A question about the Transall C160

[Brian]

Anyone have any data in regards to the types of military vehicles and number
carried that could fit inside the plane for air transport?

Looking at the French Army vehicle mainly - thanks in advance

Brian

[tscottme]

Brian > wrote in message
news:Bz6db.436620$Oz4.244338@rwcrnsc54...
> Anyone have any data in regards to the types of military vehicles and
number
> carried that could fit inside the plane for air transport?
>
> Looking at the French Army vehicle mainly - thanks in advance
>
> Brian

France has an army?

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[Brian]

Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing already and
get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries too?

And yes, France does have an Army - one that is very strong with very good
equipment - the Le Clerc being comparable to the vaunted M1.

So what if they decided not to invade Iraq with bully Bush and his UK
puppet. Lot of other countries decided not to as well - I here no Sweden
bashing or Finland bashing - what about Morocco or Luxembourg?? The list of
so called allies is a lot shorter than the list of countries that stayed out
of it.

France is an independant country and that in itself was one reason for
deciding to withdraw from NATO - so they could pursue their own course of
action.



"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> Brian > wrote in message
> news:Bz6db.436620$Oz4.244338@rwcrnsc54...
> > Anyone have any data in regards to the types of military vehicles and
> number
> > carried that could fit inside the plane for air transport?
> >
> > Looking at the French Army vehicle mainly - thanks in advance
> >
> > Brian
>
> France has an army?
>
> --
>
> Scott
> --------
> "Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
> reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
> there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
> the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
> destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm
>
>

[Ragnar]

"Brian" > wrote in message
. net...
> Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing already and
> get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries too?
>
> And yes, France does have an Army - one that is very strong with very good
> equipment - the Le Clerc being comparable to the vaunted M1.

How many battles has the Le Clerc been in?

> France is an independant country and that in itself was one reason for
> deciding to withdraw from NATO - so they could pursue their own course of
> action.

Umm, they didn't "pull out" of NATO. They very conveniently stayed in just
enough to whine about stuff but far enough out to never actually do any
work.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Brian" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing already and
> > get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries too?
> >
> > And yes, France does have an Army - one that is very strong with very good
> > equipment - the Le Clerc being comparable to the vaunted M1.
>
> How many battles has the Le Clerc been in?
>
> > France is an independant country and that in itself was one reason for
> > deciding to withdraw from NATO - so they could pursue their own course of
> > action.
>
> Umm, they didn't "pull out" of NATO. They very conveniently stayed in just
> enough to whine about stuff but far enough out to never actually do any
> work.

Actually, they did pull out of NATO. By March 1966, deGaulle had withdrawn
France from NATO and its command structure because he felt that France needed to
be independent of joint security considerations, which would not have been
possible had they remained in NATO. As an example, they would have been unable
to bar the presence of missiles from their soil that were under foreign (to
them) control, which was a step that de Gaulle actually took. They remained out
of NATO until Mitterand brought them back in during the early '90s, although I
am not sure of that date or time period.

George Z.
>
>
>

[Thomas Schoene]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message

> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Brian" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing
> > > already and get back into life - I supposed you have stopped
> > > eating French Fries too?
> > >
> > > And yes, France does have an Army - one that is very strong with
> > > very good equipment - the Le Clerc being comparable to the
> > > vaunted M1.
> >
> > How many battles has the Le Clerc been in?
> >
> > > France is an independant country and that in itself was one
> > > reason for deciding to withdraw from NATO - so they could pursue
> > > their own course of action.
> >
> > Umm, they didn't "pull out" of NATO. They very conveniently stayed
> > in just enough to whine about stuff but far enough out to never
> > actually do any
> > work.
>
> Actually, they did pull out of NATO. By March 1966, deGaulle had
> withdrawn France from NATO and its command structure because he felt
> that France needed to be independent of joint security

Not exactly correct. France withdrew from the NATO military command
structure but remained a member of the Atlantic Coucil and other political
aspects of NATO.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Peter Kemp]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 04:18:45 GMT, "Ragnar" >
wrote:

>
>"Brian" > wrote in message
. net...
>> Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing already and
>> get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries too?
>>
>> And yes, France does have an Army - one that is very strong with very good
>> equipment - the Le Clerc being comparable to the vaunted M1.
>
>How many battles has the Le Clerc been in?

It's gone to war every time the French have gone to war with a need
for heavy armour since it entered service.

Just because it hasn't fought yet doesn't mean it's no good.

Or is the US nuclear deterrent crap because it's never been used in
anger?

Peter Kemp

[tscottme]

Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message
...
>
> It's gone to war every time the French have gone to war with a need
> for heavy armour since it entered service.
>
> Just because it hasn't fought yet doesn't mean it's no good.
>
> Or is the US nuclear deterrent crap because it's never been used in
> anger?
>
> Peter Kemp

And my 3-point jump shot has worked every time I've used it in the NBA
finals. The Japanese don't agree with your last comment.


--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Brian > wrote in message
. net...
> Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing already
and
> get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries
too?
>
> And yes, France does have an Army - one that is very strong with very
good
> equipment - the Le Clerc being comparable to the vaunted M1.
<snip>

Le Clerc? Is that some sort of precision-guided surrender munition?

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[Brian]

Oh and the US Army is SOOO much better -

The US can't even defend her own borders to save its citizens from attack -
9/11.

Geez, the US Army can't even police Bagdhad well enough to stop someone from
blowing up targets in Iraq. And even though the US has completely occupied
Afghanistan, they still can't find Osama.

Where are the claimed weapons of Mass Destruction the Iraqi's supposedly
had????

I'll say this much for Saddam - at least the lights were on and the trains
ran on time - can't say that for the bumbling US Army trying to make a new
puppet state.

Typical brainwashed FRENCH fry eating slob - blindly follows the flag even
though it is coated in bull****.

Brian

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> Brian > wrote in message
> . net...
> > Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing already
> and
> > get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries
> too?
> >
> > And yes, France does have an Army - one that is very strong with very
> good
> > equipment - the Le Clerc being comparable to the vaunted M1.
> <snip>
>
> Le Clerc? Is that some sort of precision-guided surrender munition?
>
> --
>
> Scott
> --------
> "Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
> reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
> there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
> the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
> destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm
>
>

[tscottme]

Brian > wrote in message
et...
> Oh and the US Army is SOOO much better -
>
> The US can't even defend her own borders to save its citizens from
attack -
> 9/11.
>
> Geez, the US Army can't even police Bagdhad well enough to stop
someone from
> blowing up targets in Iraq. And even though the US has completely
occupied
> Afghanistan, they still can't find Osama.
>
> Where are the claimed weapons of Mass Destruction the Iraqi's
supposedly
> had????
>
> I'll say this much for Saddam - at least the lights were on and the
trains
> ran on time - can't say that for the bumbling US Army trying to make a
new
> puppet state.
>
> Typical brainwashed FRENCH fry eating slob - blindly follows the flag
even
> though it is coated in bull****.
>
> Brian
>


3,000 dead from an unforeseen sneak attack versus 15,000 dead from
summer heat. Which one sounds like a real condemnation of a government?
I'd say losing 400 valuable troops to destroy the Taliban and Saddam
sounds like a trade worth making. France looses more than that to
soccer riots.

The US doesn't completely occupy either Iraq or Afghanistan anymore than
the French police completely occupy The Zone around Paris or can prevent
bombing of synagogues, rape of un-Muslim women, or desecration of
cemeteries. But at least the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are glad
we've freed them. I doubt the French can say the same. I doubt the
French have the temerity to value their freedom with so many immigrant
Muslims demanding otherwise. The real question will be who will be the
first French leader to propose surrender to the Arab League.

I'm sure your concern for the promptness of Iraqi trains will comfort
the families of whomever filled the mass graves, the rape rooms, and the
children's prisons. Don't worry, nobody will accuse the French of
helping liberate anyone of the them. If someone accuse the French of
helping, you send them to me, I'll straighten them out. Your tribute to
Saddam is touching and the best proof you are French.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/19/98021903_wpo.html
FRANCE 1998
Office of the French President Jacques Chirac:
"France repeats that Iraq must scrupulously respect all the UN
Security Council resolutions. This is the only route that could enable
Iraq to be readmitted, when the time comes, into the international
community.

The President of the Republic made this clear to the Iraqi Foreign
Minister. He stressed "the extremely grave risks that will result from
a refusal by Iraq to accept the inspection of the 'presidential
sites.' Now time is running out."


http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/s1997-774.htm

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[Brian]

Scott,

ASSuming again - I am not French, only interested in a particular French
built aircraft and its airlift capabilities.

I am an American by birth, served my time in the US Army in the late 80s. I
served to protect your rights and my rights to stand up for the USA or put
her in her place - whatever views we have - we have the right to them
whether we agree or not - at least we agree to disagree.

In regards to your statement of the Afghani's and Iraqi's being grateful -
some yes, but not all - on Nightline Thursday night, an Iraqi said "at least
under Saddam the electricity was on... things were better under Saddam."

I am not saying Saddam was man of the year material or even a nice person,
however, the made up lies of Bush and Blair (six months later and no WMDs)
was no reason to invade the country. The lies are leading many to believe
that the attack on Iraq was nothing more than revenge for embarrassing daddy
Bush and/or control of the oil interests in Iraq to counter OPEC. American
wanna drive and any prez who can provide cheap fuel is going to gain points.

Now in regards to Afghanistan, the Taliban (the leadership in power at the
time) made a choice not to surrender Osama - I do not feel bad for them.
Hide a criminal and you get cast in the same lot as an accessory.

