Where did I say that? Are you confusing an admitted personal opinion with official US policy? You implied that with your lack of concern over worldwide terrorists
We can play the blame game all year long if you want. Maybe 9/11 wouldn’t have happened if Russia didn’t invade Afghanistan.Exactly, so how does Iraq fit in again?
I think your problem is that America takes a “US first” view of world affairs. Which, from our standpoint, isn’t a bad thing. If your country took your interests into account first over those of other nations, would you be so quick to argue?So why blame the French for doing likewise? Admit that the invasion of Iraq was purely for US interests and had zip to do with fighting terror!
What attitude? Where did you get that from my post?“Now, if you do want to take action against the US for allowing support to ofilter to the IRA through banks and such, why not take it to the UN? I’m sure they’d love to use it against us right now, and you know it’d get a lot of press and attention. But as for the World According To Europe forming an army to invade the US? Go ahead and try, but think real hard about what that would mean, and who, economically speaking, just might stand up and give us some help…”
You either help your Allies fight terror or stop expecting them to die for your cause. No matter how big you may think the USA is, they still need others in order to survive.
True American Disneyland view of the world. So our soldiers should only die for the American cause? The IRA could reach out and hit global targets far easier than any group in Iraq. In this fast changing world, how can you be so sure that they won’t? To say nothing of the supplying of terrorists in Africa, with Stinger missiles used to shoot down civilian airliners or holding American, British, Portuguese and Filipino citizens hostage. America’s strange silence when two passenger aircraft got shot down? Small when considering “American” lives but over the years it crept towards the USA. Maybe 9/11 could have been avoided if the good old USA took note of world events. Try to understand the real world, rather than running in gung-ho style. American forces have proved time and time again that they have no grasp of the real situation. Like our “friends” in the Humbee who opened fire on an RAF Puma because it wasn’t one they recognized??
As for the, “we are bigger than you attitude”, that is exactly why so many good US soldiers have died.
I was wondering when this would come up in all of these discussions.
Right. The way I see it, the War on Terrorism extends to all countries that support, harbor, aid, etc. terrorists, anywhere. Now, that doesn’t mean that the Marines get sent in every time. The severity of the situation dictates the response, as does the “host nation”s ability to control the situation itself, or with minimal assistance. The point being that the term “war” doesn’t necessarily mean a full-on military conflict in every context.
Now what about the IRA? Are they terorists? Sure. Are Aum Shinryko terrorists? Yup. But in both cases, they’re internal groups with very direct goals relating to their specific “host nations”. I.E. IRA members won’t be in Singapore blowing up discos anytime soon. As such, they may not actually fall under the purview of the “Global War On Terrorism”, which, after all, came about as the result of an international terrorist groups demolishing of the WTC towers, among other things.
The point is that I personally don’t believe internal groups like the IRA are the concern of the War on Terrorism. We’re after the big targets, the international-reaching groups capable of massive attacks.
Otherwise, we’ll be doing this ad infinitum, chasing down every single tiny group of people with guns and a gripe against their local government, once they set off a pipe bomb of course.
Now, if you do want to take action against the US for allowing support to ofilter to the IRA through banks and such, why not take it to the UN? I’m sure they’d love to use it against us right now, and you know it’d get a lot of press and attention. But as for the World According To Europe forming an army to invade the US? Go ahead and try, but think real hard about what that would mean, and who, economically speaking, just might stand up and give us some help…
Yeh, it worked wonderfully for the former British, Portuguese colonies etc…
Wonder where the French went wrong…… :rolleyes:
Sauron what planet are you on :confused:
Sauron
In short, yes it is to save civilian life. I seem to recall that many American lives were protected as well. Not that you would want to mention that since it would ruin your feeble argument……..
I’m not familiar with what really is going on over there other then the French position are suspisiously close to the rebel positions.
Your ignorance shows, stick to the topic or don’t you know much about that either?
SOC
“Then you cannot fault action that the US takes to protect American lives. Too bad that preemptive strikes can fall under that heading.”
I don’t recall finding fault with this? However, there is a distinct difference between a pre-emptive strike and an invasion !? Also, I fail to see how the invasion of Iraq has “saved” American lives? If you ask me, it caused the loss of American lives….. Something which the USA will feel for years to come, and for what??
Dubya
As you say, you have no idea……
Everything you say applies in equal measure to the USA or any other country for that matter…….
The fact is that the French made the correct choice over Iraq, they saw through the BS and did what was right for France. In so doing they have saved many French lives. Now they have taken action to protect French lives. Again, you can not fault that. That is what one would hope from any Goverment.
They are also there on behalf of the UN. Obviously desperate to dig up dirt on France………..very sad π‘
France also had a few Mirages in the Congo, and then of course there is Reunion.
Mark
I would feel a lot safer if they made my house the target………..it is my neighbours who would need to worry !? π π
Great pic’s of Jo’burg, brought back some fond memories. The terminal has changed a lot since my day. Do you have any better pic’s of the Terminal?
Great pic’s of Jo’burg, brought back some fond memories. The terminal has changed a lot since my day. Do you have any better pic’s of the Terminal?
Rather a lack of interest on the side of the Marines. Well the mArines being the most intelligent service when it comes to spending money, decided that a Sea Apache had no use for them.
The ASuW role is part of the job of the NavyΒ΄s Seahawk helicopters and not a job of the Marine helicopters flying from the assault ships.
The AH-64 airframe was not fully navalized, it needed a folding rotor system, which the old Cobras did not need and the Hellfire missile was not seen as a good solution for working in conditions encountered during marine landings. With all the spray and sand disturbing the laser seeker of the missile. We should remember that the Marines still love the TOW today. With so many drawbacks and so few gains the Marines decided that they would not waste the money on that project.
The Navy however had no interest in a ship borne helicopter that had no ASW capabilities.Btw the Royal marines from the UK would have loved to get a squadron of AH-1W/Z of their own, instead of sharing the Apache with the Army.
Yes, lack of interest would contribute to lack of funds :rolleyes:
As for your comment on the Royal Marines, what do you base that comment on?
As late as 1987 there was talk of the Sea Apache which replaced the cannon with the APG-65 search radar. It also had retractable main gear fitted outrigger style and an in-flight refuelling probe. Lack of funds seems to have killed this programme.
The system has been used in Canada for many years :confused: