Author Topic: Why am I not surprised ....... (Read 1857 times)

ASTAC · « **Reply #45 on:** April 03, 2005, 11:29:24 AM »

Truth is..evry country that manufactures arms is quilty of selling arms to undesirables..USA just as quilty as anybody..it's never gonna stop...It's part of the world economy and probrably always will be....So it's senseless to ***** about it...and to point fingers and shame other countries for doing it...just accept it as a world way of life.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #46 on:** April 03, 2005, 12:10:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
Seagoon, I think the French would object to the insinuation that they are being 'defended' by NATO. Didn't they withdraw from the treaty and throw NATO out of France in the mid-60s?

France pulled out of the "military command" structure in 1966, but remains A NATO member.

That tell you anything?

oboe · « **Reply #47 on:** April 03, 2005, 12:24:04 PM »

It tells me NATO is more complicated an organization than I thought!

Are you suggesting that France pulled out of the commnad structure but remained a member to benefit from NATO's protection but save on any costs they might have been incurring as a member of the command structure?

Still, who is NATO protecting anybody against these days?

ASTAC · « **Reply #48 on:** April 03, 2005, 04:50:01 PM »

Really no need for NATO anymore..Just another money pit for us...another place where multiple countries decide that we should use military force...then the US picks up most of the tab in men, equipment, and money.

Skydancer · « **Reply #49 on:** April 03, 2005, 06:11:22 PM »

There is an answer!

Just stop making weapons in such quantities and go make something more usefull, enlightening or whatever. The ammount of money wasted on weapons could've put men on mars by now!

Sikboy · « **Reply #50 on:** April 03, 2005, 06:52:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
The ammount of money wasted on weapons could've put men on mars by now!

But then what would those guys shoot each other with?

-Sik

oboe · « **Reply #51 on:** April 03, 2005, 07:53:34 PM »

Jackal1 · « **Reply #52 on:** April 03, 2005, 11:52:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
It tells me NATO is more complicated an organization than I thought!

Are you suggesting that France pulled out of the commnad structure but remained a member to benefit from NATO's protection but save on any costs they might have been incurring as a member of the command structure?

Still, who is NATO protecting anybody against these days?

hehe. Nope. Read it again. Not command structure, but" military command". Also I don`t know where you come up with the cost factor.
In simple terms it amounts to exactly what Seagoon was saying. For France it was a statement of" we won`t get our hands dirty or do the work, but we will hold the umbrella for you, but in case of a storm you have to shelter our squeamish butts." A shelter in a storm.

lazs2 · « **Reply #53 on:** April 05, 2005, 09:06:13 AM »

england doesn't even allow airguns and they aren't on mars.

lazs

Jackal1 · « **Reply #54 on:** April 05, 2005, 10:10:38 AM »

I dunno bout that Lazs. Not to mention any names but some of em are speaking fluent martian sometimes.

oboe · « **Reply #55 on:** April 05, 2005, 11:51:53 AM »

Jackal -

Can you explain the difference between 'command structure' and 'military command'? I thought they were pretty much interchangeable terms.

The cost factor was just a guess as to the motivation for the French to remove themselves from NATO command but remain a member.

Interestingly, the only references I ever heard regarding the French and NATO while growing up was that the French 'kicked NATO out' or 'withdrew from NATO' - along those lines. The impression given was the France wanted to go it alone...

straffo · « **Reply #56 on:** April 05, 2005, 12:37:00 PM »

The motive was independance and autonomy.

One of the reason is : if the red army succesfully invade Germany and is at our border we won't have to wait for the OTAN to use nuke.
Even if a "vitrification" of Germany is to be expected.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #57 on:** April 05, 2005, 06:13:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
Jackal -

Can you explain the difference between 'command structure' and 'military command'? I thought they were pretty much interchangeable terms.

The cost factor was just a guess as to the motivation for the French to remove themselves from NATO command but remain a member.

Interestingly, the only references I ever heard regarding the French and NATO while growing up was that the French 'kicked NATO out' or 'withdrew from NATO' - along those lines. The impression given was the France wanted to go it alone...

Well yea, by pulling out of military command it simply means they do not have to participate in the actual fighting. On the other hand they stayed in simply to avoid losing the shelter they had in times of trouble. Sort of a cake and eat it too thing.

straffo · « **Reply #58 on:** April 06, 2005, 01:46:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jackal1
Well yea, by pulling out of military command it simply means they do not have to participate in the actual fighting. On the other hand they stayed in simply to avoid losing the shelter they had in times of trouble. Sort of a cake and eat it too thing.

Completly wrong and more : a lie.

Now I'm sure your knowledge of NATO is simply null.

Nilsen · « **Reply #59 on:** April 06, 2005, 02:00:19 AM »

They are just bating you Straffo, let go.