If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Actually, the French would be close on Air Force as well.. very tight race on AF in May of 1940 between the RAF, French and Germans.
Navy obviously not included, France was #2 in Europe, but Britain was far and away the leader in that area.
Army - best equipped: most modern and capable equipment, most equipment, both modern and total, and largest Army. Major shortcomings were quality of leadership (something that hasn't changed) and communications.
Any decent history of the Battle of France that includes OB (Order of Battle) and equipment comparisons will show this. I've seen the information in at least four different histories of the campaign.
Really?
You are clueless, Aladdin. Read a bit about the defense of Europe by the Wehrmacht.
"Amatuers study tactics. Professionals study logistics." - Erwin Rommel
Logistical support is necessary to all wars. Superior logistical support is the primary reason that Israel wins every war it fights.
The European powers don't have ANY logistical capabilities worth discussing. Britain discarded hers after the Falklands. Germany can't support 20% of the Bundeswehr in combat operations. The French are unable to support any operation larger than the current operation in the Ivory Coast. Belgium has no real logistical capability.
The only countries in Western Europe besides the UK that have the ability to defend their own borders without US assistance are Sweden, Switzerland and Norway (and Norway would prefer US assistance).
Unbelievable.
You mean like the self-interest driven war they are waging in the Ivory Coast?
Or do you mean the war in Iraq that destroyed their illegal, self-interest driven deals with Saddam Hussein's regime?
Or maybe you mean sharing intelligence information with Saddam Hussein? That wouldn't be treacherous now, would it?
It's a fact, one you obviously don't get. Combat forces are less than 10% of a modern Army. Look at the defense expenditures of Germany, France, Great Britain... look at the size of the forces they field, and tell me where are they cutting costs? I know where. Logistical support capability.
They rely on the Americans. For Germany, they have since 1945. For France, they have since 1942. For the UK, they have since about 1991 (to a lesser extent).
Christ, the French couldn't supply 2d REP in Dien Bien Phu! ONE Regiment.
Taking the Iraq war for instance I 'thought' that one of the Few plus points of having the UK come along was because of their logistical support ie mid air refueling aircraft?
Obviously not..
And even if the French opposed the war only because of the oil deals they had running (which is not the case), at least they were trying to stop a war. A good thing. Not to start a war. A very bad thing, and illegal as it happens.
As for the sharing intelligence with Saddam issue, I think there is a much better chance the documents were forged. Note the media's attitute to the news. I think only a few believe such thing.
Just so you understand the anti-French feeling coming from America, the media's attitude was to report it in detail in the US. Even the liberal ones did. Then a day later, they said maybe the French were trying to warn Saddam to change or he could be invaded by the US. In other words, the documents might not be capturing the intent of what was being said.
Fox continues to wip up anti-French ferver.
The silence from the French on this was also reported by all of the media.
Adding the UK or the French (and especially some Eastern European forces) does not decrease the logistical capabilities of the total force, and may increase it in specific areas (fuel tankers per your example). That doesn't mean that the forces from that country have the logistical capabilities to support themselves at war.
Take France as an example. They have close to zero tactical air transport capability. Their ability to transport food and munitions to their combat troops is currently stretched to the max supplying three regimental organizations and one Special Operations unit in the Ivory Coast.
Can those assets be used as part of a larger, more capable organization? Absolutely.
Do they have the ability to support themselves in a war against France on French soil? Not if the attacking forces are a modern Army over a couple of divisions in size.
The UK does have sufficient logistical capabilities to defend herself, and has excess capabilities (meaning capabilities beyond those required for self-defense) in some areas. In other areas, the UK depends on the US. That should not be a surprise, it is the way NATO was designed. An EU defense force that replaces NATO will be VERY expensive, because it must replace all the assets that NATO depends on the US for.
You're probably watching the wrong broadcasts. The media who were against the war want to make like it is a failure...it's not. Ask any of the people who were or knew people who were tortured...
And remember, the UN only cared about compliance against WMD's. France and friends never had any intention of Saddam leaving power. And they had contact with his regime. Your soldiers found the paperwork. And France sold weapons to them until late 2002. I think America has been a true friend to the UK. And the war wasn't about oil. America was already getting Iraqi oil below market price. When we liberated Kuwaitt, we gave them back their oil fields. That's a matter of record.
France is just trying to grow this year. If they don't come up with some major sales, their economy will actually shrink.
And the general public in the US appreciate's the UK as a friend...not some 51st state. I've honestly never heard that here. Never. Go back to 2002...Bush called Iraq part of the Axis of Evil. We've been honest about who our friends and enemies are.
Illegal? How?
As for the rest of your comment, the one thing you have convinced me of: You would have happily let Hitler, Tojo, etc. massacre millions of people because it was better than to "start a war".
Illegal because the US/UK invaded without the permission/blessing of the UN.
Only in your wetdreams... :rolleyes:
Or France's.
The UN has made itself irrelevant.
You seek the "permission" of a thing irrelevant?
Would make you a bigger joke than the UN.
The UN is neither a government or a law-making body.
Erm...Serbia was/is a French ally.
As a matter of fact I would have supported a war on Iraq as a last resort and once it became clear that he was a danger to others and that all diplomatic avenues had been extinguished. I think this war has proven- if anyone had any doubts- what danger he really posed. As for the diplomatic solutions... well isn't it fucking funny that as the world raises its eyebrows at the lack of WMDs (did you see Putin publicly humiliating Tony Blair about this the other day?
Thanatos, as an ex-military man I had thought at least you had some basic knowledge of military issues. Either that or you just can't face the truth. The US is vulnerable to a nuclear holocaust by France, if they chose to do so. I'm sorry you're not indestructible yet. Keep working in the National Missile Defence Shield; one day you might even make it work.
But you were with the gang that wanted to give the UN inspectors more time to find the WMD's.
The threat was from a guy who teamed up with his enemies, Bin Laden, in order to fight a bigger enemy: the US.
If Saddam and Bin Laden could have made the US back off, you would have had an era of Muslims fighting each other as Iraq or Al Qaeda invaded Arab countries to create a radical Muslim nation stretching from Europe across Northern Afica in a semicircle around the Mediterrean. At which point, Saddam and Bin Laden may have stop or may have not stopped.
I can't see any evidence of a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam either, other than the dodgier-looking-by-the-minute document miraculously found intact amongst the rubble of an Iraqi government building.
A good article here about the deception, lies and the secret services of Britain and the US.
blahaaaaaaaaaa good 1
The link was very good.:wave:
Uh huh, sure you can. You can't figure out what it takes to defend a nation, or how military power is projected, but you can tell the difference you describe above.
Aladdin, you couldn't tell the difference until one of them exterminated you.
I just think it's a terrible waste of money! What's the point of having an army if we can't use it, even at home? I'd better write to all the Prime Ministers concerned and tell them not to bother anymore.
A conflict in Europes "backyard".... and one that required relying on the United States for the great bulk of support, intelligence and attack resources.
The problem that the European nations have isn't their military. It is idiots like you who don't understand that effective defense does require funding, training and not just the lip service that Europe generally has paid to it for years, knowing they could rely on the United States to bail them out.
I'm really struggling to comprehend how any war in history has been waged and won before the arrival of laser-guided bombs and the omnipresent, all-powerful, well supported United States army. Did you travel back in time and assisted others by any chance?
The war in Kosovo being conducted mostly by US forces might have something to do with the US being the instigator of the war. I'm not debating the US has a superior and bigger military than others. So it makes sense to use the best equipment available.
But if Europe had had to go into the Kosovo, or any other such war without the US we would have also done the deed. Maybe not as effectively, maybe not as fast, but we would have been up to the task. We have bombers, you know? We have fighters. And tanks. And troops. And transport planes. And refueling aircraft.
And even if what you’re suggesting above was true- which it isn’t- it still doesn’t support your claim that European armies could not deploy and support their troops effectively within their own borders. That statement remains as absurd now as when you first uttered it.
A lot of Europe are leeches. Then there's the standing for nothing cult that makes me superior...comprised of Sweden and Switzerland.
This little meeting was about France trying to make up for lost sales/monies to Iraq. Look at the countries that participated...they were guaranteed to buy French goods. I don't blame them. France has the right to sell its stuff.