was the Yankees
Led by Lincoln? You are not only IGNORANT but also cannot learn.

Since I have proved that including U.S. of A. thought Korea was a SINGLE
Country and that is why U.S. of A. proposed an UNIVERSAL election in WHOLE
Korea in UN. How NK army was the FOREIGN ARMY? Because they were white rather
than Koreans?

Even USA government DID NOT say NK army were foreign army. You are free
to insist to refuse the FACTS. Is this a common tactic you learned from
your school age?

>The Americans came along about a week later.

As an barbaric invasion army to the independent sovereign country
Korea, or may be those armies are white Koreans, that will be very
interesting.

It is this invasion army who conducted barbaric
killing to South Korean civilians intentionally:
"In the summer of 1950, U.S. military forces opened fire on a group of
South Korean refugees at a railroad trestle near the village of No Gun Ri.
Survivors said hundreds died, mostly women and children. Retreating U.S.
commanders had issued orders to shoot approaching civilians to guard
against North Korean infiltrators among refugee columns."
Refer: http://www.henryholt.com/nogunri/


Have a nice day!

Dazuixia

[Cub Driver]

On 16 Mar 2004 22:15:02 -0800, (Dazuixia) wrote:

>, rest of the world all thought Korea was one
>SINGLE independent country. B

Curious that the United Nations didn't think so, then! The Security
Council voted 7-1 to send troops to repel the In Min Gun. Later, the
General Assembly voted (something like) 45-7 to order MacArthur to
occupy North Korea, thus indicating that if it were to be a single
country after the North Korean invasion, then it should be unified
under the UN army.

My friend, I tire of your rants. You have now been plonked.

(I recommend Agent to all newsgroup readers who would like to remain
sane.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dazuixia]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
>
>On 16 Mar 2004 22:15:02 -0800, (Dazuixia) wrote:
>
>>, rest of the world all thought Korea was one
>>SINGLE independent country. B
>
>Curious that the United Nations didn't think so, then!

Curious, do you know what United Nations thought? The NK was ANOTHER
FOREIGN country of SK? Please provide your evidence. Like many
Americans hanging on SSC, you know ZERO about the topic but like
to speak before you learn the FACTs.

>The Security Council voted 7-1 to send troops to repel the In Min Gun.

Yes, but not because the UN thought NK was a FOREING country. That time,
most of UN countries were USA puppets. The peace loving country China,
(PRC government) even not was in UN. Both PRC and USSR should have the
veto power and both of them were not in the meeting. USSR was boycotting
the UN because UN refuse to let the government who could real represent
China to be in UN. If either of them were in the SSC meeting, the
resolution would not be passed due to their veto power. Also
the India did not vote to favor the resolution. The people in India,
USSR, China were almost half of the people in the world.

Now the countries in UN are more independent and do not want to be
USA puppets any more. Now US treat UN like a piece of ****. Owe big
money to UN, talking about, even conducting the barbaric invasion
without UN approval. You should know the current FACT very well, right?
E.g. USA conducts the barbaric invasion to Iraq against 80% of UN members
opposition, not mention the reason given by Bush government was a
pure LIE as most of USA invasion wars. Examples that USA used LIES
to start barbaric invasion: 100,000 Albanians were murdered and ethnic
cleaning happened in Kosovo, using this LIE USA kill thousands innocent
people of Yugoslavia. Token Bay incident (NV gun boat attacked USA strong
navy), multi millions innocent Vietnamese were killed by USA barbaric
invasion started with this LIE. In Iraq tens of thousands innocent Iraqies
were killed by the barbaric invasion of USA under the LIE WMD.

NOTE: none of these barbaric invasion USA got the approval from UN. So
UN just a tool, if it could be used to conduct a barbaric invasion to
other weak independent sovereign countries, then use it. Otherwise,
UN is nothing as Bush government show us.

>Later, the General Assembly voted (something like) 45-7 to order MacArthur to
>occupy North Korea, thus indicating that if it were to be a single
>country after the North Korean invasion, then it should be unified
>under the UN army.
>

Should be unified under USA army and become semi-colony of USA. You are
showing your true FACE, right? If Korea was a puppet country or semi-colony
of USA, she could be viewed as a SINGLE country. Other wise the part which
was not governed by USA puppet should be viewed as a FOREIGN country.
Are you really that hypocritical to use obvious double standards?

