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
  #411  
Old March 3rd 07, 12:31 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Jordan[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 346
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Mar 1, 10:25 pm, "frédéric haessig" wrote:
"Rand Simberg" a écrit dans le message denews: 4644844e.1298258__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_ ...


I admire the French soldiers who gave their lives for the cause. The
fact remain that the numbers here are trivial, in context.


That 'trivial number' is still the fourth highest contigent in ISAF ( after
US, Uk and Canada ) and about 20% of the US contingent. If one is trivial,
the other isn't really significant either.


That is "about 20% of the US contingent" _in Afghanistan_. The US has
_hundreds of thousands_ of troops deployed fighting the Terrorists on
various fronts, including Afghanistan and Iraq.

And that's discounting the undisclosed number of french SF under direct US
command. There are still some left after France retired 200 of them ( at
least in part in disgust because the US command structure stopped said
french SF to kill OBL twice - either through personnal gloryhunting or
military disfuntionment ( to use charitable interpretation -) -.


What do you mean (in English) by "disfuntionment?" I can see what the
word _might_ mean, but it might also be a false cognate.

In other words, you obscure reality, and competely ignore the
corruption of the "Oil for Food" scandal...


And you completely ignore that the amounts of money involved in this scandal
are trivial compared to the amount which dissapeared in US hands after under
the direct US administration in Iraq - and this still goes on -. We're
talking tens of billion of $ here.


You are treating the taking of direct bribes _from the enemy_ as
morally no more significant than ordinary contractor corruption. If
you _really_ believe this, it would go a ways toward explaining why
the Europeans are so damn pathetic in facing foes these days.

- Jordan

  #412  
Old March 3rd 07, 12:33 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Jordan[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 346
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Mar 1, 8:48 pm, (Henry Spencer) wrote:
In article om,

Jordan wrote:
...Are you seriously trying to argue that
Russia would be insane enough to respond to the deployment of a
defensive ABM system by launching an atomic war against Europe? I
have seen _no_ indication of the Russians being this irrational...


_The Economist_ recently noted, in a piece on this very topic, that
despite assorted fearmongering about a "new arms race" when the US
withdrew from the ABM Treaty, what the Russians *actually* did was to
promptly strike a deal with the US on still greater strategic-weapons
*reductions*.

(The same piece did note one unfortunate sign of Russian irrationality:
they've been obstructing attempts at diplomatic action against Iran, when
they ought to be leading the charge -- as worrisome developments among
their neighbors go, nuclear weapons in Iran would be far more serious than
missile interceptors in Poland.)


I've noticed this in talking to at least one Russian of my personal
acquaintance -- they are to some extent still stuck in a Cold War
mindset, and imagine the East-West rivalry as still being of primary
importance. The Russians would be wise to reflect that America can
pick up her toys and go back home, while Russia is stuck _bordering_
some fairly psychopathic regimes and ethnicities, some of which have
centuries-old grudges against Moscow.

- Jordan

  #413  
Old March 3rd 07, 12:35 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Jordan[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 346
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Mar 2, 10:18 am, "frédéric haessig" wrote:
"Rand Simberg" a écrit dans le message denews: 46462306.1338890__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_ ...

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 07:25:49 +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?


Because the French political leadership of the time was being directly
paid money by the enemies of the Free World.

- Jordan

  #414  
Old March 3rd 07, 03:46 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Terrell Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
John Stoffel wrote:


: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.

Yes, perhaps you should. And while you're doing that, perhaps you
should also learn a bit about carrier air operations.



good place to start is he
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ado_canyon.htm


America and Coral Sea were teh two carriers in range. 14 Intruders total,
plus air cap, jammers, refuelling, etc.

Good time to remember the 'vark crew who died: USAF Capt. Paul Lorrence and
USAF Capt. Fernando Ribas-Domennici. We still owe you one, gents.

--
Terrell Miller


"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the
work of one extraordinary man."
- Elbert Hubbard


  #416  
Old March 3rd 07, 05:05 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

"Terrell Miller" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: John Stoffel wrote:
:
: :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.
:
: Yes, perhaps you should. And while you're doing that, perhaps you
: should also learn a bit about carrier air operations.
:
:good place to start is he
:http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ado_canyon.htm

Uh, I don't need "a good place to start".

:America and Coral Sea were teh two carriers in range. 14 Intruders total,
lus air cap, jammers, refuelling, etc.

Note that there were actually 3 carriers in the Mediterranean at that
point in time. The third could have been shifted over.

I note you elided the points I provided for you to think about. Let
me add one more for you:

5) The purpose of the Benghazi raid (by the Navy) was to SUPPRESS
DEFENSES by striking a major fighter base. Doing the targets
sequentially doesn't get the job done, since you give the other guy
time to get his fighter base back up.

--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell
  #417  
Old March 3rd 07, 09:39 AM 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: ...
That bush lied?


Yes. That's not a fact. I'll forgive you because, though your
English is excellent, it's probably not your first language.
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the meaning of that word (hint: it
doesn't mean merely stating something that later turns out not to be
the case).


Lying means stating something you know is not true.

Which is exactly what Bush did.

He had access to reports from the US intelligence community stating that
Sadam WMD program was a fake. He ignored them and kept asking for other
information until he managed to get which could be interpreted to say what
he wanted. Erog, Bush knew.



That he started a war?


Yes. That's not a fact. Saddam started that war, back in 1989. It
never really ended, until he was removed from power. There was simply
a long ceasefire, during which he continued to violate its terms, and
seventeen Security Council Resolutions relating to it, and shot at our
aircraft that were attempting to enforce it.


And that's your excuse. Pretty weak. I won't even go into how many dictators
used that type of excuse to start wars, appealing to past wrongs and border
incidents ( staged or not )



or that tens to hundreds of thousands
of innocent people died because of that war?


Tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent people were dying under
Saddam's regime.


Yes. Are you aware that the death call is likely greater in Iraq since 2003
that it has been under all of Saddam's rule ( including Kurd gassing with
chemical weapons )?

That's no longer happening. Did you weep for them?


Yes.

Do you weep for the ones which dies because of the US iraq invasion and
which would be alive today if not?

Two wrongs do not make a right.


Saddam was a very bad tyrant. The way bush choose to deal with him was even
worse for the iraqi people.


It happens in wars.


Which is why waging a war of agression has been made into a crime.

War can be justified, but there must be cause which is worth the price.

Is George Bush going to be
indicted when he leaves office?


He definitely should be.


That's not what I asked.


No. That's my opinion.


And even before leaving office. ;


No, that's what impeachment is for.


Which he should have been. What he did was much worse than whant Clinton
did. The difference in each case comes from politics, not from justice./

Sitting presidents can't be
indicted here, for the same reason that the prosecutors won't be able
to properly deal with Chirac until he leaves office.

That he won't be is an accusation against USA.


laughing

For what?


For letting politics rule justice to an even bigger degree than in France.


Chirac probably will be.


I doubt it. The most judges want him for these days is to hear him as
witness.


Dream on.


I think you really should try to learn something about what your are talking
about.

I'd really likle to see Chirac in front of a judge to at least answer to
some question about the system. He may be - though I doubt it -, but he
definitely will not be indicted. There's a time limit on petty crime, and
even if there wasn't, it would be very difficult to get any proof of
wrongdoing. Do you even understand what he is accused of?


Nope. Sorry. I'm making arguments. With citations.


So what is your argument, if it has nothing to do with the lines you are
answering to.


I stated that Pasqua was not a friend of Chirac these days, nor has he
been
an ally since the mid-90s at the latest.


Yes, you did. But you somehow elided this part:


Where did I state that Pasqua is a friend and ally of chirac in 2002?

Go ahead, find a citation of this.

If you can't, you'll just have demonstrated that you are distorting what I
said.

Either that, ot english isn't your first language either.


Documents reveal that the Iraqi government also gave fourteen million
barrels of oil to French businessman Patrick Maugein, whom it
considered "a conduit to French president Chirac."[50] The French
judiciary has begun investigating leads on the Maugein connection.[51]
While citizens of many other countries are involved, few are as senior
or as well connected to their governments as the Frenchmen involved.
The level of oil-for-food contacts reflects both the high-level of
Franco-Iraqi ties, as well as Saddam Hussein's belief that the Chirac
administration was an easy target for a campaign of influence."

I stated nothing about past friendship between Saddam and Chirac.


No, I did that. You know, just to strengthen my case. That's how
arguments (as opposed to trolling) work...


You are definitely an expert on trolling., as demonstrated by you constant
changing of the matter under discussion and distortion of what I said.


And while you're at it, you could add Cheney to the list of Saddam's
past friends.


Really?

snip fox level propaganda.


"fox level propaganda"?

What in it is false?


Too many things for me to bother getting them one by one. Just try a
critical analysis and it will be obvious, as long as you're not blinded by
preconceptions.

It didn't cite Fox News. Not once. It cited
the Duelfer Report, though. Did you read it?


I did. I also went to the source of the article.

Like Fow, it doesn't even bother to pretend that truth is foremost in their
priority.


So your thesis is that the war in Iraq was ginned up solely to steal
oil and enrich Halliburton? Why do that? Why not declare war on
Venezuela? It's a lot closer to home.


You really are not getting it, are you?

I'm not saying Iraq was invaded to enrich Haliburton ( though that was
certainly a consequence ).

I'm showing that the idea is as ridiculous as the one that the Oil for
food
scandal had an impact on the stance of the french government against that
invasion.


Dream on.



Based upon your tactics, I'd say the demonstration is convincing, as you
keep shifting the argguments rather than answering.


  #418  
Old March 3rd 07, 12:38 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?



Terrell Miller wrote:
Good time to remember the 'vark crew who died: USAF Capt. Paul Lorrence and
USAF Capt. Fernando Ribas-Domennici. We still owe you one, gents.


During that attack, one of the network news anchors made the comment:
"You know how you feel right now? That's the way the whole nation felt
for four years during WW II."
Which is unfortunately correct; by having war as something we do to
others, with nary any damage done to us at home since 1865, it's become
high entertainment.
It would probably look different if things like 911 were happening on a
weekly basis somewhere in the U.S.
It's not that we're losing the war in Iraq, it's that it's getting
stale, and the ratings are slipping.
Maybe if Bush were to shave his head and go into rehab, it would spice
things up.
Failing that, Paula Abdul must be sent into combat. ;-)

Pat
  #419  
Old March 3rd 07, 02:14 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:39:38 +0100, in a place far, far away, "frédéric
haessig" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
That bush lied?


Yes. That's not a fact. I'll forgive you because, though your
English is excellent, it's probably not your first language.
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the meaning of that word (hint: it
doesn't mean merely stating something that later turns out not to be
the case).


Lying means stating something you know is not true.

Which is exactly what Bush did.


And you know that he knew it wasn't true how?

He had access to reports from the US intelligence community stating that
Sadam WMD program was a fake. He ignored them and kept asking for other
information until he managed to get which could be interpreted to say what
he wanted. Erog, Bush knew.


There is nothing in the public record to substantiate this. Numerous
Investigations have revealed it to be false.

Are you saying that Powell lied to the UN as well? Did Bush have
better information than his Secretary of State, and withheld it from
him? Just how far does your fantasy of this Bush conspiracy to lie us
into war go?

That he started a war?


Yes. That's not a fact. Saddam started that war, back in 1989. It
never really ended, until he was removed from power. There was simply
a long ceasefire, during which he continued to violate its terms, and
seventeen Security Council Resolutions relating to it, and shot at our
aircraft that were attempting to enforce it.


And that's your excuse.


It's not an excuse. It's reality.

or that tens to hundreds of thousands
of innocent people died because of that war?


Tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent people were dying under
Saddam's regime.


Yes. Are you aware that the death call is likely greater in Iraq since 2003
that it has been under all of Saddam's rule ( including Kurd gassing with
chemical weapons )?


No, I'm not aware of that, though I'm sure you'd like it to be true.

That's no longer happening. Did you weep for them?


Yes.

Do you weep for the ones which dies because of the US iraq invasion and
which would be alive today if not?


Yes, but I'm happy for the ones who are no longer dying, and are
living in freedom (e.g., the Marsh Arabs, whose habitat is being
restored, and the Shia in the south who are no longer living under a
brutal rule by minority, and the Kurds, who are almost autonomous).
In focusing on the murders in the Sunni triangle and Anbar, you ignore
the vast majority of the country, in which things are in fact much
better than under Saddam.

Two wrongs do not make a right.


No one claimed they did.

Saddam was a very bad tyrant. The way bush choose to deal with him was even
worse for the iraqi people.


It was not. See above. Do you think that the Iraqi people (other
than the few hardcore Ba'athist loyalists) are clamoring to have
Saddam back?

I stated that Pasqua was not a friend of Chirac these days, nor has he
been
an ally since the mid-90s at the latest.


Yes, you did. But you somehow elided this part:


Where did I state that Pasqua is a friend and ally of chirac in 2002?


You didn't. I never said you did. I was agreeing with you that you
didn't (that is, I was telling you that you were changing the subject,
and in focusing on Pasqua, avoiding the rest of the issues).

snip
  #420  
Old March 3rd 07, 02:32 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
[email protected][_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?


Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:12:09 +0100, in a place far, far away, "frédéric
haessig" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


snip fox level propaganda.


"fox level propaganda"?

What in it is false?


I don't know if there is anything really false but sure I wouldn't
rule it out.
But certainly much of it is taken out of context with the purpose of
doing
some "fox level propaganda".

To show that Chirac isn't an ally of the US you cite that text that
indicates
Chirac being friendly with Saddam Hussein in 1981. Let's put a little
context
to that. In 1981 Iraq was at war with Iran. Why would he prefer Iraq
to Iran,
Iran was in many regards the best fit. Khomeiny, the founder of the
Islamic
Republic of Iran had lived in France for many years and the regime in
Iran
was in many respect better than the one in Iraq. So why choose Iraq?
It is
because in one respect the regime in Iran wasn't good, they had taken
as
hostages citizens of an ally of France and they were openly
proclaiming their
hatred of that ally. That is the reason why France was taking sides in
favor
of Iraq and against Iran. So with the context, how does this show that
France
isn't an ally of the US?

You see, it isn't new. France has been an ally of the US for a very
long time.
Of course you will dismiss that and continue to say that France isn't
an ally
of the US. I don't think there is anything we can say that will make
you change
your mind about France being your ally. I mean if French soldiers
fighting and
dying for you while you are bickering about them not being allies
isn't enough,
what could we say to make you see reality?


Alain Fournier

 




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 11:54 PM.


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.