Thread: Bye-bye INF treaty?
View Single Post
  #392  
Old March 2nd 07, 02:57 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
  
Posts: 5,736
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?
(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article ,
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
::If you insist that someone who disagrees with you can't be your friend,
::you're using the wrong word: you're looking for toadies, not friends.
:
:I'm afraid I have to insist that anyone who takes decisions that lead
:to my people being killed is NOT my friend, particularly when the
:alternative decision costs them nothing.
:
:I agree -- the USAF commanders who insisted on sending in the F-111s with
:inadequate support, instead of just letting the Navy do the job, are not
:your friends. But what has that got to do with France?

Henry, you should steer clear of political commentary. When you stick
to technical subjects you're a fount of wisdom. When you engage in
political remarks you say some of the most egregiously stupid things.

:Hints: (1) France was not the only US ally that refused to cooperate.
2) There was no particular rush, yet the US insisted on going ahead at
nce rather than taking the time to talk one of its allies around.

Incorrect. Just as in Iraq, there are timing constraints to letting a
situation stand over a period of time rather than doing something
about it more quickly. Allowing oneself to be nibbled to death by
French ducks has never solved anything and it wouldn't have solved
anything in this case, either.

3) There was no particular reason to use F-111s for the strike, except
:that the USAF insisted on being involved despite being poorly equipped
:for it.

While I'm rather inclined to agree, on the flip side you'd be
requiring the Navy to fly multiple strikes, leading to more exhaustion
for those pilots.

:So why are you now blaming the *French* for this? The decisions which
:resulted in those men being killed were made in the Pentagon, not in
:Paris.

I'm blaming the French for this because THEY are the ones who forced
those pilots to arrive exhausted (because the original plan couldn't
be used) because of THEIR decisions. Why are you defending them?

Hint: I also blame the Turks for Iraq being such a near run thing in
the beginning, due to THEIR decision to reverse course on the passage
of 4th ID through Turkey.

: Is it just that you don't want to admit that, and would prefer
:to find a foreign scapegoat?

Foreign scapegoat my ass - which, by the way, you can feel free to
kiss at this point.

Hint: Obviously, final responsibility belongs with the decision
makers, but giving those who try to sabotage plans a 'by' and not
holding them responsible for THEIR decisions is merely 'spin'. Trying
to then engage in ad hominem to justify your 'spin' is, well, unworthy
is the kindest word that comes to mind.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates