If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
: I'm not sure I see your point, is this supposed to offset argumenst against the ones responsible for the greates nuclear buildup so far in human history? :^) Typical, try to divert the point. Hardly. The point is, France disregarded a long standing UN commitment against nuclear testing. That was his point, mine was "Europe tend to respect UN resolutions". Was there a resolution preventing it? No, just as there was no UN resolution *against* armed action against Iraq, in fact the last resolution passed concerning Iraq threatened severe actions should Iraq not fully comply with UNSCM. Indeed. And, didn't Iraq comply? http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pub...line3.htm#2002 Face it, France and every other nation in Europe abides by the UN when it fits nicely with their plans and disregards it when it doesn't, just like US and nearly every other nation on the planet. I think you are painting this all too black and white. If you want to do some research I would reccomend some reading on the US oposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the US has yet to ratify even though Clinton signed it -- 7 years ago. Again, diverting the subject. The subject is; Europe always obeys the UN and the US doesn't. That was your subject, not mine. You might notice that France has both signed and ratified the treaty (in 1998). After they completed their live testing of their latest warheads. They cut the program short due to pressure from the world, though the story probably doesn't end there. They needed a steady supply of uranium from the Aussies which wouldn't guarantee that unless France got in on the CTBT deal. The US hasn't had a live test in over 25 years. That the US won't ratify CTBT seems to indicate they will. In all, the US track-record on UN vetos, boicots and non-ratifications is not exactly a shining example of world cooperation. And I'm sure if you choose to investigate France, Russia, the UK and China you'de find similar "track records". Well, do you have any comments on why the US vetos just about any resolution dealing with the palestine issue, and other nations do not? To me it lookes like Sharon has shattered most efforts made in the past decade to bring about some hope of peace and stability to the region, and the US seems determined to support that. Regards... |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote in
: On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 06:33:19 GMT, Juvat wrote: I agree that Rumsfeld's previous goodwill visit to Hussein had no bearing on current events...but I use it to suggest that the current anger by you and other americans toward our european friends can just as easily change. "European friends"? That would be the UK and Poland. The rest are hardly "friends" Al Minyard Just a reminder. http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02040207.htm "Rumsfeld Thanks Norway for "Wonderful" Anti-terror Support In response to a question, Devold revealed that Norway has offered F-16 fighter jets for Operation Enduring Freedom, and it "plans to be able to go together with Denmark and Netherlands with a deployment of F-16s if we are needed later on this year." http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2003/08-11.htm NATO took over command Monday of the International Security Assistance Force, known by its acronym ISAF, following a year-and-a-half in which different nations rotated into and out of leadership. The takeover marks NATO's first operation outside Europe in its 54-year history, and underscores the alliance's shift from its original Cold War role to a new focus on international terrorism. [..] Regards... |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
We're not trying to block your effort, we are dealing with it our way. "Terrorism" is a world problem, not US problem. I think you first need to realize and accept that you're not the only nation in the world, that you actually depend on the others for your own existence -- you can not dictate other nations as much as you can't dictate your own neightboor. Then you need to ask yourself -why- the US is targeted. Regards... Because the US and UK are big obstacles to what stands between groups like the Taliban and Al-Queda and their desire to make the Middle East, and eventually the whole world, into their idea of a muslim paradise, and live stone age lifestyles. Poland has now been declared a legitimate target by Bin Laden too. Ron Pilot/Wildland Firefighter |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
"European friends"? That would be the UK and Poland. The rest
are hardly "friends" Al Minyard Just a reminder. Netherlands, Turkey, Italy, Spain , Denmark, Most all of the eastern European countries, Norway, and another I have forgotten at this moment, are helping to. Yes, they are good friends too. A lot more than just UK and Poland have helped in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even France helped with CAS in Afghanistan, which is a case of our interests being common, as opposed to different in the case of Iraq. Ron Pilot/Wildland Firefighter |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, BUFDRVR
