Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:54:14 +0100, in a place far, far away, "frédéric
haessig" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

So, why do you think France opposition to the war was caused by the Oil
for
food scandal?


The cases have the same values

No, we don't have a president here who avoided jail only by becoming
president.

That has nothing to do with the case under discussion.

Yes, it does. Chirac is corrupt. The Oil for Food (and palaces, and
weapons) thing was just part and parcel of the corruption.

That type of argument can only weaken your position, as it shows you have
nothing better to say.

And I suggest you don't get into this, as there is quite a lot to say about
GWB.

laughing

I suppose that a of Europeans enjoy fantasizing that. After all, many
of them consider him worse than Hitler.

Such as? Nothing factual of which I'm aware.

France opposed the war against Iraq. Some corrupt frenchmen got a lot of
illegal money from Iraq. You see an immediate and direct causal
relationship.

USA went to war against Iraq. Some corrupt americans got a huge amount of
illegal money out of this.

What "illegal money" is that?

The one we are speaking about for the last 4 message or so.

The billions of $ which 'disapeared' since the US takeover. 8 billion of
which Bremer was grilled over in congress. You know, the one he said he
would be 'shocked' if it was ever 'proven' part of would have ended in AQ
hands.

That doesn't make it illegal. It only indicates incompetence (as
bureacracies are wont to be). If there were any real provable illegal
activity here, you can bet that the press, on both sides of the pond,
would be all over it.


You see absolutely no relationship.

I see that absent 911, we would not have gone into Iraq, or attempted
nation building (which George Bush opposed on September 10th).


Again nothing to do with the argument.

Of course it does. The point is that we had many reasons to remove
Saddam, and one need not invoke corruption as one of them. The
French, on the other hand, had one main reason to keep him in power.
He was bribing them to do so. And of course, they get the additional
psychic benefit of throwing a wrench in the works of the Evil
Hyperpower.

And please don't take us for idiots. Even the current US administration
admitted that, even prior to 9/11, they were planning to invade Iraq as soon
as they could find a way to justify it.

When did it do that? In any event, regime change in Iraq was the
policy of the *Clinton* administration.

The guilty are no nearer to the centers of decision in either case.

I disagree.

OK.

Justify your disagreement.

I have.

give a proof of link between money coming from Oil for Food and Chirac,
Rafarin or Villepin.

Finding a link between Warprofiteers and people handling 'untraceable' money
in Iraq on the one hand and Bremer, Rumsfeld, Cheney or GWB on the other is
rather easier to do.

Really? As I said, if that were the case, it would be a huge scandal
here. Particularly with the Dems in charge. Everybody screams about
how it was a war for Oooiiilll, and to make Halliburton rich, but
somehow they never actually can make a coherent case.

"Rand Simberg" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...

That has nothing to do with the case under discussion.

Yes, it does. Chirac is corrupt. The Oil for Food (and palaces, and
weapons) thing was just part and parcel of the corruption.

Leaving alone the fact that Chirac has never been accused of getting any
personnal money out of it ( it's party money we're talking about ), there's
a huge flaw in your logic.

Let's apply it to US, shall we.

Cheney worked for Haliburton. The war in Iraq was just a part and parcel of
that work.

See how ridiculous it is.

Each such aregument weaken your case.



That type of argument can only weaken your position, as it shows you have
nothing better to say.

And I suggest you don't get into this, as there is quite a lot to say
about
GWB.

laughing

I suppose that a of Europeans enjoy fantasizing that. After all, many
of them consider him worse than Hitler.

LOL; I don't know how many european you call 'many'. It is all of 20 or do
you even go to 30?

I certainly never met any, even the most anti-US ones, who ever claimed or
thought this.

Again, you should not trust Fox news blindly.


Such as? Nothing factual of which I'm aware.

Let's begin with the fact that he lied to start a war which caused tens to
hundreds of thousands of innocentspeople to be killed.

Compared to this, any accusation which can be levelled against Chirac is
just pecadillo.



Sill; I reiterate, what has that to do with the fact that french troops are
part of ISAF and allied to the US?


France opposed the war against Iraq. Some corrupt frenchmen got a lot of
illegal money from Iraq. You see an immediate and direct causal
relationship.

USA went to war against Iraq. Some corrupt americans got a huge amount
of
illegal money out of this.

What "illegal money" is that?

The one we are speaking about for the last 4 message or so.

The billions of $ which 'disapeared' since the US takeover. 8 billion of
which Bremer was grilled over in congress. You know, the one he said he
would be 'shocked' if it was ever 'proven' part of would have ended in AQ
hands.

That doesn't make it illegal. It only indicates incompetence (as
bureacracies are wont to be). If there were any real provable illegal
activity here, you can bet that the press, on both sides of the pond,
would be all over it.

I you really think the money was trully lost, I've got a tower to sell to
you. Small bills only, please.




You see absolutely no relationship.

I see that absent 911, we would not have gone into Iraq, or attempted
nation building (which George Bush opposed on September 10th).


Again nothing to do with the argument.

Of course it does. The point is that we had many reasons to remove
Saddam, and one need not invoke corruption as one of them. The
French, on the other hand, had one main reason to keep him in power.
He was bribing them to do so.

So, you had lots of reasons and the french had only one.

Ridiculous.

Oh, and if Saddam was bribing Pasqua ( who is the highest-level french
politician to be suspected of collusion in that scandal - as someone near
him was caught - ) to try to influance french foreign policy, he was even
more of an idiot than I think he was, as Pasqua had been out of power
circles for half a dozen years by then - and not a friend of Chirac beside.



What you are showing is that you're not very knowledgeable about France and
that, when the same fallacious logic you use is used on US, with the same
unproven leaps, you think it lucridious.

Since your premices are false as is your reasoning, I don't wonder your
conclusions also are.

Rand Simberg wrote:

I suppose that a of Europeans enjoy fantasizing that. After all, many
of them consider him worse than Hitler.



He's certainly his equal as a military strategist. :-D

Pat

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 22:32:10 +0100, in a place far, far away, "frédéric
haessig" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

That has nothing to do with the case under discussion.

Yes, it does. Chirac is corrupt. The Oil for Food (and palaces, and
weapons) thing was just part and parcel of the corruption.

Leaving alone the fact that Chirac has never been accused of getting any
personnal money out of it ( it's party money we're talking about ), there's
a huge flaw in your logic.

A distinction without a difference.

Let's apply it to US, shall we.

Cheney worked for Haliburton. The war in Iraq was just a part and parcel of
that work.

See how ridiculous it is.

Yes, that is indeed ridiculous, since it's not analogous in any useful
way.

Each such aregument weaken your case.

Sorry, but your simply saying so doesn't make it so.

That type of argument can only weaken your position, as it shows you have
nothing better to say.

And I suggest you don't get into this, as there is quite a lot to say
about
GWB.

laughing

I suppose that a of Europeans enjoy fantasizing that. After all, many
of them consider him worse than Hitler.

LOL; I don't know how many european you call 'many'. It is all of 20 or do
you even go to 30?

I saw lots of signs and puppets to that effect in the "peace" marches
leading up to the war.

Again, you should not trust Fox news blindly.

And you shouldn't bllindly assume that I get my news from Fox News.

Such as? Nothing factual of which I'm aware.

Let's begin with the fact that he lied to start a war which caused tens to
hundreds of thousands of innocentspeople to be killed.

That's not a fact. Got anything else? Is George Bush going to be
indicted when he leaves office? Chirac probably will be.

What "illegal money" is that?

The one we are speaking about for the last 4 message or so.

The billions of $ which 'disapeared' since the US takeover. 8 billion of
which Bremer was grilled over in congress. You know, the one he said he
would be 'shocked' if it was ever 'proven' part of would have ended in AQ
hands.

That doesn't make it illegal. It only indicates incompetence (as
bureacracies are wont to be). If there were any real provable illegal
activity here, you can bet that the press, on both sides of the pond,
would be all over it.

I you really think the money was trully lost, I've got a tower to sell to
you. Small bills only, please.

No, of course it wasn't lost. It went into someone's pockets. That
doesn't make it illegal.

You see absolutely no relationship.

I see that absent 911, we would not have gone into Iraq, or attempted
nation building (which George Bush opposed on September 10th).


Again nothing to do with the argument.

Of course it does. The point is that we had many reasons to remove
Saddam, and one need not invoke corruption as one of them. The
French, on the other hand, had one main reason to keep him in power.
He was bribing them to do so.

So, you had lots of reasons and the french had only one.

No, as I said, they also got to put a finger in America's eye.

Ridiculous.

Oh, and if Saddam was bribing Pasqua ( who is the highest-level french
politician to be suspected of collusion in that scandal - as someone near
him was caught - ) to try to influance french foreign policy, he was even
more of an idiot than I think he was, as Pasqua had been out of power
circles for half a dozen years by then - and not a friend of Chirac beside.

Oh, this is ridiculous.

"Perhaps Chirac's deepest friendship has been with Saddam Hussein.[30]
The two first met in December 1974 when Prime Minister Chirac visited
Baghdad to negotiate trade agreements, including the delivery of a
nuclear reactor[31] later destroyed by an Israeli air raid in 1981.
When Hussein visited France the following September—his only visit to
a Western country[32]—then-prime minister Chirac said, "I welcome you
as my personal friend. I assure you of my esteem, my consideration,
and my affection."[33]

Resigning from government in 1976, Chirac founded the Rassemblement
pour la Republique, which would soon become France's largest political
party. There remain persistent rumors that Hussein helped finance the
party, supported by allegations by Lebanese arms merchant Sarkis
Soghanalian[34] and by various Iraqi politicians. In 1992, Saddam
reportedly threatened to expose French leaders who had earlier
accepted his largesse. "From Mr. Chirac to Mr. Chevènement,
politicians and economic leaders were in open competition to spend
time with us and flatter us," the Iraqi leader reportedly said. "We
have now grasped the reality of the situation [of France's support for
the 1991 Gulf War, a betrayal in Saddam's eyes]. If the trickery
continues, we will be forced to unmask them, all of them, before the
French public."[35] According to an aide, Chirac's friendship with
Hussein was such that he would stop for a night in Baghdad whenever he
traveled between Paris and Asia.[36]

Baghdad rewarded Paris for its loyalty. Throughout the 1980s, Iraq
bought US$25 billion worth of arms from French concerns, including
Mirage fighters, Super Etendard aircraft, and Exocet missiles.[37] The
Iraqi government also picked French companies to build Saddam
International Airport in 1982.[38] The relationship between Chirac and
Hussein went beyond the norm in Franco-Iraqi relations. When Chirac
again became prime minister in 1986 after a decade out of power, the
relationship once more blossomed. The following year, reports surfaced
that Chirac had offered to rebuild the nuclear reactor destroyed by
Israel in 1981. In 1994, French oil companies Total and Elf won
contracts worth billions to develop southern Iraqi oil fields upon the
lifting of the sanctions regime.[39] When Chirac became president in
1995, his government began lobbying the United Nations to ameliorate
if not lift sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of
Kuwait.[40] The United Nation's Oil-for-Food program, inaugurated in
1996, allowed the Iraqi government to sell its oil in order to
purchase food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies.[41] Saddam
Hussein rewarded Chirac's government for his support. France quickly
became Iraq's chief trade partner, a position it maintained until
2003.[42]

Hussein's investment in Chirac proved fruitful for the Iraqi leader.
In 1998, when asked how patient he was prepared to be with Saddam
Hussein, Chirac responded, "When it comes to humanitarian affairs,
France's patience is limitless."[43] In the months preceding the 2003
Iraq war, French resistance to sanctions or military action against
Baghdad grew. According to The Sunday Times of London, French
officials regularly "kept Saddam abreast of every development in
American planning and may have helped him to prepare for war."[44] In
January 2003, a French company sold aircraft and helicopter parts to
Iraq for its French-made Mirage fighters and Gazelle helicopters.[45]
On October 26, 2003, rockets struck the Rashid Hotel in Baghdad during
the visit of U.S. deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz.
Subsequent investigation showed these to be French-made Matra SNEB
68-millimeter. The pristine condition of those left behind suggested
manufacture after the imposition of sanctions.[46]

Several French officials benefited personally from their close ties to
Baghdad. Documents unearthed in the wake of the Iraqi regime's
collapse suggest that French officials accepted lucrative oil vouchers
from the Iraqi government in exchange for diplomatic favors. According
to the September 2004 Duelfer report, titled Comprehensive Report of
the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD (Weapons of Mass
Destruction), Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, said he
"personally awarded several French individuals substantial oil
allotments." Aziz told his interrogators that both parties understood
that resale of the oil was to be reciprocated through efforts to lift
U.N. sanctions or through opposition to U.S. initiatives within the
Security Council."[47] Also, according to an Iraqi intelligence
service memo, a French politician met in May 2002 with an Iraqi
official and "assured the Iraqi that France would use its veto in the
UNSC [U.N. Security Council] against any American decision to attack
Iraq."[48]

