From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:31:26 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct9.142141.1@sejnet.sunet.se>, eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas) writes:
|> In article <1b2rbvINN4cp@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > You seem to have this back to front, or possibly you have two
|> > stories confused.   It was an Argentine ship that was torpedoed.
|> > There was a British ship that was sunk by a missile (plus others).   
|> > The torpedoes were not sold by France, although the missiles were.
|> 
|> I am sorry for this blunder and lick the dust at your feet. The 'Exocet' 
|> that sunk the british ship is indeed not an underwater torpedo, but an
|> above-water missile. I apologize to the readership for having implied 
|> that the Exocet was a torpedo sold by France, when it was in fact a 
|> missile sold by France.

Good.   When you are setting out to be sarcastic, it's quite a good idea
to have your facts right, so as to avoid the catcalls of the onlookers.
Your local public library is often a good source.

|> 
|> > In any case, do you a point to make here?
|> 
|> Yes, in fact I have two points to make. The first one is that the 
|> French were delighted when they heard that one of their missiles 
|> had been used to sink a ship of Her Royal Majesty.

The French are in business to sell missiles.   Of course they were
happy to hear that what they were selling had been tested in operational
conditions, and had worked.   What else would you expect?

As a matter of fact, the Falklands campaign was followed by advertising
campaigns by *both* France and the UK about the relative effectiveness
of their weapons.    It was more or less accepted that on the French
side the Exocet had been very effective, and on the British side
the Harrier and some anti-aircraft missiles had been effective.

|> And these are the kind of people you hope to see cooperating in a
|> non-nationalistic framework? :-)

Yes, of course.   It does not bother me in the least, since I don't
expect the French - or the British or the Americans or you-name-it
- to be hypocritical fools.   The French strike me as pragmatic to
a fault, and that is *exactly* the kind of people I'd want my own
country to be in an alliance with.    This is still a dangerous
world, and the last thing I want is for my country to be in an
alliance with a bunch of starry-eyed romantics.   The world needs
more French.

|> And that is my second point. The UK, the US and France routinely 
|> sell arms to underdeveloped countries, NOT to make money as most 
|> people think (although with some countries they do make a profit) 
|> but simply to field-test them and/or for political reasons. 

Evidently, you live in a naive binary world in which things DO
happen for one reason, and NOT happen for another.  [Your capitals]

The truth is more likely that they sell weapons for both reasons.
Both to make a profit and to test their effectiveness.   And perhaps
to test their effectiveness in order to make larger profits later.

So what?   Manufacturers in all industries do this kind of thing.

?> Many underveloped countries pay their weapons using loans
|> (which are part of the "deal"), which it is understood they 
|> will never pay back.     I think it's bad enough as it stands 
|> without being raised to a global european scale.

Well, that's jolly noble of you.    Let's hope you never live in
a country that is obliged to defend itself without access to western
arms.     I still don't see what it has to do with the French in 
particular, much less the Falklands campaign.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec