|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#432
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Matt wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote: : Matt wrote: : : :Fred J. McCall wrote: : : "frédéric haessig" wrote: : : : : : : : :"Rand Simberg" a écrit dans le message de : : :news: ... : : :That bush lied? : : : : : : Yes. That's not a fact. I'll forgive you because, though your : : : English is excellent, it's probably not your first language. : : : Apparently you're unfamiliar with the meaning of that word (hint: it : : : doesn't mean merely stating something that later turns out not to be : : : the case). : : : : : :Lying means stating something you know is not true. : : : : : :Which is exactly what Bush did. : : : : Wrong. : : : :Wrong. : : : :Say, one word disagreements are easy. I must add that to my usenet : osting style. I don't know why I didn't think of it before. It sure : :saves on all this typing stuff. : : When your statement is an outright lie, what else is there to say? : : Does this make you happier? : : Wrong. That is not exactly what Bush did. Your statement is in : conflict with our present reality. What you claim happened never : happened and every look at the facts says it never happened. You're : on your ass, boy. It's false. It's incorrect. It's untrue. : : : : : :He had access to reports from the US intelligence community stating that : : :Sadam WMD program was a fake. He ignored them and kept asking for other : : :information until he managed to get which could be interpreted to say what : : :he wanted. Erog, Bush knew. : : : : Cite? This bit is a lie. You have apparently believed it. I'll : : simply note that every Intelligence agency in every major country in : : the world (including France) believed that Saddam had such weapons. : : : :How would you know? Do you have access to confidential intelligence : :reports for every major country in the world? No, I didn't think so. : : Still waiting for that cite. EVERY investigation into this comes to : the conclusion that what you claim never happened, is wrong, is false, : is a lie. Is it sinking in yet? : : :Your cite is in the article below, and refutes your claim "that every :Intelligence agency in every major country in the world (including :France) believed that Saddam had such weapons." I see one EX-employee making comments. Where's the official position of the Australian intelligence community? : :Here is an article by Andrew Wilkie, an Australian spook that resigned : :in the midst of the media storm about WMDs, before Australia deployed to : :Iraq. Seriously, have a read through it. First, it debunks your : :assertion above. Second, if you think America, or Britain, or virtually : :any other country is beyond the issues raised, you are deluded. : : : : : :http://tinyurl.com/d85w : : I don't follow unidentified URLs that might go anywhere. Sorry. : : :The apologies are mine. It links to this article. : :http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...177726543.html Too easily explained as 'disgruntled employee'. Just reading the web page cited and noting the phrasing makes it pretty clear that the writer is more interested in 'spin' than accuracy. -- "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates |
#433
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Mar 4, 11:57 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
If you wanted to launch a strike with Hornets at any range at all you needed your A-6s as tankers. Or borrow those nice KC-10's from the Air Force. There is historical precedent for countries willing to allow tankers to operate and or overfly but not tactical aircraft. Whether one of France, Spain or Italy (what was Treviso like back then?) would be more willing to do so, I don't know, but I suspect so. Even if they don't, only having your tankers fly the crazy by Gibralter route rather than your attack aircraft is still a better situation. Chris Manteuffel |
#434
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Pat Flannery wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote: 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 once rather than taking the time to talk one of its allies around. The trick would be to have gotten Andorra to host a visiting F-111 group for a airshow on the day of the attack. Well.. Considering that Italy was just a few miles away, it kinda makes you wonder why aircraft were launched from England... It wasn't like Italy was not involved in a few other terrorist events the previous couple years. And, there were US bases in Italy. If planes flew from England, why not Italy? Both RAF Mildenhall and Lakenheath were engaged in military exercises the week of the bombing. There was no real secret to the mission takeoff though. IIRC, the Libyan air defenses went on alert within an hour of the takeoff of the aircraft. (Which was *very* noticeable). The assets had been sitting on the tarmac for roughly 10 days prior to mission. If anything, the French did the F-111 pilots a favor because the air defense batteries were standing down and not alert by the time the planes actually arrived. Then they could fly over the French/Spanish border toward Andorra, be intercepted by a fighter of the Andorran Air Force (a Cierva C.30A Autogyro with a machine gun on it), which notices the planes are armed, be expelled from Andorran airspace for this affront...and expel themselves in a south-easterly direction to do their bombing run on Libya. To show our deep sorrow for having trifled with Andorra's national sovereignty by showing up in a armed state for an airshow, they state that they have taken the offending bombs far from its territory and jettisoned them in a barren wasteland. Then they return to Andorra in a unarmed state for the airshow, but still Andorra is not satisfied, and again they are expelled...this time north-westwards toward England. If we'd agreed to build Andorra an airport for doing this, I'd bet they'd have gone for it, providing they could figure out where to fit it. If they couldn't, then we could upgrade the AAF to a Huey Cobra. :-D Pat |
#435
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Matt wrote: snipped :http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...177726543.html Too easily explained as 'disgruntled employee'. Just reading the web page cited and noting the phrasing makes it pretty clear that the writer is more interested in 'spin' than accuracy. Considering the circumstances of his resignation, yes, he will sound like a disgruntled employee. Paraphrasing - "In my job as an analyst, I can see there is no evidence of Iraq having WMDs that are a threat, but the gov.au is saying that my department backs their assertion that they do. I want no part of it." You value your ethical standards, too, right? The upshot is, if Australian intelligence was aware of this prior to troop deployment to Iraq, it's not a stretch to say that so did the intelligence agencies of those major countries you mentioned. Are you shocked that our governments might actually bend the truth for the sake of furthering political endeavours? Let's face it, war is good for the economy, and we really need that oil.. |
#436
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Charles Buckley wrote: Pat Flannery wrote: Henry Spencer wrote: 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 once rather than taking the time to talk one of its allies around. The trick would be to have gotten Andorra to host a visiting F-111 group for a airshow on the day of the attack. Well.. Considering that Italy was just a few miles away, it kinda makes you wonder why aircraft were launched from England... It wasn't like Italy was not involved in a few other terrorist events the previous couple years. And, there were US bases in Italy. If planes flew from England, why not Italy? I don't think we had F-111s normally deployed there, so the arrival of them would be noticed, and this would have clued the Libyans in on what was coming. Pat |
#437
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
|
#438
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Matt wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote: : Matt wrote: : :snipped : : :http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...177726543.html : : Too easily explained as 'disgruntled employee'. Just reading the web : page cited and noting the phrasing makes it pretty clear that the : writer is more interested in 'spin' than accuracy. : : :Considering the circumstances of his resignation, yes, he will sound :like a disgruntled employee. Paraphrasing - "In my job as an analyst, I :can see there is no evidence of Iraq having WMDs that are a threat, but :the gov.au is saying that my department backs their assertion that they :do. I want no part of it." You value your ethical standards, too, right? : :The upshot is, if Australian intelligence was aware of this prior to :troop deployment to Iraq, it's not a stretch to say that so did the :intelligence agencies of those major countries you mentioned. : :Are you shocked that our governments might actually bend the truth for :the sake of furthering political endeavours? Let's face it, war is good :for the economy, and we really need that oil.. I'm shocked that you can't read 'spin' and recognize it. Hell, I actually had an English course on propaganda and how it works when I was in high school and yet here you are not being able to recognize blatant bias when you read it. Ask yourself how much oil the US got from or is getting from Iraq. Hint: If it was all about oil, we'd have invaded Canada. We get a lot more oil from them, they're closer, and the women are probably friendlier. -- "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates |
#439
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Pat Flannery wrote:
Charles Buckley wrote: Pat Flannery wrote: Henry Spencer wrote: 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 once rather than taking the time to talk one of its allies around. The trick would be to have gotten Andorra to host a visiting F-111 group for a airshow on the day of the attack. Well.. Considering that Italy was just a few miles away, it kinda makes you wonder why aircraft were launched from England... It wasn't like Italy was not involved in a few other terrorist events the previous couple years. And, there were US bases in Italy. If planes flew from England, why not Italy? I don't think we had F-111s normally deployed there, so the arrival of them would be noticed, and this would have clued the Libyans in on what was coming. The addition of a lot of tankers in England was as much a clue. Seriously.. Libya had solid intel within the hour of the aircraft launch. This was not a secret.. When entire flights of F-111's took of accompanied by a lot of tankers, there was no hiding what was going on.. |
#440
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Fred J. McCall wrote: Hint: If it was all about oil, we'd have invaded Canada. We get a lot more oil from them, they're closer, and the women are probably friendlier. But Canada wouldn't try to undercut OPECs oil prices, leading to lower worldwide oil prices and the end of Exxon's record-breaking profits...Iraq was thinking about that strategy: http://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=10198 Pat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bye-bye INF treaty? | Pat Flannery | Policy | 418 | March 20th 07 03:12 AM |
Limited ASAT test ban treaty | Totorkon | Policy | 3 | March 9th 07 02:19 AM |
Outer Space Treaty | John Schilling | Policy | 24 | May 24th 06 03:14 PM |
Bush to Withdraw from Outer Space Treaty, Annex the Moon | Mark R. Whittington | Policy | 7 | April 2nd 05 08:02 PM |