A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

EU as joke (modified)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 10th 03, 12:58 PM
ArVa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #2  
Old November 10th 03, 02:28 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

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.


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.

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


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

Still,
Spain refused the bombers to overfly its territory, which would have also
drastically shortened the trip


I believe flying over Spain was insignificant as far as time saving went, and
once France denied the overflight, the US didn't even request Spanish
overflight since they had already rejected permission to base tankers at
Moronon AB. I guess you're correct, Spain was as much an inerference as
France, but it was the French who stood out.

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?


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.

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...


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #3  
Old November 10th 03, 02:35 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Moronon AB

LOL..should be Moron AB.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #4  
Old November 10th 03, 05:13 PM
ArVa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
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...


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.


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


  #5  
Old November 11th 03, 04:23 PM
Alan Minyard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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







 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.