It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US denies French fighters emergency landing rights in a critical situation

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
They only BARELY made it. The US base didn't know how much fuel they had, and luckily the french had enough fuel to go to the Atlanta civillian airport.




posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
If my memory serves me correctly I do believe the French government denied US fighter pilots to cross through French air space on a mission resulting in the crash and death of a US pilot. I will do some research and find the original story as I believe that incident took place when Reagan was President. Of course, two wrongs do not make a right thus just because there is really no love lost between America and France does not mean we have to lower ourselves to the type of behavior that is more common to the French. I would agree we should have taken the higher road on this case. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Hmmmmmm, maybe you haven't been up on current events Stealth Spy but since 9/11/01, the US must be very careful on who they allow to land, and the French ARE NOT allies of the US, they have always been jealous of the US.

You really have no clue what you're talking about, ever. You gotta get your facts straight before you blab on and on about thing you know nothing about.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
While I still think that Stealth Spy is wrong I think I should point out that France is an ally. During the last 220 years France has actually been more of an ally than many of the other European countries.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Where do people get the idea that France is not an ally? Remember how both our countries saved France in WW2? Why would we do that for 'not an ally'?

What has fundamentally changed in the relationship between France and America since 1945?

Or is it the B/S about France 'betraying' America over Iraq when in fact all they did was stick to their own beliefs which were, after all, correct?

That much is obvious to me and I don't even like the arrogant sods.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Memorial Day,
You are referring to Operation El Dorado Canyon, an airstrike conducted against Libyan lunatic Khaddafi after he ordered a bombing in an American armed forces nightclub in Germany.
The U.S.aircraft were F-111's that had to fly from Britain AROUND Frogville to get to Libya.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Where do people get the idea that France is not an ally? Remember how both our countries saved France in WW2? Why would we do that for 'not an ally'?

What has fundamentally changed in the relationship between France and America since 1945?

Or is it the B/S about France 'betraying' America over Iraq when in fact all they did was stick to their own beliefs which were, after all, correct?

That much is obvious to me and I don't even like the arrogant sods.


Everything the US does France undermines, the main reason they didn't help the US was because of the oil-for-food fiasco.

And if you don't like them why don't you just agree with me?

[edit on 12-6-2005 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Wow a two page thread about a NON incident... They landed safelly isn't that really all that matters at the end of the day? I have a couple comments to add forgive me if they are scattered.

First, and this is important, the part about the frenchman trying to buy fuel but being denied cause his card didn't have enough funds... To this I say DUH!!! Jet fuel is expensive and military aircraft require literally TONS of it to top off bone dry tanks. There just plane aren't too many people in the world with a good enough credit to put a fuel load for a fighter jet on their credit card. So now that that little gem of international drama queening has been taken care of I will move to my other comments.

Second, I don't feel the love for my current government but I can safelly say this should not have been newsworthy unless we denied them clearance to land totally. The assertion has been made that "the US did not know how much fuel the jets had and endangered lives" is a load of sanctimonious self righteous crap designed to start drama. Military aircraft are not like japanese sport bikes, they have fuel gauges. Further in a situation like this someone in an FAA regional command center or in the military hierarchy prolly knew to the quarter mile exactly how far those jets could make it on the fuel they had left. Really anyone with a subscription to Janes could overhear the conversation and do the same calculation, as pounds per minute of fuel consumption is rated on many airframes. and even if it wasn't the pilots know how much fuel their birds consume.

All in all though I have to say I am a wee bit tired of seeing the US made the bad guy when we did nothing wrong. The planes landed safelly, and probly with enough fuel still in their tanks to have made several wave offs on approach. Hatefulness and blind accusations only breed more hate, and let's face it maybe we had things on the runway at the local military air base that we did not want french fighter jockeys snapping digi cam pics of. Just a thought to consider.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
[
And if you don't like them why don't you just agree with me?

[edit on 12-6-2005 by Hockeyguy567]


Maybe its my good old British sense of fair play?


My own personal predisposition is not a hindrance in my recognising what is fair and true.

I was actually pro war at the time, simply because of what Saddam was, however since then I have come to recognize the criminally false pretext put up as a case for invasion by Bush and Blair.