Among the French officials indicted are several members of Chirac's
inner circle, including Charles Pasqua, his former interior minister.
A May 17, 2005 report released by the U.S. Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations concluded,

Documents created by the Ministry of Oil during the Hussein regime
and interviews of high-ranking Hussein regime officials conducted by
the Subcommittee provide substantial evidence that Charles Pasqua was
granted oil allocations for 11 million barrels of oil from the Hussein
regime under the Oil-for-Food Program in return for his continued
support.[49]

Documents reveal that the Iraqi government also gave fourteen million
barrels of oil to French businessman Patrick Maugein, whom it
considered "a conduit to French president Chirac."[50] The French
judiciary has begun investigating leads on the Maugein connection.[51]
While citizens of many other countries are involved, few are as senior
or as well connected to their governments as the Frenchmen involved.
The level of oil-for-food contacts reflects both the high-level of
Franco-Iraqi ties, as well as Saddam Hussein's belief that the Chirac
administration was an easy target for a campaign of influence."

http://www.meforum.org/article/772

So your thesis is that the war in Iraq was ginned up solely to steal
oil and enrich Halliburton? Why do that? Why not declare war on
Venezuela? It's a lot closer to home.

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
So why are you now blaming the *French* for this?

I'm blaming the *French* for being a fair-weather ally.

France behaves to the US much like NASA behaves to ESA.

France didn't kill them, but *did* contribute to their deaths.

"Rand Simberg" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
Let's begin with the fact that he lied to start a war which caused tens to
hundreds of thousands of innocentspeople to be killed.

That's not a fact. Got anything else?

What do you claim is not a fact?

That bush lied? That he started a war? or that tens to hundreds of thousands
of innocent people died because of that war?

Is George Bush going to be
indicted when he leaves office?

He definitely should be. And even before leaving office. That he won't be is
an accusation against USA.

Chirac probably will be.

I doubt it. The most judges want him for these days is to hear him as
witness.


I you really think the money was trully lost, I've got a tower to sell to
you. Small bills only, please.

No, of course it wasn't lost. It went into someone's pockets. That
doesn't make it illegal.

So the money was not lost; It's just unaccounted for, in the pockets of
unknown people, for unknown reasons and without anything to show for it. And
this was billion in US tax money. But it's not illegal.

Are you sure you're not interested in buying the Eiffel tower?


Oh, and if Saddam was bribing Pasqua ( who is the highest-level french
politician to be suspected of collusion in that scandal - as someone near
him was caught - ) to try to influance french foreign policy, he was even
more of an idiot than I think he was, as Pasqua had been out of power
circles for half a dozen years by then - and not a friend of Chirac
beside.

Oh, this is ridiculous.

You are again trying to distort what I said. Are you trying to turn this in
a flamewar to hide the weakness of your arguments.

I stated that Pasqua was not a friend of Chirac these days, nor has he been
an ally since the mid-90s at the latest. I stated nothing about past
friendship between Saddam and Chirac. And while you're at it, you could add
Cheney to the list of Saddam's past friends.

snip fox level propaganda.


So your thesis is that the war in Iraq was ginned up solely to steal
oil and enrich Halliburton? Why do that? Why not declare war on
Venezuela? It's a lot closer to home.

You really are not getting it, are you?

I'm not saying Iraq was invaded to enrich Haliburton ( though that was
certainly a consequence ).

I'm showing that the idea is as ridiculous as the one that the Oil for food
scandal had an impact on the stance of the french government against that
invasion.

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:
:"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
:
:
: 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.
:
:Or you simply do what Henry suggested and let the US Navy handle the
:bombing. At the time we had lots of Navy planes on aircraft carriers that
:could carry bombs, right?

Not quite right. You get one squadron of A-6 aircraft per deck.
Typically two carriers in the Med was a lot (I think we may have
actually gotten three in there at this point in time). Anything else
that dropped bombs was much shorter ranged and had much smaller
payloads.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

"Hyper" wrote:

:On Mar 2, 5:02 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: :Check Bush Doctrine.
:
: Check reality. You'll be better served than by your current 'head up
: the ass' approach.
:
:You should take your own advice here.

