EU as joke (modified)

Well, I'd like to know how *you* look at Lockerbie. That's precisely the
part I don't understand in your reasoning.

I don't believe that you can judge the El Dorado strike effectiveness based on
Lockerbie because it was planned and in the execution phase *prior* to the
operation and unable (according to Libyan sources) to be terminated.

If it was not a terrorist attack
against US citizens (200 casualties) and assets (a PanAm B747), how do you
qualify it?

It was a terrorist attack, directed at US citizens and undertaken with Libyan
assistance, I'm not arguing those facts. What I am arguing is that the strike
on Libya could not have impacted the terrorist bombing of the Pan Am regardless
of how effective it was.

but, according
to me, it was not the reason that made Libya change its policy about
terrorism, not even regarding the US

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

No offense intended but it's a pretty lame comment.

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?
Somehow I think if the roles were reversed, French citizens would not shed one
tear for the loss of US lives.

As for the overflight rights, you easily forget that along with France,
Germany, Spain and Italy also refused to cooperate.

Germany *did* cooperate. As for Spain and Italy, their required assistance was
the basing of tanker aircraft, not an operation altering issue. France was
asked for almost nothing, but it was a critical nothing, and they refused.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
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


One does not have to comply with UN resolutions to conduct nuclear tests,
only the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, since testing is no crime. On the other
hand, invading a country is. Even the UN is not entitled to OK an
aggression, only action in self-defence or support of an aggrived side some
aggressor (e.g. Desert Storm in 1991).

Ivan the Bear
=Nothing per-r-rsonal, just business=

"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

The US is much criticised for following its own policy
in many issues. There is no secret in that.

The question you need to ask yourself is; why? Why are France, Russia,
Belgium, etc. free to persue their own national policies without drawing
criticism but the US cannot?

Then perhaps it should be time for the US to pay it's $2BN
debt to the UN.

If we pay our debt, will the UN begin paying the State and City of New York the
billions they pay every year for hosting the United Nations. Everything from
additional police to sanitation removal are not paid for by the UN. We could
probably pay off some of that in parking tickets if UN members ever paid them,
but they flaunt their diplomatic immunity pretty good in downtown Manhatten.
Tell you what, why don't we move the UN to your country? I think that's a
solution that at least every American (definitely every "New Yorker") would
agree to.

Lack of money and resources is an contributing
factor why the UN has trouble fulfilling its obligations
and goals.

$$ has nothing to do with the fact that the international politics in this
multi-polar world have rendered the UN unable to act.

The US has vetoed 26 of the last the Palestine/Israel issue
I think.

You keep dredging this up as if to prove this represents US violation of UN
resolutions. It doesn't and for the fifth or sixth time, US vetos since 1991
are based on the simple *fact* that the UN has *never* admonished Isreal's
enemies and from the looks of things never plans to. Furthermore, no other
nation or organization has made progress (in some cases temporary, yet progress
none-the-less) between the Isreali's and their Arab counterparts like the US.

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.

And this proves what?


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.

Wrong. The US has begged the EU to get involved in a substantive way for the
last 5 years, their biggest contibution is to approve UN resolutions
admonishing Isreal and leaving the PA blameless and to whine that the US has
vetoed the resolution. The US does not rely on the EU in the middle east.

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

Partially correct. There was no wording automatically authorizing force, but
then again there was no wording not authorizing force. Its called diplomatic
ambiguity, its in nearly ever international agreement since the Magna Carta.
The US choose to assume past resoltions authorizing force and the current
resolution threatening "severe consequences" was authority enough.

Did the SC decide there had been
a material breach of the resolution?

Yes. UNSCOM reported the Iraqi's were being "deceptive". This was a material
breech.

Had all nonmilitary
means of enforcement have been exhausted?

Probably by around 1995.

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.


Potential chemical and biological weapons and known ties to international
terrorists was more than enough "proof".

But what
was the US and UK official reasons for going to war?

Iraq was still developing chemical and biological weapons and had known ties to
international terrorists.

I don't think the convention makes such a distinction.

It absolutely does. You can't engage in armed conflict in jeans and a T-shirt
and expect to be recognized as a legal armed combatant. The convention not only
says you must be a uniform, but an "officially recognized" uniform.

Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual,
militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW
when captured.

Correct, if wearing a uniform identifying themselves as such.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

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"

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"

"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

In article , "tadaa" wrote:

So how about that navy question, what European nations could have used a
larger navy?

The ones with coastlines. Even if they couldn't take part in the fairly
obvious upcoming ground war, they could help support the rest of the
world in shutting down Germany's navies and make it easier to retake the
continent.

Most of Europe's complete lack of preparation for WWII is plainly
documented and bloody obvious to the rest of us...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
"å×ÇÅÎÉÊ ïÖÏÇÉÎ" wrote:


One does not have to comply with UN resolutions to conduct nuclear tests,
only the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, since testing is no crime. On the other
hand, invading a country is.

Actually, it isn't. A crime, that is.

By the way... the US invasion of Iraq was justified under UN
resolutions, since the *previous* war was stopped by a cease fire with
the condition that Iraq fully comply with inspections.

They didn't, and we resumed the previous war. They should have followed
the agreement.

Even the UN is not entitled to OK an aggression, only action in
self-defence or support of an aggrived side some aggressor (e.g.
Desert Storm in 1991).

The current war, of course, is just Phase 2 of that war.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

(BUFDRVR) schrieb:

Then perhaps it should be time for the US to pay it's $2BN
debt to the UN.

If we pay our debt, will the UN begin paying the State and City of New York the
billions they pay every year for hosting the United Nations. Everything from
additional police to sanitation removal are not paid for by the UN. We could
probably pay off some of that in parking tickets if UN members ever paid them,
but they flaunt their diplomatic immunity pretty good in downtown Manhatten.

Come on... hardly an argument, since the current total debt on parking
tickets et al. runs at about 22 million Dollar. The top ranking
violators are Kuwait and (IIRC) Morocco, their debt is subtracted from
the US financial aid given to them....

Isn´t it simple - you join the club, you pay the admission fee?

Potential chemical and biological weapons and known ties to international
terrorists was more than enough "proof".

(...)

Iraq was still developing chemical and biological weapons and had known ties to
international terrorists.

It doesn´t get truer by repetition.. reminds me of the slogan
"Marxismus ist richtig, weil er wahr ist.". :-(

I don't think the convention makes such a distinction.

It absolutely does. You can't engage in armed conflict in jeans and a T-shirt
and expect to be recognized as a legal armed combatant. The convention not only
says you must be a uniform, but an "officially recognized" uniform.

Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual,
militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW
when captured.

Correct, if wearing a uniform identifying themselves as such.

And if not they should be regarded as POW until proven of different
status..I stumbled across an item by "The Guardian" dealing with that
as a side-topic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html

To quote:

"The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva
conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful
combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice,
by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their
country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the
third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of
a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be
regarded as prisoners of war.

Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified,
article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present
convention until such time as their status has been determined by a
competent tribunal". But when, earlier this month, lawyers
representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of
appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory,
the men have no constitutional rights."

BUFDRVR

Gruss, Roman