I wonder how could you have a straight face to believe the Korea should
be only unified by the white westerner armies (whether you call it UN or not)
but not the Native Korean army? You know what, in last two hundreds years,
we have seen a lot of this kind of believers. Whether they were in No
Sunset UK, in NZ Germany, or in the country where 90% Native Indians were
ethnic cleaned. You feel to be proud of this history, but rest of the world
may call it as shameless colonist and imperialism. It is hard to hope
the peace loving people to have a same view on these aspects with
the descendants of the colonists and imperialists. Both of us could
hold our own views. When Iraq war has been proved to be started
using a straight WMD LIE, more than 60% of people in a country who likes
the to fight the wars to bully weak countries still support this barbaric
invasion war. Same time they believe they are model of the world.
What a pity!

Here are some REAL FACTS rather than YOUR FAKE ones.

On June 25, 1950, i.e. the day NK started Korea CIVIL WAR,
UN passed a resolution: 28 (1950) Resolution June 1950. It said:
"Mindful of the concern expressed by the General Assembly in its resolutions
195 (II) of 12 December 1948 and 293 (IV) of 21 October 1949 about the
consequences which might follow unless Member States refrained from acts
derogatory to the results sought to be achieved by the United Nations in
bringing about the complete independence and unity of Korea." ...

"Determines that this action (NK offense) constitutes a breach of the peace;
and ..."

UN first confirmed the goal to "bringing about the complete independence
and unity of Korea". By saying this, UN did treat Korea as one independence
sovereign country though it was governed by two separate governments.

Yes, the offense of NK was "a breach of the peace" in Korea. So was the
unification war in U.S. of A. fought by President Lincoln led North Yankees.
Neither cases should validate the foreign imperialist army to invade either
Korea or United States.

>My friend, I tire of your rants. You have now been plonked.
>

When your IGNORANCE, inconsistency, hypocrisy, double
standards, even LIES are exposed to the netters by some more knowledgeable
person, if I were you, I would make similar claim you did. You have all
my sympathy.

Again, keep learning the FACTS, then you will be smarter than you are!

Have a nice day!

Dazuixia

>(I recommend Agent to all newsgroup readers who would like to remain
>sane.)
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: (requires authentication)
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dazuixia]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Dazuixia" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Cub Driver > wrote in message
> >...
> > >
> > >>It was the Korea CIVIL WAR before USA invasion.
> > >
> > >North Korea's army, under the direction of its government in
> > >Pyongyang, invaded South Korea across an internationally recognized
> > >border or demarcation line.
> >
> > I have answered this questions in the statements right after the statement
> > you are commenting. You know I was right and then you delete them.
> > Here I re-quote:
> > " USA army was
> > the FIRST FOREIGN army entered Korea CIVIL WAR. In 1950, including USA saw
> > Korea as a WHOLE country. Both Korea governments also thought this way.
> > In late 1940s, USA initiated a resolution in UN to hold an election in
> > WHOLE Korea and the resolution was passed. So clearly Korea was viewed
> > by both USA and UN as an SINGLE independent country rather than two
> separate
> > countries. However, the elections were hold separately and two governments
> > were elected. So, before USA army invaded Korea, there was Korea CIVIL
> > WAR and the aggressor in the CIVIL war was NK.
>
> The UN decided otherwise. The force deployed in Korea was US led
> but its intervention was mandated by the UN security council and
> troops from many other nations took part.
>

When many UN countries were USA puppets. Only USA army made sense
(may be one UK and one Turkey brigade were two others had little real
armies) in the war. Rest of countries in 17 allies were nothing.
You may call the USA, UK barbaric invasion to Iraq as the invasion
by 'troops from many other nations' since it contained way more 'nations'.
However, rest of the world know it was a typical unilateral action.
Do you know in most of the countries who support USA invaion to Iraq,
most of the people oppose this barbaric invasion war, only their leaders
were bribed by little Bush?

You know, now USA treat UN as **** when UN could not be USA puppet any more,
right?

>
>
> > It is the internal affairs
> > of Korea and UN charter clearly prevent FOREIGN forces to intervene
> > the internal affairs of an independent country, especially military
> > invasion intervention.
>
> On the contrary the action in Korea was specifically authorised by
> the UN resolutions 82,83,84 and 85 of 1950
>

None of then said NK was a FOREIGN country. As I said, that time UN was
a puppet of USA. Now USA treat UN as a **** when she is not a puppet of
USA any more.

