Massive Air Strike Has Begun - Page 4

chequita guevara · March 21, 2003, 19:12

Dumb bombs only hit their target about 3% of the time.

Agathon · March 21, 2003, 19:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Talk about the eternal optimist...

Somehow, I just don't think that's going to happen...

My thoughts exactly. What world are you living in, Drake?

Anyway, I'm assuming that almost every Arab who watched these events unfold is now extremely p*ssed. Oh dear.... OBL must be dancing for joy.

Master Zen · March 21, 2003, 19:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

May I ask why?

You have to ask why I dislike the French? Pick up a history book and you'll find all kinds of reasons...

And I dislike the US for the exact same reasons...

BTW, you say you dislike "the French", this referring to French people, these French people out there today had nothing to do with what happened in the past. I dislike the US government as an institution as well as the people who ran/run it. I have no quarrels with the US population in general.

GePap:

I don't know the layout of Baghdad but if the palace compounds and govn't buildings were all relatively concentrated in the same area, perhaps they would be willing to do it.

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 19:25

Quote:

My thoughts exactly. What world are you living in, Drake?

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat. - Theodore Roosevelt

GePap · March 21, 2003, 19:27

Master Zen:

The possible diplomatic and PR damage from a dumb bomb going into the wrong building far, far outweigths the few thousand dollars that it takes to make a GPS bomb kit. The US would not do it.

Drake:

Happy to oblige...

Verto · March 21, 2003, 19:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
I don't know the layout of Baghdad but if the palace compounds and govn't buildings were all relatively concentrated in the same area, perhaps they would be willing to do it.

Hussein has intentionally placed military buildings near/under/as part of civilian buildings.

The Mad Monk · March 21, 2003, 19:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Drake just reminded me of an interesting point. I'm just curious... but if you classify yourself as somebody who does not like France because of its opposition to the war and such, do you equally dislike countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria, whose regimes are equally as oppressive, have more connections, and supply more funds to terror? And if you go so far as to demand a boycott on French goods, do you equally support a boycott against oil companies that buy oil from Gulf States that funnel money to terrorists?

Oh, I dislike the Saudis, et al much more than the French. One reason I support the invasion of Iraq is, once we have bases there, we will have no reason to put up with the antics of the Saudis.

Master Zen · March 21, 2003, 19:33

Well, of course I don't work in the Pentagon so I wouldn't know.

But if you get the chance to see the bombings of this morning again you will appreciate how some explosions "flicker" the instant they occur and others have a gradually expanding flash. Obviously it is not the same type of bombs being used here.

Can B-2s can carry JDAMs? I know there was a project to giving them that capability, don't know if it was done though. Perhaps they are dropping JDAMs in concentrated spaces hence the simultaneous explosion of various bombs in what looks like the same place.

Master Zen · March 21, 2003, 19:35

BTW Verto, with respect to your signature, it is an even greater honor to live for your country.

The Mad Monk · March 21, 2003, 19:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
I don't understand why there's so much U.S. anti-French feeling by some apolytoners

THAT COUNTRY WHICH YOU SO VIRULENTLY FLAME ABOUT OPENLY AIDED YOUR COUNTRY DURING ITS INDEPENDENCE AND IS THE ONLY MAJOR EUROPEAN POWER WHICH THE US HAS NOT BEEN AT WAR WITH.

Now get over it and buy some goddam FRENCH fries and gulp 'em down with a bottle of Perrier.

Quote:

The XYZ Affair of 1798 led to an undeclared naval war between France and the United States. The incident had its beginnings during the administration of George WASHINGTON, who angered the French by concluding Jay's Treaty (1794) with Britain and seeking (1796) to replace the American minister in Paris, James MONROE, who had been friendly to the principles of the French Revolution. Washington's successor, John ADAMS, cautiously sent three commissioners to France to modify the Franco-American alliance of 1778, which was still in force; that alliance was an embarrassment to the U.S. government during the wars that broke out between Britain and France in the wake of the French Revolution. France's military victories emboldened the Paris government to ask for bribes and a loan from the United States before negotiations could begin. Supposedly unofficial requests were made by a Swiss banker named Hottenguer (Mr. "X," as President Adams called him in messages to Congress), by a merchant from Hamburg named Bellamy ("Y"), and by a Mr. Hauteval ("Z"). Charles C. Pinckney, John Marshall, and Elbridge Gerry, the American commissioners, refused to pay the bribes. A public outcry arose in the United States over the request and the so-called Quasi War of 1798-1800 between the United States and France ensued.

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/side/xyzaffr.html

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 19:39

Mad Monk -

Master Zen · March 21, 2003, 19:41

"quasi-war"... undeclared naval wars had been going on pretty much thoughout the last centuries too.

but anyways, I'll refrase myself

THAT COUNTRY WHICH YOU SO VIRULENTLY FLAME ABOUT OPENLY AIDED YOUR COUNTRY DURING ITS INDEPENDENCE AND IS THE ONLY MAJOR EUROPEAN POWER WHICH THE US HAS NOT BEEN IN A MAJOR WAR WITH.

GePap · March 21, 2003, 19:43

The XYZ affair resurfaces! Damn that revolutionary french government! Aren't they still in power?

Wait a minute..undeclared naval war with France..while the treaty of 1778 was still in place? or when did we break it?......

The Mad Monk · March 21, 2003, 19:43

More specific:

Quote:

XYZ Affair
Related: United States History

name usually given to an incident (1797-98) in Franco-American diplomatic relations. The United States had in 1778 entered into an alliance with France, but after the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars was both unable and unwilling to lend aid. The anti-French Federalists gained the upper hand in the United States, and there was considerable antagonism toward France, particularly after the Genêt (see Genêt, Edmond Charles Édouard ) affair. The conclusion (1795) of Jay's Treaty with England, which partially vitiated the agreements with France, aroused French anger. Numerous American ships were seized by French privateers, and the countries drifted into a mutually hostile attitude. President Washington sent Charles Cotesworth Pinckney as minister to France, but the French government refused to receive him. Shortly afterward John Adams, the new President, sent (1797) John Marshall and Elbridge Gerry to join Pinckney on a peace mission to France. This three-man commission was immediately confronted by the refusal of French foreign minister Charles Maurice de Talleyrand to receive it officially. Indirect suggestions of loans and bribes to France were made to the commissioners through Mme de Villette, a friend of Talleyrand. Negotiations were carried on through her with Jean Conrad Hottinguer and Lucien Hauteval, both Swiss, and a Mr. Bellamy, an American banker in Hamburg; the three were designated X, Y, and Z in the mission's dispatches to the United States. The proposal that the Americans pay Talleyrand about $250,000 before the French government would even deal with them created an uproar when it was released in the United States, where the pro-British party welcomed the chance to worsen Franco-American relations. The U.S. representatives made no progress and the mission broke up, Marshall coming home, Pinckney taking a sick daughter to S France, and Gerry, a Republican and Francophile, remaining in France temporarily. Meanwhile, an undeclared naval war ensued between France and the United States. Both Talleyrand and President Adams wished to avoid a declaration of war. In 1799 Adams, to the intense disgust of the Federalist leader, Alexander Hamilton, named William Vans Murray the U.S. minister to France and assigned Oliver Ellsworth and William Richardson Davie to accompany him. The result was the Treaty of Mortefontaine (Sept. 30, 1800), known as the Convention of 1800, a commercial agreement that improved relations between the two nations. The XYZ Affair contributed to American patriotic legend in the reply Pinckney is supposed to have made to a French request for money, “Millions for defense, sir, but not one cent for tribute.” This reply was certainly not made, but a better case can be made for the alternate version, “No, no, not a sixpence.”

Bibliography: See W. Stinchcombe, The XYZ Affair (1980).

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/X/XY1Z1A1ffai.asp

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 19:44

The Founding Fathers didn't like the French anymore than I do.

Az · March 21, 2003, 19:47

that's why they used them and threw them away like a used condom?

GePap · March 21, 2003, 19:49

So basically, the US, as a weak but proud state got into a row with the new revolutionary government of its ally, which demanded of it things it was unwilling to give... though eventually we made up, and it was against Britian that we would be at war with in a decade...

Hmmmm..perhaps there are lessons to be learned?

Quote:

The Founding Fathers didn't like the French anymore than I do.

Well, thats not true of Franklyn or Jefferson. Must be a Hamiltonian.

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 19:51

Franklin didn't like them and even Jefferson didn't trust them. I don't see why they would; Vergennes was a real piece of work. de Villepin reminds me a lot of him...

The Mad Monk · March 21, 2003, 19:52

It should be noted that during the 'undeclared naval war', the United States didn't actually have a Navy. The XYZ Affair led directly to the establishment of the United States Navy.

GePap · March 21, 2003, 19:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Franklin didn't like them and even Jefferson didn't trust them. I don't see why they would; Vergennes was a real piece of work. de Villepin reminds me a lot of him...

I missed Franklyn's francophobia in his memoirs...

I think you forget that Vergennes probalby had lost his head by the time of this affair. Yes, we all know how much the founding fathers disliked the radicalism of the French revolutionary message.

So MM, another thing we have to thank the French for?

But enough of this unwarranted side issue.

Master Zen · March 21, 2003, 20:01

Then if the US didn't have a navy, how did it fight an "undeclared quasi-naval war"? Ships ain't built in 48 hours...

It did have a navy, just not a major one though.

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 20:02

Quote:

I think you forget that Vergennes probalby had lost his head by the time of this affair.

No I didn't. The Founding Fathers were hostile to the French well before the XYZ affair occurred. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the cynical reasons the French had for supporting the US and had no love for them...

But enough of this unwarranted side issue.

Ming · March 21, 2003, 20:07

Hmmm... I see the threadjackers have done it again.

Well... back on topic, or I'll just restrict the bunch of you.

Have nice day...

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 20:09

In war news, CNN is reporting that the entire Iraqi 51st division has surrendered. Not a Republican Guard division, but still a good thing...

The Mad Monk · March 21, 2003, 20:11

They're saying 8,000 troops, and they had 200 tanks before the war (no mention how many they have now).

GePap · March 21, 2003, 20:13

So they can finally move into Basra..
Well, the reular Iraqi army is doing what everyone expected them to do.

I am still not shocked an awed by this air campaign: They are hitting several targets redundantly, and while I undertand why they do so, many of those are obvious targets, probalby long ago emptied by the Iraqis. I don;t think we will somehow cause so much demoralization among the populace that they will kick Saddam out of Baghdad.

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 20:17

Maybe "shock and awe" was just disinformation...

The Mad Monk · March 21, 2003, 20:25

I think you're underestimating the that could've been ME effect.

faded glory · March 21, 2003, 20:27

Theres still 1 more Iraqi division in Basra. Although if the 51st is gone, it should be easier

Master Zen · March 21, 2003, 20:54

I think the Iraquis won't fight too hard to defend open ground, perhaps they'll make a light stand in Basra and a major one in Baghdad. The war will get ugly if Baghdad is besieged from land.

My goddarn cable just got off the air (no CNN

) , perhaps a stray smart bomb ended up in Puebla, Mexico???

BTW, Ming, I see a lawsuit from panag coming your way (re: have a nice day)