Is Rafale dead?

"Tony Volk" wrote:

The US was a neutral, you know, like the Swedes, the Swiss, etc. We had
just recently completed the clean up of a euro mess (WW1). The fact that
the French screwed up the Armistice was getting them into another mess.
We, quite reasonably, decided that, since Europe had evidently decided
that a war every few years was a good thing, we would decline to
participate.

You didn't answer the question. The U.S. ignored the need to defend
"peace, freedom, etc." as the Germans and Japanese began the war. They only
got involved when they themselves were attacked.

That was a mistake that we learned from, although we still
were not wont to be speedy and decisive about it.


So why would you blame
France for not wanting to join a U.S. fight when France wasn't attacked (no
one was actually, but assuming you're going with the Bush 9/11 line of
garbage). Why is it "quite reasonable" for the U.S. to back out of a war
they're not involved in, and cowardice/betrayal for France to do the same
thing? France just fought in GW 1, US starts GW 2, and sits out. That's as
close to an exact parallel to your WW1 and WW2 comments as you could get!

Not a bad parallel, but we must ask why France would offer
assistance of the Foreign Legion and a few jet squadrons for GW1, but
not for GW2 ? I don't think, competent as French intel has been
historically, that they had significantly better info than the US/UK
did. They were going through a bit of an intransigent phase though
both with the USA and many others - I think that had as much to do
with the French refusal to participate as anything else. Not exactly
the noblest of concepts. The USA going into Iraq to clean up a mess we
had contributed to was only marginally better, but it was *somewhat*
better.

Your answers strike me as deeply hypocritical.

Ditto the concerns about the French. They cetrainly had plenty
of national interest in cleaning up the horrors of Iraq. For all the
noise made about the companies in the USAID group making money in
Iraq, so it goes for the French oil and technology markets.
It's entirely their choice to participate or not - they have
often been rather troublesome as allies - once in, they are highly
motivated fighters, but it can be tricky to get them to commit...


wonder what you think of the actions of the U.S. in early WWII when the
stakes were much higher, the need much direr, and the evil much worse.

I think it was less clear at the time. The Jewish deportations
and pogrom were just getting underway, for example. It's not too hard
to understand why there was hesitance to enter another conflict that
was assumed to be like the trench war horrors of WW1. But eventually
we realized that wait was a mistake. I think US attitude to someone
like Hussein is a reflection of that lesson learned in the 1940s.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

John S. Shinal wrote:

: Not a bad parallel, but we must ask why France would offer
: assistance of the Foreign Legion and a few jet squadrons for GW1, but
: not for GW2 ?

Because GW1 involved the defense of a sovereign (and rich)
nation, Kuwait, against blatant aggression by Iraq -- the
event has been described as the greatest bank robbery of
all time. The political framework for GW1 was quite strong,
as it involved not only the defense of vital interests
but also the enforcement of an international rule banning
unprovoked aggression which it is beneficial to uphold
for all nations.

GW2 on the other hand was an American pre-emptive and
aggressive move against an old enemy whose very survival
was seen by hardliners in Washington as an insult to the
USA's power. The political framework consisted of a set
of dubious claims about Iraqi WMD and vague pipe-dreams
about a rosy-colored middle east formulated by the loonies
who were not only allowed to advise the Pentagon, but also
to appear on TV as the administrattion's talking heads.

With all respect for Colin Powell, US diplomacy failed
dismally on this occassion. James Baker would have been
ashamed to preside over this muddle, but much of the
blame rests on a president who allows his staff to voice
contradicting policies and silly statements in public ---
and senior ministers who are, err, less than tactful.

It would probably have been possible to get French support
for the removal of Saddam Hussein if the US had negotiated
and formulated a clear foreign policy for the middle east.
After all, Saddam was a brutal, murderous dictator, and
his removal from the region has obvious benefits. What was
lacking was, conspicuously, time; the hawks in Washington
wanted to use the momentum created by 9/11 to carry the
policy.

: It's entirely their choice to participate or not - they have
: often been rather troublesome as allies - once in, they are highly
: motivated fighters, but it can be tricky to get them to commit...

