Bye-bye INF treaty?

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
.com...
That said, Gallipoli was enough of a disaster that it didn't require the
German fleet to interfere.

I should think that most of the German fleet was retired by the time
"Gallipoli" was filmed :P

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Terrell Miller" wrote:

:
:guys, please take this sort of stuff offline. You guys have been flaming
:each other over and over *and over* for a hell of a long time. I'm getting
:tired of having to ignore all those posts. I'd rahter not have to kf the
:both of you, so how about taking your little battle to email and leave the
:rest of us out of it, eh?

Jesus, what makes you think I want EMAIL from this twit? It's bad
enough he keeps spewing idiocy to Usenet...

....and so do you, Freddy, so do you...


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Jordan wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"frédéric haessig" wrote:

:
:"Jordan" a écrit dans le message de news:
. com...
: Secondly, this does rather raise the question of what the Europeans
: _would_ do if the Iranians started bombarding European cities with
: conventional missiles. My guess is that the Europeans would either 1)
: blame America and Israel, and flail around impotently demanding that
: we appease Iran to stop the attacks, or 2) go ape**** and start
: demanding complete genocide of Iran. With no sane middle ground
: probable.
:
:I hadn't realized you crawled out of my killfile when I changed computer,
:but that's easily solved.
:
:plonk

I always find it funny how Europeans think bruiting about their views
of the United States is just commentary but then pop an artery when we
return the favour.

And yes, the preceding is a fairly common view of what we can expect
from 'Old Europe'...

As Haessig implicitly admits, because you notice that he did _not_
argue that the Europeans would _not_ respond in the manner I
described

Freddy, is a lot like the humorist Wll Rogers, with one simple twist,
Freddy never met a person he DID like. Perhaps the root of his problem
is that he doesn't like himself.

Eric


- Jordan

Jordan wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:53 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

What makes it so pointless is that 10 ABMs in Poland are worthless
against a North Korean attack and so would only be of any possible use
against a Iranian attack that overflew Europe on the way to the U.S..

You're right.

We _are_ stupid to defend the Europeans. We should pull those ABM's
out right away!

Seriously, though, Poland is one of the European countries that has
stood firm by us in the current crisis, and as a result _does_ deserve
our defense. It's not as if we were defending, say, _France_.

France is a staunch ally of the US. Just because they didn't want
to help you in an erroneous path in Iraq, it doesn't mean they aren't
your allies. French soldiers are currently fighting and dying in their
reply to the Taliban attack of sept 2001.

Alain Fournier

wrote:
Jordan wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:53 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

What makes it so pointless is that 10 ABMs in Poland are worthless
against a North Korean attack and so would only be of any possible use
against a Iranian attack that overflew Europe on the way to the U.S..

You're right.

We _are_ stupid to defend the Europeans. We should pull those ABM's
out right away!

Seriously, though, Poland is one of the European countries that has
stood firm by us in the current crisis, and as a result _does_ deserve
our defense. It's not as if we were defending, say, _France_.

France is a staunch ally of the US. Just because they didn't want
to help you in an erroneous path in Iraq, it doesn't mean they aren't
your allies. French soldiers are currently fighting and dying in their
reply to the Taliban attack of sept 2001.

Withdrawl from NATO in 1964? The French fight against terrorism is for
France not the US. We have a common enemy in the fight against
terrorism but that doesn't necessarily make us allies.

Eric


Alain Fournier

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Terrell Miller" wrote:
:
: :
: :guys, please take this sort of stuff offline. You guys have been flaming
: :each other over and over *and over* for a hell of a long time. I'm getting
: :tired of having to ignore all those posts. I'd rahter not have to kf the
: :both of you, so how about taking your little battle to email and leave the
: :rest of us out of it, eh?
:
: Jesus, what makes you think I want EMAIL from this twit? It's bad
: enough he keeps spewing idiocy to Usenet...
:
:...and so do you, Freddy, so do you...

I'll simply note that El Chimpko was compelled to reply to ME rather
than to Mr Miller...

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

wrote in message
oups.com...
France is a staunch ally of the US.

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. Being refused overfly rights contributed to the deaths of
Americans that day.

Further add France's commerce with Iraq in violation of the UN's
food-for-oil sanctions.

France is a friend in the sense that an STD is birth control.

In article ,
Scott Hedrick wrote:
France is a staunch ally of the US.

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. Being refused overfly rights contributed to the deaths of
Americans that day.

Although some people sometimes have difficulty figuring this out, there is
a difference between "staunch ally" and "obedient lackey". The US used to
take pride in this -- that *its* allies had that status of their own free
will, and could openly disagree with the US on details without losing that
status, and weren't bound to follow the US if they thought it was doing
something stupid, in the same way that the US wasn't bound to follow
*them* if it thought *they* were doing something stupid. It was part of
what made the Free World free.

The people who planned and ordered the Libyan raid knew that their failure
to sell the idea to *any* of the US's local allies reduced the safety
margins for the crews. Yet they went ahead with it anyway. Were those
safety margins adequate -- given the importance, or lack thereof, of the
mission -- or not? If the mission justified the risks, then it was simply
bad luck that good men died; military aircrew die on duty every year. If
the mission didn't justify the risks... then the fault surely lies with
the commanders who ordered it to proceed, knowing that they hadn't been
able to arrange adequate support. The Republic wasn't about to fall if
that mission wasn't flown.

Further add France's commerce with Iraq in violation of the UN's
food-for-oil sanctions.

Which were accomplishing precious little except to add to the misery of
Iraq's beaten-down populace.

France is a friend in the sense that an STD is birth control.

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.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Eric Chomko wrote:
wrote:
Jordan wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:53 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

What makes it so pointless is that 10 ABMs in Poland are worthless
against a North Korean attack and so would only be of any possible use
against a Iranian attack that overflew Europe on the way to the U.S..

You're right.

We _are_ stupid to defend the Europeans. We should pull those ABM's
out right away!

Seriously, though, Poland is one of the European countries that has
stood firm by us in the current crisis, and as a result _does_ deserve
our defense. It's not as if we were defending, say, _France_.

France is a staunch ally of the US. Just because they didn't want
to help you in an erroneous path in Iraq, it doesn't mean they aren't
your allies. French soldiers are currently fighting and dying in their
reply to the Taliban attack of sept 2001.

Withdrawl from NATO in 1964?

France started to withdraw from the military alliance in 1958 but
allways
remained in the political alliance.That meant that France didn't need
or
want US troops on its soil and did non want to station its own troops
on the soil of other NATO countries but it was allways an ally within
NATO and showed so for example during the Cuban crisis. France
rejoined NATO's military command in 1993. Anyways, not all US allies
are members of NATO.

The French fight against terrorism is for
France not the US. We have a common enemy in the fight against
terrorism but that doesn't necessarily make us allies.

If France had only it self interest in mind, it would be much better
off
not fighting in Afghanistan. They would attract less terrorist action
on
their soil by simply letting others fight Al Qaeda. It's not as if
there was
any doubt about who had the most fire-power, Al Qaeda or those
fighting
Al Qaeda. France being in there doesn't change the outcome of the
fight.
They are not there just for France, they are there because one of
their
allies has been attacked.

Iran is also fighting Al Qaeda. We can easily see major differences
between the relationships between France, the US and Iran in the
fight against Al Qaeda. Could you imagine Iran putting its soldiers
under
US command or the US putting its soldiers under Iranian command.
Of course not. France has some of its soldiers in Afghanistan under
NATO command and the rest of its soldiers directly under US
command. France would not put its soldiers under the command of
a country it didn't consider as being a loyal ally.


Alain Fournier

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:
:France is a friend in the sense that an STD is birth control.
:
: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.

The French are not our friends and haven't been for a long, long time.

--
"Have you noticed that the most subtle shedders of blood have always
been the most civilized gentlemen? If civilization has not made man
more bloodthirsty, it has at least made him more hideously and
abominably bloodthirsty. Formerly he saw bloodshed as an act of
justice, and with a clear conscience exterminated whomever he
thought he should. And now we consider bloodshed an abomination,
yet engage in this abomination more than ever."
-- Dostoyevsky "Notes From The Underground"