|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#351
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Feb 28, 6:14 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote: On 28 Feb 2007 08:05:27 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Hyper" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Just think of what could have been avoided if only France hadn't had him convinced they could give him 'cover'... While you decry France's "treason" No one said anything about treason, in quotes or otherwise (hint: it's not possible for a country to be a "traitor" to another). One meaning of treason is betrayal of confidence/trust, n'est pas? I used that word because Mr. McCall was so indignant with regard to French policy. We (or at least I) were simply pointing out that France has not behaved as one would expect an ally to, toward the US, for a long time. And it's very clear that France doesn't consider us an ally. There are limits to any alliance (see H. Spencers allies vs. toadies comment). Also, remember Suez? The US had no qualms stepping on the UK-French allied toes - or throats. They see us as a dangerous rival on the world stage, to be controlled. Again, one can argue whether or not that's a sensible position, but it's not the behavior or attitude of an ally. While France's governments have chafed under US leadership during the Cold War, their actions after 9/11 HAVE been those of an ally. |
#352
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Hyper" wrote in message ups.com... And BTW the French embassy in Tripoli was hit by mistake in that raid. Was the party who prepared the maps for that raid also the one who prepared the maps for the raid that hit the Chinese embassy? |
#353
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Hyper" wrote in message oups.com... On Feb 28, 5:23 pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote: I wasn't referring to that. I was talking about Saddam, and their obstruction at the UN. Is it obstruction if it's the right thing to do? Which has exactly zip to do with France's actions in the UN. |
#354
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On 28 Feb 2007 08:34:46 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Hyper"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: While you decry France's "treason" No one said anything about treason, in quotes or otherwise (hint: it's not possible for a country to be a "traitor" to another). One meaning of treason is betrayal of confidence/trust, n'est pas? We haven't trusted the French for years. We (or at least I) were simply pointing out that France has not behaved as one would expect an ally to, toward the US, for a long time. And it's very clear that France doesn't consider us an ally. There are limits to any alliance (see H. Spencers allies vs. toadies comment). No one expected, or asked, France to be a toadie. There are things in between. Also, remember Suez? The US had no qualms stepping on the UK-French allied toes - or throats. Yes. Fortunately, that was not as much of a pattern as France's behavior is. They see us as a dangerous rival on the world stage, to be controlled. Again, one can argue whether or not that's a sensible position, but it's not the behavior or attitude of an ally. While France's governments have chafed under US leadership during the Cold War, their actions after 9/11 HAVE been those of an ally. Some have, some haven't. Their actions in subverting oil for food, providing back-channel intelligence to Saddam, and in the Security Council most decidedly were not. |
#355
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Feb 28, 6:55 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote: On 28 Feb 2007 08:34:46 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Hyper" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: One meaning of treason is betrayal of confidence/trust, n'est pas? We haven't trusted the French for years. Then why complain when they act as expected? No one expected, or asked, France to be a toadie. There are things in between. Quasi-toadies, prideful lackeys? Also, remember Suez? The US had no qualms stepping on the UK-French allied toes - or throats. Yes. Fortunately, that was not as much of a pattern as France's behavior is. It was a very sensible thing to do, and it took guts that present politicians mostly lack. Some have, some haven't. Their actions in subverting oil for food, providing back-channel intelligence to Saddam, and in the Security Council most decidedly were not. True. Do you have some quotes on the back-channel inteligence? |
#356
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On 28 Feb 2007 09:06:57 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Hyper"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Feb 28, 6:55 pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote: On 28 Feb 2007 08:34:46 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Hyper" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: One meaning of treason is betrayal of confidence/trust, n'est pas? We haven't trusted the French for years. Then why complain when they act as expected? In the (probably vain) hope that those who do unaccountably trust them will do it a little less. Some have, some haven't. Their actions in subverting oil for food, providing back-channel intelligence to Saddam, and in the Security Council most decidedly were not. True. Do you have some quotes on the back-channel inteligence? Not off hand, no. I'd have to dig. |
#357
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Feb 27, 1:14 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
Tell that to the parents of the crew of the F-111 that was shut down while defending France and the rest of the world against terrorism in the Libyan actions of 1986. Why were the 'varks involved in El Dorado Canyon at all? The Navy was perfectly capable of doing the entire mission without Air Force help[1], not just Benghazi plus supporting the Air Force's Tripoli strikes. Given that the Air Force had to do such a crazy route, why didn't they simply leave the whole thing to the Navy? As it was, the Navy provided SEAD support for the Air Force strikes (there were a few Spark Varks as well as a EA-6 and some A-7's as HARM shooters, plus some F-14's as CAP). Why couldn't they have provided the whole strike package? Note that only four of the 18 F-111's hit their targets (one was lost on ingress, six aborted, seven missed). With a success rate like that, was the AF participation in El Dorado Canyon truly necessary? Was it inter-service politics between the Air Force and the Navy that got those men killed? I would say that those politics had at least as much to do with it as US-French politics. Chris Manteuffel [1]: _Command of the Seas_ by Lehman |
#358
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On 28 Feb 2007 13:09:12 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Christopher
Manteuffel" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Feb 27, 1:14 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote: Tell that to the parents of the crew of the F-111 that was shut down while defending France and the rest of the world against terrorism in the Libyan actions of 1986. Was it inter-service politics between the Air Force and the Navy that got those men killed? I would say that those politics had at least as much to do with it as US-French politics. I don't know, but I wouldn't be shocked if that were the case. |
#359
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Christopher Manteuffel" wrote in message s.com... Why were the 'varks involved in El Dorado Canyon at all? The Navy was perfectly capable of doing the entire mission without Air Force help[1] What, and let squids and jarheads get all the credit? Was it inter-service politics between the Air Force and the Navy that got those men killed? I would say that those politics had at least as much to do with it as US-French politics. Why do the Marines get equal representation on the Joint Chiefs when they are part of the Navy? Why did Belorussia and the Ukraine get voting representation in the UN when they were part of the Soviet Union? Why do checks written to me take a week to clear, but checks I write clear immediately? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll lollipop? Why does the press insist on using "pro-choice" AND "anti-abortion" instead of "abortion supporters" and "pro-life"? Why do my children hear the tiniest nuance of their videos and music but can't hear me standing next to them? |
#360
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Rand Simberg wrote: On 28 Feb 2007 07:27:07 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Hyper" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Feb 28, 5:23 pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote: I wasn't referring to that. I was talking about Saddam, and their obstruction at the UN. Is it obstruction if it's the right thing to do? Of course. Not that it was the right thing to do. It certainly wasn't done for noble or admirable reasons. And as I said, whether they behaved rightly or wrongly, it wasn't the behavior of an ally. Lets see, French soldiers are fighting and dying for you in Afghanistan but you can't consider them to be allies because they have also voted against the US going into a quagmire in Iraq. I have a hard time understanding this line of reasonning. I think that France really thought it was a bad idea for the US to go in Iraq. A majority of Yankees now, with hind sight, agree that it was a bad idea. Remember France has soldiers fighting for you. Alain Fournier |
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 |