While I do not agree with Osama's choice of target (personally, I would have
chosen the Capitol Building or White House or even a large refinery), I can
understand their methods.

How else do you fight a giant? You can't trade punches in a traditional
battlefied sense and expect to win. That has been proven twice in Iraq.

Events in Somalia, Vietnam, Beruit and our responses as a country have shown
the American's weak link (public opinion) make it bloody enough and drawn
out and despite the revenge hawks, the majority will clamor for the US to
pull out - and we usually do. Leaving behind a nice void to be filled by
whomever has the biggest arsenal in the region.

The development of the terrorist (aka. Partisan (if this were WW II and
being conducted against German occupying forces), mujahadeen (if they were
fighting against the Red menace), or VC (if they are fighting for a belief
other than the mighty dollar or the Red White and Blue capitalistic
Democracy)) is completely dependant upon what the US leadership has in its
mind - both the Taliban and Saddam were US allies when the Russians or
Iranians were a concern. Now that the Cold War is over, US abandoned their
friends as they were the unclean masses used only as cannon fodder when
needed.

The US Government, in its infinite wisdom, by following the US foreign
policies determined by the presidents after WWII created 95% of the hatred
felt worldwide against the US.

The US did not support Israel until AFTER the Soviets started supporting the
Arab states - Remember the 56 war? Only US weapons in use by the Israeli's
were stuff bought from Europe (mostly WWII surplus). It wasn't until the
sixties that the US sent billions in weapons to counter the Red menace.

The Marshall Plan after WWII was only issued to the chosen countries who
agreed to kiss the ass of the USA in return for the rebuilding assistance -
did Yugoslavia or Albania recieve any aid form the US - Nope not a dime.
(Yugoslavia only got a little assistance in the fifties as an attempt to
swing them to the west).

There are several examples of the US can do that but no one else can since
the the end of WWII - it is this attitude and the RAPE of foriegn markets to
make the little guy dependant on the US that has caused so much hatred world
wide as well as disgust among our own close allies.

Some day, some one will come around and gather enough forces to kick the
knees out from under the US so that she does land hard on her ass and
possibly knock some sense into the country as a whole.

America is not ALL THAT. There are better places in the world - some with
higher taxes but more personal freedoms, others with better economies,
others with better health care, others with better eduction, others with a
lower crime rate.

Yes, on the other hand, there are more places that are worse than America -
N. Korea, Mexico, Haiti, Dominican Republic and so on. America's greatness
is only military any more - hell we don't even follow the Statue of Liberty
any more - "Give us your weak" - talk about hypocracy!

Well enough of the rant

Brian - harpoon at thegrafixguy dot com

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> Brian > wrote in message
> et...
> > Oh and the US Army is SOOO much better -
> >
> > The US can't even defend her own borders to save its citizens from
> attack -
> > 9/11.
> >
> > Geez, the US Army can't even police Bagdhad well enough to stop
> someone from
> > blowing up targets in Iraq. And even though the US has completely
> occupied
> > Afghanistan, they still can't find Osama.
> >
> > Where are the claimed weapons of Mass Destruction the Iraqi's
> supposedly
> > had????
> >
> > I'll say this much for Saddam - at least the lights were on and the
> trains
> > ran on time - can't say that for the bumbling US Army trying to make a
> new
> > puppet state.
> >
> > Typical brainwashed FRENCH fry eating slob - blindly follows the flag
> even
> > though it is coated in bull****.
> >
> > Brian
> >
>
>
> 3,000 dead from an unforeseen sneak attack versus 15,000 dead from
> summer heat. Which one sounds like a real condemnation of a government?
> I'd say losing 400 valuable troops to destroy the Taliban and Saddam
> sounds like a trade worth making. France looses more than that to
> soccer riots.
>
> The US doesn't completely occupy either Iraq or Afghanistan anymore than
> the French police completely occupy The Zone around Paris or can prevent
> bombing of synagogues, rape of un-Muslim women, or desecration of
> cemeteries. But at least the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are glad
> we've freed them. I doubt the French can say the same. I doubt the
> French have the temerity to value their freedom with so many immigrant
> Muslims demanding otherwise. The real question will be who will be the
> first French leader to propose surrender to the Arab League.
>
> I'm sure your concern for the promptness of Iraqi trains will comfort
> the families of whomever filled the mass graves, the rape rooms, and the
> children's prisons. Don't worry, nobody will accuse the French of
> helping liberate anyone of the them. If someone accuse the French of
> helping, you send them to me, I'll straighten them out. Your tribute to
> Saddam is touching and the best proof you are French.
>
> http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/19/98021903_wpo.html
> FRANCE 1998
> Office of the French President Jacques Chirac:
> "France repeats that Iraq must scrupulously respect all the UN
> Security Council resolutions. This is the only route that could enable
> Iraq to be readmitted, when the time comes, into the international
> community.
>
> The President of the Republic made this clear to the Iraqi Foreign
> Minister. He stressed "the extremely grave risks that will result from
> a refusal by Iraq to accept the inspection of the 'presidential
> sites.' Now time is running out."
>
>
> http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/s1997-774.htm
>
> --
>
> Scott
> --------
> "Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
> reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
> there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
> the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
> destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm
>
>

[Peter Kemp]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:11:49 -0500, "tscottme" >
wrote:

>Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message
...
>>
>> It's gone to war every time the French have gone to war with a need
>> for heavy armour since it entered service.
>>
>> Just because it hasn't fought yet doesn't mean it's no good.
>>
>> Or is the US nuclear deterrent crap because it's never been used in
>> anger?
>>
>> Peter Kemp
>
>And my 3-point jump shot has worked every time I've used it in the NBA
>finals. The Japanese don't agree with your last comment.

To be fair the weapons used were not the *deterrent*. That arrived
once they had a significant number of them and they weren't all
scheduled for use.

Peter Kemp

[Kevin Brooks]

"Brian" > wrote in message >...
> Oh and the US Army is SOOO much better -
>
> The US can't even defend her own borders to save its citizens from attack -
> 9/11.

Well, at least we did not have 15K die due to heat prostration and the
like.

>
> Geez, the US Army can't even police Bagdhad well enough to stop someone from
> blowing up targets in Iraq. And even though the US has completely occupied
> Afghanistan, they still can't find Osama.

Like there have never been terrorist attacks in France? Or other
criminal actions? What, you expect freakin' utopia to spring up in
Iraq overnight?

>
> Where are the claimed weapons of Mass Destruction the Iraqi's supposedly
> had????

So you think Saddam was hiding nothing? That he did engage in "full
and complete" disclosure of his WMD program activities?

>
> I'll say this much for Saddam - at least the lights were on and the trains
> ran on time - can't say that for the bumbling US Army trying to make a new
> puppet state.

Oh, and what a tragedy *that* is...let's see, after Saddam released
some one hundred thousand criminals during the days leading up to the
coalition seizure of Baghdad, we have been trying to get the Iraqi
justice system back into operation. Their courts are now again
operating, using their own criminal code, with three adjustments
imposed by the US:

"...amended that code, subsequently, in three important respects; to
provide that for the first time in Iraq's history, a defendant has a
right to a lawyer from the beginning of the judicial process.
Secondly, that a defendant has the right to be silent without that
incriminating him or her. And thirdly, that torture is no longer
allowed in the Iraqi criminal system."

Source: http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20030903_TranscriptPC2Sep.doc

How tyrannical is that? The nerve of the coalition leadership to
actually protect those accused rights...

As to the power system available pre-OIF, do you *really* think it was
all that reliable? Or that it outweighed the tens of thousands of
Iraqi citizens found in those mass graves?

One suspects that you will say a lot more than "one thing for Saddam";
and how about those wonderful French oil and gas development contracts
with Saddam that went down the toilet about the same time his statue
came crashing down in Baghdad? Them's the breaks... let me pause to
brush the tears from my cheek.

>
> Typical brainwashed FRENCH fry eating slob - blindly follows the flag even
> though it is coated in bull****.

Since you have yet to utter a single morsel of anything remotely
truthful, we'll take that little nugget with a large grain of salt.

Brooks

>
> Brian
>
> "tscottme" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Brian > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing already
> and
> > > get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries
> too?
> > >
> > > And yes, France does have an Army - one that is very strong with very
> good
> > > equipment - the Le Clerc being comparable to the vaunted M1.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Le Clerc? Is that some sort of precision-guided surrender munition?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Scott

[C Knowles]

Ever get your question answered?

"Brian" > wrote in message
news:Bz6db.436620$Oz4.244338@rwcrnsc54...
> Anyone have any data in regards to the types of military vehicles and
number
> carried that could fit inside the plane for air transport?
>
> Looking at the French Army vehicle mainly - thanks in advance
>
> Brian
>
>

[Ragnar]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Brian" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing already
and
> > > get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries
too?
> > >
> > > And yes, France does have an Army - one that is very strong with very
good
> > > equipment - the Le Clerc being comparable to the vaunted M1.
> >
> > How many battles has the Le Clerc been in?
> >
> > > France is an independant country and that in itself was one reason for
> > > deciding to withdraw from NATO - so they could pursue their own course
of
> > > action.
> >
> > Umm, they didn't "pull out" of NATO. They very conveniently stayed in
just
> > enough to whine about stuff but far enough out to never actually do any
> > work.
>
> Actually, they did pull out of NATO. By March 1966, deGaulle had
withdrawn
> France from NATO and its command structure because he felt that France
needed to
> be independent of joint security considerations, which would not have been
> possible had they remained in NATO.

They pulled out of the military end, but they pointedly remained on the
political council. Like I said, they pulled out enough to get out of any
work, and remained in enough to whine about stuff.

[Ragnar]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 04:18:45 GMT, "Ragnar" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brian" > wrote in message
> . net...
> >> Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing already
and
> >> get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries
too?
> >>
> >> And yes, France does have an Army - one that is very strong with very
good
> >> equipment - the Le Clerc being comparable to the vaunted M1.
> >
> >How many battles has the Le Clerc been in?
>
> It's gone to war every time the French have gone to war with a need
> for heavy armour since it entered service.
>
> Just because it hasn't fought yet doesn't mean it's no good.

Means its untested. Kind of silly to compare an untested weapon against a
battle-tested one.

>
> Or is the US nuclear deterrent crap because it's never been used in
> anger?

You mean we were in a good mood when we nuked Japan?

[Bill Silvey]

"Brian" > wrote in message
et
> Scott,
>
> ASSuming again - I am not French, only interested in a particular
> French built aircraft and its airlift capabilities.

Then in short response to your question: French transport aircraft can more
than handily move the requisite number of white flags and yellow paint (and
stripe templates) for French troops.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Skysurfer]

Bill Silvey wrote :

>> ASSuming again - I am not French, only interested in a particular
>> French built aircraft and its airlift capabilities.
>
> Then in short response to your question: French transport
> aircraft can more than handily move the requisite number of white
> flags and yellow paint (and stripe templates) for French troops.

But it will hard to carry your idiocy even on a C-5 Galaxy.

[ArVa]

"Bill Silvey" > a écrit dans le message de
m...
> >
> > ASSuming again - I am not French, only interested in a particular
> > French built aircraft and its airlift capabilities.
>
> Then in short response to your question: French transport aircraft can
more
> than handily move the requisite number of white flags and yellow paint
(and
> stripe templates) for French troops.
>

How clever...

Tell me, does that kind of bull**** really still make anybody laugh in any
of the fifty states, or just you and your next cell buddies at the mental
institution?

ArVa

[Skysurfer]

Brian wrote :

> Where are the claimed weapons of Mass Destruction the Iraqi's
> supposedly had????

There :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3144980.stm

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 04:09:24 GMT, "Brian" >
wrote:

>Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing already and
>get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries too?

France is an enemy nation.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:47:24 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>
>"Ragnar" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> "Brian" > wrote in message
>> . net...
>> > Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing already and
>> > get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries too?
>> >
>> > And yes, France does have an Army - one that is very strong with very good
>> > equipment - the Le Clerc being comparable to the vaunted M1.
>>
>> How many battles has the Le Clerc been in?
>>
>> > France is an independant country and that in itself was one reason for
>> > deciding to withdraw from NATO - so they could pursue their own course of
>> > action.
>>
>> Umm, they didn't "pull out" of NATO. They very conveniently stayed in just
>> enough to whine about stuff but far enough out to never actually do any
>> work.
>
>Actually, they did pull out of NATO. By March 1966, deGaulle had withdrawn
>France from NATO and its command structure because he felt that France needed to
>be independent of joint security considerations, which would not have been
>possible had they remained in NATO. As an example, they would have been unable
>to bar the presence of missiles from their soil that were under foreign (to
>them) control, which was a step that de Gaulle actually took. They remained out
>of NATO until Mitterand brought them back in during the early '90s, although I
>am not sure of that date or time period.
>
>George Z.
>>
>>
>>
>
No, they only pulled out of the security accords, they stayed in NATO
as a hanger on. They only rejoined the security accords when it became
clear that the US had won the cold war.

Al Minyard

[Brian]

Not intelligently, no.

--
Brian - harpoon at thegrafixguy dot com
"C Knowles" > wrote in message
m...
> Ever get your question answered?
>
> "Brian" > wrote in message
> news:Bz6db.436620$Oz4.244338@rwcrnsc54...
> > Anyone have any data in regards to the types of military vehicles and
> number
> > carried that could fit inside the plane for air transport?
> >
> > Looking at the French Army vehicle mainly - thanks in advance
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
>
>

[tscottme]

Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message
...

>
> To be fair the weapons used were not the *deterrent*. That arrived
> once they had a significant number of them and they weren't all
> scheduled for use.
>
> Peter Kemp

I'm sure that fine distinction is very important, in your mind.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Skysurfer > wrote in message
. 0.138...
> tscottme wrote :
>
> > 3,000 dead from an unforeseen sneak attack versus 15,000 dead from
> > summer heat. Which one sounds like a real condemnation of a
> > government?
>
> I remind you Paris is at 49° of latitude and New-York at 40° of
> latitude. Highest temperature was 42°C (i.e. 108°F).
>
>
> > I'd say losing 400 valuable troops to destroy the
> > Taliban and Saddam sounds like a trade worth making. France
> > looses more than that to soccer riots.
>
> I thought France was in the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan
> ...
>
> > The real question will be who will be the first French
> > leader to propose surrender to the Arab League.
>
> You should look at the Finsburry Park Mosque in London ...

In backward America we have these super-secret government agents called
"weather forecasters" that spy on the enemy. We use an antiquated
device called "air conditioner" and survive 120 degree weather in large
parts of the country. In France they convince themselves nothing
unpleasant will happen and then surrender 15,000 victims. Typical,
wouldn't you say?

Tell me, if France doesn't contribute to fighting terrorism how is
anyone to notice. I'm sure the French think their token contribution
is the key to everything, it isn't.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 04:09:24 GMT, "Brian" >
> wrote:
>
> >Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing
already and
> >get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries
too?
>
> France is an enemy nation.
>
> Al Minyard

Not for the terrorists.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Brian > wrote in message
et...
> Scott,
>
> ASSuming again - I am not French, only interested in a particular
French
> built aircraft and its airlift capabilities.
>
> I am an American by birth, served my time in the US Army in the late
80s. I
> served to protect your rights and my rights to stand up for the USA or
put
> her in her place - whatever views we have - we have the right to them
> whether we agree or not - at least we agree to disagree.
>
> In regards to your statement of the Afghani's and Iraqi's being
grateful -
> some yes, but not all - on Nightline Thursday night, an Iraqi said "at
least
> under Saddam the electricity was on... things were better under
Saddam."
>
> I am not saying Saddam was man of the year material or even a nice
person,
> however, the made up lies of Bush and Blair (six months later and no
WMDs)
> was no reason to invade the country. The lies are leading many to
believe
> that the attack on Iraq was nothing more than revenge for embarrassing
daddy
> Bush and/or control of the oil interests in Iraq to counter OPEC.
American
> wanna drive and any prez who can provide cheap fuel is going to gain
points.
>
> Now in regards to Afghanistan, the Taliban (the leadership in power at
the
> time) made a choice not to surrender Osama - I do not feel bad for
them.
> Hide a criminal and you get cast in the same lot as an accessory.
>
> While I do not agree with Osama's choice of target (personally, I
would have
> chosen the Capitol Building or White House or even a large refinery),
I can
> understand their methods.
>
> How else do you fight a giant? You can't trade punches in a
traditional
> battlefied sense and expect to win. That has been proven twice in
Iraq.
>
> Events in Somalia, Vietnam, Beruit and our responses as a country have
shown
> the American's weak link (public opinion) make it bloody enough and
drawn
> out and despite the revenge hawks, the majority will clamor for the US
to
> pull out - and we usually do. Leaving behind a nice void to be filled
by
> whomever has the biggest arsenal in the region.
>
> The development of the terrorist (aka. Partisan (if this were WW II
and
> being conducted against German occupying forces), mujahadeen (if they
were
> fighting against the Red menace), or VC (if they are fighting for a
belief
> other than the mighty dollar or the Red White and Blue capitalistic
> Democracy)) is completely dependant upon what the US leadership has in
its
> mind - both the Taliban and Saddam were US allies when the Russians or
> Iranians were a concern. Now that the Cold War is over, US abandoned
their
> friends as they were the unclean masses used only as cannon fodder
when
> needed.
>
> The US Government, in its infinite wisdom, by following the US foreign
> policies determined by the presidents after WWII created 95% of the
hatred
> felt worldwide against the US.
>
> The US did not support Israel until AFTER the Soviets started
supporting the
> Arab states - Remember the 56 war? Only US weapons in use by the
Israeli's
> were stuff bought from Europe (mostly WWII surplus). It wasn't until
the
> sixties that the US sent billions in weapons to counter the Red
menace.
>
> The Marshall Plan after WWII was only issued to the chosen countries
who
> agreed to kiss the ass of the USA in return for the rebuilding
assistance -
> did Yugoslavia or Albania recieve any aid form the US - Nope not a
dime.
> (Yugoslavia only got a little assistance in the fifties as an attempt
to
> swing them to the west).
>
> There are several examples of the US can do that but no one else can
since
> the the end of WWII - it is this attitude and the RAPE of foriegn
markets to
> make the little guy dependant on the US that has caused so much hatred
world
> wide as well as disgust among our own close allies.
>
> Some day, some one will come around and gather enough forces to kick
the
> knees out from under the US so that she does land hard on her ass and
> possibly knock some sense into the country as a whole.
>
> America is not ALL THAT. There are better places in the world - some
with
> higher taxes but more personal freedoms, others with better economies,
> others with better health care, others with better eduction, others
with a
> lower crime rate.
>
> Yes, on the other hand, there are more places that are worse than
America -
> N. Korea, Mexico, Haiti, Dominican Republic and so on. America's
greatness
> is only military any more - hell we don't even follow the Statue of
Liberty
> any more - "Give us your weak" - talk about hypocracy!
>
> Well enough of the rant
>
> Brian - harpoon at thegrafixguy dot com
>

So unanimous agreement among the civilian population is your standard
for success? How Hitlerian of you.

If only you and the other flaming Leftists could get as worked up about
those attacking the US as you do about those defending it, we might
actually accomplish something. You and I know that'll never happen.
You should be smart enough to go to these much better places.

Wouldn't it be easier for you to leave than to turn the most successful
country into a middling failure like the places you prefer. Typical
socialist, your preferences are more important than all others. Are you
sure you're not French? Your arrogance says otherwise.
--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message
...

> No, they only pulled out of the security accords, they stayed in NATO
> as a hanger on. They only rejoined the security accords when it became
> clear that the US had won the cold war.
>
> Al Minyard

That's what NATO always needed, more freeloaders. NATO appears to be a
military Ponzi scheme.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[Skysurfer]

tscottme wrote :

> In backward America we have these super-secret government agents
> called "weather forecasters" that spy on the enemy. We use an
> antiquated device called "air conditioner" and survive 120 degree
> weather in large parts of the country.

Can't you read ? Most of the death occured in northern France.
Have you seen the latitude of Paris compared to New York ?
What if there were a snow storm in Miami ??

> Tell me, if France doesn't contribute to fighting terrorism how is
> anyone to notice.

Can't you read ? There are french soldiers in Afghanistan.

[tscottme]

Skysurfer > wrote in message
. 0.136...
> tscottme wrote :
>
> > In backward America we have these super-secret government agents
> > called "weather forecasters" that spy on the enemy. We use an
> > antiquated device called "air conditioner" and survive 120 degree
> > weather in large parts of the country.
>
> Can't you read ? Most of the death occured in northern France.
> Have you seen the latitude of Paris compared to New York ?
> What if there were a snow storm in Miami ??
>
> > Tell me, if France doesn't contribute to fighting terrorism how is
> > anyone to notice.
>
> Can't you read ? There are french soldiers in Afghanistan.

Like I said the French hope nothing unusual happens and then are
thoroughly unprepared when it does.

You say French soldiers are in Afghanistan, give them both my regards.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[Skysurfer]

tscottme wrote :

> Like I said the French hope nothing unusual happens and then are
> thoroughly unprepared when it does.

Your sentence doesn't mean anything ...

Do I say that the USA were not prepared to the september the 11th ?

In 1994, a French Airbus was hijacked by islamists who wanted to crash
it on Paris. All terrorist were killed by french spécial forces GIGN
(you know, the "surrending monkeys").
http://www.specialoperations.com/Counterterrorism/gign.html

[Bill Silvey]

"Skysurfer" > wrote in message
. 0.136
> tscottme wrote :
>
>> In backward America we have these super-secret government agents
>> called "weather forecasters" that spy on the enemy. We use an
>> antiquated device called "air conditioner" and survive 120 degree
>> weather in large parts of the country.
>
> Can't you read ? Most of the death occured in northern France.
> Have you seen the latitude of Paris compared to New York ?
> What if there were a snow storm in Miami ??

Hey asshole, I live in Florida. We get hard freezes as far south as
Bradenton. Eighteen thousand people do NOT die from it every year.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Brian]

The heat wave in France this last summer was an extreme case - How many
Americans die in Chicago or New York during the occasional heatwaves - let
alone the few that freeze to death in the winter (and they should be USED to
the winter.



--
Brian - harpoon at thegrafixguy dot com



"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
om...
> "Skysurfer" > wrote in message
> . 0.136
> > tscottme wrote :
> >
> >> In backward America we have these super-secret government agents
> >> called "weather forecasters" that spy on the enemy. We use an
> >> antiquated device called "air conditioner" and survive 120 degree
> >> weather in large parts of the country.
> >
> > Can't you read ? Most of the death occured in northern France.
> > Have you seen the latitude of Paris compared to New York ?
> > What if there were a snow storm in Miami ??
>
> Hey asshole, I live in Florida. We get hard freezes as far south as
> Bradenton. Eighteen thousand people do NOT die from it every year.
>
> --
> http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
> Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
> "Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
> I hate furries.
>
>

[Thomas Schoene]

"Skysurfer" > wrote in message
. 0.136
> tscottme wrote :
>
> > Like I said the French hope nothing unusual happens and then are
> > thoroughly unprepared when it does.
>
> Your sentence doesn't mean anything ...
>
> Do I say that the USA were not prepared to the september the 11th ?
>
> In 1994, a French Airbus was hijacked by islamists who wanted to crash
> it on Paris. All terrorist were killed by french spécial forces GIGN
> (you know, the "surrending monkeys").
> http://www.specialoperations.com/Counterterrorism/gign.html

Well done for GIGN.

However, one does wonder how serious these terrorists were about blowing up
the plane over Paris, given that they actually landed the plane first. How
would GIGN have been able to intervene if a plane had simply flown from
Algiers to Paris direct, with the hijackers only taking over after it was
airborne?

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:29:57 -0500, "tscottme" >
wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 04:09:24 GMT, "Brian" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing
>already and
>> >get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries
>too?
>>
>> France is an enemy nation.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Not for the terrorists.

Too true!!

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 10:57:25 +0200, Skysurfer > wrote:

>tscottme wrote :
>
>> In backward America we have these super-secret government agents
>> called "weather forecasters" that spy on the enemy. We use an
>> antiquated device called "air conditioner" and survive 120 degree
>> weather in large parts of the country.
>
>Can't you read ? Most of the death occured in northern France.
>Have you seen the latitude of Paris compared to New York ?
>What if there were a snow storm in Miami ??

No problem, we would build snowmen.
>
>> Tell me, if France doesn't contribute to fighting terrorism how is
>> anyone to notice.
>
>Can't you read ? There are french soldiers in Afghanistan.

Hiding under a rock, no doubt.

Al Minyard

[Chad Irby]

In article <w6Ddb.451345$Oz4.258062@rwcrnsc54>,
"Brian" > wrote:

> The heat wave in France this last summer was an extreme case -

Actually, not so extreme. For most of France, it was only a couple of
degrees hotter than a "normal" bad heat wave, and is certainly not out
of the normal North American heat range.

> How many Americans die in Chicago or New York during the occasional
> heatwaves - let alone the few that freeze to death in the winter (and
> they should be USED to the winter.

The worst heatwave toll, *ever* was in Chicago, and was smaller, per
capita.

We've had heatwaves in the cental part of the US that make the recent
European heat wave seem mild, and we don't lose anywhere near that many
people.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Guy Wastiaux]

tscottme wrote:
> France has an army?
>
> --
>
> Scott
> --------
> "Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
> reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
> there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
> the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
> destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm
>
>

Hey what's the matter scotty ? Did you get too much pigeon **** while in
Paris ? French chicks don't want to make love to you ?
I feel sorry for you : it seems you're just repeating what Dubya said on
Fox News without trying to understand what & why he said that.
Perhaps you're one of those ugly fat people I saw in NYC : you know
those rednecks weighting 'bout 400 lbs :)
Btw, how the US troops doing in Liberia ? Why have they gone ? That
Taylor punk is a true terrorist, why don't you guys go & beat the crap
outta him ?



--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[ArVa]

"tscottme" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> Brian > wrote in message
> news:Bz6db.436620$Oz4.244338@rwcrnsc54...
> > Anyone have any data in regards to the types of military vehicles and
> number
> > carried that could fit inside the plane for air transport?
> >
> > Looking at the French Army vehicle mainly - thanks in advance
> >
> > Brian
>
> France has an army?
>

Let's let Gen. James L. Jones, USMC, NATO Supreme Commander, answer your
(smart and intellectually honest) question :

" France has probably the most expeditionary army [i.e., ready to deploy to
distant battlefields] in Europe. And writ large. They have impressive
military capabilities across the whole spectrum of operations. They're good
at peacekeeping; their Air Force is modern, state of the art; their Navy is
modern; their land Army I know about because I served with them in northern
Iraq 11 years ago, and I know their generals-this is a very, very fine army
".

He made this statement in an interview last week with Newsweek :
http://www.msnbc.com/news/972918.asp. There are other sources besides Fox
News, you know...

ArVa

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"ArVa" > wrote:

> Let's let Gen. James L. Jones, USMC, NATO Supreme Commander, answer your
> (smart and intellectually honest) question :
>
> "France has probably the most expeditionary army [i.e., ready to
> deploy to distant battlefields] in Europe. And writ large. They have
> impressive military capabilities across the whole spectrum of
> operations. They're good at peacekeeping; their Air Force is modern,
> state of the art; their Navy is modern; their land Army I know about
> because I served with them in northern Iraq 11 years ago, and I know
> their generals-this is a very, very fine army ".

Note the qualifiers...

"...most expeditionary army in Europe." That's not saying much,
especially since it would take them six months to get any of that army
overseas without American help.

"Writ large" is, to say the least, a kind exaggeration.

It's a very fine army for *Europe*. It's just not that big, or capable
of doing much overseas.

> He made this statement in an interview last week with Newsweek :
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/972918.asp. There are other sources besides Fox
> News, you know...

....and there are other Generals besides ones who grew up in France.

"Continental sensibilities" means he says nice diplomatic things about
the Europeans he has to work with on a regular basis. If he were
telling the truth, he'd be the *former* NATO Supreme Commander...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[ArVa]

"Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de
om...
> "...most expeditionary army in Europe." That's not saying much,
> especially since it would take them six months to get any of that army
> overseas without American help.

!?

> ...and there are other Generals besides ones who grew up in France.

Sure... But if more Americans and French knew better the other country, its
history, its culture and its political system, maybe we wouldn't experience
the current situation...

> "Continental sensibilities" means he says nice diplomatic things about
> the Europeans he has to work with on a regular basis.

It's a bit true but nevertheless a nice comment by an American official is
so rare these days that it had to be underlined... :-)

> If he were telling the truth, he'd be the *former* NATO Supreme
Commander...

And what would be such a truth? Hmm?
By the way, as you speak of former NATO commanders, here is what says
another one of them :

"if you really want allies, you got to listen to their opinions, you've got
to take them seriously, you've got to work with their issues. Every one of
our allied leaders is an elected leader, at least in Europe. And that means
they have domestic politics and political factors at home and economic
factors at home that influence their opinions. And those have to be
respected just like we would expect them to respect us for our political
system in the United States.
If we deal with our allies on a basis of respect, if we give them the
opportunity and the evidence and the arguments and the analysis that's
needed to help shape their public opinions, then we can expect them to go
along with us." Wesley Clark.

I don't know if he has any real chance to be your next president, but the
current administration would be inspired to take one or two of his ideas in
condideration...

ArVa

[tscottme]

Brian > wrote in message
news:w6Ddb.451345$Oz4.258062@rwcrnsc54...
> The heat wave in France this last summer was an extreme case - How
many
> Americans die in Chicago or New York during the occasional heatwaves -
let
> alone the few that freeze to death in the winter (and they should be
USED to
> the winter.
>
>

I think the highest number of deaths I've ever seen in Chicago is a few
hundred, not several thousand. During the winters I don't recall
anything larger than a handful. Maybe the French are just weak and
naive?

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Guy Wastiaux > wrote in message
...
> tscottme wrote:
> > France has an army?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Scott
> > --------
> > "Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
> > reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
> > there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered
through
> > the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
> > destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
> > http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm
> >
> >
>
> Hey what's the matter scotty ? Did you get too much pigeon **** while
in
> Paris ? French chicks don't want to make love to you ?
> I feel sorry for you : it seems you're just repeating what Dubya said
on
> Fox News without trying to understand what & why he said that.
> Perhaps you're one of those ugly fat people I saw in NYC : you know
> those rednecks weighting 'bout 400 lbs :)
> Btw, how the US troops doing in Liberia ? Why have they gone ? That
> Taylor punk is a true terrorist, why don't you guys go & beat the crap
> outta him ?
>

You mean you wouldn't complain like a mother-in-law if we beat the crap
out of some dictator, I doubt that. I don't even weigh 200 lbs and my
doctor has never recommended I lose any weight.

"In short: the same people who chide America for its short-attention
span
think we should have stopped military operations after the Taliban was
routed. (And they quite probably opposed that, for the usual reasons.)
The people who think it's all about oil like to snark that we should go
after Saudi Arabia. The people who complain that the current
administration is unable to act with nuance and diplomacy cannot admit
that we have completely different approaches for Iraq, for Iran, for
North Korea. The same people who insist we need the UN deride the
Administration when it gives the UN a chance to do something other than
throw rotten fruit.

The same people who accuse America of coddling dictators are sputtering
with bilious fury because we actually deposed one."

[tscottme]

ArVa > wrote in message
...
> "Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de
> om...
> > "...most expeditionary army in Europe." That's not saying much,
> > especially since it would take them six months to get any of that
army
> > overseas without American help.
>
> !?
>
> > ...and there are other Generals besides ones who grew up in France.
>
> Sure... But if more Americans and French knew better the other
country, its
> history, its culture and its political system, maybe we wouldn't
experience
> the current situation...
>
> > "Continental sensibilities" means he says nice diplomatic things
about
> > the Europeans he has to work with on a regular basis.
>
> It's a bit true but nevertheless a nice comment by an American
official is
> so rare these days that it had to be underlined... :-)
>
> > If he were telling the truth, he'd be the *former* NATO Supreme
> Commander...
>
> And what would be such a truth? Hmm?
> By the way, as you speak of former NATO commanders, here is what says
> another one of them :
>
> "if you really want allies, you got to listen to their opinions,
you've got
> to take them seriously, you've got to work with their issues. Every
one of
> our allied leaders is an elected leader, at least in Europe. And that
means
> they have domestic politics and political factors at home and economic
> factors at home that influence their opinions. And those have to be
> respected just like we would expect them to respect us for our
political
> system in the United States.
> If we deal with our allies on a basis of respect, if we give them the
> opportunity and the evidence and the arguments and the analysis that's
> needed to help shape their public opinions, then we can expect them to
go
> along with us." Wesley Clark.
>
> I don't know if he has any real chance to be your next president, but
the
> current administration would be inspired to take one or two of his
ideas in
> condideration...
>
> ArVa

Wesley Clarke?, now I know why you seem so out of touch. We're only
days away from his claim that Vietnamese snipers stalked him in the US
or the Republicans broke up his daughter's wedding. Which brings up
another point. Doesn't Kosovo prove the French can't cope with a
conflict larger than a soccer riot?

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[Chad Irby]

"ArVa" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote:
> > "...most expeditionary army in Europe." That's not saying much,
> > especially since it would take them six months to get any of that army
> > overseas without American help.
>
> !?

The French (and for that matter, most of Europe) have very little in the
way of strategic airlift assets, and about the same amount of sealift.
They're an "expeditionary army" with no transportation. Their entire
current airlift assets (pending the new Airbus planes on order) are a
small fraction of the US. For a heavy sealift, they have to rent ships
from the commercial fleet to get anywhere.

> > ...and there are other Generals besides ones who grew up in France.
>
> Sure... But if more Americans and French knew better the other country, its
> history, its culture and its political system, maybe we wouldn't experience
> the current situation...

Well, if the French weren't trying so hard to isolate their culture
(official language, et cetera), and if the French weren't trying so hard
to establish themselves as a powerful country (despite the evidence)...

> > "Continental sensibilities" means he says nice diplomatic things about
> > the Europeans he has to work with on a regular basis.
>
> It's a bit true but nevertheless a nice comment by an American official is
> so rare these days that it had to be underlined... :-)

Rarity doesn't mean accuracy. In this case, the old saw about diplomacy
being a bunch of people lying over dinner rings true.

> > If he were telling the truth, he'd be the *former* NATO Supreme
> Commander...
>
> And what would be such a truth? Hmm?

That France, along with most of the European countries, can't exert much
force beyond their own borders without significant American help.

> By the way, as you speak of former NATO commanders, here is what says
> another one of them :
>
> "if you really want allies, you got to listen to their opinions, you've got
> to take them seriously, you've got to work with their issues. Every one of
> our allied leaders is an elected leader, at least in Europe. And that means
> they have domestic politics and political factors at home and economic
> factors at home that influence their opinions. And those have to be
> respected just like we would expect them to respect us for our political
> system in the United States.
> If we deal with our allies on a basis of respect, if we give them the
> opportunity and the evidence and the arguments and the analysis that's
> needed to help shape their public opinions, then we can expect them to go
> along with us." Wesley Clark.

Funny how he doesn't mention anything about European armies having any
significant power outside of their own borders.

> I don't know if he has any real chance to be your next president, but the
> current administration would be inspired to take one or two of his ideas in
> condideration...

Clark, if he gets the nomination, will lose. Badly. But don't worry...
some of his past statements about Iraq are already coming back to haunt
him. No chance for Wesley Clark.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Among the trash that passes for posts in this topic, where I still did not see any answers to the original question (or maybe I missed them) your posts stand out as a shining example of good postership! Deleting posters with rude language makes the newsgroup a LOT smaller

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

chad, in comparison with a superpower, no other power can do
much. There's no point in saying 'the French' are useless because they
can't do what the US can. Quality of a country is not judged on those
kind of arguments, I am sure you will see if you think a bit about
it. The US, and countries the world over, make do with what they have
at the time. If they can't do, they look for another solution.

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Gernot Hassenpflug > wrote:

> chad, in comparison with a superpower, no other power can do much.
> There's no point in saying 'the French' are useless because they
> can't do what the US can.

But there *is* a lot of use in pointing out that they *can't* do
something that someone else was claiming. Saying that they have
significant "expeditionary capability" when they certainly do not does
nothing useful except feed some egos.

> Quality of a country is not judged on those kind of arguments, I am
> sure you will see if you think a bit about it.

No, I judge the French on many other issues. But pretending that they
can do something they can't as a counter to those issues is just silly.

> The US, and countries the world over, make do with what they have
> at the time. If they can't do, they look for another solution.

Yes, they buy the stuff they need, or learn how to do without. But
claiming that they can do something necessary (exert meaningful power
overseas) when they can't (not enough transport) is delusion, pure and
simple.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Skysurfer]

Alan Minyard wrote :

>>> France is an enemy nation.
>>>
>>> Al Minyard
>>
>>Not for the terrorists.
>
> Too true!!

It's true that USA is the friend of good democracies such as Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where the terrorists don't come from ...

[Chad Irby]

Skysurfer > wrote:

> It's true that USA is the friend of good democracies such as Pakistan,
> Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where the terrorists don't come from ...

No, but it is true that we've allied with a lot of bad people so we can
stop *worse* people from getting what they want.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Skysurfer > wrote:

> Who is naive to believe that Irak was behind spetember the 11th ?

Who is corrupt enough to look the other way on Iraq so TotalFinaElf can
make a lot of money?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Mainlander]

In article >,
says...

> The US doesn't completely occupy either Iraq or Afghanistan anymore than
> the French police completely occupy The Zone around Paris or can prevent
> bombing of synagogues, rape of un-Muslim women, or desecration of
> cemeteries. But at least the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are glad
> we've freed them.

You believe every piece of spin that comes out of the white house? LOL

[Mainlander]

In article >,
says...
> In article >,
> Skysurfer > wrote:
>
> > Who is naive to believe that Irak was behind spetember the 11th ?
>
> Who is corrupt enough to look the other way on Iraq so TotalFinaElf can
> make a lot of money?

No, just easier for the Poms and Yanks to invade and steal that for
themselves

[Mainlander]

In article >,
says...

> "...amended that code, subsequently, in three important respects; to
> provide that for the first time in Iraq's history, a defendant has a
> right to a lawyer from the beginning of the judicial process.
> Secondly, that a defendant has the right to be silent without that
> incriminating him or her. And thirdly, that torture is no longer
> allowed in the Iraqi criminal system."

They let the Iraqis have rights that are denied to Afghanis held at
Gitmo?

[shonen]

> > Umm, they didn't "pull out" of NATO. They very conveniently stayed in
just
> > enough to whine about stuff but far enough out to never actually do any
> > work.
>
> Actually, they did pull out of NATO. By March 1966, deGaulle had
withdrawn
> France from NATO and its command structure because he felt that France
needed to
> be independent of joint security considerations, which would not have been
> possible had they remained in NATO. As an example, they would have been
unable
> to bar the presence of missiles from their soil that were under foreign
(to
> them) control, which was a step that de Gaulle actually took. They
remained out
> of NATO until Mitterand brought them back in during the early '90s,
although I
> am not sure of that date or time period.
>
> George Z.

As I remember they pulled out at least partly due to the Cuban missile
crisis. It became apparent to them, and everyone else, that Europe could not
depend on the US not to sell them out in a crisis. As happened. The US were
willing to do a secret deal with the Soviets to pull out the missiles from
Turkey in exchange for the Soviets pulling their missiles out of Cuba. The
US would not be willing to commit to full scale war for Europe. The French
felt that they needed an independent nuclear capability to deter the
Soviets, rather than relying on the US, who had demonstrated a willingness
to sacrifice NATO security for their own.

Not that I blame the US. The whole massive retaliation thing wasn't a really
practical proposition. In may sound good in theory, but when things come to
a crunch, the US really couldn't be expected to make the supreme sacrifice
for Europe. The Europeans knew this and were always wary of US efforts to
distance themselves, or to restrict nuclear war just to Europe. I guess if
the French nuked Moscow, the Soviets wouldn't have worried who they nuked in
retaliation. Share the pain.

As for the Transall, my 1968 Observors says crew of 4, 81 troops or 62
casualty stretchers and 4 medical attendants. Other (vehicle) loads not
exceeding 35,270 lb. weight.Military Transports and Training Aircraft of the
World add cross section of the cabin is 9ft, 7in by 10 ft 2 1/2 in for a
length of 42 ft.

[shonen]

I put a wee bit off info under the first thread, after a brief diversion to
Cuba.

Actually, after the above, crap, I don't think the Americans deserve allies.
Bring our troops back and **** 'em. We're not going to get any thanks if our
troops are in Iraq or Afghanistan so let the American troops die.

Opps, now I'm starting to rant! But those ignorant fools really **** me off.

Brian > wrote in message
. net...
> Not intelligently, no.
>
> --
> Brian - harpoon at thegrafixguy dot com
> "C Knowles" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Ever get your question answered?
> >
> > "Brian" > wrote in message
> > news:Bz6db.436620$Oz4.244338@rwcrnsc54...
> > > Anyone have any data in regards to the types of military vehicles and
> > number
> > > carried that could fit inside the plane for air transport?
> > >
> > > Looking at the French Army vehicle mainly - thanks in advance
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"shonen" > wrote in message
...

>
> As I remember they pulled out at least partly due to the Cuban missile
> crisis. It became apparent to them, and everyone else, that Europe could
not
> depend on the US not to sell them out in a crisis. As happened. The US
were
> willing to do a secret deal with the Soviets to pull out the missiles from
> Turkey in exchange for the Soviets pulling their missiles out of Cuba. The
> US would not be willing to commit to full scale war for Europe. The French
> felt that they needed an independent nuclear capability to deter the
> Soviets, rather than relying on the US, who had demonstrated a willingness
> to sacrifice NATO security for their own.
>

Incorrect

The Cuban missile crisis happened in 1962
France withdrew its forces from the Nato command structure
in 1966 giving as a reason the dominance of US commanders in the
organisation.

There was nothing in the NATO charter to prevent France
developing its own strategic deterrent , this is in fact what the
UK did.

Keith

[Grantland]

"ArVa" > wrote:

>"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>
>> >
>> So who said we want france as an ally?
>
>Well, almost all your top government officials, including your president...
>Or were they all lying while crossing their fingers in their back? That
>would probably be a premiere... :-)
>
>> partially because of comments like the one above.
>
>I don't think he was refering to France only. Don't you want allies and
>friends at all? Geez, I really wonder what disturbs you so much in Clark's
>statement...
>
>ArVa
>
I'll tell you Arva. The Jews want to do something despicable and
completely unacceptable in the ME. They can swing their slaves, the
Zomboid Amerikong into docile acquiescense, only if the global protest
doesn't much matter. Only nukes matter.

Hence the beastlike xenophobia.

Grantland

[Grantland]

(Grantland) wrote:

>"ArVa" > wrote:
>
>>"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>>
>>> >
>>> So who said we want france as an ally?
>>
>>Well, almost all your top government officials, including your president...
>>Or were they all lying while crossing their fingers in their back? That
>>would probably be a premiere... :-)
>>
>>> partially because of comments like the one above.
>>
>>I don't think he was refering to France only. Don't you want allies and
>>friends at all? Geez, I really wonder what disturbs you so much in Clark's
>>statement...
>>
>>ArVa
>>
>I'll tell you Arva. The Jews want to do something despicable and
>completely unacceptable in the ME. They can swing their slaves, the
>Zomboid Amerikong into docile acquiescense, only if the global protest
>doesn't much matter. Only nukes matter.
>
>Hence the beastlike xenophobia.
>
>Grantland
And ArVa, as a Frenchman you should know further: They plan to
instigate jihad in your Union, your name so blackened that the US
provides no help... they are traitors to the world.

Grantland

[tscottme]

Skysurfer > wrote in message
. 0.32...
>
> It's true that USA is the friend of good democracies such as Pakistan,
> Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where the terrorists don't come from ...

That's funny coming from Hitlerstan.

So you wouldn't throw a hissy fit if the US toppled those regimes? The
truth is, if the US isn't toppling the regimes people like you blame us.
If the US is toppling the regime, people like you blame us. That's why
most of us, except for the Euro-craving liberals don't give a flip if
Europe approves or disapproves of most things, especially when we see it
as a matter of our national interest.

You can't even say with a straight face that if the US started to put
heavy pressure, even threatening military force, on Saudi Arabia you and
everybody you know would immediately say "it's all about the oil".
There's no pleasing people like you and it may make you feel important
for Americans to hear your opinion, in fact you're wasting your time.
We've got several decades of noticing how the world would be in a
dreadful condition if we followed the vacillating desires of Europeans.
Certainly we would be poorer and weaker and have less freedom. Try
going another decade or two without invading your neighbors or try
contributing to a Euro Defense Corp during good and bad economic times
and then tell us how responsible you are.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

shonen > wrote in message
...
> I put a wee bit off info under the first thread, after a brief
diversion to
> Cuba.
>
> Actually, after the above, crap, I don't think the Americans deserve
allies.
> Bring our troops back and **** 'em. We're not going to get any thanks
if our
> troops are in Iraq or Afghanistan so let the American troops die.
>
> Opps, now I'm starting to rant! But those ignorant fools really ****
me off.
>

More empty promises from people that won't assume the full
responsibility of national security. Dependence breeds resentment.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Skysurfer > wrote in message
. 0.32...
> tscottme wrote :
>
> > Maybe the French are just weak and naive?
>
> Who is naive to believe that Irak was behind spetember the 11th ?

I guess you mean the UK's Guardian newspaper and the other news sources
that document the hijack training site at Salmon Pak. Nobody has
officially claimed Iraq was behind Sept 11. There are some suspicions,
and there is evidence that Iraq was behind the 1993 WTC bombing.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:48:17 +0200, Guy Wastiaux >
wrote:

>tscottme wrote:
> > France has an army?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Scott
>> --------
>> "Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
>> reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
>> there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
>> the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
>> destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm
>>
>>
>
>Hey what's the matter scotty ? Did you get too much pigeon **** while in
>Paris ? French chicks don't want to make love to you ?
>I feel sorry for you : it seems you're just repeating what Dubya said on
> Fox News without trying to understand what & why he said that.
>Perhaps you're one of those ugly fat people I saw in NYC : you know
>those rednecks weighting 'bout 400 lbs :)
>Btw, how the US troops doing in Liberia ? Why have they gone ? That
>Taylor punk is a true terrorist, why don't you guys go & beat the crap
>outta him ?

Taylor is gone from Liberia. Get a clue.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:43:42 +0200, "ArVa" > wrote:

>
>"tscottme" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>> Brian > wrote in message
>> news:Bz6db.436620$Oz4.244338@rwcrnsc54...[i]
>> > Anyone have any data in regards to the types of military vehicles and
>> number
>> > carried that could fit inside the plane for air transport?
>> >
>> > Looking at the French Army vehicle mainly - thanks in advance
>> >
>> > Brian
>>
>> France has an army?
>>
>
>Let's let Gen. James L. Jones, USMC, NATO Supreme Commander, answer your
>(smart and intellectually honest) question :
>
>" France has probably the most expeditionary army in Europe. And writ large. They have impressive
>military capabilities across the whole spectrum of operations. They're good
>at peacekeeping; their Air Force is modern, state of the art; their Navy is
>modern; their land Army I know about because I served with them in northern
>Iraq 11 years ago, and I know their generals-this is a very, very fine army
>".
>
>He made this statement in an interview last week with Newsweek :
>http://www.msnbc.com/news/972918.asp. There are other sources besides Fox
>News, you know...
>
>ArVa
>
That is called "being diplomatic", which is not the same as being
"honest". The french armed forces are an international joke.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:30:01 +0200, "ArVa" > wrote:

>"Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de
om...
>> "...most expeditionary army in Europe." That's not saying much,
>> especially since it would take them six months to get any of that army
>> overseas without American help.
>
>!?
>
>> ...and there are other Generals besides ones who grew up in France.
>
>Sure... But if more Americans and French knew better the other country, its
>history, its culture and its political system, maybe we wouldn't experience
>the current situation...
>
>> "Continental sensibilities" means he says nice diplomatic things about
>> the Europeans he has to work with on a regular basis.
>
>It's a bit true but nevertheless a nice comment by an American official is
>so rare these days that it had to be underlined... :-)
>
>> If he were telling the truth, he'd be the *former* NATO Supreme
>Commander...
>
>And what would be such a truth? Hmm?
>By the way, as you speak of former NATO commanders, here is what says
>another one of them :
>
>"if you really want allies, you got to listen to their opinions, you've got
>to take them seriously, you've got to work with their issues. Every one of
>our allied leaders is an elected leader, at least in Europe. And that means
>they have domestic politics and political factors at home and economic
>factors at home that influence their opinions. And those have to be
>respected just like we would expect them to respect us for our political
>system in the United States.
>If we deal with our allies on a basis of respect, if we give them the
>opportunity and the evidence and the arguments and the analysis that's
>needed to help shape their public opinions, then we can expect them to go
>along with us." Wesley Clark.
>
>I don't know if he has any real chance to be your next president, but the
>current administration would be inspired to take one or two of his ideas in
>condideration...
>
>ArVa
>
So who said we want france as an ally? They have caused us nothing but
grief. Wesley Clark has zero chance of becoming the US President,
partially because of comments like the one above.

Al Minyard

[Guy Wastiaux]

YEah cool he's gone out of Liberia with all the money there was. Do you
honestly think a guy like him will accept to leave his 'throne' just
because the US sent a few marines ?
From where I stand, it's as good as if he was still there.I wouldn't be
surprised if he tried to take some advantage back some way or another,
a bit like Saddam. You know, that guy you guys can't catch :)

Alan Minyard wrote:

>
>
> Taylor is gone from Liberia. Get a clue.
>
> Al Minyard


--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[Guy Wastiaux]

Halliburton won 'bout $2 bn in rebuilding contracts in Iraq. Now who's
making the big money ?


Chad Irby wrote:

> In article >,
> Skysurfer > wrote:
>
>
>>Who is naive to believe that Irak was behind spetember the 11th ?
>
>
> Who is corrupt enough to look the other way on Iraq so TotalFinaElf can
> make a lot of money?
>


--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[Guy Wastiaux]

You're definitely weak, we all agree on that.

tscottme wrote:
> Certainly we would be poorer and weaker and have less freedom.

--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[Guy Wastiaux]

"AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. – The Air Force Academy will reconsider its
plan to deny rape victims confidentiality after an independent
commission said such confidentiality could be crucial in solving the
academy's sexual assault scandal."

I think that's your major problem : you're not getting enough sex. Our
pilots don't rape girls at the academy.

Alan Minyard wrote:

>
> That is called "being diplomatic", which is not the same as being
> "honest". The french armed forces are an international joke.
>
> Al Minyard


--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[ArVa]

"tscottme" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>
> Wesley Clarke?, now I know why you seem so out of touch.

Am I? :-) I don't think so... I'm not the one bashing the other just for the
country name his passport reads...

> We're only days away from his claim that Vietnamese snipers stalked him in
the US
> or the Republicans broke up his daughter's wedding.

Well, in a world where some (also presumably serious) say uranium has been
purchased to a guy who had been out of office for ten years at the presumed
date of the purchase, where some prestigious intelligence agencies xerox
some student material, etc, everything is possible you know... Seriously,
I'm not fond of the current administration but I respect the choice the
Americans have made and will respect the next chosen president, be he W.
Clark, H.Dean, G. bush or any other one. That's the important part in
Clark's statement that you probably missed : RESPECT.

> Which brings up
> another point. Doesn't Kosovo prove the French can't cope with a
> conflict larger than a soccer riot?
>

Or you're playing the fool or you're badly informed...

ArVa

[ArVa]

"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de
...

> >
> So who said we want france as an ally?

Well, almost all your top government officials, including your president...
Or were they all lying while crossing their fingers in their back? That
would probably be a premiere... :-)

> partially because of comments like the one above.

I don't think he was refering to France only. Don't you want allies and
friends at all? Geez, I really wonder what disturbs you so much in Clark's
statement...

ArVa

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Guy Wastiaux > wrote:

> Halliburton won 'bout $2 bn in rebuilding contracts in Iraq. Now who's
> making the big money ?

Considering the tens of billions made by some companies during the Oil
for Food program, that's chicken feed.

Then there's the bribes, which aren't going to Paris any more.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"ArVa" > wrote:

> Well, in a world where some (also presumably serious) say uranium has been
> purchased to a guy who had been out of office for ten years at the presumed
> date of the purchase,

Of course, not mentioning that Iraqi trade officials *had* been in
Niger, which has one and only one export that Iraq wanted - uranium.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[ArVa]

Easy, easy... Now take your pill... Good boy...

[Chad Irby]

(Grantland) wrote:

> The Jews want to do something despicable and
> completely unacceptable in the ME.

The word you're looking for is "live."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Kevin Brooks]

"shonen" > wrote in message >...
> > > Umm, they didn't "pull out" of NATO. They very conveniently stayed in
> just
> > > enough to whine about stuff but far enough out to never actually do any
> > > work.
> >
> > Actually, they did pull out of NATO. By March 1966, deGaulle had
> withdrawn
> > France from NATO and its command structure because he felt that France
> needed to
> > be independent of joint security considerations, which would not have been
> > possible had they remained in NATO. As an example, they would have been
> unable
> > to bar the presence of missiles from their soil that were under foreign
> (to
> > them) control, which was a step that de Gaulle actually took. They
> remained out
> > of NATO until Mitterand brought them back in during the early '90s,
> although I
> > am not sure of that date or time period.
> >
> > George Z.
>
> As I remember they pulled out at least partly due to the Cuban missile
> crisis.

Then your memory needs recalibrating a bit. Check the timeline.

> It became apparent to them, and everyone else, that Europe could not
> depend on the US not to sell them out in a crisis. As happened.

And just when did we sell out Europe during a crisis? Berlin in 48?
Nope. Berlin in 61-62? Nope. So when did this great sell out occur?
ISTR that the US was still providing the bulk of the common defense
for Europe in 1989, when the all came down?

> The US were
> willing to do a secret deal with the Soviets to pull out the missiles from
> Turkey in exchange for the Soviets pulling their missiles out of Cuba.

That is true (so you are what, one-for-three so far?). JFK and his
little brother did make that a secret deal, something some of us are
none too proud of. But that was hardly a case of "selling out Europe",
either; the case can be, and has been, made that those Jupiter's were
already on their way out, and this was really an inconsequential grant
to Khrushev to allow him to save some face with the Politburo. If it
*was* a sell out, what does the fact that the US pushed through the
European basing of Pershing II and GLCM's during the 80's imply?

The
> US would not be willing to commit to full scale war for Europe.

Thirty plus years of history in successfully facing the Soviets in
Western Europe seems to make that statement lack credibility.

The French
> felt that they needed an independent nuclear capability to deter the
> Soviets, rather than relying on the US, who had demonstrated a willingness
> to sacrifice NATO security for their own.

No, the French were just pursuing their own vision of independence
from the alliance in general, and the US in particular. IMO, they had
a national ego problem extending back to their WWII
experience/performance (or lack thereof), and this was just another
manner of making themselves feel as if they were again a superpower.
Note that the UK also developed its own independent nuclear force
*without* resorting to the theatrics exemplified in the French
pull-out from the unified command structure.

>
> Not that I blame the US. The whole massive retaliation thing wasn't a really
> practical proposition. In may sound good in theory, but when things come to
> a crunch, the US really couldn't be expected to make the supreme sacrifice
> for Europe.

But the only thing that matters in the end is that it *worked*.

The Europeans knew this and were always wary of US efforts to
> distance themselves, or to restrict nuclear war just to Europe. I guess if
> the French nuked Moscow, the Soviets wouldn't have worried who they nuked in
> retaliation. Share the pain.

Illogical if you are positing that the French would nuke Moscow
without involvement of the US and other NATO allies, IMO. What route
would you have had those Mirage IV's (and their supporting
tankers--they bought their KC-135's expressly to support the Force de
Frappe, or Crappe, or whatever...) flying to *get* to Moscow? ISTR it
was not until about 1971 that their IRBM force became operational?

Brooks

>
> As for the Transall, my 1968 Observors says crew of 4, 81 troops or 62
> casualty stretchers and 4 medical attendants. Other (vehicle) loads not
> exceeding 35,270 lb. weight.Military Transports and Training Aircraft of the
> World add cross section of the cabin is 9ft, 7in by 10 ft 2 1/2 in for a
> length of 42 ft.

[Nigel Isherwood]

"Brian" > wrote in message
news:Bz6db.436620$Oz4.244338@rwcrnsc54...
> Anyone have any data in regards to the types of military vehicles and
number
> carried that could fit inside the plane for air transport?
>
> Looking at the French Army vehicle mainly - thanks in advance
>
> Brian
>


Some answers

Payloads - up to 93 troops or 61-68 paratroops,
Cabin length - 44ft 4 in
Cabin volume - 4940 ft3

Max payload 16000 kg
Range with max payload 1000 nm

This compares with the C130H (not H-30)

92 troops or 64 paratroops,
Cabin length 41 ft
Volume 4351 ft3

Max payload 19356 kg
Range with max payload 2046 km

(from Jane's Civil and Military Upgrades, 94-95)

So, basically, the Transall can carry most things that a Hercules can but
only about half as far.

Hope this is of some help.

Nigel Isherwood

[Brian]

Thanks for the data -

And in regards to many of the Antt-French comments in here,

AS AN AMERICAN by BIRTH not by CHOICE, and seeing how our country has
decided itself to be the world bully more so than the USSR ever was - I can
only hope that every terrorist out there on the net and every leader onf a
country reads this message -

ATTACK AMERICA PLEASE before they come get you - some one needs to kick the
**** outta the US and put her back in her place as a mutual resident of the
PLANET EARTH.

America - land of the free - if your rich enough!

--
Brian - harpoon at thegrafixguy dot com

"shonen" > wrote in message
...
> I put a wee bit off info under the first thread, after a brief diversion
to
> Cuba.
>
> Actually, after the above, crap, I don't think the Americans deserve
allies.
> Bring our troops back and **** 'em. We're not going to get any thanks if
our
> troops are in Iraq or Afghanistan so let the American troops die.
>
> Opps, now I'm starting to rant! But those ignorant fools really **** me
off.
>
> Brian > wrote in message
> . net...
> > Not intelligently, no.
> >
> > --
> > Brian - harpoon at thegrafixguy dot com
> > "C Knowles" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > Ever get your question answered?
> > >
> > > "Brian" > wrote in message
> > > news:Bz6db.436620$Oz4.244338@rwcrnsc54...
> > > > Anyone have any data in regards to the types of military vehicles
and
> > > number
> > > > carried that could fit inside the plane for air transport?
> > > >
> > > > Looking at the French Army vehicle mainly - thanks in advance
> > > >
> > > > Brian
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Chad Irby]

In article <iC6eb.632826$YN5.465267@sccrnsc01>,
"Brian" > wrote:

> AS AN AMERICAN by BIRTH not by CHOICE,

Then move.

Enjoy.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Grantland]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:39:20 +0200, "ArVa" > wrote:
>
>>"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>>
>>> >
>>> So who said we want france as an ally?
>>
>>Well, almost all your top government officials, including your president...
>>Or were they all lying while crossing their fingers in their back? That
>>would probably be a premiere... :-)
>
>Our actions speak louder than our words.
>
>>
>>> partially because of comments like the one above.
>>
>>I don't think he was refering to France only. Don't you want allies and
>>friends at all? Geez, I really wonder what disturbs you so much in Clark's
>>statement...
>>
>>ArVa
>>
>Because he is willing to sell out to our enemies.
>
>Al Minyard

What's this "our" stuff, Jewboy?

Grantland

[Phil]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "shonen" > wrote in message
> >...

>> The French felt that they needed an independent nuclear capability
>> to deter the Soviets, rather than relying on the US, who had
>> demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice NATO security for their
>> own.

> No, [...]
> Note that the UK also developed its own independent nuclear force

Did they? From the little I know the nuclear force in UK was far from
independant from the US...

[Keith Willshaw]

"Phil" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "shonen" > wrote in message
> > >...
>
> >> The French felt that they needed an independent nuclear capability
> >> to deter the Soviets, rather than relying on the US, who had
> >> demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice NATO security for their
> >> own.
>
> > No, [...]
> > Note that the UK also developed its own independent nuclear force
>
> Did they? From the little I know the nuclear force in UK was far from
> independant from the US...
>

Lets see.

The UK force uses British built submarines equipped with
missiles bought from the US that carry UK designed and
built warheads.

The arming of the warheads and targetting of the missiles
is subject to UK control

What makes you think this is not an independent deterrent ?

Keith

[Phil]

Thomas Schoene wrote:

> "Skysurfer" > wrote in message
> . 0.136
>
>> tscottme wrote :
>>
>>> Like I said the French hope nothing unusual happens and then are
>>> thoroughly unprepared when it does.
>>
>> Your sentence doesn't mean anything ...
>>
>> Do I say that the USA were not prepared to the september the 11th ?
>>
>> In 1994, a French Airbus was hijacked by islamists who wanted to
>> crash it on Paris. All terrorist were killed by french special
>> forces GIGN (you know, the "surrending monkeys").
>> http://www.specialoperations.com/Counterterrorism/gign.html
>
> Well done for GIGN.
>
> However, one does wonder how serious these terrorists were about
> blowing up the plane over Paris, given that they actually landed the
> plane first. How would GIGN have been able to intervene if a plane
> had simply flown from Algiers to Paris direct, with the hijackers
> only taking over after it was airborne?


They were quite serious. They executed 3 hostages before taking off to
Marseille. The plane was forced to land there for refuelling. Orders
were issued to blast the tyres if the plane attempted a take-off. The
plane was purposedly prevented to embark enough fuel to go too far.

The original plan from the GIA was to crash the plane on Paris.
It is also documented that the prime minister and the president were
aware of the terrorists intentions and that they were ready to order a
Mirage to take care of the problem in the most radical way if necessary.

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:39:20 +0200, "ArVa" > wrote:

>"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>
>> >
>> So who said we want france as an ally?
>
>Well, almost all your top government officials, including your president...
>Or were they all lying while crossing their fingers in their back? That
>would probably be a premiere... :-)

Our actions speak louder than our words.

>
>> partially because of comments like the one above.
>
>I don't think he was refering to France only. Don't you want allies and
>friends at all? Geez, I really wonder what disturbs you so much in Clark's
>statement...
>
>ArVa
>
Because he is willing to sell out to our enemies.

Al Minyard

[Phil]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Phil" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>>> "shonen" > wrote in message
>>> >...
>>
>>>> The French felt that they needed an independent nuclear
>>>> capability to deter the Soviets, rather than relying on the US,
>>>> who had demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice NATO security
>>>> for their own.
>>
>>> No, [...] Note that the UK also developed its own independent
>>> nuclear force
>>
>> Did they? From the little I know the nuclear force in UK was far
>> from independant from the US...
>
> Lets see.
>
> The UK force uses British built submarines equipped with missiles
> bought from the US that carry UK designed and built warheads.
It seems to me that the missiles are simply "anglicised" after they
arrive in UK, and not really designed/built. I don't know what
"anglicised" really means, but it seems far from developped, designed
and built. What is certain is that the Trident warheads are assembled in
UK (AWE - Burghfield). I don't know what kind of rocket is used and what
kind of re-entry module is attached. Are they really "made in UK"? Or
simply assembled there?

> The arming of the warheads and targetting of the missiles is subject
> to UK control
Yes. I was mistaken with the NATO theatre weapons that were double
keyed.(id.)

> What makes you think this is not an independent deterrent ?
Historical relationship between US and UK ;-)
I'd be interrested in any doc about the discussions that took place
during the Falklands war arround the subject of the possible use of the
UK submarines... I already know the US administration was very worried,
to say the least, about a possible dramatic event that would encourage
the Prime Minister to retaliate with nukes.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Phil" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:

> >
> > The UK force uses British built submarines equipped with missiles
> > bought from the US that carry UK designed and built warheads.
> It seems to me that the missiles are simply "anglicised" after they
> arrive in UK, and not really designed/built. I don't know what
> "anglicised" really means, but it seems far from developped, designed
> and built. What is certain is that the Trident warheads are assembled in
> UK (AWE - Burghfield). I don't know what kind of rocket is used and what
> kind of re-entry module is attached. Are they really "made in UK"? Or
> simply assembled there?
>

The missiles are bought from the USA, the rentry system is
developed in the UK with technical support form Lockheed Martin

> > The arming of the warheads and targetting of the missiles is subject
> > to UK control
> Yes. I was mistaken with the NATO theatre weapons that were double
> keyed.(id.)
>
> > What makes you think this is not an independent deterrent ?
> Historical relationship between US and UK ;-)


History wouldnt stop a British retaliation for a nuclear attack
no matter how much the US disapproved.


> I'd be interrested in any doc about the discussions that took place
> during the Falklands war arround the subject of the possible use of the
> UK submarines... I already know the US administration was very worried,
> to say the least, about a possible dramatic event that would encourage
> the Prime Minister to retaliate with nukes.
>

Its hard to imagine what sort of event could cause
a nuclear response in that war, more to the point was
the British warning to Iraq in Gulf War 1 that any Iraqi
use of WMD against British forces could prompt a
nuclear response.

Keith