looks like Tony Blair wants to go into Euro military force

[marktigger]

Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac have insisted plans for Europe to have its own military capability will not undermine Nato.
The UK prime minister and French president met in their first summit since their splits over the Iraq war.

President Chirac said US policy on Iraq was now going the right way but was still "somewhat incomplete".

Mr Blair said the pair had agreed to do all they could to combat terrorism in the aftermath of the Turkey bombings.

'Productive'

Later, in an hour-long meeting with Mr Blair, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar said the two countries would "continue working together" against terrorism, which he described as the greatest threat of all.

Other issues on the Anglo-French summit agenda included: the Middle East peace process, asylum, economic growth and climate change.

French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin and other French ministers were also involved in talks with their opposite numbers in Downing Street.

France does not have a problem with Nato

Tony Blair

Mr Blair said the talks had been "productive" and thanked President Chirac for his "warm sentiments of solidarity" in the wake of last week's terror attacks on the British Consulate and a bank in Istanbul.

Plans for closer European defence policy have alarmed the US, with France keen to have a separate EU military planning headquarters.

There are still thought to be differences between France and Britain over those details.

But Mr Blair said the "practical issues" could be resolved while President Chirac spoke of plans to give "extra efficiency and extra character" to European defence.

The prime minister said Britain did not have to choose between Europe and America and insisted European defence cooperation was not incompatible with Nato.


Jean-Pierre Raffarin was also at the summit
"It makes to me complete sense in circumstances where Nato is not engaged, for Europe to have the capability and the power to act in the interests of Europe and the wider world," argued Mr Blair.

He said Europe had already undertaken military operations in countries such as Macedonia without damaging Nato ties.

That stance was echoed by President Chirac, who said Nato was the "mainstay of European defence".

He continued: "France does not have a problem with Nato...

"However, we believe that there are a number of operations which would be carried out ... by us."

Iraq concerns

There was a reminder of the two leaders' splits over the Iraq war when President Chirac was asked about the post-conflict situation.

The US policy of transferring sovereignty to the people of Iraq was going in the right direction, he said.

But he went on: "To be quite frank and honest with you, I think it is extending over a somewhat too long a period and it does seem to me a somewhat incomplete policy."

The breathtaking way in which Tony Blair asserted, with President Chirac's apparent agreement, that the European defence proposals do not undermine Nato is beyond belief

Michael Ancram
Shadow foreign spokesman
The UN's role should be more clearly specified, he said.

Mr Chirac said the strength of relations between the two countries would be shown in celebrations for next year's centenary of the Entente Cordiale, which calmed Anglo-French relations in a different era.

The Queen will be making a state visit to France from 5-7 April next year to mark the celebrations, with President Chirac making a return trip to Britain.

Past rifts

Mr Blair said he and the Queen had also been invited to take part in next June's 60th anniversary celebrations of the D-Day landings in France.

The talks follow a summit in Le Touquet in February, initially postponed after a row between President Chirac and Mr Blair over the Iraq war.

Farming policy has also caused rifts between the two leaders in the past.


Mr Blair's attempt to reassure critics on European defence was later branded a "deception" by the Conservatives.

Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said: "The breathtaking way in which Tony Blair asserted, with President Chirac's apparent agreement, that the European defence proposals do not undermine Nato, is beyond belief.

"The French have for a generation made it a matter of priority that Europe should provide its own defence outside Nato."

[California Joe]

Whoa, it's like Rainbow Six.

[Royal]

Whoa, it's like Rainbow Six.

Excuse my ignorance, but WTF is Rainbow Six? :oops:

[mocking_loudly_died]

Whoa, it's like Rainbow Six.


I bags being the surly operator with a distinct lack of respect for all things authoritarian, I am the lone wolf, the silent blade, the japs eye of pain......and so on.


Excuse my ignorance, but WTF is Rainbow Six?


Mythical special ops team, international SAS thingy invented by every ones favorite arm chair general Tom Clancy.

[Royal]

Excuse my ignorance, but WTF is Rainbow Six?

Mythical special ops team, international SAS thingy invented by every ones favorite arm chair general Tom Clancy.

Ahh. Must spend less time surfing www.militaryphotos.net and more time reading crappy novels (Hunt for Red October was okay).

[Roger Rabbit]

Read Red Storm Rising. Its about Arab(surprise surprise) terrorists who blow up a oil refinary belonging to the ruskies. The ruskies get all mental and go a bonkers. They deciede to invade Europe. Both sides slog it out for a bit and then the Russians surrender. Focuses mainly on the intel, then the air and sea war. Looks at the land warfare but mostly arty and tanks, mentions infantry stuff for about 1 page.

[Royal]

Read it about 15 years ago, which would make it about 20-25 years out of date. Still it's big enough to make up the weight in your bergan for an ACFT :P

[Ratamacue]

Tom Clancy knows his stuff, but he's an asshole. Rainbow Six is about a mutlinational counter-terrorist team formed by NATO and the EU. I never read the book, but I liked the game alot.

[Roger Rabbit]

If you take any 3 of Tom Clancy's books and put them in your bergen then your usually carrying the wieght of a fully grown man rofl

[marktigger]

yes but unlike R6 this will be real and will control our armed forces, Our ability to respond to domestic and international crises it will be controlled by the EU who will soon control our defence spending. And will be eployed in French/german interests sorry EU interests.

[Roger Rabbit]

Does this mean we get more or less money on defence? Also will they adopt a standard military rifle? what about uniform and equipment. This is gonna take a lot of money i think.

[Royal]

Keep dreaming.

We never get more money. We just do more for less.

Uniforms & rifles rofl rofl rofl

[Roger Rabbit]

in the words of manuel to Mr Faulty...que?

[California Joe]

I actually liked that book. hehe. The Brits are featured prominently. I think Rainbow Six is stationed at Hereford right?

[Roger Rabbit]

yup i believe it is. Why in the world of the most stupidest thing even the Irish could do would the IRA attack the SAS base at Hereford. And not just to attack it but to attack it by launching an actual assualt. :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: When i read that i knew it was gonna end in tears.

[duck]

Clancy is at his most ridiculous when he tries to describe the british royal family. The text is so infantile and naive it must have been written by a 13-year old ghostwriter. Or maybe it was Ollie North?

[Roger Rabbit]

Probably Andy McNab rofl

[mocking_loudly_died]

I like Andys new book "dark winter".

Thanks to Andy some times I walk around town with a bright orange water pistol giving people "the good news" and shouting out various Brit slang to my victims.....

[California Joe]

Give me your icon's number dammit. Unless she's really Budanski.

[marktigger]

hang on has this suddenly become a book club?

What chiarac and blair are discussing is ultimatley going to lead to the break up of NATO cause the EU countries won't spend to provide forces for both.

[Roger Rabbit]

The main problem i see with an EU force is the actual intergration of the current standing armies. As far as i see it then it will cost far too much and there are far too many problems for it to happen anytime soon. Unless whats actually being proposed is an EU version of NATO?

[budanski]

Blair wants to join the "mythical" EU force?

Maybe it'll give NATO someone to fight. ;)

[Eviscerator]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3235318.stm

"UK 'could veto EU constitution'"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2950276.stm


FOREIGN AND DEFENCE POLICY

What is proposed?

The aim is to have a common foreign policy and one day a common defence policy as well. "The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy." Member states "shall support the Union's common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity."

What are the issues?

Several governments, especially the British, are insisting on retaining a national veto over foreign policy and defence. The proposals do not call for majority voting on foreign policy unless heads of state and government, acting unanimously, order the ministers to take a vote. Defence is ring-fenced even further, with references in the text to the primacy of Nato. It is clear that joint moves on foreign policy and defence will be by consensus only. The EU already has a common foreign and security policy, on paper. Agreement on the Middle East roadmap is an example of where member states have agreed. Iraq is an example of where they have not.

I seriously hope this constitution is vetoed, having the EU control our defence policies is absurd.

Also, although it was reported in The Sun (not exactly an 'unbiased' newspaper) if this report has any basis in truth at all it is horrifying:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003491760,00.html

Having the EU control our troops, our nukes AND our seat on the security would be devastating for our sovereignty.

[martinexsquaddie]

Don't really worry about it unless the EU decide to cough up serious money for defense. the french and the British are the only ones in Europe with serious armed forces and the will to use them for more than peacekeeping and the french are not about to hand there nukes and troops over to anyone :o

[fantassin]

France and the UK are the only european countries with credible defences and rising defence budgets.

These talks are also aimed at trying to put together a joint Franco-British reaction force. The Brits and the French have in the past worked together in most recent conflicts and they are the two armies that are the most alike in Europe at the moment. Every Brit unit has now been having a French "twin" unit (ex: 42 Cdo RM and 2°RIMa) for about four years and there is an awful lot of common training going on together.

Of course the US aren't happy with that because they want to use NATO at their own tool to be used as suppletive in areas they are happy to "franchise". Just take a look at Robertson's last speech, it's breathtaking. So he's using every opportunity to undermine France and to try to belittle such openings.

The success of the Bunya operation in Congo has shown that Europe can act on its own without the US being involved. Of course the biggest kid on the block does not like it but tough *******, it'll have to get used to it I am afraid. Why the US should necessarily be involved in everything Europe does? Afraid of being left out? and then, it'll complain Europe can't sort out its own problems...

[California Joe]

Are you mental?

The British don't like the French. Everyone knows that. If I was the Brits I'd tell the French to quit copying us. The US doesn't like NATO, there's only a million or so articles out there. We like the British but only if they keep all the regiments intact. We undermine France as a national past time. They annoy us.

[budanski]

France left NATO because they could not sway America and Europe during the Cold War at the same time they embarked upon their Grand Diplomatic initiative to woo the Arab Middle East. Today, France wants to be in charge of something, anything akin to a military alliance. For the French, to be a major player, even in a paper tiger military is better than the reality of providing defense. The French will sell out their allies if it provides any advantage, and for this reason alone it is comical to watch the rest of the EU follow....

[fantassin]

Once again, just quoting facts; if you want more info, dig out the Memorandum of Understanding between the French and the British Land Commands that lists all the twin regiments...it's about 10 pages long...

Sorry to burst your bubble but the French and the Brits have been training together for years; at the very moment, there are several hundred brit soldiers taking part in a major command post exercice in France; there is a common air force group, countless exchange officers, company exchanges...and it's getting better !

Part of the infantry training of French officers even takes place in Wales now with British units...ain't that annoying?

[California Joe]

*putting fingers in ears* lalalalalalalalalala can't hear you....

[fantassin]

France left NATO after having been militarily threatened by the US over the 1956 Suez crisis, because it refused to put its armed forces under US command and because it wanted, and got, an independent nuclear force. Unlike the UK which still relies entirely on US nukes and can't use them without US permission.

At that moment, Pdt Johnson said: "When somebody asks you to leave his house, you take your hat and you leave, you don't ask why"

Smart man.

[cut]

I believe Blair appearing in simpsons to be more important than this..

[fantassin]

That's the american problem; believing anything happening in the US is more important than anything happening outside the US.

[budanski]

Thats not true. I was glued to the tube when that guy from Joe Millionaire 2 selected that hot brunette from the Czech Republic.

[fred_engles]

France left NATO because they could not sway America and Europe during the Cold War at the same time they embarked upon their Grand Diplomatic initiative to woo the Arab Middle East. Today, France wants to be in charge of something, anything akin to a military alliance. For the French, to be a major player, even in a paper tiger military is better than the reality of providing defense. The French will sell out their allies if it provides any advantage, and for this reason alone it is comical to watch the rest of the EU follow....It's true that France has had a rather odd and not always warm relationship with NATO. Nonetheless, they're still members (http://www.nato.int/cv/hsg/cv-hos.htm).

[cut]

That's the american problem; believing anything happening in the US is more important than anything happening outside the US.

if that was aimed at me, I'm European

[budanski]

It's true that France has had a rather odd and not always warm relationship with NATO. Nonetheless, they're still members (http://www.nato.int/cv/hsg/cv-hos.htm).

Ah yes. With members like this, who needs an opposing force?


France's NATO Gambit--Who's "unilateral" now?
Wall St Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB106669933377150400,00.html?mod=opinion%255Fmain%255Freview%255Fand%255Foutlooks)
October 21, 2003

NATO is the ultimate coalition of the willing. An alliance of democracies, it can only exist if its members agree to remain united. That's why the French effort to create an independent European defense organization, with a separate headquarters, needs to be understood as an attempt to undermine the only official institution that binds the West.

Nineteen NATO ambassadors are meeting in Brussels this week to discuss this threat, called by U.S. Ambassador Nicholas Burns the "most serious" to the future of the alliance. Mr. Burns recently came out of a NATO pow-wow in Colorado Springs where Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld informed him that the confusion surrounding the EU plan could not continue. He's right.

Militarily, the EU military structure cannot but sap NATO strength. Three of the four nations that favor the separate force -- Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg -- already spend a pittance on defense. The Belgian idea of a strike brigade is its marching band. Only France is a serious military power.

Politically, the four made it clear by their timing that their aim is to challenge U.S. leadership in the West. The plan to set up a separate headquarters was hatched in April at the height of acrimony over the Iraq war, which was opposed by Berlin, Paris and Brussels within the EU.

Fortunately, they are meeting resistance from Italy, Britain and Spain -- three of the five largest EU members -- as well as the majority of the East Europeans now joining both NATO and the EU. Said Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi at an EU summit late last week, "European defense must complement NATO and by no means be an alternative to NATO." Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair has also backed away from conciliatory comments toward the EU plan that had some U.S. officials worried he might be looking to tack toward the French after the Iraq furor.

Germany remains a swing presence. Its Clintonian Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, continues to be in thrall to French President Jacques Chirac. But wiser heads in his government (Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer) remain wary of cutting off Europe from the U.S. Now would be a good time for them to speak up.

One irony here is that the same Europeans who are most critical of a supposedly "unilateral" America are undermining the world's most effective multilateral institution. It's true that a separate EU military force won't compete with NATO overnight. But over the years it will become a competing power center and erode NATO's effectiveness and clout. This is no doubt precisely what Mr. Chirac has in mind, and other Europeans have to realize what is being decided.

All the more so because no one in Europe should be confused about the current American temper. Unlike many Europeans, the U.S. public views terrorism as the main threat to its security. The U.S. is eventually going to deploy its military and treasure to meet that threat. NATO has wisely agreed to help in Afghanistan. But if European nations are now going to turn around and spend their marginal defense investments on something other than NATO, then sooner or later the U.S. will have to rethink its own commitment to Europe.

I wonder how the media have missed the biggest quagmire story in history: our bases all over Europe to rebuild the miserable place and to keep them from being overcome by Communism per Uncle Joe Stalin.

Time to close the bases there. I know that having them in Europe gives us access to a ready defense force, but time to think out of the box. It is like so many of the economic policies that are still in effect that are in essence relics of the cold war. The whole thing must be thought anew.

[fantassin]

True, close them all, the sooner the better, the German army will love that since they are currently using up most of their forces guarding empty US barracks.

But I doubt the Officers and NCOs of the US Army will agree since they loved going there.

Replacing BMW by Dacia (Romanian Renault...) and Gasthaus for beggars will surely prove interesting.

As for your article, which is a month old and does not relate to the current anglo-french summit, knowing the FT's stance's toward France, you could also have asked Rumsfeld for a balanced view on the subject...it's never honest but always entertaining.

[Guttorm]

Anyway, **** it. If The EU had an army today, I'd join tomorrow.

[marktigger]

yes and what did france do when it came int coalition ops in the Balkans? It was common knowledge that the french copied any NATO documentation and passed it to their Inteligence community. The y also provided target lists to the Serbs.

Hardly the actions of a coalition member!!!!!!

[radon]

If brittain disagrees on everything, then maybe they have joined the wrong club.

[cut]

If brittain disagrees on everything, then maybe they have joined the wrong club.

we have no choice
might aswell get things a bit more our way..

[budanski]

Seeing that the U.S. spends more money in veteran benefits each year than what the Euros spend on their defense, i'd be interested to see what they will come up with.

How do they plan on paying for it anyways? France and Germany only use a small fraction of their budgets for military spending. Their citizens probably won't be too keen on the idea of sacraficing some of their cradle-to-grave entitlements, and if taxes are raised much more, those who work will lose any incentive to continue doing so. Huge deficits are already amassing in the EU as each country expects the others to take up the slack. Honestly, I think Blair is just humoring the frogs about an independent EU force, he knows it will never come to pass. Without the Brits, the EU force has no teeth, they have no credible navy. Any force without a navy can't project any world power.

[cut]

there is no point in france and germany spending a significant part of their budget on defence, but I can see that changing if Europe gets it's army..

Huge deficits? are you aware of your own countries deficit? let me illustrate for you:
UK: £9billion
US: what is it now $300billion? with more money promised to iraq. I know realist republicans don't do economics but that's rediculous.


The US budget deficit - the gap between federal income and expenditure - is forecast to reach a record $462.8bn in 2004.

[USGunner]

FYI. The US has more registered "footballers" (soccer to us yanks) than the UK has population. In other words, your comparison on deficits falls flat when you take in to consideration the relative size of the two nations. The cost of Gulf II is a small percentage to the total GDP of the US.

[budanski]

there is no point in france and germany spending a significant part of their budget on defence, but I can see that changing if Europe gets it's army..

Huge deficits? are you aware of your own countries deficit? let me illustrate for you:
UK: £9billion
US: what is it now $300billion? with more money promised to iraq. I know realist republicans don't do economics but that's rediculous.


The US budget deficit - the gap between federal income and expenditure - is forecast to reach a record $462.8bn in 2004.

Lets see, $300 billion deficit which comes out at around 3.5 percent of the country's total economic output. Not bad for what the U.S. contributes to the world and still able to keep our "superpower" status.

Last I checked, both France and Germany are having trouble keeping theirs under 3%. (http://afr.com/cgi-bin/newtextversions.pl?pagetype=printer&path=/articles/2003/11/26/1069522640641.html) Not bad for a bunch of "superweasels"

[cut]

"super weasles" is ignorance.

france and germany are not going to get into trouble. and once the new additions join the EU the US will lose even more of the elite sectors, such as services, meaning that the US's share of the world economy will diminish. but as much as i'd like to see the economy die a painful death, I know it will bring us down with it. But then the US will be sincerly ****ed up if france and germany end up with the worsed case scenario.

[fantassin]

France was so much in favour of the Serbs that it had over 70 KIA and 650 WIA in Bosnia and was among the very first to arrive in former-Yugoslavia (1992 while the US waited until late 1995) to stop the Serbs...it fought directly in ground combat against the Serbs in many instances (ex: Mount Igman, August 1995, French AUF1 155 mm SP guns fired over 650 shells on to Serb targets around Sarajevo).

But you don't know that....


Then, France was the second largest contributor of bombers on Serb targets in Kosovo in 1999...but you don't want to know because it does not fit your prejudice...

[Eviscerator]

Unlike the UK which still relies entirely on US nukes and can't use them without US permission.

Not true, the Royal Navy do use US built Trident II missiles on their nuclear capable submarines but the nuclear warheads are British, and nowhere can i see that they can not be used without US permission. The British Armed Forces have had a variety of nuclear weapons over the years, from air dropped bombs, air launched missiles, submarine launched missiles, artillery rounds and probably various other types of weapons however the nuclear weapons we hold have been dramatically cut back as there is no need for them. Since 1992, the United Kingdom has given up:


– the nuclear Lance missile and artillery roles we undertook previously with US nuclear weapons held under dual-key arrangements;
– our maritime tactical nuclear capability, so that Royal Navy surface ships no longer have any capability to carry or deploy nuclear weapons;
– all of our air-launched nuclear weapons.

The British Government is unequivocally committed to Britain's obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so there is no need for thousands of weapons when 100 or 200 will do the same job.

http://www.mod.uk/issues/sdr/arms_control.htm
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/slbm/vanguard.htm

[fantassin]

France has provided the nuclear components for the warhead in the 90s...trying to get the Brits out of the US influence is a long undertaking...wont happen fast but will happen...

Have you read the article "US keeps Intelligence secret from British" by Michael Smith in the Daily telegraph, November the 20th, 2003?

A few extracts:

"The Americans are preventing the British and other key allies in the war on terrorism from seeing intelligence that could save lives..."
"RAF and RAAF officers were asked to leave the room during briefings..."
"The Americans have a history of sharing intelligence only when they have something to gain..."

France's secret services (DGSE) has provided many tips leading to arrests on the US territory. US feedback has been zilch.

[wholagun]

U.S. to Talk in Dec. to Allies on Force Repositioning
Tue November 25, 2003 08:06 PM ET





By Charles Aldinger
WASHINGTON (*******) - The United States said on Tuesday it will begin "intensive discussions" with allies next month on a planned post-Cold War global realignment of U.S. military forces, but stressed no final decisions had been made.

"High-level U.S. teams will begin consultations in foreign capitals in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere" immediately after NATO ministerial meetings in Brussels in early December, President Bush said in a statement issued by the White House.

"We will ensure that we place the right capabilities in the most appropriate locations to best address the new security environment," said Bush, extending overseas a Pentagon debate on changing the military's Cold War "footprint" in cooperation with allies.

Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stressed that the U.S. Congress would also be closely consulted on any changes to make the U.S. military more mobile and lethal after the Sept. 11 attacks on America.

The United States will "engage our friends and allies so that we can figure out between us what makes the most sense," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon briefing.

A final decision on force positions was months away, he said.

"The goal is to end up with capabilities that are as good or better and addressed ... to 21st century capabilities and threats," he said. "These things will be happening incrementally over a period of probably four, five, six years."

The 1991 Gulf War and more recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have taught the United States and its allies that military mobility -- including temporary basing overflight rights -- and technology rather than entrenched heavy Cold War forces are keys to preventing or winning future conflicts.

Washington has already withdrawn its forces from Saudi Arabia and signaled it intends to reduce a major presence in Germany, moving troops into former Soviet bloc states in Eastern Europe such as Poland to improve its ability to operate in the Middle East.

But no final decisions have been made, including on how to realign the 100,000 U.S. troops in the western Pacific, South Korea and Japan, officials said.

The Pentagon is planning to move its 37,000 troops in South Korea away from the demilitarized zone with North Korea. But it has not even begun formal discussions with Seoul on the likelihood that some of those troops will be withdrawn from the country.

"No, No, No," the secretary said when

http://www.*******.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3891773



-------

This is interesting. Poland is joing the EU May 2004 (hopefully unless we are rejected by either the French, Duch or the Belgiums) with the talk of a European defense force and talk of US putting bases in Poland and other Eastern Euro countries. I wonder where that leaves them? I doubt that many Eastern Euro nations will want to go for the Euro defense force insteaded clinging onto the US for security. But this leaves them with a big predicament.
Prodi put it best when he said that a country can't have one hand in the EU's pocket looking for money and the other streched out clinging on the US for security. Doesn't work both ways, makes interesting bed fellows. Im willing to bet with the new generations of the Eastern Euro countries will become more pro Euro as time passes.
Well see in 20 years.

[marktigger]

the french also were supplying Iraq with arms and chemicals from 1991.
There was an investigation into the loss of the stealth fighter over FRY that indicated it target had been leaked to the serbs from french sources.
Friends who worked in avaino told many many stories of french getting caught out spying in their allies in her time there.

One of the reasons the americans won't share all their int with us or the australians is we have agreements with the french to share int and the americans know we would have to pass some of their material over as part of our national agreements with france. The french would in the case of Telic probably passed it straight to the Iraqis.

[fantassin]

The extent of your brainwashing is amazing.

The F117 was shot down by a 14,5 ZPU1 HMG because it had followed the same air corridor night after night; it was a lucky shot.

The French Air Force lost a Mirage 2000 bomber shot down by a SAM while doing a bomb run over Pale in 1995; if there was such collaboration between the French and the Serbs, how do you explain that?

The pilot and wso were beaten up; funny for best buddies don't you think?

[martinexsquaddie]

france likes throwing its weight around in europe been difficult to work with politicly . but an equal
US worlds super power nolonger bothers asking anyone elses point of view does'nt listen treats allies like **** re steel quotas re iraqi contracts
always late if asked for help
hmmm choices choices

[fantassin]

Good news for all my squaddy friends...British units will take part in the Bastille Day military parade on the Champs-Elysées in Paris next 14th of July.

That'll mean a good time out in Paris and loads of free drinks if you are in uniform.

The Queen will also visit Paris for the hundredth anniversary of the "Entente Cordiale".

[marktigger]

There is a little bit more to the stealth than you make out the French leaking of the target lists to the serbs allowed them to know where the targets where.

as to the mirage shot down and french troops well we've lost at least 1 aircraft ove FRY as well and we've had troops killed to. But our inteligence agencies wern't sending NATO target lists to the Serbs.

[marktigger]

or is it more like celebrating 60 years since your country was liberated from the Germans. After the monumental Failure of the french military.

[fantassin]

The pilot from the British Harrier was actually recovered by french SF operators; as were picked up by a french Puma helo the SAS patrol from Gorazde after all the other countries' air forces refused to fly because it was considered too dangerous.

As for history, it's history; but you are wrong, it's "Entente Cordiale" that's being celebrated especially this year; for the D Day landings, it's been celebrated every year since 1944.

[fantassin]

It's really funny to see how it seems to annoy you that the FR and UK armies are getting every day closer; there are talks of building aircraft carriers together, of more common procurements, of more common ops outside the NATO frame...

Take the 52nd (UK) Brigade for example; it's the British Army's specialist mountain unit and where did they send their officers and men for training in mountain and to get mountain expertise? France, of course...

Where do Brit SF do their HALO jumps when weather is bad in the UK and El Toro California too far away? France, of course...that's just two examples amongst hundreds.

Don't be annoyed, at least we've never had a blue-on-blue with you; must make a nice change from working alongside your "special relationship" friends...

At working level, between units and general officers, the working relationship has never been better. Sorry, all your propaganda is apparently lost on the policy makers !

[Sabre]

The funny thing is, France and the UK are more similar than we like to admit. I think it would be a good thing to increase the co-operation we have with France both politically and militarily. My mate is actually spending a year at the St. Cyr academy as we speak and is enjoying it imensly.

I think we need to get over the long held rivalry and the 'arrogance' felt by both sides of the channel.

The only thing is though, don't go thinking you can have all the cool stuff our regiments nicked off you at Waterloo! ;)

[fantassin]

The only people who keep on rabbiting about the "arrogance" of one side or another are those who've never actually worked alongsides the other countries' forces.

Everytime FR and UK units work together, they enjoy it tremendously; the "Winged Crusader" exercises for airborne units were always huge successes. The ARRC, the UK rapid deployment HQ, invites FR units to most of its main exercises and the two sides enjoy the working relationship.

The Congo operation this summer was the epithom of good working relationships with UK officiers working among FR officiers in the FR HQ in Paris. FR and UK engineers worked together every night to repair the landing strip in Bunya and UK C130 took part in the airlift.

Basically, working with the Brits is good fun and you always learn of each others.

[Royal]

The F117 was shot down by a 14,5 ZPU1 HMG because it had followed the same air corridor night after night; it was a lucky shot.

The F117 was shot down by an SA2.


The pilot from the British Harrier was actually recovered by french SF operators

Not true. Lt N. Richardson of 801 NAS was extracted by a UKSF patrol.


were picked up by a french Puma helo the SAS patrol from Gorazde after all the other countries' air forces refused to fly because it was considered too dangerous.

True.

BTW before you get the idea that I am anti French, I'm not. I had a very happy 18 months in Bourg St Maurice with 8ieme BCA and later at the EdHM in Cham.

[fantassin]

7 eme BCA actually, Quartier Capitaine Bulle. Nice pists up to Les Arcs but the bridges are a pain with the "peaux de phoques" and the bergen.

As for the SA2, my infos say something different but there is no point in bickering; for the Sea Harrier, there were definitely French SF involved.

[Royal]

7 eme BCA actually, Quartier Capitaine Bulle. Nice pists up to Les Arcs but the bridges are a pain with the "peaux de phoques" and the bergen.

putain idiot, J'ai pas regardé l'écran :oops: - les ponts étaient vraiment difficiles avec les peaux.

As for Gorazde, the Puma was from a French SF flight (and very grateful the boys were to see it), but that was the extent of their involvement. I know, because I was in Sarajevo at the time. ;)

[fantassin]

OK, I forgive your French then...

[marktigger]

the stealth pilot was lifted by a french CSAR team who just happened to be in the area.

No I've exercised in La cortine and had a reasonably good time apart from the **** accomidation and the French larmy demanding huge barrack damages for damage to the accomidation that was there when we arrived.

I just would not trust your Government or Command as far as I could throw them. They put French interests over any coalition they are in's interest.

[fantassin]

The British Army command obviously thinks differently...there has never been more joint exercises between FR and UK.

[Roger Rabbit]

Are you French/Belgium/British? i get the impression from your location that your from Belgium, would i be right?

[fantassin]

Flanders runs across the border...I am South of the border.

[marktigger]

we need to work on coalition ops (where they don't infringe on French interests) and as we're used to working with the rest of our NATO allies closley there is a bit of catching up.

BTW my understanding about the carriers is your govt approached ours at least we can draw on French experience of how NOT to build an aircraft carrier. has CdeG been legthened, Had its Propeller put on securley this time?

[fantassin]

Well, your impression is wrong and I think misplaced as far as the French navy as never stopped operating "real" aircraft carriers complete with catalputs opposed to the royal Navy which has been stuck with little aircraft carrier that don't even operate half the airgroup of the former Clemenceau class or now Charles de Gaulle for twenty years or so.

Food for thoughts;

-The EADS company that should build the RN carriers is mostly French-owned

-The CdG's deck was lengthned so as to accomodate the E2F Hawkeyes, a plane that was initially not budgeted by the socialist gvt and that was added by the following conservative gvt. BTW, don't you remember the adding of the "Skyjump" on the HMS Invincible 20 years ago...? same principle...

-The propellers are doing fine now; a newer version is being developped.

-The RN will be left without air cover for several years when the Sea Harriers will be withdrawn in four years' time; At that time the CdG will be operating several dozens Rafales...

Nice try anyway.

[budanski]

Seeing that you want your own force independent from NATO, I guess making your ships "sea-worthy" would be a good start.

[fantassin]

We don't "want" our independant force from NATO, we "have" while still being among the top four main financial contributors to NATO.

That's what you and others find it difficult to stomach.

[budanski]

What I can't stomach is the money being wasted for the defense of Europe.

[fantassin]

Please stop "defending" Europe right now.

[budanski]

I wish I could.

[California Joe]

But what if Greenpeace attacks you again?

[fantassin]

At the moment the current US administration uses Europe as a launching pad for its foreign policy, as a rear base for its OIF casualty, as a staging point for further military operation and for many, many other purposes.

The "defense" part stopped 14 years ago and nobody denies it was efficient.

To say the US is defending Europe now is really pushing it. It's the reason why it's looking for new, easier to boss around (ie Poland, Romania, Bulgaria...) countries to get closer to its future theaters of operations.

[budanski]

http://www.abmc.gov/lx1.jpg

American occupation of France

[fantassin]

We'll sink them, as per normal SOPs

rofl

[fantassin]

Can't see your pic but I suppose it's the usual, last resort picture of a US war cemetary?

If it is, a few infos:

-All allied foreign military cemetaries in France have been given to the country of origin of the fallen; the Colleville sur Mer US cemetary (Omaha Beach) is, technically, US territory. So, really can't speak of an occupation.

-We have our share of cemetaries; 1 375 000 KIA during WWI and 600 000 during WWII plus 94 000 during Indochina and another 36 000 in Algeria.

-Are the French cemetaries in the US of soldiers who died in the US Revolution French territory?

[budanski]

What a great scenario.

With Europe's stagnant economy, lets see them be forced to BUILD and SUPPORT their own militaries when the U.S. pulls out it's "mini-Americas" - Each of those little installations has a PX/Shoppette, a guard rotation, a physical plant. In the army they group them into base support battalions and each of those have schools, medical clinics, housing for families, activities centers, child care centers.....you name it.

Each dumps an enormous amount of money into the economy in 3 ways:

1. Salaries of German employees.
2. Salaries of Americans (civ & military) spent in the local economy.
3. Contracts by Americans for services and supplies ranging from water to sidewalk repair to drywall to paint.

Reminds me of a funny situation. In Greece, the government in order to give into anti-american sentiment, demanded the United State remove military bases. The United States looking to close redundent bases, said ok we will close two. The Greek government, surprised by their unexpected success, suddenly demanded the bases stay in order to keep the american military dollars spent locally.

No need for U.S. dollars. Euro is the way to go.

[budanski]

-Are the French cemetaries in the US of soldiers who died in the US Revolution French territory?
Nah, we had to use it as landfill.

[California Joe]

The Monkey is right you know. Hell, the 2 bases I've worked on in the US contribute so much to the local economies that the towns they're in would become ghost towns without them here.

[fantassin]

Reminds me of another funny scenario; the US gets nasty with France over the (British owned) Suez canal during the 1956 campaign.

General de Gaulle gets to power in 1958 and by 1966, all US bases in France have closed and the last GI has left. And then nothing happens.

If you think a country the size and power of germany, 80 Millions strong, the birthplace of BMW, Porsche, Heckler und Koch and Siemens among many other companies will be hit hard by the departures of your "little americas", think again.

Be careful, you are getting serious symptoms of intoxication by your own propaganda. Germany is not Greece or Romania. They want you out; less than 28% of the population trusts the US at the moment.

There are more and more books published in Germany on the "terrorists" US bombings that killed 600 000 germans during WW2; you really don't have a clue of the **** your administration is stirring with its cowboy antics.

You are alienating your allies one after the other at the moment you need them most; it's borderline suicidal.

[budanski]

You gotta be fookin kidding me. The same German public that believes that the U.S. was behind 9/11?

btw, I wasnt aware of Bush's cowboy antics playing a big role in daylight carpet bombings in WW2. Funny you euro-PEONS have lost sight on the definition of "terrorists" :roll:

[Roger Rabbit]

I don't the Germans can really try and take the high horse of morality on the issue of who killed how many civilians during the war.

[fantassin]

The very same german public that wants the US (and its exquisite little shopettes) out of their country.

With its arrogance, the current US administration has brought the Germans out of their historical closets...

BTW, don't give lessons on terrorism; it's nothing new in Europe; France had a civilian DC10 blown up mid air by a Lybian bomb 12 years before 9/11

[fantassin]

Is white phosphorus and HE much better than Zyklon B ? that's what they are asking.

France having been on the receiving end of allied bombing (10 000 civilians killed in Normandy by allied bombings between June and August 1944 only for example) and German deportation can testify the outcome is the same.

[Roger Rabbit]

What was the deal with the Lybians, as far as i knew they went and blew up a few things but nobody really paid much attention to them. What were they fighting for? Religion?

[California Joe]

"We" aren't responsible for US policy my friend. We are incredibly skeptical of anything our government does in this country. OK, I am, but that's beside the point. Bashing our politicians is second only to bashing France on our collective fun meters. General de Gaulle had a huge nose, just sayin'. The population of Germany is apparently easily led, there is historical documentation of that fact. Guess which two WORLD events I'm referring to? They also generate a lot of **** involving fecal matter.

[Roger Rabbit]

Ok so who are we bashing now? the French, German sheisser movies, the Germans, Americans, Politicians or people with big noses?

[budanski]

The same Germans mayors who are begging to keep the U.S. bases? (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=15410&archive=true)

Btw, you're a big enough boy to do your own research so theres no need for me to teach you ****. Reread what I posted.

[fantassin]

Hence the use of "The US administration" and not "you" or "him"; no gripe with US citizen unless they show a distinct lack of flair, a tendency to refuse to use their brains and a fanaticism only found in some Middle east slums. (ie the former Delta Force commander and his "my God is better than your God" speech; pathetic...)

For you Rupert: Lybia was at the time trying to invade Chad, a former French colony. That's why we've had troops there since 1969 and why we've had a series of armed conflicts with lybia (complete with ground, air, air defence, SF and armoured operations) between 1969 and the beginning of the 1990s.

A French Army Hawk anti-aircraft missile shot a Lybian Tupolev 22 down in 1987 before it bombed the capital for example. The terrorist destruction of the UTA civilian company DC10 was part of that war. It caused several hundred civilian casualties.

[California Joe]

I'm wearing the required amount of "flair" as we speak.

I feel better now, want to go get a beer?

[fantassin]

Thanks but I prefer red wine.

[California Joe]

Why you gotta be like that?

[fantassin]

Because I have tasted american beers before...OK, I'll have a Rolling Rock...

[California Joe]

I only have Sam Adams. You're so difficult.

Does Je Me Souviens realyl mean "I Am Soup"? ;)

[fantassin]

Je me souviens...as on the Québec license plates?

[California Joe]

Heh, yeah, like that. It's a joke. I grew up next to the Canadian border eh.

Look at me, I'm a diplomat.

[fantassin]

The whole thing is:

"Je me souviens que si j'ai grandi sous la rose je suis né sous le Lys"

in English

" I remember that if I grew under the rose (the symbol of England) I was born under the Lily (symbol of the king of France) "

Fidelity...

[California Joe]

Yeah, I knew that. My dad was born there. (don't tell anyone) I have relatives there still. Now, back to business...

Kiss my ass faggot, we bailed you out of WWII when your Escargot Line failed..... ;)

[fantassin]

Yeah, and once we had hundreds of thousands of bright eyed all-american boys slaughtered while we were basking in the joys of German occupation, we got a permanent seat at the UN security council so we could keep on pestering you to no ends.

;)

[Eviscerator]

Just a couple of points, the germans really do not have a leg to stand on when criticising American and British actions during WW2. Over 11 million people were killed by the Nazi's and these deaths had no military goal whatsoever, the only goal was the eradication of the jewish race. The bombing of german cities was neccessary to stop the war supply production that was killing thousands of allied troops. And are we completely forgetting the Blitz? A massive bombing campaign against London, how can they condemn a tactic that they used on such a large scale first? I think the Germans have not been mentioning the war for far too long, they seem to have forgotten a lot of what Germany did.

Also, the gas used to kill millions of jews (and various people of other races) was not Zyklon-B, it was hydrogen cyanide gas ( http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar27.html ).


Onto another point, as the graves of the British war dead are British Sovereign soil, does this mean that we can place sharpshooters on the monuments and shoot any French yobs that try to deface the graves of those soldiers that died defending your country?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39038000/jpg/_39038351_cemeteryafp203story.jpg

I think you may have been reading slightly too much of the German/French media's propoganda, opinion of the French/German governments in Britain at the minute is extremely low and i cant see how any kind of joint european military force outside of NATO will gain any sort of support with the British people, already several key ministers are opposed to the new constitution.

[budanski]

French Join In on Anti-France Bandwagon (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104229,00.html)

fantassin was correct. I really don't have a clue with the books being released in Europe. And here I thought they were COMPLETELY clueless. ;)

[fantassin]

Unlike some other countries, the French have always loved soul searching.

But if you want to be taken seriously, choose your references better; "FOX News"; what's next? The Pravda?

As for morons daubing war memorials, it's an international plague

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5352&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

For bombing civilians, wherever it's coming from, it's a bad idea. Comparing the Blitz (40 000 killed over several months) and the bombing of Germany (Hamburg: 75 000 killed in one night; Dresden: over 135 000 over three days and two nights) is a no goer from the start.

If you had only a bit of culture instead of a huge gob, you'd had read Churchill's war memories; he explains how he wanted to terrorize the German civilians; nothing to do with war production. He even had a list of the most "burnable" German cities produced so they could be flamed one after the other.

[Royal]

As far as the blitz is concerned, I'm afraid fantassin is right. It was ordered by Hitler in retaliation for RAF bombing of Berlin. The terror bombing of cities like Dresden and Hamburg, was exactly that, terror bombing - it served no military purpose other than the demoralisation of the civilian population.

The Nazi's did some terrible things (inlcuding the murder of some 6 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of others), but in terms of genocide, Stalin was a far greater criminal than Hitler.

[Eviscerator]

For bombing civilians, wherever it's coming from, it's a bad idea. Comparing the Blitz (40 000 killed over several months) and the bombing of Germany (Hamburg: 75 000 killed in one night; Dresden: over 135 000 over three days and two nights) is a no goer from the start.

If you had only a bit of culture instead of a huge gob, you'd had read Churchill's war memories; he explains how he wanted to terrorize the German civilians; nothing to do with war production. He even had a list of the most "burnable" German cities produced so they could be flamed one after the other.

First of all, the Blitz is absolutely comparable to the allies area bombing campaign, there were comparable numbers of bombers (around 950 on each raid) and similar outcomes, there were many raids by the allies, not all of which created the 'firestorm'. The simple fact was that precision bombing was simply not working, bombs were not hitting their targets and the only way to get a reasonable chance of doing damage was to send mass waves of bombers. Yes, it was an early form of terrorism but then a lot of other actions by various military forces can also be called 'terrorism', for example 'Shock and Awe' or the Blitz. We were fighting for our survival and took the neccessary measures to avoid it, if it hadn't been done i suspect France, Holland and Belgium (and other countries) would not have been freed from german occupation.

Stooping to the level of insults really is disappointing however the tactic of lowering enemy morale through overwhelming attacks on civilian targets was Air Vice Marshal Bomber Harris' and not Churchills ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A1057367 ). I also disagree that the bombing had nothing to do with war production, one of the first attacks was on Cologne, an industrial city and several others were to follow. An extract from a biography of a british bomber pilot:


The following day and our 4th raid another long night raid of 8 hours to Wurzburg (Central South Germany) in JO-W, 236 Aircraft took part and 6 were lost, one from 467 squadron (6 killed and 1 prisoner). 1207 tons of bombs were dropped with great accuracy in 17 minutes.We carried 2 tons of H.E.Bombs plus 15 cans of incendiaries to create a “ Fire Storm”
Surveys claim that 89% of the industrial part of the city was destroyed.

There was no other tactic available that would have dealt this amount of damage to the german industry.

Edit: Its also worth noting that the bombing of Berlin was infact a retaliation for bombs being dropped on London, so to regress back to primary school, they started it....

[fantassin]

If you read "Inside the third reich" by then industry minister Albert Speer, you realize how surprised he was that allied bombings hit civilian centres more often than industrial areas.

Comparing German planes of 1940 (Ju 88, Do 17 and He 111) to UK and US heavy, four-engined bombers bombing in "boxes" of 60 is ludicrous; why not pit also a Hurricane against an Me 262? it's the same kind of comparison

Hence, the highest weapons production figures were reached in mid and late 1944 at a time when German cities were ravaged on a daily and nightly basis.

The main impact those raids had on german industry was that it had to produce more anti aircraft guns and ammo rather than dedicate those ressources to producing other weapons.

As far as the opinion of the British people on the French and German gvt, having a lot of relatives in the UK, I can tell you it's not as low as that of the US Gvt that is actively loathed by many. But not Sun readers, of course...

But then, nothing prevents you from liking to see your country being treated like suppletive troops thanks to your "special relationship".

[martinexsquaddie]

the mass bombing raids happened thats a fact.
BEING A BUNCH OF NAZI SCUM WHO STARTED WW11 I don't really care an awful lot.
given what we know now I doubt terror bombing would happen again But
haveing a great grandmother who was jewish means if the Nazis had ever got to the UK I would'nt be here TOUGH ****.
memo to nazi scum build better bombers oh sorry you can't your all dead woot woot woot
the only good nazi is a dead nazi
personally I cheered the LT who killed those prisoners in Band of Brothers
its not like they were people or anything

[AOCBravo2004]

I don't want to rant or anything....... but

Nag nag nag, that is all I am hearing. I am an American getting ready to be commissioned an officer in the US Marine Corps. I am an equal opportunity hater HAHA jk. If anything I hate ALL politicians PERIOD. They are all like f-ing children. Sometimes I think the world would be a better place if run by 6 year olds. Come on people have we lost sight of the true enemy *cough* Luxemburg *cough*. The real enemy is TERRORISM. Not France, or Germany, or America, or the United Kingdom. My my how quickly the world has forgotten our true enemy, and that goes on all sides. I say we lock up all the worlds leaders into one room and start a 30min countdown.

France, thank you for helping us with our independence
UK, thank you for being on our side so many times
Russia, thanks for being our enemy for half a century so that we could spend tons of money and eventually develop the internet :P.
Germany, hmmm Don't know about this one, how about thanks for Porsche (Hoping to get a Boxster as a Lieutenant mobile).
etc etc.

If the EU wants to pour money into its own military force, go ahead, be my guest. Whatever floats your boat.

Do I think America should pull its military forces out of Germany? Yes
Is this because of Germany criticism of America? No, I think the world situation dictates that we no longer need our forces in Germany and could save more money if we pulled out, and use that money domestically. There are other of bases we can use as hopping pads.

George

PS I wanted John McCain for Pres in the US ;)

[fantassin]

:D What a breath of fresh air ! so there are actually some thinking heads over there ! :D

100% with you on this one.

[marktigger]

Fantassin. I seem to remember in 1982 the invincible and hermes deploying south and there were assurances from the french govt that argentina couldn't use its exocet missiles.... then we lost sheffield ad atlantic conveyer to air launched exocet that according to the french govt the argentines couldn't use. Reason they couldn't use them was the french hadn't provided the software for the aircraft to talk to the missile.
20 years later on a documentry they interviewed an arms dealer who was trying to thwart the Argies procuring more airlaunched exocet in the course of his interview he reveiled that the french Govt had supplied the interface software after the arms embargo had started and as our ships were steaming south.
Yes unfortunatley the europeanisation of defence inndustries has lead to french companies owning large chunks of formerly British buissness's. This had to be done to compete with the americans whoose large defence ordrs were effectivley subsidising their industries.
As to US bases the cypriot govt have benn trying for years to get the British out of the SBA's in Cyprus so they can try to persuade the americans to go there so they can get the economic benefits. I read an article last year in the telegraph about the US military looking at new base areas in Poland, Cezch republic and Hungary and pulling out of Germany which was estimated by the writer to cause a huge economic problem for the regions the bases are in. They were also looking at new bases in South east asia and the areas they were looking at where Australia and Veitnam. Funny a US warship visited Vietnam last week.

[AOCBravo2004]

@Fantassin: I'm usually very quiet, and that is not me being very vocal either. If you want me to yell I can be pretty loud. I am a Political Science and History major so I think I have a better understanding of things then the average person. My emphasize in Political Science was the Soviet Union/Russia, while in History I have really spread myself out, mostly Middle East and East Asia.

Personally I think we need to disband NATO, or not really disband it but expand it. No longer call it NATO because as is currently the case, NATO now operates outside of the North Atlantic. With the threat that has 'emerged' (I use it like that since the threat of terrorism has been around for a long time) in the early 21st century we need a formal military alliance and command structure to better coordinate military and intelligence operations to combat terrorism. Include all nations that want to take up arms against terrorism, integrate our forces better, we must band together and show the terrorists that their actions have only united us as a planet and solidified our resolve to defeat them once and for all.

Just some more drunken thoughts from me at 3am

George

[marktigger]

let me see how many british and american troops died defending and liberating your country twice because of your military incompetence?
Britain also got a seat on the UN security council which the Germans claim should be their's I don't hear the french giving us much support over that.
French govt impose illegal bans on produce from other EU countries to protect their industries, French Farmers blockade ports to prevent import of sheep and other British produce police stand by and watch as british lorry drivers are assualted and their trucks with live cargoes burnt. Illegal immigrants flood chanel ports to get to Britain (encouraged by some French authorities) french do very little to stop them. Channel tunnel has to have armed French police on UK soil to Guard it.
BTW why did the Jaguar get very few exports this anglo-french aircraft? was it because Dassualt-Breget would go to potential customers and as they had seen the terms of the contract then dramatically under cut it so the contract went to the. Hardly the actions of an honourable ally.
Why has France been caught out time and time again spying on her allies?

Speaking of cemetaries what about the British war graves the french are planning to buldoze so paris can have another airport!

[fantassin]

Mark; your last post is frankly disappointing; it's the sort of stuff you find in the Sun before a football match between FR and UK. I am surprised you did not mention smelly cheeses.

As far as "defending my country", I tell you what, it's much better fighting in somebody else's country, at least it saves yours from being destroyed. You can call it this way or you can remember that in 1914 the BEF arrived in FR to join in the clash of civilizations, not to defend FR.

In 1940, the BEF lost 3 500 KIA in their fighting retreat to Dunkirk; in the same time, the FR army lost 97 000. It gives you an idea of who did the fighting.

France owes a big one to the UK for its steadfastness from 1940 on; it also owes it its seat to the UN that Roosevelt who hated the French wanted to give to....Brazil. Thank you Sir Winston. And thank you General De Gaulle.

The rants and rave about the Falklands are useless; the Argies had more brit equipment than French (Type 42 frigates, Blowpipes, Canberras...); the delivery of both Super etendards and exocet were stopped. French Navy pilots went to the UK to explain the attack procedures to the RN.

The rest of your "evidences" is at least doubtful.

[Roger Rabbit]

It was mostly the British who did the fighting. The French kept retreat(so did the Belgiums at times) and so with flanks expose the British retreated. This was kept up all the way to the coast. Thats a very simple explanation of things. Yes sometimes it was the other way round but i can;t remember reading any examples of that being the case.

[Eviscerator]

As far as the opinion of the British people on the French and German gvt, having a lot of relatives in the UK, I can tell you it's not as low as that of the US Gvt that is actively loathed by many. But not Sun readers, of course...

I simply disagree with this point, there may be a vocal minority that are voicing their Anti-US opinions but the silent majority do not share these views, we are far closer to America than we are to France/Germany. As an englishman myself opinion of Europe is far lower than it is of America.

As for the german claim that the allied bombing of german cities is as bad as the holocaust, it is simply ludicrous, the holocaust was not terrorism, it was genocide. You claim 600,000 were killed by the allied bombing, a campaign which helped to end the war (and save countless more lives) does not compare to 11 million dead and even attempting to compare them is laughable. The only goal of the holocaust was the eradication of an entire race. The german public are grossly misguided if they truly believe that claim.

[Royal]

The rants and rave about the Falklands are useless; the Argies had more brit equipment than French (Type 42 frigates, Blowpipes, Canberras...); the delivery of both Super etendards and exocet were stopped. French Navy pilots went to the UK to explain the attack procedures to the RN.


The Exocet issue has been discussed before;

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3371&start=40

I'm afraid that the French (politicians/arms industry) are guilty as sin on that one.

[Roger Rabbit]

If we're talking genocide and mass slaughter then we need to speak to the experts themselves. Stalin and the other commie regimes. Khmer Rouge's Pol Pot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh they make the Nazis look like amateurs.

[fantassin]

This is not a pissing contest to know who has slaughtered the most civilians; the point is: killing civilians is wrong, whether it's with gas in an organized way or with white phos from 10 000 ft.

As for your view on the battle of France in 1940, I am not surprised you have not read many things about it in English. It is not a well researched topic in English; but you are wrong in assuming it was a 6-week rout of the French Army. If the Brits did all the fighting will making for the coast, it's amazing they took so little casualties....the fighting was done mostly in the East.

The BEF was tiny compared to the French army at the time; it was good of them to come but to assert they did all the fighting is simply not true.

To give you an idea, the German forces lost 27 000 KIAs in the campaign and 250 to 300 planes. Planes that were then to be missed by the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain (to which some French pilots took part BTW).

As for all the legends surrounding the use of the Exocets AM39 during the Falklands, it's like discussing who killed JFK. There are so many conspirations theories in the UK that the truth will never come out. You want the French to be guilty because you were caught with your trousers down just like the US would love to find a barrel of chemical written "with love from Chirac to Saddam" in Iraq.

The links you refer to is not proving anything; it's asserting a clandestine op, something anybody can do.

[Roger Rabbit]

Theres more than plenty of examples of the French retreating without telling the British and so consequently the Brits fighting with exposed flanks. To do that and retreat successfully at the same time is pretty impressive. Also the French airforce was a formible threat, apart from the fact that the planes which were being flown were obselete and the modern planes remained at the factories and the supply depo's because they weren't issue to the pilots. Same went for the up to date anti-tank guns. The French had the equipment to fight, just they didnt have it issued to the troops. Many of the troops also did not want to fight. You don't get mass surrenders from soldiers who are willing to fight.

As for the exocet missile and the French, well as we all know, when it comes to politicians and business men then there is one thing they can more about than doing the right thing.... its called money.

[fantassin]

Some French plane were obsolete; so were some Brits like the Defiant, the Fairey Battle, the Hampden, the Gladiators...

Others like the Dewoitine 520 or the Breguet 693 were good.

As for anti-tank guns, the 2-pounder was notoriously useless.

I simply don't see your point; is it to try to convince that the gallant BEF was stopping the German military might single-handedly while the French Army was too busy surrendering to even care? even Liddel Hart who was notoriously anti-French does not say that.

The UK fixation with WW2 is interesting; it's the past but you keep on coming back to it; probably because it was the last time the UK played a world role.

Basil Fawlty: "Don't mention the war"

[stephane from Paris]

It seems than some readers of The SUN here are still traumatized by the fact they had a french king (Guillaume) in their history!
we didn't have a king who speack english here!!

If we have a look on the WW2 1940, we learn that most of french forces are in front of Germany when Hitler went by other way: Holland+Belgium, and by the flanck, so the situation become quickly sad!!!
It's a fact that french forces sacrified tons of soldiers to save BEF who try to escape the battle!
Germans used novative tactics, good weapons and motived troops, GB was safe just because it's an Island!
UK prefers US than UE? Yes all of us know that, how many military programs UK leaved before the end and prefer buy US stuff?
btw the new Tiger helo is far superior to the Apache they choose (so far , that Aussie buy some!!!!!!!).
The Challenger 2 MBT uses Thalles components!!
The UK is the only big western european country who don't get Euro money!
The UK is the only country where islamist integrists spoke about their goals, their supports to Bin Laden and their hate about us!
The UK has a press where french bashing is national sport, they always speaks about french but here WE NEVER SPEAK about them, that's the difference. Perhaps it's the main reason of this UK interrest for us??!!!!!
regards
Stephane
ps for US who thinks they have the best materials: the abrams uses a german gun and a UK technology armor protection (so 2 of the most importants parts of a MBT).

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I love the French :hug: they keep me in a job as they buy 93% of the fish I catch and pay me within 30 days which is most unusual these days. :hug:

[fantassin]

:lol: If only for that ! :lol:

[Roger Rabbit]

Your a fisherman?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Yep I am a fisherman but I have been onshore most of the last six weeks as I am doing some courses and a bit of DIY on the house thats how I get to spend loads of time here.

[budanski]

gay[/b] Paris]
ps for US who thinks they have the best materials: the abrams uses a german gun and a UK technology armor protection (so 2 of the most importants parts of a MBT).
As with both the Germans and British use US developed thermal imaging technology on their tanks, and the British Warrior IFV uses an American designed chaingun for its coax-machinegun. And so on . . .

Allies, as you may (or may not) understand, tend to share information to maximize one another's strengths. Whether or not you can recognize the merits of this is another issue, I suppose.

Until others, sans the Brits, actually step into the ring (i.e. a battlefield) and prove it...we'll never know who has the best materials. Take into account even if the M1A2SEP can't hit a target reliably at 5.5 km, it can spot it and hand off the kill mission via the datalink to fire support or CAS assets. In that regard, yes I think we DO have the best material. :P


http://www.noisedesignlab.com/buddy/target.jpg

[Royal]

It seems than some readers of The SUN here are still traumatized by the fact they had a french king (Guillaume) in their history!
we didn't have a king who speack english here!!

Seeing as most of western France was ruled by Edward III and his sucessors from the start of the hundred years war in 1337 and we didn't finally give up rule of Calais and Le Harve until 1562, I'm struggling with that one :cantbeli:

[stephane from Paris]

Dubanski, is your photo here because you 'll enjoy to sit on the tower??
btw, we're far more lethal than Irak or Afghanistan you know!!!

I'm happy you feel that's good that Western defence industries are using by all countries for a better combination!
It's just i read often comments from people who thinks you have the best stuff!
From tests before buy in Saudi/sweden/Greece/Turkey/Emirates the best MBT (including cost and possibility to get existing stock) is Leopard2A5! The most modern but which have a great problem : IT'S PRICE is Leclerc (better armor with -10 tons, automatic load syst, advanced computers for positioning/find allied or ennemy, 3 crew members, evolutive protection like Merkava3...)!! The M1A2 SEP uses upgrades that were in the Leclerc conception!
The challie2 corrected some of the Challie1 flaws but for anti RPG7, the tank need add on armor! btw the gun is really excellent!
I saw several time that russian tanks is outdated!!! But the T80UM2 is a better tank than M1A2 (better mobility, better low profile, inovative active armor protection and their Black eagle is due to be one step in the future)!
The merkava 4 is better protected than M1A2 and has very efficient active protections! certainly the best for urban zones!
The M1A2 have a good gun (the same as Leo2), good frontal protection, but the engine drink too much and the tank wasn't designed for upgrading it easily! It's a combat proved tank but against old tanks without air supports! It's a good tank but for sure not THE best one, and the good training of western soldiers make another difference.
For selling some, USA uses all it's economic power, and the fact that they can offer some old tanks in the contract like did germany to Poland for example.
Btw it's enought for the conflicts against countries like Irak/Iran... and it seems that USA will use it for a long lime!
And it's the same for Helicopters or planes (M29 vs F15, Apache vs Tiger and Kamov 50). Have a look on the RED FLAG results when the Rafale went for tests against F15/F16!
Do you know that USMC uses french thermals google, that SF uses french made helmets, that before politicals problems between us the new caesars howitzer interrested very much the Army?

Regards
stephane

[Roger Rabbit]

I want to here more about this French King.

The names Budanski not Dubanski.

[fantassin]

I am not going to get involved in that "my **** is bigger than yours" rubbish.

Grow up all of you.

[Roger Rabbit]

Why? scared you might lose rofl just kidding

[California Joe]

The current royal family in Britain is German for Chrissakes.

[Royal]

Yep ;)

[Royal]

and California's run by an Austrian ;)

[Roger Rabbit]

They did change their name though. Apparently i am studying history at uni(i thought i was doing something like that) anyway after the Norman invaision then the Kings although not technically French spent most of their time fannying around in France and some were were born there. Thats until a certain King John got himself kicked out. Anyway long story short then the English Monarchy tends not to be all that English, but we do still love em :hug:

[California Joe]

Hehe. Touche. :P

[budanski]

gay[/b] Paris]
Blah, blah, blah, ze French tank is ze best... I love Jerry Lewis :roll:
Once again you frogs live in a make believe world. Where tanks battle mono y mono. In the real world, as I have tried to explain to you, tank battles are heavily supported with other assets.

The Leclerc is the only western tank with an auto-loader which also happens to have the slowest rate of fire not to mention the most expesive price tag. French engineers are funny like that. Charles de Gaulle carrier ring a bell?

Someone seems to have a nation-based inferiority complex going... Before you make more of ass of yourself, http://www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.assessment.best-tanks-and-why.pdf

[budanski]

gay[/b] Paris]
Blah, blah, blah, ze French tank is ze best... I love Jerry Lewis :roll:
Once again you frogs live in a make believe world. Where tanks battle mono y mono. In the real world, as I have tried to explain to you, tank battles are heavily supported with other assets.

The Leclerc is the only western tank with an auto-loader which also happens to have the slowest rate of fire not to mention the most expesive price tag. French engineers are funny like that. Charles de Gaulle carrier ring a bell?

Someone seems to have a nation-based inferiority complex going... Before you make more of ass of yourself, http://www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.assessment.best-tanks-and-why.pdf

After reading that, take into consideration what the U.S. has in assets ie: UAVs, satellites, datalinks, etc...and with the Brits, the only two with battlefield exp. among the western tanks. The Abrams comes out the clear winner.

[cut]

, GB was safe just because it's an Island!


that's only fair we have to put up with this weather so that we don't get invaded every century.

[stephane from Paris]

Well Benny hill i can't read your link from my work computer but i'll do from home !
btw the leclerc during firing tests in Greece (with Leo2, M1A1,T80,Challie2) had hits 10 cibles (not sure of the word in english) in 1 minute!!!! so the auto load prove it's efficience.
The current talk is MBT not other thinks like communications, satellites...
The Abrams is far superior to T55 (50's design) and T72 (specialy if crew isn't motived and well trained) it's a fact that everybody knows!
The irakis T72 couldn't use the mobility of the T72 (their only chance) since they haven't any air supports and were under US aircrafts menace!

If you jump higher than a 5years old child it's not a proof that you're the best jumper, understand?
Btw Russia have same capability of USA, and we have satellites and soon a european GPS system!
Notice that USA spend 40% of the whole Wolrd military budget.
When you compares budget: USA is 13x France
So impossible to compares! But we produce good stuff for far lesser money put on devellopment budget!!

For old histoty; Guillaume duke of Normandy was french and was viking origin but he spoke french and he's troops were normans (mix of viking origin and frenchs soldiers).
If England stay in France during the 100 years war she was helped by some french lords (like the powerfull duke of Bourgogne) who didn't accepts the law of the King!! At the end of the Kindom of France againts England+ french rebell lords wars the English were out (except Bordeaux and Calais) and the Kind had control on lords, so who won the 100years war?

[Roger Rabbit]

It's not how much money you spend, how many men you have or how good your equipment is. Its about the proper training, motivation and commitment. Britain spends far too little on the military, there are always cut backs and the number of troops are being reduced. A lot of the equipment is average or poor in comparison to American equipment and there is often a lack of it. That said then the British military is one of the finest if not the finest(if you wanna flame then do it in a dry wooded area and be responsible :D) in the world and operates at high standards constantly with the equipment issued.

The richest, largest, and best equiped army in the world should always be comparing itself to over armies.

[budanski]

gay[/b] Paris]
btw the leclerc during firing tests in Greece (with Leo2, M1A1,T80,Challie2) had hits 10 cibles (not sure of the word in english) in 1 minute!!!! so the auto load prove it's efficience.

Was it the same event in Greece where the French were caught cheating?



Strategypage (http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htecm.htm&base=htecm&Prev=93&BeginCnt=124)
April 27, 2003: While Iraq's use of GPS jammers did not succeed in the recent war (the jammers were quickly located and bombed), three years earlier, one of Iraq's allies did make successful use of GPS jamming against U.S. and British troops. In the Summer of 2000, American, British and French tanks were competing for a $1.4 billion contract to equip the Greek army. For some reason, the GPS gear in the American and British tanks never seemed to work correctly during the tests. It was later discovered that the French had brought a small GPS jammer to the tank evaluation area and rigged it so a French officer could turn the jammer on and off remotely whenever the American or British tanks were moving about. Eventually, Greece selected German tanks for its army.



gay[/b] Paris]The current talk is MBT not other thinks like communications, satellites...
The Abrams is far superior to T55 (50's design) and T72 (specialy if crew isn't motived and well trained) it's a fact that everybody knows!
The irakis T72 couldn't use the mobility of the T72 (their only chance) since they haven't any air supports and were under US aircrafts menace!

If you jump higher than a 5years old child it's not a proof that you're the best jumper, understand?
Btw Russia have same capability of USA, and we have satellites and soon a european GPS system!
Notice that USA spend 40% of the whole Wolrd military budget.
When you compares budget: USA is 13x France
So impossible to compares! But we produce good stuff for far lesser money put on devellopment budget!!

Somewhere between my other two posts I mentioned, you still havent grasp what I'm getting at with the inclusion of the other assets that would come into play to assist our tanks in battle. Let me repeat, in a make believe world, which you frogs like to dwell in, tank battles do not fight one on one, but with other assets to assist them. Going against an American force head to head is suicide yet you still differ.

[Deuterium]

When you compares budget: USA is 13x France
So impossible to compares! But we produce good stuff for far lesser money put on devellopment budget!!


It's real easy to compare. How much did your country spend on the development of X project. HOw much does the US spend on the development of X project. Your arguement is false. In the BIG picture it is true that the US has ability to develop more projects, but it doesn't invalidate your country's ability to develop this or that better.

[Vance]

*Waits for Kingpin and his pictures of destroyed Abrams tanks*

[kinghk]

[quote=stephane from gay Paris]
Blah, blah, blah, ze French tank is ze best... I love Jerry Lewis :roll:

How old are you Budanski? I used to call people and stuff gay when I was 13-14 years old, but when I at some point found that it was rather childish, so I stopped. Now, are you 14 years old, or are you just childish?

[Jack Mehoff]

French tanks have four gear shifts, 3 reverse and 1 forward

[Roger Rabbit]

that joke works on so many levels

[budanski]

gay[/b] Paris]
Blah, blah, blah, ze French tank is ze best... I love Jerry Lewis :roll:

How old are you Budanski? I used to call people and stuff gay when I was 13-14 years old, but when I at some point found that it was rather childish, so I stopped. Now, are you 14 years old, or are you just childish?
Tell me something the wife havent yet told me.

[Herrmannek]

How old are you Budanski? I used to call people and stuff gay when I was 13-14 years old, but when I at some point found that it was rather childish, so I stopped. Now, are you 14 years old, or are you just childish?
Tell me something the wife havent yet told me.
You drive as bad as your wife mom. :)

[stephane from Paris]

budanski when i read your article, i see that France is the allied of Irak (??!!!), write that in foxnews/NYTimes style immediatly let me understand that this article is pure propaganda anti french not more and i can dought about this history!
btw if it was right, GPS don't have something to do with mobility, fire, protection....!
btw, you still didn't understand my first post, i said that if most of you considers Abrams the best (not the whole military force just that stuff) you're wrong!
To Rupert, you're right and i remember royal marines in UM quasr speaking about their americans counterparts, that was funny!!
To Deuterium, sorry you can't compare:
Tons of money were put on Leclerc or Rafale programs but since the military budget shut down after the fall of the berlin wall, the order was cut by 1/2! Idem the Tiger and the NH90 which are ready will have several years delay! our priority are school, socials aids...
It's far more difficult and expensive to produce 300 +450 (UAE) Leclerc than thousands of M1A1/A2. We haven't a lack of goods technicians and goods projects but as i read recently: "our industry can produce more and more advanced stuff but we can't buy it".
The rise of budget is for buy spare parts that nearly all units needs (30 to 40% of Puma can't fly due to the lack of parts) so new materials will waits!
But we're able to produce first class stuff: NH90/Tiger/Leclerc/Rafale/new balistics missiles/cruise missile....
In 2008 our forces will put a step beyond with this stuff!

[California Joe]

Good luck with that.

The Chauchau was touted the same way ;)

[jizzmonkey]

budanski when i read your article, i see that France is the allied of Irak (??!!!), write that in foxnews/NYTimes style immediatly let me understand that this article is pure propaganda anti french not more and i can dought about this history!
btw if it was right, GPS don't have something to do with mobility, fire, protection....!
btw, you still didn't understand my first post, i said that if most of you considers Abrams the best (not the whole military force just that stuff) you're wrong!
To Rupert, you're right and i remember royal marines in UM quasr speaking about their americans counterparts, that was funny!!
To Deuterium, sorry you can't compare:
Tons of money were put on Leclerc or Rafale programs but since the military budget shut down after the fall of the berlin wall, the order was cut by 1/2! Idem the Tiger and the NH90 which are ready will have several years delay! our priority are school, socials aids...
It's far more difficult and expensive to produce 300 +450 (UAE) Leclerc than thousands of M1A1/A2. We haven't a lack of goods technicians and goods projects but as i read recently: "our industry can produce more and more advanced stuff but we can't buy it".
The rise of budget is for buy spare parts that nearly all units needs (30 to 40% of Puma can't fly due to the lack of parts) so new materials will waits!
But we're able to produce first class stuff: NH90/Tiger/Leclerc/Rafale/new balistics missiles/cruise missile....
In 2008 our forces will put a step beyond with this stuff!


A quick end to the bull****:

Shut up you french fag, your wrong and you dont know what your talking about.

ok i feel beter now :P

[stephane from Paris]

****monkey!!!!!!!
You leaved schools too early!!
No arguments, some insults, well you're a winner guy!
Hey sunday warrior, go to the USMC office, sign for a few years and go replace all the blacks (20/25% of the armed forces) and Latinos (30%) that i'm sure you don't like very much too!
btw i'm happy that you feel better now, try to open a book, you'll feel better and better!
Adios

[Hydro]

Good luck with that.

The Chauchau was touted the same way ;)


Ha, what a complete pile of ****e that was...I genuinely feel sorry for the US troops issued with that french paperweight in 1917!

[jizzmonkey]

****monkey!!!!!!!
You leaved schools too early!!
No arguments, some insults, well you're a winner guy!
Hey sunday warrior, go to the USMC office, sign for a few years and go replace all the blacks (20/25% of the armed forces) and Latinos (30%) that i'm sure you don't like very much too!
btw i'm happy that you feel better now, try to open a book, you'll feel better and better!
Adios

WEEEELLL, a little angry arent we?
I'd like to start out by saying, I'm active duty, so I dont need to sign up for the USMC, and I'm army, not marines, thats beside the point, I didnt "leaved" school early either, I waited for the bell to ring every day, then I left :P , but that was many years ago. Your percentage on military ethnicity is really off dude, so I wont even go there, and your comments on different platforms for Tank designs and so on are all stupid **** you probably read in a french fagazine, I mean magazine, sorry about that.
and lastly, I am Latino, Born and raised in Bogota Colombia, so go slap yourself silly frenchy and have a croissant .

VIVA LA RESISTANCE!!
and next time germany invades you, dont call us
You pissed us off this time.

[California Joe]

**** is Carlos. Word esse.

[jizzmonkey]

**** is Carlos. Word esse.

Both my parents are american Baptist missionaries and have been in Colombia for 32 years, but my wife is mexican so
orale vato!

[California Joe]

Hehehe. Oh Gawd Baptists..... ;)

[jizzmonkey]

yur tellin me!

[mocking_loudly_died]

Baptists are the loonies right?

We have some in town, they dislike my old faded metal shirts....bah :D

[California Joe]

There's a movie called Where the River Runs Deep. In it the Dad (Tom Skerritt) is a Presbyterian Minister. At one point he says, "Methodists? Methodists are just Baptists that can read..." Brad Pitt's in it so you'll probably love it.