Here was a post I respond to your ally Cub Driver >,
it used a lot of FACTS and answered all your questions. Keep learning,
you will be smarter.
************************************************** ***********************
> >On 16 Mar 2004 22:15:02 -0800, (Dazuixia) wrote:
> >
> >>, rest of the world all thought Korea was one
> >>SINGLE independent country. B
> >
> >Curious that the United Nations didn't think so, then!
>
> Curious, do you know what United Nations thought? The NK was ANOTHER
> FOREIGN country of SK? Please provide your evidence. Like many
> Americans hanging on SSC, you know ZERO about the topic but like
> to speak before you learn the FACTs.
>
> >The Security Council voted 7-1 to send troops to repel the In Min Gun.
>
> Yes, but not because the UN thought NK was a FOREING country. That time,
> most of UN countries were USA puppets. The peace loving country China,
> (PRC government) even not was in UN. Both PRC and USSR should have the
> veto power and both of them were not in the meeting. USSR was boycotting
> the UN because UN refuse to let the government who could real represent
> China to be in UN. If either of them were in the SSC meeting, the
> resolution would not be passed due to their veto power. Also
> the India did not vote to favor the resolution. The people in India,
> USSR, China were almost half of the people in the world.
>
> Now the countries in UN are more independent and do not want to be
> USA puppets any more. Now US treat UN like a piece of ****. Owe big
> money to UN, talking about, even conducting the barbaric invasion
> without UN approval. You should know the current FACT very well, right?
> E.g. USA conducts the barbaric invasion to Iraq against 80% of UN members
> opposition, not mention the reason given by Bush government was a
> pure LIE as most of USA invasion wars. Examples that USA used LIES
> to start barbaric invasion: 100,000 Albanians were murdered and ethnic
> cleaning happened in Kosovo, using this LIE USA kill thousands innocent
> people of Yugoslavia. Token Bay incident (NV gun boat attacked USA strong
> navy), multi millions innocent Vietnamese were killed by USA barbaric
> invasion started with this LIE. In Iraq tens of thousands innocent Iraqies
> were killed by the barbaric invasion of USA under the LIE WMD.
>
> NOTE: none of these barbaric invasion USA got the approval from UN. So
> UN just a tool, if it could be used to conduct a barbaric invasion to
> other weak independent sovereign countries, then use it. Otherwise,
> UN is nothing as Bush government show us.
>
> >Later, the General Assembly voted (something like) 45-7 to order MacArthur to
> >occupy North Korea, thus indicating that if it were to be a single
> >country after the North Korean invasion, then it should be unified
> >under the UN army.
> >
>
> Should be unified under USA army and become semi-colony of USA. You are
> showing your true FACE, right? If Korea was a puppet country or semi-colony
> of USA, she could be viewed as a SINGLE country. Other wise the part which
> was not governed by USA puppet should be viewed as a FOREIGN country.
> Are you really that hypocritical to use obvious double standards?
>
> I wonder how could you have a straight face to believe the Korea should
> be only unified by the white westerner armies (whether you call it UN or not)
> but not the Native Korean army? You know what, in last two hundreds years,
> we have seen a lot of this kind of believers. Whether they were in No
> Sunset UK, in NZ Germany, or in the country where 90% Native Indians were
> ethnic cleaned. You feel to be proud of this history, but rest of the world
> may call it as shameless colonist and imperialism. It is hard to hope
> the peace loving people to have a same view on these aspects with
> the descendants of the colonists and imperialists. Both of us could
> hold our own views. When Iraq war has been proved to be started
> using a straight WMD LIE, more than 60% of people in a country who likes
> the to fight the wars to bully weak countries still support this barbaric
> invasion war. Same time they believe they are model of the world.
> What a pity!
>
> Here are some REAL FACTS rather than YOUR FAKE ones.
>
> On June 25, 1950, i.e. the day NK started Korea CIVIL WAR,
> UN passed a resolution: 28 (1950) Resolution June 1950. It said:
> "Mindful of the concern expressed by the General Assembly in its resolutions
> 195 (II) of 12 December 1948 and 293 (IV) of 21 October 1949 about the
> consequences which might follow unless Member States refrained from acts
> derogatory to the results sought to be achieved by the United Nations in
> bringing about the complete independence and unity of Korea." ...
>
> "Determines that this action (NK offense) constitutes a breach of the peace;
> and ..."
>
> UN first confirmed the goal to "bringing about the complete independence
> and unity of Korea". By saying this, UN did treat Korea as one independence
> sovereign country though it was governed by two separate governments.
>
> Yes, the offense of NK was "a breach of the peace" in Korea. So was the
> unification war in U.S. of A. fought by President Lincoln led North Yankees.
> Neither cases should validate the foreign imperialist army to invade either
> Korea or United States.
>
> >My friend, I tire of your rants. You have now been plonked.
> >
>
> When your IGNORANCE, inconsistency, hypocrisy, double
> standards, even LIES are exposed to the netters by some more knowledgeable
> person, if I were you, I would make similar claim you did. You have all
> my sympathy.
>
> Again, keep learning the FACTS, then you will be smarter than you are!
>
> Have a nice day!
>
> Dazuixia
>
************************************************** *****************************

Have a nice weekend!

Dazuixia

> Keith