EU as joke (modified)

"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

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"

"BUFDRVR" a écrit dans le message de
...

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.

I doubt that for such a big operation with possibly serious consequences
there was not some kind of last minute "go code". Or at least, if Qaddafi
really wanted to give up any terrorist activities I think he had enough
means and connections to cancel the whole operation anytime within a two
year time frame.

Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens.

Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens.

And I thought the war on terrorism was a worldwide one, in which everyone
was commited... I'm sure you don't mean that it matters only when American
interests are at stake, do you?

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.


My point exactly. He disappeared from TV screens yet Libya continued its
subversive and killing actions. You cannot rely on mainstream, commercial
channels' 6 o'clock news (fortunately the printed press is more effective on
that matter) to reflect the world's reality as each one filters informations
according to its own interests, what the audience care about and what is
"hot" and appealing. It doesn't mean though that things do not happen.

ArVa

I think he had enough
means and connections to cancel the whole operation anytime within a two
year time frame.

I'm just telling you what I saw reported around four years ago. You obviously
have better information than a Libyan defector.



Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens.

And I thought the war on terrorism was a worldwide one, in which everyone
was commited... I'm sure you don't mean that it matters only when American
interests are at stake, do you?

Well, in the case of Libya (a US unilateral strike), it was easier to draw
direct paralells. Libya was not being bombed by a coalition, only the US, what
effect did it have? No further terrorist attacks against US citizens (depending
on how you look at Lockerbie.) The fact that France denied the US overflight
rights really makes it difficult for any sympathy to to be shared with that
country if they suffered casulties inflicted by Libya.


BUFDRVR

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

"BUFDRVR" a écrit dans le message de
...

I'm just telling you what I saw reported around four years ago. You
obviously
have better information than a Libyan defector.

No, I just don't buy it. And do "I doubt" and "I think" sound too
presumptuous to you?

Well, in the case of Libya (a US unilateral strike), it was easier to draw
direct paralells. Libya was not being bombed by a coalition, only the US,
what
effect did it have? No further terrorist attacks against US citizens
(depending
on how you look at Lockerbie.)

Well, I'd like to know how *you* look at Lockerbie. That's precisely the
part I don't understand in your reasoning. If it was not a terrorist attack
against US citizens (200 casualties) and assets (a PanAm B747), how do you
qualify it? El Dorado Canyon operation's military efficiency can be
discussed (I see it more as both a display of long-range strike capability
and a signal of resolution sent to *all* the rogue nations) but, according
to me, it was not the reason that made Libya change its policy about
terrorism, not even regarding the US (once again, I don't believe the
"sorry, we would have cancelled it if it had been possible, for real, but it
was already too late and we had lost our men in the wild" argument about
Lockerbie).

The fact that France denied the US overflight
rights really makes it difficult for any sympathy to to be shared with
that
country if they suffered casulties inflicted by Libya.


No offense intended but it's a pretty lame comment. What were the victims
responsible for? Oh, and there were "only" 54 French citizens out of the 170
passengers from 18 nationalities aboard the UTA flight.
As for the overflight rights, you easily forget that along with France,
Germany, Spain and Italy also refused to cooperate. I guess this fact does
not plead for the "Old Europe" though... :-)


ArVa

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"

"BUFDRVR" a écrit dans le message de
...

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

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?

To answer your question : yes, as I want the French to feel sympathy for US
civilians whatever may be the sporadic political antagonisms between our
countries. 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?
But, although I can think of possible explanations for the French decision,
I must acknowledge that it remains much of a mystery to me...

Somehow I think if the roles were reversed, French citizens would not shed
one
tear for the loss of US lives.

Don't bet on that.


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

Germany *did* cooperate.

Really? I thought all involved planes, bombers and support ones, came only
from bases in the UK and the 6th Fleet's ships.

As for Spain and Italy, their required assistance was
the basing of tanker aircraft, not an operation altering issue.

Don't forget that Germany, Italy and Spain, like the UK, are NATO members
with US bases on their ground, which is not the case of France (though I
think the USAF sometimes operates from Istres AB near Marseilles). Still,
Spain refused the bombers to overfly its territory, which would have also
drastically shortened the trip, and thus forced them to navigate around,
over the Atlantic and through the strait of Gibraltar (IIRC, one F-111 made
an emergency landing in Spain due to mechanicla problems on its way back to
England).
But if you look at a map, and as you say Germany provided support, how come
the USAF planners didn't choose an eastern, shorter route? Or used only
carrier-based aircrafts?

France was
asked for almost nothing, but it was a critical nothing, and they refused.

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

ArVa