So, Shock and Awe begins..

[Judge]

Originally posted by Iniluki
They were involved in the Gulf War.

Yes indeed I said they were.

but "not so you would notice"

Or did you miss that?

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Judge
They never do anything, they never actually get off there fat lazy garlic sodden arses and apply themselves.

Well, it's certainly good to see you take a logical approach to this argument, rather than just basing it on an absurd racial stereotype.

The fact that you do not 'know' of successful use of the French military does not mean it does not exist. If you read the papers, you would know of the impressive French Intervention in Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast, French action in North Africa over the last decade, French action in the Balkans... Frankly, every comment you made about the untried nature of the French military could apply equally to the United States. When was the last time they faced a foe that they did not utterly and completely outclass? One could further argue that in major conflicts, they arrived to fight beaten foe in two world wars and (borrowing from the classic movie Heartbreak Ridge) are 0-1-1 in major conflicts since.

I don't think that's actually true of course, but it is the same logic you apply to the French, so apparently you do. Or are being hypocritical, one or the other.


More importantly, the French combat effectiveness, as with that of almost every country in the world (I thought you had some military experience, I am surprised you did not know this) is based on strategic analysis of their training, equipment, logistics and capacity. It is based on exercises and war games, many of them against the United States (which more often than not the French win. Ooops!)

I am curious, modern western nations all have decent militaries to one extent or another, and frankly, their infantry is usually comparable in training, largely because of similarities in regimes and cross-pollenisation which occurs at all levels. Yet you seem to know for a fact that the French military is awful, care to explain what you base this on?

Other, of course, than opinions about conflicts over 60 years ago (about which even there your facts are wrong, by the way)

[Judge]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Well, its certainly good to see you take a logical approach to this argument, rather than just basing it on an absurd racial steriotype.

The fact that you do not 'know' of successful use of the French military does not mean it does not exist. If you read the papers, you would know of the impressive French Intervention in Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast, French action in North Africa over the last decade, French action in the Balkans... Frankly, every comment you made about the untried nature of the rench military could apply equally to the United States. When was the last time they faced a foe that they did not utterly and completely outclass? One could further argue that in major conflicts, they arrived to fight beaten foe in two world wars and (borrowing from the classic movie Heartbreak Ridge) are 0-1-1 in major conflicts since.

I dont think thats actually true of course, but it is the same logic you apply to the French, so apparently you do. Or are being hypocritical, one or the other.


More importantly, the French combat effectiveness, as with that of almost every country in the world (I thought you had some military experience, I am surprised you did not know this) is based on strategic analysis of their training, equipment, logistics and capacity. It is based on exercises and war games, many of them against the United States (which more often than not the French win. Ooops!)

I am curious, modern western nations all have decent militaries to one extent or another, and frankly, their infantry is usually comparable in training, largely because of similarities in regimes and cross-pollenisation which occurs at all levels. Yet you seem to know for a fact that the French military is awful, care to explain what you base this on?

Other, of course, than opinions about conflicts over 60 years ago (about which even there your facts are wrong, by the way)

You obvoiusly have time on your hands, and have taken the time to construct a logical, concise and pointed argument.

*Clap Clap*

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Judge
You obvoiusly have time on your hands, and have taken the time to construct a logical, concise and pointed argument.

*Clap Clap*

I expected a response of this intellectual magnitude

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Judge
But then I would have to accept that his proposition that the French are best at etc....... is true, when clearly it is not.

Oh, 'clearly' is it? Well if its so clear, then you can easily back up your opinion with evidence and facts, rather than just repeating an archaic steriotype as if it was fact.

The French have no Recent Military battle Honours, they rarely get involved, and even when they do, it is always a case of when all the hard work has been done by others.

Really. Firstly, as I said, your lack of knowledge does not mean they do not exist.

Secondly, please explain to me what recent battle Honours the US has that France does not. Panama? Grenada? Glorious victories those were.

Thirdly, if you bothered to read, I stated that France has the most projectable power AFTER the United States. Of course the US, given its technological edge and monserous budget is better in most fields and certainly larger, I never stated otherwise. But France is still ahead of Britain or any other country in the world (other than the US) in their ability to project power.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Iniluki
Did you read french newspapers or watch french news while the gulf war mk 1 was on?

Why would I read French newspapers?

Non Comprende pas.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Judge
Why would I read French newspapers?

Non Comprende pas.

well you wouldn't if you didn't... just like CNN only ever talks about US troops, you wouldn't think there were any brits there if you didn't happen to chance on one of the odd times we are mentioned.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
well you wouldn't if you didn't... just like CNN only ever talks about US troops, you wouldn't think there were any brits there if you didn't happen to chance on one of the odd times we are mentioned.

It is no surprise that CNN talks about US troops mostly it is aimed at the US market.

In as much as the BBC. ITN, C4 tend to report on the British forces situation before any other.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Judge
Why would I read French newspapers?

Non Comprende pas.

You can buy LeMonde in English.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
You can buy LeMonde in English.

I never particulary liked Lemonade (COMEDY ANSWER)

I doubt it is very widely available outside of London, but even if it were, what relevance would it have to me, or where I live?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Judge
I doubt it is very widely available outside of London, but even if it were, what relevance would it have to me, or where I live?

What relevence does French military victories have to you? I think that the point raised in this thread is that people's horizons are unnecessarily narrow. They don't have to be.

Anyway, Le Monde Diplominique comes with the Guardian Weekly (if you subscribe and choose that option) and has pretty good coverage of international events. There's little French domestic coverage.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

Anyway, Le Monde Diplominique comes with the Guardian Weekly (if you subscribe and choose that option) and has pretty good coverage of international events.

One of the best newspapers on the planet, combining American, French and British papers into an international news weekly. Fantastic coverage, and surprisingly politically neutral.

[elefant]

Originally posted by Judge
WW1, addmittedly they were not occupied by the Germans, but they certainly took a whoopin.

but they won the war

[IndiaSour]

Originally posted by Vermillion
I never cease to be surprised by silly little comments like this.

In terms of projectable power, France is second in the world behind the United States. They are the only country othe than the US to have a supercarrier. They are the only country whose new aircraft may rival the F-22. (Though thats unclear, the Rafale II is still in production) Their military technology is second in the world behind the United States. France has more, better and better equipped troops than the UK does, as well as a higher military expenditure. The third generation Leclerc MBT is among the top 5 in the world, and is not better only because France (like most modern nations) is slowly getting out of the Tank business, moving into higher mobility- less expensive armoured vehicles.

The French have a huge advantage thet the British recently lost with peace in Ireland, a live-fire training ground in North Africa. I would put French Speical forces up against US special forces any day.

They are in almost every way superior militarily to your current British Allies. Fiction-based comments like yours above do little but diminish your credibility.

Now do you consider the French better because of money spent on soldiers (like $10k per soldier, etc..) and how often their deployed, trained, etc...?

Just trying to learn something new.