A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A question about the Transall C160



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 27th 03, 09:28 AM
tscottme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brian wrote in message
et...
Oh and the US Army is SOOO much better -

The US can't even defend her own borders to save its citizens from

attack -
9/11.

Geez, the US Army can't even police Bagdhad well enough to stop

someone from
blowing up targets in Iraq. And even though the US has completely

occupied
Afghanistan, they still can't find Osama.

Where are the claimed weapons of Mass Destruction the Iraqi's

supposedly
had????

I'll say this much for Saddam - at least the lights were on and the

trains
ran on time - can't say that for the bumbling US Army trying to make a

new
puppet state.

Typical brainwashed FRENCH fry eating slob - blindly follows the flag

even
though it is coated in bull****.

Brian



3,000 dead from an unforeseen sneak attack versus 15,000 dead from
summer heat. Which one sounds like a real condemnation of a government?
I'd say losing 400 valuable troops to destroy the Taliban and Saddam
sounds like a trade worth making. France looses more than that to
soccer riots.

The US doesn't completely occupy either Iraq or Afghanistan anymore than
the French police completely occupy The Zone around Paris or can prevent
bombing of synagogues, rape of un-Muslim women, or desecration of
cemeteries. But at least the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are glad
we've freed them. I doubt the French can say the same. I doubt the
French have the temerity to value their freedom with so many immigrant
Muslims demanding otherwise. The real question will be who will be the
first French leader to propose surrender to the Arab League.

I'm sure your concern for the promptness of Iraqi trains will comfort
the families of whomever filled the mass graves, the rape rooms, and the
children's prisons. Don't worry, nobody will accuse the French of
helping liberate anyone of the them. If someone accuse the French of
helping, you send them to me, I'll straighten them out. Your tribute to
Saddam is touching and the best proof you are French.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02...21903_wpo.html
FRANCE 1998
Office of the French President Jacques Chirac:
"France repeats that Iraq must scrupulously respect all the UN
Security Council resolutions. This is the only route that could enable
Iraq to be readmitted, when the time comes, into the international
community.

The President of the Republic made this clear to the Iraqi Foreign
Minister. He stressed "the extremely grave risks that will result from
a refusal by Iraq to accept the inspection of the 'presidential
sites.' Now time is running out."


http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/s1997-774.htm

--

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


Ads
  #12  
Old September 27th 03, 01:48 PM
Brian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott,

ASSuming again - I am not French, only interested in a particular French
built aircraft and its airlift capabilities.

I am an American by birth, served my time in the US Army in the late 80s. I
served to protect your rights and my rights to stand up for the USA or put
her in her place - whatever views we have - we have the right to them
whether we agree or not - at least we agree to disagree.

In regards to your statement of the Afghani's and Iraqi's being grateful -
some yes, but not all - on Nightline Thursday night, an Iraqi said "at least
under Saddam the electricity was on... things were better under Saddam."

I am not saying Saddam was man of the year material or even a nice person,
however, the made up lies of Bush and Blair (six months later and no WMDs)
was no reason to invade the country. The lies are leading many to believe
that the attack on Iraq was nothing more than revenge for embarrassing daddy
Bush and/or control of the oil interests in Iraq to counter OPEC. American
wanna drive and any prez who can provide cheap fuel is going to gain points.

Now in regards to Afghanistan, the Taliban (the leadership in power at the
time) made a choice not to surrender Osama - I do not feel bad for them.
Hide a criminal and you get cast in the same lot as an accessory.

While I do not agree with Osama's choice of target (personally, I would have
chosen the Capitol Building or White House or even a large refinery), I can
understand their methods.

How else do you fight a giant? You can't trade punches in a traditional
battlefied sense and expect to win. That has been proven twice in Iraq.

Events in Somalia, Vietnam, Beruit and our responses as a country have shown
the American's weak link (public opinion) make it bloody enough and drawn
out and despite the revenge hawks, the majority will clamor for the US to
pull out - and we usually do. Leaving behind a nice void to be filled by
whomever has the biggest arsenal in the region.

The development of the terrorist (aka. Partisan (if this were WW II and
being conducted against German occupying forces), mujahadeen (if they were
fighting against the Red menace), or VC (if they are fighting for a belief
other than the mighty dollar or the Red White and Blue capitalistic
Democracy)) is completely dependant upon what the US leadership has in its
mind - both the Taliban and Saddam were US allies when the Russians or
Iranians were a concern. Now that the Cold War is over, US abandoned their
friends as they were the unclean masses used only as cannon fodder when
needed.

The US Government, in its infinite wisdom, by following the US foreign
policies determined by the presidents after WWII created 95% of the hatred
felt worldwide against the US.

The US did not support Israel until AFTER the Soviets started supporting the
Arab states - Remember the 56 war? Only US weapons in use by the Israeli's
were stuff bought from Europe (mostly WWII surplus). It wasn't until the
sixties that the US sent billions in weapons to counter the Red menace.

The Marshall Plan after WWII was only issued to the chosen countries who
agreed to kiss the ass of the USA in return for the rebuilding assistance -
did Yugoslavia or Albania recieve any aid form the US - Nope not a dime.
(Yugoslavia only got a little assistance in the fifties as an attempt to
swing them to the west).

There are several examples of the US can do that but no one else can since
the the end of WWII - it is this attitude and the RAPE of foriegn markets to
make the little guy dependant on the US that has caused so much hatred world
wide as well as disgust among our own close allies.

Some day, some one will come around and gather enough forces to kick the
knees out from under the US so that she does land hard on her ass and
possibly knock some sense into the country as a whole.

America is not ALL THAT. There are better places in the world - some with
higher taxes but more personal freedoms, others with better economies,
others with better health care, others with better eduction, others with a
lower crime rate.

Yes, on the other hand, there are more places that are worse than America -
N. Korea, Mexico, Haiti, Dominican Republic and so on. America's greatness
is only military any more - hell we don't even follow the Statue of Liberty
any more - "Give us your weak" - talk about hypocracy!

Well enough of the rant

Brian - harpoon at thegrafixguy dot com

"tscottme" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote in message
et...
Oh and the US Army is SOOO much better -

The US can't even defend her own borders to save its citizens from

attack -
9/11.

Geez, the US Army can't even police Bagdhad well enough to stop

someone from
blowing up targets in Iraq. And even though the US has completely

occupied
Afghanistan, they still can't find Osama.

Where are the claimed weapons of Mass Destruction the Iraqi's

supposedly
had????

I'll say this much for Saddam - at least the lights were on and the

trains
ran on time - can't say that for the bumbling US Army trying to make a

new
puppet state.

Typical brainwashed FRENCH fry eating slob - blindly follows the flag

even
though it is coated in bull****.

Brian



3,000 dead from an unforeseen sneak attack versus 15,000 dead from
summer heat. Which one sounds like a real condemnation of a government?
I'd say losing 400 valuable troops to destroy the Taliban and Saddam
sounds like a trade worth making. France looses more than that to
soccer riots.

The US doesn't completely occupy either Iraq or Afghanistan anymore than
the French police completely occupy The Zone around Paris or can prevent
bombing of synagogues, rape of un-Muslim women, or desecration of
cemeteries. But at least the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are glad
we've freed them. I doubt the French can say the same. I doubt the
French have the temerity to value their freedom with so many immigrant
Muslims demanding otherwise. The real question will be who will be the
first French leader to propose surrender to the Arab League.

I'm sure your concern for the promptness of Iraqi trains will comfort
the families of whomever filled the mass graves, the rape rooms, and the
children's prisons. Don't worry, nobody will accuse the French of
helping liberate anyone of the them. If someone accuse the French of
helping, you send them to me, I'll straighten them out. Your tribute to
Saddam is touching and the best proof you are French.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02...21903_wpo.html
FRANCE 1998
Office of the French President Jacques Chirac:
"France repeats that Iraq must scrupulously respect all the UN
Security Council resolutions. This is the only route that could enable
Iraq to be readmitted, when the time comes, into the international
community.

The President of the Republic made this clear to the Iraqi Foreign
Minister. He stressed "the extremely grave risks that will result from
a refusal by Iraq to accept the inspection of the 'presidential
sites.' Now time is running out."


http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/s1997-774.htm

--

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




  #13  
Old September 27th 03, 02:06 PM
Peter Kemp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:11:49 -0500, "tscottme"
wrote:

Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom wrote in message
.. .

It's gone to war every time the French have gone to war with a need
for heavy armour since it entered service.

Just because it hasn't fought yet doesn't mean it's no good.

Or is the US nuclear deterrent crap because it's never been used in
anger?

Peter Kemp


And my 3-point jump shot has worked every time I've used it in the NBA
finals. The Japanese don't agree with your last comment.


To be fair the weapons used were not the *deterrent*. That arrived
once they had a significant number of them and they weren't all
scheduled for use.

Peter Kemp
  #14  
Old September 27th 03, 03:29 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Brian" wrote in message . net...
Oh and the US Army is SOOO much better -

The US can't even defend her own borders to save its citizens from attack -
9/11.


Well, at least we did not have 15K die due to heat prostration and the
like.


Geez, the US Army can't even police Bagdhad well enough to stop someone from
blowing up targets in Iraq. And even though the US has completely occupied
Afghanistan, they still can't find Osama.


Like there have never been terrorist attacks in France? Or other
criminal actions? What, you expect freakin' utopia to spring up in
Iraq overnight?


Where are the claimed weapons of Mass Destruction the Iraqi's supposedly
had????


So you think Saddam was hiding nothing? That he did engage in "full
and complete" disclosure of his WMD program activities?


I'll say this much for Saddam - at least the lights were on and the trains
ran on time - can't say that for the bumbling US Army trying to make a new
puppet state.


Oh, and what a tragedy *that* is...let's see, after Saddam released
some one hundred thousand criminals during the days leading up to the
coalition seizure of Baghdad, we have been trying to get the Iraqi
justice system back into operation. Their courts are now again
operating, using their own criminal code, with three adjustments
imposed by the US:

"...amended that code, subsequently, in three important respects; to
provide that for the first time in Iraq's history, a defendant has a
right to a lawyer from the beginning of the judicial process.
Secondly, that a defendant has the right to be silent without that
incriminating him or her. And thirdly, that torture is no longer
allowed in the Iraqi criminal system."

Source: http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/...riptPC2Sep.doc

How tyrannical is that? The nerve of the coalition leadership to
actually protect those accused rights...

As to the power system available pre-OIF, do you *really* think it was
all that reliable? Or that it outweighed the tens of thousands of
Iraqi citizens found in those mass graves?

One suspects that you will say a lot more than "one thing for Saddam";
and how about those wonderful French oil and gas development contracts
with Saddam that went down the toilet about the same time his statue
came crashing down in Baghdad? Them's the breaks... let me pause to
brush the tears from my cheek.


Typical brainwashed FRENCH fry eating slob - blindly follows the flag even
though it is coated in bull****.


Since you have yet to utter a single morsel of anything remotely
truthful, we'll take that little nugget with a large grain of salt.

Brooks


Brian

"tscottme" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote in message
. net...
Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing already

and
get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries

too?

And yes, France does have an Army - one that is very strong with very

good
equipment - the Le Clerc being comparable to the vaunted M1.

snip

Le Clerc? Is that some sort of precision-guided surrender munition?

--

Scott

  #15  
Old September 27th 03, 03:52 PM
C Knowles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ever get your question answered?

"Brian" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Anyone have any data in regards to the types of military vehicles and

number
carried that could fit inside the plane for air transport?

Looking at the French Army vehicle mainly - thanks in advance

Brian




  #16  
Old September 27th 03, 04:11 PM
Ragnar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Brian" wrote in message
. net...
Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing already

and
get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries

too?

And yes, France does have an Army - one that is very strong with very

good
equipment - the Le Clerc being comparable to the vaunted M1.


How many battles has the Le Clerc been in?

France is an independant country and that in itself was one reason for
deciding to withdraw from NATO - so they could pursue their own course

of
action.


Umm, they didn't "pull out" of NATO. They very conveniently stayed in

just
enough to whine about stuff but far enough out to never actually do any
work.


Actually, they did pull out of NATO. By March 1966, deGaulle had

withdrawn
France from NATO and its command structure because he felt that France

needed to
be independent of joint security considerations, which would not have been
possible had they remained in NATO.


They pulled out of the military end, but they pointedly remained on the
political council. Like I said, they pulled out enough to get out of any
work, and remained in enough to whine about stuff.



  #17  
Old September 27th 03, 04:13 PM
Ragnar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 04:18:45 GMT, "Ragnar"
wrote:


"Brian" wrote in message
.net...
Jeez, talk about yesterdays views - get off the France bashing already

and
get back into life - I supposed you have stopped eating French Fries

too?

And yes, France does have an Army - one that is very strong with very

good
equipment - the Le Clerc being comparable to the vaunted M1.


How many battles has the Le Clerc been in?


It's gone to war every time the French have gone to war with a need
for heavy armour since it entered service.

Just because it hasn't fought yet doesn't mean it's no good.


Means its untested. Kind of silly to compare an untested weapon against a
battle-tested one.


Or is the US nuclear deterrent crap because it's never been used in
anger?


You mean we were in a good mood when we nuked Japan?




  #18  
Old September 27th 03, 05:56 PM
Bill Silvey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Brian" wrote in message
et
Scott,

ASSuming again - I am not French, only interested in a particular
French built aircraft and its airlift capabilities.


Then in short response to your question: French transport aircraft can more
than handily move the requisite number of white flags and yellow paint (and
stripe templates) for French troops.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.


  #19  
Old September 27th 03, 06:46 PM
Skysurfer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Silvey wrote :

ASSuming again - I am not French, only interested in a particular
French built aircraft and its airlift capabilities.


Then in short response to your question: French transport
aircraft can more than handily move the requisite number of white
flags and yellow paint (and stripe templates) for French troops.


But it will hard to carry your idiocy even on a C-5 Galaxy.
  #20  
Old September 27th 03, 06:58 PM
ArVa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Silvey" a écrit dans le message de
news

ASSuming again - I am not French, only interested in a particular
French built aircraft and its airlift capabilities.


Then in short response to your question: French transport aircraft can

more
than handily move the requisite number of white flags and yellow paint

(and
stripe templates) for French troops.


How clever...

Tell me, does that kind of bull**** really still make anybody laugh in any
of the fifty states, or just you and your next cell buddies at the mental
institution?

ArVa


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question A Lieberman Instrument Flight Rules 18 January 30th 05 05:51 PM
VOR/DME Approach Question Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 47 August 29th 04 05:03 AM
Question Charles S Home Built 4 April 5th 04 09:10 PM
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question jlauer Home Built 7 November 16th 03 02:51 AM
Question about Question 4488 [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 3 October 27th 03 02:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.