France leads ... sort of

[Annie]

...

For the WWII : open an history book, look at Koufra, Bir Hakeim, Napoly, Monte Cassino, Sienna, Provence, Strasbourg, Rosenau... Look at Dunkirk, Les Glières, Vercors, the air corps "Normandie-Niemen"...

More than 200,000 french soldiers died between 1940 and 1945, 90,000 just for the campaign of 1940. the french soliders did resist. The Maginot Line was only taken AFTER the armistice, the german panzerdivisionen were unable to took it. The Maginot Line in the Alpes succesfully beat the italian armies, Italy was defeated by France in 1940.

For the "joke" on Google : here again, open an history book. France won more battles than any country in the world. Only between 1792 and 1815, France won more than 150 battles, alone against the coalised Europe. Add to it the victories of Middle Age, of the Ancien Régime (1500-1789) and the recent times (since 1815), you will have an enormous number of victories and winning wars for France.

For the "Troupes de Marine" (TDM) : like your Marines (navy infantry), around 35,000 men, excellent soldiers. With the Legion, the TDM are one of the best corps of the french army, and also one of the best corps of the armies forces of the world, with the US Navy Seals, the UK's SAS...


And go to France, visit it. You'll be one of the 78,000,000 persons who visit France every years, making this country the 1st visited country of the world. Visit Paris, the first touristic city on earth.

Don't believe France and French have forgotten the US intervention of WWI and above all WWII. We'll always remember the men who died to free our country.
But with all your jokes about the french army, you dishonor the brave french who died since 1500 years to save their fatherland, and also to help France's friends, like, you seems to forget it, the young USA.

In the past 5 years, some of us have decided that debt was repaid, long ago. Not too mention, the reason in the first place, via the 'government of France' was to tweak England. Yeah, we get it, got it, a long time ago.

Your 'debt' in blood is much greater than ours, yet you think nothing of it.

 

[Said1]

...

For the WWII : open an history book, look at Koufra, Bir Hakeim, Napoly, Monte Cassino, Sienna, Provence, Strasbourg, Rosenau... Look at Dunkirk, Les Glières, Vercors, the air corps "Normandie-Niemen"...

More than 200,000 french soldiers died between 1940 and 1945, 90,000 just for the campaign of 1940. the french soliders did resist. The Maginot Line was only taken AFTER the armistice, the german panzerdivisionen were unable to took it. The Maginot Line in the Alpes succesfully beat the italian armies, Italy was defeated by France in 1940.

For the "joke" on Google : here again, open an history book. France won more battles than any country in the world. Only between 1792 and 1815, France won more than 150 battles, alone against the coalised Europe. Add to it the victories of Middle Age, of the Ancien Régime (1500-1789) and the recent times (since 1815), you will have an enormous number of victories and winning wars for France.

For the "Troupes de Marine" (TDM) : like your Marines (navy infantry), around 35,000 men, excellent soldiers. With the Legion, the TDM are one of the best corps of the french army, and also one of the best corps of the armies forces of the world, with the US Navy Seals, the UK's SAS...


And go to France, visit it. You'll be one of the 78,000,000 persons who visit France every years, making this country the 1st visited country of the world. Visit Paris, the first touristic city on earth.

Don't believe France and French have forgotten the US intervention of WWI and above all WWII. We'll always remember the men who died to free our country.
But with all your jokes about the french army, you dishonor the brave french who died since 1500 years to save their fatherland, and also to help France's friends, like, you seems to forget it, the young USA.

Why did your government leave the bases in Djibouti?

 

[Said1]

In the past 5 years, some of us have decided that debt was repaid, long ago. Not too mention, the reason in the first place, via the 'government of France' was to tweak England. Yeah, we get it, got it, a long time ago.

Your 'debt' in blood is much greater than ours, yet you think nothing of it.

that's the thing about the French. fleurs de lis.

 

[Annie]

that's the thing about the French. fleurs de lis.

Yeah, what you said!

 

[padisha emperor]

Kathianne, i have a lot of respect for you, i think you know it. But For your message...

I only mentionned the US Independance war to put back in somebody mind that France and USA are allied since the XVIIIth. century.

About France's aims during this war : of course, make UK weak was one of these aims. England was France's ennemy since the Middle-Age, sometimes France won, sometimes England won. Anyway, of course for a French, kick some english ass was a real pleasure at this time.
But don't forget that at this time, the "Lumières" spirit was strong in France, with Voltaire, Rousseau - I believe that you like him -, Montesquieu, Diderot, d'Alembert... The idea of liberty, of resistance to the tyranny, such thinigs were leading the minds and the acts of several french politicians and men.

But the aims are not the essential points, the results is that Rochambeau won Yorktown with Washington, that de Grasse won the decisive naval battle of Chesapeake, allowing the independance of the former 13 colonies.

For the WWII : the aims of USA were not particularly the liberation of France, or of Belgium, Netherlands... It was, above all, the defeat of the Axis and Nazi Germany.
But, here again, be sure that the french people will eternally thank the US soldiers for the liberation, and honor the memory of the deads.


Said, for Djibouti, if you mean, by "leave" that France proceed to the evacuation of the base, I don't hear about it. If you ask why did France keep a base here, it's because France has a lot of treaties with its old colonies, like Djibouti ( but also Gabon, Cameroon, Tchad, Senegal, Ivory Coast...). Djibouti is a strategic place. and USA have also a base here. So...

 

[Said1]

Said, for Djibouti, if you mean, by "leave" that France proceed to the evacuation of the base, I don't hear about it. If you ask why did France keep a base here, it's because France has a lot of treaties with its old colonies, like Djibouti ( but also Gabon, Cameroon, Tchad, Senegal, Ivory Coast...). Djibouti is a strategic place. and USA have also a base here. So...

I understand the importance of Djibouti's location or rather, their ports. Since it is written that the base(s) is one of France's biggest outside of France (I'm sure you will tell me is isn't, but that's what i've read, so there), I'm wondering why so many french soldiers were removed......I mean 'evacuated' given the state of affairs in the area. For some reason, I'm thinking the cut back on troops in Djibouti coincides with France's decision to renege on their 'no-fly' obligations in Iraq. Not the same day or anything, but the same year perhaps? This is just off the top of my head, I could be way off base (pun )

I can't find a link with the info. I read that some time ago, things may have changed since then, ya think?

 

[Annie]

I understand the importance of Djibouti's location or rather, their ports. Since it is written that the base(s) is one of France's biggest outside of France (I'm sure you will tell me is isn't, but that's what i've read, so there), I'm wondering why so many french soldiers were removed......I mean 'evacuated' given the state of affairs in the area. For some reason, I'm thinking they cuts back on troops around the same time they pulled out of their 'no-fly' obligations in Iraq.

I can't find a link with the info. I read that some time ago, things may have changed since then, ya think?

I don't know if this will help?

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2517

 

[Annie]

Sorry PE, damn the French government:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008019.php

September 09, 2006
French Military Turns Pacifist On Shores Of Lebanon

When Israel agreed to lift the air and sea blockade of Lebanon two days ago, the UN promised that the forces replacing them would interdict arms intended to resupply their enemy, Hezbollah. France, which will provide substantial forces in controlling sea access to Lebanon, now says its military will not use force to stop anything:

France announced on Friday that the international naval force designated to patrol Lebanon's territorial waters would not be authorized to employ force to stop ships from entering or leaving Lebanon.

A spokesman for the French defense ministry said that the international craft would only provide assistance for Lebanese ships, and would not interfere with other nations' boats, Israel Radio reported.

Earlier Friday, Israel began to remove its naval blockade of Lebanon, imposed almost two months after Hizbullah launched its cross-border raid and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers.

Maj.-Gen. Alain Pellegrini, the French commander of UNIFIL, said government officials informed him Friday afternoon that the blockade was being lifted. Government spokeswoman Miri Eisin said she didn't have immediate confirmation that the final order had been given to lift the siege, but said earlier Friday that the blockade would be ended within hours.

Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema, meeting with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, announced that a multinational task force, commanded by an Italian admiral, had begun patrolling Lebanese territorial waters.
​

One has to ask why France and Italy even bothered to show up. Relying on the Lebanese is what started this war in the first place. The Siniora government never bothered to make an attempt at compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which required them to disarm Hezbollah. They were either unwilling or unable, or a combination of both, to make that common-sense move; they stood by and watched Hezbollah add to their arsenals.

Now the UN forces propose to do the same thing all over again. France sent a military force to the Mediterranean coast of Lebanon to essentially do nothing but observe boats going in and out of the harbor. They may just as well have sent a regatta crowd to Tyre and fired up a few barbeques. Perhaps the French believe that a simple finger-wagging and a vicious tongue-lashing will force arms merchants to flee from Lebanon, with French scolding ringing in their ears?

This is another example of the UN's betrayal of Israel during this cease-fire process. At every step, the UN has promised to provide the security Israel requires in order to get the IDF to withdraw, only to see the component forces declare openly that they have no intention of fulfilling the mission. And of all the nations complicit in this disaster, France has been the most perfidious. They insisted on setting the terms of the cease-fire, and then have consistently reneged on support. It proves yet again that the only thing worse that having France arrayed against you is having them allied with you.
Posted by Captain Ed at September 9, 2006 09:04 AM

 

[padisha emperor]

France send again news troops today, in Paris soldiers from the Troupes de Marine were in Roissy CDG's airport to be sent to Lebanon.

And today, 13 (or 14) heavy tank LECLERC (the best tanks of the world) and 155mm guns came in Lebanon. It is the most heavy weapons ever given to UN.
France and the FINUL (UN forces in Lebanon) can ripost and shot if they're attacked. The fact that Leclerc Tanks are in the place shows it. Good for UN and peace, because the failure of Rwanda and several other UN's missions prooved that UN need better engagement rules.

 

[dilloduck]

France send again news troops today, in Paris soldiers from the Troupes de Marine were in Roissy CDG's airport to be sent to Lebanon.

And today, 13 (or 14) heavy tank LECLERC (the best tanks of the world) and 155mm guns came in Lebanon. It is the most heavy weapons ever given to UN.
France and the FINUL (UN forces in Lebanon) can ripost and shot if they're attacked. The fact that Leclerc Tanks are in the place shows it. Good for UN and peace, because the failure of Rwanda and several other UN's missions prooved that UN need better engagement rules.

Please try to aim them then in the right direction and don't let the Hizbullys "borrow" them.

 

[CSM]

France send again news troops today, in Paris soldiers from the Troupes de Marine were in Roissy CDG's airport to be sent to Lebanon.

And today, 13 (or 14) heavy tank LECLERC (the best tanks of the world) and 155mm guns came in Lebanon. It is the most heavy weapons ever given to UN.
France and the FINUL (UN forces in Lebanon) can ripost and shot if they're attacked. The fact that Leclerc Tanks are in the place shows it. Good for UN and peace, because the failure of Rwanda and several other UN's missions prooved that UN need better engagement rules.

The LECLERC is indeed a pretty good tank ("best in the world" is debateable) and, in all seriousness, I have no doubt that the French soldier is courageous enough. The big question is whether or not the French soldiers will be ALLOWD to engage if attacked. They probably will be restricted by rules of engagement set by either their own government or the UN.

 

[Gunny]

The LECLERC is indeed a pretty good tank ("best in the world" is debateable) and, in all seriousness, I have no doubt that the French soldier is courageous enough. The big question is whether or not the French soldiers will be ALLOWD to engage if attacked. They probably will be restricted by rules of engagement set by either their own government or the UN.

Hmmm.... first question comes to my mind is WHERE was this tank de Francais tested in real combat?

And I have no faith in the French government. They'll cave. The worthiness of their troops is irrelevant when they aren't allowed to fight to win.

 

[padisha emperor]

The Leclerc was not engaged in a global war. But the tries in real situation, the tests, the operations during practices, showed that is a real excellent tank.

Its armor can resist to all the weapon known, or not far. It can shot with the same precision when it's stopped and when it's driving at 60 km/h. It can engage in one minute 6 differents targets while it's running at its maximal speed.
So don't worry for it, the Leclerc is simply awesome.

CSM, I also hope that the UN's rules of engagement will be good, but normally it will be then : France was quite reticent to send lots of troops when these rules were not clear. France wanted to have good rules, allowing the action and the opening of fire when it would be necessary. So, normally, the UNIFIL will be allowed to shot.

(if France was reticent when the rules weren't clear, it was because the blue helmets are often quite useless when they can't defend themselves or protect by military actions the populations. France lost a lot of soldier under the UN flag : 58 in Beyrouth, 1983. In Yougoslavia, the half of the UN casualties were French soldiers. the total of the french lost is high, so, it's understable that France didn't want to send its soldiers to death uselessly).

 

[CSM]

Hmmm.... first question comes to my mind is WHERE was this tank de Francais tested in real combat?

And I have no faith in the French government. They'll cave. The worthiness of their troops is irrelevant when they aren't allowed to fight to win.

