A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bye-bye INF treaty?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #431  
Old March 5th 07, 02:12 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Matt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

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."

: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
Ads
  #432  
Old March 5th 07, 04:38 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default 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  
Old March 5th 07, 05:52 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default 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  
Old March 5th 07, 08:12 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Charles Buckley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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  
Old March 5th 07, 03:27 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Matt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default 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  
Old March 5th 07, 03:48 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default 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
  #438  
Old March 6th 07, 03:44 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default 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  
Old March 6th 07, 04:43 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Charles Buckley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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  
Old March 6th 07, 02:36 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.