Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: newguy2 on September 18, 2001, 08:58:00 PM
-
Norway, Germany, France, and Italy are not going to help in military actions?
-
does that surprise you?
-
Well to be truthful, your question is not what I asked.
If someone held a gun to my head and my choice was to answer your question or die. Hmmm, that seems to be a loaded question.
-
norway has a army ? (opps, sorry answered with a question) but no , i have not heard that, i did hear cuba has offered medical help to USA,don't laugh ,cuba has very good med schools
-
``I wanted to tell President Bush, who is my friend, that we stand in total solidarity ... it is a solidarity of the heart and I also wanted to say we are completely determined to fight by your side this absolute evil which is terrorism,''
Jacques Chirac, President of France
It's not very specific, but how can it be? You can't expect nations to agree to military action before a plan (or even an enemy) has been identified. Also it's probable that any military actions will be covert in nature and as such you will not hear about them until after they happen.
-
This could be a good time to try and mend that fence. It's going to happen at some point.
Here's a link for the other. http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109181830.htm (http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109181830.htm)
-
[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: newguy2 ]
-
Geez that was a pretty good article. :)
-
I agree, it is. Come to think of it. How much of the reports coming out of Washington are just disinformation? Heard on the news that the Afghan army is massing at the Kiber(sp)pass with Pakistan. What's the point of that? Pakistan, if I heard right, isn't going to allow US ground forces on it's soil.
Do they have a problem with Pakistan that hasn't been reported? Also sound's like the Irans wouldn't feel to bad if the Taliban gov turned up MIA.
[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: newguy2 ]
-
Yah.. great article, nice sum-up on the way the chips are falling.
It's no surprise Germany and France are unwilling to back any large scale military play that may involve 'civilian causalties'.. i.e bombing or direct miltary action in Iraq, our most likely 'big show' military target.
Of course, the professed French and German sensibilities regarding helpless civilians would have nothing to do with the fact they happen to be big-time trading partners with Iraq particulary in stuff like nuclear technology and chemical handling and production equipment.
rat bastards! Maybe a Blockade is in order.
END ALL TRADE WITH ROUGE NATIONS! Thats something WE can do right fediddlein now!
There's a fediddlein war on. End ALL foreign trade with Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
Yah.. great article, nice sum-up on the way the chips are falling.
It's no surprise Germany and France are unwilling to back any large scale military play that may involve 'civilian causalties'.. i.e bombing or direct miltary action in Iraq, our most likely 'big show' military target.
Of course, the professed French and German sensibilities regarding helpless civilians would have nothing to do with the fact they happen to be big-time trading partners with Iraq particulary in stuff like nuclear technology and chemical handling and production equipment.
rat bastards! Maybe a Blockade is in order.
END ALL TRADE WITH ROUGE NATIONS! Thats something WE can do right fediddlein now!
There's a fediddlein war on. End ALL foreign trade with Iraq.
There is a real nice tool you should try to use Hang : a mirror.
I've a nice article for you :
Think BEFORE you speak
What you say is funny when your own views are completely blinded to what are correct words from another. Go read history, find out what your infamous USA has actually been doing around the world before spouting off blind rhetoric.
Before I go on, I will say this. Yes it is a great tragedy that this happen,
yes the people that did this should be punished to the extreme.
BUT the right people and the people who did this, do not accuse a religious group because a tiny group of people did such a cowardly act.
Your great president has so far during his short term has, destroyed the
Kyoto and Nuclear non-proliferation treatise. Not bad for a start. The
actions he takes now may lead your country into territory it may not want to be in, or he may lead you to a great victory against terrorism, I fervently hope it's the latter. But your leader's track record isn't the best so far.
You wonder in amazement at why it happened to your country. For a very long time some of your senior policy advisors have been warning about what they term "blowback" from the USA delving into other countries internal policies.
Afghanistan was interesting to start with. When the first signs of rebellion started to happen the then ruling government asked a lot of countries for help, USA at that point turned down the ruling governments request, when they turned to ask Russia (then USSR) for help. When Russia sent troops in, the USA suddenly saw this as a threat and sponsored the rebel groups with weapons and funding. Creating terrorist camp to fight against the then USSR, the operatives ignored the then anti USA feelings of the people it was dealing with. So when they finally toppled the government they turned their attention to other parts of the world.
133 nations including virtually all U.S. allies have signed a treaty banning landmines, while the U.S. insists on continued production.
That the U.S. is one of only two countries to defy an International Court
ruling (over Nicaragua 1986) the other one is Iran.
From 1945 to the end of the century, the United States attempted to
overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.
During the Gulf war the UN ordered that no working Nuclear reactors where to be targeted or attacked in any form, General Colin Powell order the two working reactors attacked and said after the attacks where carried out, "The two operating reactors they had are both gone, they're down, they're finished.".
A great quote from your president's father "I will never apologize for the
United States of America. I don't care what the facts are". George Bush.
Take the Sudan, of another example. The El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant had raised Sudanese medicinal self-sufficiency from less than five percent to more than 50percent, while producing about 90 percent of the drugs used to treat the most deadly illnesses in this desperately poor country. But on August 20, 1998, the United States saw fit to send more than a dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles screaming into the plant, in an instant depriving the people of Sudan of their achievement. Based on a covertly acquired soil sample, Washington claimed that the plant was producing chemical weapons. At the same time the US gave the world the clear impression that the factory's owner, Saleh Idris, was a close associate of terrorists and was involved in money laundering. Washington proceeded to freeze $24million in Idris's
London bank accounts. But the US was never able to prove any of its
assertions, while every piece of evidence and every expert testimony that surfaced categorically contradicted the claim about chemical weapons. The case fell apart completely, and in the meantime, Idris sued to recover his monies well as compensation for his pulverized plant. Finally, in May 1999, the United States unfroze Idris's accounts rather than contest his suit because they knew they had no case. But as of the end of that year, the US had yet to apologize to Sudan or to Idris for the plant's destruction, or for the serious harm done to his reputation, and had yet to compensate him for the loss of the plant, and the loss of business; nor the plant's employees for the loss of their jobs and income, or the ten people who were injured. The degree of Washington's arrogance in the whole matter was stunning, from the initial act on. "Never before," observed former CIA official Milt Bearden, "has a single soil sample prompted an act of war against a sovereign state."
Clinton's visit to Greece in November 1999 brought out large and fiery
anti-American demonstrations, protesting the recent American bombing of Yugoslavia and the indispensable US support for the torturers par excellence of the 1967-74 Greek junta. During his one-day stop, the president found time to address a private group. To quote "When the junta took over in 1967 here, the United States allowed its interests in prosecuting the Cold War to prevail over its interest, I should say its obligation to support democracy, which was, after all, the cause for which we fought the Cold War. It is important that we acknowledge that."
In 1987 New Zealand declared itself a Nuclear free country. USA broke its ANZUS treaty agreements and sanctioned all New Zealand goods, which where exported to the US and tried to get other countries like the UK and Australia to do the same. Until New Zealand would again, allow USA Nuclear armed and powered ships, into New Zealand Harbors and waters. New Zealand has been a model Nuclear free country which lead to the French Government committing a terrorist attack on the then Greenpeace Flagship Rainbow Warrior, while it was birthed in New Zealand waters. When New Zealand asked for assistance in capturing the other terrorist that escaped, USA did not want to help due to the way it might effect its relations, with France. Now with their present cry of vengeance does it not seem a bit hypocritical?
American domestic and foreign policy is now, and has always been, dictated fundamentally by economics, not by moral and political values.
I would recommend you read a few books, these are a very good factual unbiased account of what USA has done.
"Blowback"
By Christopher Simpson
Published by Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1988
"Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire"
By Chalmers Johnson
Published by New York: Metropolitan Books, 2000.
From what I have posted here you are probably thinking that I hate the USA, which I do not. I am a firm believer that you should understand the situation before taking action. But it seems that it is a bit hopeful for USA to do that.
-
Originally posted by newguy2:
Norway, Germany, France, and Italy are not going to help in military actions?
I dont have any news about this.
For what I see in TV news and newspapers, all the member of government, big part of opposition, and almost all the population is on the side of USA.
We already host fighters, soldiers and ships in our territory, the Mediterranean-MiddleEast Nato and USA High Command in 5 km from my house.
We are talking about the use of our small and funny Army, but most probably our underarmed Air Force.
And I have to listen someone like you telling me we are not gonna help?
Very good way to make friends indeed.
-
Germany will help the USA in this actual military operation with all its possibilities.
The ruling party - the SPD (Socialists) and the strongest opposition party - the CDU (Conservatives) are loyal to the USA.
So its not important, if the amaller ruling party the Gruene (Green Party) or the opposing PDS (Communists) refuse assictance .
The bad news is that because of the german internal politic of the last years the german army is nearly inoperational.
We have equipment, which is older than the soldiers who use it!
Many planes or vehicles have been cannibalized to keep a small number operational.
But if the USA calls for assistance of that what we have - we will be at the side of our allies.
But let me make another point also clear: This problem could not be solved by military. If BinLaden is killed, there will be soon another BinLaden. If Afghanistan is occupied we will get another Vietnam or Tschetschenia.
No - we need to solve these problem by diplomats and able politicians - and one of the important things is that we also have to stop the terrorism of Israel againt the palestinians.
Only if we fight EVERY terrorism, we will have a chance to stop this madness.
If we allow Israel to continue its terrorism - we will gain nothing.
-
Hello!
This morning Cancelor Schroeder sayed:
Germany also will take a military risc if the US request it.
So, a clear statement, not? :D
Andreas (JV44)
-
I think if we get permission to use our bases to launch the attacks and the permission to use their airspace to get to and fro, that's about all we can expect..anything else will be gravy.
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
Jacques Chirac, President of France
It's not very specific, but how can it be? You can't expect nations to agree to military action before a plan (or even an enemy) has been identified. Also it's probable that any military actions will be covert in nature and as such you will not hear about them until after they happen.
I'd also like to add that before engaging any troops French law requires a consultation of parliament with precise definition of the operations...(hence the delays and reservations placed)
that's what makes us different from the animals we are confronted with: we are law-abiding,democratic countries...
some may perceive that as a weakness but ultimately this is our strenght!
And just to clarify please note that most French citizens were outraged by the attacks (and we have been the target of islamic terrorism before..)so everybody is expecting our government to do the right thing...
if these guys care about their jobs they better listen...
(http://eur.yimg.com/xp/reuters/20010915/2551037976.jpg)
-
Straffo; yer mealy mouth fancy dancin does nothin to put the French postion in a better light.
As I told you when you sent me that 'private message' protesting my finger pointing at France and it's piss-poor position regarding terrorisim...
When Pan Am 103 was scattered all over Lockerbie, we needed an overflight to retaliate in Libya. The French displayed 'solidarity' aginst terrorism by refusing overflight.
Oh, and thanks for the French assistance with the the Iranians during the Hostage Crisis. And how many French Marines died in Lebanon?
Yer wonderful national Pride has forced your reclariant government to repay how many debts it has to our nation?? Whats that you say?? None?
Your Government has a chance here to do the right thing.. help stamp out terrorisim. it has a LARGE arab population.. conatcts in northern africa, in other states we are eyeballing.. will your government help us??
I diddlyin doubt it..
They're far too buzy shippin gawdamned nuclear and Chemical technology to the iranians and iraquis.. to; of course, help feed the starving childern our embargo created. Asses. fediddlein asses. Why ship them technology.. if yer worried about starving Iraq, send em food. Not military radars.
rat bastards.
WRITE YOUR GOVERNMENT LEADERS. Tell 'em to back our play.. thats the RIGHT call; and you know it.
Now get off my back, and get on YOUR fediddlein governments back.
-
Spooky, how long have those restrictions been in place in France? Could they have contributed to the seeming ease with which Hitler rolled into and conquered France in WWII? Perhaps it's time to reevaluate.
Straffo, if the point of your message is that the USA should mind it's own business I tend to agree. Having spent 20 years in the US military, 7 of it away from my family in other countries, I often wondered why it was necessary for us to be involved in others business.
Perhaps it is time for us to build a "great wall" like China did thousands of years ago. But then again, if we adhered to this philosophy 60 years ago, I think you'd be speaking German or Russian.
-
Originally posted by AKIron:
Spooky, how long have those restrictions been in place in France? Could they have contributed to the seeming ease with which Hitler rolled into and conquered France in WWII? Perhaps it's time to reevaluate.
According to history books statistics it was indeed easy for the germans...
For people here it felt different : half the men in my family were KIA between 1940 and 1944 .they were stabbed in the back by their government just like your soldiers were abandonned by congress during the vietnam war...courage,honor and dedication know no borders you know...
and HANGTIME I was furious when the F111s were denied overfly clearance in 86...many of us were...I used my vote to protest then.I would do the same today if our government is not up to the task..
Leave the french ethnic jokes to Letterman and forget the pepe le pew cliches!
I have been supportive and respectful in my posts.It is a time for unity ...Our usual small time bickering will resume soon enough !
(http://eur.yimg.com/xp/reuters/20010915/2551037976.jpg)
-
Euro brothers, please read. http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109181830.htm (http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109181830.htm)
If the US news is reporting this wrong, please point me to the correct info.
-
1st I won't answer point by point to Hang "NUKE THEM ALL"Time he lost all comon sense after the last event :(
I do understand his pain but I do disagree on his position.
And yes I know that 58 French soldier that's nothing compared to 241 US soldier.
Originally posted by AKIron:
Spooky, how long have those restrictions been in place in France? Could they have contributed to the seeming ease with which Hitler rolled into and conquered France in WWII? Perhaps it's time to reevaluate.
You have the same in USA, the President cannot on his own declare war to another country (I believe).
Straffo, if the point of your message is that the USA should mind it's own business I tend to agree. Having spent 20 years in the US military, 7 of it away from my family in other countries, I often wondered why it was necessary for us to be involved in others business.
Some of you looks like they have just discovered that some people hate America (and I'm not part of those people) I just wanted to point some reasons of this. Using a post made by someone having a better english than mine (even if I don't agree with all the post)
You can find the original post here : http://www.bluebyte.net/forum/eng/m.asp?bid=41&tid=136316&id='' (http://www.bluebyte.net/forum/eng/m.asp?bid=41&tid=136316&id='')
I've a lot of respect for the US soldier I know the price they payed perhaps better than the average American (I've just to drive half an hour to see the 1st graveyard :()
Perhaps it is time for us to build a "great wall" like China did thousands of years ago. But then again, if we adhered to this philosophy 60 years ago, I think you'd be speaking German or Russian.
what if the Japanese never attacked pearl harbour ? I won't digress but I hope we will never know the answer.
PS : I already speak german and Russian ;) equally bad :D
-
Aye, Spooky; agreed... tell it to straffo.
Since we both live in Democratic societies, it's expected that we should voice opinion. My commentary is not so much a diatribe against French citizens as it is against French Government Policy.
Lets both pressure our governments to do the right thing.
-
Originally posted by newguy2:
Euro brothers, please read. http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109181830.htm (http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109181830.htm)
If the US news is reporting this wrong, please point me to the correct info.
Again, Newguy,
point where is the name of Italy in this article, I cannot find it.
-
Naso,
I don't write the news. The question I asked is what my local news has reported. Notice my question did not include Egypt. Egypt was not part of that news story. Italy and Norway are not discussed in the link I inclosed. Either the news story is true or it's not. I'm looking for the truth. Anyone have a link for this?
-
Straffo;
Not to be argumentative, but the US has law which grants the US President authority to act in times of emergency. From the War Powers Act of 1973:
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
I think (3) applies to the situation today.
Regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese; many would argue that President Roosevelt forced the attack by secretly threating war on the Japanse because of their "expansion" in the Pacific and China. We could debate this indefinitely but my point is that the US became involved in WWII by choice.
I think it is the nature of humankind to expand and increase influence. I believe these are survival traits that have served us well. Unfortunately war is often a result. Will we ever see worldwide peace and freedom? Probably not for many generations if ever. Should we stop seeking it? Never!
-
Found it
Italian defence minister rules out Italian troop role
ROME, Sept 16 (AFP) -
Italian Defense Minister Antonio Martino on Sunday said Italian troops would not take part in any US etaliation after the terror attacks and that use of the term "war" was inappropriate.
"The term 'war' is inappropriate. It is not a conflict between states and Italian troops will not go anywhere," Martino told the RAI television station. "I feel I am in a position to categorically exclude calling on the army," he said. The defence minister warned that "nobody had better strike randomly," adding that 100,000 Italian soldiers were involved in various peacekeeping missions abroad.
He said the US would certainly take military action once the perpetrators of the attacks on the World Trade
Center in New York and Pentagon had been identified, and only then "will we see what we are called upon to do."
Asked about Saudi-born extremist Osama bin Laden's role in the attacks, Martino said "the idea that one man is behind this tragedy is misguided."
In an interview with the daily Il Messaggero published Sunday, Martino urged the US not to act alone in the
event of a military operation.
"As was the case during the Gulf War, the idea that the United States should not act alone but should build a coalition and seek approval from the United Nations is gaining ground."
Martino said he favoured the build-up of a coalition prior to any military riposte "for the obvious reasons that by doing so the operation would be successful."
-
And this mean we will not be on your side?
Or we will not help in military action?
Dont think so.
-
US troops in Kosovo need to come home.
-
No, Naso...
I think it means Italy will be on our side.
Like sitting on "our side" at a football game. Italy will be cheering right along with the US crowd.
We just don't expect to see any of yas down on the field with us.
-
Originally posted by AKIron:
<snip>
I think (3) applies to the situation today.
You just have to hope never having someone nasty at the white house.
<snip>
We could debate this indefinitely but my point is that the US became involved in WWII by choice.
You are truly a wise person .
I know several BBS user who would have jumped on me for this sentence (it was an involuntary provocation)
I think it is the nature of humankind to expand and increase influence. I believe these are survival traits that have served us well. Unfortunately war is often a result. Will we ever see worldwide peace and freedom? Probably not for many generations if ever. Should we stop seeking it? Never!
I truly believe that this kind of sentence can't come from someone no having been in miltary service <S> you know the real price of war and peace.
-
Toad said it for me. Nothing more for me to add.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
We just don't expect to see any of yas down on the field with us.
Today our Defence minister was saying we will deploy troops on your side.
Since he is a politic, and by definition a liar, I dont know if this will happen, it's not my decision.
Only future will show us.
Btw you have presumed something and moved accuses, remember this in future.
-
I haven't presumed anything. (I don't know what "moved accuses" means.... and your English is way better than my Italian, so don't get all upset.)
I'm simply saying that I've always been sure that it will be US troops that do 95% of the fighting in this one. It can't be any other way; we were the ones that were attacked.
Sure, we're getting lots of verbal support. Because that's the easy part.
I'd be very, very happy if the Euro nations would just relieve the US of any and all peacekeeping duties we're involved in with the UN. Just substitute your troops for ours.
We've got something a little bigger going on for the next 30 years. We need those troops and aircraft elsewhere.
I hope that is part of "the plan".
-
Hm, well, the US are describing this as a "war on terrorism".
We learned in the past and now too that's it's incredible hard to wage war on an adjective. I'm not entirely sure that the word war is appropriate.
War \War\, n. [OE. & AS. werre; akin to OHG. werra scandal, quarrel, sedition, werran to confound, mix, D. warren, G. wirren, verwirren, to embroil, confound, disturb, and perhaps to E. worse; cf. OF. werre war, F. querre, of Teutonic origin. Cf. Guerrilla, Warrior.]
1. A contest between nations or states, carried on by force, whether for defence, for revenging insults and redressing wrongs, for the extension of commerce, for the acquisition of territory, for obtaining and establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other, or for any other purpose; armed conflict of sovereign powers; declared and open hostilities.
Now there are three passages here that are interesting: redressing wrongdoings, or for any other purpose and declared and open hostilities
But these apply to state vs state issues.
One could argue that we now have a war on terrorism, since we're not going to allow it and will actively go after it. Then again, the same could be argued about the breaking of laws, or to be more specific, war on drug use, war on breaking and entering, war on...ad nauseum.
With the label of "war" comes a great deal of things. First of all, war is incredibly ugly and messy. Deplorable things will happen; in war and love anything goes. It's a Carte Blanche for the use of (excessive) force, for ignoring parts of what under a peace time situation would be important parts of a countrys philosophy.
WWII was pretty straightforward; Germany declared war on the USA and engaged in a war much like the definition above. The Japanese preferred a stealth attack first, but it was a regular war. This one is not a regular war at all. It's more of a huge policing effort with lots of use of military equipment and methodology.
I know the US would like a Carte Blanche check from its US allies - and it has got it from most if not all of the NATO allies. Yet, I feel it is *essential* for each country to be able to individually assess how they want to address the military aspect of the situation. 100% solidarity and support does *not* mean giving up sovreignity or decision making. In addition to this, lots of European countries have constitutions that have to be taken into account - we do not operate exactly like the US. That must be kept in mind when dealing with this.
Last of all, there are elements in society that don't *want* military strikes. And we're democracies - no matter how much distaste I have for people with this opinion, I still have to respect their opinion or vote.
So, Europeans are doing as best they can, but we're internally divided to a much larger extent than the US is. I mean, toejam, we still got communists etc *winning votes* in our parliaments. Sickening but true, unfortunately :(
So far, Denmark hasn't ruled out lending military support if needed. Of course, we don't have a helluva lot, but what we DO have is a rather large-ish immigrant population and according tosome experts, Scandinavia is a settling ground for terrorists since civil liberties is taken extremely seriously, to such an extent that they aren't terribly bothered by our security agencies.
This will change I am sure. As we speak, or minister of justice is meeting with his European counterparts to find ways of fixing it.
What I'm saying is that there's a lotta factors involved, and the usual "you're either with us or against us" attitude, while understandable, isn't applicable to the real life situation. It's far more complex than that.
-
Like I said, just please urge your politicians to pick up all the US military committments in Europe. Take the UN peackeeping assignments and accept our temporary withdrawal of forces deployed in support of NATO.
I don't think that's too much to ask. Our military is about 1/2 the size it was right after Desert Storm.
There are going to be links to particular states in this. Iraq is probably the first, but not the only, state that is going to be identified as having a clear hand in this.
Argue the semantics of war all you like.
This won't end with Bin Laden. It will begin with him, however.
-
An attack on one NATO nation is an attack on ALL NATO nations.
Its a signed rule each country had to sign when they joined the union.
-
animal,
You might want to look over this link.
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/97-717f.htm (http://www.fas.org/man/crs/97-717f.htm)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
I haven't presumed anything. (I don't know what "moved accuses" means.... and your English is way better than my Italian, so don't get all upset.)
LOL, I used an Italian form in english, sorry. :)
I'm simply saying that I've always been sure that it will be US troops that do 95% of the fighting in this one. It can't be any other way; we were the ones that were attacked.
Maybe the US troops will do the bigger part of the work (is the bigger army in the west world, by number and weapons).
But I think this crime is an attack to the west world, not only US.
IMHO
Sure, we're getting lots of verbal support. Because that's the easy part.
Again, you presume this verbal will never become real help.
I dont know if you are right or wrong, we will see.
I'd be very, very happy if the Euro nations would just relieve the US of any and all peacekeeping duties we're involved in with the UN. Just substitute your troops for ours.
Europe is doing his part in UN missions, or you think we are'nt?
We've got something a little bigger going on for the next 30 years. We need those troops and aircraft elsewhere.
I hope that is part of "the plan".
Maybe the plan is to fight together (sp? where is the spell checker?)
BTW,
I had good laugh when thinking our army in a war mission.
Did you can imagine, 80% of our army is coscritionary (sp?), young unwilling boys, armed (that's incredible :) ) with the M1 Garand, LOL, imagine them attacking a group of terrorists with plenty of kalashnikov and M-16. :eek:
And the terrorists are lucky to not have an airforce, otherwise we will have deployed our mighty F-104s :D
Just for your curiosity, when I was in airforce academy, the teachers told me Italy primary role in NATO was to slow the Red attack for 24 hours, before falling in theyr hands and get nuked by your response.
This regarding being in front line for 50 years ;)
-
I don't think military help is what the US needs right now. Intelligence, banking records, cracking down on local cells, or any organization that helps terrorism. Now that would be helpful!
I also think it's high time that the US played ALL it's cards. If a country is not being helpful ALL aid is instantly cut off. All US exports to that country cease. All immigration from that country is denied. Let em wither on the vine for a year or 2.
The president has made it abundantly clear on several occasions. Your either with us, or against us. Well anyone who's against us deserves what they get, which should be exactly nothing.