Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on February 16, 2003, 11:32:52 PM
-
NATO approves planning for Turkey's defense (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/16/sprj.irq.nato.belg/index.html)
The 18 members of a key NATO committee agreed unanimously Sunday night to approve defense planning for Turkey in case of war against Iraq.
Sigh.
Seems inevitable to me that we're going now. With or without Security Council approval.
Certainly not what I wanted to see.
For those of you wondering, this significantly increases my chances of not voting for Bush in '04.
-
I really hope that Bush won't seek another term. Not a likely occurrence but I can hope.
-
Wow !
Again a CNN journalist is proved to not knowing how to count properly ... 18 is not 19
and I've to spot were did they heard this :
France, the sole member of NATO that is not on the Defense Planning Committee, continued to oppose the idea.
uh ?
-
France withdrew from the Military side of NATO in the 60's they Have no say anyway so screw em!
-
Wrong Heater.
L’attitude du général de Gaulle vis à vis de l’OTAN, passant d’une méfiance affichée dès avant 1958 à sa décision de 1966 retirant nos forces de l’organisation militaire intégrée, s’inscrit dans son dessein de doter la France d’une politique de défense indépendante, tandis qu’évoluaient ses relations avec les gouvernements américains successifs.
Il avait approuvé en 1947 le concours apporté par le plan Marshall à l’Europe renaissante, dont l’armement atomique des États-Unis assurait la couverture face au bloc soviétique. Il avait admis la création du Pacte Atlantique en avril 1949 pour répondre à la menace, mais l’institution subséquente de l’OTAN avec son régime d’intégration des forces avait entraîné une subordination que la France ne pouvait plus admettre.
A son retour au pouvoir en 1958, le général de Gaulle estimait que la France devait retrouver son indépendance : elle était maintenant en mesure d’agir par elle-même en Europe et dans le monde, tandis qu’elle allait se " doter d’une puissance nucléaire telle que nul ne puisse nous attaquer sans risquer d’effroyables blessures ". Il décida de dégager la France de l’intégration réalisée par l’OTAN sous commandement américain, en procédant par étapes, dans le souci de ménager nos relations avec nos alliés.
Dès septembre 1958, il exposa son point de vue dans un mémorandum adressé au Président Eisenhower et au Premier Ministre Mac Millan : en bref, le secteur géographique de l’OTAN devait être étendu au monde entier, et la direction de l’Alliance devait être exercée par trois pays et non par les seuls Anglo-Saxons. La réponse ne le satisfaisant pas, le général de Gaulle prit de premières dispositions : la flotte française de Méditerranée fut retirée de l’OTAN en mars 1959 ; le stationnement d’armes atomiques américaines sur le territoire était interdit, et nos moyens de défense aérienne replacés sous l’autorité nationale ; une autorisation annuelle de survol devait être demandée pour les appareils alliés ; nos unités ramenées d’Algérie ne seraient pas intégrées dans l’OTAN. Une offre d’armes atomiques américaines dont la France n’aurait pas le contrôle exclusif fut refusée. Enfin, le programme nucléaire, lancé par la IVe République, devint prioritaire, pour aboutir à l’explosion de la première bombe atomique française, le 13 février 1960, à Reggane, au Sahara.
Ces décisions furent fort mal ressenties par les États-Unis, et critiquées par les autres alliés. Le général de Gaulle affirma que la solidarité de la France n’était aucunement modifiée. La tension sur Berlin en 1961, puis la crise de Cuba en 1962, lui donnèrent l’occasion de préciser au Président Kennedy qu’en cas de guerre, la France serait aux côtés des États-Unis.
Après l’assassinat du Président Kennedy, les relations se tendirent avec l’administration Johnson qui préparait un renforcement de l’intégration et adoptait la doctrine de la riposte graduée, rendant douteuse la garantie nucléaire américaine. Ceci incitait le général de Gaulle à accepter de moins en moins l’intégration, qui privait la France de moyens autonomes et risquait de l’entraîner dans des conflits qui n’étaient pas les siens, tandis qu’il désapprouvait l’engagement américain au Vietnam qui allait s’intensifiant.
Le général de Gaulle annonça le 7 mars 1966 au Président Johnson le retrait de la France de l’organisation militaire intégrée. Le 1er juillet, les représentants français quittaient les organismes militaires. Les États-Majors de l’OTAN de Versailles et Fontainebleau évacués le 1er avril 1967.
Cependant le général de Gaulle maintenait la participation française au Conseil Atlantique. La France restait membre de l’OTAN et de ses organismes autres que la structure militaire intégrée. Des instructions étaient données pour que soit préparée une coopération des forces françaises et des forces de l’OTAN en cas de guerre, soumise à une décision de participation de la France. Les accords Lemnitzer-Ailleret préparaient dans tous les domaines l’éventualité d’une intervention de la France aux côtés des Alliés. Enfin la France maintenait en République fédérale d’Allemagne ses unités terrestres qui y étaient stationnées.
Ainsi s’était réalisé le dessein du général de Gaulle de voir la France recouvrer toute sa souveraineté.
A l’étranger les réactions furent vives, aux États-Unis où eurent lieu des manifestations hostiles à la France, mais aussi en Grande-Bretagne, en Hollande. Les Allemands étaient inquiets. Un sentiment d’incompréhension dominait. Les Soviétiques applaudissaient et d’aucuns voulurent accroître la portée du voyage qu’accomplit le général de Gaulle en URSS en juin 1966.
Pendant deux ans le débat stratégique franco-américain resta vif, mais le général de Gaulle entendait demeurer fidèle à l’alliance avec les États-Unis. La tension retomba à la fin de 1968, avec l’élection du Président Nixon, bien disposé à l’égard de la France, et le général de Gaulle noua avec lui des relations confiantes. Il décida de reconduire l’adhésion de la France au Pacte Atlantique lors de l’échéance de 1969.
La doctrine stratégique du général de Gaulle fut préservée pour l’essentiel jusqu’à l’effondrement du bloc soviétique.
Sources Mémoires d’Espoir (Charles de Gaulle) ; La Grandeur (Maurice Vaïsse)
-
hehe he posted that in French so that no one would understand a word of it.
-
Yep , it mostly because I've to make an effort to translate English and I don't know how many of the English reader will make such an effort.
I guess none.
And I've the english version availlable but I'm too lazy to post it.
-
here we are : http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/en/books_art/fiches_t/cdg_otan.htm
-
Originally posted by Toad
[BSigh.
Seems inevitable to me that we're going now. With or without Security Council approval.
Certainly not what I wanted to see.
For those of you wondering, this significantly increases my chances of not voting for Bush in '04. [/B]
You know Toad?
I bet a last minute change of mind will let the UN bless this war.
There's too much at stake to cut interesting interactions in the parties involved ;)
It's cryptic, I know, but you know what I mean :)
I suspect F. asked a too big part of the cake, and they still have to make the deal.
The above under surface ;) as usual.
I hope the religious people here can have some mercy left at least to pry for the pour souls, of any part involved, that soon will be in front of the Judge. :(
-
hehe he posted that in French so that no one would understand a word of it.
Funny, I got most of it...had 5 years in high school. French is quite a beautiful and sensuous language, especially when whispered in your ear by a woman. It's a shame you wouldn't understand Hortlund.
And Toad, i am very happy I don't have voting for Bush the first time weighing on my conscience. ;) I think it's a grave mistake to proceed in this manner but I doubt anyone actually voted for him for his ability in foreign policy anyways.
kbman
-
French is quite a beautiful and sensuous language, especially when whispered in your ear by a woman.
Never had a French girl do that, but a Belgian girl, yes. Aaah... I wish I'd kept in contact with her. Long brown hair, tall and lithe - oh, Anne, where are you now?
Ooops... carried away by nostalgia there. Carry on! :D
-
Hehe Dowding, send me her coordinates and I'll try to re-unite both of you ;)
You don't have anything to fear from me, I'm already married :D
Seriously, if you need something, shoot me an email: deselys@caramail.com
-
Oh yeah, don't trust Saw for this business...he's a perv :p .
-
lol :D
All I have is a name, and I probably couldn't spell that right. I was digging through some old stuff from my younger days (jesus, I'm only 24 - starting to sound like an old fart... mental note to do more snowboarding soon). I have a letter from her somewhere - just have to find it...
I'll bet she's married by now. She was stunning. And her English was amazing too. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
NATO approves planning for Turkey's defense (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/16/sprj.irq.nato.belg/index.html)
Sigh.
Seems inevitable to me that we're going now. With or without Security Council approval.
Certainly not what I wanted to see.
For those of you wondering, this significantly increases my chances of not voting for Bush in '04.
Howdy Toad.
Why is everyone so hungup on getting the approval of the UN? First of all... the UN's primary supporter/backer/muscule IS the USA. When ever something dirty, nasty is done..guess who does it, the USA. We dont see the majority of the UN's so called members contribute much of anything beyond hot air. When did the other security councel members send mass troops to back a UN resolution?
Iraq is a mess. It'll be a mess afterwards.... I'm not excited about the prospect of war but the only support we need are from the nations that are going to actualy contribute something more than just talk. We haved most of them..the rest, we dont need.
xBAT
Batmon
P.S. Sorry no time for Spell Check :)
-
And to add to that.
What if the UN approved it today, would it be OK, even tho yesterday it wasn't.
-
The UN leader did send a warning to Iraq saying they could change their mind.
Hey..could this entire thing w/the US/UN be a a BAD COP/GOOD COP setup....
xBAT
Batmon
-
KB, given 9/11, I'd still rather have Bush over Gore.
Don't misunderstand me. I think Iraq does have WMD, I think they're playing the Inspectors and playing some of the Security Council. I think Saddam is another brutal dictator that the world and the Iraqis won't miss 15 minutes after he's gone.
Nonetheless, this was a Foreign Policy screwup of major proportions. An old saw we used in the AF was "Never ask the question until you already know the answer."
Clearly, they didn't go about setting this up correctly for what they wanted to do. They should have been smarter than this.
And we do need the support of the UN. Otherwise we're no different than Hussein when he took Kuwait. It's one sovereign nation attacking another without UN approval.
Fine line in this case, when a significant portion of the intelligent life on the Security Council realizes Saddam is a threat to the whole world, but it's there.
-
Originally posted by Toad
NATO approves planning for Turkey's defense (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/16/sprj.irq.nato.belg/index.html)
Certainly not what I wanted to see.
For those of you wondering, this significantly increases my chances of not voting for Bush in '04.
I agree (We need UN backing) with the exception that if we do go in "alone" and WMD are found after we go in, then I will probably vote for Bush.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Wrong Heater.
L’attitude du général de Gaulle ....blaaa blaaa Sources Mémoires d’Espoir (Charles de Gaulle) ; La Grandeur (Maurice Vaïsse
Sorry Staffo it is you who are wrong.
That source is not credible. Can you quote a proper American source? We all know the French lie almost as good as they deny.
-
Sorry I'll do like you ... use a TV show as primary source of information.
I'll today start a TV-SAT subscribtion to recieve the holy word of St CNN.
I guess it will be a complete illumination ... I'm ready to recieve the wisdom of Ameerikan TV :D
-
Straffo...why are you acting like this?
When I posted about the French history, you said I was an idiot.
When someone else posted about the French history, you said he was an idiot.
When someone posted something about Vichy Indochine and thier aid to the Japanese, you say he was an idiot.
When other people are posting on the issue of France and their economic ties to Iraq, you ignore what they post and focus on irrelevant detail to avoid the real issue.
Now when a ww2 vet, who was in France 1944 and actually helped liberate France from Germany speaks his mind on the French and their attitude, he is an idiot too, and besides, tv news should not be trusted.
Now, you say that news agencies like CNN or CBS should not be trusted.
Well, let me ask you what you think is a credible news source then?
Are you aware, Straffo, that you are coming across more and more like Boroda when he is defending USSR and Katyn?
You are trying to defend something that is impossible to defend.
France trade with Iraq in 2001 was worth $1,5 billion. French companies have secured multi billion dollar concession rights to drill for Iraqi oil. Problem is they cannot do this while the sanctions are in place. France has been lobbying for the lift of sanctions against Iraq since 1994. France has been helping Iraq bypass the oil for food program since 95. One quote that I find very revealing:
"At Peugeot, a spokeswoman said the company delivered 500 cars to Iraq in the first half of the year under the oil-for-food program, about the number it delivered annually before the Gulf War.
Some trade transactions have set off greater disagreement. In March, Nabel Musawi of the London-based Iraqi National Congress told ABC News that Baghdad bought seven refrigerated trucks from Renault Trucks, and converted them into biological arms laboratories. Bernard Lancelot, a Renault Trucks spokesman, said the deal was approved under the oil-for-food program. "What the client does with the trucks later," he said, "we don't know." [/b]
Oh and before you start come screaming for sources, let me give them to you:
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/
or
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm
Now ask yourself: Is the UN security counsel a credible source, or are they biased too or part of some conservative concpiracy?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Straffo...why are you acting like this?
When I posted about the French history, you said I was an idiot.
You were acting like an idiot
When someone else posted about the French history, you said he was an idiot.
it was almost the same post
When someone posted something about Vichy Indochine and thier aid to the Japanese, you say he was an idiot.
Wrong and I never said I was supporting Decoux it's quite the contraire I hate this guys with passion like I hate all Vichistes
When other people are posting on the issue of France and their economic ties to Iraq, you ignore what they post and focus on irrelevant detail to avoid the real issue.
I love using smoke screen ... you and sevral said that the french are 1st trade partner with Iraq ... it's true
And so ?
Now when a ww2 vet, who was in France 1944 and actually helped liberate France from Germany speaks his mind on the French and their attitude, he is an idiot too, and besides, tv news should not be trusted.
You trust TV news ?
Damit :(
Now, you say that news agencies like CNN or CBS should not be trusted.
Reuter , BBC are accountable ressources for exemple.
Well, let me ask you what you think is a credible news source then?
read above.
Are you aware, Straffo, that you are coming across more and more like Boroda when he is defending USSR and Katyn?
I'm worst I don't post drunk :D
You are trying to defend something that is impossible to defend.
France trade with Iraq in 2001 was worth $1,5 billion. French companies have secured multi billion dollar concession rights to drill for Iraqi oil. Problem is they cannot do this while the sanctions are in place. France has been lobbying for the lift of sanctions against Iraq since 1994. France has been helping Iraq bypass the oil for food program since 95. One quote that I find very revealing:
"At Peugeot, a spokeswoman said the company delivered 500 cars to Iraq in the first half of the year under the oil-for-food program, about the number it delivered annually before the Gulf War.
Some trade transactions have set off greater disagreement. In March, Nabel Musawi of the London-based Iraqi National Congress told ABC News that Baghdad bought seven refrigerated trucks from Renault Trucks, and converted them into biological arms laboratories. Bernard Lancelot, a Renault Trucks spokesman, said the deal was approved under the oil-for-food program. "What the client does with the trucks later," he said, "we don't know." [/b]
We thought it was for giving fresh Hagen-daas to the poor Iraqi child.
My god ! they perverted our deal.
Oh and before you start come screaming for sources, let me give them to you:
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/
or
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm
Now ask yourself: Is the UN security counsel a credible source, or are they biased too or part of some conservative concpiracy?
1st source is ok but certainly not the 2nd
It's up to you to provide me a link on 1st source.
-
Dispite what you say Straffo the days of France having any say in NATO are over.
It was pretty funny to read the papers today and see France back tracking big time in order to try and gain some credibility again.
-
I didn't expected a so unbiased opinion from you Habu
!
-
Interesting knowing rips and Toads positions.
-
When we finish in Iraq we should invade France to save them from themselves...
;)
Peace and Love boys....Have fun with it you'll live longer and your heart rate will be better for it as well.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I really hope that Bush won't seek another term. Not a likely occurrence but I can hope.
I'd like to see Fred Thompson run on the Republican ticket next round.