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
|
|||
|
|||
"tscottme" wrote in message
... So you have no trouble making excuses for Saddam? How typical, how long have you been a Liberal? I made no such excuse. It's obvious he certainly did hold weaponised stocks of those materials in the past, but he used them almost 20 years ago. My argument is simply that we went to war on the "evidence" of a clear and present danger from such weaponised materials today. As I said, I can't imagine a regime that used them without compunction against it's own people wouldn't use them in even a last ditch attempt to save itself. That's not apologist, simply logic. As for being Liberal, well I suspect the term means slightly different things in our different political systems. To me it's more a compliment than an insult. The alternative to liberalism is radicalism. Saddam used the weapons, he declared vast amounts of them, intelligence services all over the world documented the tons and tons of material and machines to produce and maintain the WMDs, and as the article points out, the thorough inspections have only cleared about 10 or 20 of the 130 known munitions storage areas. How many aircraft were buried in the desert of Iraq that we only found out about because locals brought it to our attention. The anthrax stocks could fit in a few 55 gallon drums which take up less space than one of those buried MiGs. In addition people and trucks were streaming out of Iraq into Syria before, during, and just after the war. There's no doubt Iraq was attempting to build a substantial NBC capability some years ago. Whether they exaggerated their own declarations (as I suggested in the previous msg) to scare neighbouring nations is a view that is gaining credibility in the US intelligence circles and has been discussed in the media. Doesn't mean it has to be the only reason as to why nothing's been found, but until something is found (if it ever will be) it has to be considered. There's evidence both superpowers during the Cold War also exaggerated their nuclear arsenals for the same reasons. Si |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
... The vast majority of US citizens believe, correctly, that France was/is supporting Saddam. France has been an enemy of the US for many years. Like the rest of the world knows, correctly, that the US was supporting Saddam at a time when he was brutally butchering tens of thousands of his own people? The hippocracy is laughable. Your moral high ground is a sand castle built upon a swamp! Si |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
The vast majority of US citizens believe, correctly, that France
was/is supporting Saddam. France has been an enemy of the US for many years. Like the rest of the world knows, correctly, that the US was supporting Saddam at a time when he was brutally butchering tens of thousands of his own people? The hippocracy is laughable. Your moral high ground is a sand castle built upon a swamp! This is my one input to this thread - I believe that countries do things in their own interests 90% of the time and if other folks are getting butchered, well, that's just terrible. Saddam was seen as the lessor of two evils in the region, then over the years gained in stature among despots, reaching the pinnacle of brutality. By then, America had been distancing itself from Saddam for years. But even as we drew away, other countries embraced him, pointing at our earlier involvement as a sort of extenuating circumstance for their current colusion. Plus, our government drilled it into everyone's heads that Saddam was actively working to either nuke or dust us. With that as a background, France stood up as defender of Iraq's despot, not its people. The differences between us became a rift and for the foreseeable future, its going to remain. America didn't do things in Iraq for the right reason, and neither did France. The main difference is that we stopped supporting Saddam at some point. France never did. Both countries were "beating their wife", but at least we stopped. v/r Gordon ====(A+C==== USN SAR Aircrew "Got anything on your radar, SENSO?" "Nothing but my forehead, sir." |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m... In article , "ArVa" wrote: "Chad Irby" a écrit dans le message de m... Are you seriously denying that there was a French bashing campaign in the US? Yes. There was not, by any stretch, a campaign to bash the French for their pathetic actions of this year. Call me paranoid, Okay, you're paranoid. Glad that's settled. Great post. You're really contributing to the debate here, keep it up. John |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:13:20 +0200, Pierre-Henri Baras wrote:
"phil hunt" a écrit dans le message de news: ... On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:47:37 +0200, Pierre-Henri Baras wrote: "phil hunt" a écrit dans le message de news: ... On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:04:14 -0700, Frank Vaughan wrote: Yes, and the decision by the mayor of Paris to name a convicted American cop killer as an honorary citizen was what? Souind bizarre -- do you have details? Pff. The gay, socialist mayor of Paris made Mumia Adbu Jamal (spelling?) an honorary citizen. Correct spelling is Mumia Abu-Jamal. Seems to me he was making a point against the death penalty and against perceived miscarriages of justice in the USA. Absolutely, but as someone here said previously, we might as well start by helping the innocent convicts on death-row. My understanding is that some people think he is innocent. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (My real email address would be if you added 275 to it and reversed the last two letters). |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:24:57 -0400, John Keeney wrote:
"phil hunt" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 03:54:40 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote: In case no one has mentioned it lately. Your sentence no verb. "Mentioned." You're right; I should have said something like: That sentence no verb that is in its main clause. I wonder how long it'll take for ****wit to learn elementary grammar. Perhaps ****wit's as cultureless as it thinks the French are. Ah, grammar equates to culture, I hadn't realized that. Those who are literate are generally more cultured than those who are not. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (My real email address would be if you added 275 to it and reversed the last two letters). |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:35:12 +0200, lekomin inc wrote:
U¿ytkownik "phil hunt" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci I agree that Polish armed forces (including the air forces) are substandard compared to the major NATO members.. Poland is on par with Spain, I would think. It cannot be compared with DE, US, UK, FR or IT. Hmm. I'm not sure this is true? What fighter does Poland currently use? I'm guessing it's the MiG-29, which is better than anything the RAF has (until Typhoon becomes operational) or the elderly Starfighters italy uses. Well.. the Kosovo war had proven that the type of the plane is secondary in importance as long as it carries the AMRAAM. BVR sets the standard in todays airtoair. MiG29 (as is su27/30/35) is as everybody knows a very capable dogfigter but that is exactly why NATO developed BVR weapons and tactics. I think I can prove a point that it is easier to exploit the technological advance (avionics, radar, datalinking) in BVR then in dogfight. I may call BVR the fight of the avionics whereas dogfight is the fight of the airframe. That's certainly true, to some extent. I would however point out that modern aircraft such as Typhoon as designed to be good at dogfighting, so certainly the people who designed them thought it was important. Currently both the RAF's F3 Eh? What's this? Do you mean the Tornado? as well as Luftwaffe's F-4 ICE have the AMRAAM capability albeit I am not sure about the mid-course guidance. I am pretty sure F3 got this sort of upgrade before Iraqi Freedom, but the Phantoms have not. Mid-course guidance is essential in exploiting the capabilities of AMRAAM to the full (range, precision, "kill zone"). Secondly for instance the Phantoms have no sqawk IFF. That is they can be identified as friendlies but they cannot identify others as friendlies. The AWACS/Ground Controler must do that for them. I don't really need to explain how important that is in BVR? Indeed. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (My real email address would be if you added 275 to it and reversed the last two letters). |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
In message , tscottme
writes Simon Robbins wrote in message ... If I had neighbours like theirs I'd be claiming to be pretty adequately tooled up too. Still doesn't answer the question about where it all went too. You'd think someone who'd have no compunction using such weapons on his own people would eventually use them as a last ditch attempt to save his own regime, if he had them. So you have no trouble making excuses for Saddam? Why is asking pertinent questions "making excuses"? If Saddam had the alleged stockpiles of ready WMEs, available for prompt use with crews trained in their use, then where are they? On the other hand, he certainly had threats wanting to invade him and cast him down. The US and UK, as proven ('cause we did), plus the Iranians, and he had long-term squabbles ongoing with the Kurds and the Turks. Seems eminently sensible to me that he might try a "Look! No provable WME!" tactic of wounded innocence to his powerful enemies, while darkly hinting that just because the US can't _prove_ he's got chem-bio doesn't mean he can't smack any incursion or rebellion with lots of exotic nastiness. Sensible tactic, provided his powerful enemies don't call the bluff and are either unconvinced by the threat or are deterred by it. The problem comes when the threat is made credible enough, yet doesn't deter. Still a very serious intel failure that we misread his actual intent and capabilities so badly, but I do see where it came from. How typical, how long have you been a Liberal? In my case, quite a while: my second degree is from University College London, founded by Jeremy Bentham (and who remains resident in a hallway). Of course, that assumes you mean "liberal" in the classical sense. I don't seem to fit the current US definition at all: ex-military, work for and with the military now, own my house, believe that governments should ask nicely for tax money rather than expect it as a right, that sort of thing. Saddam used the weapons, Fifteen years ago. *Before* losing a war and having serious efforts made to eliminate them, and before a second 'operation' (Desert Fox was too carefully well-planned[1] to be a war). Lots of weapon programs were turned up, turned over and demolished between 1991 and 2003. I'm still waiting for anyone to find more than fragments of the "bury this in your garden until this all blows over" variety to suggest that he had any effective capability this year. he declared vast amounts of them, intelligence services all over the world documented the tons and tons of material and machines to produce and maintain the WMDs, and as the article points out, the thorough inspections have only cleared about 10 or 20 of the 130 known munitions storage areas. The trained FDC crews who knew how to use the weapons would be a start, as would the production facilities and the distribution organisation. These weapons leave a wide trail if they exist and are fieldable. How many aircraft were buried in the desert of Iraq that we only found out about because locals brought it to our attention. How many of them will ever fly again? (The answer is the roundest of numbers, unless you're using "The A-Team" as your guide to military technology) The anthrax stocks could fit in a few 55 gallon drums which take up less space than one of those buried MiGs. I seem to remember something like nine thousand cubic metres of missing growth media, which would fill 44,000 fifty-five gallon drums. I'd have thought that if Iraq has a few dozen buried aircraft and we can find them, we can find one or two out of forty-four thousand barrels. Again, Saddam worked hard to mislead, but UK and US intelligence were very badly mistaken. In addition people and trucks were streaming out of Iraq into Syria before, during, and just after the war. So, a stated aim of the war was to stop proliferation of WMEs, and the result of the war was to scatter Iraqi WMEs to the four winds beyond any tracking, control or destruction. You're saying the war was a failure, then? "Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded reporters pulled out. When did we start to lose the war? I thought we won it convincingly. The occupation and restoration is proving difficult, but that's a viewpoint I get from returning military personnel not the news. Besides, the US sacked the Army CoS who said the occupation would be harder than the civilian whiz-kids theorised - was Shineski right after all? [1] Never give the enemy a fair fight. If you can successfully conduct your operations without a single loss, that doesn't mean you cheated - it means you used your advantages correctly -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Franck" wrote: of course france sold missile 20 years ago, but in the same time US give chimical weapon to your friend Saddam Hussein. False. But you knew that. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Franck" wrote: could you give me some information about chili genocide made with CIA and US support ? No, and neither could you, apparently. Unless you mean Chile. Chili genocide refers to killing all of the peppers. -- 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 |
France from the air : new website | Benoit | Aerobatics | 0 | November 8th 04 09:59 AM |
Rotax 503 won't stop running | Tracy | Home Built | 2 | March 28th 04 04:56 PM |
Russia joins France and Germany | captain! | Military Aviation | 12 | September 9th 03 09:56 AM |
France Bans the Term 'E-Mail' | bsh | Military Aviation | 38 | July 26th 03 03:18 PM |
"France downplays jet swap with Russia" | Mike | Military Aviation | 8 | July 21st 03 05:46 AM |