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 |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 08:22:29 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , Alan Minyard writes On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:16:12 GMT, Chad Irby wrote: Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939? Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the stick in short order. Europe, other than the Nazis, was not preparing for war, they were preparing to surrender. Just as a quick look for 1939, the Royal Navy launched two battleships, three aircraft carriers and ten cruisers; the Royal Air Force was trading biplanes for Spitfires and building up its bomber force while completing the world's first radar-directed integrated air defence system; and the Army was expanding and re-equipping at a furious rate. A rather strange process of "preparing to surrender", unless one expects that all this equipment was being produced so it could be handed over to Germany... Sorry, but I was not including the UK in "europe". I should have been more explicit. The UK was, indeed, preparing for war, and did quite well when said war occurred. Al Minyard |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:51:59 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
(BUFDRVR) wrote in : That was his point, mine was "Europe tend to respect UN resolutions". Ahhh, now we're getting specific. Europe respects resolutions. OK, can you name the last time the US violated a UN resolution? 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. "What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it? 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. And Norway has done exactly what? As for US violation? Would you care to look a bit closer on the Iraqi conflict? 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. http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/852...5340060479d/55 c2b84da9e0052b05256554005726c6%21OpenDocument Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 (which the US partly formed and signed in 1945) which require that: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered". The UN is a sad joke, and sometimes must be treated as such. 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. And the former Soviet Union and the PRC followed this? The fact that your country is of no military value does not mean that the US should not act in our National interests. It violates Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter which states that: "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 a factor. Your support of Saddam is despicable, not the US action which deposed him. According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the Land", and 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? No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under international law. 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? Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are regularly visited by the International Red Cross. If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq, it appears both France and Germany much more recently than the US.... Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that. No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway. Again, diverting the subject. The subject is; Europe always obeys the UN and the US doesn't. That was your subject, not mine. I'm sorry, I've got it clarified now. Europe respects UN resolutions and the US does not. That's your point. I'll be waiting while you tell me the last UN resolution the US violated. I'm sure you realize the difference between "tend to" and "always". The US hasn't had a live test in over 25 years. That the US won't ratify CTBT seems to indicate they will. That is idiotic. We will not ratify treaties that are designed to destroy our military power, having said that, we have no need to perform such tests and no plans to conduct them. (snip) IOM it's also a good example of how the US feels it's in a position to dominate the decitions and will of other nations. In some issues it's seems quite difficult for the US to come to realize that its national interests does not go before the interests of the rest of the world. In particular the UN wasn't created as a benefitial body for the US, but for the entire international community. You might argue that it's far from perfect, but what better choices are available? The national interests of the US definitely come before the interests of the "rest of the world". The UN is a joke, and not a very good one at that. (snip) Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world. Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be. Quick question; was there a UN resolution condeming Egypt for their attack on Isreal during the Yom Kippur War in 1973? Was one even seriously debated in the security council? There wasn't a resolution to my knowledge. I don't think there was a UN resolution condeming Israel in 1967, 1956 or 1947 either. Regards... As I said, the UN is a sad joke Al Minyard |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
... 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 Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost a few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based defences. 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? See above. 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. Norway is a member of an organisation called NATO which boasts several other members besides the US of A. All are pledged to help one another in the event of outside attack. John |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
"John Mullen" wrote in
: "Alan Minyard" wrote in message ... On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:52:07 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote: 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. It's a whole different story today. The Nazis invaded from the south, not from the north like the Soviets would have. We are only to halt an invation long enough for NATO to mobilise and send reinforcements, a task I think we are more than capabale of. Our best allie is our rugged terrain and artic winter, and there is really noone who beats us at this game. The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost a few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based defences. The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape from Oslo. But the Germans vere actually very lucky. They were counting their success on poor weather and the poor intelligence information of the Norwegians. Confusion as to whether the ships were friendly or not and heavy fog in the outer Oslo fjord meant that the entire invation fleet (10,000 troops, three cruisers and supportships) sailed right past the outer three batteries with nine guns (mix between 305mm howitzers and 150mm guns). Had they been able to react earlier the outcome would have been grim for the Germans. Here is the story if anyone is interested in reading a bit of WW2 history: http://www.feldgrau.com/norwegian.html Of course it's a whole different world today. The coastal forts have been deemed very effective in postwar time, but part of the arguments against it today is that presicion delivered hard-hitting weapons would greately reduce the effectiveness of the natural protection of the guns -- the granite mountain rock. Besides they are fixed installations and very expensive to operate. 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. Defence of Oslo isn't as high priority as you think. There are very few tactical milletary installations, as with the south in general. The war is fought up north, the south is protected by the NATO forces around the Baltic and Skagerak and the east by two neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, which an invation force would have to fight its way through first. Norway, not unrealistically, counts on the US for its defense. NATO. Actually in case of war the first to arrive would be British RAF figher and strike units, followed by USAFE. Regards... |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
"John Mullen" wrote in : snip Norway, not unrealistically, counts on the US for its defense. NATO. Actually in case of war the first to arrive would be British RAF figher and strike units, followed by USAFE. Also, isn't AMF(A) still committed to the defence of northern Norway if the fit hits the shan? -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote in
news On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:51:59 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote: (BUFDRVR) wrote in : 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. "What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it? Of course not. 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. And Norway has done exactly what? Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental palestine demands at a time when most western countries still were keeping its distance to the PLO. Sharon, with the apparent support of the US, has compromised much of the work and progress we had accomplished in recent years. Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 (which the US partly formed and signed in 1945) which require that: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered". The UN is a sad joke, and sometimes must be treated as such. Sadly that's a typical arrogant posture by some, perhaps who sees the world as their own personal playing ground. According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the Land", and 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? No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under international law. That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq was not a millitary threath to the US and there were no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor its neightbours. This is soely something the US made up for itself. 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? Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are regularly visited by the International Red Cross. You might find this article from the Guardian interesting. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq, it appears both France and Germany much more recently than the US.... Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that. No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway. It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a matter of telling right from wrong. (snip) Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world. Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be. You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write. I don't think I ever meant the above statement to indicate world domination in that particular areas. Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre, stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society and equality between the sexes far more developed than most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive. Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen (and women). We also tend not to wage in wars around the world which makes us a target for international terrorism, or other nations guns. Regards... |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote in
: On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 03:36:31 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote: 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." [..] Latter on this year?? No, last year as you might notice. The operation ended in april this year. Our 6 F-16s flew 488 missions and spent 3000hrs in the air. We even dropped bombs, which marks the first time we've ever engaged in air combat since WW2. Looking back at 5o years of a purely defensive policy it was a very important milestone for us to even send weaponsystems to an offensive campaign in the first place, one which naturally caused a heavy national debate. Oh, you mean after there is no need for them, and no threat to them. The way it works is that we offer our support, usually of defensive form, to our allies. Then we -migth- be put into the plan and called when we are needed. In this case the US accepted and we were later called in as part of the EPAF (European Participating Air Forces). Regards... |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
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. The Spanish civil war lasted years 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939. New equipment and tactics were tested, but it was a long war. I wouldn't say that that Spanish civil war was a direct indication that France and British troops would be so quickly overrun. So how about that navy question, what European nations could have used a larger navy? |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
: 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. Glad I can make someone smile. :^) 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. The US is much criticised for following its own policy in many issues. There is no secret in that. But yes I do feel the basic UN system is ready for restructuring. After all the world has changed since 1945. 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. Then perhaps it should be time for the US to pay it's $2BN debt to the UN. Lack of money and resources is an contributing factor why the UN has trouble fulfilling its obligations and goals. The US has vetoed 26 of the last the Palestine/Israel issue I think. Russia has vetoed two I believe. If you look at this table you can see that of the 254 vetos in the UNSC since 1946, the US alone accounts for 78 of them. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm 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. As I pointed out early in this discussion, it's a team-effort, the EU -or anyone else- relys on the US as much as the other way around. 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. Tee bitching probably goes both ways. 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. That's UN Resolution 1441, of november 8th 2002. 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. No it didn't, Iraq accepted and complied five days after the resolution was passed through, on nov 13th, and the SC did not automaticly authorize the use of force, which is why China, France and Russian added a Proviso which stated that they do not understand it to authorize "automaticity in the use of force." 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". Again, Iraq complied. Did the SC decide there had been a material breach of the resolution? Had all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted? Article 41/42 states that it must. In addition, Article 51 restricts the use of the force to cases of self-defense and only in response to an "armed attack." I think you are going to have a tough time showing that Iraq posed an imminant offensive threat. Additionally, older UNSC resolutions also threatened Iraq with armed reprisal should they violate any one of the *two dozen* resolutions regarding them. That's a much better argument, Iraq has a long history of noncompliance with the demands of the UN. But what was the US and UK official reasons for going to war? 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. Professor Marjorie Cohn of Thomas Jefferson School of Law seems to disagree: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew58.php Dr. Matthew B. Robinson of Appalachian State University too: http://www.justiceblind.com/iraq.htm 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. I don't think the convention makes such a distinction. Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual, militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW when captured. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/2f681b...563cd0051aa8d? OpenDocument 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. We agree on that. Regards... |
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 |