Yes it was, it simply withdrew from the joint-command structure.
[QUOTE=wmfellows]
Other people call it having a spine and not being slavish gits.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps it helped that none of bombings or terrorist attack from Libya (afaik) happened in France…or perhaps it made no difference at all. You seem to be making the assumption that the US retaliation attacks were baseless and groundless, just Americans being wild cowboy Americans. I disagree with that assessment, if that is indeed what you are getting at. I think that history has born out that they were the right thing to do…after all, Libya went from being an outlaw nation state operating on the fringes to joining the international community. I don’t see the downside.
Well, if you substitute ‘everyone’ for what I said, which is the leaders in Italy, Spain and France. Granted, I’m just speculating and have no proof that they really didn’t give a shit about the US bombing the crap out of Libyan targets or trying to whack Gaddafi. Perhaps they weren’t just playing to their public’s (as politicians do) and really were worked up about the US attacks and in real pain about the US blowing the crap out of Libyan targets and not just trying to deflect possible retaliation from them by demonstrating they weren’t willing to allow the US to fly over their countries on the way to those attacks. I freely concede that there is probably no proof that this was the case. Just so we’re clear as to what I ACTUALLY said, though.
Anyway, I’ve given my answer. If this is the patent ‘right wing’ answer proving again I’m a real red blooded American cowboy conservative, well…c’est la vie. Personally, I think the OP is the standard fantasy line of ‘well, what could they do’ type stuff, but YMMV.
-XT
De Gaulle removed all French Armed Forces from the control of NATO and refused permission for NATO forces to be stationed in France or used from France. That is a very associated ‘membership’. Combined with not taking part in command decisions it meant that nothing could be done with France in NATO without separate French agreement. It — as often with French intransigence — meant it was simpler not to work alongside the French.
The outcome of all this was not altogether unfavourable. The NATO command structure was simplified (now that posts did not have to be given to Frenchmen) by combining the Headquarters of AFCENT and those of the Commanders of the Land and Air Forces in Central Europe. SHAPE moved to Casteau in Belgium. AFCENT moved to Maastricht and Brunssum in Holland. NATO Defence College went to Rome.
The Standing Group (a rather unnecessary link between the NATO Council and the various military committees and Commanders) was abolished. France, though assigning no forces, retained her seat on the NATO Council.
As far as you know… Well, you don’t know very much. France was in an undeclared war with Libya with French troops fighting in Chad against Libyans(direct engagements), and one of those items that you mentioned, was against… THE FRENCH . UTA flight was a French flight
Most of the dead in that were French. It was a direct result of the French fighting the Libyans in Chad (where they were trying to annexe a uranium rich zone in Chad.
Of course the rationale for the 1986 adventure was a bombing in Berlin, which was also not in the USA… so what the fuck that angle is I don’t know.
No I was responding to the OP. The French did not see the mission as a good idea - although they were actually fighting an undeclared war with the Libyans. Of course since Americans were not involved, it didn’t happen… yes those Europeans, afraid to use violence.
Good bloody Christ on a stick.
What everyone says got the Libyans to change was the impact of sanctions, not your bloody bombings, which only upped the ante and killed innocents.
In other words, you’re pulling your opinions out of your ass, not even knowing any facts around any of those nations (as in notably the French having actual boots on the ground and engaged in air combat that involved more than 1 off stealthy sneak attacks).
“Obviously” foreigners just want to free-ride on American actions, couldn’t be they think something is daft, ill-considered, ill-timed or other issues.
I’ll skip your “speculation” about playing to publics, since you clearly don’t actually know the first thing about what Europeans were engaged with at that time re Libya. This kind of aggressive ignorance is actively offensive.
Instead of complaining about cowboy American stereotypes, maybe you to stop reinforcing them.
Whatever mate. They remained members. Difficult pain in the arse members, but they remained members, they never withdrew from the treaty, they merely opted out of the command.
[QUOTE=wmfellows]
As far as you know… Well, you don’t know very much. France was in an undeclared war with Libya with French troops fighting in Chad against Libyans (direct engagements), and one of those items that you mentioned, was against… THE FRENCH . UTA flight was a French flight
[/QUOTE]
:smack: Yeah, I wasn’t paying attention. You are right and I was wrong.
Funny how suddenly the sanctions started to work and Libya decided to start playing ball. Also, funny how they stopped or at least curtailed and became more circumspect about terror attacks that could be traced back to them…isn’t it?
Obviously. Probably why there were wide spread protests by Europeans against American and yet the governments didn’t exactly toss us out or tell us to take a hike and get our troops out of their countries, ehe? I note with no little amusement that while many citizens in the UK weren’t exactly keen on us wild Americans your Governments (not just the Thatcher government) were building a ‘special relationship’ with us. Pretty fucking ironic, ehe old chap? 
Fair enough. Sorry to have offended your European sensibilities. And again, I do acknowledge that I was wrong about the French angle and I appreciate you pointing that out, even in your charming and caustic way.
YippeeKaiYeah…
-XT
Any data on Qadaffi’s adopted daughter?
Names, dates, whether anybody had ever heard of her being adopted premortem, things like that?
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Funny how suddenly the sanctions started to work and Libya decided to start playing ball. Also, funny how they stopped or at least curtailed and became more circumspect about terror attacks that could be traced back to them…isn’t it?
[/QUOTE]
And yeah, I know…this is wrong to. The time line doesn’t work. That’s what I get for posting horseshit using emotion instead of thinking before I post.
So, wmfellows, read any good books lately??
-XT
Well well.
Yeah, funny. Funny that is was TWENTY YEARS LATER. Your Gov lifted sanctions in 2004.
I’d say one has to be deluded or challenged to make a causal link between a bombing run in 1986 and Libyan actions 15-20 years down the road.
Funny how the UTA bombing you just admitted you fucked up on came AFTERWARDS in 1989, as was Lockerbie and several other terror events connected to the Libyans.
I mean jaysus, are you even thinking before you type something so incredibly self-contradictory and stupid?
I note that the EU passed sanctions on Libyan in 1986 as well. I believe they were at this stage more comprehensive than the American sanctions. The EU felt sanctions would move the Libyans more than bombing.
Now you’re just flailing with aimless and incoherent " woe is us" narrative that rather like your original one, is just about vague feelings and disconnected with actual fact.
See, it happens ALL THE TIME here. All the time and it gets under the skin.
It’s one thing not to know about the French fighting the Libyans (and rather more mano-a-mano than the Americans), its quite another to waltz in and insult Europeans as wimps based on that very ignorance while making the all too typical sweeping assertions about the US carrying everyone, etc. etc. And on a fact set (e.g. see above) that is at best deficient.
If you all would chill out with sweeping declarations about others - usually based on ignorance - doubtless people like me would not have our backs up.
I’m reading a book about Gold.
Anyway we both got hot, but it does get tiresome to see this all the time. The whole Europeans are Wimps reflex is silly.
France was involved at the time intheChadwar, and had troops and airforces facing Khadaffi’s arab legion (including air attacks against Lybian airbases and such things). More specifically, at the time of the American attack, negociations were underway between France and Lybia to put an end to this conflict.
Allowing the USA to use French airspace to bomb Lybia could hardly have been more untimely when France was negociating a peace agreement with Lybia.
[QUOTE=wmfellows]
I’m reading a book about Gold.
Anyway we both got hot, but it does get tiresome to see this all the time. The whole Europeans are Wimps reflex is silly.
[/QUOTE]
I’m reading a book about American’s being idiots, and you will never guess who is in it. :smack:
Anyway, sorry about all of that. I wish I could chalk it up to heavy drinking, but I’ve been on the wagon for months now.
-XT
Well, I just did a search and I think I was wrong about European sanctions, so evens out kinda, as that was a silly assertion, Eu never takes timely action.
Sory for my previous redundant post. I have the bad tendancy to answer first and read the rest of the thread later.
If you are implying she did not exist and that her death was an hoax, this is unlikely in view of the immense period of time since then for this not to be exposed: if you are implying that the Glorious Leader only adopted a dead bidy afterwards for propaganda reasons it is seems to have been speculated, but again one would think the western press would have alleged this as a fact. It’s not as if they ike him much.
She, from the internet appears to have been 15 months, 18 months, 20 months up to 4 years. I would go with the last as most credible for an adopted child, but who knows ? The only definite fact is that her name was Hanna.
*Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, said today he regretted that Ronald Reagan, a former US president, had died without ever being tried for 1986 air strikes that killed dozens of people, including the Libyan leader’s adopted daughter.
“I express my profound regrets over Reagan’s death before he appeared before justice to be held to account for his ugly crime in 1986 against Libyan children,” Gaddafi said.*
2004
I like the use of the definite article, as in a former truck driver or an entertainer.
Family info here:
*Gaddafi’s only daughter is Ayesha Gaddafi, a lawyer who had joined the defense team of executed former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. She married a cousin of her father in 2006.
Gaddafi’s reportedly adopted daughter, Hanna, was killed in the 1986 USAF bombing raid. At a “concert for peace” held on April 15, 2006 in Tripoli to mark the 20th anniversary of the bombing raid, U.S. singer Lionel Richie told the audience:
“Hanna will be honored tonight because of the fact that you've attached peace to her name.”*
Jewish Virtual Library
I don’t know who Lionel Richie is.
Qaddafi himself seems perplexed about the chaos in the region, saying last week that President Ben Ali in Tunisia was the “victim of lies” told on the Internet and that the Tunisian should have remained in power for life.
Daily Beast
Can’t imagine why… After all, the nazi-fighting King Idris I, first and only King of Libya was expelled by Gadhaffi with the help of the CIA for having reached the age of 70. ( A People’s Court sentenced him to death in absentia, but the Iron Hand of Justice slept and he died at the age of 94. )
*ROME: Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi’s visit to Rome to mark the second anniversary of a friendship treaty with former coloniser Italy stumbled into controversy on Monday after he said Europe should convert to Islam.
Kadhafi made the comments on Sunday during a lecture to a group of 500 young women hired and paid by an agency to attend his lecture.
“Islam should become the religion of all of Europe,” one of the women quoted Kadhafi as saying in the Italian press.
The agency paid the women, mainly students who hire themselves out for advertising of publicity events, 70 or 80 euros (90 or 100 dollars) to attend and said it would not pay girls who gave their names to the press.
It also told them to dress conservatively for the lectures.
About 200 women on Monday gathered at the Libyan cultural centre in Rome to attend a second lecture.
One of the women present said that Kadhafi had said at the gathering that *“women are more respected in Libya than in the West” and offered assistance in finding Libyan husbands
Fun on the Net
If you read very carefully you can note that not even being paid very good money could induce more than half of these young women to listen a second time to the turgid islamic rantings of a demented old feminist socialist anti-western Great Leader. All of which things young women usually approve of.
Uh, Idris I was deposed at the age of 80. I blame Firefox…
The better question is why the airforce was even involved at all. One can argue that the varks were used, so that there would be no disproportionate consequnces of using the B52 force, even though the Reagan admin used those self same stratoforts to plaster a portion of the egyptian desert to remind folks that the whitehouse has a whole range of options.
Simply put, this could have been done with on naval air, instead of a joint airforce /navy operation.
Declan
Heh. I saw him do that bit at The Comedy Store in Hollywood.
That was mighty prescient of her, considering the EU wouldn’t be established for some seven years.
I think you will confuse our American friends making a statement like that, without fuller clarification.
Oh come on, it’s commonplace even in EU lit to refer to EC actions as EU after at least 72. Yes EU name emerges with Maastricht in 92.