Well, the defense of American national interests as a policy
goal does not get a particularly high priority in Paris...

: I think it was less clear at the time. The Jewish deportations
: and pogrom were just getting underway, for example.

Nazi Germany's anti-semitic policies were already perfectly
clear. However, given that anti-semitism prevailed worldwide
in the late 1930s, also in the USA, this would have been
difficult to use (at least in public) as motive for military
intervention; there were have been a public uproar against it.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote in message
...
John S. Shinal wrote:

: Not a bad parallel, but we must ask why France would offer
: assistance of the Foreign Legion and a few jet squadrons for GW1, but
: not for GW2 ?

Because GW1 involved the defense of a sovereign (and rich)
nation, Kuwait, against blatant aggression by Iraq -- the
event has been described as the greatest bank robbery of
all time. The political framework for GW1 was quite strong,
as it involved not only the defense of vital interests
but also the enforcement of an international rule banning
unprovoked aggression which it is beneficial to uphold
for all nations.

GW2 on the other hand was an American pre-emptive and
aggressive move against an old enemy whose very survival
was seen by hardliners in Washington as an insult to the
USA's power.

That might be your perception, but that would not make it the correct one.

The political framework consisted of a set
of dubious claims about Iraqi WMD and vague pipe-dreams
about a rosy-colored middle east formulated by the loonies
who were not only allowed to advise the Pentagon, but also
to appear on TV as the administrattion's talking heads.

Odd, ISTR every major European power, France included, also had concluded
that Saddam had an ongoing WMD program.


With all respect for Colin Powell, US diplomacy failed
dismally on this occassion. James Baker would have been
ashamed to preside over this muddle, but much of the
blame rests on a president who allows his staff to voice
contradicting policies and silly statements in public ---
and senior ministers who are, err, less than tactful.

It would probably have been possible to get French support
for the removal of Saddam Hussein if the US had negotiated
and formulated a clear foreign policy for the middle east.

And said French support would undoubtedly also have been predicated upon the
self-powered and enabled flight of swine. The recalcitrance of France
towards easing the debt status of the emergent post-Saddam Iraqi government
would tend to indicate that France is more interested in seeing any attempt
to resolve the Iraqi dilemma fail. While France had the right to not support
the coalition's effort to topple Saddam (just as other European nations had
an equal right to support it, something that Chirac, if you recall, found
very distasteful), then why all of the subsequent attempts at obstructing
CURRENT progress, if the French are truly interested in the welfare of the
Iraqi people and the formation of a fair, representative government?

After all, Saddam was a brutal, murderous dictator, and
his removal from the region has obvious benefits.

Which the French have been rather slow in recognizing, as their reluctance
to forgive the debts accrued to them by the same "brutal, murderous
dictator" on behalf of the Iraqi people demonstrates. Maybe the fact that
France had just recently concluded a huge oil/gas development contract with
same said "brutal, murderous dictator" (TotalFina?) has something to do with
same said current reluctance. Or maybe it is just unthinkable for the French
to have to suck up the financial loss involved with all of those major
weapons systems to same said "brutal, murderous dictator". Whatever the
reason (and it more than likely has as much to do with that strange visceral
French desire to snipe at things American), the fact that they have
continued to be an obstacle even after the fall of Saddam does not seem to
support the idea that France was very keen upon seeing him fall in the first
place, regardless of the method used.

What was
lacking was, conspicuously, time; the hawks in Washington
wanted to use the momentum created by 9/11 to carry the
policy.

Or was it that 9/11 gave us a sharper focus towards doing what has to be
done as opposed to wringing our hands for another ten years of concurrent
unbacked UN resolutions and French duplicity (hey, making that TotalFina
deal while also claiming to REALLY be anti-Saddam took some panache, huh?)?


: It's entirely their choice to participate or not - they have
: often been rather troublesome as allies - once in, they are highly
: motivated fighters, but it can be tricky to get them to commit...

Well, the defense of American national interests as a policy
goal does not get a particularly high priority in Paris...

Fine. But the oft-repeated French refrain of allegedly supporting the fall
of Saddam but opposing the manner in which the US went about it is so much
poppy-cock. What were those reports of the French providing Saddam with
their analysis of the US intent? What about that sweetheart TotalFina deal
(which I sincerely hope is now in the trash can) concluded so lately with
Saddam?


