![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, BUFDRVR
blurted out: Everything we saw from an intelligence angle, and even the UN said he was hiding weapons or the ability to make them. Except for AF intelligence, if one is to believe "published" reports. Most nations didn't disagree, No argument, what other nations possess the technical means to confirm or refute US intelligence? Israel probably with HUMINT, but they have zero motive to refute intelligence "beliefs." Now suddenly many nations in Europe are saying "we told you so", when in fact, that wasn't the case. No one said for a fact he didn't have weapons, even the UN inspectors believed he was not fully cooperating. You and I read different press accounts (not a crime). I think the trend in European criticism is the absence of proof (besides some plans) that everybody assumed would be discovered. Our own congress is demanding to know why and how did the Intel community **** up their WMD assessment. Surely if good ole republicans can cast doubt, then europeans should be afforded the same. I think we can be sure that Rumsfeld was not going to aid terrorists in conducting an attack on Americans in the US or overseas. This "fact" has little bearing on this discussion. 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. Once again, the US could be certain that the CIA would not need to be attacked and overthrown as they would no longer be supplying anyone with Stingers. Sorry not trying to be glib, but I cannot understand wht you wrote. Except for universal agreement that Saddam Hussein was/is a brutal SOB and worthless human being, perhaps other avenues could have been attempted. What like *another* Billy Clinton cruise missile attack? Well as part of plan sure...plus Mossad inspired assassination attempts (bloody, **** with Hussein's head attacks), level all his palaces with B-2s hovering over the country. You're kidding right. We couldn't get him when we invaded, you expect to pick him off with a couple of CALCM? Kidding? **** no! ALCMs? pfffftttt You will recall how Qaddafi reacted to the SINGLE attempt on his life. If this was percieved as possible, it would have been done. Of this, I am not convinced. integrity You're kidding right? Nope. As a "throw away" piece, I'm sure the guys left high and dry without air support (that JFK *personally* assured them would be there) at the Bay of Pigs would disagree with Kennedy's "integrity". JFK cancelled CIA airstrikes of when it became apparent that most of the 1,500 liberators had already been killed or captured. You're suggesting the US should have gone to war with Cuba because the CIA operators ****ed up? combat experience Completely irrelevent for as a President. Fair enough, clearly you won't be bringing up GWB's military record. combat wounds So because JFK had his boat rammed by a Japanese cruiser, this makes him a better President than Bush? I fail to see the connection. No problem.... education Interesting, because Bush was accused of having his daddy buy him his degrees, the same thing was said about Kennedy. OK, so how would GWB phrase JFK's famous, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Berlin was extremely WELL handled and precipitated by Nikita closing off access to Berlin (but you knew that). Wrong. It was well handled, but you're correct that I mangled two points into one. Khruschev did not build the wall to prevent western access to East Berlin. His threats (keep reading below) caused a panic in EB, the DDR built the wall to halt to exodus. Twice before Kennedy took office Krushev threatened to seize West Berlin. Ike did nothing and Krushev never did anything. I think you'll recall that... Nov 1958 Khrushchev demanded that NATO vacate Berlin and the city would become a demilitarized "free" city. 16 Dec 1958 NATO rejected this demand. Sep 1959 Khrushchev visited Ike in the US, Berlin not resolved. 5 May 1960...Francis Gary Powers shotdown (I guess this it the part where you would say, "Way to go Ike.") 9 Nov 1960 JFK elected 17 Apr 1961 BoP...Operation Pluto starts and fails damn fast. 3 Jun 1961 JFK and Khrushchev meet, USSR ultimatum of 6 months or nuclear war. Thousands of E Berliners flee to the west.***REASON for the WALL*** [As an aside, in 1978 at a Foreign Affairs Conference hosted by the USNA, I heard the East German Ambassador clearly state the Berlin Wall was built because of the mass exodus after Khrushchev threatened nuclear war. Not JFK as you clearly suggest.] 17 Aug 1961 Berlin Wall construction starts 31 Aug 1961 USSR resumes nuke testing after 3 year moratorium, JFK responds with US underground nuke testing 1 Oct 1961- Aug 1962 31 ANG flying squadrons federalized/mobilized due to the Berlin Crisis. As a result, the Berlin Wall was constructed. Way to go JFK! You are in error. Berliners fled to the west as a result of Krushchev's ultimatum and threat of nuclear war. The Wall was erected to stop the exodus. Nor was I asking the UN to "rubber stamp" US actions. The UN doesn't exist for US security, but it should not be allowed to damage US security. How can the UN damage US security? We're the friggin' 800 pound gorilla. Can't you see how illogical it is to suggest otherwise? The UN asked France not to test nuclear weapons in the Pacific, they did it anyway. The UN asked the UK, Isreal and France to stop military action against Egypt during the Suez crisis, they continued. Respectfully, you and I are in agreement here. The US will do what it wants, the UN cannot prevent it, therefore the UN cannot be accused of damaging US security. France cannot be guilty of damaging our security, we ****ing kicked Saddam Hussein and his pricks out of office. The US is now up to its ass in alligators while trying to drain the swamp. Juvat |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What like *another* Billy Clinton cruise missile attack?
Well as part of plan sure...plus Mossad inspired assassination attempts (bloody, **** with Hussein's head attacks), level all his palaces with B-2s hovering over the country. Not possible from a military perspective. Along with those B-2s goes support aircraft. What you're suggesting is another DESERT FOX. If you recall, all DESERT FOX got us was the UN inspectors kicked out of Iraq until last year. We would have killed Hussain in '91 if we had found him, same is true for this year. Bottom line, its not easy to find and kill one man. Kidding? **** no! ALCMs? pfffftttt You will recall how Qaddafi reacted to the SINGLE attempt on his life. Hussain is not Qaddafi. OK, so how would GWB phrase JFK's famous, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Since Kennedy didn't write this, his speech writer did, I'm guessing if Bush could get a speech writer of similar caliber, it would be just as eloquent. Thousands of E Berliners flee to the west.***REASON for the WALL*** This is illogical, and the first time I've ever heard this hypothisis. How would you be any safer 3 blocks away in West Berlin then you were in East Berlin? East Berliners fled because Krushev was threatening to close off East Berlin to prevent influx of the new Deutsch Mark (the reason the conflict began). Why did Krushev threaten to seal off East Berlin? Because instead of ignoring him, Kennedy gave credance to Krushev by grossly over reacting. Kennedy focused the worlds attention on Berlin which forced Krushev to act. Respectfully, you and I are in agreement here. The US will do what it wants, the UN cannot prevent it, therefore the UN cannot be accused of damaging US security. However, acting independant of the UN has gotten us accused of some kind of immoral international behavior, this is my point. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Chris Mark
blurted out: Ted Sorenson's book "Kennedy" clearly describes the process of writing that famous speech and the role he and others played in it. Sorenson states "the principal architect of the inaugural address was John Fitzgerald Kennedy." Just as I had been taught as a Political Science major... Juvat |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, BUFDRVR
blurted out: Not possible from a military perspective. Along with those B-2s goes support aircraft. What you're suggesting is another DESERT FOX. No, I'm suggesting many means of armed force...not simply stealth bombers. Bottom line, its not easy to find and kill one man. Again, I have not suggested it would be. We did not kill M Qaddafi in the 80's but Eldorado Canyon sure as hell modified his behavior. Kidding? **** no! ALCMs? pfffftttt You will recall how Qaddafi reacted to the SINGLE attempt on his life. Hussain is not Qaddafi. OK, then perhaps this strategy was NOT seriously evaluated. You probably think it was, I don't. OK, so how would GWB phrase JFK's famous, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Since Kennedy didn't write this, his speech writer did, I'm guessing if Bush could get a speech writer of similar caliber, it would be just as eloquent. Quoi? GWB eloquent? Come on now, when was the last time you saw that adjective used to describe Mr Bush? Never. Thousands of E Berliners flee to the west.***REASON for the WALL*** This is illogical, and the first time I've ever heard this hypothisis. How would you be any safer 3 blocks away in West Berlin then you were in East Berlin? Hey, glad I could help in your education. It is a natural human reaction to want to leave, and "feel" they have a better chance of survival by getting to W Berlin...and eventually further west. East Berliners fled because Krushev was threatening to close off East Berlin to prevent influx of the new Deutsch Mark (the reason the conflict began). Why did Krushev threaten to seal off East Berlin? Nope, you don't sound like the former Ambassador of the DDR to me. Because instead of ignoring him, OK Mr President...your mortal enemy just tested a nuke and has threatened a nuke war if NATO doesn't leave Berlin. You tell me with a straight face, you'll ignore him? Unbelievable...not for a second. Kennedy gave credance to Krushev by grossly over reacting. Grossly over-reacting? The ANG units were federalized AFTER the Wall went up. No nukes were dropped, today there are no monuments to the dead troops that didn't die fighting for Berlin in a nuclear war. Pretty decent job if you ask me...I was living in France at the time. Kennedy focused the worlds attention on Berlin which forced Krushev to act. The "Second Berlin Crisis" started in 1958, Krushchev increased the level of rhetoric (threatening nuke war) to test JFK, to see if he could bully JFK. He could not. Khrushchev attempted to bully JFK again in Oct 1962, again Khrushchev failed. Again JFK was successful...No Nuclear War. If you see JFK's conduct in either of these crisis as poor, I'd suggest you've read too much Ann Coulter revisionist history. Somewhat interesting is your opinion that JFK over-reacted (with NO COMBAT) to Khruschev's "threat", but GWB using force to remove Hussein as a threat is normal (i.e. not over-reacting). I'm confused by this apparent stance. Brinksmanship is over-reacting, invasion is self-protection. You'd have a hard time selling that theory. However, acting independant of the UN has gotten us accused of some kind of immoral international behavior, this is my point. I understand your point, but I am uncomfortable with the US in the role of the aggressor. GWB did what he thought best in the interest of the US. Europeans have no obligation to support his policy. Juvat |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Juvat" a écrit dans le message de
... Again, I have not suggested it would be. We did not kill M Qaddafi in the 80's but Eldorado Canyon sure as hell modified his behavior. 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... 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. Regards, ArVa |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Two years after operation Eldorado Canyon, in 1988, a PanAm 747 exploded
over Lockerbie, Scotland : 270 casualties. If you believe intelligence officials (both US and German), that operation was in progress for over three years, ordered before El Dorado Canyon. 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. Libya's overt support for international terrorists and even Qaddafi's covert support were severely curtailed after El Dorado Canyon. Did they "officially" announce they were giving up their support of terrorists? No, 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. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? According to *Libyan* sources, often operatives were dispatched and never contacted again to avoid detection and/or connection with Libya. If this is the case, it *may* have been impossible for Qaddafi to "turn off" the Lockerbie bombing after it was put into motion *before* 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. Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens. There are also reports that it supported the FLNC, a violent Corsican separatist group. Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens. 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. It is in this country. When Qaddafi was running his mouth and threatening to sink US Navy ships south of the ; "Line of Death", he was on TV nightly. After El Dorado Canyon, he was seen only in regards to the Lockerbie bombing (after they figured out it was Libyans) and his support for Iraq in 1991. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
"ArVa" wrote: You left some things out of your timeline: First, the La Belle disco bombing happened. The immediate US response was Eldorado Canyon. Then... 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. 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. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |