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.

"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?

"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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

"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?

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