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 |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote You took that statement out of context and you changed the words to try to make it look like a black and white issue. To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue it has failed so far. Has anyone else succeeded? No. Roadmap Camp David II Camp David I Oslo Arab League summit etc, etc, all the way back to Napoleon. You can't force a peace on two parties, where each has a significant number of psycho's willing to disrupt that peace process at any and all cost. If Arafat and his council were to make peace (real, binding, unconditional peace- live and let live), at any cost, they'd be dead within a month. Pete |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "tadaa" wrote:
I don't think that they had a crystal ball to see the future. There was no reason to expect the fast fall of France and BEF. Except for looking at what had happened in Spain a few years earlier. Ah, the blitzkrieg of Spain is it? No, the use of airpower and other tactics. Spain was a warmup for German techniques a few years later. Read up on the Spanish Civil War. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Why are French tests worse than US, UK, Russian or Chinese Tests??? We
didn't go against any resolution or even UN position. Nor did the US in invading Iraq. Why the fuss in Europe? BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
What do you qualify as an "ill concieved strike"? The French bombing (you'd
be right in that case) or the US retaliation? The US retaliatory strike was ill concieved, poorly executed and didn't meet the intent it was designed to have. But hey, it was 1983 and the US Department of Defense was still trying to drag itself out of the "hollow force" put in place by Carter (and actually begun under Ford). BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
"BUFDRVR" a écrit dans le message de news: ... Why are French tests worse than US, UK, Russian or Chinese Tests??? We didn't go against any resolution or even UN position. Nor did the US in invading Iraq. Why the fuss in Europe? Besides the obvious?????? -- _________________________________________ Pierre-Henri BARAS Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm http://www.ffaa.net Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web http://www.aviation-fr.info |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other nations has agreed on. That's laughable coming from someone in Europe. The "coalition of the willing" assembled against Iraq last year was nearly twice the size as the coalition in '91, yet France, Germany and Russia were ready to veto; "what other nations has agreed on". If you don't like the whole UN veto system write your ambassador to the UN and complain, but don't claim the US is a sinister, evil nation for working with the construct of the UN Charter. You took that statement out of context and you changed the words to try to make it look like a black and white issue. It is a black and white issue. Either the US respects the UN or it doesn't. You argue it doesn't, I argue it does, at least as much as European nations. WRT the Paliestine issue it has failed so far. Ohh, so the US has failed on the Palistinean issue huh? Well, then I suggest the EU step in and pick up where the US failed. The US has taken more of an interest in helping the Palistineans than Egypt, Jordon, Saudi Arabia and most definitely the EU combined. The EU contibution to helping the mid-east crisis is to bitch at the US when we support Isreal. Way to go, that'll help make progress. I won't pretend to be an expert, I can only comment what I've seen brought up in the newsmedia, but, for instance, it seems to me the US is violating UN General Assembly resolution 377, which decleares that it is to meet to resolve any possible threats to or breach of the peace if the UNSC fails to maintain peace because of a lack of unanimity. There was unanimity, the last UN resolution (sorry, we made so many against Iraq I've ignored the resolution numbers) on Iraq threatened; "severe consequences" should Iraq not fully cooperate with inspectors. The UN reported Iraq was being deceptive and to the US "severe consequences" meant war. We're sorry if it meant another UN resolution to France and stern words of admonishment from Germany. The US acted with the authority of the last UN resolution. Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 Wrong, "severe consequences" were promised by UN resolution and delivered by the "coalition of the willing". It also violates Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter which declears that no member state has the authority to enforce any resolution with armed force on its own and also that the UNSC -must- authorize the use of military force. Number one, we weren't on our own, number two the UNSC authorized the use of force when they threatened "severe consequences". Additionally, older UNSC resolutions also threatened Iraq with armed reprisal should they violate any one of the *two dozen* resolutions regarding them. "The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law: Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances" Not applicable due to UNSC resolutions authorizing force. therefor any violation of International Laws agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own Constitution? Uhh, no. US involvement in the United Nations was not part of a treaty ratified by congress, it is an international organization and US involvement with said organization has nothing to do with US Constitution any more or less than our involvement in the WTO. By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim, or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva convention? Anyone who's familar with the Geneva Accords knows full well that any Taliban fighters captured in other than an *officially recognized* military uniform and all Al Queda captured were, by definition, unlawful combatants. With that being said, I think the Afghani's captured as part of the Taliban without an "officially recognized" uniform, that we cannot directly tie to Al Queda should be released. Afghanistan was a fourth world country, holding a man as an unlawful combatant simply because he did not have an "officially recognized" uniform under those conditions seems unfair. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:52:07 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
"tadaa" wrote in : If you expect a ground war, building ships would be kinda stupid. ...with 2/3 of the Earth's surface being under water, expecting *only* a "ground war' is a good way to get into trouble for most countries... Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting into trouble . Quite frankly i don't see a point of maintaining a strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large ships would just have been targets in the Baltic. The point is that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project force, but the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so they didn't need that strong navy. Norway and Turkey share a natural strategic role that way, both having a millirary force designed not only for combating an invation force, but also halting that invation force from building forward airbases and a foothold for marching throught to the rest of europe. In fear of sounding overly patriotic, what makes for instance Norway interesting is that just about the only way you are going to get a large enough number of troops to barricade against Nato mobilisation is to invade by sea. Even though it's a 20,000km coastline (one of the longest in the world) that's a very difficult task due to the broken and rugged nature of the coast. There are only a few places where such a landing of force is possible. The Nazis did not have much trouble invading in WWII, I doubt that the minuscule Norwegian armed forces would be much more effective today than they were then. The Navy is under a heavy restructuring and modernisation programme, new frigats (about friggin' time), helicopters, ultramodern fast attack boats and minesweepers and a new hard-hitting commando force. Up until now we've based much of our invation defence of these tactical points on fixed 127/150mm coast artillery with underwater torpedo and mine batteries. As an example, one medium fort is expected to stop an invation force of about 30,000 troops. Forts have done sooo well against modern armies. Remember their inability to stop an invasion in WWII? Remember the Maginot Line? We used to have 40 or so of these forts of varying sizes in operation, many of them German relics of WW2 (though modernised of course). In later years their tactial value came under heavy attack themselves and only a handful remain. Not in full operation but maintaned as part of a reserve. They have been replaced to a great part with a special commando force with small and agile attack boats and commando teams with the Hellfire missle. It's all part of the new, modern (so they say at least) doctrine of a highly mobile and agile defence force -- one you won't see until it's too late. It's also part of Norways will to having a closer participation in conflicts around the world -- units which can be sent anywhere. Regards... The successful defense of Oslo would be a major accomplishment for the current Norwegian armed forces, the rest of the country would be taken quite easily. Norway, not unrealistically, counts on the US for its defense. Al Minyard |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 03:36:31 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
Alan Minyard wrote in : On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 06:33:19 GMT, Juvat wrote: 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. "European friends"? That would be the UK and Poland. The rest are hardly "friends" Al Minyard Just a reminder. http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02040207.htm "Rumsfeld Thanks Norway for "Wonderful" Anti-terror Support In response to a question, Devold revealed that Norway has offered F-16 fighter jets for Operation Enduring Freedom, and it "plans to be able to go together with Denmark and Netherlands with a deployment of F-16s if we are needed later on this year." http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2003/08-11.htm NATO took over command Monday of the International Security Assistance Force, known by its acronym ISAF, following a year-and-a-half in which different nations rotated into and out of leadership. The takeover marks NATO's first operation outside Europe in its 54-year history, and underscores the alliance's shift from its original Cold War role to a new focus on international terrorism. [..] Regards... Latter on this year?? Oh, you mean after there is no need for them, and no threat to them. What a joke. Al Minyard |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |