On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:13:03 +0100, "ArVa" wrote:

"BUFDRVR" a écrit dans le message de
...
Now, the French gvt did not *intentionaly* jeopardize the lives
of the US crews. For what purpose, and what was the "increased danger" in
avoiding French airspace anyway?

Approximately five additional hours of flight time into a combat zone.


The gulf of Biscaye, the coast of Portugal and the British territory of
Gibraltar are not really combat zones, are they? But I agree that 5 hours of
flight and the inherent refuelings added to the risks.


Judging from the French reaction to nearly anything the US does, a
decision
made by the US that wound up hurting us would be gleefully trumpeted in
France.
Iraq today is a good example, French newspapers seem almost to revel in
every
US casulty.


Not true. There is a huge gap between being against a policy and rejoicing
over the casualties that ensue from this policy. Some of the newspapers are
on the "we told you" line but most of them agree that nobody has to gain
from an Iraq that would fell completely into chaos, be led by extremists or
return to the previous situation.
Now, to be honest I don't think people here are really eager to give
billions (we don't have them anyway as we are restrained by European
budgetary regulations and already on the verge of being fined) or see
soldiers die to solve a situation they don't feel responsible for. And the
French bashing, something with no real counterpart here and something I
don't think we had ever experienced to that extent, did little to increase
the people's will to help the United States.

Why not just come out and say "we supported Saddam, and were too cowardly
to assist the US"??

I guess it could change with more involvement from the UN but Rumsfeld
himself, unless he's changed his mind, said he'd rather die (or something
else less lethal, I don't remember the exact quote) than see French soldiers
in Iraq, especially with blue helmets on...

That is correct. You cannot hide under the bed when real men are dying
to protect you (and the US, and the rest of the world) from terrorism, and then
come out and say "we want our share".



They did, however Germany was where the operation was planned and
controlled
from. That's all that was requested from Germany.


Then it could hardly be qualified as active support. It's more like the
Germans let the USAF do what it wanted inside its own bases, no?... :-)


I believe flying over Spain was insignificant as far as time saving went


Hmm... if you enter the Spanish airspace around Bilbao and head straight to
Barcelona, approximately following the Pyrenees, you save yourself at LOT of
distance and flight time.

Not nearly what we could have saved if France were not an enemy country.



From Germany, how are you going to get to Libya without overflying France?
Overfly Austria and Italy. Italy may say yes, but I severely doubt Austria
would.

Yes, I guess you're right.


And yet France allowed the UK-based US bombers to overfly its territory
during OIF despite its clear-cut opposition to it...

That seemed bizzare to me. I'm suprised we even asked...


But I'm not suprised we agreed. As soon as the US intervention seemed
inevitable, Chirac made it clear that France would not interfere with the US
war machine, making BTW the delirious allegations of French weapon and
spare part deliveries to Iraq even more ludicrous.

ArVa

Hardly, Chiraq was hiding under the bed, hoping that his ties to Saddam
would not be revealed.

Al Minyard