Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 2Slow on March 04, 2006, 02:12:38 PM
-
Would someone please refresh my memory? Sanctions and diplomacy, has it ever worked? By worked I mean, has it ever imposed our will on another nation?
-
They seem to have made Kaddafi change he`s mind.And not selling the soviet block high tech wasn`t such a bad idea either. As far as Iran...I don`t belive they`ll work.
-
Libya being one. It never works when one country goes it alone. Cuba being a classic example. It never worked in Cuba serving only to reinforce the regimes popularity and making the USA look foolish.
Sanctions could only work when there is a united worldwide effort. That is rare. Libya shows how it could work.
But it's cheaper than war and kills less Americans and the less people of the country being sanctioned. War doesn't always work either. Witness North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and some would say Iraq!
-
Well, we did shoot a missle into Kaddafi's tent, only missed him by a little, and we did kill his son. Maybe that got his attention and brought him a little more into line? I think that added some insentive to the sanctions to behave.
-
AFAIR, There were a couple of clubs bombed in Germany.. GI's died. CIA said "Libya". Reagan retaliated, attacked Mohmar with F111's, got his infant son. We lost a jet. The French were pinheads, forced a go-round thru Gibralter for the raid elements outta England.. Then Mohmar ordered Lockerbie. Then we went with sanctions. French never complied with the sanctions either. Around in here somewhere, the Falklands popped up. French supplied the Argentinians with exorcets and actully hung 'em on planes for 'em during the conflict... but i digress..
First, Nightclubs in West Germany, then the raid, then Lockerbie, then sanctions.
That sound right?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Around in here somewhere, the Falklands popped up. French supplied the Argentinians with exorcets and actully hung 'em on planes for 'em during the conflict... but i digress..
"But on April 2nd 1982, when the 2nd Squadron was waiting the arrival of the French technical team to put the Exocets in an operational status, Argentina performed the military reconquest of the Falklands Islands - called Malvinas in Spanish language - usurped by the British government in 1833. One of the first acts of the French government was to declare a weapons embargo against Argentina until the conflict ended.
Of course, it deprived the 2nd Squadron of the possibility of being assisted by French technicians but the Argentine personnel of the unit, far from giving up, faced on their own the challenge to set up the Exocets. Two weeks later, the interface between airplane and missile had been solved, and the tests on anti-ship strikes began."
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
French were pinheads,
Would this be a case of stating the obvious, or is using French and pinheads in the same sentance just redundant?
IN before skuzzy gets me.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
By worked I mean, has it ever imposed our will on another nation?
lol
-
No, sanctions do not work because not every country is going to respect them.
Take a look at the 'Oil for Food' in Iraq.. numerous countries, groups, and even the UN itself circumvented it.
Gone are the days the UN had any ability to do much of anything to ease suffering and bring peace to a land... welcome back League of Nations.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
"But on April 2nd 1982, when the 2nd Squadron was waiting the arrival of the French technical team to put the Exocets in an operational status, Argentina performed the military reconquest of the Falklands Islands - called Malvinas in Spanish language - usurped by the British government in 1833. One of the first acts of the French government was to declare a weapons embargo against Argentina until the conflict ended.
Of course, it deprived the 2nd Squadron of the possibility of being assisted by French technicians but the Argentine personnel of the unit, far from giving up, faced on their own the challenge to set up the Exocets. Two weeks later, the interface between airplane and missile had been solved, and the tests on anti-ship strikes began."
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html
Bzzzzzzrrrrrtttt.
The Argentinians had no previous experience with antiship missiles, and the Exocet was a complicated and cranky weapon. The Argentinians experienced a lot of trouble fitting the Exocet launch system and rails to the Super Etendards. In November 1981, Dassault Aviation, owned by the French government and builder of the Super Etendard, sent a team of nine of its own technicians (and some additional French Aerospatiale specialists) to work with the Argentine navy to supervise the introduction of the Etendards and Exocets. Although France complied with the NATO/ Common Market weapons embargo, the French technical team remained in Argentina and apparently continued to work on the aircraft and Exocets, successfully repairing the malfunctioning launch systems. Without the technical help and collusion from the government of France—Britain’s NATO “ally”—it is improbable that Argentina would have been able to employ its most devastating weapon.
Airpower, Aug 2002 (USAF publication) (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html)
-
Sanctions say.." World opinion prefers we impose sanctions...atleast for awhile. We know it will eventually come to war...but atleast we tried something else first."
-
"Libya being one. It never works when one country goes it alone. Cuba being a classic example. It never worked in Cuba serving only to reinforce the regimes popularity and making the USA look foolish.
"
My exact point. I knew someone would cite Libya as a success. NOT TRUE! Libya got out of the terroism business after we struck. Libya got out of the nuke business after we invaded Iraq. Sanctions and diplomacy accomplished nothing.
Iran is stalling. They don't think we have the will and means to impose our will on them. Perhaps we don't. Perhaps the Israelies do.
If Iran wants nukes so bad, then let's give them some 1 kiloton at a time until they think they have enough.
In a world of ideal secrecy, one could put 1 kiloton on their weapons plant and let them claim a success at testing their first one. Or we could deny the whole thing and blame it on them having an accident.
Either way, the entire world would get the message. There is no point is carrying a big stick and walking/speaking softly if no one believes you will use the big stick.
That's my rant.
-
Hi cpxxx,
Originally posted by cpxxx
But it's cheaper than war and kills less Americans and the less people of the country being sanctioned.
Not usually. Sanctions bring long term economic hardships on the poorest members of the country being sanctioned. Witness Cuba, North Korea, Afghanistan (while it was under Taliban control) and Iraq. Generally speaking the evil tyrants in control aren't going to leave office or switch policies merely because their people or economies are suffering, after all they've already spent years making their people suffer in order to maintain their own power and pursue their goals. So long term sanctions on lunatic regimes, end up meaning more people suffer and die over a longer period than if you had just invaded the country. Sanctions actually have the undesirable effect of giving them a scapegoat. Your children are starving because of the Western [insert: infidels, imperialists, as appropriate] but we will not buckle, etc.
Had Kennedy actually committed to a full-scale invasion of "Cuber" instead of the miserable Bay of Pigs debacle, Cuba might not have had to go through over 40 years of oppression, misery, and economic hardship.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Had Kennedy actually committed to a full-scale invasion of "Cuber" instead of the miserable Bay of Pigs debacle, Cuba might not have had to go through over 40 years of oppression, misery, and economic hardship.
- SEAGOON
Yup. And because of the Bay Of Pigs Castro wigged and begged Unca K for REAL military support.. and he got it; right on down to the tactical fleet killin nukes the local commanders were authorized to use on their own judgement should the US try the invasion bit during the 'missile crisis' two years later.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Bzzzzzzrrrrrtttt.
Airpower, Aug 2002 (USAF publication) (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html)
hmmmm
"François Mitterrand gave full support to the UK in the Falklands war. As a large part of Argentina's military equipment was French-made, French support was crucial. France provided aircraft, identical to the ones it supplied to Argentina, for British pilots to train against. France provided intelligence to help sabotage the Exocet missiles it sold to Argentina. In her memoirs Margaret Thatcher says of Mitterrand that "I never forgot the debt we owed him for his personal support...throughout the Falklands crisis". Sir John Nott, who was Secretary of State for Defence during the conflict later acknowledged: "In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies". [1]
In 2005, a new book on the life of Mitterrand gave a different account of French cooperation, quoting him as saying - "I had a difference to settle with the Iron Lady. That Thatcher, what an impossible woman!". "With her four nuclear submarines in the south Atlantic, she's threatening to unleash an atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold the Argentinians deaf and blind." [citation needed] However there is no evidence for the claim.
The effects of France's actions during the war have contributed to Argentina's shift toward American sources for combat aircraft and upgrades (e.g. the A-4AR Fightinghawk, a refurbished A-4 Skyhawk). The country's national aeronautical manufacturing company FMA (Fábrica Militar de Aviones) is now owned by Lockheed-Martin."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#French_involvement
another:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F03%2F13%2Fnot13.xml
-
nilsen, you know better than that, you can't quote politicians, they always say nice-nice.
-
I think sanctions are most effective in limiting the financial power of a country rather than forcing them to comply.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Bzzzzzzrrrrrtttt.
Airpower, Aug 2002 (USAF publication) (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html)
"Merde de Boeuf"
it was a lie on 02-12-2003 04:32 AM
Originally posted by Hangtime
...
Item: french technical teams remained in argentenia in support of exocet missle deployment during the falklands conflict.
...
And it still is ,the key is to understand is the use of the word apparently
-
Straffo, at the time the conflict started the argentines had zero deployment of the exocet. They did not have the technical expertise with the system to finish the installation on the super entenards. Dassault (french governemnt owned) rectified the situation AFTER hostilites were declared and the embargo went in place. The Dassault team WAS there, they DID the work, the exocets were mated to the planes, the system de- bugged and sucessufly deployed, all 'behind the scenes'.
Thats fact, and history. You, as a French Citizen must come to terms with the fact that your governemnt and your big corporations are every bit as underhanded, dirty, corrupt and reprehensible as ours. Possibly that's the difference between us.. we KNOW our government is crooked, while you seem to think yours is holy or something.
Now, repeat after me... "Big Governemnt serves Big Corporations. They do things beyond the pale for political or economic advantage and intrests, often beyond the law and almost always contrary to the best interests of it's citizens".
Now, have a nice day; and don't forget to vote.
-
What about asking your closed allies in middle east ?
They are very competent in french electronic ... when they had Mirage etc ...
-
If your alluding to our government and corporations playing both sides of the fence (just like yours does) then you are no doubt correct.
Dassault had, in their eyes, had a damn good reason for continuing support for the exocets... it's called getting PAID for the close to 1 billion dollars worth of equipment and hi-tech armament already in the country when the conflict erupted... those contracdts included the dassault technicans.
-
Originally posted by straffo
What about asking your closed allies in middle east ?
They are very competent in french electronic ... when they had Mirage etc ...
Henh. It just dawned on me you are refering to israel "our closed allies in the middle east". Your typo is more correct than you might imagine... they are in fact 'closed' to us... while they deploy espinoge agents in this country and steal us blind they are in fact supposed to be our closest allies in the middle east.
Which begs the question... just who is Frances 'closest allies' in the middle east?
hmmmmm?
-
Sincerely I don't know :)
I mean today ,yesterday or tomorrow ?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
If your alluding to our government and corporations playing both sides of the fence (just like yours does) then you are no doubt correct.
Dassault had, in their eyes, had a damn good reason for continuing support for the exocets... it's called getting PAID for the close to 1 billion dollars worth of equipment and hi-tech armament already in the country when the conflict erupted... those contracdts included the dassault technicans.
Yes indeed. Some wars are fought just for the sake of boosting the profits of politically connected corporations. This is a global thing, although it certainly couldnt happen in the US. We go to church.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
I think sanctions are most effective in limiting the financial power of a country rather than forcing them to comply.
Exactly! They will still do as they please within their own borders. They will reassign limited resources to attain their goal. Their citizens will suffer from this. They will make propaganda blaming the sanctioning parties for this suffering. They will gain their stated national goal. Then they will look to impose their will on their neighbors and make retribution on the sanctioning parties.
When faced with a difficult problem one can often reduce it to the smallest units of participation to gain an understanding of the larger issue.
You live in a gated community. The Home Owners Association (UN) has ruled that no firearms may be brought into the community and those who already have firearms may keep them. You and six other residences are known to own firearms. It is suspected that several others may own them as well.
It is allowed that everyone may possess slingshots and baseball bats for defense of their residence.
One of your neighbors, a few blocks away, has a feud with another of your neighbors. They are both separated a few blocks. This person is slight of build and knows that he will not prevail against the other neighbor in a battle of slingshots and baseball bats. He also suspects that his opponent owns an undeclared firearm.
Reports start to circulate in the community that the belligerent neighbor is building a firearm in his basement shop. Granted, his firearm will be primitive compared to the modern ones owned by others. His will be a flint lock model.
The Home Owners Association meets and discusses the matter. They agree that invading his home to stop this activity is not allowed. They also agree that his activity is not good. To deter him they impose sanctions on him. His electricity and water is shut off. Deliveries to him are restricted and inspected to insure he is not importing the means to accomplish his goal.
This serves only to slow him down. He has limited resources to generate some electricity. He digs a well for water. Neighbors, concerned for the health of his family (citizens), sneak supplies to him that could have a dual use. Besides, they say, he won’t use it even if he makes it. He rewards their good deeds with money. It is reported that his efforts in the basement continue. Activities observed on his property indicate he is making progress on his firearm.
What do you do? Nothing: He finishes his firearm and using a fast sports car, which cannot be intercepted, drives over to the neighbor he is in dispute with and shoots him.
Act: You invade his home, destroy his means to manufacture a firearm. He resists the effort and you use your firearm to defeat him. His family is liberated from the depravation and abuse he has inflicted upon them to gain his goal.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Sincerely I don't know :)
I mean today ,yesterday or tomorrow ?
LAMO
-
Originally posted by straffo
Sincerely I don't know :)
I mean today ,yesterday or tomorrow ?
Fair enough. So answer all three, to the best of your ability.
-
Yesterday Israel (and Syria but not openly) ,today Lebanon (and Isreal but not openly)
tomorow ... I don't know.