EU as joke (modified)

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote

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.

Has anyone else succeeded? No.

Roadmap
Camp David II
Camp David I
Oslo
Arab League summit
etc, etc, all the way back to Napoleon.

You can't force a peace on two parties, where each has a significant number
of psycho's willing to disrupt that peace process at any and all cost.

If Arafat and his council were to make peace (real, binding, unconditional
peace- live and let live), at any cost, they'd be dead within a month.

Pete

In article , "tadaa" wrote:

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.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

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

I think he had enough
means and connections to cancel the whole operation anytime within a two
year time frame.

I'm just telling you what I saw reported around four years ago. You obviously
have better information than a Libyan defector.



Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens.

And I thought the war on terrorism was a worldwide one, in which everyone
was commited... I'm sure you don't mean that it matters only when American
interests are at stake, do 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.) 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.


BUFDRVR

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

What do you qualify as an "ill concieved strike"? The French bombing (you'd
be right in that case) or the US retaliation?


The US retaliatory strike was ill concieved, poorly executed and didn't meet
the intent it was designed to have. But hey, it was 1983 and the US Department
of Defense was still trying to drag itself out of the "hollow force" put in
place by Carter (and actually begun under Ford).


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 news:
...
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?


Besides the obvious??????

--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.


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. 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.

Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2

Wrong, "severe consequences" were promised by UN resolution and delivered by
the "coalition of the willing".

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". Additionally, older UNSC
resolutions also threatened Iraq with armed reprisal should they violate any
one of the *two dozen* resolutions regarding them.

"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 applicable due to UNSC resolutions authorizing force.

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.

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. 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.


BUFDRVR

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

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 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?

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.

Al Minyard

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 03:36:31 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 06:33:19 GMT, Juvat
wrote:


I agree that Rumsfeld's previous goodwill visit to Hussein had
no bearing on current events...but I use it to suggest that the
current anger by you and other americans toward our european
friends can just as easily change.

"European friends"? That would be the UK and Poland. The rest
are hardly "friends"

Al Minyard

Just a reminder.


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."



http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2003/08-11.htm

NATO took over command Monday of the International Security
Assistance Force, known by its acronym ISAF, following a
year-and-a-half in which different nations rotated into and
out of leadership.

The takeover marks NATO's first operation outside Europe in
its 54-year history, and underscores the alliance's shift from
its original Cold War role to a new focus on international
terrorism.

[..]



Regards...

Latter on this year?? Oh, you mean after there is no need for them,
and no threat to them.

What a joke.

Al Minyard

On 08 Nov 2003 04:04:38 GMT, 362436 (Ron) wrote:

"European friends"? That would be the UK and Poland. The rest
are hardly "friends"

Al Minyard

Just a reminder.

Netherlands, Turkey, Italy, Spain , Denmark, Most all of the eastern European
countries, Norway, and another I have forgotten at this moment, are helping to.
Yes, they are good friends too. A lot more than just UK and Poland have
helped in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even France helped with CAS in Afghanistan, which is a case of our interests
being common, as opposed to different in the case of Iraq.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Turkey blocked our forces from transiting to Iraq, causing the deaths of US
troops. Not much of a "friend" there. The Netherlands, as part of the EU, has
condemned US actions in Iraq, not much of a "friend" there. Spain? Denmark?
Funny, I do not seem to recall any of their boots on the ground.

Al Minyard