Your first question is indeed valid and the reason why I indicate that we can debate it's rating as "the best in the world".

Your final statement is oh so valid and applies to US troops as well.

 

[CSM]

The Leclerc was not engaged in a global war. But the tries in real situation, the tests, the operations during practices, showed that is a real excellent tank.

Its armor can resist to all the weapon known, or not far. It can shot with the same precision when it's stopped and when it's driving at 60 km/h. It can engage in one minute 6 differents targets while it's running at its maximal speed.
So don't worry for it, the Leclerc is simply awesome.

CSM, I also hope that the UN's rules of engagement will be good, but normally it will be then : France was quite reticent to send lots of troops when these rules were not clear. France wanted to have good rules, allowing the action and the opening of fire when it would be necessary. So, normally, the UNIFIL will be allowed to shot.

(if France was reticent when the rules weren't clear, it was because the blue helmets are often quite useless when they can't defend themselves or protect by military actions the populations. France lost a lot of soldier under the UN flag : 58 in Beyrouth, 1983. In Yougoslavia, the half of the UN casualties were French soldiers. the total of the french lost is high, so, it's understable that France didn't want to send its soldiers to death uselessly).

The capabilities you describe for the LECLERC are very similar to those of the US Main Battle Tank; in fact, almost word for word transposable. The difference is that the US tank has operated in a truly hostile environment while the French tank has not.

The irony is that France was a key player in the development of the rules set forth by the UN. I laud the French government for ensuring their soldiers are not sent into battle without a clear understanding of the rules of engagement. I abhor the fact that the French government was the primary crafter of those rules and produced rules which practically ensure the following:

1) any UN force deployed will be essentially neutered and prevvented from not only defending themselves but enforcing the UN resolutions

2) provide an excuse for the French government to back away from its position of providing the main body of troops

3) gave a terrorist organization public assurance that they will be allowed to re-arm and re-equip its forces without regard to consequences.

 

[red states rule]

Q: How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?

A: Nobody knows, it's never been tried.

 

[padisha emperor]

Q: How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?

A: Nobody knows, it's never been tried.

hey ! first time I read it ! seriously, change your joke, it's the 45459797^56th time I read it

And more seriously : Paris was taken by the Romans (its name was at this time Lutèce), 52 before JC. Paris was taken by the Allies after Napoleon's defeat. Paris, after a resistance, fall in 1871. And finally, Paris was occupied by Germans from 1940 to 1944.

So, Paris was occupied 4 times , in a period of more than 2000 years. In comparison, Vienna, Rome or Berlin were occupied several times by the French in only 25 years of History (1790-1815). And During the whole France History, these cities were often occupied by French. So, the reputation of "surrender city " for Paris is the consequence of 1940, but the truth is that Paris is not a such city.

 

[red states rule]

Ok, how about this one?

 

[Said1]

hey ! first time I read it ! seriously, change your joke, it's the 45459797^56th time I read it

And more seriously : Paris was taken by the Romans (its name was at this time Lutèce), 52 before JC. Paris was taken by the Allies after Napoleon's defeat. Paris, after a resistance, fall in 1871. And finally, Paris was occupied by Germans from 1940 to 1944.

So, Paris was occupied 4 times , in a period of more than 2000 years. In comparison, Vienna, Rome or Berlin were occupied several times by the French in only 25 years of History (1790-1815). And During the whole France History, these cities were often occupied by French. So, the reputation of "surrender city " for Paris is the consequence of 1940, but the truth is that Paris is not a such city.

How many republics has France had since le revolution, compared to, say.... any other Banana Republic?



Just joshing ya, I know the answer.

 

[Annie]

hey ! first time I read it ! seriously, change your joke, it's the 45459797^56th time I read it

And more seriously : Paris was taken by the Romans (its name was at this time Lutèce), 52 before JC. Paris was taken by the Allies after Napoleon's defeat. Paris, after a resistance, fall in 1871. And finally, Paris was occupied by Germans from 1940 to 1944.

So, Paris was occupied 4 times , in a period of more than 2000 years. In comparison, Vienna, Rome or Berlin were occupied several times by the French in only 25 years of History (1790-1815). And During the whole France History, these cities were often occupied by French. So, the reputation of "surrender city " for Paris is the consequence of 1940, but the truth is that Paris is not a such city.

You are occupied now, your government just doesn't acknowledge it.