surrender monkeys ?

[TDidier]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/972918.asp?0dm=s129k&cp1=1

;)

[RichardP]

Originally posted by TDidier
http://www.msnbc.com/news/972918.asp?0dm=s129k&cp1=1

;)

TDidier, I had to write, as I am probably one of the most intolerant 'turkeys' regarding France! I won't get into that at the moment, but I do realise there were many brave French during WWII, and needless to say, WWI! However, it is still my opinion that France’s present jousting with the ME/Israel dilemma is doing her more harm than good in the long term. Being that France has full right to follow her foreign policy as she sees fit: she must also bear the subsequent fall-out from those of us who do not nor ever will concur with France’s dalliances past and more importantly presently. All nations have kipped with the devil throughout history but the memory of Vichy still rings clearly for more than a few. Especially those of us whom have lost loved one’s during the two World Wars: who now lay buried on French soil.
I agree it is ill fitting to tar and feather all citizens of France, because of its asinine leadership; God knows my country suffers from the same folly. Trust me, many believe all Canadians are anti-American and anti-Israel… but… c’est la vie!!
Cheers!

:p

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:

An excerpt:


Some Americans call the French “surrender monkeys.�

France has probably the most expeditionary army [i.e., ready to deploy to distant battlefields] in Europe. And writ large. They have impressive military capabilities across the whole spectrum of operations. They’re good at peacekeeping; their Air Force is modern, state of the art; their Navy is modern; their land Army I know about because I served with them in northern Iraq 11 years ago, and I know their generals�this is a very, very fine army.


Given that France has lost all of its wars in modern history that does not look too impressive. :)

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Mil
Posted by TDier:

An excerpt:


Some Americans call the French “surrender monkeys.�

France has probably the most expeditionary army [i.e., ready to deploy to distant battlefields] in Europe. And writ large. They have impressive military capabilities across the whole spectrum of operations. They’re good at peacekeeping; their Air Force is modern, state of the art; their Navy is modern; their land Army I know about because I served with them in northern Iraq 11 years ago, and I know their generals�this is a very, very fine army.


Given that France has lost all of its wars in modern history that does not look too impressive. :)

Mil, I was trying to rid myself of some of my Francophobic tendencies, and then you had to remind me... :D

[Mediocrates]

The entire French identity is wrapped up in antiamericanism. To be "French" is to be that which is not or is opposed to that which is American. It's simply a negative identity. And from that point all sorts of justifications for things erupt.

One cannot simply be banal and mercenary, no one must wave the flag high overhead. Why is it that France supports Iranian mullahs when it could have just as easily given lip service to the student protest movements calling out for democratic reform? Well money and investment come to mind. But that is embarassing to admit - paltry money, filthy lucre. So instead they whip themselves into an antiamerican fury, screaming their self righteous anger and embarassment to the world. It must be our fault their so weak and ordinary. At least that's what they'll tell you.

[TDidier]

The problem is propaganda in education and in the media, there is a real threat on democracy.

Santé (or "Prozit", as we said it too in my origin part of France)

Didier.

Ps: What is a "Turkey" for a man in Canada?


Originally posted by RichardP
TDidier, I had to write, as I am probably one of the most intolerant 'turkeys' regarding France! I won't get into that at the moment, but I do realise there were many brave French during WWII, and needless to say, WWI! However, it is still my opinion that France’s present jousting with the ME/Israel dilemma is doing her more harm than good in the long term. Being that France has full right to follow her foreign policy as she sees fit: she must also bear the subsequent fall-out from those of us who do not nor ever will concur with France’s dalliances past and more importantly presently. All nations have kipped with the devil throughout history but the memory of Vichy still rings clearly for more than a few. Especially those of us whom have lost loved one’s during the two World Wars: who now lay buried on French soil.
I agree it is ill fitting to tar and feather all citizens of France, because of its asinine leadership; God knows my country suffers from the same folly. Trust me, many believe all Canadians are anti-American and anti-Israel… but… c’est la vie!!
Cheers!

:p

[TDidier]

He probably said that in comparison of US militar capacities.
In NATO standard only the marines corp was considered as "trained force" in US... ;)
This speech concern actual french capacities of course, but as far as I remember history, US didn't won many much more wars than France in this past century? :rolleyes:

But the important point of this article is to show who are the real important allied for US, this article comes from an Marines General (do you think he understand nothing about militar questions?) and without any kind of propaganda, only the truth...



Originally posted by Mil
Posted by TDier:

An excerpt:


Some Americans call the French “surrender monkeys.�

France has probably the most expeditionary army [i.e., ready to deploy to distant battlefields] in Europe. And writ large. They have impressive military capabilities across the whole spectrum of operations. They’re good at peacekeeping; their Air Force is modern, state of the art; their Navy is modern; their land Army I know about because I served with them in northern Iraq 11 years ago, and I know their generals�this is a very, very fine army.


Given that France has lost all of its wars in modern history that does not look too impressive. :)

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


He probably said that in comparison of US militar capacities.


Are you comparing the capabilities of the French Army to the American? Even on individual bases? GOD SAVE CHIRAC!!!!


This speech concern actual french capacities of course, but as far as I remember history, US didn't won many much more wars than France in this past century?


Wars won by France in the last century - ZERO.
US - WWI, WWII, Korea, Gulf1, Gulf2. Since you cannot divide five by zero it is a little hard to show proportions... or you can take mathematical approach and just call it infinite.

The funny thing is that the only time any French-made weapons saw their light of glory anytime in the last century was in the hands of the Israelis. :) That is really funny.


But the important point of this article is to show who are the real important allied for US,


You mean the French?

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mil
Are you comparing the capabilities of the French Army to the American? Even on individual bases? GOD SAVE CHIRAC!!!!

Not in size of course. Look to the article, a phrase is important for a militar:
"They have impressive military capabilities across the whole spectrum of operations" and in that : "the whole spectrum of operations"

Do you know how many nations are able to do that in the world?

Wars won by France in the last century - ZERO.
US - WWI, WWII, Korea, Gulf1, Gulf2. Since you cannot divide five by zero it is a little hard to show proportions... or you can take mathematical approach and just call it infinite.

France don't won many wars that is right but you have a very funny look on History.
But I see that you don't continue to put Vietnam on your victory list, you are able to progress and it is a good thing :D

The funny thing is that the only time any French-made weapons saw their light of glory anytime in the last century was in the hands of the Israelis. :) That is really funny.

With Irak and Argentine too, Taiwan and India recently and in different coalition that France join in (GW1, Serbia) for recent history. Against Libya in 80's

But the important point of this article is to show who are the real important allied for US,
-You mean the French?

What is your opinion about that...

SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

Interressant point...
And now you have to transpose that to :
-Supporting SaudiArabia, Kuwait and Pakistan...(All those states are more authoritarive than Iran... And where do you see that France supporte Iran???)
-Attack a state to procure oil, isn't it a money question ?

Anti-americanism is a word created to mask a non-sens racism of US extremists. ;)

SeeU, Didier.

Ps, never forgive that bombing for peace is like ing for virginity :D



Originally posted by Mediocrates
The entire French identity is wrapped up in antiamericanism. To be "French" is to be that which is not or is opposed to that which is American. It's simply a negative identity. And from that point all sorts of justifications for things erupt.

One cannot simply be banal and mercenary, no one must wave the flag high overhead. Why is it that France supports Iranian mullahs when it could have just as easily given lip service to the student protest movements calling out for democratic reform? Well money and investment come to mind. But that is embarassing to admit - paltry money, filthy lucre. So instead they whip themselves into an antiamerican fury, screaming their self righteous anger and embarassment to the world. It must be our fault their so weak and ordinary. At least that's what they'll tell you.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


Not in size of course. Look to the article, a phrase is important for a militar:
"They have impressive military capabilities across the whole spectrum of operations" and in that : "the whole spectrum of operations"


Nothing approaching US capabilities on the spectrum of operations. "Operation" is a large word that has many definitions including strictly military. I take it that he refers to the non-military operations.


Do you know how many nations are able to do that in the world?


Israel - for one.


France don't won many wars that is right but you have a very funny look on History.


I know I have a funny look on history. But France still has not won a single war in the 20th century.


But I see that you don't continue to put Vietnam on your victory list, you are able to progress and it is a good thing


I never said Vietnam was a military victory or a victory at all. All I said that Vietnam was a strategic victory - keeping the spread of communism through the South East Asia. In the latter America succeeded.

With Irak and Argentine too,


Iraq and Argentina? When? How? What? For some reason Iraqi Mirages always went down.


Taiwan and India recently and in different coalition that France join in (GW1, Serbia) for recent history. Against Libya in 80's


Who? Where? How?


What is your opinion about that...


France is an American ally - just a very stupid ally. Seriously start electing better leaders.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mil
Nothing approaching US capabilities on the spectrum of operations. "Operation" is a large word that has many definitions including strictly military. I take it that he refers to the non-military operations.

What sort of operations? Are you able to explain that... I gess you are an expert. ;)


Do you know how many nations are able to do that in the world?
-Israel - for one.

No, Israel has got a very good army with an excelent industrial base but Israel don't cover the whole spectrum of operations.

I know I have a funny look on history. But France still has not won a single war in the 20th century.

I am able to do nothing for you, sorry...

I never said Vietnam was a military victory or a victory at all. All I said that Vietnam was a strategic victory - keeping the spread of communism through the South East Asia. In the latter America succeeded.

"strategic victory" is the only kind of victory. Vietcong did a strategic vitory, US just some tactics ones...

Iraq and Argentina? When? How? What? For some reason Iraqi Mirages always went down.

The major part of Irakies aces during Iran/Irak war flown on MirageF1, they were opposed to Iranian Fighters US build, F5-Tiger, F4-Phantom and F14-Tomcat... During GW1, MirageF1 was considered by US commandment as the principal threat in the air, (despite the fact that Irak dispose at this time for Mig29 brand new fighters).
For Argentina you have to look on Super-etendards naval fighters against RoyalNavy during Malouines-war (Falkland-Islands)...

Taiwan and India recently and in different coalition that France join in (GW1, Serbia) for recent history. Against Libya in 80's
-Who? Where? How?

Taiwan over Sea-of-China, against Su27 chineses aircraft-fighters, Mirage2000 is considered by chinese pilots as the most modernous and lethal aircraft in this area.
India by his use of Mirage2000 against Pakistan's SAM and radar sites. He is considered in Indian Air Force as "stealth bomber-fighters" ( but that is right that Indian Air Force has a funny look on fighters use... ).
You can speak about Geeck Air Force too. She is accused in many unofficial Turks rapport to be responsable of many F16 Shootdown over Aegean Sea (Mirage2000).
In Equador with MirageF1 against Sukhoi fighter-bomber.
In GW1 and Serbia, French Air Force was employed agaisnt the Heavy protected bases and in hight precision attacks... Air bases and bunkers bombing with many other important targets...

What is your opinion about that...
-France is an American ally - just a very stupid ally. Seriously start electing better leaders.

I was very desapointed at his election, he is a conservative one (rigth-wing), and his economic and social was very close to GwBush.
In France we thought that we get the worste and stupidest president in the world... But with all your president's stupidity you (US) made us (French) very proud of our president!
Thank you GWBush :D

For who is the most stupid ally... :cool:

SeeU, Didier.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:

What sort of operations? Are you able to explain that... I gess you are an expert.

Operation or "Operational Art" was developed in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and was adopted by all the major armies of the world post-WWII. The definitions are as follows:

Operational art is described as the "totality of maneuvers and battles in a given part of a theater of military action directed toward the achievement of the common goal, set as final in the given period of the campaign." The U.S. Department of Defense presently defines operational art as the "employment of military forces to attain strategic and/or operational objectives through the design, organization, integration, and conduct of strategies, campaigns, major operations, and battles. Operational art translates the joint force commander's strategy into operational design and, ultimately, tactical action, by integrating the key activities at all levels of war."

http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero/RAS/2306030.htm

You are referring to an "operation" as a total military compaign not as a way to conduct warfare.


No, Israel has got a very good army with an excelent industrial base but Israel don't cover the whole spectrum of operations.


As I said it all depends on what you mean by the word "operation." In any case the French Army alone did not shoot-it-out on the battlefield with any other army since Indo-China. Not to mention a fully mechanized army.

I am able to do nothing for you, sorry...

I know. It's sad.


"strategic victory" is the only kind of victory. Vietcong did a strategic vitory, US just some tactics ones...


US was able to contain communism in South East Asia.



The major part of Irakies aces during Iran/Irak war flown on MirageF1, they were opposed to Iranian Fighters US build, F5-Tiger, F4-Phantom and F14-Tomcat...

On the general Iraqi pilots sucked even given an American embargo on Iran which kept the Iranian airforce grounded for most of the part due to the lack of spare parts and weapons.


During GW1, MirageF1 was considered by US commandment as the principal threat in the air, (despite the fact that Irak dispose at this time for Mig29 brand new fighters).

Most of the Iraqi airforce during Gulf War I was composed of Soviet built mostly Mig-22. In any case the Iraqi airforce did not pose much of a threat to the coalition at all.


For Argentina you have to look on Super-etendards naval fighters against RoyalNavy during Malouines-war (Falkland-Islands)...


They sucked.


Taiwan and India recently and in different coalition that France join in (GW1, Serbia) for recent history. Against Libya in 80's

French were flying Jaguars in the support of the Chadians against weakly defended Libyan forces lacking any kind of air-to-air defenses or for that matter a decent airforce.


Taiwan over Sea-of-China, against Su27 chineses aircraft-fighters, Mirage2000 is considered by chinese pilots as the most modernous and lethal aircraft in this area.


Outside the various American carriers.



India by his use of Mirage2000 against Pakistan's SAM and radar sites. He is considered in Indian Air Force as "stealth bomber-fighters" ( but that is right that Indian Air Force has a funny look on fighters use... ).

That's the exact reason why Russia is the main Indian military supplier.


You can speak about Geeck Air Force too. She is accused in many unofficial Turks rapport to be responsable of many F16 Shootdown over Aegean Sea (Mirage2000).


With whom? The Turks?


In Equador with MirageF1 against Sukhoi fighter-bomber.
In GW1 and Serbia, French Air Force was employed agaisnt the Heavy protected bases and in hight precision attacks... Air bases and bunkers bombing with many other important targets...


90% of all the bombing in Serbia was done by USAF.


I was very desapointed at his election, he is a conservative one (rigth-wing), and his economic and social was very close to GwBush.
In France we thought that we get the worste and stupidest president in the world... But with all your president's stupidity you (US) made us (French) very proud of our president!
Thank you GWBush


Still stupid.


For who is the most stupid ally...

For France? I don't think France has too many allies outside the United States.

[TDidier]

(...)

The whole spectrum of operations concern the capacity for a nationnal force to be present in all level of the combat.
From rifle to nuclear, from under the sea to space, from mecanized main battle to special ops and the capacity to rule a coalition at home or far from the nationnal borders...
All that in total maitrise and independance.
Todays there is only two states able to do that:

US of course...
... and France.
(Russia when they will be able to reorganize their army)

[Mercury]

Originally posted by TDidier
(...)

The whole spectrum of operations concern the capacity for a nationnal force to be present in all level of the combat.
Todays there is only two states able to do that:

US of course...
... and France.
(Russia when they will be able to reorganize their army)

I believe it's very difficult to estimate a miltary capabilty of an army outside of the real combat. Countries that haven't fought for many years or that won an easy victory have a natural tendency to overestimate their military capacity. Often this brings them an unpleasant surprize (as France got in 1870 and Israel in 1973).

For the last few decades France independently used its forces only in Africa, to depose the regimes it doesn't like. I don't think it's a challenge comparable to the Gulf War.

[TDidier]

To Mercury:

It is a question of capacities (technologies+equipments+training) of course.

This Marines general gove us a very interrestant lesson on what is important in militar capacities today.
But certainly is he less educated on defence question than our friend Mil :)

To Mil:

"strategic victory" is the only kind of victory. Vietcong did a strategic vitory, US just some tactics ones...
-US was able to contain communism in South East Asia.

Oh! That is a real victory yes: pushed out of Vietnam, abandoned Laos, Cambodge and Birmania to sanguinarian juntas and at the end to Vietnameses Comunists (certainly the best thing that happend to cambodge!) ;) .

On the general Iraqi pilots sucked even given an American embargo on Iran which kept the Iranian airforce grounded for most of the part due to the lack of spare parts and weapons.

During Iran/Irak war, iranians US build jets were continuously used for operations. By "cannibalism" of a part of the aircrafts to procure spare parts to the others and by US fournishment ( :D , GBush senior probably was at the head of the traffic...)
F14 Tomcat were use as awacs (exellent long range radar+huge fuel capacities), but at least one Tomcat was shot down by a MirageF1.
If I remeber it well, on the five best aces of Irak air force, four flown on MirageF1 and one on Mig23.
(Mig22 never exist, you did certainly done a ratio between Mig21 and Mig23 !!)

For Argentina you have to look on Super-etendards naval fighters against RoyalNavy during Malouines-war (Falkland-Islands)...
-They sucked.

They sucked !?

French were flying Jaguars in the support of the Chadians against weakly defended Libyan forces lacking any kind of air-to-air defenses or for that matter a decent airforce.

Lybia was equiped (with air-defence capacities)with:
-MirageF1
-Mig23
-Mig21
-Sukhoi22
-Mirage5

That is the reason why the shooting of two poor equiped lybian Sukhoi22 in 80's by two F14Tomcat was considered as the most important air-air combat for US since the Vietnam war !?
Many air combat over mediterranean sea opposed frenchs to lybians. How many kill? Nobody knows that(totally unofficial), the only official kill was: a civilian italian aircraft which was shot down, probably by a french fired missile against a lybian Mig...
(a Tupolev22 heavy bomber shootdown too over Tchad by a SAM).
For the ground battle... We will see that another time.

Taiwan over Sea-of-China, against Su27 chineses aircraft-fighters, Mirage2000 is considered by chinese pilots as the most modernous and lethal aircraft in this area.
-Outside the various American carriers.

US carried don't take part in chinese air-air combats.
But no aircraft on US carrier with egal air-air capacities than Mirage2000 in his version -5 as used by Taiwan.
Only the brand new Boeing F18E/F super-hornet just entered in service last year is certainly able to surclass a Mirage2000 (or egal him, it depend of the version of the aircraft...).

That's the exact reason why Russia is the main Indian military supplier.

It is only a "money question". Russian's product are cheap... And India need a huge force to break the threat posed by both China and Pakistan.

90% of all the bombing in Serbia was done by USAF.

As I said, the french air force was reserved for the important target like air bases and bunker (because we have material for that).
90%, are you sure, I think that you are a bit ambitious.

For France? I don't think France has too many allies outside the United States.

France have some allied (exellent ones) but no one master

By.

[TDidier]

I forgot SouthAfrica during 70's and 80's with MirageIII and MirageF1 against Mig21 and Mig23 in Angola and Mozambique wars...

;) , Didier.

[Gilgamesh]

Although I don't have the exact statistics at hand, the overall conclusion, as I make up from my quite good memory is the following.

In the Six day war, there were relatively few air air comabat, as Israeli Mirage and A-4 skyhawks bombed Egyptions and Syrians Migs 21 & 23, on the ground.

During the Attrition war that followed the six day war, on the Egyption front, we used F-4 Phantoms as first line air crafts. We shot down many Migs, five of them were flawned Soviet russian "consultants". Majore blow to the USSR. AFIK, Israel is the only country since WWII which confronted soviet fighter pilots in full battle condionts. I believe they were Mig 25, but I can't be sure about it.

In Yom Kippur war, Israel flawn F-4 against Migs and Mirage V, made according to Israeli spacifiactions and sold to Egypt shortly before the war, by the highly anti-semetic pumpos idiot Gen De-Gaul. The French sold us torpedo boats, but refused to deliver them, so we stole our own boats under the French pig snuts, thy try to call "noses". But that's another story.

Needless to say, F-4, flawn by Israeli fighter pilots is far superior to any fighter plane at the time.

In Peace for Gallilay war, we shot down 70 Syrian planes, (and another 30 planes on the ground), Zero causlties on our side.

We used F-15 Eagles and F-16 Falcons against Syrian Various Migs. I do remeber that 2 Mig-29 were shot down.

Peace on Gallilay was the first war we used the FB-21 Kfir, Israeli made fighter-bomber.

Soviet best air defence system at the time, proved totally ineffective againt our war planes. Major contribution to the Free world struggle againt the evil empire of the Soviet block. (since identical air defence system protected Moscow... ).

France, only sought way to appease the soviets, and suck up to the Arabs, till this very day. I wonder How was it that the French hadn't shifted sides?

Any way, France is already enlisted on Bin Laden side, not?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
(...)

The whole spectrum of operations concern the capacity for a nationnal force to be present in all level of the combat.
From rifle to nuclear, from under the sea to space, from mecanized main battle to special ops and the capacity to rule a coalition at home or far from the nationnal borders...
All that in total maitrise and independance.
Todays there is only two states able to do that:

US of course...
... and France.
(Russia when they will be able to reorganize their army)

The Most Deadly Weapon In The French Arsenal....... (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=62951#post62951)G_d help the United States if we ever have to put a boot in their asses....

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Although I don't have the exact statistics at hand, the overall conclusion, as I make up from my quite good memory is the following.
In the Six day war, there were relatively few air air comabat, as Israeli Mirage and A-4 skyhawks bombed Egyptions and Syrians Migs 21 & 23, on the ground.

No A4-Skyhawk in Israel during sixdays war in 1967.
The whole Israeli airforce flown on french aircrafts.
Many air-combats during this war...

During the Attrition war that followed the six day war, on the Egyption front, we used F-4 Phantoms as first line air crafts. We shot down many Migs, five of them were flawned Soviet russian "consultants". Majore blow to the USSR. AFIK, Israel is the only country since WWII which confronted soviet fighter pilots in full battle condionts. I believe they were Mig 25, but I can't be sure about it.

F4 Phantom AND MirageIII, on the five russian shootdown: 3 for Mirages.
Mig25? Only F15 Eagle 10 years later was able to shoot this Mach3 fighter. At this time Mig21 was the most modernous aircraft in Egypt and yria.

In Yom Kippur war, Israel flawn F-4 against Migs and Mirage V, made according to Israeli spacifiactions and sold to Egypt shortly before the war, by the highly anti-semetic pumpos idiot Gen De-Gaul. The French sold us torpedo boats, but refused to deliver them, so we stole our own boats under the French pig snuts, thy try to call "noses". But that's another story.

French build MirageV for Israel were finnaly sold to... France.
Mirage V present in 1973 war came from Lybia (not a potential belligerent, but...).

Do you really trust in this farey-tale about vedette "escaping" or building an aeronautic industry alone ?
In both case there was an agreement to fournish the material paid to Israel. You can't compare Israel navy to french navy...
And all building line was prepared and ingeniors formed to build Mirage in Israel when war begun...
The furnishment of spare for french material to Israel never cess (even after ambargo).
France stoped all livraison just after the bombing of a french civilian Boeing in Beyrouth by Israelians commando (Ehoud Barak participed... under orders of Ariel Sharon).

Needless to say, F-4, flawn by Israeli fighter pilots is far superior to any fighter plane at the time.

You certainly right and it is the reason why MirageIII is still today the best shooter in Israel History...

In Peace for Gallilay war, we shot down 70 Syrian planes, (and another 30 planes on the ground), Zero causlties on our side.
We used F-15 Eagles and F-16 Falcons against Syrian Various Migs. I do remeber that 2 Mig-29 were shot down.

During Bequaa war no Mig29, only Mig21 and Mig23 for air defence in Syria.
URSS fight standard totaly failed against Israelian training and tacticts and Syrian aircrafts were obsolescent compare to F15 and F16 on Israelian side.

Peace on Gallilay was the first war we used the FB-21 Kfir, Israeli made fighter-bomber.

Congratulations. But Kfir was an echec as fighter plane and he was only use as bomber under protection from some other aircrafts.
That is why he failed at exportation (all air force able to buy a good aircraft didn't want it and only some poor equiped rogues states were interessed in and it is the reason of US vetos)

France, only sought way to appease the soviets, and suck up to the Arabs, till this very day. I wonder How was it that the French hadn't shifted sides?

Israel looked for another supplier longbefore 1967. A4 Skyhawk were at building when 6days war began and F4 Phantom contracts were signed.
The ambargo concerned only the new material to belligerent and France never drop Israel in difficulties.
But some smart soldiers (Sharon) prefered to bomb a civilian french aircraft. . .
At this time only the sending of spare cessed.
When embargo on selling weapons was stopped, Israel preferred stay under US "protection" and that is the only reason why Israel did not buy french materials anymore.


Any way, France is already enlisted on Bin Laden side, not?

France not created Bin Laden, France never trained him, France never supplied him. US done that.

All state which used disproportionnate violence to rule theyre neighbours is on BinLaden side :cool:


SeeU, Didier.

[Mediocrates]

Jane's News Briefs
Security News Briefs

10 September 2003
Behave yourself, Fidel

Behave yourself, Fidel
Jane's Foreign Report
EUROPE'S long-running love affair with Fidel Castro is at an end. Thanks to the decades-old US trade embargo, the EU is Cuba's largest trading and investment partner and the main source of its international aid. Through joint ventures with the Cuban state, European companies are active in all sectors of the Cuban economy. But relations took a sudden turn for the worse earlier this year following the arrest and jailing of 75 anti-government activists. This was followed in April with the execution of three Cubans who hijacked a ferry in an attempt to reach the USA. Even Europe's leftist parties felt compelled to stand up and denounce Cuba. 030910

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Jane's News Briefs
Security News Briefs

10 September 2003
Behave yourself, Fidel
...

:cool: , and ?

[RichardP]

Originally posted by TDidier
:cool: , and ?

Unfortunately, Fidel remains an icon of Canuckistan's government... He attended the funeral of our late Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, with his pistol on his hip. Shades of Arafat and some folks out there question the name Canuckistan… it has become a bastion of acute left-wing knee jerk policies, not unlike their Franco-brethren, whom they make an effort to, emulate. Hence, we are a country which prides itself of the anti-American/Israel fervour that grips most of its citizenry. Who forget that if it were not for our powerful neighbour/friend to our south; we would be speaking German, Russian, Chinese, etcetera.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


Oh! That is a real victory yes: pushed out of Vietnam, abandoned Laos, Cambodge and Birmania to sanguinarian juntas and at the end to Vietnameses Comunists (certainly the best thing that happend to cambodge!) .


Pretty much. Otherwise the socialist/communist heaven would spread to the places such as Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Phillipines and such. In any case the Vietnam debacle was a French problem yet the French abondonded it.


During Iran/Irak war, iranians US build jets were continuously used for operations.


Only in the first few years of the war.


By "cannibalism" of a part of the aircrafts to procure spare parts to the others and by US fournishment ( , GBush senior probably was at the head of the traffic...)


Don't make me laugh. The Iranian airforce from 82-89 counted around 100 managable planes which rarely went into action.


F14 Tomcat were use as awacs (exellent long range radar+huge fuel capacities), but at least one Tomcat was shot down by a MirageF1.


Actually the Iranian pilots peformed much-much better then Iraqis in the first few years of the war when the Iranians still had weapons. I have statistics - will put them out.


If I remeber it well, on the five best aces of Irak air force, four flown on MirageF1 and one on Mig23.


In general the Iraqi air-force performed very bad.


(Mig22 never exist, you did certainly done a ratio between Mig21 and Mig23 !!)


Ooops - brain fart. I meant Mig-23.


They sucked !?


Pretty much.



Lybia was equiped (with air-defence capacities)with:
-MirageF1
-Mig23
-Mig21
-Sukhoi22
-Mirage5


Libyans still sucked.


That is the reason why the shooting of two poor equiped lybian Sukhoi22 in 80's by two F14Tomcat was considered as the most important air-air combat for US since the Vietnam war !?


Actually US downed quite a few Libyan planes in the eighties.



US carried don't take part in chinese air-air combats.


Haven't heard of too many confrontations between Taiwan and China.


But no aircraft on US carrier with egal air-air capacities than Mirage2000 in his version -5 as used by Taiwan.


How?


Only the brand new Boeing F18E/F super-hornet just entered in service last year is certainly able to surclass a Mirage2000 (or egal him, it depend of the version of the aircraft...).

Yes - the French weapons rule with no particular result.

It is only a "money question". Russian's product are cheap... And India need a huge force to break the threat posed by both China and Pakistan.


No - it's not just the money question. Indian air-force could have afforded French Mirages just the same.


As I said, the french air force was reserved for the important target like air bases and bunker (because we have material for that).


As I remember lots of bunkers and airfields were bombed in Yugoslavia during the last war.


90%, are you sure, I think that you are a bit ambitious.


That's a fact.


France have some allied (exellent ones) but no one master

Like who? Namibiya or Iran?

[yoyo]

Originally posted by TDidier
France not created Bin Laden, France never trained him, France never supplied him. US done that.

That is correct, France prefered to bet on guys that could succeed: building a nuclear reactor for Saddam and giving refuge to Khomeni then pressure the Shah to let him back so he can bring back Iran - a hundred year back - in 24 hours. :cool:

[RichardP]

Originally posted by yoyo
That is correct, France prefered to bet on guys that could succeed: building a nuclear reactor for Saddam and giving refuge to Khomeni then pressure the Shah to let him back so he can bring back Iran - a hundred year back - in 24 hours. :cool:

Excellent rebuttal, yoyo... :D

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mil

(...) Otherwise the socialist/communist heaven would spread to the places such as Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Phillipines and such. In any case the Vietnam debacle was a French problem yet the French abondonded it.

France was defeated.
For US it was a debacle. They sucked! :D

During Iran/Irak war, iranians US build jets were continuously used for operations.
-Only in the first few years of the war.
-(...)Don't make me laugh. The Iranian airforce from 82-89 counted around 100 managable planes which rarely went into action.

During the entiere war.
"Cannibalism" was an important source of spares but there were many others:
- US furnishment (Iran-contra scandal for exemple)
-USSR furnishment (Iran gove some F14-Tomcats and F-4 Phantoms to them and USSR accepted to build some parts of thoses aircrafts).
-Israel was an important supplier for Iran to permit them to conserve an air force.

Actually the Iranian pilots peformed much-much better then Iraqis in the first few years of the war when the Iranians still had weapons. I have statistics - will put them out.

excellent idea.


They sucked !?
-Pretty much.

(about Argentina use of Super-étendards naval fighters during Malouinnes-war(Falklands)).
Remenber the conversation, we talked about material's capacities and how it was use in action...
With only five planes and five missiles the argentinian navy forced RoyalNavy to stay far from the cost (two kills and one possible hit to an aircraft-carrier (an carrier went back in england with vissible marks of reparations...).

You sucked in your comprehantion of the history.

Haven't heard of too many confrontations between Taiwan and China.

You haven't heard too about Greece-Turkey confrontations or about France-Lybia confrontations or ...

But no aircraft on US carrier with egal air-air capacities than Mirage2000 in his version -5 as used by Taiwan.
How?

How what?
Explain us which aircraft is able to surclass a Mirage2000-5...

Only the brand new Boeing F18E/F super-hornet just entered in service last year is certainly able to surclass a Mirage2000 (or egal him, it depend of the version of the aircraft...).
-Yes - the French weapons rule with no particular result.

If you want... :rolleyes:
During the operations in Afghanistan,the french new naval-aircraft ( Rafale-M) was opposed at exercises to US ones (F-18 and F-14). It was a real massacre for US fighters...

Do you know why MirageF1 was considered as a threat by US in GW1 despite the presence of brand new fighters Mig29 in Irak?
Before invasion (of Kuwait), in RedFlag US exercise, some french MirageF1 in reco version showed that the old fighters was still able to shootdown US F15 Eagles.
(And new Mirage2000 showed that US aggressors F16 or AirForce F15 were not able to intercept him).

No - it's not just the money question. Indian air-force could have afforded French Mirages just the same.

Only a money question.
India is still trying to purpose new Mirage2000 since 15 years (or buy a complete building line for Rafales) but they are not able to pay for them...

As I said, the french air force was reserved for the important target like air bases and bunker (because we have material for that).
90%, are you sure, I think that you are a bit ambitious.
-That's a fact.

A fact on nothing like many other things!
France done 10% of bombing, if US done 90%, what did the whole NATO forces do in this conflict ? Counting the hits ?

France have some allied (exellent ones) but no one master
-Like who? Namibiya or Iran?

Explain me something please, what is this pitty propaganda that France is an ally from Iran ? It will certainly funny to heard you...

SeeU, Mil my friend.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by yoyo
That is correct, France prefered to bet on guys that could succeed: building a nuclear reactor for Saddam and giving refuge to Khomeni then pressure the Shah to let him back so he can bring back Iran - a hundred year back - in 24 hours. :cool:


A civilian nuke plan is not an open door to nuclear bomb but that is right that France shouldn't sell that to SHussein.

The exile of Khomeiny in France was an US ask.

For that is to give refuge to monster and terrorist UK is not the least... London was (and still is) the rear base for all the islamist terroristic organisations.
How many convicted of attrocities in theire countrys or bombing anywhere UK protected?

SeeU, Didier

[yoyo]

Originally posted by TDidier
A civilian nuke plan is not an open door to nuclear bomb but that is right that France shouldn't sell that to SHussein.

A "civilian nuke plan" let me laugh. Someone, one day, will have to exaplin to me why countries such as Iraq and Iran want to produce expensive electricity when they have collossal fossal fuel virtually free of charge in abundance? France's hypocrisie to the fullest.


Originally posted by TDidier
The exile of Khomeiny in France was an US ask.

I should have know that anything bad France does is beucause "he told me so". Take your responsability, France has always sponsor arab/muslim regime, because France is scared of his little maghrebins.


Originally posted by TDidier
For that is to give refuge to monster and terrorist UK is not the least... London was (and still is) the rear base for all the islamist terroristic organisations.

I never said otherwise, you are the one stating tha Ossame is "made in America" all I am telling you is France is far more responsable for giving Islamic Terrorist global range than the US could ever be in a million year.


Originally posted by TDidier
How many convicted of attrocities in theire countrys or bombing anywhere UK protected?

A few, and for the same reason France would refuse to extradite them also: they are facing the death penalty. Now one good point when comparing France to England is that we need a Sarkozy (french interior minister for the one that do not know). Et je le dit comme je je suis Francais residant en Angleterre.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by yoyo

I should have know that anything bad France does is beucause "he told me so". Take your responsability, France has always sponsor arab/muslim regime, because France is scared of his little maghrebins.

Not an excuse, just said that the situation was complexe and US take a huge part in (to respond to classical anglo-saxon basic racism).


I never said otherwise, you are the one stating tha Ossame is "made in America" all I am telling you is France is far more responsable for giving Islamic Terrorist global range than the US could ever be in a million year.

Not really, I responded to someone else by an exemple (but what an exemple!).
France was not responsable for rising integrist islamism in Iran.
But that is right that US and UK were TOTALLY responsable for rising of integrist islamism in Afghanistan (Taliban with the help of Pakistan) and supporting wahabit integrist sectes in SaudiArabia, two states much more criminals and intollerants than Iran.

A few, and for the same reason France would refuse to extradite them also: they are facing the death penalty. Now one good point when comparing France to England is that we need a Sarkozy (french interior minister for the one that do not know). Et je le dit comme je je suis Francais residant en Angleterre.

Death penalty stopped in 1981 in France.
Ca doit faire bien longtemps que tu en es parti...

Many islamics organisation with links and supply systeme with the major part of muslim terrorists (and others) on this earth were based in Angland and are still present in.

SeeU, YoYo l'expat'.
Didier.

[yoyo]

Not an excuse, just said that the situation was complexe and US take a huge part in (to respond to classical anglo-saxon basic racism).

Anglo-Saxon racism? Look I worked in the US and they believe everyone should speak english. I worked in Germany and they believe everyone should speak German, I worked obviously in France and "on est les meilleurs".... And then I worked in Belgium and there everyone spoke English not to show that they were flamish or wallons ;)

Off course it was complex, nethertheless France gave shelter to Khomenie, noone force France to do so. It was not wise and even if (and it is a big if) the US suggested it, France had full control on the situation.


France was not responsable for rising integrist islamism in Iran.

Yes she gave the push by keeping and pushing for Khomenei to come back.

But that is right that US and UK were TOTALLY responsable for rising of integrist islamism in Afghanistan

Let's put some perspective, it was the Soviets that invaded Afghanistan. The US (which at the time represented and was garantor of the freeworld btw) helped the muslim to fight the Soviet. Don't count on the muslim world to remember and be GRATEFUL it always remember the "grievances".

supporting wahabit integrist sectes in SaudiArabia, two states much more criminals and intollerants than Iran.

I am unsure that S.A. and the Ayatollahs are different. They kill "en masse" as good as each other. The US is now slowly withdrawing its support for Saudi Arabia and they know it. If you go back through history, you will see that Britain and France had everything (ie: all the petrol contract) in the area. The U.S. coincidentally manage to break S.A. from the United Kingdom in terms of contract, today they are rectifying. Iraq is probably part of it, and that is why S.A. is looking for WMD: because they are scared that Uncle Sam's Umbrella is vanishing.

Death penalty stopped in 1981 in France.
Ca doit faire bien longtemps que tu en es parti...

That is not what I meant. You said that some Islamist are wanted for crime in their country of origin. The UK has 2 problem.

1. There is no extradition treaty in place with some country
2. Some of these people are condemn to the death penalty in their country of origin. Britain cannot extradite someone face with the death penalty - FULL STOP.

Many islamics organisation with links and supply systeme with the major part of muslim terrorists (and others) on this earth were based in Angland and are still present in.

England has the terrorist "head offices" they do their plans and get money here. The recruit come generally from France (mahgrebins especially algerians with a French Passport). The best recruits are found in French Prisons, in fact their is more conversion to Islam in prison than any other religion but that is a different matter. If France stop producing islamist and England break the finance we might get somewhere.... It is going to be a huge task if one look who the muslims in France elected for the Muslim Council of France. Like devillier says (and I don't support the guy but he is right) "il y aura surement un Islam en France mais jamais un Islam de France" (their will certainly be Islam in France but never an Islam made in France).

SeeU, YoYo l'expat'.

Salut....

[TDidier]

France is still waiting for a commanditor of 1995 bombing in Paris...

[yoyo]

Originally posted by TDidier
France is still waiting for a commanditor of 1995 bombing in Paris...

So? Rachid Ramda will be extradite. You know England is much more emphasize on "human rights" than France will ever be. It takes times

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L1922895.htm

The point is, England did a mistake turning a blind eye until 9/11 to the terrorists, however those terrorists are trained in France and help by French [passport holders] arabs.

I am French, I am not anti myself but I appaled the French policy on Islamic terrorism. The one of putting your trouser down and bending over if you see what I mean. How can France look the Israeli Ambassador in the eye as they did and say "we are not sure the Hamas and Islamic Jihad are terrorist organization, we need more proof" and then block the British proposal to put them on Europe Terrorist List????? How can the French Ambassador to the UK say "This ty little country - Israel" and then Chirac say "there is no antisemitism in France".

You know why Le Pen went to the second round? Because the French people are sick to the teeth with the arab "racaille". Ho sure they could just about swallow it when they where mugged in the metro, spit at and a few "nique ta mere" but now the tachador, the deamdns to study Islam and to have school holiday that match Islam, and terrorism, etc... Trust me, if a right wing governement don't make that right, if Sarko don't succeed, Le Pen will pass. And I am not saying this light-heartedly because when JM will have finish with the arabs he will come from the Jews.

In fact I find it very funny that the minute he could have been elected, all the synagogue stopped burning?!

[TDidier]

they accepted but they didn't because they mistaked about something else happened some years laters but they will certainly do in a furher past ...

Nothing and nothing more.
The truth is that UK was looking to his security and good contact with muslim extremists, only hypocrisie...

[jewbyc]

mark twain on France



Mark Twain to observe, "In certain public indecencies the difference between
a dog & a Frenchman is not perceptible." Which would explain why dogs are
allowed in restaurants in France


:D

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:

Explain us which aircraft is able to surclass a Mirage2000-5...


On the avionics side the Su-35 will kick its ass easy. On the electronics side F18, F16, F15, and F14 or basically any active battle-ready American Jets would kick Mirage's ass. Don't even compare.

[TDidier]

What is difference between avionic and electronic? Would you talk about optronic? Taht is right that for this generation of aircrafts russians are the best.

"On the avionics side the Su-35 will kick its ass easy"

China use Su-27 and Su-35 against Tawan, it was exactly about those aircrafts I told.

"On the electronics side F18, F16, F15, and F14 or basically any active battle-ready American Jets would kick Mirage's ass"

And it was the reason why during "RedFlag" exercises in Arizona (Hi Jhonny, vivement les vacances de l'été prochain ! :D ), US fighters (F15 and F16) were not able to intercept Mirage2000 in attack missions.
In NATO exercices French Mirage2000-5 multitarget(+MICA advanced missile) fighters are known as the best of the alliance (during those exercices they are confronted to all the type of jet from all nations of NATO).
Many years ago in the first franco-spanish training Mirage2000(old version) meet F18, the ratio was 2 kills for 1 (and the "one" was a diplomatic agreement from french pilots to theyre spanish collegues!).
On US carrier only F14 and F18. F14 is a past glory (TopGun movie), despite modernisation in 90' he is now used as reco fighter and Bomber. The protection of the fleet goes to the lone F18.
The great avantage of Mirage2000 against his hypothetical opponent is precisely ELECTRONIC and ECM advanced protection.
Mil, I think that you have to improve your culture on this point... ;)


Last time I saw a dog in a restaurant was last wenesday in a McDonald...(yes we call McDonald restaurant in France... ;) )

SeeU, Didier.

[Mil]

Dude I am very familiar with these electronics stuff and can probably go into it, however, my knowledge is a bit classified so lets leave it at that. I used to work for Northrop Grumman.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mil
Dude I am very familiar with these electronics stuff and can probably go into it, however, my knowledge is a bit classified so lets leave it at that. I used to work for Northrop Grumman.

I'm impressed !!! ;)

But what about I told?
Nato exercises are unclassified facts and regionnal confrontations are simple culture...


SeeU, Mil my X-friend.

Didier.

[TDidier]

During Serbia war in 1999, US tempting to force France to do some attacks on Montenegro but France don't accept and to show them that they have not to attack many much civilian targets France showed a part of his real force...

During a press briefing by french commandment a map was showed to journalists...
This map represented the exact and totaly secret travel of B-2 (stealth) bomber, from US bases, with fuel contact air-tankers, bombing and back to home travel...
US militars were completly awe by the electronics capacity of France and his technology of global-earth radar "Nostradamus".


Bombing of Serbia is one of your point isn't it?

B-2 bomber is the best creation of Northrop, isn't it?

[yoyo]

Originally posted by TDidier
they accepted but they didn't because they mistaked about something else happened some years laters but they will certainly do in a furher past ...

Nothing and nothing more.
The truth is that UK was looking to his security and good contact with muslim extremists, only hypocrisie...

Whooow you are so cynical.... Tell me something... You do know that the United Kingdom is a country of laws? I am sure that you are aware that people have to go through courts with lengthy lawyer argument from the small court right up to the House of Lord.

Guilty or innocent, it doesn't matter. When I say that the British are much more liberal and freedom orientated than France it is not always for their own good. But what do you want, Islamists manage to preach hatred under the guise off "human right" and "freedom of speech". Until the West start saying to Islamist "you step out of line you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT under the law" it will continue :(

[old-reb]

Originally posted by TDidier
During Serbia war in 1999, US tempting to force France to do some attacks on Montenegro but France don't accept and to show them that they have not to attack many much civilian targets France showed a part of his real force...



The first good thing I have heard about France in a long time.

old reb

[TDidier]

"Cynical"... that's funny :)



Originally posted by yoyo
Whooow you are so cynical.... Tell me something... You do know that the United Kingdom is a country of laws? I am sure that you are aware that people have to go through courts with lengthy lawyer argument from the small court right up to the House of Lord.

Guilty or innocent, it doesn't matter. When I say that the British are much more liberal and freedom orientated than France it is not always for their own good. But what do you want, Islamists manage to preach hatred under the guise off "human right" and "freedom of speech". Until the West start saying to Islamist "you step out of line you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT under the law" it will continue :(

[TDidier]

Originally posted by old-reb
The first good thing I have heard about France in a long time.

old reb

Maybe don't you read the good papers...
But what is a good paper ?

Simple: anything but nothing owned by Murdock groupe :D

[yoyo]

Originally posted by TDidier
Simple: anything but nothing owned by Murdock groupe :D

I don't want to be a pain constantly when it comes to you but The Times is as highly regarded as Le Monde. No, if you really want to know who deseverve " paper of the year" I woiuld say "The Guardian"!

[TDidier]

Some "prestige" titles to hide the rest...

The Guardian ? An excellent source of information and no "spin games" in... That become rare in Anglo-saxon presse !


Originally posted by yoyo
I don't want to be a pain constantly when it comes to you but The Times is as highly regarded as Le Monde. No, if you really want to know who deseverve " paper of the year" I woiuld say "The Guardian"!

[yoyo]

Originally posted by TDidier
Some "prestige" titles to hide the rest...

Yeah and you don't need to put the word prestige in "quotes".


Originally posted by TDidier
The Guardian ? An excellent source of information and no "spin games" in... That become rare in Anglo-saxon presse !

I see where you coming from. The Guardian unbiased? no spin? Why? because it defends the cause of murderers? because it is the Left personify with no balls, no convictions and must I say ingratitude towards the people that provide them freedom at the price of their blood? Sorry, I was just letting some steam off.... The Guardian has become a "rare" piece of work in the English Press, too bad there is no communist revolution here it would have been a best-seller to the "compagnons de route".

ne le prend pas mal c'est pas perso!
Salut
Yoyo

[RichardP]

Originally posted by yoyo
Yeah and you don't need to put the word prestige in "quotes".



I see where you coming from. The Guardian unbiased? no spin? Why? because it defends the cause of murderers? because it is the Left personify with no balls, no convictions and must I say ingratitude towards the people that provide them freedom at the price of their blood? Sorry, I was just letting some steam off.... The Guardian has become a "rare" piece of work in the English Press, too bad there is no communist revolution here it would have been a best-seller to the "compagnons de route".

ne le prend pas mal c'est pas perso!
Salut
Yoyo
Excellent, yoyo, The Guardian is, and would be all the things you said... especially, if a communist revolution had ever took foot in the UK... it would be its vanguard!!

[TDidier]

I have not the chance to be a far right extremist.
When something is in the middle (at left or at right), I think it is the best way...

SeeU, Yoyo.
T'en fais pas pour moi, aucun doute làdessus.

[yoyo]

Originally posted by TDidier
I have not the chance to be a far right extremist.
When something is in the middle (at left or at right), I think it is the best way...

That is your problem. You see a far left extremist paper like the Guardian to be in the "middle". You are delluding yourself my dear compatriote. Ha it was "beautiful" to see how the people you consider in the middle brandished the poster of Saddam Hussein in the streets of Paris. All those colorfull slogans "Sharon=Bush=Hitler" and then "Saddam - no proof he is a tyran". They didn't care about the Irakis that they claim to be defending, for all they care they would compromise with any ideologie that would allow them to say "I am a nice guy, I turn the other cheek". To them the Bush is to be compared to Hitler manipulated by an "eveil-zionist-called-Sharon" but Islamism... oh no, don't you touch Islamism... They are poor, they look poor, we know they preach blowing up OUR children but if we love them a bit more, tell them they are like us, they would love us back.

Yeah right. :rolleyes:

Funny how a bit of tyranic ideology like islamism or communism and a bit of antisemitism makes the "center left" behave no better than their right wing extremist counterparts.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by yoyo
"That is your problem. You see a far left extremist paper like the Guardian to be in the "middle". You are delluding yourself my dear compatriote."

A paper with no extrmist point and no allegence to any power is a good one for me. Sorry for you...

"Ha it was "beautiful" to see how the people you consider in the middle brandished the poster of Saddam Hussein in the streets of Paris."

Only a minimal minority brandished posters of SHussein and they were quickly put out of demonstrations.

All those colorfull slogans "Sharon=Bush=Hitler"

Some people said that, in Paris and in the world. I don't subscribe to that. Bush is only an idiot (he is a danger by the enormous US power all in his hands) and for Sharon I would prefer to compare him to an israelian LePen: they are both far right extremists and when they were young they were both murderers (with theyre own hands) of civilians and torturers in arab-wars.

"Saddam - no proof he is a tyran"

It's a joke! In all demonstrations the difference was clearly done to explain that it were anti-war demonstrations and NOT PRO -SHussein ones

"(...) To them the Bush is to be compared to Hitler manipulated by an "eveil-zionist-called-Sharon" but Islamism... oh no, don't you touch Islamism... They are poor, they look poor, we know they preach blowing up OUR children but if we love them a bit more, tell them they are like us, they would love us back. "

The actual power of islamism (wahabite) is a complete creation from anglo-saxons coutry to fight the shia integrism (himself a rising of nationnalism to fight the far right government imposed to them by US and UK: the Shah).

Please don't play with that, you are simply ridiculous.

Bye, Didier.

[TDidier]

From National Journal (paper of reference for plolitic in US):

"France was right".


Yesterday we assisted to a complete change of view about Irak gestion by US administration, the new plan: doing what France said ! :eek:
Bremer flown back quickly to Bagdad with those new consignes.

Today, acting on the brand new "bonne volonté" (good will) from US administration, Dominique de Villepin, french foreign minister, proposed to help them to build a new Irak (but only if US continue on this new way).

SeeU, Didier. :cool:

[RichardP]

Originally posted by TDidier
From National Journal (paper of reference for plolitic in US):

"France was right".


Yesterday we assisted to a complete change of view about Irak gestion by US administration, the new plan: doing what France said ! :eek:
Bremer flown back quickly to Bagdad with those new consignes.

Today, acting on the brand new "bonne volonté" (good will) from US administration, Dominique de Villepin, french foreign minister, proposed to help them to build a new Irak (but only if US continue on this new way).

SeeU, Didier. :cool:
I don't believe France was right... that said, if France and others had of partaken in the effort to dispose of Saddam and his regime, it would have been better for the world as a whole. This recent self-righteous drivel from France, reiterates the back handedness and their two faced approach in the Middle-East...
It's all fine for France to be smug, they should look in the mirror, as it reveals more than they dare to admit or care to see.

[Mediocrates]

What did Fronch actually propose? As far as I can tell all it has proposed is an immediate international effort to pay attention to Fronch.

Did it actually suggest anything concrete or is it still waiting to claim victory over Beast America whilst standing on a pile of Iraqi corpses?

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
What did Fronch actually propose? As far as I can tell all it has proposed is an immediate international effort to pay attention to Fronch.

Did it actually suggest anything concrete or is it still waiting to claim victory over Beast America whilst standing on a pile of Iraqi corpses?

It’s ironic, Mediocrates, how French smugness continues over a bloating corpse. They have never rid themselves of the Vichy mind-set… I am certain there exist a few decent French, but honestly, I have met few.

[Enuff]

Yes Didler, I see we’ve adopted the French policy, its called ‘Operation Iron Hammer.’

You really do need to find a new source of news and editorial, the problem right now is with the interim government and its ability to perform the task of drafting a constitution per the United Nations resolution and deadline in December.

Yes, rushing forth the turn-over of the Iraq government as the French proposed was a great idea. So important is the rush that the interim government is now inclined to develop a federal system which will divide the country along ethnic and sectarian lines to meet this deadline. Truly masterful thinking of the part of the U.N. and French to provide not only the scenario, but also the means and catalyst for a civil war in Iraq and one which will likely spill over to envelop its regional neighbors!!!

There are several enlightening articles you might read on the subject but here‘s one from the middle-east:

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/031112/2003111210.html

[Enuff]

P.S. Now i can understand the Hizbollah's spiritual leaders statement recently along the lines that 'the French are worse than the U.S., they let the U.S. do their fighting for them.'

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Enuff
P.S. Now i can understand the Hizbollah's spiritual leaders statement recently along the lines that 'the French are worse than the U.S., they let the U.S. do their fighting for them.'

I hadn't heard that quote, Enuff, thanks, it speaks volumes.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Enuff
P.S. Now i can understand the Hizbollah's spiritual leaders statement recently along the lines that 'the French are worse than the U.S., they let the U.S. do their fighting for them.'

WHAT!!! France is not allied with the hezbollah !?!? :eek:

[Mediocrates]

Not today, not yet.

[TDidier]

-"France were right"

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2003/1107nj1.htm

-Irak occupation is more deadly than Vietnam at the same time...
(3 years for Vietnam to reach the 8 month casualties in Irak ! ! !)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031113/ts_nm/iraq_usa_vietnam_dc&cid=564&ncid=1480

"The hidden cost of Bush's war"

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=463502

Bye.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by TDidier
-"France were right"

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2003/1107nj1.htm

-Irak occupation is more deadly than Vietnam at the same time...
(3 years for Vietnam to reach the 8 month casualties in Irak ! ! !)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031113/ts_nm/iraq_usa_vietnam_dc&cid=564&ncid=1480

"The hidden cost of Bush's war"

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=463502

Bye.

It is not Nam... not mentioning France and Vietnam, is like omitting the guillotine during the French Revolution… you French should take your self-righteousness wanker thoughts and be honest with yourselves, before you dictate to others!

[TDidier]

Originally posted by RichardP
It is not Nam... not mentioning France and Vietnam, is like omitting the guillotine during the French Revolution… you French should take your self-righteousness wanker thoughts and be honest with yourselves, before you dictate to others!

For a french, it was: Indochine

SeeU

ps: where is the link with war in Irak?

[RichardP]

Originally posted by TDidier
For a french, it was: Indochine

SeeU

ps: where is the link with war in Irak?

Think about it! :D

[Enuff]

It couldn't be this link could it? it was linked in didler's sites:

Would you care for Cheese on that? (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg041699.html)

ha! i'd never read it before, its gotta be a classic! :D

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Enuff
It couldn't be this link could it? it was linked in didler's sites:

Would you care for Cheese on that? (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg041699.html)

ha! i'd never read it before, its gotta be a classic! :D




Ha! You are right, Enuff... definitely a classic!

[Mediocrates]

So? 400 casualities to effect the beginnings of liberation for 25 million people? Not too shabby. Maybe it will work maybe it will not but all new nations are experiments. Even your own was at some point.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
So? 400 casualities to effect the beginnings of liberation for 25 million people? Not too shabby. Maybe it will work maybe it will not but all new nations are experiments. Even your own was at some point.

Mediocrates, well stated, now only, if, our French "Comrades"
could see beyond their own noses!!

[red crabtree]

The similarities between Iraq and Vietnam (or if you would prefer Indochina) are this. The US went in eventually to clean up the mess that France left from it's colonialism.
From the Pentagon papers, the US felt in December of 1950 that it would likely be pulled into Vietnam because of the French inability to stop the Communist of Vietnam and the Communist takeover in China. The domino theory as it has been called. The Joint Chiefs had little expectation that providing assistance to France would produce great results, they stated only "that there was a possiblity of success" and the General who went to look at the situation when France requested assistance stated that the possibilities of success were limited because the assistance the French were asking for was inadequate to the situation.
Contributing to the initial U.S. decision to aid the French, and to limiting the effectiveness of the U.S. program of assistance, were (1) setting impracticable preconditions for assistance upon the French, (2) the U.S. proclivity to accept a slender chance of success without weighing alternatives, (3) the suppression of alternatives leading to decisional circularity and reinforcement of existing policies, (4) repeated failures of the U.S. to bargain effectively with the French, and (5) the vulnerability of the U.S. policy-making machinery to spoofing, particularly as regards U.S. credulity in accepting French information at face value and in being susceptible to "red" scares.

"The decision to provide assistance to France and the Associated States is the focus of this discussion; it was but one issue among hundreds preoccupying the United States Government in the time period under consideration-the fall of China and the Korean War-and it was probably not regarded by those who made policy as among their critical decisions. There is no evidence of any high U.S. official arguing that any significant commitment threshold was being crossed. There were, however, those who maintained that the important anti-colonial stand of the U.S. was being undermined. These voices (and they were basically from the public domain) were drowned out by those who advocated immediate security needs. The importance of the decision was that when the U.S. was faced with an unambiguous choice between a policy of anti-colonialism and a policy of anti-communism, it chose the latter. And, although the decision was not perceived as getting the U.S. more deeply "involved" in Indochina, it did mark a tangible first step in that direction."

The US ended up having to deal with Vietnam because the French could not, and would not also allow the US to fully assist in the way the US felt was necessary. I suppose that was part of France's idea of "No Master" what it did however was drag this country into a war was ill concieved from the beginning and not simply ill concieved from our end, but from France's end also. If the US had been not swallowed the line that France was giving out and been able to give the appropriate amount of assistance that was ACTUALLY required, than perhaps the whole Vietnam experience would have been different.
It is the height of hyprocrisy to claim that only the US f-ed up in Vietnam. We were trying to clean up YOUR mess. And in the end what happened? The French and it's people turned on us for doing so.
Now on to Iraq. After WWII both France and England split out their colonial holdings. This of course included the Middle East. The Middle East as it stands today is as much as mess because of France as it is because of England, because of Russia and because of the US. And may I remind you that the US is the late player to this game? We were not there for colonial purposes, we were there to stop the spread of communism, something we were successful at by the way. Mistakes have been made along the way by us, but it rankles for someone from France to be so blind as to not see that so did France and here is the US in their cleaning up the fargin mess y'all left once again. Who consistantly voted with Russia and worked with Russia after WWII? It sure as hell was not the US.
And about the argument about jets and such. Why it is appropriate for you to brag about how great your freaking planes performed in an 8 year war that killed millions? The French are one of the quickest nations to comdemn this country for selling weapons that have been used to kill people, yet you have the audacity to BRAG about the performance of instruments of war produced by your country then sold to and used by others? Weapons that were used to kill how many?
I don't care if this country asked you to take in Khomani or not, We sure as hell did not ask you to let him go back. Went back and threw his people back to the 15th century, to support terrorism and for you to sell weapons to that eventually killed more Iraqi's than Americans have in either GWI or GWII has done. It is not the US that has supported Arafat with millions of dollars for him to not only use for Terrorist purposes, but for him to also skim millions off of, so he can give his freaking wife a $100,000 a damn month while the Palastinines go without even basic services. Not to mention fashioning a society that encourages it's young people to kill themselves and innocent others, while he plays his cult of personality on the world stage. It was not to the US that the founder of the Ba'ath party went to for an education, that would have been to France where he not only got an education, he got an education based in left wing socialism and through the social context of how great Stalin was, for him to pick up that monster's lead.
My country has made many a mistake in it's foreign policy, which those in your country have been happy to point out, What you can't do is to manage to take a good hard look at the foreign policies your country has persued and the mistakes made. Instead you brag about the instruments of war and how well they performed, trying in some sick way to prove that France really is a power to be contended with, when the reality is that WE pulled your ass out of WWI, WWII, Vietnam and now the Middle East because of your inept policies and politicians as well as the French people's unwillingness to hold their own country as accountable for it's mistakes as you want to hold the US for.
At least England is willing to see that they helped make the mess and will assist the US instead of stabbing us in the back. It may not be popular, but sometimes doing the right thing is not popular.
It is not that France is a great ally to this country, it is that there is history between the two countries. Yet since Napoleons selling of the Louisiania's purchase there hasn't been a damn thing that France has done for my country. Except to call on us when they needed help, and expect us to clean up where they made a mess, and for us to keep pretending that France is an ally who works for the common goal of freedom and democracy. Since WWII when France lined up more with the Communist govn't of the Soviet Union( and the parallels between the French Revolution and the Russian one should not be missed in it's killing of those who were "bourgious" along with the associated horrifying buckets of blood) France has not truly been an ally of this country. We simply feel the need to keep you close to the breast in, what may prove to be, a vain wish that France really is an ally for the sake of old times when the founders of this country took the enlightenment and made something out of it. Our continued insistance in this country that France really is an ally is based on little more than nostolgia going back more than 200 years. We would do well here to recall that France assisted us in the Revolution not because there was a burning belief that free people are right, it was because it was a way to fight against the old nemisis England through the blood and guts of someone else. If this country really would understand that we wouldn't be shocked to see the same national policy playing itself out now.

[TDidier]

From red crabtree

"And about the argument about jets and such. Why it is appropriate for you to brag about how great your freaking planes performed in an 8 year war that killed millions? The French are one of the quickest nations to comdemn this country for selling weapons that have been used to kill people, yet you have the audacity to BRAG about the performance of instruments of war produced by your country then sold to and used by others? Weapons that were used to kill how many? "

Read back the thread, you will see that I was the first here to say that France stopped all weapons selling to Irak after they were convicted to use french build jet against their own people. At this time I answered to those who claim that France was a supplier for weapons to Irak after GW1. In reallity France was the first country to drop Irak and SHussein (before US and their ADM furnishment...)

For the material performance I just answer to someone else falsh afirmations.

Bye, Didier.

[Altalena]

Heaven help me, I am now going to defend France.

The US to some extent owes its independence to France. Can anyone forget the famous cry:

"Forget us father, if we forget
The sacred sword of Lafayette"

Yes, France's record on the battlefield has been atrocious over the last couple of centuries, her greatest war hero was a woman, she surrendered Paris bloodlessly in WWII, we all know about Petain and Vichy and Dienbienphu, and we remember DeGaulle's rather Delphic characterization of the Jews, after the Six-Day War as "un peuple d'elite, sur de lui-meme et dominateur."

Chirac and Villepin are slime molds, no doubt about it. That anti-Americanism has become an article of faith among French intellectuals is beyond doubt. Jean-Francois Revel just wrote a book about it. Jack Lang made a CAREER out of it.

But let us not forget France fought bravely and lost the flower of its youth during WWI. Every subsequent French action on the international stage has to be viewed through the prism of that terrible war.

I saw the anti-LePen demonstrations in Paris (televised) and was moved to tears. France has not always been anti-Israel. She armed Israel in the past, and worked hand in glove with Israel in the ill-timed Suez invasion, which Eisenhower scotched because it fell days before the presidential election.

The French are scared, and in fact I don't blame them. They imported tons of cheap labor from the Maghreb in the 60's and the 70's, and now they are paying the price for it. Paris' 19th and 20th arrondissements are now lawless hellholes. We all know it is but a matter of years, perhaps months, before the lawlessness seeps not only into the trendier precincts of Paris, but indeed into the legendary 16eme. The demographics are terrifying. As I understand it there are five to seven million Muslims in France out of a population of about 60 million. As in most of Western Europe, the "native" French population is not replacing itself while the Maghrebins are outbreeding them exponentially. France is supposed to become a majority-Muslim state sometime within this century.

I know French expats here in the US -- (even on UN employee!) who have lost their anti-US bias as they live here and mingle with Americans. Most are embarrassed by Chirac's outrageous pronouncements. The EU was scandalized by his sulfurous posturing about the fledgling Eastern European democracies and EU wannabes who had the temerity to stand up for the US "coalition."

I believe that many of the French in fact secretly share the outlook articulated by the writer Michel Houellebecq in his outrageously politically incorrect book "Plateforme." Of course, it weas shameful that France allowed itself to be manipulated into trying the poor guy for the equivalent of blasphemy. But in fairness, I believe that the French people are in fact better than their present government would suggest.

Cynics would point out that without France (and its Dreyfus trial) there might be no Israel, as this event prompted Herzl to undertake his momentous mission. But it should also be pointed out that France still harbors Europe's largest Jewish community. I don't take that lightly.

[TDidier]

If it can rassure you, the natality rate of native french is now quite the same than the muslims (are not all arabs).
With the close open to 10 new countries in EU will soon provoque a mass immigration from those counrties to France (and Germany and GB and... of course).

You see the level of "muslim" population is not really a problem.
France is an immigration country like the US.

Here everybody has a place and religion had nothing to do with that...

SeeU, Didier.

[Altalena]

D'accord. But what's the (French) view of this?




An unnamed 15-year-old girl is assaulted by 18 boys, most of them not much older than she is. Sonia, also 15, is raped by seven of her supposed friends in the basement of her apartment building. Sheherezade, 11, is beaten and raped repeatedly over the course of a year by 12 different boys.

GRIM AS SUCH crimes may be, they’re becoming commonplace in the police ledgers of Paris , Lyons or Toulouse . The scene is almost always the same: the housing projects called cites on the outskirts of France ’s major cities. Built by socially progressive governments in the 1960s, they’ve since been taken over by a generation of mostly Arab immigrants�impoverished, cut off from their native lands and culture, ghettoized. Here, young men try to rule their families and neighbors under a macho code drawn partly from Muslim tradition, partly from the violence and porn in the media. Women submit to men, they say. Good girls, good sisters, cover themselves and stay home. Otherwise they are putes, whores, who can be used and abused even if they say no.
Such stories, then, are not just about urban crime and rough neighborhoods. They reflect a core issue of Muslim integration in Europe . Can the young men and women of the cites break out, or will they become ever more isolated, turning inward against themselves? Will they build their lives and relationships on egalitarian values, or on the worst of Islam and the Internet? Young men trapped in a world with no jobs and no future, and violently confused about sex, tend to make women the symbols and the victims of the frustrations around them. Ten years ago, the boys in these hoods burned cars in the streets. Today, they increasingly turn their anger against “their� women in the basements of their apartment blocks.



http://www.rights.no/webtekst/artikler/sexism_in_the_cités.htm

[red crabtree]

Cover however you want to, go ahead and massage that French ego and make yourself believe that France didn't have as much a hand as anyone elsein creating the mess we are confronting if you wish since the reality seems too hard to swallow. Sounded all too much like a man standing there yelling my dick is bigger than yours!
And you still have to try and make a point of saying that France quit selling weapons to Iraq when that country used those weapons against it's own people. Can't admit that France was as bad as the US in it's choices? In this country we spend an inordinate amount of time second guessing whether what we did was right or not, even if it got us the results we wanted ie-the downfall of Communism. The rest of the world spends an inordinate amount of time also heaping critizism on this country while self rightously claiming that they did not and would never do anything so heinous. Pointing out the hypocrisy of that does little more than incite the Anti-Americans to dig in deeper to become more virulent in their attacks on my country hoping that by doing so they can hide what they own has done.
Go ahead and hide your head in the sand. At some point I'm sure the US will once again rescue the French and being what we are in this country we will again forgive you and want to stay friends, for old times sake and all.

[red crabtree]

Altalena, I didn't say that French assistance in the Revolution wasn't crucial, what I said is that it was done from the French side for it's own political purposes of wishing to weaken their rival, the English. Our history books teach us what the French did for the Revolution, we know where Lady Liberty came from. What does not get much mention is that the French assistance in our Revolution was not because the King of France was of the opinion that Man had inherent rights. We have liked to paint French assistance as two countries who were comrades in arms, and often cite LaFayette to do so.
A little about LaFayette, which must be separated from French policies of the times. LaFayette left the French army in 1777, bought his own ship and sailed to America against the wishes of the French Monarchy. He was almost immediately made a Major General in the continental army, without pay, by George Washington. He was 19 years old. He helped win French monetary support later. After the American Revolution he returned to France and after ragged bands opened the Bastille, he organized and led the Parisian National Guard. However he fell afoul of the radical elements that were able to take over the French Revolution and was forced to flee France in 1792. He was then imprisioned by the Austrains because they feared his politics. He became the classic example of forces who were not willing to compromise and who hated his moderation. He spent five years in prison, most of it in solitary confinement. He was later allowed back in France by Napoleon. He has enjoyed more accolades in America than in France.
While LaFayette was an extraordinary man, his policies and why he assisted this country should not be confused as to why the French monarchy did. And it should be remembered that he was forced to flee France because he believed in moderation instead of chopping off the heads of every aristocrat and Catholic Priest as well as Nun as could be found. There are striking similarities between The Terror and the Revolution in Russia. The similarities were striking then and the similarities of French policy with the Soviet Union later were striking later.
The other similarity is that France was happy to use and utilitze the US as long as it fit their national needs. Tell me specifically since Napolean sold us half of the US to fund his wars what has France done for this country? And then tell me what this country has done for France.

[Altalena]

Yes, crab, apart from bearing the major brunt of the casualties in WWI, France has basically done Jack $hit for the US since throwing Jefferson the territory encompassed by the Louisiana Purchase.

But I look beyond this. France basically enabled Israel to build its nuclear reactor at Dimona.

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/plut.html

Jews are supposed to have long memories. I don't toss that off so lightly, regardless of the passage of 40-odd years in the interim.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by red crabtree
Altalena, I didn't say that French assistance in the Revolution wasn't crucial, what I said is that it was done from the French side for it's own political purposes of wishing to weaken their rival, the English. Our history books teach us what the French did for the Revolution, we know where Lady Liberty came from. What does not get much mention is that the French assistance in our Revolution was not because the King of France was of the opinion that Man had inherent rights. We have liked to paint French assistance as two countries who were comrades in arms, and often cite LaFayette to do so.
A little about LaFayette, which must be separated from French policies of the times. LaFayette left the French army in 1777, bought his own ship and sailed to America against the wishes of the French Monarchy. He was almost immediately made a Major General in the continental army, without pay, by George Washington. He was 19 years old. He helped win French monetary support later. After the American Revolution he returned to France and after ragged bands opened the Bastille, he organized and led the Parisian National Guard. However he fell afoul of the radical elements that were able to take over the French Revolution and was forced to flee France in 1792. He was then imprisioned by the Austrains because they feared his politics. He became the classic example of forces who were not willing to compromise and who hated his moderation. He spent five years in prison, most of it in solitary confinement. He was later allowed back in France by Napoleon. He has enjoyed more accolades in America than in France.
While LaFayette was an extraordinary man, his policies and why he assisted this country should not be confused as to why the French monarchy did. And it should be remembered that he was forced to flee France because he believed in moderation instead of chopping off the heads of every aristocrat and Catholic Priest as well as Nun as could be found. There are striking similarities between The Terror and the Revolution in Russia. The similarities were striking then and the similarities of French policy with the Soviet Union later were striking later.
The other similarity is that France was happy to use and utilitze the US as long as it fit their national needs. Tell me specifically since Napolean sold us half of the US to fund his wars what has France done for this country? And then tell me what this country has done for France.
Being Canadian of the English variety, my biases are well known. Though, I more often than not, agree with Altalena, admittedly, I believe Red Crabtree has articulated on this topic extremely well… but I am biased … interesting folks, the both of you are making this an interesting and informative thread once more!