|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#411
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
|
#418
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |