Warbird Information Exchange

ummmm...isn't the USCG under the umbrella of the D e p a r t m e n t of the N A V Y

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.

_________________
Always looking for WW2 Half-Tracks and Parts.

Nope. Five services, USCG is one of them.

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

The Coast Guard is under DHS and yes, one of the five armed services. In time of actual war, we would then fall under the Navy. Otherwise it's DHS. They are unique in that they also have law enforcement authority too.

If anyone wants a P-38, make a trip to Colorado Springs and visit Westpac. They have a stack of them in the shop waiting for a new owner. Why bother with hostile governments and frostbite when you can take the easy and less expensive way out in Colorado. Also available at Westpac are several F6F Hellcats and one razorback P-47.

That's far too sensible, Craig.

Because you don't get the Indiana Jones cred.

And let's be clear; in all of the discussed countries in this thread there are no 'hostile governments', just other states with sovereignty - meaning people can't just go in and crashing around demanding scrap their own government abandoned over three-quarters of a century ago.

The lack of hostility of the Greenland authorities is demonstrated by their being prepared to support the USCG case CoastieJohn mentioned earlier.

Acting like some Imperialist is so 19th Century and lacks manners and class in the 21st. It's fine to be proud of your own country, but to look down or demand acquiescence of others? No.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Nicely put JDK. Hey you going to Ardmore to see the Mosquito end of the month? They have just run the port engine today.

With the recession of some of the ice, I wonder if the rumoured remains of the Northrop F-5 Reporter are visible yet and how intact is it?

_________________
He bowls overhand...He is the most interesting man in the world.
"In Peace Japan Breeds War", Eckstein, Harper and Bros., 3rd ed. 1943(1927, 1928,1942)
"Leave it to ol' Slim. I got ideas...and they're all vile, baby." South Dakota Slim
"Ahh..."The Deuce", 28,000 pounds of motherly love." quote from some Mojave Grunt
DBF

Ah... I might pop over.


See you there.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I think it depends on what type of ice and snow accumulation area it is resting at. Some places facilitate more ice production than other areas. Therefore the object "sinks" quicker.

Yep, I figured as much Coastie. My comment was more of a headsup that there is one up there. I heard of it about 10 years ago on one of the wreck chaser lists. Dunno where it's location is, but I pass it on once in a while when the subject of Greenland wrecks comes up.

_________________
He bowls overhand...He is the most interesting man in the world.
"In Peace Japan Breeds War", Eckstein, Harper and Bros., 3rd ed. 1943(1927, 1928,1942)
"Leave it to ol' Slim. I got ideas...and they're all vile, baby." South Dakota Slim
"Ahh..."The Deuce", 28,000 pounds of motherly love." quote from some Mojave Grunt
DBF

"... it's not theirs..."

JDK's references to pseudo-imperialist attitudes are spot-on.

I just love how some people here are more concerned with potential data plate recovery following a possible disappearance of the Greenland ice cap, rather than the absolutely disastrous consequences for the global (as in including the United States of America!) climate.

If I recall correctly, one of the first expeditions to recover the P-38's on Greenland left quite a mess behind, and the same can be said of the pile of scrap metal left behind in the pathetic Kee-Bird recovery attempt, so I can't blame the Greenland authorities.

But hey, I'm a hostile Dane, so maybe it's just me.

I for one am a bit tired of hearing about American Imperialism, pseudo or otherwise.

The last time I checked we haven't invaded anyone to take their territory since the war of 1812 when the Canadians handed us our backsides. We did however; purchase the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico following the end of Hostilities in the Spanish-American War. And that was well over a hundred years ago.

Indeed we got dragged out of Neutrality, kicking and screaming, when we sent Millions of our finest to fight and die to liberate Europe (including I believe Denmark), and the PNG from true Imperialism.

And when we want to recover a piece of our heritage, bought for by American dollars; and many times brought down to its resting place with American Blood; we are told "No, no, you must pay the proper "fees" aka kickbacks ( I have nothing against real permit fees. Or recompensing someone for lost tourist revenues....I guess those American Imperialist are 'Ok'.).

But our real frustration is being told that the Aircraft is too important as a local Cultural Historical display. And THEN watching it being torn apart piece by piece by the locals for it's scrap value. Indeed watching actual scrap merchants going in and making large profits scrapping the very airframes we would like to see preserved in a Museum. Take the PNG. It has been reported that hundreds of airframes have been scrapped in the last 20 years. In that same time frame maybe a dozen or so airframes have been preserved.

Does that mean I think we should just go in and demand them? No, the courtesies must be observed. It IS a foreign Sovereign Nation ( whichever Nation we are talking about). Do I recognize that the U.S. Army and Air Force have given up all claims to crashed aircraft prior to 1955, or so? Yes I do. Do I think it silly that the US Navy thinks that every single item ever purchased by them is still their property, even if torn to pieces, burned and buried???? Yeah......no question on that one. Yes, some of us have an attitude. And some are not familiar with all the laws and treaties.

But Imperialist? Either stop insulting us, or stop insulting yourself and get a dictionary.

I'm sorry you are. Perhaps you'd like to address that concern to some of the remarks that caused the issue here.

Ultimately it boils down to good manners and respect. Some posters here failed to show manners and respect to other nations, and they were pulled up on it. I'd support the same irrespective of which nations were at issue.

Really? You sure? Really, really sure? Imperialism does not only = invasion, and I've checked the dictionary, the remarks at issue, my comments, and I stand by them.

I don't propose to go into a silly argument about international relations - there are some thoughtful posts here, yours included, and appreciated - and the thread got tricky only (from my point of view) because of some that were inaccurate where resentment drove inappropriate remarks where a friendly nation is characterised as 'hostile' because they expect people to follow local laws and customs and tidy up after themselves. An earlier remark was just out of order - I'll move on from that.

An an American ex-WIX member said to me recently in Canada "...can't we all just get along?" That's a sentiment I'd support, and so I move on. To NZ, in fact, shortly.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Sighhhhhh

From Merriam-Webster:

1.: imperial government, authority, or system
2: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>

I guess if you use the second definition you make your point. On the other hand ANY nation exerts authority or influence over another, for example Australia; and using it's influence over PNG, for example, can be defined as an Imperialistic nation. In fact under that broad term most nations could be considered Imperialistic; under the last clause.

My point being that if all industrialized nations can be tarred with that brush; then why single out any country? You know the old saying...well...maybe you don't ( being serious here, just because it is common in the US doesn't mean it is common in the rest of the English speaking World!)..."the Pot calling the Kettle black".

The irony? The post that ticked me off wasn't actually yours, James, it was the Danes. And under any definition Denmark is an Imperialist Nation with regards to Greenland. Where this whole discussion started.