Done.

See you in 30 days if you manage to pull your head out of your ass and
reenter our current reality.

plonk

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:12:09 +0100, in a place far, far away, "frédéric
haessig" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
Let's begin with the fact that he lied to start a war which caused tens to
hundreds of thousands of innocentspeople to be killed.

That's not a fact. Got anything else?

What do you claim is not a fact?

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).

That he started a war?

Yes. That's not a fact. Saddam started that war, back in 1989. It
never really ended, until he was removed from power. There was simply
a long ceasefire, during which he continued to violate its terms, and
seventeen Security Council Resolutions relating to it, and shot at our
aircraft that were attempting to enforce it.

or that tens to hundreds of thousands
of innocent people died because of that war?

Tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent people were dying under
Saddam's regime. That's no longer happening. Did you weep for them?

It happens in wars.

Is George Bush going to be
indicted when he leaves office?

He definitely should be.

That's not what I asked.

And even before leaving office. ;

No, that's what impeachment is for. Sitting presidents can't be
indicted here, for the same reason that the prosecutors won't be able
to properly deal with Chirac until he leaves office.

That he won't be is an accusation against USA.

laughing

For what?

Chirac probably will be.

I doubt it. The most judges want him for these days is to hear him as
witness.

Dream on.

I you really think the money was trully lost, I've got a tower to sell to
you. Small bills only, please.

No, of course it wasn't lost. It went into someone's pockets. That
doesn't make it illegal.

So the money was not lost; It's just unaccounted for, in the pockets of
unknown people, for unknown reasons and without anything to show for it. And
this was billion in US tax money. But it's not illegal.

Are you sure you're not interested in buying the Eiffel tower?


Oh, and if Saddam was bribing Pasqua ( who is the highest-level french
politician to be suspected of collusion in that scandal - as someone near
him was caught - ) to try to influance french foreign policy, he was even
more of an idiot than I think he was, as Pasqua had been out of power
circles for half a dozen years by then - and not a friend of Chirac
beside.

Oh, this is ridiculous.

You are again trying to distort what I said. Are you trying to turn this in
a flamewar to hide the weakness of your arguments.

Nope. Sorry. I'm making arguments. With citations.

I stated that Pasqua was not a friend of Chirac these days, nor has he been
an ally since the mid-90s at the latest.

Yes, you did. But you somehow elided this part:

Documents reveal that the Iraqi government also gave fourteen million
barrels of oil to French businessman Patrick Maugein, whom it
considered "a conduit to French president Chirac."[50] The French
judiciary has begun investigating leads on the Maugein connection.[51]
While citizens of many other countries are involved, few are as senior
or as well connected to their governments as the Frenchmen involved.
The level of oil-for-food contacts reflects both the high-level of
Franco-Iraqi ties, as well as Saddam Hussein's belief that the Chirac
administration was an easy target for a campaign of influence."

I stated nothing about past friendship between Saddam and Chirac.

No, I did that. You know, just to strengthen my case. That's how
arguments (as opposed to trolling) work...

And while you're at it, you could add Cheney to the list of Saddam's past friends.

Really?

snip fox level propaganda.

"fox level propaganda"?

What in it is false? It didn't cite Fox News. Not once. It cited
the Duelfer Report, though. Did you read it?

So your thesis is that the war in Iraq was ginned up solely to steal
oil and enrich Halliburton? Why do that? Why not declare war on
Venezuela? It's a lot closer to home.

You really are not getting it, are you?

I'm not saying Iraq was invaded to enrich Haliburton ( though that was
certainly a consequence ).

I'm showing that the idea is as ridiculous as the one that the Oil for food
scandal had an impact on the stance of the french government against that
invasion.

Dream on.

John Stoffel wrote:

: "Fred" == Fred J McCall writes:
:
:Fred (Henry Spencer) wrote:
:Fred :In article ,
:Fred :Fred J. McCall wrote:
:Fred ::If you insist that someone who disagrees with you can't be your friend,
:Fred ::you're using the wrong word: you're looking for toadies, not friends.
:Fred :
:Fred :I'm afraid I have to insist that anyone who takes decisions that lead
:Fred :to my people being killed is NOT my friend, particularly when the
:Fred :alternative decision costs them nothing.
:Fred :
:Fred :I agree -- the USAF commanders who insisted on sending in the F-111s with
:Fred :inadequate support, instead of just letting the Navy do the job, are not
:Fred :your friends. But what has that got to do with France?
:
:Fred Henry, you should steer clear of political commentary. When you stick
:Fred to technical subjects you're a fount of wisdom. When you engage in
:Fred political remarks you say some of the most egregiously stupid things.
:
:Wow, you are sticking your foot in your mouth. And pulling the
:trigger.

Why? Henry's good when he steers clear of some topics, but I must
have missed the canonization. Hell, you don't even know how to put
together a proper quote marker, so why should anyone think your
opinion is worth anything?

:Henry almost always uses logic and clear thinking in his
:arguements. He may not be right all the time, but far and away he's
:the voice of reason and careful consideration of the /facts/ before
:spouting off.

Yes, *almost* always. Just as I noted. Except lately when he makes
political remarks, as I also noted. What's with this sick sycophancy
that seems to leave you believing that Henry can say whatever he wants
and no on may ever call him on it?

:Now I need to go do some research on exactly what planes were on board
:the carrier(s) in the task force when this whole debacle happened.
:Then /I/ can contribute to a debate over the facts and their
:interpretation.

Yes, perhaps you should. And while you're doing that, perhaps you
should also learn a bit about carrier air operations.

:Fred :Hints: (1) France was not the only US ally that refused to cooperate.
:Fred 2) There was no particular rush, yet the US insisted on going ahead at
:Fred nce rather than taking the time to talk one of its allies around.
:
:Fred Incorrect. Just as in Iraq, there are timing constraints to letting a
:Fred situation stand over a period of time rather than doing something
:Fred about it more quickly. Allowing oneself to be nibbled to death by
:Fred French ducks has never solved anything and it wouldn't have solved
:Fred anything in this case, either.
:
:Fred 3) There was no particular reason to use F-111s for the strike, except
:Fred :that the USAF insisted on being involved despite being poorly equipped
:Fred :for it.
:
:Fred While I'm rather inclined to agree, on the flip side you'd be
:Fred requiring the Navy to fly multiple strikes, leading to more
:Fred exhaustion for those pilots.
:
:Umm... first off, how is Henry's statement here a Political decision?

Umm... first off, where did I say it was?

:And secondly, so what if they Navy has to fly multiple strikes?
:They're so close to Lybia at that point that they launch, fly 30
:minutes, bomb, return, reload, fly, bomb, return. Hell, that's about
:an 8 hour day. So how exhausted are those pilots now?

And secondly, two full-deck alpha strikes is not "about an 8 hour
day". Carrier ops aren't like flying out of an air base. A few
things for you to think about:

1) How fast can you launch aircraft? You can't just send them down
runways a few seconds apart like you can when you're playing on 12,000
foot concrete ribbons.

2) How fast can you recover aircraft? Again, you can't just send them
down runways a few seconds apart like you can when you're playing on
12,000 foot concrete ribbons.

3) Once you recover them, how fast can you turn them around? You
can't just spread them out over a few acres of parking apron and run
trucks to them to refuel and rearm like you can when you're playing on
12,000 foot concrete ribbons.

4) The Tripoli strike was being done with 2,000 lb LGBs (4 per
aircraft). That says only A-6E TRAM aircraft can fly it unless you
change the targets.

:Fred I'm blaming the French for this because THEY are the ones who
:Fred forced those pilots to arrive exhausted (because the original
:Fred plan couldn't be used) because of THEIR decisions. Why are you
:Fred defending them?
:
:So why didn't the original plan have contingencies built into it so
:this situation *didn't* have to take place?

Because choices and forces are always limited. It's not like the
movies.

:Again, you don't answer
:the question of why couldn't the Navy have taken care of the whole
peration in the first place?

Uh, you don't read very well, do you? Does this look familiar at all
to you?

Fred While I'm rather inclined to agree, on the flip side you'd be
Fred requiring the Navy to fly multiple strikes, leading to more
Fred exhaustion for those pilots.

Now why would I have to "answer the question" with regard to something
I didn't say?

:Answer that with some facts and then we
:can debate the issue.

What makes you think I want to 'debate' with an idiot like you? You
don't know enough to be in this discussion.

:Sheesh.

Sheesh, indeed.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson