Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hangtime on February 11, 2003, 05:26:46 PM
-
Can you BELIEVE the freakin French and Germans??
"we ain't gonna help the turks"
Gawdamn, but ain't these guys just askin for a 'step outside' session?
I'm so annoyed i can't even type!
-
You know I've heard from alot of sources why we should and why we shouldn't. Heard from just about every nation in the world EXCEPT TURKEY!
What the heck is their take on this? Thats what I'd like to know.
-
Turkey is the one asking for the beefed up defenses/protection if I'm not mistaken.
-SW
-
This would have made GREAT bait during work hours! :cool:
-
Nah, normally Turkey would invoke article 4 or 5 (cant remember) of the nato pact. There are already plenty of troops and (dutch) patriot missile systems in place and have been since 92 I understand.
The US requested the mobilisation of a NATO force into Turkey without Turkey actually requesting it through NATO. Not entirely sure why, mystery in the media here, which is concentrating on the personality of the spat, making much of the demise of NATO.
Objections were raised because it would raise the whole temperature of the situation unecessarily & and to asser what power the nations have. Thing is France is not a full member of NATO in the military sense anyway.
Big fuss over nothing. NATO is becoming a mutual security society, now that it is no longer needed as an anti communist umbrella. Everyone is clamouring to join in Europe.
US invoked 4 or 5 after WTC/Pentagon. Allies responded promptly and effectively. If turkey did the same (i.e saddam attacked them) then the same would be true.
Like most modern industrialised nations with a healthy defence industry, there are fringe benefits to short, technologically advanced conflict for France. Replacement of materiel used can safeguard jobs and communities for years, political will for defence spending is increased, large contracts are awarded to national arms industries. It's not because France isn't ready to exercise its military muscle, it's because there is a strong feeling in europe of having foreign policy dictated by the USA, and there is a perceived need for (symbolic) asserttion of authority.
-
"""It's not because France isn't ready to exercise its military muscle, """" hahaha "military muscle" hahaha
-
Like most modern industrialised nations with a healthy defence industry, there are fringe benefits to short, technologically advanced conflict for France. Replacement of materiel used can safeguard jobs and communities for years, political will for defence spending is increased, large contracts are awarded to national arms industries.
Not if we knacker the froggie plants and or destroy the arms while in transit. those SOB's should not be permitted to make one thin dime on this!
wouldn't that be schweeet? "we have discovered evidence that France has been supplying Iraq with weapons technology proscribed by treaty and UN resolution. Accordingly, the factories responsible have been summarily destroyed, and all materials in transit have been obliterated."
..and then I woke up.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Not if we knacker the froggie plants and or destroy the arms while in transit. those SOB's should not be permitted to make one thin dime on this!
wouldn't that be schweeet? "we have discovered evidence that France has been supplying Iraq with weapons technology proscribed by treaty and UN resolution. Accordingly, the factories responsible have been summarily destroyed, and all materials in transit have been obliterated."
..and then I woke up.
It seems you forget or you dont know that Usa and personaly Donald Rumsfeld
was giving to sadam biological and chemical weapons of mass desruction
at his war with Iran.
Are you hypocrite or just ignorant ?
-
Ok, we want them back now. With Saddam's head.
-
NATo was there for mutual protection if a member country was attacked.
I cant see how they justify its use when it would be the member country commiting the attack.
This is a way for the US to involve other countries in its war against Iraq. By using Nato to bolster Turkey (Whos population is predominently against war) It frees up American troops and weapons for use against Iraq.
-
Spot on Bounder. Why hasn't Turkey applied directly to NATO for a deployment of troops?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Not if we knacker the froggie plants and or destroy the arms while in transit. those SOB's should not be permitted to make one thin dime on this!
wouldn't that be schweeet? "we have discovered evidence that France has been supplying Iraq with weapons technology proscribed by treaty and UN resolution. Accordingly, the factories responsible have been summarily destroyed, and all materials in transit have been obliterated."
..and then I woke up.
Er the only people found to have sold WMD technology (especially culture equipment) to Iraq pre-Kuwait are Russia, UK and US.......
-
Originally posted by john9001
"""It's not because France isn't ready to exercise its military muscle, """" hahaha "military muscle" hahaha
So why have they despatched the Carrier Ch. De Gaulle and a battleship group (plus at least one sub) to the eastern med?
They've got this shiny new Nuclear CV and they want to use it (under the right conditions).
The french arms industries will benefit almost as much as the US arms inustries if there is a war. Bombs cost money. Aircraft are phenomenally expensive. Aircraft carriers cost even more.
The french (and the UK) administration(s) realise they can't start talking up a war until public opinion is with the project.
Europeans much more cynical about motives for conflict than Americans *it seems*.
Going to take a lot to swing public opinion. And it has to be done carefully - if the politicos look like they are desperately searching for any pretext, all new 'evidence' will be reviewed with increased suspicion by body politic.
But if French public opinion can be swayed, then the French will prosecute this impending war with as much zeal as the americans.
After all: they've got brand new shiny war machines too, and they'd like to be able to stamp them with 'BATTLE TESTED' in bold black letters and sell them to every other diddlyer who needs to bomb the crap outta their neighbours.
I repectfully suggest you cut down on the hahahahaha nitrous hahahaha oxide.
-
Spot on Bounder. Why hasn't Turkey applied directly to NATO for a deployment of troops?
So France and Germany's reaction could be used at home to bolster the adminstration's position should they decide to act without support of the UN.
Many americans put more faith in Nato (where the US has a good amount of control) then the UN (which many americans mistrust).
Portraying France and Germany as "turning their backs on a Nato ally" gets far more play then "France has vetoed the US backed plan for the use of force on Iraq" from the UN.
It seems you forget or you dont know that Usa and personaly Donald Rumsfeld
was giving to sadam biological and chemical weapons of mass desruction
at his war with Iran.
Are you hypocrite or just ignorant ?
We give plenty of military aid (including weapons of all types) to our "friends". Should any of those "friends" threaten us with those weapons we would take an equally tough stand.
The difference now is that Iraq has always been a "rogue" Arab state. They attacked "other" arab nations, embraced support from the great Satan (US) etc.....
Iraq has used Saddams anti-US stand over the past years to bolster his position in the Arab world. Especially on the extremist end.
Now, if you believe the hype, Iraq may use these weapons on the US. Bin Laden hated Iraq and Hussein. Suddams anti-US stand has gained him a reputation that no other muslim leader has had. He is seen not only as defying the US but as willing to "go to war". The question is how far is Saddam willing to go. Will he supply terrorists with wmd?
The fact that at one time we viewed Iraq as a potential ally is of no relevance. Before the US involvement in world war 2 our country had all sorts of "dealings" with Hitler. From industry to Political.
If I give my neighbor a hand gun as a present to defend his home and few years down the road he comes to my house to rob or threaten me, its not my fault. It may have been bad judgement but should I throw my hands up and hand over what ever he wants because I gave him the gun?
Also our government is not a homogenous entity. Its complete character and policies change with every new administration. To say 20 years ago the US government used bad judgement in its dealings with Iraq so now the present government must with out question bare the responsibility of those dealings is complete bs.
You cant blame Clinton for what Carter did or what Johnson did nor is it logical to blame the current administration for the decisions Reagan made. Whatever Rumsfield did back then he didnt do it alone and I doudt he made any decision on his own.
Theres plenty of real logical reasons to oppose action in Iraq.
"Bush is a warmonger"
"Bush Jr. wants revenge for Sr."
"Bush is only out to steal Iraq's oil"
Are all bs.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Now, if you believe the hype, Iraq may use these weapons on the US. Bin Laden hated Iraq and Hussein. Suddams anti-US stand has gained him a reputation that no other muslim leader has had.
You are mistaken if you think that Saddam Hussein is a Muslim leader. His Deputy is a Christian...he wraps himself in the Koran when it suits his political needs, but he is emphatically not a Muslim leader./
He is a despised symbol of the type of secular ruler that hardcore islamists reject utterly. OBL is on record as saying he would like to see an end top Husseins rule (and a righteous islamic revolution in Iraq). OBL has come out in support of 'the muslims of Iraq'
He is seen not only as defying the US but as willing to "go to war". The question is how far is Saddam willing to go. Will he supply terrorists with wmd?
The fact that at one time we viewed Iraq as a potential ally is of no relevance. Before the US involvement in world war 2 our country had all sorts of "dealings" with Hitler. From industry to Political.
[/b]
I agree, but to then go on and claim the moral high ground when we ourselves have been closely involved with the technology for creating these Bioweapons in particular, then that is rank hypocrisy
If I give my neighbor a hand gun as a present to defend his home and few years down the road he comes to my house to rob or threaten me, its not my fault. It may have been bad judgement but should I throw my hands up and hand over what ever he wants because I gave him the gun?
[/b] Slightly elastic analogy. how bout:
I give someone a bottle of illegal poison that I'm not even meant to have. And he wants this poison to kill his enemy and mine, a common goal.
In the end he uses it to poison his in-laws and a few other people. I'm glad beacuse I live 6 blocks away.
Then I jump on the moral high ground and demand that the police enter his house to remove illegal poison that I know is there despite having a fridge full of the stuff at home.
Then, because the police are just wringing their hands, I decide to break into his house, destroy his poison, kill him and install my cousin as paterfamilias, and start collecting rent from his living relatives.
Analogies are not really useful.
-
Suddam is a baathists, btw the way do you know who came up with the Baath philosphy?
Salah al-Din Bitar
(Studies first at Damascus University then at the Sorbonne University in Paris, France.)
Zaki Arsuzi
(educated at the University of Sorbonne in Paris, France),
Michel Aflaq
(Greek Orthodox, educated at the University of Sorbonne in Paris, France)
established what they call Movement of Arab Renaissance, in Arabic Ba'th. In 1947 they are central in the formation of the Arab Ba'th Party.
Seems a product of Nationlism, Arabic "hot headedness" and French education. ;) (this was clearly an attempt to stir the pot and give the french bashers a new angle of attack)
The Arab Baath party is a political movement that drives its program from an "Arab adaptation" of European ultra nationalist ideology mixed with a bad dose of interpretation of Arab Muslim history. The result is terror, wars, and racist and chauvinist policies in dealing with non-Arab ethnic groups living within the Arab World. Unfortunately, Iraq, that great cosmopolitan society ended up with a political party with such an ideology on the reign of power. Hence, every non-Arab ethnic group of Iraq had its share of attempts to deny, suppress, extinct through forceful Arabisation, or simply physical extinction if all of the above failed. Kurds, Chaldeans/Assyrians, Turkoman, Yezedis all shared in one way or another those Baathi policies of Arab nationalism. While other ethnic groups were able to put a sustained resistance towards such policies, our Chaldean/Assyrian/Syriac people reaction as an ethnic group and, especially that of the Chaldean community, was one that can be characterized as benevolent at best. Saying that, the followers of the Church of the East did react by establishing several political movements, and some even gave martyrs on that path.
Baath Party, formally the Baath Arab Socialist Party. political party and movement influential among Arab communities in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Iraq. The Baath Party was from the beginning a secular Arab nationalist party. Socialism (not Marxism) was quickly adopted as the party’s economic dogma: “Unity [Arab], Freedom [from colonialism], and Socialism” are still the watchwords. From its earliest development, the motivation behind Baathist political thought and its leading supporters was the need to produce a means of reasserting the Arab spirit in the face of foreign domination. Moral and cultural deterioration, it was felt, had so weakened the Arabs that Western supremacy spread throughout the Middle East. Arabs needed a regeneration of the common heritage of people in the region to drive off debilitating external influences.
Articulated as the principle of Arab nationalism, the Baath movement was one of several political groups that drew legitimacy from an essentially reactive ideology. Nevertheless, Baathist ideology spread slowly by educating followers to its intellectual attractions. The three major proponents of early Baathist thought, Zaki al-Arsuzi, Salah al-Din al-Bitar, and Michel Aflaq, were middle-class educators whose political thought had been influenced by Western education. During the 1930s Arsuzi, Salah, and Aflaq expounded their vision of Arab nationalism to small audiences in Syria. By the early 1940s Salah and Aflaq had taken the initiative to extend the movement’s operations in Damascus by organizing demonstrations in support of Rashid Ali al-Kailani’s government in Iraq against the British presence there. By 1945 the word baath (Arabic for “resurrection” or “renaissance”) had been applied to what was then officially a party rather than a movement. The official founding of the party may be dated from its first party congress in Damascus on April 7, 1947, when a constitution was approved and an executive committee established. However, significant expansion beyond Syria’s borders took place only after the war of 1948, when lack of Arab unity was widely perceived as responsible for the loss of Palestine to the new state of Israel. The Iraqi branch of the Baath party was established in 1954 after the merger of the Baath with Akram al-Hurani’s Arab Socialist Party in 1952, to form the Arab Baath Socialist Party. In February 1963 the Baath Party came to power in Iraq and one month later, in March 8, it came to power in Syria after the March Revolution. Inter-party disagreements were one of the major factors that led to the Correction Movement led by Hafez al-Assad, the movement ended years of conflict within the party. A new constitution, approved in 1973, stated that the Baath Party is “leading party in the state and society”. In 1972, the Baath also became the leader of the 7 Syrian parties forming the National Progressive Front NPF. The national committee of the Baath is the effectively the decision making body in Syria. Number of members in Syria exceeds million.
Anyway back on topic, prior to Suddams tough stance with the US he was loathed amoung most fundamentalist. While Osama may wish to see Suddam overthrown and Iraq turned into a fundamentalist state it doesnt change the fact that for quite a few in the arab world Suddam is seen as "taking no toejam" from the US. His "reputation" with in the Arab and muslim world was enhanced by the Gulf war. While I shoud have said "Arab leader" (not that he leads all Arabs) not "Muslim leader" my position is essentially correct. Also there are clear indications that al-Qa'ida has been in "contact" with Iraq. I am sure that if al-Qa'ida thought they could get wmd from Iraq they wouldnt hesistate to take them.
Those who oppose action in Iraq have a pretty solid arguement that if the current regime falls we could quite possibly see a fundamentalist regime take its place. One that would have even closer ties to terrorists. Not to mention the probrable "civil war" that will occur if the shi'ites and kurds decide they would rather govern themselves.
Hitler was hardly a Christian but he still had many a Christian follower.
Back to Analogies you make too many assumptions with yours to be credible. What is factually known is that the US gave arms to Iraq, to what extent is debated. Theres far more evidence that show Euros (France and Germany) sold plenty of "stuff" that could be directly linked to wmd. Now its to hard to go into "duel use" technology for arguements sake.
My analogy just considers "weapons" in general. The fact we gave "weapons" to a potential ally is no different then what we do with other allies. Conspiracy theories aside.
-
The US gave chemical-weapon precursors that they deemed 'dual use' despite the fact that the CIA was reporting almost daily use of chemical weapons against the Iranians. They also gave bio-cultures to the same regime. Dozens of helicopters were given to Iraq which many US analysts believe were used to attack the Kurds with chemical weapons.
It's true that just about everyone (Britain, France and Germany mainly) was dealing with Iraq in terms of arms and other 'materiel' - but to deny that the US was involved is flying in the face of hard fact. Fact that has been established by Senate review.
-
Originally posted by bounder
I give someone a bottle of illegal poison that I'm not even meant to have. And he wants this poison to kill his enemy and mine, a common goal.
In the end he uses it to poison his in-laws and a few other people. I'm glad beacuse I live 6 blocks away.
Then I jump on the moral high ground and demand that the police enter his house to remove illegal poison that I know is there despite having a fridge full of the stuff at home.
Then, because the police are just wringing their hands, I decide to break into his house, destroy his poison, kill him and install my cousin as paterfamilias, and start collecting rent from his living relatives.
Very nice analogy.
And realistic, too ;)
-
US gave chemical-weapon precursors
is different then the wording used in bounder's analogy.
Where did I deny anything? I believe I said there is no use arguing over "duel use" technology. It is to easy for ones bias' to overwhelm their logic.
-
It was a general comment, Batz, not partuicularly aimed at anyone.
My opinion? The export of dual use precursors to countries that are daily using the same precursers to mix up nasty chemical potions to be doused on civilians and soldiers alike, and expecting them to be nice with them is at best naive. To me, it is just not credible.
-
Originally posted by bounder
I give someone a bottle of illegal poison that I'm not even meant to have. And he wants this poison to kill his enemy and mine, a common goal.
In the end he uses it to poison his in-laws and a few other people. I'm glad beacuse I live 6 blocks away.
Then I jump on the moral high ground and demand that the police enter his house to remove illegal poison that I know is there despite having a fridge full of the stuff at home.
Then, because the police are just wringing their hands, I decide to break into his house, destroy his poison, kill him and install my cousin as paterfamilias, and start collecting rent from his living relatives.
Analogies are not really useful.
No, they are not really useful, especially not when you mess up the details for whatever reason. The correct analogy (using your analogy as base= would be this:
I give someone a bottle of poison that is illegal to use. I'm allowed to have it, but he is probably not. And he wants this poison to scare his enemies with.
He uses the poison against his in-laws and a few other people.
That is illegal. Im starting to get concerned.
Then he invades his neighbour because he wants to own his house, and he wants all of his neighbours expensive stuff. I get even more concerned since I remember the poison I gave him.
Anyway, everyone in the whole block agrees that he should return the house and all the stuff to the rightful owner. He refuses and threatens anyone who interfears with his affairs with the poison. Im starting to realize it was a really bad idea to give him the poison in the first place. I have alot of the same poison at home, but Im not a threat to my neighbourhood, in fact Im the one who is protecting the entire block from a gang of butchering thugs that live in the next town.
So the whole neighbourhood gathers in a possee and we kick him out of the house he stole. Before he leaves the house he sets it on fire. I want to go over to his house and capture him and take back the poison, but the rest of the neighbourhood says that we should get the poison from him using non violent methods. They say he should not be allowed to go to the grocery store until he has returned the poison. I reluctantly agree.
Alas, Charles, and Helmut, two of the neighbours helps him with the grocery shopping. So does Ivan and Chiang. He says that he has returned all the poison, but I know that he hasnt.
One day, a mad murderer moves into a house in the neighbourhood. The mad murderer spends all his days telling everyone that he wants to kill me and rape my children. The mad murderer becomes friends with the guy with the poison. I know that if the guy with the poison gives some of it to the mad murderer, the murderer will try to use the poison on me an my family. I call the cops.
Charles and Helmut and Ivan and Chiang put up roadblocks so that the cops cannot come to our neighbourhood. Then they say that they will make sure the poison is removed, I should relax and trust them.
Meanwhile I can see how the guy is making more poison using my poison as base. I can also see how the mad murderer is training poison delivery techniques in his back yard.
Then, because the police are just wringing their hands, I decide to break into his house, destroy his poison, kill him and the mad murderer.
----------
Pay more attention to the details if you want to make analogies in the future. Right now you are just making stuff up/ignoring pesky facts as it suits you. You wont be taken seriously if you continue doing that.
-
No Hortlund, you've got it wrong. It should be:
I gave someone some chemicals that can be mixed to make a very potent poison. I've seen him use this poison on a daily basis against a neighbour I don't really like, so I decide to give him the precursors anyway. Legality of ownership doesn't come into it - I've got them, so why not let him?
Everything is fine and dandy. We're getting along like an oil well on fire, and the neighbour I don't like stops bothering my friend so much, mainly because of the poison he made from my chemicals which I sold him. My other friends are supporting him too. One of them has sold him a few sections of high grade steel piping which he says he's going to use to irrigate a few vegetables he has. It's all going swimmingly. I know he's now using the poison on his in-laws, but I don't really care, because it's a long way from my house and the guy is my friend.
-
> I give someone a bottle of poison that is illegal to use. I'm allowed to have it, but he is probably not. And he wants this poison to scare his enemies with.
UR GUILTY! :D
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
....I'm allowed to have it...
This is one of the main hypocrisies that disturb me.
Allowed by the will of God?
Anyway, with Hortlund's and Dowding's comments, the analogy is becoming more and more near to reality.
;)
-
Originally posted by Duedel
> And he wants this poison to scare his enemies with.
Bwahahaha.
-
Monk - that quote was from Hortlund's justification for why America gave him the means to develop chemical weapons, not why Saddam wants them now (although strangely, that statement can be applied to why the US et al want to take them off of him, yet Hortlund uses it as justification for why the US gave him the weapons in the first place).
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the US the only country giving Iraq the Technology to produce Chemical Weapons?
-
Nope, everyone was doing it. And that's been added to our little story board.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the US the only country giving Iraq the Technology to produce Chemical Weapons?
Rgr......I stand corrected.
-
We are on the road to obtain a best-seller book:
"Bomb iraq - quick guide"
Subtitle:
"an easy read for the average joe, fritz, jean, ivan, john and mario"
:D
$$$$$ !!!!! :eek:
:cool:
-
I was using an analogy simply to demonstrate that in doing so one is narratizing a non-narrative process (the real world is not narrated {true: depends on what you believe}).
When using an analogy you are telling a story. Telling stories does not elucidate, it obfuscates. For example, a story has an end. What you are analogising does not. There are about a thousand other reasons for not using them when referring to ongoing events in the life of humans.
We can argue about whos analogy is the accurate representation of the matter at hand. Which is precisely why they are useless, because now we are arguing about the analogy, not the thing itself.
What if I analogise your analogy, which you accept as correct?
Inifinite regression follows infinite regression follows infinite regression follows infinite regression follows infinite regression follows infinite regression follows .....
Let's drop these silly analogies plz.
I don't buy the message that we must disarm Iraq because of some moral issue of doing what is 'right', since doing what is 'right' has bever worried any administration.
The problem has always been coming up with some policy to benefit nation interest and further national aims and objectives, whatever they may be. Then once you've got that policy together, you need to convince your voters that it is the 'right' thing to do.
The head of the admininstration may change but the bulk of the underlying machinery of state does not, and it has a will and inertia all of its own. Britain has always had a cavalier attitude towards the welfare and well being of less well armed people, and it is not alone amongst the western alliance countries in that respect.
That is not about to change any time soon, as our respective governments have to work hard at raking in resources, in order to keep us in the manner to which we have all become accustomed.
The UK (and several of its allies) are also exploiting loopholes in international agreements on chem weapons. You can make whatever chem agents you like and use them, provided you do so as a police action internally, rather than a military one externally. We know more about Iraqi chemical weapons than we do about our own stocks.
As for Bioweapons, again, loophole exploitation. We are keeping signicant stocks (and as Powell demonstrated with his cocaine bottle, significant doesn't need to be very much) of bioweapons. Nor are we allowing inspectors in to verify that they are solely for the purposes of engineering defences against bioweapons. All this finger pointing at Iraq starts to expose a lot of double standards when viewed closely.
The case for war against Iraq is being made in the UK by both the British and the US governments. It is a miasma of hard fact, rumour masquerading as such, ill-checked sources, conflicting conclusions and outright lies that has been neatly wrapped up in the message 'It's the right and moral thing to do'. It's almost another case of narratizing.
Unfortunately the evidence produced by the Prime Minister's press secretary and former Pornographic 'author', Alistair Campbell included a plagiarized PhD thesis from some years ago, outdated documents from Pre-1991 Iraq and a lot of net gossip.
And the other problem with painting Iraq black in the eyes of the public, is that by inference, the painter must be whiter than white. And we look around and hey, we're not whiter than white.
Regardless of the facts, that looks real bad: the public asked for justification for a war, and the PM spent all day frantically searching for one, eventually cobbling together some old crap in the hope it would wash. Sorry Tony .
There are many good reasons to oust Saddam, and disarm Iraq.
But I am going to protest against any war because I simply do not believe that full scale armed conflict and all it entails, is the best solution that the combined brilliance of allied experts and analysts can come up with.
I suspect it (war) might be the most economically and politically expedient method to force a result in a short (electorally speaking) time.
If that is the case, then fine, but at least our Government should have the cojones to say so.
There will of course be many other factors influencing the Government for and against. And please, Oil is not the only reason for going to war but to deny that it has any connection with events in Iraq is breathtaking denial beneath even most politicos.
Defence of the Realm, my arse.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
----------
Pay more attention to the details if you want to make analogies in the future. Right now you are just making stuff up/ignoring pesky facts as it suits you. You wont be taken seriously if you continue doing that.
Much better to not make them up at all, wouldn't you say Hortlund?
-
Whoa...a big whole wall of text saying nothing.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Whoa...a big whole wall of text saying nothing.
I was just rather miffed at this whole analogy thing being used, when my original intention was to demonstrate their futility. But yes, Busted! Verbal Diarrhoea :D
-
If the USA was 1/2 the war monger we are supposed to be, Iraq would have been a smoking hole with a USA flag flying over it the first time. We were there, we had the power - we left. Of course , no one remembers that.
-
Dowding, Bounder.. question for you.
How many Iraqi soldiers does it take to down a Tornado?
Just one.. to pull the Trigger on a Croatle suppled and serviced by 15 frenchmen... bought, delivered, set up and serviced AFTER 1991.
And how many Iraqi's does it take to dispense a CBR attack over the Turkish border?
Just one, to issue the command that puts all the post 1991 french, russian, chinese and german supplied technology into play.
Why keep plying the pre-1991 blame game? Lets play the post 1991 blame game.. they got lots of new stuff... who's been trading with 'em?
-
Stop Hang !
I cannot keep up with your post !
I'm a poor frog having an hard time translating all that posts I've a brain overflow (or is it my neuron ?)
-
Straffo.. please, accept my personal apology to you.. my venomous bitter diatribe has unfortunately painted all frenchmen with a poorly prepared brush.
I'm certain you personally are very distressed by the actions of your government with regard to supporting saddam hussein by sending military advisors there, fracturing NATO and declining to assist the Turks in their request for support in improving it's border defenses against CBR attacks from Iraq.