Another opinion on France as an Ally

Joao Paulo Figueira

KaЯl wrote: You're right, so what about building an european army? Do you believe that? An European army? Speaking in which language? Esperanto? KaЯl wrote: BTW, do you see any threat of invasion? No, of course not! KaЯl wrote: Which country could invade you? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Spain? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Even they are not that crazy... KaЯl wrote: I thought it was the way followed by Portugal, after the buy of 3 A400M. It seems that the defence minister dropped it. Maybe he'll buy from Lockeed-Martin, I suppose.

KaRl

If you want a course of french history, I would be delighted to explain you how it really happened :) In the 30's France was really torn in two parts: a nationalistic one, with a fascist component, and a socialist one, with a communist component. In 1934, we were pretty close of a fascist coup (6 February 1934), people were killed in the streets of Paris. In 1936, by reaction, a new majority formed for the first time a left government, the "Front Populaire" alliance of the socialists and the communists. A new period of troubles began, with the higher social class fearing a nationalisation of all its properties, and terrified by the communists. And then comes the Spanish War. Both parts of the country identified itself with a spanish opponent. In this context, the socialist prime minister didn't take the risk of a civil war, and preferred not to intervene directly in the conflict. A few planes were sold to the spanish Republic, some weapons too, some french engaged in the International Brigades, but no official military intervention was made. That's for the spanish war. The role of France as European power had greatly declined in the 20's, facing a anglo-american front protecting Germany, and affraid of a French power on the Rhine. The occupation of the Ruhr by the French and Belgian troops in 1923 was a political disaster, and forced France to align itself diplomatically on UK. In fact, France became the "brilliant second", as the UK is now the one of the US. Having no possibility to intervene alone against Germany, a country with a population and an economy twice bigger than the french ones, the succeeding governments were "obliged" to follow the appeasement policy of Lord Chamberlain. That's for the foreign policy of France with Germany. About the disaster of May 1940, IMHO the main responsibles are the military chiefs of this time, the generals. They were not the only ones to fail, no one in Europe resisted to the Blitzkrieg, at least when Germany had all its power. The french strategy and tactics were, as all the other western countries, totally outdated by the new revolutionnary german military doctrin. In August/September 1914, it was a miracle France could resist to the german invasion. But as this time the Germans walked and used horses. With the motorisation, they were much faster, and the miracle didn't happen again. 120 000 french soldiers were killed during these 6 weeks, the same loss rates than during WW1. The sad thing is that all the elements of the Blitzkrieg were predi

KaRl

There's already an http://www.eurocorps.org/site/ec_anim.html Eurocorps, so it must be possible. :) João Paulo Figueira wrote: Even they are not that crazy... I visited once your country and it may be really beautiful. People are pleasant and seem to often speak french, as if everybody has a member of the family who immigrated to France :)

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

Joao Paulo Figueira

KaЯl wrote: So, I would say Portugal sends troops to help UK, not France, even if it was at this time the same thing. Interesting point. The very essence of it is, I believe, the reason of why an European army is impossible. The national soldiers would be serving whom? Which nation would be in charge? Serving what political and economical interests? I'm afraid Europe will always be fractured, and we will never be a military (nor political) power. Thanks for the rose.

KaRl

IMHO both :laugh:

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: 120 000 french soldiers were killed during these 6 weeks, the same loss rates than during WW1 Unfortunately, with some of the weapons that are available today, these kind of numbers could be killed using some of the weapons that the Iraqis and UBL have both pursued. Not to use your words against you, but you said "with motorisation the miracle, they were much faster, and the miracle didn't happen again". The comment implies that the change in technology between WW1 and WW2 resulted in much different results. I don't think its unreasonable to say that technology has advanced even further. I was stationed on board a ballistic missile submarine in the 80's and any one missle carried more firepower than was unleashed during the whole of WW2, with multiple warheads. The idea of someone having access who doesn't care if they die is frightening. And the idea of those same people flying either a UAV with biological weapons, or dispersing agents in a crowd is beyond comprehension. The idea that the US wants the French to fight for them is silly, but it really does seem shortsighted that the French government would organize opposition to the US attack on Iraq. Like I said it really isn't bout being paranoid, I think its a sad acceptance that the world is a smaller and more dangerous place. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Joao Paulo Figueira

KaЯl wrote: People are pleasant and seem to often speak french, as if everybody has a member of the family who immigrated to France Did you know that the second-largest Portuguese city is not in Portugal? It is in France: Paris. So your feeling is not very far from the truth. KaЯl wrote: People are pleasant Thanks, it's true: but not enough, unfortunately.

KaRl

I don't think a country will be crazy enough to use chemical or biological weapons to attack a nuclear power. For France it has always been clear, such an attack could be considered the same as a nuclear one and would retaliate nuclearly. Iraq had these WMD in 1991, and didn't use them. Not for moral reasons, ask to the Iranians. It's too easy to create chemical and biological weapons, individuals are able to do it, and here is IMHO the greatest danger. Individuals are not sensible to the MAD theory. So, IMHO, the first objective is to eradicate terrorism. And AFAIK, when I think terrorism, I don't think to Iraq first. Doug Goulden wrote: the French government would organize opposition to the US attack on Iraq You're "booleanising". France opposes to a war as long as there no real proof of resistance. If SH had refused to destroy his missiles, France would IMHO have changed immediatly its stance. Doug Goulden wrote: I think its a sad acceptance that the world is a smaller and more dangerous place. The rest of the world was already a dangerous place, <sarcasm>welcome to the club</sarcasm> :(

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

KaRl

When I was a child I remember the arrival of some portuguese workers in the 70's. Originally, they planned to work there some years, make money and then go back, to the country. But time ran, they meat gilrs and married or they asked to their wives to come, they built their own houses, they had childrens, who are now some french kids playing with others on the village football field. One of my best friends when I was a teenager was one of them :)

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

KaRl

João Paulo Figueira wrote: The national soldiers would be serving whom? Europe. João Paulo Figueira wrote: Which nation would be in charge? Europe. João Paulo Figueira wrote: Serving what political and economical interests? European ones. It's possible, just a political will. We, citizen, have to convince our leaders.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

Joao Paulo Figueira

Those were dark times for Portugal. Those people had to leave their country to flee from war in the former colonies, from an inexistent economy that gave them no hope to grow, and from one of the most stupid dictators of all times: Oliveira Salazar. He is one of the reasons why this country is yet badly developed and so distant from Europe. Entering the EU helped, but not enough... I'm glad you had such a friend. In fact, as a nation, we have to thank you for receiving them and allowing them to have the dignified lives my country could not afford them to have.

Joao Paulo Figueira

I hope you are right. Maybe I'm already too cinical to believe...

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: You're "booleanising". France opposes to a war as long as there no real proof of resistance. If SH had refused to destroy his missiles, France would IMHO have changed immediatly its stance I honestly don't think so,France hasn't addressed the idea that SH is still making more of the missles he is destroying. And I don't hear outrage about him having the drones with a 500 km range.... I can believe that you would expect your government to react that way, but I am sceptical. KaЯl wrote: Iraq had these WMD in 1991, and didn't use them. Not for moral reasons, ask to the Iranians. It's too easy to create chemical and biological weapons, individuals are able to do it, and here is IMHO the greatest danger. Individuals are not sensible to the MAD theory. So, IMHO, the first objective is to eradicate terrorism. And AFAIK, when I think terrorism, I don't think to Iraq first I completely agree that individuals aren't responsive to the idea of MAD. But SH and his family, seem almost more of a cult of personality. The Soviet Union or China although they have been the US adversaries never really showed they were in any hurry to die over their beliefs. In that respect MAD did work, they (the USSR epecially) never saw any gain in attacking. SH on the other hand destroys the things around him as a last result. Look at the oil well fires and the oil he dumped into the Persian Gulf. Look at the fact that not only did he gas the Iranians, he gassed the Kurds. IMHO its not much of a stretch to see him provide the weapons he has in limited quanities to terrorists. The Saudi's have made bargains with more radical elements to strengthen their own position with their people, SH could do the same either overtly or covertly. I really doubt that we will ever know the details about how much support SH has provided either Hamaas or Al Quada , but I do buy into the idea we should take the threat seriously. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

Man I'm bummed I have to travel out of town tommorrow, I had a really good idea for my thread tommorrow.... Top 10 reasons to dislike the French :omg:;);P Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Letterman is a pilar of american culture :)

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

Doug Goulden

Thats scary all by itself :laugh: I was going to solicit input but start with 1. French Poodles 2. Women with hairy armpits 3. Prissy looking berets ..... The list could get long ;) Have a nice night I have to stop pretending to work and go do some woodworking. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: SH is still making more of the missles he is destroying. And I don't hear outrage about him having the drones with a 500 km range Have you any proof for your assertions? not secret evidences, but real ones. There are several motives to explain the opposition to a war. Some are deeply pacifists, some don't believe the case is made to justify a war. There's no invasion, no attack, and SH does what the inspectors ask. Change that and the position of the majority will change. And please, don't Forget France is not alone, quiet every country thnks like us. We are here acting like a symbol, and we like that ;P And please, don't believe in the lie saying that France is trying to regain a first-place classe in the world. I know the majority of the american believe this, but frankly, nobody here talks or thinks about this. Doug Goulden wrote: MAD. But SH and his family, seem almost more of a cult of personality Look at NK, there are masters in this game. And their atrocities are similar in horror to what the Nazis made. They have WMD. They will have H bombs. But they deserve a "multilateral approach". :wtf:! If you say SH has to be removed, I totally agree, as quiet anybody here. But it's another question. For the moment, the subject is the disarmament of Iraq. And this subject is progressing now. A war could have uncalculable consequences, for everybody, we have to be sure. If we decide to remove dictators through the world, we'll have to do a lot of work. First, let's make a list, and next agree on the means. Chinese and some others will be delighted.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: Have a nice night I have to stop pretending to work and go do some woodworking. Thanks, I need it :zzz: Have a nice day :)

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

jan larsen

Kaßl wrote: You're right, so what about building an european army? Isn't that what the Western Union is all about?, I don't know much about the military cooperation in EU, because Denmark is currently not taking part in that. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

KaRl

The problem is some european countries see the creation of an european army as a weakening of the NATO, and fear they would loose the protection of the US umbrella.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop