Well, I'd like to know how *you* look at Lockerbie. That's precisely the
part I don't understand in your reasoning.

I don't believe that you can judge the El Dorado strike effectiveness based on
Lockerbie because it was planned and in the execution phase *prior* to the
operation and unable (according to Libyan sources) to be terminated.

If it was not a terrorist attack
against US citizens (200 casualties) and assets (a PanAm B747), how do you
qualify it?

It was a terrorist attack, directed at US citizens and undertaken with Libyan
assistance, I'm not arguing those facts. What I am arguing is that the strike
on Libya could not have impacted the terrorist bombing of the Pan Am regardless
of how effective it was.

but, according
to me, it was not the reason that made Libya change its policy about
terrorism, not even regarding the US

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

No offense intended but it's a pretty lame comment.

Why? The French government fails to provide the most basic assistance to a US
strike operation and then has some of its citizens fall victim to Libyan
sponsered terrorists. Now you want the US, whose aircrew were *intentionally*
put in increased danger by France, to feel sympathy for French civilians?
Somehow I think if the roles were reversed, French citizens would not shed one
tear for the loss of US lives.

As for the overflight rights, you easily forget that along with France,
Germany, Spain and Italy also refused to cooperate.

Germany *did* cooperate. As for Spain and Italy, their required assistance was
the basing of tanker aircraft, not an operation altering issue. France was
asked for almost nothing, but it was a critical nothing, and they refused.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"