please stop bashing France

1956

I believe you must be refering to the Suez crisis. The Eisenhower
administration did disagree with France and the UK about how to settle the
issue, but did nothing in the way of interfering with French and British
actions. Ike, along with the Soviet Union, introduced a UN resolution calling
for a cease-fire, but when it was vetoed by France and the UK, the matter was
dropped.

Ike honestly believed that the Suez crisis was going to do one of two things;
1.) Destroy what he percived as a chance to re-unite Germany peacefully with
open revolts in both Hungary and Poland and a "receptive" new Premier
(Krushev). 2.) escalate into a global conflict due to the instability in
Eastern Europe and North Africa (Algeria was revolting against French rule and
several other Middle East nations in open turmoil).

Both of those outcomes would have had a direct and significant impact on US
National Security objectives. This is not even close to compareable with French
actions last winter-spring.


BUFDRVR

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

In article ,
"Simon Robbins" wrote:

"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.

You know, it's funny.

Before the war, the news outlets were complaining about not having "one
single reason" for going to war. Sure, Hussein was a dictator, and he
was working on getting nukes and other WMDs, and he had never followed
the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire, and he supported terrorism in the
Middle East, but we didn't pick "one reason" for the war.

Now, people complain that there was only "one reason" to attack, and
that wasn't enough.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Of course my dear. May be you live on the parallel world but sure we don't
live on the same world

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2002/12/48877.html

Sure mister DR meet Saddam Hussein only to take a cup of tea and discuss
about the last Scharzy movie

Excuse me for the offense to the honorable Mister Mickey Rumsfeld

another examples :

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...sseinindex.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...1231rumsfeld.h
tm

The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German
companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including
anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by
a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.

Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in
a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean
firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave"
attacks.

A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents,
including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US
companies, under licence from the commerce department.

sure only for pesticide !!

Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000)
of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical
warfare.

only for pesticide

-
Franck


www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

Unless you mean Chile.

Chili genocide refers to killing all of the peppers.

sorry I hope your french is better than my english..just a question of
culture

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:35:12 +0200, lekomin inc wrote:

U¿ytkownik "phil hunt" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci

That's similar to what Finland, Sweden and Norway use, IIRC. There's
also a 6x6 vehicle in the same family, the XA. It seems a capable
family of vehicles. I particularly like the idea of a dual 120 mm
mortar, shown he

Not exactly. AMV is a completely different vehicle then Patria X-Series.

So why does Patria have two very similar ranges of vehicles?


http://members.surfeu.fi/stefan.allen/amv8x8.html

... as can be seen on the photo you provided )) Poland will have an IFV
version with 30mm cannon (ATK MK44, which is a vvvvery good cannon)

I wonder if this will have significant anti-aircraft capabilities,
i.e. the ability to compute an aircraft's future position, and aim
the gun towards it?


Then Britain decided it didn't want the Boxer, it wanted something
lighter that could be easily transported. So it's now paying over
the odds (GBP 400k per vehicle IIRC) for something that's likely to
be little better than the land rovers ans Saxons the British army
already uses (and are cheaper) or the Humvees the USA uses (and are
also cheaper).

those are different systems. UK is in big mess because:
1) TRACER program got cancelled in the US, and the future british scout
vehicle was to be based on this
2) BOXER is really crap - to heavy, to expensive, built for future with
todays technology

I agree, it is rather big. An IFV or APC has to be big enough to
carry an infantry section. I dodn't see any need for it to be igger
than that. If Britain has a requirement for a heavier vehicle, for
example to carry a large artillery piece or missile, the Warrior or
Challenger hulls are available.

3) for liason vehicle they have chosen an italian vehicle!!!!! (an Iveco)

There's a picture of it he

http://pub165.ezboard.com/fwarships1...ID =983.topic

I looks to me like an oversized (and over-priced) Land Rover. The
MoD is paying GBP 400k each for these.

Britain had some Challenger I tanks, not the latest thing, but
still a respectasble tank. Instead of storing them or using them for
reserve units, it stupidly gave them away (to Jordan).

well... PT-91s are crap but A tank is better then no tank.

"Crap" is an exaggeration, IMO. They'll be useful as battlefield
line-of-sight artillery, and are bound to be more survivable than an
APC.

Spike is longer-ranged than Javelin (4 km v. 2.5 km). Did Poland
consider the Russian Kornet (range 5 km)?

In contrary to the official line (Poland loves everybody... bla bla bla)
Polish forces, and especially the heavy component (MTBs, 150mm artillery,
SAMs, SPAAGs) will be tuned to face Russia. The light forces might be
deployable wherever they are needed but the heavy ones are to defend Poland
from the East. At it will stay that way. History tought as many lessons ))
Therefore it is hardly possible to buy russian equipement including the
Kornet. It is a great antitank weapon but I am pretty sure russian
Shtora/Arena systems are close to perfect in making them useless (after all
they would know all the frequencies...). If ever the antitank missiles were
used, It would be agains Russian MBTs with Shtora/Arena fitted invading
Poland... I am pretty sure all Kornets would miss their targets.

If the Russians can jam Kornet, then other people can too, making it
of limited use. Kornet uses laser beamriding, so to jam it you'd
have to have a light transmitter transmitting the same frequency the
laser is. If the laser frequency is adjustable, I imagine that would
be difficult to achieve.


The UK is currently considering either Javelin or Spike.

go for javelin.

I'd prefer it if it had a longer range. As it is, its range is only
slightly longer than the Milan it is replacing, although it is fire
and forget.

Russians just
started (or rather are trying to start) their own project with the same in
service date as F35.

Is this a new Su-27 variant, a MiG 1.44 variant, or something
entirely new?


--
"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).

sorry I hope your french is better than my english..just a question of
culture

I could understant what you write but i'm sure if I use french language you
can't
--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

"tscottme" wrote:
Franck wrote in message
...


In fact only the US citizens ignorants like
you believe that. I'm
sure it's
not 'the vast majority'. look on this NG,
you're only 5 or 6 with
always the
same poor discourt

--
Franck


Since you say this assertion of yours is a fact
you can document it
can't you? France and Germany were Saddam's
largest trading partners
and they were pressuring to end sanctions on
Saddam before the US forced
the UN into its last round of "last chances
for Saddam". France
announced it would veto the last pre-war US
proposed UN resolution
before Iraq rejected it.

France is the enemy of Western civilization.
Maybe they are just bitter
at watching their culture and their language
become more irrelevant each
day.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war
only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news
directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the
news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we
hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm


I'll go along with that. They just haven't gotten used to the fact that
they are no longer a colonial empire, major military power, or the fact that
the most popular books, movies, TV, etc. are American. And they know it.
Most of the top-grossers in French theaters are out of Hollywood, and with
Satellte TV, folks can get all the American TV that they want, bypassing
the over-the-air channels.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

On 17 Oct 2003 21:37:47 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:
1956

I believe you must be refering to the Suez crisis.

I am.

The Eisenhower
administration did disagree with France and the UK about how to settle the
issue, but did nothing in the way of interfering with French and British
actions.

This is only true if "withdraw or we'll **** your economy" counts as
nothing.

--
"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).

Franck wrote:

US 60.6%, France 8.5%, Netherlands 7.4%, Italy 5.8% (2001)

great information but i'm not sure red necks could understand them

Don't be too taken with the stats.

The bulk of the US trade was oil, much of it "food for oil" program,
and most of it not consistent over time (past 10 years basically).

It skews the appearance of the relationship...unless you truly believe
Saddam considered the US as his most favored nation in trade.


SMH

phil hunt wrote:



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?

I think that has more to do with some legacy holdover thinking from the
cold war, rather than seeing a future need for a dedicated ACM fighter.

Engagement ranges , tend to be smaller when you were designing a fighter
for the European theater, so French designs tended to be high energy
fighters that relied on IR weapons over Radar weapons, just to use an
expample.

Logistics was another reason , some people I was chatting with ,made the
point that had the russians actually rolled west , quite a few of the
nato partners may have burned up their inventory of BVR weapons in the
first day of the conflict , so an airforce may have had to rely on 20 mm
cannons and sidewinders for as long as that lasted.

Lastly , because of the price of the systems , most european airforces
dont get the most advanced american systems , till about halfway through
the service life , so they may have designed the aircraft to be more
agile to compensate for a lack of decent bvr hardware.

Declan O'Reilly