The United States will not demand payment from France for the use of US transport planes ferrying French forces and equipment to Mali, the Pentagon said Tuesday.
Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by whatsecret
Didn't the French support us in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Originally posted by Pedro4077
Meanwhile Back at the Ranch
Originally posted by Charlestrad
Reply to post by olaru12
I really wish people would realise that the reason America's economy is collapsing is because it's based on a military-industrial complex, and that in the long term war is a lot more expensive than most people in power realise.
There is so much good that the money that will be used in this intervention could do - for U.S citizens, in the States - that it should disgust anyone to think of it being used to fuel the war machine that has cost so many lives already
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'd personally object to this on the basis of it not being our fight...just as Libya was not our fight. These are BOTH headaches Europe caused itself and in the case of Libya, England to a large degree as well. NOT our problem. Yet..here we are, helping our allies regardless of how they have or have NOT helped us in the past.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
For the record..BTW..France worked to undermine the United States on all fronts for Iraq in 2003 (prior to the war starting...remember Freedom Fries? lol) and actually forced our pilots to fly AROUND their airspace when Reagan sent planes "downtown" into Libya in response to terrorist attacks from Gadaffi's people in the 80's. Given how much France has done to obstruct and generally be a pain in our tails? Heck, they're lucky we don't take them up and open the cargo door in the rear as the pilot takes it on a little vertical flight test. Military Unload anyone?
September 20, 2004: The United States lifts most of its remaining sanctions on Libya. Bush terminates the national emergency declared in 1986 under IEEPA, as well as revokes related executive orders. This action ends the remaining sanctions under IEEPA and ends the need for Treasury Department licenses for trade with Libya.
. . . .
Two days later, DeSutter tells the House International Relations Committee that verification of Libya’s disarmament tasks is “essentially complete,” adding that the United States, working with the United Kingdom, has completed verifying “with reasonable certainty that Libya has eliminated, or has set in place the elimination of” its weapons programs.
October 11, 2004: European Union foreign ministers lift a 20 year-old arms embargo on Libya, allowing EU countries to export arms and other military equipment to that country. Part of the EU rationale for lifting the embargo is to improve Libya’s capacity to patrol its maritime borders and prevent illegal immigration to the EU from North Africa, a particular concern of southern European states such as Italy.
Yesterday it was revealed that the UK Government had approved the export of goods including tear gas and crowd control ammunition and sniper rifles to Bahrain and Libya, as well as a wide range of other military equipment to authoritarian regimes in the region.
CAAT calls for an immediate arms embargo to the region, for a thorough review of why such exports were ever licensed in the first place and for fundamental reform to the UK's irresponsible arms export policy.
In Britain, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade reports that “the UK Government had approved the export of goods including tear gas and crowd control ammunition and sniper rifles to Bahrain and Libya“. The arms-promotion wing of the UK government counts Libya as a “priority market”, and says “high-level political interventions” have supported UK weapons sales there. Last November, over half of the exhibitors at the Libyan Defence & Security Exhibition (LibDex) were UK companies.