A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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
  #331  
Old February 27th 07, 03:32 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
[email protected][_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

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

  #333  
Old February 27th 07, 05:28 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

"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
  #334  
Old February 27th 07, 08:11 AM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?



Jeff Findley wrote:
If true, there would be a sort of poetic justice there. Well, that and the
fact that if we'd have let Russia have Afghanistan, maybe they would have
done a good job cleaning out the "freedom fighters". Funny how the "freedom
fighters" of yesterday became the terrorists and warlords of today.



Shhh...be vewy quiet...wew hunting tewwowists. :-)

Pat
  #335  
Old February 27th 07, 07:14 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Scott Hedrick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?


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.


  #336  
Old February 28th 07, 02:54 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,170
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

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. |
  #337  
Old February 28th 07, 03:14 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
[email protected][_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

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

  #340  
Old February 28th 07, 04:16 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Hyper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Feb 28, 2:37 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
France didn't merely "disagree" with us. They *obstructed* us and
allied themselves with a tyrant against us, for corrupt reasons.
Agree or disagree with their actions, but they weren't those of an
ally at all, let alone a staunch one.


Allowing their airspace to be used for an act of war can hardly be
construed as allying themselves with Ghadafi.
You might also wish to note that Spain had denied overflight to USAF
planes too.
And BTW the French embassy in Tripoli was hit by mistake in that raid.

 




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 04:12 AM
Limited ASAT test ban treaty Totorkon Policy 3 March 9th 07 03:19 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 06:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.