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
  #391  
Old March 2nd 07, 02:26 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?



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.
Then they could fly over the French/Spanish border toward Andorra, be
intercepted by a fighter of the Andorran Air Force (a Cierva C.30A
Autogyro with a machine gun on it), which notices the planes are armed,
be expelled from Andorran airspace for this affront...and expel
themselves in a south-easterly direction to do their bombing run on
Libya. To show our deep sorrow for having trifled with Andorra's
national sovereignty by showing up in a armed state for an airshow, they
state that they have taken the offending bombs far from its territory
and jettisoned them in a barren wasteland.
Then they return to Andorra in a unarmed state for the airshow, but
still Andorra is not satisfied, and again they are expelled...this time
north-westwards toward England.
If we'd agreed to build Andorra an airport for doing this, I'd bet
they'd have gone for it, providing they could figure out where to fit it.
If they couldn't, then we could upgrade the AAF to a Huey Cobra. :-D

Pat

  #392  
Old March 2nd 07, 03:57 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article ,
:Fred J. McCall 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.
:
: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.
:
:I agree -- the USAF commanders who insisted on sending in the F-111s with
:inadequate support, instead of just letting the Navy do the job, are not
:your friends. But what has that got to do with France?

Henry, you should steer clear of political commentary. When you stick
to technical subjects you're a fount of wisdom. When you engage in
political remarks you say some of the most egregiously stupid things.

: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
nce rather than taking the time to talk one of its allies around.

Incorrect. Just as in Iraq, there are timing constraints to letting a
situation stand over a period of time rather than doing something
about it more quickly. Allowing oneself to be nibbled to death by
French ducks has never solved anything and it wouldn't have solved
anything in this case, either.

3) There was no particular reason to use F-111s for the strike, except
:that the USAF insisted on being involved despite being poorly equipped
:for it.

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

:So why are you now blaming the *French* for this? The decisions which
:resulted in those men being killed were made in the Pentagon, not in
:Paris.

I'm blaming the French for this because THEY are the ones who forced
those pilots to arrive exhausted (because the original plan couldn't
be used) because of THEIR decisions. Why are you defending them?

Hint: I also blame the Turks for Iraq being such a near run thing in
the beginning, due to THEIR decision to reverse course on the passage
of 4th ID through Turkey.

: Is it just that you don't want to admit that, and would prefer
:to find a foreign scapegoat?

Foreign scapegoat my ass - which, by the way, you can feel free to
kiss at this point.

Hint: Obviously, final responsibility belongs with the decision
makers, but giving those who try to sabotage plans a 'by' and not
holding them responsible for THEIR decisions is merely 'spin'. Trying
to then engage in ad hominem to justify your 'spin' is, well, unworthy
is the kindest word that comes to mind.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
  #393  
Old March 2nd 07, 04:02 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

"Hyper" wrote:

:On Mar 2, 7:19 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: :The post was addressed to you.
: :The quotes were to underscore the word not make you look bad to
: thers.
:
: Gee, most folks use UNDERSCORES to 'underscore' things. When you put
: something it quotes, it generally means it's a quote. You asserted
: that someone had made the claim. Your assertion was false. Now you
: are wriggling.
:
:Use of quotes to UNDERSCORE a word/expression is ortographically
:correct.

Wrong.

:Avoiding the point and quibbling over insignificant stuff is what's
:dishonest.

Yes. That's why I am objecting when you do it.

: :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).
:
: Yes, you are. About a lot of things, including the timing of that
: quote, which was immediately after 9/11 and not related to Iraq at
: all.
:
:Check Bush Doctrine.

Check reality. You'll be better served than by your current 'head up
the ass' approach.

: --
: "Every nation, in every region, now has a choice to make.
: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
: -- President George W Bush



--
"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
  #394  
Old March 2nd 07, 05:17 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?


"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?

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)


  #395  
Old March 2nd 07, 05:28 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Hyper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

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.

  #397  
Old March 2nd 07, 07:30 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:18:55 +0100, in a place far, far away, "frédéric
haessig" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

If you think that french opposition to the war came from the Oil for food
money, you must also think that all US reasons for the war was to get that
money in corrupt hands.


No, I don't have to think that at all.



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.

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?

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).

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


I disagree.

I think your are applying double standard.


I disagree.
  #398  
Old March 2nd 07, 09:13 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
John Stoffel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

"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. 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.

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.

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?
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?

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? Again, you don't answer
the question of why couldn't the Navy have taken care of the whole
operation in the first place? Answer that with some facts and then we
can debate the issue.

Sheesh.

John
  #399  
Old March 2nd 07, 09:54 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
frédéric haessig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?


"Rand Simberg" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:18:55 +0100, in a place far, far away, "frédéric
haessig" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

If you think that french opposition to the war came from the Oil for
food
money, you must also think that all US reasons for the war was to get
that
money in corrupt hands.

No, I don't have to think that at all.



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.

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.



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.


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.

See above.

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.

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


I disagree.


OK.

Justify your disagreement.

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.

I think your are applying double standard.


I disagree.


shrug why am I not surprised?


  #400  
Old March 2nd 07, 10:05 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default 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.
 




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 09:10 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.