If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
The Nazis did not have much trouble invading in WWII, I doubt that the minuscule Norwegian armed forces would be much more effective today than they were then. It's a whole different story today. The Nazis invaded from the south, not from the north like the Soviets would have. We are only to halt an invation long enough for NATO to mobilise and send reinforcements, a task I think we are more than capabale of. Our best allie is our rugged terrain and artic winter, and there is really noone who beats us at this game. The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost a few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based defences. Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into Oslo. The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape from Oslo. One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars are not won by "escape from Oslo" But the Germans vere actually very lucky. They were counting their success on poor weather and the poor intelligence information of the Norwegians. Confusion as to whether the ships were friendly or not and heavy fog in the outer Oslo fjord meant that the entire invation fleet (10,000 troops, three cruisers and supportships) sailed right past the outer three batteries with nine guns (mix between 305mm howitzers and 150mm guns). Had they been able to react earlier the outcome would have been grim for the Germans. Here is the story if anyone is interested in reading a bit of WW2 history: http://www.feldgrau.com/norwegian.html Of course it's a whole different world today. The coastal forts have been deemed very effective in postwar time, but part of the arguments against it today is that presicion delivered hard-hitting weapons would greately reduce the effectiveness of the natural protection of the guns -- the granite mountain rock. Besides they are fixed installations and very expensive to operate. Fixed forts have been ineffective since WWI. We used to have 40 or so of these forts of varying sizes in operation, many of them German relics of WW2 (though modernised of course). In later years their tactial value came under heavy attack themselves and only a handful remain. Not in full operation but maintaned as part of a reserve. They have been replaced to a great part with a special commando force with small and agile attack boats and commando teams with the Hellfire missle. It's all part of the new, modern (so they say at least) doctrine of a highly mobile and agile defence force -- one you won't see until it's too late. It's also part of Norways will to having a closer participation in conflicts around the world -- units which can be sent anywhere. Regards... The successful defense of Oslo would be a major accomplishment for the current Norwegian armed forces, the rest of the country would be taken quite easily. Defence of Oslo isn't as high priority as you think. There are very few tactical milletary installations, as with the south in general. The war is fought up north, the south is protected by the NATO forces around the Baltic and Skagerak and the east by two neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, which an invation force would have to fight its way through first. So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy. Norway, not unrealistically, counts on the US for its defense. NATO. Actually in case of war the first to arrive would be British RAF figher and strike units, followed by USAFE. NATO would still be arguing when the UK and US Forces would be in the thick of the battle. Remember, NATO has France, Belgium, Germany etc. Al Minyard |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:08:24 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
Alan Minyard wrote in news On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:51:59 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote: (BUFDRVR) wrote in : I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other nations has agreed on. "What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it? Of course not. You say "of course not, yet you give no examples or cites. The UN has been anti-American for many years. You took that statement out of context and you changed the words to try to make it look like a black and white issue. To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue it has failed so far. And Norway has succeeded ???? And Norway has done exactly what? Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental palestine demands at a time when most western countries still were keeping its distance to the PLO. The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was too naive to realize that. Sharon, with the apparent support of the US, has compromised much of the work and progress we had accomplished in recent years. Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 (which the US partly formed and signed in 1945) which require that: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered". The UN is a sad joke, and sometimes must be treated as such. Sadly that's a typical arrogant posture by some, perhaps who sees the world as their own personal playing ground. According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own Constitution? No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under international law. That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq was not a millitary threath to the US and there were no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor its neightbours. This is soely something the US made up for itself. It explicitly is a *correct* argument. The rules have changed, terrorists are a threat, and any country that harbors or supports them is a threat to the US By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim, or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva convention? Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are regularly visited by the International Red Cross. You might find this article from the Guardian interesting. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html The Guardian is far out of sync on this issue. If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq, it appears both France and Germany much more recently than the US.... Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that. No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway. It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a matter of telling right from wrong. Yes, it certainly does have to do with bravery, and the lack there of. Old europe is afraid of "irritating" the terrorists. (snip) Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world. Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be. You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write. I don't think I ever meant the above statement to indicate world domination in that particular areas. Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre, stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society and equality between the sexes far more developed than most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive. Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen (and women). "Decades ahead of the US"?? What is your unemployment rate, suicide rate? We also tend not to wage in wars around the world which makes us a target for international terrorism, or other nations guns. That is the definition of cowardice. Al Minyard |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Roman J. Rohleder wrote:
(BUFDRVR) schrieb: I don't think the convention makes such a distinction. It absolutely does. You can't engage in armed conflict in jeans and a T-shirt and expect to be recognized as a legal armed combatant. The convention not only says you must be a uniform, but an "officially recognized" uniform. Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual, militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW when captured. Correct, if wearing a uniform identifying themselves as such. And if not they should be regarded as POW until proven of different status..I stumbled across an item by "The Guardian" dealing with that as a side-topic. Well, since by definition conducting military operations without such a uniform (or if not possible, then typically a "distinctive marking" is considered adequate) specifically disqualifies one as a legal combatant, then the determination doesn't take too long. If, as a military member, I were captured taking potshots at someone while wearing jeans and a T-shirt, then I would quite likely not be entitled to combatant status. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html To quote: "The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war. First, there is no legal distinction between whether a military act is considered illegal in defining a legal combatant, so a uniformed soldier engaging in any conflict is a legal combatant, period. They could possibly be tried for carrying out illegal acts (invasion isn't one of them) before their capture, but by convention only after the end of the conflict (some countries hold exceptions to this, North Vietnam was one of them, IIRC). The uniform issue applies even if one IS a recognized member of an armed force- operating out of uniform for the purpose of carrying out military activity (blowing up a fuel depot for example) is prohibited, and marks you as an illegal combatant- specifically, a spy, for which you may legally be executed. Note that JUST being out of uniform doesn't count, as you may be disguised if not carrying out military activities- escaping from a POW camp in civilian clothes doesn't make you an illegal combatant (or evan a combatant, for that matter), but blowing up that fuel depot while escaping would. BTW, al-Quaeda isn't considered a volunteer organization, since they don't operate under the direction of a national command structure, nor are they fighting for a specific nation (fighting AGAINST someone isn't enough). More importantly, perhaps, is that no nation has claimed that al-Quaeda is working FOR them- quite understandable, given that a) no one wants to openly side with them, because b) no one wants to openly declare that they consider themselves to be an appropriate target of the US and other NATO forces (note the previous invocation of the mutual defense clause of the NATO alliance by the NATO council on 12 September, 2001). Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". But when, earlier this month, lawyers representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory, the men have no constitutional rights." The "competent tribunal" in this case rested with the US military, which took the prisoners- note that not all prisoners were labelled illegal combatants. Also note that the ruling by the Court of Appeals was based on a 50+ year old Supreme Court ruling, but that the US Supreme Court has now apparently agreed to hear a case on that very point- guess we'll see how it goes. Pretty much only the Supreme Court has the luxury of overturning one of its previous rulings- lower courts are bound by the previous precedent. Mike |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Alan Minyard writes: The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost a few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based defences. Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into Oslo. That, BTW, was an inside job. There's a reason that Quisling has become a word found in nearly all European Languages. Norway was hardly unique in that respect. While they may have been the majorities in their countries, there were factions in most countries that were, if not aiding Hitler outright, were at least sympathetic to Hiter's, and thus Germany's aims, over those of their own nations. The Anchluss of Austria, and the Annexation of Czechoslovakia would not have been possible without these people. They were also found in the U.K., and France, and the U.S. The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape from Oslo. One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars are not won by "escape from Oslo" It ended up being more than that. Blucher ended up on the bottom in Oslo, But _all_ the major German Surface combatants took some damage, between the Norweigian defences and the Royal Navy. At teh end of the campaigh, the Battleships Sharnhorst and Gneisenau, were in Kiel, and weren't going to be back in service until the Winter of 1940/41. The Panzershiffe Lutzow was also in Keil, and wouldn't be back until the Spring of 1941. the Panzershiffe Admirial Scheer was in Danzig, and wasn't out until October 1940. Blucher's sister ship, the Admiral Hipper, was in Wilhelmshaven until October 1940. Also laid up were 4 of the remaining 10 destroyers. Interesting point, that gets missed in most of teh Seelowe stuff I've seen. During the Summer and Autumn of 1940, the German Navy consisted of a handful of Light Cruisers (4-5), about 10-15 destroyers, various S-Boats, and about 40 ocean-going submarines. That's hardly enough to supply Naval Gunfire Support to a Marine Regiment, let alone escort an invasion fleet and stave off the Royal Navy. Whatever teh final outcome the Norweigians gave as good as they got, as long as they could. The Norweigian Campaign effectively put an end to the German surface Navy. So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy. Not jumping to anyone's defence - I disagree with much of Bjorn's opinion on more recent happenings, but it should be pointed out the Norway can be easy to take, but very difficult to hold. The long adn convoluted coastline can make invading easier, but the same coastline, and the rugged terrain behind it, mean that controlling it is nearly impossible. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Isn´t it simple - you join the club, you pay the admission fee?
Then why not move the UN to Berlin and allow the German government to pay all the "slack". The UN is a financial drain on both the City and State of New York. This is an unarguable fact. Iraq was still developing chemical and biological weapons and had known ties to international terrorists. It doesn´t get truer by repetition.. reminds me of the slogan "Marxismus ist richtig, weil er wahr ist.". :-( So you're arguing that the US (and the UN) didn't believe Hussain was hiding an iilegal weapons program? Or are you denying Iraq's ties to international terrorism? And if not they should be regarded as POW until proven of different status.. First of all, the detainees at Gitmo have been treated as POWs from the moment they were captured. Both the Red Cross and Red Cresent have been allowed to see them, they have been treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The only differance between these detainees and POWs is that they have not been released with the defeat of their government....*however*, one could argue that the conflict is still on going and they have no legal right to be released. "The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. It's good to see that not only US media outlets are completely uninformed. The above quote is ridiculous and shows no understanding of the Laws of Armed Conflict or the Geneva Convention Accords. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war. *If they are properly identified by recognized uniform and insignia*! Damn why do you keep ignoring that part? Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". For 95% of the detainees, there is no doubt. They were illegal immigrants in Afghanistan, fighting for a non-governmental organization, wearing no uniform. In other words an unlawful combatant. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:13:03 +0100, "ArVa" wrote:
"BUFDRVR" a écrit dans le message de ... Now, the French gvt did not *intentionaly* jeopardize the lives of the US crews. For what purpose, and what was the "increased danger" in avoiding French airspace anyway? Approximately five additional hours of flight time into a combat zone. The gulf of Biscaye, the coast of Portugal and the British territory of Gibraltar are not really combat zones, are they? But I agree that 5 hours of flight and the inherent refuelings added to the risks. Judging from the French reaction to nearly anything the US does, a decision made by the US that wound up hurting us would be gleefully trumpeted in France. Iraq today is a good example, French newspapers seem almost to revel in every US casulty. Not true. There is a huge gap between being against a policy and rejoicing over the casualties that ensue from this policy. Some of the newspapers are on the "we told you" line but most of them agree that nobody has to gain from an Iraq that would fell completely into chaos, be led by extremists or return to the previous situation. Now, to be honest I don't think people here are really eager to give billions (we don't have them anyway as we are restrained by European budgetary regulations and already on the verge of being fined) or see soldiers die to solve a situation they don't feel responsible for. And the French bashing, something with no real counterpart here and something I don't think we had ever experienced to that extent, did little to increase the people's will to help the United States. Why not just come out and say "we supported Saddam, and were too cowardly to assist the US"?? I guess it could change with more involvement from the UN but Rumsfeld himself, unless he's changed his mind, said he'd rather die (or something else less lethal, I don't remember the exact quote) than see French soldiers in Iraq, especially with blue helmets on... That is correct. You cannot hide under the bed when real men are dying to protect you (and the US, and the rest of the world) from terrorism, and then come out and say "we want our share". They did, however Germany was where the operation was planned and controlled from. That's all that was requested from Germany. Then it could hardly be qualified as active support. It's more like the Germans let the USAF do what it wanted inside its own bases, no?... :-) I believe flying over Spain was insignificant as far as time saving went Hmm... if you enter the Spanish airspace around Bilbao and head straight to Barcelona, approximately following the Pyrenees, you save yourself at LOT of distance and flight time. Not nearly what we could have saved if France were not an enemy country. From Germany, how are you going to get to Libya without overflying France? Overfly Austria and Italy. Italy may say yes, but I severely doubt Austria would. Yes, I guess you're right. And yet France allowed the UK-based US bombers to overfly its territory during OIF despite its clear-cut opposition to it... That seemed bizzare to me. I'm suprised we even asked... But I'm not suprised we agreed. As soon as the US intervention seemed inevitable, Chirac made it clear that France would not interfere with the US war machine, making BTW the delirious allegations of French weapon and spare part deliveries to Iraq even more ludicrous. ArVa Hardly, Chiraq was hiding under the bed, hoping that his ties to Saddam would not be revealed. Al Minyard |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote in
: On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:08:24 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote: "What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it? Of course not. You say "of course not, yet you give no examples or cites. I'm sorry? There are hardly any "examples", analysis or contructive arguments at all in your posts. The UN has been anti-American for many years. You took that statement out of context and you changed the words to try to make it look like a black and white issue. To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue it has failed so far. And Norway has succeeded ???? The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever between PLO and Israel. It did more with less than any effort in recent years. The peaceprocess was going forward until Sharon's goverment came into power. And Norway has done exactly what? Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental palestine demands at a time when most western countries still were keeping its distance to the PLO. The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was too naive to realize that. You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem informed on the issue. According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own Constitution? No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under international law. That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq was not a millitary threath to the US and there were no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor its neightbours. This is soely something the US made up for itself. It explicitly is a *correct* argument. The rules have changed, If you like to change the rules when it fits your interests, then yes, I suppose you can make it be correct. terrorists are a threat, and any country that harbors or supports them is a threat to the US Terrorism is hardly a new phenomena, and you really don't hear the US confronting the UN with a proposal for redesign of the Chartes to fit the supposed new "world order". Of course, the US need the rest of the world to obey by the Charters, so that future renegade nations wont start attacking eachother because of facial factors. The current US goverment -really- thinks it's in a unique position to bring international matters into their own hands. By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim, or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva convention? Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are regularly visited by the International Red Cross. You might find this article from the Guardian interesting. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html The Guardian is far out of sync on this issue. No example? The Guardian is right on the spot, the US takes international law into their own hands. It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush administration's undermining of the International Criminal Court, being just about the only democratic country in the world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel operating in UN peacekeeping operations. It's a clear indication of doublestandards when it comes to matters on international justice. If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq, it appears both France and Germany much more recently than the US.... Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that. No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway. It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a matter of telling right from wrong. Yes, it certainly does have to do with bravery, and the lack there of. Old europe is afraid of "irritating" the terrorists. Old, but wise perhaps, americans really have no idea what it's like to have the horrors of war and occupation at ones own doorstep. (snip) Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world. Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be. You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write. I don't think I ever meant the above statement to indicate world domination in that particular areas. Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre, stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society and equality between the sexes far more developed than most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive. Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen (and women). "Decades ahead of the US"?? Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and equality is renound throughout the world. What is your unemployment rate, Currently about 4%. suicide rate? 12.8 per 100,000 people in 1998. Regards... |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Chaplin wrote in
: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote: "John Mullen" wrote in : snip Norway, not unrealistically, counts on the US for its defense. NATO. Actually in case of war the first to arrive would be British RAF figher and strike units, followed by USAFE. Also, isn't AMF(A) still committed to the defence of northern Norway if the fit hits the shan? AMF and NCF was dismantled last year, so NRF will probably fulfill that role in the future. Earmarked reinforments still includes the UK/NL Amphibious Force and USMC's Norwegian Air Landed Marine Air Ground Task Force (NALMAGTF), which has predeposition stocks here. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ity/nalmeb.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...le-griffin.htm There is still close cooperation and training with the US and German batalions that formed NCF though, and our 6th divison has had much recent contact with US Marine Corps 2nd Marine Divison and 34th Infantry Division from the Minnesota NG. Regards... |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
The
current US goverment -really- thinks it's in a unique position to bring international matters into their own hands. The current US government has been forced to take international matters into their own hands (with the help of dozens of supporting nations) because nations like France, Germany, Begium and Russia are determined to "ham string" the US in the UN so bad that the next terrorist attack kills 30,000 Americans. We are not going to let that happen. The Guardian is right on the spot, the US takes international law into their own hands. Can you give an example. Any example you give regarding Iraq, I counter with a UN Resolution authorizing military action. It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush administration's undermining of the International Criminal Court, being just about the only democratic country in the world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel operating in UN peacekeeping operations. First, the previous administration wouldn't sign the agreement either (I guess Clinton was just liberal enough for most Europeans to give him a "pass" on most issues). Second, if you're too blind to see why the US won't sign the agreement, its hopeless to argue. Belgium indicted Gen. Tommy Franks shortly after Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off, this would be a daily occurance should the US sign the accord. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
Stephen Harding wrote in GW clearly isn't a wordsmith, and delivery is very unsophisticated for a politico. But he comes across to me as "honest" in intent (contrary to his predecessor, who was very smooth talking and had a great delivery). In light of post 9/11 events, in particular, I would ask myself who the real smooth talker is. Of course you would. You're from "over there". A place the US definitely needs to be gone from! SMH |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The joke called TSA | Spockstuto | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | December 27th 04 12:54 PM |
Sick Boeing Joke. | plasticguy | Home Built | 0 | April 1st 04 03:16 PM |
On Topic Joke | Eric Miller | Home Built | 8 | March 6th 04 03:01 AM |
Europe as joke | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 165 | November 8th 03 10:45 PM |
American joke on the Brits | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 50 | September 30th 03 10:52 PM |