: I think it was less clear at the time. The Jewish deportations
: and pogrom were just getting underway, for example.

Nazi Germany's anti-semitic policies were already perfectly
clear. However, given that anti-semitism prevailed worldwide
in the late 1930s, also in the USA, this would have been
difficult to use (at least in public) as motive for military
intervention; there were have been a public uproar against it.

Anti-semitic policies, yes. Outright genocide? No, we were clueless. Did we
learn from the experience? You bet; we learned a lot. We learned to never
again draw down our military after a victory so far as we did after WWI. We
learned that we can't afford to accept the pronouncements of European
nations that "We can handle our own Euro affairs without your input, thank
you very much" (something we had to relearn when France began making similar
mutterings during the lead-in to Serbia). Finally, we learned a healthy
amount of disrespect for a nation that not only fell in six weeks but then
managed to actively oppose the Allies during the North African campaign.
Lots of lessons.

Brooks


--
Emmanuel Gustin

Kevin Brooks wrote:

: GW2 on the other hand was an American pre-emptive and
: aggressive move against an old enemy whose very survival
: was seen by hardliners in Washington as an insult to the
: USA's power.

: That might be your perception, but that would not make it the correct one.

Well, perception matters. But as Wolfovitz has stated
clear enough, concern about WMD was certainly not the
only driving factor behind the US invasion of Iraq, and
probably not the most important one. The people who
wanted this operation most were the bunch who had wanted
to occupy Bagdad in 1991; they wanted to remove Saddam
first and foremost because they regarded this as unfinished
bussiness.

: The political framework consisted of a set
: of dubious claims about Iraqi WMD and vague pipe-dreams
: about a rosy-colored middle east formulated by the loonies
: who were not only allowed to advise the Pentagon, but also
: to appear on TV as the administrattion's talking heads.

: Odd, ISTR every major European power, France included, also
: had concluded that Saddam had an ongoing WMD program.

Your memory is selective. Remember how Powell went to
Berlin, and Joschka Fischer stated clearly and publicly
that he was not convinced by the Secretary's dossier
on Iraqi WMD?

There was a general recognition that, considering that
Saddam had acquired a large arsenal of WMD in the past,
and that in the absence of inspections on site there was
no way to be sure that he was not developing them now,
something had to be done to make sure. However, this is
far from accepting the extravagant claims made by the
USA and UK. Which did not limit themselves to Iraq having
a WMD /program/, nor /the intention to restart a WMD
program/, but included a claim that it had WMD ready
for use at short notice.

: very distasteful), then why all of the subsequent attempts at obstructing
: CURRENT progress, if the French are truly interested in the welfare of the
: Iraqi people and the formation of a fair, representative government?

It seems to me that 'attempts at obstructing current progress'
amount to refusing to forgive all of the debts (for they have
agreed to forgive part of it) of a potentially enormously
rich country that will be very well able to pay them back.
There is no objective reason to simply forgive all Iraq's
debts. That the USA would like to see it otherwise does not
change the perception that debt relief should be given to the
world's poorest countries first.

The other attempt to obstruct progress seem to be mostly
policy suggestions that, after strong initial resistance,
have been adopted by the USA, for the CPA has now accepted
the need to make a fast transfer of power to an Iraqi government.

: Which the French have been rather slow in recognizing, as their reluctance
: to forgive the debts accrued to them by the same "brutal, murderous
: dictator" on behalf of the Iraqi people demonstrates.

Iraq has almost as much debt to the USA as it has to France,
and the recent American-French-German agreement on debt relief
for Iraq states fairly clearly that all these debts will be
treated in the same way, with a 'substantial' part being
forgiven and payment of the rest rescheduled.

: Or was it that 9/11 gave us a sharper focus towards doing what has to be
: done as opposed to wringing our hands for another ten years of concurrent
: unbacked UN resolutions and French duplicity (hey, making that TotalFina
: deal while also claiming to REALLY be anti-Saddam took some panache, huh?)?

France -- and Russia -- had, IMHO, an entirely valid position
when they argued that economic sanctions against Iraq were
backfiring, strengthening Saddam's regime instead of weakening
it, and hurting only the Iraqi people. The USA insisted on
continued sanctions despite evidence of Iraqi disarmament (which
is what the sanctions were intended to enforce) because it wanted
to enforce Regime Change. That was a stupid policy, because there
was no effective internal opposition in Iraq, and an internal
opposition is essential if you want to get regime change through
economic means (look at South Africa for one example, Cuba for
the other.). It is also a policy the occupation authority has
to pay the price for now, for Iraq needs to be almost completely
rebuilt after so many years of economic ruin.

To negotiate a deal before sanctions were lifted, as the Total Fina
is rumoured to have done (I have yet to encounter the story in
a reliable news source) would be cynical, but not inconsistent or
illegal.

: We
: learned that we can't afford to accept the pronouncements of European
: nations that "We can handle our own Euro affairs without your input, thank
: you very much"

You could not have learned that in 1940, for the basic reason
that this did not happen. Between WW1 and WW2 European nations
repeatedly asked the USA to remain involved in European affairs,
it ws the USA that collapsed in a voluntary isolationism.

: Finally, we learned a healthy
: amount of disrespect for a nation that not only fell in six weeks

The USA does not have a border with Germany. If it had had
one in 1940, I doubt that the USA could have resisted the
German attack for as long as six weeks.

: but then managed to actively oppose the Allies during the
: North African campaign.

To call that "active opposition" is an exaggeration. The
French army defended neutral, sovereign territory against
as foreign invasion, as it was their clear duty to do; the
resistance ended when the political authorities ordered an
end to the fighting, as was their responsibility. That there
was any fighting at all was in part due to the concerns about
secrecy, which caused American negotiators to inform their
French counterparts only at the very last moment, deliberate
exaggerations of the strength of the invasion force, and
American illusions about the importance of general Giraud,
who turned out to be perfectly useless.

: Lots of lessons.

To learn from history, you first have to know it. I suggest
you make an attempt to be guided by facts instead of prejudice;
I admit it is more work and can be a nuisance.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

On 23 Dec 2003 12:01:36 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote:
Massive anti-American rant snipped

The French opposed Iraqi Freedom because of
the lucrative contracts and kick backs through ELF, etc.

And also because Cirac did not want his secret dealing with
Saddam discovered. We are just begriming to discover
the depths of French perfidy.


To learn from history, you first have to know it. I suggest
you make an attempt to be guided by facts instead of prejudice;
I admit it is more work and can be a nuisance.

Vichy French forces in WWII attacked and resisted US troops, who
were fighting for, among other things, to liberate France. Their
behavior was despicable.

Al Minyard

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On 23 Dec 2003 12:01:36 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote:
To learn from history, you first have to know it. I suggest
you make an attempt to be guided by facts instead of prejudice;
I admit it is more work and can be a nuisance.

Vichy French forces in WWII attacked and resisted US troops, who
were fighting for, among other things, to liberate France. Their
behavior was despicable.

The French lost as many troops in a few months of 1940 as the US lost in
the rest of the war, fighting Germany while the US sanctimoniuosly sat
aside saying it wasn't a US problem.

Perhaps French troops could be excused for a lack of conviction that US
troops were coming to bring liberation and freedom, given the US's
disinterest so recently before. They were wrong, but the US had done
nothing to earn their confidence.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:23:08 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On 23 Dec 2003 12:01:36 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote:
To learn from history, you first have to know it. I suggest
you make an attempt to be guided by facts instead of prejudice;
I admit it is more work and can be a nuisance.

Vichy French forces in WWII attacked and resisted US troops, who
were fighting for, among other things, to liberate France. Their
behavior was despicable.

The French lost as many troops in a few months of 1940 as the US lost in
the rest of the war, fighting Germany while the US sanctimoniuosly sat
aside saying it wasn't a US problem.

Perhaps French troops could be excused for a lack of conviction that US
troops were coming to bring liberation and freedom, given the US's
disinterest so recently before. They were wrong, but the US had done
nothing to earn their confidence.

And their German friends had? The US had seen the europeans
fight WWI, and we then realized that it was NOT a US problem.

And where do you get your fantasy about the number of French
vs US military casualties?


http://www.abmc.gov/abmc45.htm

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html


Al Minyard

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:23:08 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" news@jrwly
nch.demon.co.uk wrote:
Perhaps French troops could be excused for a lack of conviction that US
troops were coming to bring liberation and freedom, given the US's
disinterest so recently before. They were wrong, but the US had done
nothing to earn their confidence.

And their German friends had?

Oddly enough, the German occupation of most of Vichy France wasn't
hideously onerous or oppressive as long as you weren't blatantly Jewish,
gypsy, gay or retarded.

Why should young Frenchmen believe that the US was going to bring
anything better?

The US had seen the europeans
fight WWI, and we then realized that it was NOT a US problem.

Then why did the US fight?

And where do you get your fantasy about the number of French
vs US military casualties?

John Keegan, "The Second World War".

I was slightly off in one regard: the French lost 600,000 dead of whom
only 200,000 were military, as compared to 292,000 total US fatalities.
In terms of total deaths the French didn't shy from fighting: in terms
of relative casualties they put up far more of a fight than the US.
Trouble is, they didn't have any oceans to hide behind.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote
Alan Minyard writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Perhaps French troops could be excused for a lack of conviction that US
troops were coming to bring liberation and freedom, given the US's
disinterest so recently before. They were wrong, but the US had done
nothing to earn their confidence.

And their German friends had?

Oddly enough, the German occupation of most of Vichy France wasn't
hideously onerous or oppressive as long as you weren't blatantly Jewish,
gypsy, gay or retarded.

Why should young Frenchmen believe that the US was going to bring
anything better?

The US had seen the europeans
fight WWI, and we then realized that it was NOT a US problem.

Then why did the US fight?

And where do you get your fantasy about the number of French
vs US military casualties?

John Keegan, "The Second World War".

I was slightly off in one regard: the French lost 600,000 dead of whom
only 200,000 were military, as compared to 292,000 total US fatalities.
In terms of total deaths the French didn't shy from fighting: in terms
of relative casualties they put up far more of a fight than the US.
Trouble is, they didn't have any oceans to hide behind.

A lot of Americans are under the impression that we Won The War (with a
little help from the Brits) and everybody else got a free ride. While the US
produced amazing amounts of material, in many catagories, the USSR produced
as much and in terms of mobilization, according to Keegan (from memory), the
USSR raised 600 division equivalents, the Brits 300, the US 100.

Richard Overy's invaluable "Why the Allies Won" has the data: in artillery,
the USSR outproduced the US every single year of the war, by close to 2:1.
In tanks, the US outproduced the USSR only in 1943 and the aggregate
production of the USSR is much larger than the US. The US outproduced the
USSR in aircraft, logistics support and in major naval vessels.

Overy's book points out that defeat of Germany (never mind Japan, that was
never in doubt) was not a forgone conclusion. In fact if the Germans had
done any of the following: pinched off the Dunkirk perimeter prior to the
evaculation, mobilized the industrial production of occcupied Western
Europe, fully mobilized Germany in 1940, not attacked the USSR in 1941, not
driven the Ukrainians back into Stalin's arms... They likely would have won.

The French fought bravely but badly in 1940. The French have lost wars but
not because of lack of valor. _No_one at all familiar with the French
experience in WWI can call them a nation of cowards. They are misguided, as
many Europeans are, that the price of peace is perpetual negotiations and
that fighting is likely to be disastrous but that's a product of a century
of warfare. Remember the effect of minimal casualties had on the US in the
thirties or for that matter the much greater butcher's bill effect on the
British at that time. I may think the French and Germans are wrong for many
reasons regarding the present danger (I do) but I won't make them out to be
fools and cowards.

Date: 12/25/2003 11:35 PM Central Standard Time

The Germans claim that they only lost 60,000 men while taking France,
and the French claim that they lost 300,000 men to the Germans.
Something about those numbers seems suspicious. If that many Frenchman
really died it must have been from incompetance.


They had incompetent senior staff. The fighting men were able and felt betrayed
by their own officers.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired