|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#391
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
|
#393
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#396
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
|
#397
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
|
#399
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
|
#400
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |