|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
|
#333
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
|
#340
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |