Bye-bye INF treaty?

Henry Spencer wrote:
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.


Or froggies in this case. ;-)

Pat

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.


We were once dumb enough to follow them into a place called Vietnam;
they apparently learned from that experience.

Pat

On 28 Feb 2007 18:25:52 -0800, in a place far, far away,
" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Not that it was the right thing to do. It certainly wasn't done for
noble or admirable reasons. And as I said, whether they behaved
rightly or wrongly, it wasn't the behavior of an ally.

Lets see, French soldiers are fighting and dying for you in
Afghanistan

Really? How many are fighting? How many have died?

but you can't consider them to be allies because they have also voted
against the US going into a quagmire in Iraq.

No, they voted against removing Saddam Hussein.

I have a hard time
understanding this line of reasonning. I think that France really
thought it was a bad idea for the US to go in Iraq.

Of course they did. It meant cutting off their corrupt gravy train.

"Hyper" wrote:

:On Feb 28, 5:42 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Hyper" wrote:
: :You might also wish to note that Spain had denied overflight to USAF
: lanes too.
:
: Spain at the time had a neutrality policy. France was ostensibly
: still part of NATO.
:
:WRONG. Spain WAS a full NATO member (since 82) while France had
:withdrawn from the military command ('66-'92).

WELL LET ME SCREAM AT YOU, TOO! Note that Spain in 1986 was in the
middle of voting to withdraw from NATO. The vote failed, but Spain's
leadership was walking on eggshells that year.

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

"Hyper" wrote:

:On Feb 28, 5:46 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Hyper" wrote:
:
: :On Feb 28, 5:23 pm, (Rand Simberg)
: :wrote:
: :
: : I wasn't referring to that. I was talking about Saddam, and their
: : obstruction at the UN.
: :
: :Is it obstruction if it's the right thing to do?
:
: Of course, but your question is irrelevant since it was NOT the "right
: thing to do". Just think for a moment. If France had not acted as
: she had, Saddam might not have come to believe that an invasion could
: be blocked diplomatically. If he had not believed that, he might have
: been more cooperative much sooner with the inspection regime.
:
:IMO it did not make any difference.
:When an US administration is willing to go to the lenghts this one
:did, it is doubtful that even UNSC vetos will stop them.

You're confused.

: Just think of what could have been avoided if only France hadn't had
: him convinced they could give him 'cover'...
:
:While you decry France's "treason"

I never used the word you elect to put in quotation marks above.
You've merely descended to dishonesty at this point.

:I regret the fact that their
:actions did not trigger any meaningful debate that could have lead to
:saner decisions.

That's because you don't understand the timing and what was going on.

--
"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

"Hyper" wrote:

:On Feb 28, 6:14 pm, (Rand Simberg)
:wrote:
: On 28 Feb 2007 08:05:27 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Hyper"
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: way as to indicate that:
:
: Just think of what could have been avoided if only France hadn't had
: him convinced they could give him 'cover'...
:
: While you decry France's "treason"
:
: No one said anything about treason, in quotes or otherwise (hint: it's
: not possible for a country to be a "traitor" to another).
:
:One meaning of treason is betrayal of confidence/trust, n'est pas?
:I used that word because Mr. McCall was so indignant with regard to
:French policy.

Hogwash. You used that word (in quotes) because you were being
intellectually dishonest. Just as you are being intellectually honest
with your "so indignant" remark, above.


--
"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

Christopher Manteuffel wrote:
Why were the 'varks involved in El Dorado Canyon at all? The Navy was
perfectly capable of doing the entire mission without Air Force
help[1], not just Benghazi plus supporting the Air Force's Tripoli
strikes. Given that the Air Force had to do such a crazy route, why
didn't they simply leave the whole thing to the Navy? As it was, the
Navy provided SEAD support for the Air Force strikes (there were a few
Spark Varks as well as a EA-6 and some A-7's as HARM shooters, plus
some F-14's as CAP). Why couldn't they have provided the whole strike
package?


The F-111s had laser guided bombs; at the time the Navy didn't have
those IIRC.

Pat

"Hyper" wrote:

:On Feb 28, 6:55 pm, (Rand Simberg)
:wrote:
: On 28 Feb 2007 08:34:46 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Hyper"
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: way as to indicate that:
: One meaning of treason is betrayal of confidence/trust, n'est pas?
:
: We haven't trusted the French for years.
:
:Then why complain when they act as expected?

Who's "complaining"? We're simply noting that the French do NOT act
as our friends.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

"Christopher Manteuffel" wrote:

:On Feb 27, 1:14 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
:
: 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.
:
:Why were the 'varks involved in El Dorado Canyon at all? The Navy was
erfectly capable of doing the entire mission without Air Force
:help[1], not just Benghazi plus supporting the Air Force's Tripoli
:strikes. Given that the Air Force had to do such a crazy route, why
:didn't they simply leave the whole thing to the Navy? As it was, the
:Navy provided SEAD support for the Air Force strikes (there were a few
:Spark Varks as well as a EA-6 and some A-7's as HARM shooters, plus
:some F-14's as CAP). Why couldn't they have provided the whole strike
ackage?
:
:Note that only four of the 18 F-111's hit their targets (one was lost
n ingress, six aborted, seven missed). With a success rate like that,
:was the AF participation in El Dorado Canyon truly necessary?
:
:Was it inter-service politics between the Air Force and the Navy that
:got those men killed? I would say that those politics had at least as
:much to do with it as US-French politics.

Blame Canada!

--
"May God have mercy upon my enemies; they will need it."
-- General George S Patton, Jr.

On Mar 1, 6:22 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

:While you decry France's "treason"

I never used the word you elect to put in quotation marks above.
You've merely descended to dishonesty at this point.

The post was addressed to you.
The quotes were to underscore the word not make you look bad to
others.

:I regret the fact that their
:actions did not trigger any meaningful debate that could have lead to
:saner decisions.

That's because you don't understand the timing and what was going on.

Of course not. It's "you're with us or you're agains us" (this was a
quote or possibly a paraphrase - but I'm confused).