blurted out: Your claim is still not supported by facts. Do you have a reference? Just the remarks of the Ambassador from the DDR... Nope, you don't sound like the former Ambassador of the DDR to me. I'm sure this *single* individuals claim is supported by other than his words no? You've referenced some... This is a quote from the July 17th, 1961 New York Times; "refugees fleeing from the Communist East Germany. Fleeing to freedom in West Berlin, they say, before its too late. Officials say the refugees are suffering from 'Torschlusspanik', panic or fear that the door will slam in their face. Rumors are flying in the East that the Russians will seal the border between the two Berlins as soon as they sign a seperate peace treaty with East Germany". Indeed fear about getting caught, trapped, whatever, brought on by fear of soviet actions. We agree on this. Interesting, nothing about nuclear war. Khrushchev articulated the threat of nuclear war if NATO failed to vacate Berlin. This was part of the spectre of soviet control. Clearly I'm not communicating the nature of the total threat. In June 1961 Khrushchev turned up the rhetoric, personally threatened JFK with nuclear war, east germans fled to W Berlin...we apparently can both stipulate to these facts. I guess you think that Khrushchev's threat of nuclear war was not a reason for germans leaving the DDR. To me, listening to the DDR Ambassodor, that single aspect that you're focusing on, is indeed part of the reason germans fled. If you inferred from my post that nuclear war was THE reason, that was not my implication.The extreme threat is nuclear war, but the soviets had options up to and including thermonuclear war. Are you suggesting that DDR citizens just wanted out the DDR *period*, and it's just a coincidence that Khrushchev had threatened nuclear war the previous month. I don't buy the coincidence theory. DDR citizens were spooked into fleeing to W Berlin. What spooked them? I say it was Khrushchev's ultimatum, you apparently disagree. Eisenhower did it several times, he was aware Krushev was on shaky ground in his country and 99% of what he said was for Soviet consumption. If I may contradict you (hey what are friends for?). President Eisenhower didn't simply ignore Khrushchev. Ike was not an ideolog regarding communist hegemony in eastern europe. His Sec State, John Foster Dulles wanted to liberate eastern europe by force if neccessary. [alibi mode on] I'm not disagreeing with Ike's pragmatism, simply pointing out he chose not to take risks vs the USSR [alibi mode off] Ike chose not to risk war, he didn't encourage the East Berliners' general strike that threaten the DDR government. And he did not support the anti-communist Hungarian in 1956 (the ones that asked for US assistance). In both cases, Khrushchev used soviet armor to crush the rebellion. Khrushchev was no paper tiger, he used force. Eisenhower warned Kennedy about several issues, including how to deal with Krushev and was upset when Kennedy disregarded his advice. That should come as no big surprise. If John Foster Dulles had been president, Ike would have been upset with him. The notion that Ike's policies were right and JFK's wrong (because Ike disapproved) is flawed. ANG units? Great, but Army reserve units were sent in July, the wall went up in late August. Threat of war on 3 Jun 1961, with a six month time limit. My use of the ANG reference was due to our mutual service. However, millions of Germans became prisoners behind a wall for the next 38 years and hundreds were killed trying to escape over the same time period. Had Kennedy reacted like Ike, this may never have come to pass. Again a fatally flawed conclusion. Khrushchev's tanks crushed the 1956 Hungarian uprising. The small wall was the one around Berlin, the big wall was as Chruchill said, "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent." Why would Krushev try to bully a junior Senator from MA ? Allow me to fill in some details, the "Second Berlin Crisis," started in 1958 while Ike was president, and concluded with the Khrushchev vs JFK episode we're discussing now. It carried over, we're not talking about a different crisis...just an unresolved one from 1958 that escalated with Khrushchev's threat of nuclear war in 1961. Historians are fairly consistant that it's simply a continuation. Krushev threatened military action quite often, Eisenhower correctly believed he was bluffing and had no reaction, no conflict arose. Bluffing? Like Hungary in 1956...hardly a bluff. Kennedy deserves credit for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he most definitely blew it on Berlin. Well we can agree to disagree. Juvat |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Alan Minyard
writes On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:16:12 GMT, Chad Irby wrote: Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939? Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the stick in short order. Europe, other than the Nazis, was not preparing for war, they were preparing to surrender. Just as a quick look for 1939, the Royal Navy launched two battleships, three aircraft carriers and ten cruisers; the Royal Air Force was trading biplanes for Spitfires and building up its bomber force while completing the world's first radar-directed integrated air defence system; and the Army was expanding and re-equipping at a furious rate. A rather strange process of "preparing to surrender", unless one expects that all this equipment was being produced so it could be handed over to Germany... -- 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 |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" a écrit dans le message de
m... You left some things out of your timeline: First, the La Belle disco bombing happened. The immediate US response was Eldorado Canyon. Then... I know, but I was emphasizing what happenned *after* 1986. Two years after operation Eldorado Canyon, in 1988, a PanAm 747 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland : 270 casualties. One year later, in 1989, it was a DC-10 belonging to the French carrier UTA that exploded over the Sahara desert : 170 casualties. We're all fortunate the 1986 US bombing had modified Qaddafi's behavior : it might had been worst... It certainly would have. "Certainly"? How do you know? It's worthless to practice retrospective historical fortune-telling. For my part, I just look at facts and it happens that two of the most infamous and deadly terrorist attacks of the past 15 years or so have been organized by Libya *after* the El Dorado Canyon operation. You can believe what you want of course but I don't think the '86 F-111 bombing run stopped Qaddafi's course of action. It was a retaliation move, more symbolic than really efficient, pretty much like the bombing by French Super Etendard in 1983 against Lebanese factions after the Beirut bombings (how did the US retaliate BTW?). Lybia *officially* gave up terrorism in 1992, under the international pressure and, above all, an UN embargo. It has nothing to do with Eldorado Canyon. Except that the international pressure you mention came about *because* of the direct actions by the US against Libya. Whatever you say, if that pleases your national ego to think you were alone on that fight... but you obviously missed some episodes. Regards, ArVa |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think that they had a crystal ball to see the future. There was
no reason to expect the fast fall of France and BEF. Except for looking at what had happened in Spain a few years earlier. Ah, the blitzkrieg of Spain is it? So your suggestion is that Belgium and Netherlands should have mustered a strong navy with consirable carrier force? Do you have any sense of reality? Funny how a whole bunch of European nations turned into *two*, there. Ok, give me examples of European countries that could have had real uses for stronger navy. Norway is the only one that comes to my mind. Since they couldn't manage such a thing on their own, they certainly could have worked out some treaties to manage a joint defense force of some kind. Yes, and it would have been nice if someone popped Hitler before he came to power... And Sweden, Finland the Baltic countries etc. had to consider the threat of Soviet Union which was atleast as serious as the threat from Germany. Most of the countries in Europe would have been better of with less navy and more emphasis on army and airforce. Since they didn't do either, it's sort of a moot point. Well stronger navy wouldn't have helped them at all, it would have just been a waste of money which was the point all along. You don't build navies just to look good to some sailor from abroad. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
"BUFDRVR" a écrit dans le message de
... If you believe intelligence officials (both US and German), that operation was in progress for over three years, ordered before El Dorado Canyon. I don't get your point. If, according to the intelligence reports you highlight, the Lockerbie bombing was planned around 1985 but was not cancelled after El Dorado Canyon in 1986 and did happen in 1988, how can one say the Libyan support and practice of terrorism has decreased after the Tripoli bombing? The bodycount (270 dead people, including 200 Americans), alas, speaks for itself. Same for the UTA plane in 1989. Libya's overt support for international terrorists and even Qaddafi's covert support were severely curtailed after El Dorado Canyon In addition to destroying two planes and killing about 450 people in the following years, Libya also continued to support rebel movement in North Chad (the Aouzou strip) until 1994. There are also reports that it supported the FLNC, a violent Corsican separatist group. As for weapon smuggling for the PIRA, I'm not sure but I think it was mostly in the early 80's. Did they "officially" announce they were giving up their support of terrorists? No, Yes, the Libyan representative institution (called something like the People's National Concil, I don't remember exactly) issued an official statement about it in 1992, whatever its worth. And Qaddafi himself has made several official speeches these last years on the subject, about his will to be part again of the international community. There are also of course the Libyan statements in front of the UN Security Council to get the sanctions lifted. but actions speak louder than words and Qaddafi has been seen on US TV approximately a half dozen times since El Dorado Canyon which tells me, at least from a US perspective, that the strike had the required effect. Didn' t he show up on US channels after the Lockerbie bombing or at least during the investigation? Anyway, I'm not sure that the average coverage of one subject or the other by the US, British, German, French, or any other Western mainstream TV channels is the most accurate tool of analysis of what is really going on. Sometimes a dog that has been ran over by a car next block is more important than the death of multiple people overseas. As for the "required effect", in the light of what happened in 1988 (to concentrate on US interests) I still don't understand your way of thinking. But that's no news... :-) Regards, ArVa |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The joke called TSA | Spockstuto | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | December 27th 04 12:54 PM |
Sick Boeing Joke. | plasticguy | Home Built | 0 | April 1st 04 03:16 PM |
On Topic Joke | Eric Miller | Home Built | 8 | March 6th 04 03:01 AM |
Europe as joke | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 165 | November 8th 03 10:45 PM |
American joke on the Brits | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 50 | September 30th 03 10:52 PM |