Sailor, it annoys me to no end that all you add to this discussion is that America is by far the greatest evil and any other offensive actions taken by other foreign governments are negligible in comparison.
Why don’t you start an “I hate America” thread and stay out of this one?
In my opinion, you have nothing of merit to state in regards to this case.
I’m with elfbabe – this just shows that the French government is not some sanctified *uber-*body, but just a collection of politicians and self-serving folks like every other government on the planet. Why the surprise?
Wow.
FTR, have you ever on this Board given Bush the same level of benefit of the doubt on any subject like this? Because I’ve not seen it.
Consider yourself educated.
http://www.spub.ksu.edu/issues/v100/sp/n100/AP-Iran.html
And your basis for implying that the Vincennes knowingly and deliberately shot down the airliner is what, exactly? Or is Anthracite correct in attributing your pronouncements to knee-jerk anti- Bush or anti- American bias?
I like escargot.
At the French Army Surplus Depot: “Rifles, like new, never fired, only dropped once!”
Clarification: Upon review, I realized that the above quote and response obscured the fact that you were quoting a third party on the “pigs can fly” comment. Sorry about that.
My point stands, though. And your source is a joke. It cites nothing inconsistent with the accident conclusion.
In fairness, I did not say that, although my text certainly could imply that. I just want to know if Bush would, or more importantly has received the same benefit of the doubt from London_Calling for anything similar whatsoever on this Board. Because it seems like friend London_Calling is really bending over backwards to defend Chirac, for reasons that are unclear to me and most other people here. So either there’s just a failure to communicate on the issue, which is certainly possible, I admit - or Bush is always going to get the short, smelly end of the opinion stick.
I just want to know what it is. And if Chirac is in fact a scoundrel, just admit that he is, and be balanced about it. Because if there’s not even an attempt to be balanced about this, then I can stop reading.
Anthracite – I don’t give a fuck for Bush or for Chirac: two peas in the pod and both working their angles – Blair as well, if you want. ‘cept this time round, the way it’s been explained to me, Chirac is coincidently helping the relatives of the 170 people who died over Niger (as well as himself, of course).
This thread is about “the French” not helping the Lockerbie victims a whole lot, and I’m suggesting there are non-political, human reasons/explanations that ‘we’ might consider (the families of the 170) before knee-jerking into the all French “are bastards” mode.
So: Chirac isn’t helping the Lockerbie people, he is helping himself, imho he’s no better or worse than the general run of political leaders (but doesn’t have the military power or agenda of, say Bush), he is coincidently helping the families of the Niger crash.
Randon – Yes, the cite is shit. It wasn’t intended to support an argument, though, just to point to the two facts and a conclusion many do draw for the purpose of replying to Gary:
Fact: That 270 people died on the Iranian airliner because the Vincennes fired a missile, and
Fact: The families of the 270 didn’t receive compensation from the US
Unproven but believed by many: Lockerbie was militant Islam’s revenge for the Vincennes ‘incident’.
No. Not “fact”, as even a basic Google search or (even easier) a click on my link would have shown.
Indeed so My error:
"On July 3, 1988, during Operation Earnest Will, VINCENNES was situated in the Persian Gulf when the cruiser shot down an Iranian commercial Airbus A300B2-202 (Iran Air Flight 655) after mistaking it for an Iranian F-14. The total of 290 dead civilian passengers, included 66 children.
On February 22, 1996, the US agreed to pay Iran $61.8 million in compensation ($300,000 per wage earning victim, $150,000 per non wage earner) for the 248 Iranians killed in the shootdown."
Thanks for the education.
I am sorry for any distress I may have caused you and I am sorry I did not know only French-haters could post here. The fact is that i do not entirely agree with the French position nor do I hate America bt when I see such a one sided view, I think a little perspective is in order. The French government is not entirely bad and the US government is not entirely good. They are both playing the same game so a little perspective is in order.
There’s nothing here about hating the French.
The facts are simple:[ul][li]Flight 103 blew up.[/li]
[li]Investigation shows that Libya is culpable in yet another terrorist attack.[/li]
[li]Given this, and Libya’s generally execrable conduct, UN sanctions are imposed.[/li]
[li]A UTA flight in Africa blows up. Again Libya is implicated.[/li]
[li]France and Libya reach a settlement where Libya pays France between 20 and thirty million $US (at the time, amount dependent on who you ask). The UTA flight situation is therefore resolved.[/li]
[li]A settlement is reached in which Libya will pay an indemnity to the families of the Flight 103 victims, and assist in the apprension of the terrorists responsilble, as well as aiding the investigation into the terrorist network responsible. In exchange, the sanctions will be lifted.[/li]
[li]Nobody believes that Libya will live up to any of this, but that’s all the US and UK can get out of the UN.[/li]
[li]After Afghanistan, Libya suddenly starts complying with the agreement, and even starts detaining suspected terrorists.[/li]
[li]Libya fulfills it’s financial responsiblity, and places approximately $US 2.5b in an escrow account and formally petitions the UN fo a lifting of sanctions.[/li]
[li]The US and UK agree, and the UK enters a proposition in the UNSC to lift the sanctions on Libya.[/li]
[li]France decides it didn’t get enough money in an entirely different settlement over and entirely different episode, and decides to use its UNSC veto power to blackmail all the other parties.[/li]
[li]France needs money. Badly.[/ul][/li]
Anyone who can even think of defending the French over this is morally bankrupt.
Would someone please step in here and clarify about the Iranian airliner that was shot down. I seem to recall some facts surrounding the issue that were quite significant. Maybe someone could verify or discredit them if possible. Here are a few:[ul][li] Iran uses it civilian aviation craft for troop movements as well. They are dual purpose and therefore able to be construed as military craft.[/li]
[li] Iran also uses its largest metropolitan airports as landing strips for military aircraft on a routine basis.[/li]
[li] Iran Air flight 655 did not respond to voice interrogation during initial attempts to determine its course and intentions. (Please remember that English is the primary international air traffic control language.)[/li]
[li] Most crucially, Iran Air flight 655 did not have their craft identification and location transponder operational during its maneuvers in flight. This gave it the appearance of a low profile sortie.[/ul][/li]Any verification or refutation of the above would be appreciated.
I do believe the shooting down of the Iranian plane was an honest mistake and compensation was paid to the families of the victims so the matter was resolved in the best possible way. However, arguing that
is plainly ridiculous and grasping at straws to defend something which does not need such silly arguments. The USA never used that argument to defend its actions. Every country uses civilian arcraft to transport troops and that would not justify shooting down civilian aircraft at random “in case they may transporting troops”. Only where it is factually-known that an aircraft is transporting solely (or majorly) troops would an attack be justified. The fact is that the US vessel had NO idea of what the aircraft was or what it was transporting. This argument does not hold water but, as I said, it is not needed as I am satisfied that the incident was an honest mistake due to the trasponders not working and to faulty identification and communications. I do not think anybody thinks the USA would intentionally shoot a passenger plane out of the sky for no reason.
Well, I am not going to be the one to defend the French but it is kind of silly to pretend the UN is some place where honesty and ethics rule. Over the last months and years the USA has done much more harm to the UN than France ever could do. The USA has abused and undermined to UN to a very large degree and it is now cynical to come in and call the French on this. The same Americans who called the UN “irrelevant” are now calling the French “bastards”. Well, yes, if you will admit the USA have been “bigger bastards”. The USA has the habit of citing UN support when the UN favors the USA and of ignoring UN resolutions when it does not like what the UN has to say.
HOW DARE the US place more importance over it’s own interests than those of the UN! Next thing you know, the US will declare itself a sovereign nation. Horror
So France is not a sovereign nation? What is it then? A Disney theme park?
The French are being called bastards because their veto threat will prevent OUR citizens from receiving compensation over Lockerbie. The French citizens got their deal already, we have not. The deal we’re getting looks a whole lot better than theirs, so they’re gonna shitcan our deal and renege on their deal until they can get more money out of it.
They sound like people pissed off because they paid more for their plane ticket than the guy sitting next to them, except they can hold up the whole flight until they get some money back. Classy.
What the holy hell does this have to do with anything going on in this thread. No one is complaining that the French government is undermining the UN. No one would give a shit about that, other than bemused accusations of hypocrisy on the part of the French.
Pay attention here, sailor. The problem is that the French already made their deal with Libya for compensation that they found satisfactory at the time! Now they want a new deal because the US got a better one and are holding up the compensation and investigation until they get a new deal.
The problem is that it falls in line with every American stereotype about the French - a jealous and petty people, constantly needing to keep up with the Americans in order to assuage their insecurity and belief that they are the superior race.
Personally, the idea of an exploding croissant wagon made me snork cereal into my sinuses. Good job!
I think you are the one who is missing the point of this thread which is that
You see, I was in the belief that the Security Council had something to do with the UN. So the accusation is that France is using the UN to suit its own ends and my point is that the USA does that even more egregiously and regularly.
Please note I have nowhere defended the french position which, for all i know might be political posturing. call me when they actually do it and I will give you my opinion. but a country like the USA who has said to the UN “screw you” loud and clear, cannot complain when other countries do similar things.