| Author | Message | | *Mutt American | | Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2002 7:19 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Where were the missiles on the USS Liberty to shoot down the Israeli jets that intentional and brutally attacked the USS Liberty |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the missiles in question had been developed yet. Intentional attacK? Maybe. Maybe not. We know that Britain has intentionally attacked us. And Germany. And Italy. (Aren't these NATO countries now?) If we were in Austria (a NATO partner) I could show you a building that was an old V2 factory. And then there's Japan of course. And Mexico.
| Quote: | | The Arrow system is not Israli it was a joint system, and you know it, 78 percent funded by the USA. |
Yes, we financially supported the Israeli program. It is now looking like a very good investment.
| Quote: | | Which begs a question, if the USA had constraints imposed on it, was it very ethical to then supply Isreal with the major funding for the project? |
It was legal. Treaties are legal agreements. That is why the US could not directly benefit from the development as long as we were in the treaty. | |  | | Guest | | Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2002 1:40 pm Post subject: |
| Quote:
Where were the missiles on the USS Liberty to shoot down the Israeli jets that intentional and brutally attacked the USS Liberty
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the missiles in question had been developed yet. Intentional attacK? Maybe. Maybe not. We know that Britain has intentionally attacked us. And Germany. And Italy. (Aren't these NATO countries now?) If we were in Austria (a NATO partner) I could show you a building that was an old V2 factory. And then there's Japan of course. And Mexico.
Without getting into the previous posters territory on the Liberty, Mutt where any of the countries you quote above an allie at the time of any of their attacks? The Liberty incident was in 67 and correct me but USA and Isreal where not at war and were allies at the time. Theres no comparison with the examples you then give above.
Quote:
The Arrow system is not Israli it was a joint system, and you know it, 78 percent funded by the USA.
Yes, we financially supported the Israeli program. It is now looking like a very good investment.
Certainly is, I wasnt raising any question to that, just the fact the posts implied it was an Iseali system when it was not.
Quote:
Which begs a question, if the USA had constraints imposed on it, was it very ethical to then supply Isreal with the major funding for the project?
It was legal. Treaties are legal agreements. That is why the US could not directly benefit from the development as long as we were in the treaty.
Clever answer that one Mutt, but legal or not, ethically, morally wrong to supply the majority of themoney and staff to develop a weapon which on one hand you are in an international treaty that you sign saying we abide by. Its actually duplicitious, Im not bothered about that at all, just lets be honest about it.
America got a good missile system for its money but it is an American missile system to all intents and purposes. | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2003 1:25 pm Post subject: |
| [quote="*Mutt American"][quote]Where were the missiles on the USS Liberty to shoot down the Israeli jets that intentional and brutally attacked the USS Liberty[/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the missiles in question had been developed yet. Intentional attacK? Maybe. Maybe not. We know that Britain has intentionally attacked us. And Germany. And Italy. (Aren't these NATO countries now?) If we were in Austria (a NATO partner) I could show you a building that was an old V2 factory. And then there's Japan of course. And Mexico.
[quote]The Arrow system is not Israli it was a joint system, and you know it, 78 percent funded by the USA.[/quote]
Yes, we financially supported the Israeli program. It is now looking like a very good investment.
[quote]Which begs a question, if the USA had constraints imposed on it, was it very ethical to then supply Isreal with the major funding for the project? [/quote]
It was legal. Treaties are legal agreements. That is why the US could not directly benefit from the development as long as we were in the treaty.[/quote] :roll: | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