I come from a family (as well as a region) that has always been 100% Labour supporters and I feel my trust was absolutely betrayed by my PM, the sole reason that Labour got in again in the UK elections was because there is no credible opposition to replace them, however I digress.

The point is that France did not do anything against the US, Bush merely chose to portray it that way. If France refusing to take part in something they know is wrong means they can no longer be considered as allies then America has the foriegn policy of a spoilt brat.

If a major war were to break out, a WW3, do you really doubt that the French would immediately fight beside the UK and USA? Providing of course that Bush hadn't just started it on a whim. Remember 1991? French servicemen fought and died alongside our servicemen in a war that was mostly fought for the right reasons (though the presence of oil should not be underestimated in that one too).

The link between Iraq and 9/11 was entirely fatuous and yet played to the max by the US media so continued vilification of France in the light of what we now know to be true cannot be justified.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Hmmm. I guess there must have been some serious negotiations then...
When they made that agreement about a possible Space Shuttle emergency landing in France.
That deal was made like... 2 days after the other "incident"?

ATS: Space Shuttle Can Make Emergency Landing In France



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
LOL exactly hellmutt because neither party involved sees this as a big deal. The planes were offered clearance to land somewhere and they all made it down safe. Remember folks close only counts in horseshoes hand grenades and thermo nuclear war. An almost incident is still not an incident.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   


The point is that France did not do anything against the US, Bush merely chose to portray it that way. If France refusing to take part in something they know is wrong means they can no longer be considered as allies then America has the foriegn policy of a spoilt brat.


You missed my point entirely, Bush never said that and never portrayed it that way. France didn't help out because of the oil-for-food scandal that invloved a number of nations (France, Germany, Russia, Iraq) and the UN, that's why they didn't get invloved.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I do think that was a bit of a "harsh" cold shoulder by the air force guys but if its the regs..mind you I dont think anyone would like being told to "sod off" if they where low on fuel in a jet several thousand feet up in the air traveling at high speed.



Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
You missed my point entirely, Bush never said that and never portrayed it that way. France didn't help out because of the oil-for-food scandal that invloved a number of nations (France, Germany, Russia, Iraq) and the UN, that's why they didn't get invloved.

So you are now privy to the "real" reasons the french government had for not going into iraq.
Might I add the US was involved in that to, and the UK....or so some would have us believed...



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Petty and childish, but what do you expect from neocons?

The French ough to pull out of Afghanistan to return the "screw you."


Yes it the neocons. Mc Guire called up every neocon in Washington during those few minutes and took a vote to see if the French aircraft could land...


Btw what were the Canadians and the French doing off the American coast anyway? Both Canada and France have their own coasts.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
Btw what were the Canadians and the French doing off the American coast anyway? Both Canada and France have their own coasts.

Supriseingly the french do have freinds and even more suprising is that canada is RIGHT NEXT TO america....



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
They landed safely, what more do they want? Perhaps they wanted us to take them to a Five star hotel and roll out the red carpet to them when they landed. They were denied access to a military bas because a civilian airport was close by, its that simple.

Just to put it in perspective how far AC NJ is from Canada.




[edit on 12-6-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   


Mc Guire called up every neocon in Washington during those few minutes and took a vote to see if the French aircraft could land...


That first line was mainly aimed at the "France is not an ally" and similar comments in here.

The France-bashing is getting downright repulsive.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
They landed safely, what more do they want? Perhaps they wanted us to take them to a Five star hotel and roll out the red carpet to them when they landed. They were denied access to a military bas because a civilian airport was close by, its that simple.

Westy, its not about if they landed or not, they got refused from an air base is the issue.
They find it a bit insulting that an ally isnt trusted.
I wonder if it was UK harriers would they have been allowed to land?



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Dble post sorry.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83

Btw what were the Canadians and the French doing off the American coast anyway? Both Canada and France have their own coasts.


And while you're at it, what are the Americans doing off the coasts of every major landmass on the globe?

Countries in Which US Military Bases are Located (PDF)

You'll note we have bases in France and Canada, among other nations.

-koji K.

[edit on 12-6-2005 by koji_K]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join