US support to French forces is free of charge: Pentagon

What a great idea. Isn't it nice that the Pentagon transport foreign troops and supplies to a war we have nothing to do with for free?

By the way, who is paying for this? Oh I totally forgot that we have some extra money that we don't know what do to with.




I just hope that one day when we get some financial crisis (which will never happen because we are awesome) France will give out troops some free rides.

US support to French forces is free of charge: Pentagon

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.

reply to post by whatsecret


Didn't the French support us in Iraq and Afghanistan?

www.stripes.com...

www.bing.com...

Meanwhile Back at the Ranch

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by whatsecret

 

Didn't the French support us in Iraq and Afghanistan?

www.stripes.com...

www.bing.com...

I don't care if they did... American tax payers are broke. Will there ever be a time when people that we pay are taxes to will ask us what we want them to do with it?

Originally posted by Pedro4077
Meanwhile Back at the Ranch

Exactly!

How about we take care of own problems first?

Money wise? These are probably coming out as training for the flight crew as part of what they're required to have done on a regular basis anyway. Flying to Mali or Montana makes no difference to them I'll bet.

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.

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?

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 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

 

You are preaching to the choir here amigo!

costofwar.com...

Reply to post by olaru12

Thanks man, just want to make it clear that wasn't directed at you. Wars propagating wars propagating wars, and the world turns once again


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Well of course its free of charge! We just print the money from the hairy ass crack of Bernanke and viola!

How many times was it free of charge to the leeches of Israel? BILLIONS AND BILLIONS.

Take care of our VETS you morons at the "pentagon"

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.

Er, what? "England" had bog all to do with Libya or propping up Gaddafi.

Now, if you're referring to support for Gaddafi after he took power, the US was also quite keen to prop him up. Until of course, like Saddam, he became a liability.

Now, do explain exactly how the situation in Mali has got anything to do with Europe?

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?

Quite right too, about Iraq. It is clear to all that the US excuses for invasion were total bollocks. The Us reaction was pathetic, however. The French wanted a UN resolution and you guys just couldn't wait (or come up with a convincing reason to invade a sovereign country)

It wasn't just France that refused overflights either for the Libyan bombing, but Spain and Italy, with the latter even warning Gaddafi in advance so he could escape.

Now, the reason for US assistance? Because we're allies and for crying out loud, we've all been holding your hands in the wars you've got yourself into, so lending a bit of logistical support to your friends isn't too much to ask.

reply to post by stumason
I see... So who, by your estimation was supporting Libya and supplying weapons over the past several years? You might want to take a moment and check that a bit before replying. I can say I was shocked myself at the answer when I first discovered all that during the initial uprisings in Libya. I was trying to see how deep U.S. involvement had been. I found quite a lot more.

I'll be on tomorrow and I'll be happy to share the Government reports on arms sales and numbers from the E.U. and United Kingdom. As I mentioned tho...You may really want to take a moment and check it all out. I can absolutely assure you...I'm not making baseless statements on guesswork here.

Well, good to my word, I'm back..and I've put an hour or so into digging up my archives from around the time trouble started in Libya to get what you're apparently unaware of. The U.S. didn't make Libya after 2004. England and the European Union did.

So, let me supply a bit of proof here....after all, links and pics or it didn't happen, right?

First, lets look at why arms were again being sold to Libya. That's a critical place to start in 2003.

Khadafy agrees to surrender weapons / Libyan leader plans to give up bacterial, chemical arms

After that, it was a matter of collecting and confirming it really was being surrendered as advertised. The following source links to a timeline that explains, in detail and step by step how that process worked and how it turned out. These are the more relevant entries for this though:

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.

Source

Then we get to the actual weapons deals with details as reported by various outlets dealing with the European Union and United Kingdom weapons sales to Libya.

From the 'Campaign against Arms Trade:

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.

Source

Europe tries to reconcile Libya criticism with booming arms exports

Guns to Gadhafi: Libyan Arms Deals Come Back to Haunt Europe

From an article titled 'European Arms Sales - In Figures' where it's broken down more by nation:

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.

Source

Britain and Libya unveil energy and arms deals

BAE Systems to share £200 million arms deal with Libya

From the UK Media themselves:
How can we be so blindly stupid as to sell arms to despots then bleat about democracy?

This last one breaks down by nation AND type of systems sold in arms deals:





(Source)

We all have the right to our opinions on facts. We don't get to make up our own set of facts. The America bashing DOES go too far and is inexcusable when it's based in a lack of knowledge. No offense intended and I hope this helps clear it up.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

England to a large degree

By “England” you mean the United Kingdom of Great Brittan and Northern Ireland……

Saying “England” the whole time is a bit like saying "Florida invaded Iraq”

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Well, I hadn't been assuming Scotland and Ireland had a lot of say for determination on the foreign and military policies determined in London. Then again, I'm not British to know that system intimately. If I'm badly mistaken about equally shared culpability for the forming of UK foreign policy, that is something I'd like to be set right about by someone who knows the system by living with it. It's an important error I'll have made in that case.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You're not exactly making waves here with your revelations from your "archives", all this was done to death here in the UK (obviously, as all your sources are UK media)..

On the face of it, it seems that much of the deals with Libya were not for weapons, per se, but rather other equipment such as Radio's and this was after Libya had made itself good in the face of the international community by getting rid of it's WMD. Fair trade if you ask me.

However, when the uprising started it was the UK along with the French who were the first in to help the people out, while the US wrung it's hands on the sidelines and promised "technical support" while Obama squirmed to explain to a hesitant US public where Libya was, much less why the US should assist. It would seem to be the same for Mali...

However, you are still showing blinding ignorance when it comes to how to refer to our country. It's like me referring to to the US as Florida or California.

And yes, Scots, Irishmen and Welsh do exert considerable influence over Westminster, in fact the last 2 PM's we've had have been Scots (with many before that). By your own admission, you don't know ought, so why not take the hint from those that live here and correct yourself, or better yet educate yourself on the system instead of continuing on - it isn't that difficult to understand.

That caught me by surprise.... has any country ever paid an ally for their support and aid in a military effort???
I am pretty ignorant on that subject, I admit. I didn't know it was common practice.

I think you are right, the US SHOULD charge France, and France should charge the US for their aid in Afganistan and Iraq. The french people don't want to be part of those particular efforts, and France is in a terrible economic crisis too, (as well as the rest of Europe).

Besides.... what does America care if fanatic Islamists take over the whole other side of the globe? They'll never bring terrorism over to the US!

....wait.....um...