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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"tscottme" a écrit dans le message de
... Wesley Clarke?, now I know why you seem so out of touch. Am I? :-) I don't think so... I'm not the one bashing the other just for the country name his passport reads... We're only days away from his claim that Vietnamese snipers stalked him in the US or the Republicans broke up his daughter's wedding. Well, in a world where some (also presumably serious) say uranium has been purchased to a guy who had been out of office for ten years at the presumed date of the purchase, where some prestigious intelligence agencies xerox some student material, etc, everything is possible you know... Seriously, I'm not fond of the current administration but I respect the choice the Americans have made and will respect the next chosen president, be he W. Clark, H.Dean, G. bush or any other one. That's the important part in Clark's statement that you probably missed : RESPECT. Which brings up another point. Doesn't Kosovo prove the French can't cope with a conflict larger than a soccer riot? Or you're playing the fool or you're badly informed... ArVa |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Minyard" a écrit dans le message de
... So who said we want france as an ally? Well, almost all your top government officials, including your president... Or were they all lying while crossing their fingers in their back? That would probably be a premiere... :-) partially because of comments like the one above. I don't think he was refering to France only. Don't you want allies and friends at all? Geez, I really wonder what disturbs you so much in Clark's statement... ArVa |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Guy Wastiaux wrote: Halliburton won 'bout $2 bn in rebuilding contracts in Iraq. Now who's making the big money ? Considering the tens of billions made by some companies during the Oil for Food program, that's chicken feed. Then there's the bribes, which aren't going to Paris any more. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"ArVa" wrote: Well, in a world where some (also presumably serious) say uranium has been purchased to a guy who had been out of office for ten years at the presumed date of the purchase, Of course, not mentioning that Iraqi trade officials *had* been in Niger, which has one and only one export that Iraq wanted - uranium. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Easy, easy... Now take your pill... Good boy...
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"shonen" wrote in message ...
Umm, they didn't "pull out" of NATO. They very conveniently stayed in just enough to whine about stuff but far enough out to never actually do any work. Actually, they did pull out of NATO. By March 1966, deGaulle had withdrawn France from NATO and its command structure because he felt that France needed to be independent of joint security considerations, which would not have been possible had they remained in NATO. As an example, they would have been unable to bar the presence of missiles from their soil that were under foreign (to them) control, which was a step that de Gaulle actually took. They remained out of NATO until Mitterand brought them back in during the early '90s, although I am not sure of that date or time period. George Z. As I remember they pulled out at least partly due to the Cuban missile crisis. Then your memory needs recalibrating a bit. Check the timeline. It became apparent to them, and everyone else, that Europe could not depend on the US not to sell them out in a crisis. As happened. And just when did we sell out Europe during a crisis? Berlin in 48? Nope. Berlin in 61-62? Nope. So when did this great sell out occur? ISTR that the US was still providing the bulk of the common defense for Europe in 1989, when the all came down? The US were willing to do a secret deal with the Soviets to pull out the missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets pulling their missiles out of Cuba. That is true (so you are what, one-for-three so far?). JFK and his little brother did make that a secret deal, something some of us are none too proud of. But that was hardly a case of "selling out Europe", either; the case can be, and has been, made that those Jupiter's were already on their way out, and this was really an inconsequential grant to Khrushev to allow him to save some face with the Politburo. If it *was* a sell out, what does the fact that the US pushed through the European basing of Pershing II and GLCM's during the 80's imply? The US would not be willing to commit to full scale war for Europe. Thirty plus years of history in successfully facing the Soviets in Western Europe seems to make that statement lack credibility. The French felt that they needed an independent nuclear capability to deter the Soviets, rather than relying on the US, who had demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice NATO security for their own. No, the French were just pursuing their own vision of independence from the alliance in general, and the US in particular. IMO, they had a national ego problem extending back to their WWII experience/performance (or lack thereof), and this was just another manner of making themselves feel as if they were again a superpower. Note that the UK also developed its own independent nuclear force *without* resorting to the theatrics exemplified in the French pull-out from the unified command structure. Not that I blame the US. The whole massive retaliation thing wasn't a really practical proposition. In may sound good in theory, but when things come to a crunch, the US really couldn't be expected to make the supreme sacrifice for Europe. But the only thing that matters in the end is that it *worked*. The Europeans knew this and were always wary of US efforts to distance themselves, or to restrict nuclear war just to Europe. I guess if the French nuked Moscow, the Soviets wouldn't have worried who they nuked in retaliation. Share the pain. Illogical if you are positing that the French would nuke Moscow without involvement of the US and other NATO allies, IMO. What route would you have had those Mirage IV's (and their supporting tankers--they bought their KC-135's expressly to support the Force de Frappe, or Crappe, or whatever...) flying to *get* to Moscow? ISTR it was not until about 1971 that their IRBM force became operational? Brooks As for the Transall, my 1968 Observors says crew of 4, 81 troops or 62 casualty stretchers and 4 medical attendants. Other (vehicle) loads not exceeding 35,270 lb. weight.Military Transports and Training Aircraft of the World add cross section of the cabin is 9ft, 7in by 10 ft 2 1/2 in for a length of 42 ft. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"Brian" wrote in message news:Bz6db.436620$Oz4.244338@rwcrnsc54... Anyone have any data in regards to the types of military vehicles and number carried that could fit inside the plane for air transport? Looking at the French Army vehicle mainly - thanks in advance Brian Some answers Payloads - up to 93 troops or 61-68 paratroops, Cabin length - 44ft 4 in Cabin volume - 4940 ft3 Max payload 16000 kg Range with max payload 1000 nm This compares with the C130H (not H-30) 92 troops or 64 paratroops, Cabin length 41 ft Volume 4351 ft3 Max payload 19356 kg Range with max payload 2046 km (from Jane's Civil and Military Upgrades, 94-95) So, basically, the Transall can carry most things that a Hercules can but only about half as far. Hope this is of some help. Nigel Isherwood |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the data -
And in regards to many of the Antt-French comments in here, AS AN AMERICAN by BIRTH not by CHOICE, and seeing how our country has decided itself to be the world bully more so than the USSR ever was - I can only hope that every terrorist out there on the net and every leader onf a country reads this message - ATTACK AMERICA PLEASE before they come get you - some one needs to kick the **** outta the US and put her back in her place as a mutual resident of the PLANET EARTH. America - land of the free - if your rich enough! -- Brian - harpoon at thegrafixguy dot com "shonen" wrote in message ... I put a wee bit off info under the first thread, after a brief diversion to Cuba. Actually, after the above, crap, I don't think the Americans deserve allies. Bring our troops back and **** 'em. We're not going to get any thanks if our troops are in Iraq or Afghanistan so let the American troops die. Opps, now I'm starting to rant! But those ignorant fools really **** me off. Brian wrote in message . net... Not intelligently, no. -- Brian - harpoon at thegrafixguy dot com "C Knowles" wrote in message news Ever get your question answered? "Brian" wrote in message news:Bz6db.436620$Oz4.244338@rwcrnsc54... Anyone have any data in regards to the types of military vehicles and number carried that could fit inside the plane for air transport? Looking at the French Army vehicle mainly - thanks in advance Brian |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
In article iC6eb.632826$YN5.465267@sccrnsc01,
"Brian" wrote: AS AN AMERICAN by BIRTH not by CHOICE, Then move. Enjoy. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Question | Charles S | Home Built | 4 | April 5th 04 09:10 PM |
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question | jlauer | Home Built | 7 | November 16th 03 01:51 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |