Is Rafale dead?

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:15:15 +0100, Skysurfer wrote:

Ragnar wrote :

Congratulations. You could do a perfectly safe op - airlifting
passengers in total safety - while your betters were doing the
heavy lifting uner fire in Iraq. Seems to me that you do the jobs
you were qualified for.

Why should have we gone to Irak ? Oh yes I know, help to find those
WMD that Collin Powell showed us at the UN and you cannot find 8
months later ...

Peace, freedom, etc. Those things that the French have never been
able to defend.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote :

Peace, freedom, etc. Those things that the French have never been
able to defend.

Al Minyard

Intelligence, brain, etc. Those things that Al Minyard has never been
able to have.

I'll probably regret getting dragged into this, but it smacks me as very
hypocritical for a U.S. citizens to question an ally for not jumping into
any war they wanted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the U.S. dragged their
feet for a relatively long time to officially defend "peace, freedom, etc."
when they were threatened as never before or since (W.W.II). It wasn't
until their own country was attacked that they officially entered the war.
I am aware of their other efforts before that, but no real commitment of
troops was provided. Heck, the whole western world pretty much stood by and
did nothing as Czechoslovakia was annexed. I'm not anti-American, but I
think that before you throw stones, you might want to look around to see how
much glass is in your house. Regards,

Tony

Peace, freedom, etc. Those things that the French have never been
able to defend.

Al Minyard

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

P.S. Anti-French jokes stopped being funny after the first few hundred.

Just what made you think they were jokes?

--
Jim

carry on




----== 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 =---

Your stuborness...

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:52:23 +0100, Skysurfer wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote :

Peace, freedom, etc. Those things that the French have never been
able to defend.

Al Minyard

Intelligence, brain, etc. Those things that Al Minyard has never been
able to have.

My, what a compelling argument!!

Al Minyard

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:09:36 -0500, "Tony Volk" wrote:

I'll probably regret getting dragged into this, but it smacks me as very
hypocritical for a U.S. citizens to question an ally for not jumping into
any war they wanted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the U.S. dragged their
feet for a relatively long time to officially defend "peace, freedom, etc."
when they were threatened as never before or since (W.W.II). It wasn't
until their own country was attacked that they officially entered the war.
I am aware of their other efforts before that, but no real commitment of
troops was provided. Heck, the whole western world pretty much stood by and
did nothing as Czechoslovakia was annexed. I'm not anti-American, but I
think that before you throw stones, you might want to look around to see how
much glass is in your house. Regards,

Tony

Peace, freedom, etc. Those things that the French have never been
able to defend.

Al Minyard

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.

Al Minyard

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. 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!
Your answers strike me as deeply hypocritical.
For the record, I think the U.N. should have gone in as a whole and
taken out Saddam for breach of GW 1 agreements, and for his atrocities
against his people. I'm glad that a monster was removed (I think that they
needn't have, and shouldn't have lied about removing WOMD). But to accuse
France of being cowards in not joining this relatively minor war makes me
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. How
was the U.S. reasonable while the French were not?

Tony

p.s.- to any veterans of WWII, I am in no way questioning the incredible
valor and sacrifice of the Americans during WWII, only trying to illustrate
that any country can be or has been selfish and complacent in the face of a
common danger so it's ignorant or hypocritical to single out any one country
as such; I apologize in advance for any implied insult (none was intended)
and can only offer that I'm trying to make a complex point in a brief
fashion

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message .net...
Skysurfer wrote:
Charles Talleyrand wrote :

I understand that the order to Dassault is for 28 aircraft, with
an option of 20 more. However, I have read on the web that
Dassault is to deliver 1 Rafale this year, and only 4 next year.
I have also read that there are only 13 operational Rafales with
the French Military.

Well, it has announced plans to order this many. However, actual orders are
120 thus far, plus 76 fairly firm projected orders in the 2003-08 budget
plan, for a total of about 200. The additional 100 will come after 2008,
and are obviously rather speculative.

Yes, but the verty slow rate of delivery makes me wonder about the
program. They will have delivered 18 Rafales in the eight years between
1997 and 2005. That's only 2.25 aircraft per year.

Sure, they plan to ramp up production. But their original plans never said
18 aircraft in 8 years, so I have doubts about the current plans to. Can
anyone comment on this?

http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/03paris/topstor02.htm


--
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)

Minyard never answers any question in a clever way!
US are right,always.You disagree?You are wrong!
That's all.


"Tony Volk" a écrit dans le message
de news: ...
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. 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!
Your answers strike me as deeply hypocritical.
For the record, I think the U.N. should have gone in as a whole and
taken out Saddam for breach of GW 1 agreements, and for his atrocities
against his people. I'm glad that a monster was removed (I think that
they
needn't have, and shouldn't have lied about removing WOMD). But to accuse
France of being cowards in not joining this relatively minor war makes me
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.
How
was the U.S. reasonable while the French were not?

Tony

p.s.- to any veterans of WWII, I am in no way questioning the incredible
valor and sacrifice of the Americans during WWII, only trying to
illustrate
that any country can be or has been selfish and complacent in the face of
a
common danger so it's ignorant or hypocritical to single out any one
country
as such; I apologize in advance for any implied insult (none was intended)
and can only offer that I'm trying to make a complex point in a brief
fashion